And the FB poster’s joke was more an illustration of how I wouldn’t rely on him for information about Kirk...
I wasn't relying on him for information. I linked to him because he wrote something that expressed what I was already thinking and did so in a better way than I probably could have. (I could have copied and pasted what he wrote in full and pretended to have written it myself. Then you'd be left researching my history to discredit me.)
2025-09-25 15:57:19
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of “he deserved it.”
I guess you're referring to comparisons of Kirk's potential martyrdom to that of Horst Wessel. I don't know how that's a form of "he deserved it." Nazi comparisons generally occur when people are concerned about the possibility of fascism making a comeback because the Nazis are, by far, the most significant historical example. Your problem is ... well ... yours.
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) “felon love” with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk’s LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk’s debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen.
I don't know anything about the guy. I just thought his criticisms of Kirk's "debates" were on point. I'm sure Kirk has had other conversations on a more level playing field, but those are for a different audience - people who are probably older and don't pay attention to his college-campus antics, for whom he could portray a more moderate version of himself to people who aren't otherwise familiar with his internet schtick. "Oh, gee, he seems reasonable." Kind of like Vance debating Walz.
2025-09-24 13:33:39
Before ruminating, I will mention how odd I find it that Klein is lamenting the use of social pressure and shame in the aftermath of one person shooting another in the neck with a bolt-action rifle - that is, murdering another over political differences.
2025-09-23 14:06:36
Maybe we need a "Meta Godwin's Law" regarding the probability that someone will invoke Godwin's Law.
2025-09-23 13:20:16
Whose fault is that?
2025-09-22 23:18:44
I never thought I'd paste a link to a facebook post, but here it is. A friend of mine shared it. The original poster is someone (I'm guessing an actual human) going by Cory Nichols. I haven't a clue who that is.
https://www.facebook.com/share/1DC6bLNdGj/
The first 20% or so:
The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I’m not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I’m talking about the BS being spread by major news outlets.
While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.
Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.
The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.
What the writer gets into later tracks with some of the things nous has said about what constitutes meaningful dialogue.
2025-09-20 13:54:04
Ta Nehisi writes the plain truth. Kirk was unabashedly a white Christian nationalist. For me, all his various bigotries flow from there.
No one who isn’t an immediate threat to others deserves to be shot. At the same time, it doesn’t make Kirk a good person simply because someone killed him.
And the FB poster’s joke was more an illustration of how I wouldn’t rely on him for information about Kirk...
I wasn't relying on him for information. I linked to him because he wrote something that expressed what I was already thinking and did so in a better way than I probably could have. (I could have copied and pasted what he wrote in full and pretended to have written it myself. Then you'd be left researching my history to discredit me.)
HSH: I have a problem with jumping right to Hitler as a primary means of criticism, especially after an actual assassination. It is a form of “he deserved it.”
I guess you're referring to comparisons of Kirk's potential martyrdom to that of Horst Wessel. I don't know how that's a form of "he deserved it." Nazi comparisons generally occur when people are concerned about the possibility of fascism making a comeback because the Nazis are, by far, the most significant historical example. Your problem is ... well ... yours.
The guy you link to celebrates the murder of Brian Thompson and notes he (the FB poster) “felon love” with Luigi Mangione. He thinks Charlie Kirk’s LIFE was a tragedy, not his death. All based on ideas. His comments about Kirk’s debate style are simply not representative of what I have seen.
I don't know anything about the guy. I just thought his criticisms of Kirk's "debates" were on point. I'm sure Kirk has had other conversations on a more level playing field, but those are for a different audience - people who are probably older and don't pay attention to his college-campus antics, for whom he could portray a more moderate version of himself to people who aren't otherwise familiar with his internet schtick. "Oh, gee, he seems reasonable." Kind of like Vance debating Walz.
Before ruminating, I will mention how odd I find it that Klein is lamenting the use of social pressure and shame in the aftermath of one person shooting another in the neck with a bolt-action rifle - that is, murdering another over political differences.
Maybe we need a "Meta Godwin's Law" regarding the probability that someone will invoke Godwin's Law.
Whose fault is that?
I never thought I'd paste a link to a facebook post, but here it is. A friend of mine shared it. The original poster is someone (I'm guessing an actual human) going by Cory Nichols. I haven't a clue who that is.
https://www.facebook.com/share/1DC6bLNdGj/
The first 20% or so:
What the writer gets into later tracks with some of the things nous has said about what constitutes meaningful dialogue.
Ta Nehisi writes the plain truth. Kirk was unabashedly a white Christian nationalist. For me, all his various bigotries flow from there.
No one who isn’t an immediate threat to others deserves to be shot. At the same time, it doesn’t make Kirk a good person simply because someone killed him.