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

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

That’s why you have to rely on statistics. The crazies exist on the fringes. 

But, the statistics you posted are without attribution. And the accumulation and reporting of statistics can be misleading depending upon the method of collection and place of collection.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Added:  That is really weird, there is no indication of a edit, but I could have sworn there was a post about shooting anyone who was for gun control or something (I didn’t linger over it if it was there so retention is poor).

It's still there in my post.

By the way, both of those individuals are closely aligned with DezNat.

[bsjkki]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Better qualified does not mean those hired aren’t fully qualified for the job.  I find it highly unfortunate that so many assume that AA causes incompetent individuals to be hired, one of the important issues it’s supposed to help overcome (not saying you do, just felt the need to add this bit as some present it that way).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4554714/#:~:text=The studies identified gender bias,mitigate gender bias in hiring.

So, are you saying employers should not hire the most qualified/talented/experienced applicant but instead discriminate for representation? Besides DEI or affirmative action policies, is there a better way to root out hiring biases? 
 

Here is the opinion from the Supreme Court case and some of the pitfalls of how these affirmative action policies were deployed.

 

 

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It's still there in my post.

By the way, both of those individuals are closely aligned with DezNat.

That is just bizarre, lol.  It’s back to the original form…just the two posts, but before when I hit the reply button it dumped the gun comment and instead put up a video that was the first time I had nothing to disagree with Kirk about and thought quite a few ideas were very, very useful.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

are you saying employers should not hire the most qualified/talented/experienced applicant but instead discriminate for representation

It depends on what they are looking for.  Some work is more group oriented and is better facilitated with a greater mix where other work is more individual dependent.

PS:  I believe some, but certainly not all nor a majority (opinion from the changes I have seen), Affirmative Action motivated behaviour was poorly thought out and screwed things up or at best maintained status quo on attitudes and longterm benefits, thus not justifying the resources invested.  Those problems should be analyzed and improved in ways shown to work in related areas where possible, rather than getting rid of the effort completely.

Edited September 19, 2025 by Calm

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, the statistics you posted are without attribution. And the accumulation and reporting of statistics can be misleading depending upon the method of collection and place of collection.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[Stargazer]

On 9/13/2025 at 3:18 PM, Tacenda said:

I'm may not be reading enough of the replies or posts, what's upsetting about that? EDIT: Sorry Calm, I now get it. It's because Patel or the FBI kept getting it wrong and saying they caught the suspect and they didn't. EDIT: Here's a good reason why Patel, shouldn't be running the FBI, no way, no how. 

https://youtu.be/iXahcpaiNf8?si=QT4X7gUa62UkfAzp

 

Patel said that because there was someone who was trying to run interference for the actual shooter, stepping to claim he was the one who did it. Falsely, but Patel, like anyone, thought he was truthful.

But I suppose this has been said already.

[Stargazer]

Just in case this hasn't been posted yet, Ward Radio has issued a video about Charlie Kirk's positivity towards the LDS church.

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I am sad to say I find it very scary the number of people on the left who believe violence is justified.

This statement of yours is not supported by the stats you quoted. The question in the YouGov stats was whether it was okay to be happy someone was dead after the assassination, not whether the shooting was justified. Those are very different matters.

The YouGov polling does ask that question though and states the following - 

Quote

Another question tells a similar story: whether Americans think political violence can ever be justified. Overall, most Americans say violence to achieve political goals is never justified (72%), while just 11% say it can be.

Younger and more liberal Americans are more likely than older or more conservative Americans to say political violence can sometimes be justified, but this remains a minority opinion among these groups. Among the very liberal, 25% say political violence can sometimes be justified and 55% say it can't; among adults under 30, 19% say it can be justified and 51% say it can't.

Because the story doesn't publish the statistical significance of the difference between the groups, it's impossible to tell whether these alleged differences between/among the groups is meaningful or just noise in the data.

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Patel said that because there was someone who was trying to run interference for the actual shooter, stepping to claim he was the one who did it. Falsely, but Patel, like anyone, thought he was truthful.

But I suppose this has been said already.

Patel is also the one who pushed for the picture of the suspect to be released which led to his capture. 

Image from WaPo or WSJ…too lazy to look it up, 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52960-charlie-kirk-americans-political-violence-poll?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://katiecouric.com/news/national-news/political-violence-motives-left-vs-right/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=null

I like Katie, hoping it's factual. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

like Katie, hoping it's factual. 

Because you like her and want to feel you can trust her or you would prefer if there is violence, it is from the far right rather than the far left?  Or something else?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because you like her and want to feel you can trust her or you would prefer if there is violence, it is from the far right rather than the far left?  Or something else?

Thanks for that question! I read my post and realized how that can be misconstrued. It's more that I don't like disinformation.

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://katiecouric.com/news/national-news/political-violence-motives-left-vs-right/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=null

I like Katie, hoping it's factual. 

I can put up stats if you want, but feeling lazy today.

Political violence is more frequent and more fatal from the far right than the far left in the number of studies and summaries I have looked at in the last 15 years (I believe it was reversed in my youth, I should check my memory on that….except when it comes to harm occurring in protests (which needs to be broken down into violence done by protestors and violence done against protestors.

This is AI (because I am lazy today):

Quote

• Left-leaning protests (e.g., racial justice demonstrations, anti-police brutality, climate actions):

  • Tend to be more frequent and larger in scale in recent years.

  • Most are peaceful, but when unrest breaks out, property damage (looting, arson, vandalism) can sometimes be significant because of the size and intensity of the gatherings.

  • Studies of the 2020 George Floyd protests found that while over 90–95% were peaceful, the minority that turned violent caused billions in insured losses — making them among the costliest protest-related damages in U.S. history.

  • Deaths at these events were comparatively few relative to their scale, but they did occur (sometimes tied to clashes with counter-protesters, police responses, or opportunistic violence).

• Right-leaning protests (e.g., anti-lockdown, election protests, January 6th):

  • Generally smaller in number but sometimes higher in political violence risk because of armed groups and confrontations.

  • Property damage tends to be less widespread in dollar terms (with Jan 6th being an exception, though the symbolic damage outweighed the dollar figure).

  • Lethality can spike quickly — e.g., the Capitol attack, or armed standoffs, have higher chances of producing deaths relative to the event size.

Left wing protests tend to be more common and larger than right wing, which might be the reason for the above claim that right wing are higher risk of violence and more likely to cause deaths “relative to event size” (haven’t checked this one yet, have researched other claims being made above before) in that the typical right wing individual is much less likely to protest, so right wing protests in general has a higher percentage of extremists involved.

Edited September 19, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Again lazy, so need to check this but it aligns with my memory (though since I was born late 50s, some of this is from high school history class)…

AI:

Quote

1950–1954

• Right-leaning violence:

  • The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups carried out bombings, lynchings, and terror campaigns (especially in the South) to resist desegregation and the early stirrings of the civil rights movement.

  • Anti-communist hysteria (McCarthyism) created repression, though not often mass physical violence.

• Left-leaning violence: Very little — the U.S. left was suppressed by the Red Scare, and communist groups kept underground.
  👉 Dominant: Right-wing (racial terror, anti-integration violence).

---

1955–1959

• Right-leaning violence:

  • Intensified against the civil rights movement (bombings of churches, homes of activists, assassinations like Emmett Till’s murder in 1955 and the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church planning beginning in this era).

• Left-leaning violence: Still almost none — civil rights activism was overwhelmingly nonviolent.
  👉 Dominant: Right-wing (anti-civil rights terror).

---

1960–1964

• Right-leaning violence:

  • Continued violent resistance to civil rights (e.g., Birmingham campaign attacks, murders of activists).

  • White supremacist violence was at its peak.

• Left-leaning violence:

  • Civil rights protests remained mostly nonviolent, though self-defense groups (like early Malcolm X supporters) started to form.

  • Little organized left-wing terrorism yet.
    👉 Dominant: Right-wing violence still most significant.

---

1965–1969

• Right-leaning violence:

  • Still present (e.g., murders of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, Medgar Evers earlier).

• Left-leaning violence:

  • Huge spike: anti-Vietnam War militancy, urban riots/uprisings in response to police brutality and poverty, and the rise of revolutionary groups (Weather Underground, Black Panther Party armed self-defense, Students for a Democratic Society).

  • 1967–68: dozens of major urban uprisings with arson, clashes, and deaths.
    👉 Shift: By the late ’60s, left-wing political violence and unrest were now more prominent than right-wing.

---

1970–1974

• Left-leaning violence:

  • Peak of radical leftist militancy: Weather Underground bombings (Capitol, Pentagon), Symbionese Liberation Army kidnappings, Puerto Rican nationalist attacks.

  • Hundreds of bombings occurred annually, mostly by leftist groups, often aimed at government or corporate sites.

• Right-leaning violence:

  • Still existed (attacks on desegregation, some Klan activity, anti-busing violence).

  • But scale was smaller than left-wing militancy.
    👉 Dominant: Left-wing violence.

---

1975–1979

• Left-leaning violence:

  • Declined as Vietnam ended and radical groups collapsed. Weather Underground fizzled out, SLA dismantled.

  • Some residual Puerto Rican nationalist bombings continued (e.g., FALN bombings in NYC late ’70s).

• Right-leaning violence:

  • Some white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence persisted, though less visible than earlier civil rights clashes.
    👉 Balance: Still more left-wing terrorism in numbers, but overall both were declining.

---

📊 Summary by Era

• 1950s–early ’60s: Right-wing violence dominated (KKK, segregationist terror).

• Mid–late 1960s: Left-wing violence surged, overlapping with continued right-wing attacks, but left-wing unrest grew more visible.

• 1970s: Left-wing terrorism was the main driver of political violence (bombings, kidnappings, urban unrest).

• Late ’70s: Decline overall, but left-wing still more frequent in incidents until the early ’80s.

So mid 60s to early 80s, left wing ruled the violence charts.

I highly doubt violence is inherently more frequent in right or left eras, thus we all need to guard against it in our own communities.

Edited September 19, 2025 by Calm