3 ms·

Charlie Kirk himself had a list of academics he was trying to hound out of their jobs as part of his career as a grifting propagandist. He is currently being pr

Charlie Kirk himself had a list of academics he was trying to hound out of their jobs as part of his career as a grifting propagandist. He is currently being praised as a champion of free speech. The shoe is not on the other foot. Just the right foot is, as usual, projecting and being dishonest about their own well documented problems. Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own.

like_any_other 1y ago
> shot by one of their own You are basing this on.. the shell casings with Antifa slogans? Or the high school friend who claims he was "pretty left on everything" [1]? [1] https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-leftist.html/ https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-l...
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  Is this where you get your news from? Wikipedia says: > Pamela Geller (born 1958) is an American anti-Muslim, far-right political activist, blogger and commentator.[1] Geller promoted birther conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, saying that he was born in Kenya[4] and that he is a Muslim.[5]
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
      The source they cite was retracted, just as the WSJ had to retract their similar reporting. The shooter is a Groyper, a far right sect that has been "warring" with Kirk for a while and disrupting his appearances because they disagree about exactly how openly Fascist they should be. A far right killer from a hardcore MAGA family. The other school shooting that day was also far-right, btw.
      - bitlax 1y ago
        https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1757787226815828m.jpg https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1757787226815828m.jpg
      - Redoubts 1y ago
        Your mendacious take is aging worse by the hour. And it’s really funny to suggest a leftist can’t have conservative parents
    - techpineapple 1y ago
      > he shot someone on the right, which are both strong evidence of left-wing motivation on their own. I think the idea that there are two sides is one of the most toxic ideas in our politics. We associate with teams and anyone on our side must be good, and ignore things like the tyranny of small differences - the far left hates the center left more than they do the right. And there are similar dynamics on the right. Especially in obscure conspiracy filled corners of the internet. This doesn’t mean all people on the right are bad, or the right is inherently violent! But to ignore the complex breakdown of political ideologies is to ignore the crazy ways things actually happen, not to mention the fact that generally speaking, people who commit random acts of violence like this are not coming from a politically rational place.
      - like_any_other 1y ago
        I should clarify that I don't think there's much merit in the guilt-by-association smearing that happens after such events (or the stripped-of-context quote-mining character assassination the article engages in), and by "left-wing motivation" I did not mean to imply blame should fall on the left as a whole. Unfortunately such smearing is very effective propaganda, so most people, including journalists, only take this position when it is their side getting smeared.
        techpineapple 1y ago
        My specific point is there are people in this world with “right-wing” motivation to kill Charlie Kirk, social media has been full of it in just recent weeks, just like if a prominent left winger died there would probably be evidence of left-wing motivation to kill them. Or maybe it’s more complicated than that even! It would be productive to our discourse if we didn’t automatically see it as two sides.
- chtsh1tgetkirkd 1y ago
  [dead]
- jmye 1y ago
  The report from his “friend” (who didn’t actually know him at all) that was subsequently retracted as bullshit? Why continue to push things you know aren’t true?
  - like_any_other 1y ago
    Well I went to the updated Guardian article that is the original source [1], and it now states: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship. That reads more like "there's too much room for doubt for us to be willing to publish it", and not at all like "known-untrue bullshit". But it's a nice argument we're having - any uncertainty debunks my position, even when nobody has even disputed my strongest evidence, the shell casing messages, while the position I'm arguing against is simply taken as true without any evidence. Hey why don't we flip things around? Why don't you give a source for "didn't know him at all", as well as for the "retracted as bullshit" (specifically the as bullshit part, not just "source was unreliable"). And if you can't find a reliable source, we'll assume the opposite is true. That's how you're making me argue, so it's only fair the same rules apply, isn't it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-shooter-suspect-latest-news-updates-donald-trump-utah?page=with:block-68c4542d8f086519d3270fb8 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie...
ripcjk 1y ago
[dead]
Redoubts 1y ago
> Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own. This turned out to be 100% false btw
- cholantesh 1y ago
  Sure, if we take Fuentes' denials on their face, because of course, there's no reason to question them.
  - Redoubts 1y ago
    Why would you ask Fuentes anything? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/kirk-shooting-suspect-motive-messages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/kirk-shooting... Please reflect on your biases, because they’re clouding your judgement in a serious way
  - bitlax 1y ago
    You are less credible than Nick Fuentes at this point.
CMay 1y ago
I posted this in another thread too, but it seemed relevant to respond here too. https://www.professorwatchlist.org/tags/anti-1st-amendment https://www.professorwatchlist.org/tags/anti-1st-amendment I just randomly clicked one of the professors in that list: - "Shaviro has been suspended after he posted on Facebook that it would be better for people to kill their political opponents than to protest them. In a now-deleted post, Shaviro wrote:" - “So here is what I think about free speech on campus. Although I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes, I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.” That's straight from the website, which may or may not be accurate or true. The way it looks, is still about the way it looks given the larger context of the rest of its post. That seems worse than anything I have found a clip of Charlie Kirk actually saying yet. I didn't really follow him, just randomly came across a few clips of him over the years so most of what I've seen is over the past few days. > Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own. I don't think this is true, based on the evidence. There are people spreading that idea around, but it may just be activism or ignorance.

like_any_other 1y ago

> shot by one of their own You are basing this on.. the shell casings with Antifa slogans? Or the high school friend who claims he was "pretty left on everything" [1]? [1] https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-leftist.html/ https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-l...

ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Is this where you get your news from? Wikipedia says: > Pamela Geller (born 1958) is an American anti-Muslim, far-right political activist, blogger and commentator.[1] Geller promoted birther conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, saying that he was born in Kenya[4] and that he is a Muslim.[5]
- like_any_other 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
    The source they cite was retracted, just as the WSJ had to retract their similar reporting. The shooter is a Groyper, a far right sect that has been "warring" with Kirk for a while and disrupting his appearances because they disagree about exactly how openly Fascist they should be. A far right killer from a hardcore MAGA family. The other school shooting that day was also far-right, btw.
    - bitlax 1y ago
      https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1757787226815828m.jpg https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1757787226815828m.jpg
    - Redoubts 1y ago
      Your mendacious take is aging worse by the hour. And it’s really funny to suggest a leftist can’t have conservative parents
  - techpineapple 1y ago
    > he shot someone on the right, which are both strong evidence of left-wing motivation on their own. I think the idea that there are two sides is one of the most toxic ideas in our politics. We associate with teams and anyone on our side must be good, and ignore things like the tyranny of small differences - the far left hates the center left more than they do the right. And there are similar dynamics on the right. Especially in obscure conspiracy filled corners of the internet. This doesn’t mean all people on the right are bad, or the right is inherently violent! But to ignore the complex breakdown of political ideologies is to ignore the crazy ways things actually happen, not to mention the fact that generally speaking, people who commit random acts of violence like this are not coming from a politically rational place.
    - like_any_other 1y ago
      I should clarify that I don't think there's much merit in the guilt-by-association smearing that happens after such events (or the stripped-of-context quote-mining character assassination the article engages in), and by "left-wing motivation" I did not mean to imply blame should fall on the left as a whole. Unfortunately such smearing is very effective propaganda, so most people, including journalists, only take this position when it is their side getting smeared.
      - techpineapple 1y ago
        My specific point is there are people in this world with “right-wing” motivation to kill Charlie Kirk, social media has been full of it in just recent weeks, just like if a prominent left winger died there would probably be evidence of left-wing motivation to kill them. Or maybe it’s more complicated than that even! It would be productive to our discourse if we didn’t automatically see it as two sides.
chtsh1tgetkirkd 1y ago
[dead]
jmye 1y ago
The report from his “friend” (who didn’t actually know him at all) that was subsequently retracted as bullshit? Why continue to push things you know aren’t true?
- like_any_other 1y ago
  Well I went to the updated Guardian article that is the original source [1], and it now states: This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship. That reads more like "there's too much room for doubt for us to be willing to publish it", and not at all like "known-untrue bullshit". But it's a nice argument we're having - any uncertainty debunks my position, even when nobody has even disputed my strongest evidence, the shell casing messages, while the position I'm arguing against is simply taken as true without any evidence. Hey why don't we flip things around? Why don't you give a source for "didn't know him at all", as well as for the "retracted as bullshit" (specifically the as bullshit part, not just "source was unreliable"). And if you can't find a reliable source, we'll assume the opposite is true. That's how you're making me argue, so it's only fair the same rules apply, isn't it? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-shooter-suspect-latest-news-updates-donald-trump-utah?page=with:block-68c4542d8f086519d3270fb8 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie...

ripcjk 1y ago

[dead]

Redoubts 1y ago

> Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own. This turned out to be 100% false btw

cholantesh 1y ago
Sure, if we take Fuentes' denials on their face, because of course, there's no reason to question them.
- Redoubts 1y ago
  Why would you ask Fuentes anything? https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/kirk-shooting-suspect-motive-messages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/kirk-shooting... Please reflect on your biases, because they’re clouding your judgement in a serious way
- bitlax 1y ago
  You are less credible than Nick Fuentes at this point.

CMay 1y ago

I posted this in another thread too, but it seemed relevant to respond here too. https://www.professorwatchlist.org/tags/anti-1st-amendment https://www.professorwatchlist.org/tags/anti-1st-amendment I just randomly clicked one of the professors in that list: - "Shaviro has been suspended after he posted on Facebook that it would be better for people to kill their political opponents than to protest them. In a now-deleted post, Shaviro wrote:" - “So here is what I think about free speech on campus. Although I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes, I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.” That's straight from the website, which may or may not be accurate or true. The way it looks, is still about the way it looks given the larger context of the rest of its post. That seems worse than anything I have found a clip of Charlie Kirk actually saying yet. I didn't really follow him, just randomly came across a few clips of him over the years so most of what I've seen is over the past few days. > Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own. I don't think this is true, based on the evidence. There are people spreading that idea around, but it may just be activism or ignorance.