09-11-2025, 01:53 PM
(09-11-2025, 01:07 PM)knaves Wrote: If you truly believe that he argued for the things you say, then do you believe this killing was justified? You ascribe meaning and consequences to the policies he articulated that are far different from the perspective he used. Do you truly believe those are the conservative goals-Torture and starvation?It isn't a matter of what I believe or not. Kirk advocated for Israel taking "decisive" action against Hamas, including denying food to the Palestinian people and massive military action which he acknowledged would result in considerable civilian deaths. That's not a matter of belief. That is merely repeating what Kirk said. Kirk also has said that there are two sexes and there are no genders. He says that people whose mental understanding of their selves does not comport to their outward physical appearance are suffering from mental illness and should be forced to endure therapies, including being forced to take drugs against their will, in an attempt to make those two identities comport. Forcing a person to endure unwanted medical procedures to support a political agenda is torture. Again, not my opinion. That's something that humanity has recognized for decades.
I find those ideas hyperbolic, but I think it is a fair question. If you truly believe that words are violence and that supporting conservative ideas publicly cause those things, then it would seem to follow that society would benefit from murdering the segment of the population that supports similar policies.
I find it very interesting that you seem to be arguing that because Charlie Kirk advocated for violence against Palestinians and LGBTQ people that all conservatives support those positions. Do I think those are the goals of most conservatives, most rank and file conservatives/Republican voters? No, I don't. But I think Kirk and people like him serve to legitimate the small but vocal minority within the conservative movement that supports the use of violence (not entirely unlike a similar minority within the Left, I acknowledge). They also work aggressively at changing narratives in such a way that violence does not appear violent, which is both a means to its own end and part of that legitimizing process.
Are words violence? That depends on the context and the situation, of course. Were Kirk's words violence? I genuinely don't know. He was very good at walking right up to the line without going over. He would, in the same speaking engagement, rail agains the Left as being inherently violent, of supporters of the Left perpetrating violence, and of the need for the Right to be well armed and ready to wage war at a moment's notice in defense of "liberty" and "freedom". When asked when people would know it was time to start using weapons, though, he would say not to use violence and to blame violence on the Left.
Do I think Charlie Kirk should have been murdered and people like him murdered? In a word, no. Kirk's killer did not have the right to decide whether he should live or die. It is also impossible to know, in a much more general sense, what the consequences of Kirk's living would have been. He will be a martyr to the right now though. Of that I have no doubt. Will be he a footnote in history or will he be America's Ernst vom Rath? I suppose we will know that soon enough. Worth noting that his body will be transported on Air Force Two, he will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, non-citizens who disparage Kirk or make jokes at his expense will be removed from the country, and, if reports are to believed, additional troops will be deployed in Democratic-majority cities in the wake of this violence. It also seems that this killing is going to be used as an excuse for politicians to stop having outdoor rallies and for many on the Right to have any meaningful group interactions with their constituents.
Violence begets violence. Kirk, and Conservatives like him over the last five decades, have advocated for a violent and highly divisive sort of politics. Their goals have been to win at all costs, to "own the libs." The goal long ago stopped being to do what was best for the country. It stopped being to do what was best for the people collectively, and became a battle to do what was best for only those parts of the nation which met the Right's test for being "real Americans". Actions like this are a logical and likely inevitable consequence of that divisiveness, of his words and actions and of the words and actions of people like him.
Master of Accountancy (taxation concentration), University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, in progress.
Master of Business Administration (financial planning specialization), University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, in progress.
BA, UMPI. Accounting major; Business Administration major/Management & Leadership concentration. Awarded Dec. 2021.
In-person/B&M: BA (history, archaeology)
In-person/B&M: MA (American history)
Sophia: 15 courses (42hrs)
Master of Business Administration (financial planning specialization), University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, in progress.
BA, UMPI. Accounting major; Business Administration major/Management & Leadership concentration. Awarded Dec. 2021.
In-person/B&M: BA (history, archaeology)
In-person/B&M: MA (American history)
Sophia: 15 courses (42hrs)
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)
