It often seems like insincere virtue signaling.
You must log in or register to comment.
Liberals side with fascism every time it’s honestly just sad a a real mask off moment
This has gone on too long, I agree. Stand up, flush, move on. This is just like every other turd. Every once in a while you have a turd worth looking at for a minute before you flush, but this isn’t that turd.
Are they still going on and on about one dead guy? Who was unsurprisingly shot by someone more far-right than he was?
They either really really want this to be the reichtag or they’re still trying to distract from like the Epstein files or some crap.
It’s to drum up ‘Antifa is a terrorist organization , and anyone we don’t like is a member’ support. And it’s working.
Like every thing else they do, the truth doesn’t matter.
And about the school shootings that happened that day? Not a single tear.
Both.
fuckin… felt
They’ll be distracting from the Epstein files for a long damn time. Possibly because I suspect that we’ll never know the truth.
I don’t think there’s any credible evidence that’s been released suggesting he’s far-right. The groyper thing was a misidentification of the markings on the bullet casings.
I don’t think there’s any doubt he’s a right-winger, but him being further right than Kirk is unsubstantiated.
“Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds” will never not be correct.
“News article titled A New Democratic Think Tank Wants to Curb the Influence of Liberal Groups, published September 17, 2025, in The New York Times by Reid J. Epstein. The article explains that the Searchlight Institute, led by Adam Jentleson, aims to persuade Democrats to play down issues like climate change and LGBTQ rights to appeal to more voters. A color photo beneath shows five people standing outdoors: Cam Thompson, Charlotte Swasey, Adam Jentleson (center), Tré Easton, and Danielle Deiseroth.”
“The folks who are most to blame about Trump are the ones who pushed Democrats to take indefensible positions,” Mr. Jentleson said in an interview Tuesday, citing a series of positions Kamala Harris took in 2019 before walking back many of them once she became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.
It’s almost impressive how exactly wrong he manages to be for money. He’s like the Chris Rufo of Neoliberalism 🤬
The folks who are most to blame about Trump are the ones who pushed Democrats to take indefensible positions
So the pro-Israel lobby
Describing equality and science as indefensible positions is the most neoliberal thing I’ve ever heard in my life
Particularly after an election in which it was made clear that the party was unwilling to abandon genocide support.
That’s what an indefensible position looks like.
Well, how many Nazis like them? None?
See? Indefensible.
The number of liberals engaging in hagiography of a dead nazi is the least surprising thing ever.
So many headlines of celebs doing stuff like this and they all feel forced and fake, or at the very least detached from reality. Are they going to start singing “Imagine” again?
Reality is that the assassination is being used to justify oppression and hasn’t done anything at all to help causes Kirk opposed. Far less people would be lamenting if this were just a normal death of natural causes (incl. the healthcare system, even) instead of a political assassination.
the assassination is being used to justify oppression
protests are clearly not assassinations. Kirk was shot doing a similar kind of political gathering and I wouldn’t shoot a Nazi protestor either
If liberals were lamenting that Charlie Kirk was turned into a martyr even though he was one of the biggest pieces of shit on this space rock, I would accept and respect that. Instead they are all “he was a Christian”, “he was a family man”, “he was a man of faith”, “please send love to his family”. Meanwhile his widow, who’s rich as fuck already, is milking his followers with Go Fund Me campaigns.
I am genuinely disgusted by how everyone, left and right, is s constantly being taken advantage of…but that’s for a different post.
To be clear, this is the playbook they’re using
Anyone being assassinated for political views, no matter how bad said views were, elicits sympathy automatically due to the long-term effects of political assassinations when there isn’t an uprising going on. I don’t see what’s wrong with that, and confirmation bias finding additional “things” to have flimsier sympathies for is a thing. Also, “he was a Christian/man of faith” is something I only hear Christians say.
With how you put it, it sounds like the problem wasn’t Kirk being assassinated. It’s that there weren’t more politically motivated deaths in a similar time frame, otherwise known as an “uprising” that would have normalized it.
I think you’re on to something.
Yeah, I’d support a movement led by someone I agree with that would set back the oppression by more than a few months. (“agree with” would include minimizing innocent casualties and stuff.) Though Kirk would be one of the weirdest targets, so they better have a good explanation for the efficacy.
Or the political killing of someone other than a god damn nazi–like the multiple school shootings that day.
and hasn’t done anything at all to help causes Kirk opposed
Why the fuck would it? It wasn’t intended to in the first place!
I’m starting to feel like I’m taking crazy pills, seeing so many people who should know better act as if the assassination was somehow intended to be for the benefit of the left even though it was a right-wing nutjob who did it.
if true, doesn’t that just prove my point that the assassination is nothing to celebrate?
Removed by mod
I just learned that he received a standing ovation in MY Canadian Parliament. JFC…
Are you telling me that liberal elites alienated from violence are shocked that someone would want a white man dead?
It’s insane. It’s really not that hard to say “no comment”.
so why did they all come out of the woodwork
on the day the nazi diedthe number of people who don’t care about political assassinations just happening left and right (in both senses) is too damn low
political assassinations just happening left and right (in both senses)
They’re not, though. They’re literally only happening by the right.
here’s the thing. they’re not happening left and right by the left and right. the political right dominates the violence based terrorism and assassination space. to imply otherwise is to run cover for them.
I am sure some of it is virtue signaling, or at least people restraining themselves from saying what they really think to not be cancelled or whatever. Prominent figures do still need to worry about censoring themselves so they maintain their platform, or at the very least that they aren’t easily strawmanned by taking them out of context.
But I think most of it is sincere anyway. You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn’t mean you want them to be publicly gunned down. Because even if they behave in such a way that befits some sort of karmic retribution, you recognize a punishment can be overly cruel and not justified by the associated “crime”.
And honestly, you could even coldheartedly criticise the strategy of it. Killing someone like this makes them a martyr and gives them and their cause a great deal of public sympathy. They are immediately cemented in the public consciousness and forever added as a historical figure instead of simply becoming forgettable when their influence wanes. Before this, me and my friends would probably recognize the name Charlie Kirk but wouldn’t know much else about him. But now it’s given everything he’s said a lot more attention to us and others and made it harder to be able to criticize things he said that really do deserve a lot of criticism.
In the political commentary I’ve listened to, it’s like there’s a feeling of winning on a technicality, or by cheating, or something similar. You did not beat him in the marketplace of ideas and have been robbed of the opportunity of ever doing so. If it is indeed a victory, then it is a hollow one.
You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn’t mean you want them to be publicly gunned down.
No, no, no. Stop this. He was a horrible person, I’m glad he was gunned down, and he deserved to be gunned down.
Look, if he did some actually criminal shit that I don’t know about, he should have been arrested, tried, and sentenced accordingly. That would have been justice. An individual simply choosing to kill him is murder from a vendetta. No accountability. No argument for others as to why he deserved it. It means he can’t be made into an example of a villain that we overcame as a society. He is instead made into a victim, so him and everything associated with him is treated with sympathy it should never have.
But as far as I know, he was hated for spreading ignorant shit ideas. Those can’t be defeated with a gun, and that is the real danger he represented. Bad ideas need to be identified as such to establish the person giving them as ignorant and not worth listening to. Gunning him down like this bolsters his arguments instead of dismantling them.
Celebrating the murder legitimizes it as a valid response for saying things that people don’t like, and that’s a dangerous precedent for anyone trying to change the state of things for the better.
