Anyway, having researched Charlie Kirk, it appears many of his views (anti-semitic statements, racism, homophobia etc) are not all that far off from the bigotry level of early era Nazi party rabble rousers. — Baden

Yes.

He's close enough to count, to my mind, as a fascist. He may not have been knowledgeable about what he was saying -- i.e. doing it because he found a career for himself.

": But...." -- I found myself not mourning when I felt I ought to.

And a champion of free speech:

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox weekend anchor serving as Donald Trump’s defense secretary, has ordered Pentagon officials to scour social media for comments by service members that make light of Charlie Kirk’s death and punish anyone expressing dissident views, NBC News reports.

Several service members have been relieved of their jobs already, Pentagon officials told the broadcaster.

The purge comes after Hegseth, his spokesman and the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force all warned service members to express only the correct political opinions about Kirk and his killing.

The officials warned service members, and civilian employees of the Pentagon that “inappropriate comments,” including “posts displaying contempt toward” Kirk, or comments that “celebrate or mock the assassination,” would be “dealt with swiftly and decisively.”

The effort to root out dissidents in the ranks comes as online activists promised to get Kirk’s critics fired in a range of fields, including the military and academia. — The Guardian

Link?

OK I see it's from the live updates.

Pete Hegseth, the former Fox weekend anchor serving as Donald Trump’s defense secretary, has ordered Pentagon officials to scour social media for comments by service members that make light of Charlie Kirk’s death and punish anyone expressing dissident views, NBC News reports. — The Guardian

Good. As a former service member, any member of the armed forces expressing glee or sympathy over Charlie's death is simply lacking in values. I wouldn't trust someone possessing those values to protect the United States. Nor is the military academia where, theoretically, a wide range of views should be encouraged.

Get in line or get out - and expressing glee over the political assassination of a conservative influencer is so far out of line.

Do you think, had it been a liberal influencer, it would have been so far out of line?

This is something I was hoping to express in my comment upthread. The thoughts brewing in the young killer in the school shooting scene are not political in the way people organize to bring about a change in their circumstances. It is a different culture.

Do you think Hegseth would be doing that if it David Hogg had been assassinated?

Firings and sackings over this issue are being used as a pretext to purge organisations of ‘elements incompatible with the President’s Agenda’ (MAGA code word for the Trump’s Will.) See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/12/us/politics/charlie-kirk-shooting-firings-celebration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.bTUi.JHA8UCQh4sv1&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There's a part of me that wonders if it had been Hogg then such a strict condemnation would not have been issued.

Technically, yeah, you're not supposed to do such and such as noted.

It is way out of line.

": But "

I have a strong feeling if it had been David Hogg, whom I hold little respect for, this would not be so loud as to reach our ears, people on an online forum who don't have to follow the UCMJ

I don't know who David Hogg is. I do know that if a figure on the liberal side of politics had been shot giving a talk at a University, MAGA would downplay it or deprecate it or find some way to blame it on 'radical left lunatics'. Trump/MAGA is doing everything it can to deepen the division; Trump is 'the great divider'. It is the way that demagogues have to work - anything like a liberal consensus is kryptonite to them.

So all this talk about what the Kirk assassination really means - what I think it really is, is a pretext for Trump and the MAGA cabal to drive their 'second American revolution' ever harder.

I don't know who David Hogg is. — Wayfarer

Demographically he's a young white guy that came out for gun control and is basically an influencer, but for the democrats.

Trump/MAGA is doing everything it can to deepen the division; Trump is 'the great divider'. It is the way that demagogues have to work - anything like a liberal consensus is kryptonite to them.

So all this talk about what the Kirk assassination really means - what I think it really is, is a pretext for Trump and the MAGA cabal to drive their 'second American revolution' ever harder. — Wayfarer

Makes sense to me, and scares me.

Not that I'm placing bets yet -- but I also didn't place bets on Trump blooming into full fascism by being re-elected. I don't know the future at all.

Me neither, but I still believe that Trump will ultimately fail because he’s a completely mediocre individual and not even competent. Amazingly it hasn’t stopped him yet, but I still hold out hope.

This is something I was hoping to express in my comment upthread. The thoughts brewing in the young killer in the school shooting scene are not political in the way people organize to bring about a change in their circumstances. It is a different culture. — Paine

Yeah, it is.

Obviously I've stated that I think these are fascists.

Which makes sense of the "not organizing to bring about change"

-- a big part of why I see the 4chan/etc. channels as fascist propaganda is that it spews not even ironic hate speech as a "joke", similar to what our present assassin did. He did it for the memes because there was nothing for him, because he was more connected to this idea, and -- really the same for any political movement -- somehow the words stirred up and utilized the piss and vinegar a young man feels, a desire to change the world, and an apathy towards what *must* make it happen.

"I'll even tell a little joke on my bullets like that one Luigi guy did, to match the theatre I want to be a part of because -- fuck it. No future anyways. LOL"

Me neither, but I still believe that Trump will ultimately fail because he’s a completely mediocre individual and not even competent. Amazingly it hasn’t stopped him yet, but I still hold out hope. — Wayfarer

In this circumstance I do too.

No point in being a cynic in a terrible world where everyone sees the same.

So all this talk about what the Kirk assassination really means - what I think it really is, is a pretext for Trump and the MAGA cabal to drive their 'second American revolution' ever harder. — Wayfarer

Their fear is legitimate. Charlie Kirk shared similar ideological views with Trump/the Trump administration. If one wants Charlie dead, then one likely wants Trump dead. Many of these people have access to sensitive information, so their clearances should be revoked at the very least.

Any military where a sizable portion of its soldiers want their President dead is in serious jeopardy.

Their fear is legitimate. — BitconnectCarlos

Fear is MAGA rocket fuel. How much of Trump’s campaign was based on stoking fear? ‘They’re eating the dogs ! :rage: ‘

Fear can be reasonable or unreasonable.

The assassin was not a part of the military.

He fits the profile of white Utah boy who thought it'd be funny if he shot a guy he probably had some itch against.

Basically a school shooter. (EDIT: Else, how to make sense of the fact that his own father turned him in?)

Trump fans the flames of fear of ‘the other’ to his own political advantage. This is an undeniable factor in his rise to power.

There are plenty of times in history where 'fear of the other' is the proper, rational response.

Keep digging, but don't expect to find any gold.

There are plenty of times in history where 'fear of the other' is the proper, rational response. — BitconnectCarlos

Is this one of those times? Trump stokes fears of immigrants. I live in California. I interact with immigrants all the time. Many of my students' parents are immigrants. Is the rational response to be afraid of these people?

Just imagine the situation if the youth were being radicalized to the right and assassinating left-wing influencers. Would you still be chiding the fear stokers?

I see Trump going after illegal aliens, but I don't see him going after lawful immigrants.

The point was made that Trump was stoking fear. You responded that sometimes fear of the other is "proper and rational". Trump stokes fears of immigrants, correct? Should I be afraid immigrants? Am I being irrational because I'm not afraid of them?

I am opposed to any blanket fear-stoking of immigrants. If that appears in Trump's rhetoric, I oppose it. I do support the deportation of illegal aliens, and I understand that dangerous gangs have entered the country facilitated by lax border policies.

What about revoking visas from people expressing support for Palestinians?

↪BitconnectCarlos
Do you think, had it been a liberal influencer, it would have been so far out of line? — Moliere

I too noticed the unnecessary mention of his political aversion.

--

Also, we're sure it's a political assassination now? When did that happen? I wanted to think it was my imagination but for some reason it just seems like more and more modern day conservatives take joy in crudeness and "crossing lines" for little reason other than to do so and illicit a negative emotional response in others I.E. to spread misery. Major turn off for me, despite being in favor of many stereotypical "conservative" things. Point being, you don't have to give a hoot about politics to not like a guy or what he has to say to the point of drastic action. People assault and murder people they don't like every single day. This guy just happened to be a bit of a minor celebrity who yes is known for engaging in political activity.

Charlie Kirk wasn't exactly sympathetic ^{(tg) (bf) (hp)}, but that doesn't justify murder. There are reasons for laws. Hopefully, the perpetrator(s) will be sentenced appropriately.

He's not the only victim.

The Babbitts were gifted just under $5 million by taxpayers, and Ashli Babbitt got a funeral service with all-out military honors. She was one of the Jan 6 (2021) attackers.

A couple of months before Kirk, Melissa and Mark Hortman were murdered.

The responses don't quite match House Trump's response to Kirk's murder, though. Is that because, unlike the Hortmans, Kirk was "one of us"? He wasn't elected by taxpayers for office as far as I know.

I thought freedom was important to House Trump, the clown certainly doesn't hold back, but it seems like that no longer applies to everyone. ^{(nbc) (nbc)}

I guess we'll see what happens.

EDIT: I am not saying America is Nazi Germany etc etc, only that it being a murder is not the end of the argument but the beginning. — Baden

This is, candidly, absurd. Nazis systematically herded 6 million Jews to death camps, gassed them, and set their remains on fire with the aim of bringing about thei extinction of their race. Kirk talked on campuses and held views inconsistent with yours.

The question of self defense, with its well developed jurisprudence related to reasonable force, protection from imminent harm, etc offers an easy enough way to distinguish taking a sniper shot at Kirk versus Hitler, ,assuming you were otherwise blind to the other glaring differences.

As an aside, since it matters so little to me exactly where he fell on the political spectrum in terms of his simple expression of his views as not grounds to murder him, I do not agree with the casual villification of Kirk. I saw him as a kind hearted sort with a sincere Christian faith, with views obviously inconsistent with my own on a variety of topics, but not the evil incarnate he's being painted as.

I respect the unhappiness it brings to have questioned the ethical propriety of one's sexual or gender preference, which is hardly distinct from those telling me Jews like me are destined to hell for my beliefs, but that doesn't justify my declaration of victimhood and my right to lash out. The world is full of disagreement and the anti-social way a murderer handles that isn't cause to reassess whether the anti-social psychopaths might have it right.

What this strikes me then is not a legitimate philosophical question as to whether Kirk's murder constituted self-defense, but instead in his opponents searching for some possible mitigation in the evil iof his murder. As in, a hateful bastard who is killed for his hate can't be just like this murder of Mother Thersa. Well it is. The rule is not to do unto others as you think they would have done unto you.