I significantly doubt killing Charlie Kirk of all people is going to effect change. At least, it’s not going to be positive change.
The right is emboldened greatly by every situation like this. Yes, they’ve just been looking for an excuse and would be horrible anyway, but this accelerates things by giving them more definitive cover.
They’re already making shit up about evidence of “trans and leftist stuff” carved into the bullets or casings (tabloids and the WSJ have run with this) when there’s no actual proof.
Turning Point USA will stumble for a bit while they find a new talking head capable of carrying their bullshit platform, but there’s a glut of right wing influencers (and people willing to play one for money) that will fill the gap.
Also, he was shot in front of his kids. They’re already fucked up enough having him as a dad without seeing him catch a bullet in front of them and die.
Look, I’ve got no tears to shed for this balloon headed ass. But this is not a victory. Even if you support the idea of using violence to achieve change, this was a piss poor target.
Ben Shapiro cancelled an event he was going to do today. It seems to me like the moment these fascist fucks feel like they could be in danger for the hateful shit they spew they cower in fear. They are keyboard warriors that don’t realize that people can do a lot more than say hurtful things when you do that in public.
Surely you understand that through violence the most violent people will rise to power Thats what happened in russia that became the ussr, china that became the ccp…
Objectively untrue for china from every perspective and is only briefly kinda true for russia; as serfs were freed but after Stalins takeover as the lands were took back and people were legally required to work
And the 1776 revolution would be not comparable in any way for the violence OP called for as the upper class led that revolution!
So you think that revolutions are only acceptable when the rich do it? The industrialization of Russia and China were probably the largest movement of impoverished people to relative stability in human history.
Sometimes change can only happen through violence
I significantly doubt killing Charlie Kirk of all people is going to effect change. At least, it’s not going to be positive change.
The right is emboldened greatly by every situation like this. Yes, they’ve just been looking for an excuse and would be horrible anyway, but this accelerates things by giving them more definitive cover.
They’re already making shit up about evidence of “trans and leftist stuff” carved into the bullets or casings (tabloids and the WSJ have run with this) when there’s no actual proof.
Turning Point USA will stumble for a bit while they find a new talking head capable of carrying their bullshit platform, but there’s a glut of right wing influencers (and people willing to play one for money) that will fill the gap.
Also, he was shot in front of his kids. They’re already fucked up enough having him as a dad without seeing him catch a bullet in front of them and die.
Look, I’ve got no tears to shed for this balloon headed ass. But this is not a victory. Even if you support the idea of using violence to achieve change, this was a piss poor target.
Ben Shapiro cancelled an event he was going to do today. It seems to me like the moment these fascist fucks feel like they could be in danger for the hateful shit they spew they cower in fear. They are keyboard warriors that don’t realize that people can do a lot more than say hurtful things when you do that in public.
When the system doesn’t work and people are desperate they take matters into their own hands. What else are you going to do?
I could hang with accereated assassinations of facist politicians and they’re cheerleaders.
Surely you understand that through violence the most violent people will rise to power Thats what happened in russia that became the ussr, china that became the ccp…
Do you want the most violent in power?
No the aristocrats were far more violent.
two bad examples. The populations of Russia and China were certainly better off after violent revolution. And of course, things got violent in 1776.
Objectively untrue for china from every perspective and is only briefly kinda true for russia; as serfs were freed but after Stalins takeover as the lands were took back and people were legally required to work
And the 1776 revolution would be not comparable in any way for the violence OP called for as the upper class led that revolution!
So you think that revolutions are only acceptable when the rich do it? The industrialization of Russia and China were probably the largest movement of impoverished people to relative stability in human history.