As far as I know, they have not caught the killer, so it is (currently) impossible to know anything about the politics of the shooter. Given he was shot from 150-200m away, it was a trained sniper. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump ordered it to distract from his current troubles, especially since they seem to have been unable to find the killer so far.
 

Tobold: "You still end up with a society which has first class and second class citizens, and different degrees of freedom and justice for different folks, you just change who is in which group."

True, but if the oppressed win the class struggle and end up in first class, they won't care. It's obviously the fault of the others for not sharing the right views or they would also be in first class!

In more serious words: depending on the political leanings (maybe regardless) and without enough backlash, this might be a first stone thrown.
What if this sets enough precedent for "many people didn't like him, so it's ok" and a left wing personality is next? I don't believe printing a small line of "we don't condone violence" under an article wishing bad things is cutting it. [1]

[1] https://www.jezebel.com/we-paid-some-etsy-witches-to-curse-charlie-kirk
 

First of all, I'd just like to say that the way you now can't see the post you're commenting on as you're commenting on it is really annoying. When did that happen? Anyway, I have the post open in a separate tab so I can work around it.

That Voltaire quote doesn't get any less ridiculous with repetition. If you believe one thing and someone else says something in direct opposition to it, the very last thing you should do is "agree to disagree". That's tantamount to tacit agreement, which clearly means you didn't believe in whatever you thought you did in the first place.

Discussion and argument are fine, in the service of trying to change opinions, but if the opinions don't change then accepting them is not a valid end-point. I'm not suggesting violence is but at some point you have to recognize progress isn't going to be made and at that point you need at the very least to disengage, which is categorically not the same as "agreeing to disagree". I refer you to the Specials' number "Racist Friend" for further details. (I bet that link didn't come through...)

On the issue of left and right, I don't believe the labels have been particularly meaningful for a long time. We currently have a nominally left-of-center government in power over here that would without doubt have been seen as right-of-center only a few years ago.

As stated, your position is clearly economically left, but based on what I've read you post over many years I'd say you present quite clearly as culturally well to the right. That's not an uncommon position these days, especially now political beliefs seem to be available in a pick&mix format. Whatever position anyone holds, it seems increasingly unlikely any specific political party is going to be able both to represent all aspects of it and have any chance of enacting any of the policies.

 

The separation of post and comments happened a few months ago and is annoying. But I think that's from Blogger and can't be influenced?

As for the Voltaire quote, it is the prerequisite for discussion and argument and less about believing in your own position. Especially in a public setting, you will have people who try to shut you up purely for not expressing their exact view or if they feel you are sceptical of their point of view.
There is no effort being made in hearing you out, trying to understand you and then through the process of discussing, trying to change your or - and potentially the fear of those people - having to change their own view because they can't back it up or reason their stance.

I believe that is where you then run into the issue of the stalemate because neither party can afford to change their view without losing face. Neither can they agree to disagree as that would be admitting that the other opinion has a right to exist. That isn't allowed. The other opinion is wrong by virtue of not being identical to the opinion of your identity group.

As for "Racist Friend": well, have you established that someone is actually racist or is it hearsay construed from sceptical utterances? It is also easy with agreeable topics but people often fail to simply flip the argument and put their own views as the antagonist.
Would they still like the blanket dismissal? The wrong by default?
 

”impossible to know anything about the politics of the shooter”
If a political figure is stabbed in a bar fight, the politics can be unclear. If a political figure is shot at a political rally with a high-powered rifle, it is pretty obvious that it is a political assassination.

The “sniper” thing is misinformation. The distance of about 160 meters is well within what any hunter who ever shot a deer is capable of doing. The idea of somehow linking this to Trump is about as credible as the idea that January 6th was an Antifa operation.

"That's tantamount to tacit agreement"
No, it is tantamount to believing that different opinions can and should exist, and everybody should have the freedom to express his opinions. You can’t always convince the other side, but you should debate anyway.

It is a slippery slope from signing a petition that somebody should be “deplatformed”, to using violence to disrupt him from speaking, to killing him. The very premise, that somebody with a different opinion shouldn’t be allowed to speak at all, is fundamentally wrong.
 

"I'd say you present quite clearly as culturally well to the right"
I present quite clearly as somebody who is 60 years old. My views from my university days haven't changed much, and at the time those views *were* culturally left of center. The problem is, like the example I mentioned in my post of Martin Luther King, is that a left of center political statement from several decades ago can now be considered "culturally well to the right". Humanism has been considered a left of center opinion for centuries, and it is only since rather recently that you are likely to be called a racist and Nazi for saying something humanist.
 

@Tobold this article is a great way to say you don't currently live in the US without writing those words. This hit, unfortunately, is going to be used by the right to villify and attack the left broadly, regardless of whether they catch the person and determine their political intent. In fact, it probably works better for them if they don't catch the person because then they can spin this the way they want: to actively weaponize the US government to go after anyone and everyone who isn't a card-carrying Republican on the grounds that, to quote Bush and Anakin: If you're not with me, you're against me.
 

I think the politics refers to premature judgement. Maybe it is a lone pariah who had different reasons. We don't even know if the shooting was politically motivated. Could be politics, about woman rights, gun laws, a betrayed husband/wife or road rage.
 

I am trying to keep this blog a bastion of common sense. This is neither QAnon, nor whatever the left wing version of that would be. Nobody who hates another man because of some adultery or just road rage is shooting that man at a political rally from a rooftop 160 meters away. Don't take me for a fool.

This ... is going to be used by the right to vilify and attack the left broadly

And that would be unjust why? Haven't we had the exactly same argument where the left broadly vilified and attacked the right every time a politician from the left was physically attacked? Violent rhetoric leads to violent actions, and that is just a universal truth, which works both ways around. Just look on any social media today, where moderators are failing to stem a tide of left wing comments of the "serves him right for being a Nazi" variety about Charlie Kirk.

What assassins of political figures don't understand is that they are only making their enemies stronger. Charlie Kirk died under a tent that had "prove me wrong" printed on it. He was there to debate his right wing opinions. He got a bullet instead. That puts the other side automatically in the wrong, they conceded the debate. Donald Trump got millions of votes out of the assassination attempts on him.

Of course it is extremely unlikely that the Democratic party is behind that assassination. Just like the Republican party wasn't behind the January 6th riots. But if you find it correct to judge the right by the actions of the Proud Boys, you must also agree to judge the left by the actions of Charlie Kirk's assassin. This is in the title of my post, as somebody from the left I am ashamed of the actions from the extreme wing of my side. I wished more people from both sides would be able to feel that shame, because otherwise we will never be able to reign in the extremists.
 

you must also agree to judge the left by the actions of Charlie Kirk's assassin

Once again you presume the left or someone with left-view politics is behind the shooting. We don't know that. Remember that Trump's shooter was a registered Republican, so you cannot assume anything.

Also, we've all heard about Voltaire's quote and can appreciate its meaning, but it seems to me that it is in contradiction with the paradox of tolerance. In my view, this paradox is the crux of the USA situation since the rise of Trump. Where does it stop ? Until when does/can the population tolerate the constant violent discourse, bigotry and minority groups bullying from the right ?
 

Once again you presume the left or someone with left-view politics is behind the shooting.

No. The would-be assassin of the second attempt of last year is currently on trial, defending himself, and he was rambling about Trump being Hitler. It isn’t necessary for him to be officially a card-carrying member of some left-wing party or association. It is obvious that he got the idea that Trump was a dictator from social media, and it is obvious that this idea is regularly spread by people with left-view politics.

Violent rhetoric causes violent acts. The people committing these violent acts are frequently disturbed individuals with no logical and clear politics. But it is clear where the violent rhetoric came from. Remember the guy who believed the Pizzagate conspiracy and stormed the pizza parlor with a gun? The politics of that are clear, because we know where the idea comes from, not because we believe that the guy had clear politics.
 

I checked your blog today specifically to see if you had posted anything on the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Your blog posts on political matters and events in the United States put all of the other articles in the mainstream media to shame.
You are always insightful, balanced, and substitute hyperbole with a concise analysis and common sense.
(This feedback is based on the numerous articles that I have read on your blog over the past 10 years).

I never really followed Charlie Kirk but from the few videos that I have seen he seemed to always treat the person he was debating with respect.

We need more people like him on both sides of the isle who are willing to go out and have open conversations with those with opposing viewpoints.
Most intelligent people should come away improved, because you don't learn anything new in an echo chamber.

Unintelligent folk may not benefit as much, but as Wanda Sykes says:
"You can't fix stupid".
 

As regards the politics of the killer, the Daily Mail reports:
"The bullet used to kill conservative activist Charlie Kirk was engraved with transgender and anti-fascist ideology, according to a law bulletin."

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

Of course if you are careful to stick to the media acceptable to progressives, you might not know that...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-15089365/cnn-charlie-kirk-bullet-rifle-transgender-engravings.html
 

Sorry, previous comment was me, Blogger sets me to Anonymous sometimes.
 

My point is that we have nothing on the shooter. No background, no manifest, no nothing.
Is a political motivation likely? Yeah, but that is construed from the victim being in politics and shot at a rally.

You don't know what makes a person tick this way. Maybe it was left wing or maybe it was right wing because he is influencing Trump to dismantle the grand old party that the shooter loved. Or maybe it was unrelated from politics.

Imagine that you were hating someone this much and trying to get to them. How would you do it?
The victim likely had some sort of security or is living a secluded life. Do you try to follow and randomly bump into them? Maybe you also fantasise about "sending a message" or something. A rally is a fixed point where you know the victim will be there.Getting access to a rally is also easier. Using a rifle instead of a hand gun where you might need to pass security checks. Where being stopped is less likely than drawing a gun in a crowd and getting away is easier. When access and training with a hunting rifle is available with little to no checks.

What I'm trying to say is that the killing was premeditated. This method is fairly accessible and likely the best for this outcome if you plan to get away.
So if this is the method, then it allows no conclusion for a motive.
 

In none of the political murders and attacks of the past years in the USA has one party come forward and said “Yes, this was us, and we are proud of it”. But we can still see on social media that one side more or less openly cheers the act of political violence, and the other side condemns it.

So even if we don’t have a political manifesto of that one shooter, we have the political profiles of the thousands of people who posted on social media that they were okay with him getting killed, and those people are all of the political left. Do you find that sort of behavior okay?
 

Im sorry Tobold but what? Where was this energy when the same thing happened 2 months ago with the killing of democratic politicians and people on the right made fun of the situation?

Or when Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked and sitting politicians also made fun of it and commentators on the right lamented that she wasn't hurt as well.

Its interesting how when something happens to a Right wing figure in the US then everyone gets up in arms over social media posts that are tame compared to what Charlie Kirk himself has said in past on a daily basis.

There are literally large social media accounts right now calling for Democratic politicians and pundits to be rounded up and jailed in our own version the fallout from the Reichstag fire. They themselves used that phrasing. Thats not glorifying political violence?

Republicans commentators are right now engaging in the cancel culture that you seem to think they dont do by creating a website with the purpose of trying to doxx lefties online and report them to their employers for saying anything perceived to be negative of Charlie Kirk, even going as far to dig into their post histories and report comments from years ago.

Charlie Kirk, to me was a detectable person with awful bigoted and hateful opinions. I obviously do not wish him death. Unfortunately he played an outsized hand in creating and shaping the chaotic and hateful political environment we now live in. As he believed empathy was a weakness and sacrifices were necessary to ensure we maintain the 2nd amendment I'll grieve his loss in the same way he did for others.

I wish that in the aftermath of this maybe right wingers would realize sensible gun control would perhaps be an action that we could take to reduce gun violence. Maybe since the death of children doesnt motivate them enough the death of a beloved political pundit might. There was another school shooting the same day.

Unfortunately I have little hope of this happening. And in 2 weeks we'll be talking about something else as the media cycle moves on.
 

Then I think we are misunderstanding this line:
"Yesterday the bullets did fly, and in the USA a prominent right wing activist was killed. That is not the sort of left wing activism I can believe in."
As this refers to the actual action and not commentary about it.

I agree that there is a slippery slope of normalising from commenting that an action is justified to carrying out such action. But we can't deduct from other people cheering on the outcome that the shooter is sharing the same ideals.

So to connect the action and what you are rightfully criticising, you need something like:
"[...] was killed. People on the left were cheering on social media. That is not [...]"
Because had he died in a car crash or of natural death (think Thatcher), you could see the similar commentary.
This is people jumping on the bandwagon of a preferred outcome. It's cheering when your rival sports team loses against another team.
 

Obviously goes without saying that the shooting itself is also not acceptable.
The issue in the US is that there are only two rival teams and thus the default assumption is that action and cheering is from the same camp.

If you transferred it to the EU, then you would see cheering across the center to left spectrum. While your stance would still be the same that this isn't how things ought to be done, we wouldn't know if the shooter was center, left green, liberal, social or however else motivated.
 

Charlie Kirk, to me was a detectable person with awful bigoted and hateful opinions.

While I wouldn't have used the adjective "detectable", I generally agree with that statement. I still don't think we should be killing people with hateful opinions, nor should we cheer their death.

Where was this energy when the same thing happened 2 months ago

I don't identify as right-wing, so I don't feel that ashamed when the right does it. I am identifying as left because the left is supposed to be better than that. "When they go low, we go high". When the left stoops to the same lows as the right, what hope is there left for anything but violence?

As this refers to the actual action and not commentary about it.

I believe that violent rhetoric is linked to violent acts. And that used to be a left-wing talking point, when the majority of political violence came from the right. Now that the left is catching up to political violence, they have forgotten all about this belief. I still believe that the shooter had zero personal connection to Charlie Kirk, and that his belief that Kirk should be killed is a direct result from the rhetoric that the shooter read on the internet. The post-killing commentary is just proof of the situation that existed before.
 

I meant detestable but for some reason my phone autocorrects to detectable.
 

So now the shooter is in custody. He was a 22 year old White Male with a Law Enforcement Officer as a Father and is/was Mormon.

To predict what happens next, if he is found to be left leaning expect tons of coverage on any social media posts he has made and any anti-Trump or anti-facist messaging. We'll hear calls to tone down rhetoric by the same right wing people that talk about all migrants being murderers and rapists and how they eat your family pets.

If he is found to be right leaning he is going to be called a deep state operative and his motivations will be quickly glossed over and not discussed but the left will still be blamed for saying mean things.
 

And people have already found his voter registration information and he declined to affiliate with either party.

He also apparently engraved bullets with 2 anti-facist phrases and what I guess are Gen Z memes? Something about a bulge, uWu and "If you read this you are Gay LMAO".

Background in shooting guns since he was a teenager. Raised by both parents. A family member said he expressed a severe dislike of Kirk.
 

Pretty much exactly what I predicted: A deranged individual with no personal connection to the victim, having picked up his hatred of Kirk on the internet.
 

And I can do the next prediction: There will be a Tyler Robinson Defense Fund, and it will collect over $1 million by crowdfunding. All given by people who will fervently deny that he was a member of "their side".
 

I think there is definitely something to be said about parasocial behavior and its effects on youth and Gen Z/Alpha.

People create these deranged attachments with social media personalities and rapidly defend their favorites and attack their "enemies" online. There are whole subereddits dedicated to this stuff and its insane to me that Reddit doesn't ban them.

While a motive still hasnt been put out I would not he surprised if this person falls into that camp.

And that is indeed something I've seen both on the left and right so its not a one sided of the political spectrum thing.
 

The transgender connection has been retracted as it was false and was refuted by the governor.

He did engrave at least 2 anti fascists messages and various memes though.
 

I think there is definitely something to be said about parasocial behavior and its effects on youth and Gen Z/Alpha.

There is also something to be said about other generational shifts. In some previous comments, before the suspect was caught, it was mentioned that we didn’t have “a manifesto” yet. From previous acts of political violence we kind of expect the person committing the act writing down his motivation, a reasonable precaution if the person wants his justification to be known and might be killed during the attack or apprehension. What we get with the younger generation is bullets inscribed with memes. They still speak to motive, several of those memes were anti-fascist. But I felt they were a step down from a manifesto in terms of literacy and attention span. Maybe the killer would have needed ChatGPT to write him a full manifesto.
 

Apparently even what I thought were plain anti-facist messages at first are also memes from videogames so even that bit is unclear. I saw this first on social media but thought it was just people deflecting but no even the media is making this connection now.

So what we seem to have is someone who was terminally online and so deranged they thought memes on the bullets would be hilarious.

I think the motive is going to ultimately be something like he got wrapped up in some online community with other edgy losers and weirdos, or following some edgy social media persona and got radicalized.
 

Idk if you'll see this Tobold but I just wanted to leave a comment about all the delusional stuff I'm seeing on reddit right now. This whole ordeal is one of those moments where its plain to see the online American Left is not so different from the online American Right.

Reddit has developed this whole alternative narrative where the killer is actually a "groyper", ie part of the Nick Fuentes fan culture and killed Charlie Kirk because Nick and Charlie have been feuding. Everything from the transgender relationship the killer was in to the confession he made to his family is fake and lies by the Trump administration to blame the Left. It's a sad state of affairs when online culture is so heavily fixed in alternative reality on both sides of the political spectrum in this country.

This narrative is being pushed heavily on some of the largest subreddits on the platform. It's no different than the blatant lies and propaganda that have taken over Twitter post Elons takeover.
 

That conspiracy theory has made it to mainstream TV and got Jimmy Kimmel canceled.
 

I would like to point out that I would prefer to live in a world in which a comedian making an inappropriate remark isn't getting canceled. And while I personally find "glad the guy is dead" remarks offensive, I also think that they fall under free speech. But that has to be regardless of the political bias of the remark. We can't have a world in which "I'm glad that fascist is dead" is protected free speech, and misgendering somebody is hate speech that is persecuted. You either need to give up on the concept of hate speech altogether, or you have to admit that speech promoting physical harm to somebody ranks higher on the hate speech scale than speech that just might potentially emotionally hurt somebody.

As weird as that might sound, I do think that the cancelation of Jimmy Kimmel was not a political act; somebody at Disney made a dollar and cents calculation, where it simply turns out that if your comedian is highly paid, but at the same time expresses more and more extreme in his views, scaring away both audiences and advertisers, at some point the right business decision is to cancel the show. While the left suddenly wanting free speech and condemning cancel culture, and the right saying "words have consequences", is somewhat funny, we shouldn't forget that to the large majority of people that live outside conspiracy theory social media, the Charlie Kirk assassination and its motive are pretty obvious, due to all the released evidence. And that makes the attempts of the left to deny the motive, or even to blame the right for the assassination, somewhat toxic. The sort of toxic which many regular people, and the advertisers that want them as their customers, consider as abhorrent. A man is dead. The comedic potential of that situation is low, while the reputational and business risk of making fun of the dead guy and his friends is high.
 

The Jimmy Fallon thing is directly political because the FCC apparently threatened ABC with tanking their Nexstar deal. A government agency placing their thumb on the scale is a political act.

Words have consequences. I think its totally okay for Republican viewers to protest against Jimmy Fallon or write into ABC and demand his cancelation. If ABC felt enough pressure from the public and canceled Jimmy Fallon because of it than fine.

What I dont think is okay is for government officials to use their elected or appointed positions of power to threaten a business monetarily in order to curb their cultultural opposition or political opponents.

Imagine if Biden had banned Fox News anchors for asking questions he didnt like or actively interfered in business deals for major broadcasting corporations when they aired negative stories about his age and mind.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. Do I like Charlie Kirk or what he said and stood for? No absolutely not. But im also not going to publicly celebrate his death. And I especially wouldnt if I knew it would risk my job and livelihood.
 

I think you got the wrong comedian Jimmy here.

Anyway, I don’t think that Disney was actually too impressed by the FCC guy, who clearly was exceeding his authority. My point was that Disney made their decision out of financial considerations, not political considerations. Trump or others making political remarks around that doesn’t change that.
 

Yeah for sure I get your point too. All these corporations do that. That's how we went from all of them celebrating pride month and changing their logos to incorporate rainbows one year and the next pandering to conservatives now that they are in power.

If Democrats get back into power Im sure we will see the rainbow logos reappear.

Its all just pandering to whatever will make them the most money at the time. Thats why all that stuff is garbage and it irritates me when Democrats celebrate that fakeness as some sort of political win.
 

And yeah I dont watch either Jimmy so I get them mixed up lol