Journal of Other Forum Analysis (Volume II, Issue 2)

[HardcoreRetro]

The worst part about this assassination is that it's distracting from the new Nintendo Direct and Mario's 40th anniversary. 

Mario didn't deserve this.

[NekoFever]

Charlie Kirk was an asshole provocateur and I won’t mourn him

People shouldn’t be killed for their political views

The killer should be apprehended and prosecuted

Disgusting centrism?

[NekoFever]

The Era post about “jewnazis” remains unactioned btw

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-6#post-144961614

  User Banned (Permanent): Troll account

This thread is fucking gross

The left as just as psychopathic as the right. People celebrating death are fucking insane.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-25#post-144965775

 User banned (permanent): Homophobia, hostility

Yeah the amount of people in here trying to stand up for a known PoS that wanted LGBTQ people either ejected from society or killed while also vigorously aupporting gun rights in spite of numerous mass shootings is indeed repulsive.

It's almost like even bad people shouldn't be murdered. Anyhow, you're all acting even worse than the MAGA idiots. You guys deserve each other.

All of you celebrating violence can eat a whole bag of dicks.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-102#post-144989226

 User banned (permanent): Troll account

You Americans are too far gone when you're celebrating.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-142#post-145019517

 User Banned (Permanent): Troll account

I get what you're saying, but I'll never show empathy for a Nazi. Not to take away from your message because I would agree with you except in an instance like this.

Thank you for being one of the few who had anywhere close to a reasonable, calm response to me simply advocating for humans to show kindness toward each other and doing their best to avoid circles of violence and hatred.

I was shocked I got this much vitriol thrown at me for what was a pacifist comment where I didn't show a single hint of hate toward anybody. Literally people assuming a variety of awful things about me simply because I chose to show empathy for another human being's death (not their rhetoric or political career).

not caring about someone's death is not morally equivalent to advocating for someone's death

Dropping to Charlie Kirk's level would be being a white Christian nationalist.

My message wasn't just about Kirk's death. It was about the argument used by the person I quoted. I've seen this type of mentality all across humanity and it never leads to anything good. It leads to more violence and violence doesn't end until one side chooses to take the high road despite having good reasons to want to keep the violence going. That or extreme casualties on one side forcing a surrender.

In all fairness, that's how most of the country has been acting over the past 10 years. Look where that got everyone.

What does this mean exactly? Your country has been divided for a while and this type of rhetoric (like Kirk's) was an on-going affair.

Karl Popper

You, along with a few others, seem to have completely missed my point. I never said to be tolerant of incredibly intolerant individuals. I said that as an individual you should not replicate what awful human beings do as this totally takes away from what are you supposed to represent. You can fight them without resorting to violence.

Charlie Kirk would have roasted you alive for such "weakness". He despised empathy and ridiculed the empathetic. If he was still alive you would disgust him. You don't need to shed a tear for someone who would have made Mr Rogers sick to his stomach.

Good thing I don't care about what Charlie Kirk would have thought of me. I don't "do" things based on what others think of me. I stay true to my humanity and to my own principles. It seems that you also misunderstood my message, as I pointed out that even if Kirk didn't believe in empathy... I do. That is the point.

The only way to be better than someone is to beat them.

We're where we're at right now because we turned the other cheek.

This type of victim mentality has invited a lot of our problems now, starting from Reconstruction. It's our fault too and we have to take accountability for that

Beat them, yes. Kill them, no.

No. These people demanding we just come to the
centre and maybe we can talk logically and they'll realise the error of their ways is historically abused to no end as a tool to beat down whomever it is they're targeting at the time.

It's the paradox of intolerance, unless and until these people are slapped down with what can only be considered an iron fist, they'll continue taking more and more, abusing more and more of the people they consider lesser than them, and they will never stop. It's as pointless as hoping Putin just goes "Oh shucks" and tells everyone to leave Ukraine and come back to Moscow for a nice tea. It's not going to happen, and every moment spent hoping it will is one they will capitalise on.

At several protests I attended in Germany, people made signs "Make Nazis afraid again", and until that happens, fascism, thanks to people like Kirk, will continue to grow unabated. It doesn't have to be, and yeah, probably shouldn't be murder, but these are the same people who have dreamed of this future for America, and it's about time it came knocking at one of their doors rather than an innocent school's.

I just want you to understand that this is the same type of rhetoric I hear all over social media from the other side. Are we just condemned to hatred and violence on both sides?

That high ground really doesn't mean shit if the other side is actively trying to kill you and advocates for your demise daily.

Like, I'm not advocating for anyone to kill anyone, but Kirk dealt in hatred and bigotry and calls for violence and he met a violent end. If there is anything after this life, I hope he has no rest, and no peace.

Principles, empathy, and humanity do mean something. When you abandon yours, there's not much left beside brute force.

Maybe Charlie should have tried this instead of spewing hate and violent rhetoric? Now, he's either been killed by another hateful member of his own hate group, or someone he instilled fear in. 🤷‍♂️

He should have. He'd probably be alive if he did. You understand this is my point, right? We should do better and be better.

Some can, many cannot. Kirk could not.

That's a sad statement. I will always choose to believe that most of humanity is capable of being kind. Divisions, tribalism, and echo chambers tend to lead to more and more hatred toward those who aren't "on one side". Talking to each other peacefully, with an open mind, is how humanity will always manage to be able to avoid wars and violence.

I love humans, but when events like these happen, some terrible things get said out of emotion. Even a pacifist message like I put above is responded to with anger.

In your sanctimonious attempt to try to feel better than others, you said not having empathy for a Nazi is stooping to Nazi levels.

For this statement, I greatly ask you to shut the fuck up about politics for the rest of your life. Clock In and Out your job and take care of your family. Do not ever talk about any political subject again in your life.

Shutting the fuck up is free.

I don't even know what to respond to this. I pointed out that you should never go eye for an eye, because that is what makes the whole world blind. If that's sanctimonious, I don't know what you'd have called people like Gandhi, MLK, and so on.
Just imagine with me for a minute. A bunch of neutral people read this thread, see a guy call for people to use their better nature and not devolve into doing exactly what they criticize the other side for doing. Said guy gets insulted and gets vitriol thrown at him by a bunch of other people. What conclusion do you think these neutral readers come to?

I mean…just no. We're better off living in a world where the figurehead of TPUSA (essentially MAGA 2.0) is fucking dead. He's done irreparable damage to youth politics and quite literally is a big reason why people are as divided as they are.

We probably are better overall without Kirk in the world, but that wasn't the point of my message.

I understand that you want empathy to win out the day, I too wish it could, but in reality I know that no amount of showing love or empathy to any Nazi on earth is going to change this shit. The only way these facist fucks learn is by being pushed back into the shadows by better people making choices they should never be forced to make and that's not going to happen when the facists have a monopoly on the use of force while even those not directly using force but just celebrating a Nazi getting his comeuppance get policed for not showing empathy.

That is not the world we live in, it isn't the world my grandad lived in and it isn't the world anyone who has faced facist rule has ever lived in. Empathy will not stop them, trying to take the high road won't stop them. There comes a time where those who wish to seek a higher road have to come to terms with the fact that those on the lower one do not care to hear our requests that things be better, that they don't want to see our empathy as a strength but as a weakness to exploit and the only way that changes is by forcing them to accept they are weaker, they aren't the only ones who can use force and that they are vastly outnumbered by those who want a better world if they force us to do so.

Do you realize that on the other side they have these same arguments? They think of you the same way and they justify themselves in the same way? How do we get out of this cycle where a bunch of people on both sides hate each other and constantly demonize each other?

Being "better" has done us no good and has eroded the progress millions fought for over the decades. Treat fascists like fascists and put them back in hiding like they were before Trump. The openness and publicity of MAGA is an afront to humanity, being "better" is to shut them out.

Being better is defeating their arguments with our arguments, and gaining the majority to be on our side so that people like Trump never get elected again. That's how we do it. Not by killing the people on the other side or by cheering or mocking them when they get killed.

I don't understand how so many people don't realize that they are doing exactly the same thing that they criticize the other side of doing. Take yourself out of the perspective that you are right about everything you believe in for a second, and think about the fact that there are humans on the other side too. Shouldn't your goal be to work them and convince them to agree with you? All of it without resorting to violence, as we know very well that violence only begets more violence, and nobody wins then because people on both sides suffer and die.

What leads to political violence is fundamentally the acceptance of the existence of oppressors, that certain people should have authority over the monopolization of violence while all others must submit to these arbitrary and dehumanizing conditions placed upon them. It's a lack of recognition that people will inevitably resist oppression in the ways that they see fit.

What you and others do by flattening the context of what has happened as just another incident in an amorphous "cycle of violence" with no beginning or end is that you completely strip away the agency of oppressors and those aligned with oppressors to have any sort of accountability to not engage in oppression. You see what is ostensibly self-defense as the exact same thing as assault. You have no meaningful interest in actually getting to the root of the issue, to determine fault much less recompense; your only interest is in that you are not made uncomfortable when power is finally dealt a blow similar but not at all comparable in scale to the violence it doles out daily to our homeless, our incarcerated, our poor, and our colonized. It is not only apoor, elementary level of analysis to complain about a "cycle of violence" when a Nazi dies; it is fundamentally unethical and un-human.

Every single one of you who comes in here to complain about "violence" are fundamentally enemies of the oppressed and frankly I'd wish you would go to Reddit and cry about this so-called tragedy instead along with the folks mourning him, folks who also agreed with Charlie that shooting deaths are "the price to pay" for "freedom."

Except the other side think that WE are oppressing them. How do you resolve a debate where both sides think they are correct? Certainly not with violence, right? Shouldn't one of the very first steps be for EVERYONE to be able to put themselves in the shoes of the people on the other side and try to come to some sort of understanding? Why is it that when I just mention that humans should be kind with each other and that we shouldn't cheer or be content with violent acts, I get vitriol thrown at me on a gaming forum?

I have debated the right wing for years now and have often been in situations where I was 1 against 20 or more disagreeing individuals. Why are you, and some others in this thread, automatically putting me in a box because of a single post I made that didn't perfectly align with your perspective on the approach to take toward people who disagree with us? This is incredibly disappointing.

And, by the way, I never said that we should just accept the presence of oppressors. Fighting them is important. With your words, with your arguments, with your actions every day. Not with violence.

no they cannot. my friend. just look around.

Most people I know in real life, on both sides of the asile, are capable of kindness. It's in these online spheres where the most vitriol is being thrown. Some people seem to have an easier time detaching from the fact that the individuals they are speaking to are also humans.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-143#post-145020165

 User Banned (Permanent): Troll account

Do you know what they have already been doing?

People of your ilk don't seem to comprehend that things can get worse than they are now. How many of you had this same belief during Trump's first term?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-166#post-145037358

 User Banned (2 Weeks): Ableist Rhetoric

There are some fucktards trying to say folks are misquoting his 2A gun death stance.

I watched it.

He literally says, "I think it's worth it."

How on fucking Earth can you say someone is misquoting or missing the point? He says very clearly that gun deaths are worth it.

I'd love to know if his wife and kids think 2A is worth it

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-166#post-145037448

 User Banned (Permanent): Troll Account

I've been reading through the whole thread, and can someone please explain why everyone here seems so overjoyed that he was killed?

[Besticus Maximus]

I’ve been reliable informed by visawife and Jeff that social democrats are nazis too

[Taco Bell Tower]

"I'm not going to buy GoY!  I'll buy it used or play it when it's on Plus!"

Morons, you're still supporting SP 

[benji]

Nothing says a troll account like earnestly replying to all the people attacking you for saying something most audiences would find unremarkable in its obviousness.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/kamala-harris-says-biden%E2%80%99s-decision-to-run-again-was-%E2%80%9Crecklessness%E2%80%9D.1293567/page-4#post-144979365

Her legacy is one of enabling genocide and making statements like "I'm Speaking!" while she is facing protest for such enablement while her morally reprehensible supporters cheered her on and put fingers between their ears as names of killed Palestinian children were read aloud.

She is not much better than hitler. If there was any justice in the world, her and Biden would be behind bars for supporting and financially and militarily abetting gross human rights violations.

Edit:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/kamala-harris-says-biden%E2%80%99s-decision-to-run-again-was-%E2%80%9Crecklessness%E2%80%9D.1293567/page-4#post-145004949

Nah. Seriously, get a grip and maybe read up on WW2. The whole thing.

I am looking at criminal and gross human rights violations resulting in a genocide which both hitler and kamala are culpable of. I am not comparing scale of the tragedies.

Kamala as second in command directly enabled the killing of thousands of children from acute malnutrition, point blank shots to the head, buried under rubble, and more. The ones who live are a shell of what they were. There is no forgiving. There is no forgetting. Kamala and biden are the embodiment of evil in human form, much like hitler was during his time, even if the scale of what they've done isn't comparable. May they all burn in hell for eternity.

Banned somewhere, but I can't find it.

[Nintex]

I guess playing the YMCA on repeat did not work

[Boredfrom]

Man, SaturnBomberman had potential of becoming a big insane Nintendie, all of that cut short.

[Hap Shaughnessy]

The worst part of Kirk's shooter being white is that it's unlikely that he's named Khan.

[benji]

Nah you're not. He wouldn't give a fuck if it happened to you so you shouldn't give him a second thought.

I wasn't a fan of Kirk, but this type of logic/reasoning is what leads to unending circles of conflict/war. You have to be better than the other side or else you can never take the moral high ground on anything and you will bring about more pain for the future generations.

While it's understandable to hate/dislike someone who hates/dislikes you, the best and most human thing to do is to not drop down to their level. Show them, and everyone else, that there is a better way.

Kirk might not have believed in empathy, but I do. So, RIP Charlie. I'm so tired of the violence we see in our world. Can't humans just treat each other with kindness?

What leads to political violence is fundamentally the acceptance of the existence of oppressors, that certain people should have authority over the monopolization of violence while all others must submit to these arbitrary and dehumanizing conditions placed upon them. It's a lack of recognition that people will inevitably resist oppression in the ways that they see fit.

What you and others do by flattening the context of what has happened as just another incident in an amorphous "cycle of violence" with no beginning or end is that you completely strip away the agency of oppressors and those aligned with oppressors to have any sort of accountability to not engage in oppression. You see what is ostensibly self-defense as the exact same thing as assault. You have no meaningful interest in actually getting to the root of the issue, to determine fault much less recompense; your only interest is in that you are not made uncomfortable when power is finally dealt a blow similar but not at all comparable in scale to the violence it doles out daily to our homeless, our incarcerated, our poor, and our colonized. It is not only apoor, elementary level of analysis to complain about a "cycle of violence" when a Nazi dies; it is fundamentally unethical and un-human.

Every single one of you who comes in here to complain about "violence" are fundamentally enemies of the oppressed and frankly I'd wish you would go to Reddit and cry about this so-called tragedy instead along with the folks mourning him, folks who also agreed with Charlie that shooting deaths are "the price to pay" for "freedom."

You see what is ostensibly self-defense as the exact same thing as assault.

Do you think she knows what "ostensibly" means?

[Boredfrom]

Wasn’t Reddit more or less in the same page as ERA?

[Boredfrom]

What leads to political violence is fundamentally the acceptance of the existence of oppressors, that certain people should have authority over the monopolization of violence while all others must submit to these arbitrary and dehumanizing conditions placed upon them. It's a lack of recognition that people will inevitably resist oppression in the ways that they see fit

Does she understand that this could be used to justify stuff like Israel actions against Gaza? I mean, from their point of view, they are the oppressed and surrounded by a region hostile to them.

[benji]

Might as well see what else she's educated us about in that thread:

I think it's missing the point to focus on the valorization being had by conservative losers on Facebook in lieu of the fact that commentators on even centrist news stations are getting fired for calling him a bad person, and that ostensibly liberal and even "leftist" politicians like Obama and Bernie had any type of eulogy ready to go.

Kirk was nothing more than another tool of American capitalistic hegemony, but that made his life worth more than the children shot in school on the same day to even the people we believed were or are on our side.

Like, if the writing wasn't on the wall that not just the character of the electorate but the powers that be are ultimately for white supremacy, then it should be now and you should adjust accordingly. Stop being distracted by whinging Facebook accounts and look at the bigger picture.

I personally think that's a reductive take of the big picture. The media's whitewashing of a white supremacist speaks a great deal for the uncritical tolerance his views are given. But I expect they're largely motivated by fear of repercussions in this current political climate. As for politicians like Obama and Bernie - they surely believe that change is possible without political violence and, as such, condemn any political violence on principle. Whether that's true or not is a matter of opinion. But it surely doesn't suggest they're for white supremacy.

I don't think traditional media is primarily motivated by fear of backlash from conservatives because A) fundamentally American media is privatized and thus will always back up the ruling narratives of the party in power, and B) Most gun violence is horizontal and thus doesn't actually touch politicians or powerful media figures to any notable degree to begin with, hence why in part Kirk's statistically non-zero chance of dying from gunfire on American soil was nonetheless so shocking to folks compared to the school shooting that same day. He was an "untouchable" that got touched.

As for Obama and Bernie, I don't think they're like card-carrying KKK members. But I do think that they are beholden to norms of decorum that are undermined by the foundation and engine of violence that keep America functioning, of which white supremacy is inextricably tied to. Saying "violence is not acceptable" is a lie. It is acceptable. It is why this country exists and it's why it maintains its position on the world stage. America is not only internally violent but exports violence worldwide in spades whether we're talking about our coups or even just our violent media; pacifism as a principle in the context of American politicking then is fundamentally absurd under a material lens. They should be more specific and honest then and say that Kirk's overt white supremacy should not have been met with a bullet to the neck, which in turn is also absurd given not just facile refutations of overt white supremacy in our media landscape where "punching/killing Nazis" is acceptable visage, but it's also absurd given what minorities have historically had to do to survive their colonization.

So while Democrats may not necessarily be Nazis (although honestly, lol, they'll bolster police and forces like ICE to jail and kill more Black and Brown people in a heartbeat), they support the conditions that allow Nazism to thrive, hence why I say this should be the moment for people to adjust accordingly.

Lamenting the US's current political climate is not the same as mourning for Kirk. He was a hateful, vicious bigot.

That dude says "RIP Charlie," so yes he was mourning him.

Regardless, the US' current political climate is what happens when oppressors are allowed to get away with overt dehumanization with no meaningfully material pushback.

For decades, this country has allowed bigots into our schools, our news stations, our social media outlets, our workplaces, our communities, and our political systems. This country wanted these people to have a platform under the mistaken notion that they could be defeated in the "marketplace of ideas," a fundamentally stupid notion. This country wagged its finger at minorities whenever they responded in kind and in purpose to being called slurs. This country told people to vote for politicians who'd no sooner throw them in the same fucking camps and jails as the other party.

The US has fucking tolerated fascism at every single turn it could because it fundamentally agrees with its tenets of hierarchical supremacy in the pursuit of continued economic and military might on a planet whose ecosystems we need to survive are collapsing as a result of those same ideals.

Now the chickens are coming home to roost and white conservatives are getting got too. Fuck 'em, and fuck the liberals who dragged us along to this point on a leash under the guise of characterizing radicalization, organization, and defense against fascism as uncouth, unbecoming, unpopular, and unethical. Fuck that. It is not an act of hate to fight fascism.

If your lamentation of a violent world comes in the wake of a Nazi being killed, then you are shedding tears at the wrong time and place. It's like crying when Scar was eaten by hyenas. Most people are not adding the context you are that regrets Charlie being allowed to make the world a worse place. They are equivocating his death as equal to the deaths he caused and championed. Again, this is fundamentally dehumanizing behavior and it should be stricken from the discourse of those genuinely seeking a liberated world.

The books "This Non-Violent Stuff Will Get You Killed" by Charles E. Cobb Jr. and "We Will Shoot Back: Armed Resistance in the Mississippi Freedom Movement" by Akinyele Omowale Umoja should be required reading for every white liberal, especially those who wag their fingers at minority groups for daring to stand up for (and arming) themselves in the face of oppression.

Agreed. Both of these are also on my reading list once I get through with Let This Radicalize You, but We Will Shoot Back was the basis for a great video essay on Black armed resistance during Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement by lil bill (who you all need to subscribe to):

Huge stretch to say that what was done here was "ostensibly self-defense." If you erase the distinction between rhetorical/structural harm and physical violence, then you've effectively opened the door to justifying the murder of anyone whose politics you despise. The endgame of this philosophy is just endless civil war and factional blood feuds, and there are good reasons why every functioning society has laws against it.

I don't know who the murderer was nor their motive.

I do know that Nazism is not something that should be tolerated in a context of liberation. If you want to tolerate it because you believe tolerating state violence and white supremacy is somehow the path to peace, that's your prerogative.

However, you're also doing the thing that Nazis do and stripping out the specificity of my words because I have a point, where my argument goes from "cycles of violence on a political scale do not exist because there is always an oppressor violating the oppressed for material reasons" becomes "you want to kill people you don't like."

I'm not falling for it. Go to the conservative Reddit and join in the lamentations and mourning of Charlie "empathy is a made up word" Kirk. Go on, now. Shoo.

White people have always thought they were being actively oppressed or a hair's breadth away from suffering from the same oppression they gleefully wrought upon Africans because they have the collective historical knowledge and sociopolitical context of a catfish, which is by design. "If we free them, they'll do the same thing to us!" It clearly hasn't borne out in the centuries we've been over this shit and frankly it can't be borne out because even if every African on the planet wanted their get-back, it won't and cannot happen because the cultures and material conditions are not the same in order for "reverse racism" to occur. It's a conspiracy. White genocide isn't real.

So I am not interested in entertaining bigots who nonetheless genuinely fear retribution due to their own fucking ignorance, latent hatred, lack of interest in freedom for all and inability to not project themselves onto other groups in the same way I'm not interested in entertaining conspiratorial weirdos who think the Earth is flat. I don't believe giving emotional or academic weight to stupid-ass analysis and delusion. Truth is truth. Lies are lies. Oppression and exploitation are evil. End of story.

I also don't believe in entertaining vague platitudes that serve to distract from the overarching issues of society and once again downplay systems of injustice. This type of feckless, spineless liberalism, an appeal to order over liberation, is partly why we're here in this state.

"We need to come together." Come together over what? Specify the values and goals with which we need to come together over.

"You should put yourself in the shoes of the other side." What makes you think I don't understand whiteness when I have lived in a white supremacist society for 35 years? Furthermore, even if I was stupid and did not know a single thing about whiteness despite this lived experience, what is up be gained for the Black person to emphathize with the white person? Why are we, once again, equating rendering oppressiom with being oppressed? Why are you flattening the issues?

Stop equating the meaningless feelings of oppressors with the struggles of the oppressed. Stop complaining that some of the oppressed are not reciprocal to your whimsical fairy tales that we can out-debate white supremacy while they continue to kill us. Stop whining that your paltry appeals to order and peace in a system built upon and continuing to run on genocide, slavery, and exploitation are not being received as liberatory or revolutionary by me.

You are a charlatan, a fox, a swindler, a Pied Piper ready to lead the oppressed into the meat grinder just so you can sleep at night knowing that they weren't able to defend themselves, and you too can go to the conservative Reddit and share in the mourning of people who believed Charlie Kirk's death was unprecedented and unfair in a world that he advocated to be as gun violent as possible. I'm not entertaining your fucking bullshit any longer than this post. I mean it.

EDIT: Wait, 47 messages? Fuck you for wasting time on my off day.

The truth, or even the idea of waiting for the truth, has no purpose in the era of social media, algorithmically reinforcing content, and AI fakes. A newspaper waiting several days to confirm details of a story is given equal weight to a random and anonymous twitter user making shit up.

The alt-right pre-eptively decide at the start who the shooter was and what their motivation, and social media drills that belief into dogma long before actual evidence has a chance to come out. Narratives are pre-existing and just need to be re-fueled, with "facts", "evidence", and talking points being made up as needed.

Anything that disagrees or pushes back against their narrative gets ignored, and they can make up whatever they want if they don't have enough crumbs to cobble together.

While true, it also reinforces the meaninglessness underpinning the movement and should- in theory- further accelerate direct action and organization against them, as a movement cannot stand without a material basis. If your opponent is not only not interested in what you have to say, but is not interested in basic reality if it doesn't conform in some way to their base desires and beliefs- if they just want a hugbox- then that further renders sincere engagement with these people a waste of time. That then frees up time to shore up defense against the actual material actions they plan on taking as influenced by the delusion. If we think they're about to go after trans people over this uncomfirmed narrative (not that they needed a pretense because, again, they are fascist transphobes, and fascist transphobes don't actually need a reason to go off) then we need to treat that as a threat and act accordingly within our communities to bolster community care and refuge.

Charlie Kirk was, of course, not a Nazi and was not an avatar of Nazism. You'd think a person lecturing others about not "flattening the context" into something "amorphous" would know that not all racism or white supremacy or bigotry or evil is Nazism. That there are evils in the world beyond Nazism.

[Tektonic]

The worst part of Kirk's shooter being white is that it's unlikely that he's named Khan.

[Boredfrom]

Maybe I was wrong in saying she doesn’t try anymore because:

Go on, now. Shoo.

And 

 EDIT: Wait, 47 messages? Fuck you for wasting time on my off day.

These posts are peak Nepenthe.

[benji]

And while we're reading the theory:

Literally no one is concerned for the farmers' sake, we are for the rest of the country who will be even further affected by their stupidity. It's harm reduction. The lesser of 2 evils in this case is rooting for a bailout.

Let's ignore the original meaning of "harm reduction" for the sake of this conversation:

What process did you use to determine that bailing them out will be a net positive for society as a whole? How is giving these soybean farmers money affecting healthcare or Indigenous genocide or all the chemical spills? What does this mean in the grand scheme of things?

Primarily because the options available are "farmers go out of business negatively impacting prices for all Americans", whether that be through trickling down affects of less domestic soy or from further monopolization of agriculture, and "government bails them out and we kick the can down the road".

It's not "farmers go out of business;" it's "some soybean farmers go out of business," which- considering they make a product that we only eat about less than 2g of a day- doesn't square as being a significant impact on our economy.

Furthermore, prices on everything are already negatively impacted considering the overall economic conditions of not just the tariffs, repealing of social and healthcare safety nets, our involvement in wars and genocides etc., but the macro picture of this country being a dying, hyper-capitalist empire wherein billionaires would rather kill us all than actually make a functioning and more humane system. How would a few soybean farmers going out of business significantly impact this trend more to the point that direct intervention is necessary? What about our jails? What about healthcare? What about Gaza? Why don't those deserve direct intervention before these farmers?

Again, what was your analytical framework and knowledge base used to dictate that farmers are the keystone of price levels in American society? Like, why should my Black ass give a shit?

All of those deserve direct intervention before farmers! You are not saying anything I disagree with so your hostility feels misplaced.

I'm not being hostile. I haven't yelled (well, as far as you can yell with text, lol) nor insulted you.

I'm literally asking a question about your thought process, which is what analysis and data did you use to determine that bailing out soybean farmers will result in "harm reduction" for American society as a whole?

Supporting questions to this are: How would the lack of soybeans affect American diets? What other industries are affected by American soybeans? Are these related industries necessary to the functioning of American life? What other substitutes or mitigating factors would offset the failure of these farms? To what extent are soybean crops necessary for the American economy to begin with? Do we need to grow these soybeans to the extent that we do?

Basically, I'm just trying to figure out how you confidently concluded that rescuing soy bean farmers will undoubtedly be less harmful to Americans than letting them go out of business.

If the answer is you didn't do any of this work, that you just thought that "more farmers in business > less farmers in business," then just say that's the answer lol.

Ok so it came across as hostile because you brought up a bunch of talking points that were unrelated to the topic that I never said nor implied.

It's primarily on the idea that monopolization of any and all industry is bad under our capitalism and that these farms will be taken over by larger farms that will further exacerbate this problem. I don't think there would be much an impact on industries or diets at all. A bigger farm will swoop in and "save" the soy bean, at a cost to us all because capitalism doesn't work for free.

The other "talking points" I brought up are things that I feel are extremely important to the state of society but in which I don't see a direct relationship with the existence of American soybean farms. If they were to go out of business, for example, how would my healthcare be impacted? It probably wouldn't, right, unless, like, you could demonstrate soybeans are outright necessary to the production of medical equipment and medications or something. But that level of direct analysis hasn't occurred yet, and it's what I'm asking for.

Also, soybean farms getting monopolized is a different argument from soybean farms going out of business. However, our food system is already monopolized and beset with misinformation and horrible food safety and prep standards. So the question remains despite this change in argument: how would the monopolization of soybean farms specifically result in a net negative in current American society as a whole?

Basically, I'm trying to ask how would most Americans lives be made worse from this considering the rest of the bullshit going on?

I guess I don't see the farms going out of business as a different argument from getting monopolized, because it's the cause and effect of the same event. The farms will go out of business and be bought out.

The price of soy goes up, which is what vegetable oil is made from among many other things. Many soy farms also grow wheat and corn. I don't think it's a stretch to say prices for many foods will go up. I don't think it's worth arguing over how much prices will go up by, no one can know obviously. But it will absolutely have an impact on our grocery bills that are already impacted. You may be correct in saying that it won't have a "significant" impact over what is already happening, but it will have an impact and it is avoidable at this juncture.

My argument isn't that it will have no impact; everything has an impact.

I'm questioning how you specifically measure that the impact will either not be offset, overtaken, or compounded by other factors in society. If food prices go up in the future, will it be because these soybean farms don't exist independently anymore, or because of further degradation of trade deals and relationships, or the cost of gas inevitably increasing, or changing American tastes and palates, or conflict with Iran, or increasing costs on other industries, or climate change, or billionaires just fixing prices because they know they can get away with it, or all of these things and more?

Again, how have you determined- given all of the innumerable factors and changing variables in society and the natural world that affect prices- that these soybean farms are such a keystone issue that they must absolutely be saved?

If "monopolization is bad under capitalism" isn't enough, then there's nothing else to say.

EditedToAdd "under capitalism" because I'm absolutely down for nationalizing most industry

Forget monopolization; capitalism in general is bad. It's a fundamentally imperial, supremacist, and exploitative system that needs to be dismantled.

This is why I'm not convinced by your analysis, or lack thereof. You have yet to acknowledge the actual scope of the issues at hand, and as such how can anyone be certain that you've done the legwork to conclude that monopolization of soybean farms is such a net negative for society as a whole that, again, we must (as in, we are obligated) to intervene?

Once again, I agree. And given we have capitalism, monopolization of farms is bad.

Again, saying something is bad is a different argument than saying it will have a net negative outcome on society. One is a statement in isolation and another requires analysis of the whole context surrounding the thing in question, the latter of which you've yet to demonstrate.

Pain is "bad," for example. I would not then go on to use this argument that "surgery is bad because it causes pain."

This is all regardless of the fact that monopolization is a different argument than the one you started with, and I'd like you to at least acknowledge that.

I mean, I have already told you that they are the cause and effect of the same event. Farmers going out of business = further monopolization of farming. Perhaps I was unclear initially, but I'm pretty sure I addressed this very early.

These aren't actually equivalent though. A business going under ceases operations. A business being monopolized continues business under new management. These have different impacts on society.

Either these farms will cease to exist and we'll have less soybeans, or these farms will continue to exist under new management at which point little to nothing changes for the average American who is already subject to poor economic conditions regardless of the state of these farms.

Again, you keep making the argument that "thing bad" without demonstrating how this negative qualitative state has a net negative impact on society as a whole without considering extenuating circumstances and factors. There is no data or overarching argument here. Just vibes.

Like, give me a simple syllogism on how my average lower-class American existence will be made worse by not saving these farms.

I'll gladly discuss the topic if we want to take a different approach than aggressive questioning and building strawmen about things I'm not saying. I engaged more than enough in good faith.

My questioning wasn't aggressive. I was trying to get you to break down your analytical process or the data with which you used to come to the conclusion you did. Asking you to substantiate your thinking isn't an attack.

Why don't the American people simply take a soybean, leave a soybean?  

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Do you think she'd allow someone to demand she demonstrate how eliminating all of society without anything concrete and superior to replace it would not be a net negative for society?

[Potato]

35 years of age. 

[benji]

The worst part of Kirk's shooter being white is that it's unlikely that he's named Khan.

Nice try, but we know it wasn't Khan because merely shooting him wouldn't have been good enough:

Khan: I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her: marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... buried alive...

[benji]

[PogiJones]

Do you think she knows

no

Does she understand

no

[benji]

Next you'll tell me she doesn't truly realize she said that it's not just acceptable but ethical to murder people who say things you don't like or that she stopped just short of saying Democrats are Nazis too.

[PogiJones]

Next you'll tell me she doesn't truly realize

correct

[benji]

Next you'll tell me she doesn't truly realize

correct

You sound like somebody who doesn't watch a lot of Bluey.

[DocWager]

Benji has a week to clean up, and potentially replace Kirk on the “America Comeback Tour”.

[Besticus Maximus]

Isn’t it simply amazing how wise nepenthe is considering she only learned how to swallow things in her middle age

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jerry-seinfeld-shows-his-true-colors-compares-%E2%80%9Cfree-palestine%E2%80%9D-to-the-kkk-just-say-you-dont-like-jews.1294041/page-4#post-144983604

Huh? It's 39 but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

I was mid-editing/expanding my post. From every account I've seen from both of them, they met about a month before she turned 18 and didn't start dating until after that and her graduation from high school, which was around the same time as her birthday. It's icky, but she's never accused Seinfeld of treating her poorly, abusive or anything negative about the relationship outside the media attention, they amicably split after a few years together and moved on.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jerry-seinfeld-shows-his-true-colors-compares-%E2%80%9Cfree-palestine%E2%80%9D-to-the-kkk-just-say-you-dont-like-jews.1294041/page-4#post-144984759

…..that's grooming at the very least. You're trying to "but actually" a 40 year old man preying on a child.

I guess you're not defending him upon reading your other post but I don't think the extra context does him any favors.

As someone who was actually preyed upon as a child, don't use terms you don't know the meaning of, there's zero evidence of there being any actual grooming involved and by no legal definition is an 18-year-old a child.

There's plenty of other stuff about Jerry to call him a piece of shit on, like the story in the OP, that he's said and done in the last few years, instead of a relationship that started over 30 years ago and ended over 25 years ago.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jerry-seinfeld-shows-his-true-colors-compares-%E2%80%9Cfree-palestine%E2%80%9D-to-the-kkk-just-say-you-dont-like-jews.1294041/page-4#post-144987261

As someone who was as well, I think it's fucking gross for you to:
1. try to say that just because someone doesn't have a shared experience that they don't know what they're talking about

2. try to defend him of all people because they met "a month before she was 18". She was still in high school, still 17, and he was almost fucking 40.

God damn.

I already said it was icky that he got into a relationship with her because of that 20 year age gap, but that at least by any actual account of their relationship he didn't abuse or mistreat her. I'm tired of this being brought up with misinformation when there's plenty of other shit from this decade or the fucking OP on about noted 90s emotionally stunted man child Jerry being a dipshit instead of relationship from 30 years ago with an 18-year-old that lasted a few years before they both moved on amicably with her having never said a negative thing about it outside the media attention it brought.

So by what definition and evidence did he groom Shoshanna Lonstein? Without going into a detailed, paragraph, grooming is an abuser targeting someone they see as vulnerable in some way to create an emotional connection with them in order to gain trust and control in order to manipulate them in accepting sexual abuse and/or to commit actions that are illegal. So again, by what definition does it apply here?

https://www.resetera.com/threads/jerry-seinfeld-shows-his-true-colors-compares-%E2%80%9Cfree-palestine%E2%80%9D-to-the-kkk-just-say-you-dont-like-jews.1294041/page-4#post-144987750

I know you're not talking to me but if you're going to be making multiple paragraphs trying to defend Jerry Seinfeld on this issue let me just say this is like one of the people on my ex's lawyer team debating the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.... -_-

... It didn't go well. And raised questions. Just FYI

And no I'm not defending him, so fuck all the way off. And with what you're implying, you can not only fuck off, you can go fuck yourself as well.

I'm fucking done.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/wwe-containment-thread-ot.1075830/page-694#post-144987876

Bye.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/september-10-2025-charlie-kirk-shot-at-utah-valley-university-up-confirmed-dead-do-not-post-videos-of-incident.1294083/page-169#post-145041993

Well since my account is still active... a nice little rebuttal to the media glazing for the ignorant.

[HaughtyFrank]

*huge list of people declaring the end of the world because someone got fired*

Reminder, all these people were perfectly cool with how that one woman got fired from LRG because she was looking forward to play Hogwarts legacy. Now they're crying about free speech and how it should be illegal to fire someone over social media posts

[PogiJones]

2 days ago: "Who cares if he becomes a martyr? It won't change anything." 
Now: "Why is everyone celebrating him like a martyr and firing our side?! We're so cooked as a nation."