Charlie Kirk shot during a debate about trans people

[feministmom4ever]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086277/Charlie-Kirks-final-words-assassinated-Utah-dead.html

I didn’t agree with many of his political views, but I liked how he interacted with college students who couldn’t answer the question “what is a woman?”.

Celebrated indeed - https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1ne6ndw/kirk_is_gone_mandelson_is_gone/

Yes, exactly.

No one should feel the need to preface the condemning of his murder with 'I disagreed with him on most things but...'

It doesn't matter whether you agreed with him or not, no one should be murdered for their opinions. Ever. It's horrific.

Most of his opinions were pretty mainstream conservative views that religious Americans might hold. It doesn't matter if you are not a conservative American or not, his murder for holding opinions and discussing them is shocking disturbing and evil.

It doesn't need qualifying with a personal distancing from the victim.

It's really pissing me off. Condemn the grotesque evil without the little statement of self protection.

No one should be murdered for expressing an opinion.

It's chilling when his murder is being justified by the "but he said dangerous things". It is this idea that words affect reality which is straight out of the TRA playbook, indeed people were justifying his murder because he said that "trans women are men".

His murder leaves me worried for GC voices because it appears that the mainstream media will use that as justification for violence.

Salman Rusdie is another that his paid considerably because people didn't like his words.

I'd never heard of Charlie Kirk before last night and I haven't looked at what he believed, so I don't need to signal my virtue by declaring my disagreement with his views.

I just know that people shouldn't be assassinated for trying to debate difficult ideas. Civilisation is fucked if we can't even talk to each other.

This is deeply embedded in American history and education as a final safeguard against oppression in a way we've never really considered in the UK.

I'm not sure that the argument stacks up if you look at American history.

America was reliant on a political alliance with France to win the war of Independence.

Presumably the Confederates thought they were fighting tyranny during the American Civil War, but they lost.

Countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand negotiated independence without all the blood shed.

Meanwhile, plenty of countries have both a dodgy despotic dictator and armed civilians.

I disagreed with a lot of his views but when he debated he spoke articulately and was not abusive to people, when some of those people were abusive and rude. He spoke about his opinion and gave a reason for his opinion which even if I disagree with it, he still has the right to have an opinion. In a lot of the debates he was able to ask a simple question to bolster his opinion.

He was a young man with a young family who will be devastated by his death. I have seen piss taking videos about it which is disgustingly bad taste. Whatever you think of him he did not deserve this.

assassins ammunition was engraved with transgender messages according to this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15088953/Charlie-Kirk-assassins-ammunition-engraved-transgender-antifascist-messages.html

Ah, the DailyMail. A well known reliable source.

The gun control 'irony' is the height of stupidity combined with the opening up of potential moral depravity that believes mass groups of people might just deserve to be murdered.

'Yeh it's bad, but they did kind of deserve it.' If you can't see where that kind of thinking goes rapidly you are as stupid as you are immoral.

Are only people who want all guns banned in the USA immune from this 'ironic' death if they end up murdered?
Everyone else kind of deserves the irony?
That's a very small percentage of people in the USA. Most Dems don't even argue for total gun control. So they'd be up for the 'ironic death' too?

This murder is not about gun control it's about an extremist left that equates speech with violence and justifies violence on that basis.

It's dangerous to everyone because people are using it to justify evil.

that old chestnut.
It’s been reported in several places, including the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot

but as we know very well, left leaning sources like the BBC and the Guardian, don’t report this.

You beat me to it @brip!

I am not a fan of his views but this is awful and I feel for his family, I hope they catch the person and they are properly punished through the courts.
He DID say that he believed that Gun deaths were a price he was willing to pay to protect the 2nd Amendment though, probably didn't expect it to be himself though

Both DM & WSJ are Murdoch publications.

Reuters, which is a neutral and reliable source, isn't reporting it. They are reporting that they've found the rifle though.

Reuters isn’t “neutral”. No source is.

It is as neutral as these things get.

I disagree. I’ve definitely come across dodgy takes from Reuters. I consider no source free from bias and I try to read a variety. We know liberal/left media covers up anything that looks bad for “trans” though, because I’ve personally seen it happening.

If that's what is being said by the mail then it no longer matters if it's true.

This is part of the problem.

Optics matter and perceptions matter.

This is why it is important that people with different political positions to him DO 'virtue signal' their own beliefs in this.

Framing it as virtue signalling is part of the problem.

It is important that people with liberal values and liberal beliefs identify themselves as that and say this is not ok. And effectively say 'not in my name'.

It does matter unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't print something like that without some supporting evidence. They are a mainstream newspaper subject to press regulations.

The article says the claim was also printed in the Wall Street journal

are you trying to say that if it isn’t reported it hasn’t happened? There was a lack of reporting (from left wing media) re the murdered woman on the train. A media blackout. Does that mean she wasn’t murdered?

We aren’t in 2016 anymore, there is no need to denounce the DM every time a link
is posted! Save your typing fingers for something useful.

DM has some sort of reciprocal exchange with the NY Post so it’s now often the quickest of the U.K. tabloids to publish US stories (and often has the most indepth coverage of US current events of all the U.K. titles bar the odd deep dive in a Sunday broadsheet)

I don’t think I agreed with him about anything-and I was on a very exhausting thread on here this morning where that appeared to be the same as saying I thought he deserved to be killed and was indifferent to his death. It does look very much as if that’s a tactic being used to deflect from any discussion of his abhorrent views.

Sparkles the well know abusive guy currently responsible for getting Maugham of the Good Law Project sued for libel by Sarah Phillimore posted a tweet celebrating the murder. Details in the thread:;

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5400132-glp-are-going-after-sarah-philmore-and-are-going-to-lose?page=15

We've all seen the posts from TRAs who put messages on their bullets and the threats that go with them, now it would appear that these threats are being followed through with. If the reports are correct I'm very concerned about it and the way the left are both excusing and celebrating that poor man's death

Charlie Kirk ammo 'engraved with trans and antifascist' messages https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15088953/Charlie-Kirk-assassins-ammunition-engraved-transgender-antifascist-messages.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

You go on about facts and then claim that the DM is owned by Murdoch. It isn't.