Shots fired on my campus today. Charlie Kirk TPUSA leader dead

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

If you admire Charlie Kirk for being gracious in the face of attacks, why are you choosing this route?

And just to be clear, I don’t see Kirk as always gracious in his debates, but I don’t see him as horrible either.  His manner comes across as calm and confident, I just don’t see him as engaging and instead mostly dismissive.  I watched some of his last one in California and had to stop because it was too depressing.  He was definitely not the worse debater in terms of attempting to humiliate his opponent, or even close, but he did not engage with the primary claims the student made, simply dismissed the stats given as incorrect without explaining why, even stated he wouldn’t debate them, but continued to wave them away with “incorrect”.  In two cases his words were even derogatory of the student imo, though tone was controlled, so while my guess is the student felt embarrassed, it wasn’t a let me crawl under the rock feeling.  The first remark drew laughter from the crowd though (both remarks implying the student wasn’t truly informed, the first implied the student depended on ChatGPT for his info; also even though Kirk had told the student to look something up on the phone to begin with, he threw out the quip when the student actually did which felt like a setup to me).  Overall he took the opportunity not to address the student’s concerns, but to publicize his own.  That’s not being gracious imo when he is presenting it as an opportunity to sit and talk to each other.  He did allow the student to present a rather long list (for an informal debate) uninterrupted at the beginning of their interaction, made me hopeful, but wasn’t continued.  Still want to applaud him for doing that.

I did a point by point analysis of part of his interaction with this student with a link to the debate so people could understand my reasoning and reactions, but stopped detailing it as it wasn’t getting better and I was interested in seeing the positive behaviors my husband and others had talked about being there.  I was going to come back to it after my annoyance level at him refusing to actually engage with the student had dropped.  Still plan to, but taking a day off from research (that’s the plan at least).

I removed the detailed analysis because it was a political debate and while I was focusing on how he made his points, when Nemesis requested less political rhetoric, I thought it best to remove it.  But given your (Zealous) continued insistence that it’s not reasonable to see Kirk as obnoxious, etc, I feel the need to present my conclusions about his tactics in at least this one case.

I didn’t find him obnoxious (I might in the future knowing my strong reaction when I see youth struggling).  If people saw him treat student after student that way though, I don’t find it unreasonable for some of them to consider him obnoxious (I don’t know if he actually does that, but it came across as something he was very comfortable doing and it looked practiced, so my guess is it’s done frequently by him) and others to see it as gracious.  He is not extreme in my view, but depending what one focuses on, there is enough there to view him as insulting just as there is him being considerate.  Like most humans he has a variety of responses.  I did take a break because it was starting to feel that if I kept watching him, my bias against not engaging with others, but acting like you are would inflate my gut reactions to him.  I plan on going back and looking at other students he disagreed with strongly that he talked with to see if he is consistent in not addressing their points or not.

It is harder for me to understand why people see him as gracious, but perhaps it is who they are comparing him with.  He comes across like two of my relatives, one liberal, one conservative…both of whom I love and consider very good people, but both of whom have real problems seeing others’ POVs and seriously engaging with them rather than being dismissive and trying to dominate the conversation.  (I have a lot of talkers in my extended family, including among in-laws and beyond and politics is a favorite topic for several; thankfully I have always been able to find points I agree with that we can have a civil discussion about; one of my grandmothers was probably the hardest to discuss things with since she peppered her comments with “you know I am right, you know I am right”.)

I am "taking that route" because she keeps mischaracterizing Charlie as "racist, racist, and misogynist" yet refuses to watch anything from the very people she says Charlie attacked defending him. She is disingenuous. "Moron" is mild compared what she is calling him.

He used facts and stats all the time, but I shouldn't be surprised you refuse to see it.

[Zosimus]

9 hours ago, Duncan said:

Melissa Hortman also had two kids. Where is your outrage for her kids? Can you show me your post about them?

I was curious about this a couple days ago and did some searches for "Hortman" on a popular LDS Discord server that has been talking nonstop about the political assassination at UVU. 99% of the users in the politics forum are in agreement that the heartless liberals are the perpetrators of all political violence. Yet, in the entire history of that forum there is one single post about Hortman's assassination.

The only response to it was "Not surprised, life goes on."

I brought up Hortman's name in another LDS forum and someone who 10 minutes earlier had been complaining about America's heartless response to Kirk's assassination, asked "who's that?"

Sources available upon request, but I'd rather not publicly shame anyone for their underwhelming responses to political assassinations 

[gopher]

On 9/14/2025 at 8:13 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

For whatever this is worth at this point, see the below.  I'll hasten to add that I'm not defending everything Charlie Kirk ever said, about any topic whatsoever or about any particular topic.  And I'm not suggesting the misrepresentation mentioned below had anything to do with his death.  That said,  while it's easy for us to get our dander up about these sorts of things, as the old saying goes, "A lie jumps out of bed and makes it halfway around the world before the truth can even get its pants on."

 

I applaud Stephen King for apologizing.  He admitted he was responding to a Twitter post without checking to make sure it was accurate.   Hopefully it will motivate all of us to be more careful.  But it shows how easy it is to be persuaded by false information that aligns with our own prejudices.

[gopher]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It looks like Cox is confirming this. I know that conservatives feel mocked, and scorned by the left. I know Christians in the United States feel persecuted. But I wonder if there is anything quite like the anguish someone who is gay or trans feels when the persecution comes from friends and family (those closest around them) when they come out. Persecution that is greatly amplified by rhetoric like Kirk’s. Like I’m legitimately wondering. We’ve had a poster here say they feel absolutely gutted by it. What’s the equivalent?

I'm not sure what you are looking for?  We all react differently to persecution.  I'm opposed to all persecution.

But my point was that we need to start encouraging civility with those we are aligned with before we can start lecturing those we oppose.  For example, if I didn't believe in God, but trolled and mocked believers by referring to Heavenly Father as a "she", I think it would be appropriate for other non-believers to ask me to knock it off.

[gopher]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This seems to have been confirmed (as SeekingUnderstanding has already noted).  KSL has a story on it today.  And while that information may help to determine the killer's motive, it just goes further to underscore the utter stupidity of it all, since that roommate association with the suspect in the killing just backs up some of the theories that Kirk was spreading.  Why would the killer do something that goes further to confirm what the person he hates is saying?  Killer dude, you've just made things worse.  What's wrong with people these days?

I agree it doesn't make sense.  It'll be interesting to find out more tomorrow when the official charges are released to the public.

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am "taking that route" because she keeps mischaracterizing Charlie as "racist, racist, and misogynist" yet refuses to watch anything from the very people she says Charlie attacked defending him. She is disingenuous. "Moron" is mild compared what she is calling him.

He used facts and stats all the time, but I shouldn't be surprised you refuse to see it.

We are in a place in history where anyone can make a video that proves whatever they want to prove, or disproves whatever they want to disprove.  Which from my perspective means two things.  We have an unfettered ability to find evidence that supports our beliefs, and an unfettered ability to find evidence that proves everyone who disagrees with us is wrong.

I don't say that to say that the links already posted are false.  I say that to point out that people are less interested in looking at anything that challenges their perspectives while also being wary of unvetted websites and videos right now.  It's a perfect storm.

I think reason and the ability to discussion uncomfortable information will come back, but it's not coming back right now.  We're too touchy and too willing to lash out at any perceived threat, even the perceived threat of being disagreed with.  We all need to take some deep breaths and give it time. 

If we could all eventually come at the discussion with a willingness to engage with the side we disagree with until they feel understood before trying to argue our side, that would probably be the absolute best outcome from enacting real change. 

Right now everyone's too busy accusing and defending to do much more than make a lot of noise.

[Raingirl]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I am "taking that route" because she keeps mischaracterizing Charlie as "racist, racist, and misogynist" yet refuses to watch anything from the very people she says Charlie attacked defending him. She is disingenuous. "Moron" is mild compared what she is calling him.

He used facts and stats all the time, but I shouldn't be surprised you refuse to see it.

I did a deep dive into this guy a while ago. Original sources.  His own videos and posts. I stand by my assessment. 
You said you were leaving this thread. Apparently, it’s more important to you to lodge personal attacks against posters. 

[bluebell]

On 9/11/2025 at 11:53 AM, the narrator said:

I know you're not doing this, but I get so tired of gun worshippers.... 

I wanted to comment on this a while ago butt was traveling and lost track of the post.  To be honest, my first reaction when I read the term 'gun worshippers' was anger because it immediate brought to mind the label 'baby killers' to describe someone who is pro-choice.  It brought it to mind because--(both terms are crap and)--both terms are opposite sides of the same coin.

The coin where we try to prove people are wrong and we are right by calling them the worst names we can think of.  I'm really, incredibly, sick of that coin.  Can we make some new money?

[let’s roll]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It looks like Cox is confirming this. I know that conservatives feel mocked, and scorned by the left. I know Christians in the United States feel persecuted. But I wonder if there is anything quite like the anguish someone who is gay or trans feels when the persecution comes from friends and family (those closest around them) when they come out. Persecution that is greatly amplified by rhetoric like Kirk’s. Like I’m legitimately wondering. We’ve had a poster here say they feel absolutely gutted by it. What’s the equivalent?

I believe you when you say you’re legitimately wondering and I applaud your open mind.  I invite you to consider those who are ostracized or disowned by their families and community when they choose to join a faith other than the faith of their family and community, e.g.  Muslims who become Christians, Christians who become Muslims.  Also, many who have served LDS missions have witnessed a convert whose family disowned them after their baptism.  

I’ve had the opportunity to counsel with both those preparing to come out to their family and friends as well as those preparing to tell their family and friends of their decision to be baptized.  And while each individual circumstance is unique, there is some commonality in the level and nature of anxiety and concerns.  My experience has been that family and friends usually choose love and inclusion, sometimes immediately, but most often over time.  My observation in seeing that unfold is that love begets love.

In those instances when there has been extended scorn and exclusion, my observation is that unrequited love is healthy for the giver.

Godspeed my friend.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I believe you when you say you’re legitimately wondering and I applaud your open mind.  I invite you to consider those who are ostracized or disowned by their families and community when they choose to join a faith other than the faith of their family and community, e.g.  Muslims who become Christians, Christians who become Muslims.  Also, many who have served LDS missions have witnessed a convert whose family disowned them after their baptism.  

Yes, I do think that this is very similar

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I sent a letter to Senator Sanders regarding these very comments.  As tempted as I might be, from a political and policy standpoint, to disagree with almost every word that comes out of Senator Sanders' mouth, he is absolutely spot-on here.  I laud[ed] him for it, and I expressed dismay that so many of his colleagues seemed so reluctant to follow suit.  And to the extent it would be true of Republicans if someone from the opposite party faced such a tragic fate, it would be [and is] wrong then, too.  Time was, any incident like the assassination of Charlie Kirk would have received swift, widespread condemnation from people who occupy points all along the political spectrum.  Sadly, not so today.  It seems that, instead, far too many of Senator Sanders' colleagues have engaged in a political calculation to determine whether Mr. Kirk's murder benefits "their [our] side" and, in light of an affirmative answer, have determined to stay silent instead.

If we're not willing to stand up for the basic right even of people with whom we disagree to express those opposing views, how can we expect others to stand up for our rights even when they disagree with us?  I'm reminded of this, from Pastor Martin Niemoller:

Also, the "some murders are worse than others depending on who the victim is" posture that some [too many, in my view] have taken regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk reminds me of this bit of dialogue from Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons.   In it, More, his son-in-law, William Roper, More's wife, Alice, and More's daughter, Margaret, are discussing what they believe should happen to More's nemesis, the scheming, conniving Richard Rich.  Although Rich eventually betrays More, leading to the latter's false conviction and execution, at this point in the play, he has not yet done anything that would be worthy of criminal sanction, as More points out: 

If we want the benefit of law ourselves, we must be willing to give the benefit of law to people even when we wonder if they truly deserve it.

Thanks for that quote, I've read it often, and the awesome thoughts throughout your post.

Posting the poem again for reference:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

—Martin Niemoller

[JVW]

18 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I see Charlie Kirk being mourned everywhere, but who’s mourning the innocent children? 

I think it's worth considering the inverse as well, when we talk about tragic events that occur around the world. Consider the above quote flipped, like so,

Quote

I see Charlie Kirk's murder being celebrated by many, but who's celebrating the deaths of innocent children?

The issue isn't in who is mourning and who isn't. The issue is how many are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of an innocent man. Whether it's the ultra rich insurance CEO, or the guy who, for better or worse, liked to publicly chat with college kids about politics, celebrating murder is wrong. I have friends who's bosses and coworkers have been celebrating. I have a friend who's a professor at BYU who is incredibly distraught because there are many professors there who have been celebrating. And if people were celebrating school shootings, everything that I've stated still applies. It's awful. It's sick. To me, it is clear evidence that there is a devil.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, gopher said:

For example, if I didn't believe in God, but trolled and mocked believers by referring to Heavenly Father as a "she", I think it would be appropriate for other non-believers to ask me to knock it off.

Perhaps Seeking is teasing some at times, but given how I have seen him use “she” in conversations about God over the years and he is now pretty consistently using “she” iirc, it comes across more to me as carrying the subtext of ‘maybe try looking at God in a different way’ as well as signaling his own belief is no longer the traditional view of God.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps Seeking is teasing some at times, but given how I have seen him use “she” in conversations about God over the years and he is now pretty consistently using “she” iirc, it comes across more to me as carrying the subtext of ‘maybe try looking at God in a different way’ as well as signaling his own belief is no longer the traditional view of God.

I've been assuming that Seeking is an atheist, but I could easily be completely wrong on that assumption.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've been assuming that Seeking is an atheist, but I could easily be completely wrong on that assumption.

Could be, I have been seeing him as agnostic.  Both are a nontraditional view of God…at least on this board.  I wasn’t attaching anything but not traditional in my head to it.

He could have chosen to use “it” or “them” I suppose when speaking of God, but given we here on the board often speak of God reacting as a human, I think “she” makes such conversation work better (accepts the possibility of God having similar emotions, reactions, and motivations as humans where “it” seems more outright rejection to me) while still encouraging a shift in exploring beliefs about God in new ways.  To me “it” seems more disrespectful.

Hopefully Seeking can clarify how he is using the term and if it is mocking and not just reminding people there is more than one way to think of God, perhaps he could just switch to using God rather than any pronouns so that it doesn’t shut down desire to engage with him.  I can see why someone who doesn’t believe in a Christian view of God, where Christ is male and the Father is seen as male in attributes in many ways even by nonLDS would prefer not to use “he” because others might make false assumptions if they weren’t familiar him or with his actual beliefs or don’t bother remembering those kinds of details.

But all this may be just another one of my stories I attach to people’s phrasings, even if only a three letter word.

Edited September 15, 2025 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Duncan said:

do you see a numbing of the US due to all the school shootings and where does this transition start, was it George Floyd, Kennedy, Malcolm X, or Lincoln or when did this transition began? 

I disagree a little with @bluebell. I don't think it's not the "I'll kill you for your beliefs" it. It does play a part. But I don't think this would have had nearly the impact if it wasn't a) a larger figure within the MAGA movement who wasn't directly a politician and b) it was graphically video'd. Millions saw his death in detail and as much as we claim numbing to this....I don't think we really have. I haven't seen a single video of a child graphically being killed for any of the mass shootings that entailed children. Or basically any mass shooting, TBH. It makes it less visceral and more abstract emotionally. It's not right, but its human. 

So, for example....plenty of black men had been wrongfully or questionably killed by the police. A number of those were captured on usually grainy video (which was already increasing awareness and social rumblings). None had the prolonged and dramatic filming that Floyd's had during a time where people were even more online than usual. It made the experience more real. Even if all of these are equally real in terms of weight and loss.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited September 15, 2025 by BlueDreams

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm not sure what you are looking for?  We all react differently to persecution.  I'm opposed to all persecution.

Sorry I should have specified. It was a general question inspired by your thoughts but not directed at you.

7 hours ago, gopher said:

But my point was that we need to start encouraging civility with those we are aligned with before we can start lecturing those we oppose.  For example, if I didn't believe in God, but trolled and mocked believers by referring to Heavenly Father as a "she", I think it would be appropriate for other non-believers to ask me to knock it off.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Perhaps Seeking is teasing some at times, but given how I have seen him use “she” in conversations about God over the years and he is now pretty consistently using “she” iirc, it comes across more to me as carrying the subtext of ‘maybe try looking at God in a different way’ as well as signaling his own belief is no longer the traditional view of God.

I started back when I still believed. Based on a strong desire for the latent feminism in church teachings (Heavenly Mother, blessings by the laying on of hands, an independent Women's organization etc), Asherah in ancient Isreal, and the idea expressed in scripture that women are just as much made in the image of "God" as men. I liked it too, because it's a a subversion of the normal thought process that automatically genders all things divine as male. Is there a teasing aspect now that I don't believe? I had to think about it and I'd say yes, but that is secondary. For example, Gopher feels mocked and trolled by pointing out the Godhood of Heavenly Mother, and I'd just simply like to know why? Given the all importance that traditional christians are putting on gender, gender roles etc, I am not so subtly pointing out the not so subtle absence of the divine feminine to emulate.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've been assuming that Seeking is an atheist, but I could easily be completely wrong on that assumption.

Labels are hard, but I don't believe in God. I don't judge or begrudge you your faith however. Everyone has different experiences and perhaps God was more persuasively revealed to you.

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could be, I have been seeing him as agnostic.  Both are a nontraditional view of God…at least on this board.  I wasn’t attaching anything but not traditional in my head to it.

He could have chosen to use “it” or “them” I suppose when speaking of God, but given we here on the board often speak of God reacting as a human, I think “she” makes such conversation work better (accepts the possibility of God having similar emotions, reactions, and motivations as humans where “it” seems more outright rejection to me) while still encouraging a shift in exploring beliefs about God in new ways.  To me “it” seems more disrespectful.

Hopefully Seeking can clarify how he is using the term and if it is mocking and not just reminding people there is more than one way to think of God, perhaps he could just switch to using God rather than any pronouns so that it doesn’t shut down desire to engage with him.  I can see why someone who doesn’t believe in a Christian view of God, where Christ is male and the Father is seen as male in attributes in many ways even by nonLDS would prefer not to use “he” because others might make false assumptions if they weren’t familiar him or with his actual beliefs or don’t bother remembering those kinds of details.

But all this may be just another one of my stories I attach to people’s phrasings, even if only a three letter word.

See above!

[Tacenda]

37 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I disagree a little with @bluebell. I don't think it's not primarily the "I'll kill you for your beliefs." But I don't think this would have had nearly the impact if it wasn't a) a larger figure within the MAGA movement who wasn't directly a politician and b) it was graphically video'd. Millions saw his death in detail and as much as we claim numbing to this....I don't think we really have. I haven't seen a single video of a child graphically being killed for any of the mass shootings that entailed children. Or basically any mass shooting, TBH. It makes it less visceral and more abstract emotionally. It's not right, but its human. 

So, for example....plenty of black men had been wrongfully or questionably killed by the police. A number of those were captured on usually grainy video (which was already increasing awareness and social rumblings). None had the prolonged and dramatic filming that Floyd's had during a time where people were even more online than usual. It made the experience more real. Even if all of these are equally real in terms of weight and loss.  

 

With luv,

BD

Maybe the MAGA movement or some in it, want people to see something similar to Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ". Since so many put Kirk on a pedestal. In Utah I saw the vigils, interviews etc. about their sadness of losing Kirk. And the movement, "The Turning Point" might be like a rolling stone and gather more than if this didn't happen. Here's a Wiki that I thought goes into the life of Charlie Kirk pretty well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

Edited September 15, 2025 by Tacenda

[Tony uk]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I think it's worth considering the inverse as well, when we talk about tragic events that occur around the world. Consider the above quote flipped, like so,

The issue isn't in who is mourning and who isn't. The issue is how many are celebrating the cold-blooded murder of an innocent man. Whether it's the ultra rich insurance CEO, or the guy who, for better or worse, liked to publicly chat with college kids about politics, celebrating murder is wrong. I have friends who's bosses and coworkers have been celebrating. I have a friend who's a professor at BYU who is incredibly distraught because there are many professors there who have been celebrating. And if people were celebrating school shootings, everything that I've stated still applies. It's awful. It's sick. To me, it is clear evidence that there is a devil.

My sentiments also. A life is a life, regardless of who's life that it maybe. And for people to celebrating the cold blooded murder of a person, this can not be considered appropriate behaviour. I find it all very, very sad.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And the movement, "The Turning Point" might be like a rolling stone and gather more than if this didn't happen.

Kirk was charismatic, well spoken, attractive (all excellent qualities for politics) and as far as I know no personal scandals or hints of corruption (controversy was about what he said and promoted), so I think if he had lived a normal life span he could have done very, very well for his movement for decades to come.  While his murder may have mobilized people who he might not have reached eventually, the influence will slowly fade in strength, though likely still be strong for decades to come.  In all ways, I see this as a great loss for his people.

Quote

Maybe the MAGA movement or some in it, want people to see something similar to Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ". 

I would not be the least bit surprised to see several documentaries shortly on him, hopefully at least one quality one.  Eventually there will be dramas and some may be willing to get an R rating for violence, but there is a massive difference imo between the shooting and the Passion of Christ as Christ’s torture went on for sometime.  Whipping could be said to be more graphic than shooting and I would rate a crucifixion as more violent than the one shot, even with how the blood is described, which certainly qualifies as traumatic.  If they focus solely on him, the violence would be quite limited, though they might add violence depending on the context they add, such as mass shootings or protests get portrayed as violent.  

But maybe I have gone off on a tangent and the level of violence so to lead viewers to really ‘feel’ his suffering is not what you were thinking of?

Edited September 15, 2025 by Calm

[the narrator]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

To be honest, my first reaction when I read the term 'gun worshippers' was anger...

I'm not calling everyone who has a gun a gun worshipper, but I very much, along the lines of Spencer W. Kimball's "The False Gods We Worship," see the relationship that the most ardent gun-advocates have to their weapons of death as idolatry. If a person's response to yet another school shooting is a callous and unwavering appeal to their interpretation of the second amendment that would allow for no regulation that might save future lives, then, yeah, they are idolatrous gun worshippers.

If that hurts their feelings, oh well. My first amendment right hurts them far less than their love of the second amendment has done to these children.

Edited September 15, 2025 by the narrator

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I'm not calling everyone who has a gun a gun worshipper, but I very much, along the lines of Spencer W. Kimball's "The False Gods We Worship," see the relationship that the most ardent gun-advocates have to their weapons of death as idolatry. If a person's response to yet another school shooting is a callous and unwavering appeal to their interpretation of the second amendment that would allow for no regulation that might save future lives, then, yeah, they are idolatrous gun worshippers.

If that hurts their feelings, oh well. My first amendment right hurts them far less than their love of the second amendment has done to these children.

I don't think it's hurting anyone's feelings.  It causes some eye rolling because it's so hyperbolical that it's easy for most to make fun of or brush off.  When you get that far out there, the insults are easier and easier to ignore because they are so far out there.

But at the same time, I think it's causing more harm to your cause than not though.  Part of the reason that some people are clinging so desperately to their guns is specifically because of the rhetoric.  The less they believe that the left will listen to them and try to understand their perspective, they more they double down. 

It's the same with issues on the right.  Both sides are their own worst enemies because they refuse to believe that those who disagree with them are anything other than stupid or immoral.

Edited September 15, 2025 by bluebell

[the narrator]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Part of the reason that some people are clinging so desperately to their guns is specifically because of the rhetoric.  The less they believe that the left will listen to them and try to understand their perspective, they more they double down. 

You are giving them way to much credit. They're not that rationale.

I have resigned to the reality that I can do nothing to change the world, for the good or for the worse. All i can do is care for and love those close to and around me. Those who care more about guns than children can...

Nevermind.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

You are giving them way to much credit. They're not that rationale.

I have resigned to the reality that I can do nothing to change the world, for the good or for the worse. All i can do is care for and love those close to and around me. Those who care more about guns than children can...

Nevermind.

They say the same about you though, so it all cancels each other out.  It increases the noise but there is no substance in any of it.    

We can each do a lot to change the world, if we can change ourselves first.   

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Kirk was charismatic, well spoken, attractive (all excellent qualities for politics) and as far as I know no personal scandals or hints of corruption (controversy was about what he said and promoted), so I think if he had lived a normal life span he could have done very, very well for his movement for decades to come.  While his murder may have mobilized people who he might not have reached eventually, the influence will slowly fade in strength, though likely still be strong for decades to come.  In all ways, I see this as a great loss for his people.

I would not be the least bit surprised to see several documentaries shortly on him, hopefully at least one quality one.  Eventually there will be dramas and some may be willing to get an R rating for violence, but there is a massive difference imo between the shooting and the Passion of Christ as Christ’s torture went on for sometime.  Whipping could be said to be more graphic than shooting and I would rate a crucifixion as more violent than the one shot, even with how the blood is described, which certainly qualifies as traumatic.  If they focus solely on him, the violence would be quite limited, though they might add violence depending on the context they add, such as mass shootings or protests get portrayed as violent.  

But maybe I have gone off on a tangent and the level of violence so to lead viewers to really ‘feel’ his suffering is not what you were thinking of?

Yes, I could have come up with a different scenario for a comparison than using "A Passion of the Christ". I've never seen it even. Just know it was graphic. 

When I saw a video of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, very soon after it happened and it came up on social media, it looked like it just grazed the neck area and I was so hoping that was all it did, so hoping.

I don't like a lot of Charlie's statements, some are pretty terrible. He's young and may have changed his mind eventually. Probably not a terrible human. Just his thinking is extreme. And in our world we need to stay in the middle IMO. 

Thanks for your input as always.

Edited September 16, 2025 by Tacenda