Not that hypocrisy carries any weight on the right, but for those who are keeping score. (alt version in body)
9mon 7d ago by slrpnk.net/u/octopus_ink in politicalmemes from slrpnk.net
For those who don't find "far-right" to be an applicable descriptor with what is known currently, I acknowledge that the meme creator could have been more precise with their word choice. However, I feel the difference is academic:
We can replace “far right” with the easily verified “not leftist” without changing the meme whatsoever, primarily because the meme is about Nancy Mace and her mercurial, disingenuous opinion, not (directly) about the shooter.
Edit - I modified it, though I still find it to be a distinction without a difference - alt version for those who prefer (whoops missed one first time)
Nice that they have so clearly broadcasted their double standards
It demonstrates that rational people should not attempt to compromise with these cultists and prioritise blocking and removal. They are not reliable or consistent.
Nobody moral (who believed, at the very least, in the virtue of honesty) or rational ever gave them anything but the middle finger. But America was cooked from the get go, and with a national ethos similar to that of a greedy, unstable rapist, Trump, MAGA and everything we're seeing now were inevitable.
I was just thinking about how i often fail to remember that this country was founded on the genocide of its prior inhabitants. We are the descendants of those responsible for that genocide. There is plenty of toxicity that got passed along the generations leading us here and it doesn't seem likely it's gonna go away.
Yep. And it goes back further. The religious freedom the Puritans wanted was essentially to be able to be more authoritarian.
Edited to add - in case this wasn't blunt enough, just like conservatives have been for my entire life; the freedom they want on any given axis is actually the freedom to control others on that same axis.
There was a comedian that once said "remember, America is a country that was founded by people that were too uptight for England."
I don't know if that was George Carlin, but it sounds like something he'd say.
As I'm a missionary of St George, i can positively say it was not.
It was late 90's or early 00's. Probably one of those old comedy central compilations. Guy was flamboyant, wearing something like a Hawaiian shirt. I'm reminded of, but I'm also pretty sure it was not Greg Proops. Similar style, though.
ETA: I was wrong. Greg Proops is a national treasure, and a prophet. "Couldn't you have worn a blazer..?"
Ironically, there's a good possibility I internalized the same clip at the same time leading to my comment above in the first place. 😆
Check my edit. It's the same routine with a different punchline.
This thread is the only result for "remember, America is a country that was founded by people that were too uptight for England" on Google now
I'm famous!
America's big problem has always been that the arguments against self-improvement have always been self-referential.
Take gun laws for example, the big arguement against implementing gun restrictions is that would violate the second amendment. They don't want to change the law, because changing the law would violate the current law.
Until America as a nation except that a 250 year old document is not necessarily relevant in the 21st century things will never improve.
Wasn't he a Mormon? Didn't he already find Jesus Christ? It didn't seem to make a difference at all...
Mormons aren't Christians, at least according to those Christians who hate Mormons. They might believe in Jesus Christ but they didn't find him. This might seem like a distinction without a difference but only because it is.
Took me longer than I care to admit 😅
sorry for my lack of red circles
Don't worry, I gotchu
Ypu are mistaken as to how that argument goes.
The idea is that Christianity is a separate faith from Judaism because they have an entirely different set of texts and a different view of the relationship with God and what is expected of the faithful.
Islam is a separate faith of Christianity and Judaism as it too has additional texts and a different perspective on God than what Judaism and Christianity has (which again differ themselves).
Thus LDS is a different faith because it has a wholly new set of texts, it has a radically different view of the relationship with God than every other Abrahamic faith, and we have a lot of evidence that suggests Joseph Smith was outright fabricating everything. That's a critical difference and suggests it should be seen as something else following the same standards applied to all otherAbrahamic faiths.
I wouldn't say "wholly new set," more like "additional set."
The KJB is a foundation of their theology and taught in all their churches.
And yeah, he was making everything up; that's how you start any religion. :)
All of Smith’s texts are wholly new fabricated by him.
The fact is we don’t have the quantity of evidence for the fabrication of most faiths to the extent we have for LDS.
True, it's relatively new compared to the others.
Yet people still follow it, dude literally just made it up
I'm not mistaken as how that argument goes. I disagree with it.
In a different reply, I said "There is no authority, no person or group of people, authorized to decide who is a Christian and who is not. " and I stand with that. I didn't deny that you can come up with arbitary criteria to exclude certain groups, especially when you are allowed to use vague language like "different perspective on God".
we have a lot of evidence that suggests Joseph Smith was outright fabricating everything.
Do you think Paul wrote all the letters by Paul? How is this a critical difference?
standards applied to all otherAbrahamic faiths.
applied by whom? Applied by you and which army?
No True Scotsman comes to mind.
They found him at a 7/11 in Missouri, and then they get their own planet when they die. They’re like the Scientologists of Christianity. Which I think was L Ron Hubbard’s point.
There is no authority, no person or group of people, authorized to decide who is a Christian and who is not. That's just not how such identity markers work.
There's encyclopedias worth of schism and heresy, all just more reasons to hate one another, like true Christians.
I think most of the early christian churches agreed on which books and gospels are part the Bible and in which order. The interpretations and translations of them often differ though.
Some groups like the Mormons decided to add additional books nobody else thinks is "inspired by God".
In my personal view a better comparison than Scientology would be Islam. They also added stuff with the difference that they "degraded" Jesus to a prophet and made Mohammed the central figure.
Except we don't have the outright evidence of fraud for Islam like we do for LDS
That’s only because Islam is older than 200 years and from a time before the printing press. If Joseph Smith had lived, say, 500 years earlier, Mormonism would be shrouded in the same “unprovability” that most other religions enjoy.
Canonization began in the 3rd century and took centuries to form the canons now used in the various denominations. The Ethiopian Church has the biggest canon, still I never heard anyone arguing they aren't real Christians because they include Enoch and what not. "inspired by God" is language not all Christians would use. There are no official critieria for what is or is not a Christian, just infighting to belittle some groups.
The catholic church uses thousands of pages of additional made-up stuff that other sects don't believe in, from ex-cathedra edicts to the canonisation of saints, and the other Christian faiths don't hold those as "inspired by god". If that's the primary difference, then the LDS faith is at the same level as Catholicism, not Islam.
I think the part with the saints is a fair point. Things like the catechism I see more as formalization of how to interpret the Bible. However, I agree with you it's probably closer to that than Islam but my primary point was that it's not much like Scientology.
Yes there absolutely are. If you don't believe that Christ's death on the cross redeemed the world of sin you are not Christian as that is the defining belief. There's literally no point in the faith if you don't accept this. By this standard LDS are Christians.
I gave a post earlier describing why you can assert that LDS is a different branch of Abrahamic faiths which I will repost below. This is of course ignoring that it is entirely acceptable to view LDS as a fraudulent creation by Joseph Smith.
"Ypu are mistaken as to how that argument goes.
The idea is that Christianity is a separate faith from Judaism because they have an entirely different set of texts and a different view of the relationship with God and what is expected of the faithful.
Islam is a separate faith of Christianity and Judaism as it too has additional texts and a different perspective on God than what Judaism and Christianity has (which again differ themselves).
Thus LDS is a different faith because it has a wholly new set of texts, it has a radically different view of the relationship with God than every other Abrahamic faith, and we have a lot of evidence that suggests Joseph Smith was outright fabricating everything. That’s a critical difference and suggests it should be seen as something else following the same standards applied to all otherAbrahamic faiths."
To summarize, the person you responded to stated
There is no authority, no person or group of people, authorized to decide who is a Christian and who is not.
To which you responded,
Yes there absolutely are.
Followed by a wall of text that presented absolutely zero authority figures authorized to decide who is, and isn't, christian.
All you gave is YOUR criteria, but there's no reason anybody needs to follow your criteria. You're also not authorized to decide. That's the point.
I never really thought about it but unlike Catholics who have the pope. Christians don't have a lead authority. So yeah there is arguably an authority to say what is and is not Catholic but not an authority to say what is or isn't Christianity
Other groups have authorities as well but there is no central authority to all. You can be expelled from a denomination but not from Christianity itself.
First I reject the assertion that no one can make that determination so your “No True Scotsman” is not applicable
To be clearer there is one standard that all Christians agree to which is the redemption of Christ. If you don’t think Christ died to redeem sin there’s literally no point in the religion.
The rest of my post explains why those that think LDS aren’t Christian and what their claims are.
there is one standard that all Christians agree to
Except those that don't. You're committing the fallacy right there. If those people over there that call themselves Christians don't agree with your arbitrary criteria, then they're not true Christians. Except your only evidence to back up your claim is, "trust me bro." There's no license or certificate from any kind of authority. It's just you making shit up.
Allow me to demonstrate.
All Christians have a tattoo on their forehead of Jesus on the cross with a pool of blood at the base of the cross. Every year they go through a secretive cleansing and atonement ritual that culminates in an update to the tattoo that makes the pool of blood bigger. You can identify the most pious Christians by how big their pool of blood is.
If you don't have this tattoo, then you're not a Christian and your erroneous opinion of what criteria makes someone christian is irrelevant.
You need to have an actual example to present a counterfactual. You cannot presume one might exist and then argue as if your claims have validity.
If you can find an actual example of a Christian denomination that does not see Christ's death on the cross as an act that redeems the world of sin you can press the No True Scotsman claim but it needs to be real and it isn't.
You absolutely do not understand No True Scotsman, then.
This whole thing started with you arguing against someone that stated that there is no central authoritative body that decides who is and isn't christian. You have yet to present one. Instead, you just present YOUR criteria, as if you're the authoritative body, but your not, because there isn't one.
I could call myself a Christian and make up whatever criteria I want that makes me qualified, and there's nobody to stop me.
If you can find an actual example of a Christian denomination that...
And even if I did, you would reject it because they don't meet your definition of a Christian denomination, so I still failed to "find an actual example of a Christian denomination that..."
There is an understanding if what “Christian” means. Your argument, if valid, would mean there is no definition for the majority of concepts.
But I’ll tell you that you are correct if it makes you fell better.
If you could find an actual denomination that didn’t accept the redemption of Jesus and accepted his religious message and called you would have a group of Jews from the first two centuries CE. They did not see themselves as a new faith separate of Judaism.
There never was an example of No True Scotsman you just have a flawed understanding of Christianity and this logical flaw you improperly cited.
So you just massively showed you have almost no actual knowledge of historical Christian sects.
Plenty of non-trinitarians sects don't believe Jesus died for our sins. Some don't believe Jesus was real at all. Others believe that God and Jesus is the same thing while others believe Jesus was God taking mortal form.
And plenty of them don't agree that Jesus even died for our sins.
Christadelphaisn, Jehovah witnesses, oneness Pentecostals, universalists, to just name a few example of how varied things can be.
That's not even getting into old old stuff back around like 300-400CE.
If there is literally any defining aspect of Christianity is that it never agrees with any other aspect of Christianity. It's one of the single most fractured religions in our history.
Also your a God damn moron you ARE using a no true scottsman fallacy. Go read the god damn wiki page on the fallacy. Holy fuck man.
Why are you calling them sects if you are so well educated?
If you can't be civil you should take a break ffs
There are different views on Jesus. Some would say he died because of the sin of the world, because he was sinless and so couldn't live in a world full of sins. Some see him as a revolutionary who was cought and put to death to prevent the revolution. Some see it all very symbolic and allegorical. Some even deny Jesus was a real historic figure and see him purely as myth and still take value from his stories.
Ok? Im not sure what your point is. The redemption from sin is literally the one thing they all accept.
You said "died to redeem sin" and I put Christians who believe he died for other reasons or don't even believe he existed at all and therefore didn't die. Not sure if you're moving the goalpost
It's the same thing. If Christ's death doesn't redeem sin what's the point of Christ's death?
Maybe there is no point, maybe he didn't die, maybe you should carefully read the comments you reply to
Wasn't Paul the only one that said that? Plus, it wasn't a new religion at the time. They all considered themselves Jewish at least until 70 ad.
None of the apostles said this directly. It's literally the central dogmatic point everyone shares post schism. If Christ's death isn't redemptive there's no point to the faith at all.
Again, not a new religion. They were a sect of Judaism.
It's what makes them a new faith.
It’s what makes them a new faith.
What's "It's"?
The notion that Christ was God’s son whose death redeems the world of sin? The entirely different relationship with God that Christians have that derives from that concept. It’s why Christians are not a sect of Judaism.
Again, then why did they call themselves Jews until at least 70AD? I guarantee that every single apostle called themselves a Jew until they died. I think your brain isn't wanting to hear this and blocking what I'm saying. It doesn't change your religion other than making it more Jewish, why would that be bad?
Yes, 2000 years ago the ethnic Jews that were Christians considered themselves to be Jews. That ceased to be the case within a few years as Paul’s ideas are adopted and the people joining aren’t Jewish and do not follow Jewish laws and traditions.
It’s a new faith because they frame it as such. If you were Christian and called yourself a Jewish person you would get weird looks.
It was a sect of Judaism at one point but that was thousands of years ago.
Yes, 2000 years ago the ethnic Jews that were Christians considered themselves to be Jews. That ceased to be the case within a few years as Paul’s ideas are adopted and the people joining aren’t Jewish and do not follow Jewish laws and traditions.
70 years is a few generations. Just saying. I'm not saying Christians are Jewish now, the Catholics changed all of that. I'm saying it was originally a Jewish sect. I think you're agreeing anyway, have a great day.
originally yes they were but by the time Paul’s writing becomes cannon it no longer is. That’s the 80s?
If you don’t believe that Christ’s death on the cross redeemed the world of sin you are not Christian as that is the defining belief. There’s literally no point in the faith if you don’t accept this. By this standard LDS are Christians.
well actually, the death on the cross is not that important to mormons.
Well, Catholics really aren't Christians because they use a weird and theologically wrong handshape while praying /s
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology are all quite similar. They all have some modern founder (Smith / Russel / Hubbard) who has positioned themselves as a Abraham like figure within the religion. Someone who has been charged by god (or aliens) to write the scriptures.
They are all cults of personality, and a lot of American evangelical churches display similar traits. Charismatic preachers who become celebrities within the movement getting fame and power in the process. There seems to be something in the American psyche that gravitates to this kind of movement.
Christian or not - all of these are problems movements in my eyes.
Christian Science as well. It's eerie how many overlaps they have with Mormons: founded by a single person (Mary Baker Eddystone), have a book they treat as scripture (Science and Health), believe they are the "one true way", and tell people to "pray to know if the book [and the religion] is true"
So eerie, in fact, that it was the final nail in the head (so to speak) that allowed me to leave Mormonism for good
Good for you. Hope you're enjoying being reborn.
Charismatic preachers who become celebrities within the movement getting fame and power in the process.
And wealth.
And why would you listen to their definitions? They are Christianity, sure not mainline, but as kooky and deranged.
To be clear: I was being sarcastic. In a different reply I said that there is no authority who can decide who's a real Christian and who isn't. It's all about self identification and they identify as such so they are Christians
No worries. I just don't think they get to say they're entirely different. It all leads back to the same thing.
I'm confused about what your point is and what you think mine is. My point is that Mormons are Christians and I made fun of people denying that. This isn't rolling back or moving the goalpost or anything but just explaining my original intention and when you read the other comments you see that most understood it that way.
I thought you were taking the side of those that deny them as Christians. It doesn't matter anyway because I was just clarifying my position.
I read this as you guys agreeing - religious designations are arbitrary, you guys are just saying it from different POVs
He doesn’t know the right Jesus. There are too many Jesus’s and everyone thinks their Jesus is the right one.
P sure the plural is Jesi.
I thought it was Jeese?
Jodes?
There once was a woman named Mrs. McBeavis who had 23 sons and named them all Jesus.
Every family trip was her chance to find Jesus
Lol, but she would also have to lose Jesus at least once for that to happen.
I think as long as you still have the majority of Jesus's then the arguement could be made that Jesus left you.
That's why the government is sending them to El Salvador, right?
No. It’s why people think that they have special circumstances and fuck everyone else’s needs.
Damn.
So when they finally caught the shooter, I exclaimed "oh thank god he's white" and did a fist pump.
Everyone in the office break room turned, looked at me, noted that I'm brown and then just nodded safely. A couple dudes smiled in solidarity.
Didn't we already know that from the released footage.
I suspected he would be right wing as well, after all they're the ones with all of the guns and both people who tried to assassinate trump were right wing, which is why the republicans immediately stopped to talking about them, and trump stopped wearing his stupid bed sheet of a bandage.
Bring back? Isn’t Utah one of the fuckwit medieval states (I mean the whole country is rotten but still) that still has bloodlust punishment?
And yet, a fascist was still eradicated! Are you trying to tell me murdering murderers doesn't prevent murders?
Who knew!?
Man creates state.
State creates monster.
Man kills monster.
State kills man.
-Thus Spoke Magathustra
Suprisingly enough, Utah tends to be more libertarian in ideology and leans more left/centrist than a typical red state.
Mitt Romney and a large part of the state rejected Trump, and he hasn't ever polled well there.
They've been on the right side of a lot of civil/personal liberties and I wouldn't mind living there.
It's still not as good as a real blue state, but better than most red ones.
The far-right stuff isn't proven yet. He just seems terminally online.
Bare minimum he was a maga kid in a maga family, and that's the reason for her change of tone. None of the other stuff is relevant to the point here.
Right. I see people here, who I share a lot of the same views with, as doing the same as the extreme right and just running with whatever is trending and not actually looking for the truth.
We can’t trust anything that is said by the media until we learn the actual full details.
Bare minimum he was a maga kid in a maga family, and that's the reason for her change of tone. None of the other stuff is relevant to the point here.
I’ve only seen credible reports that his family were Republicans but didn’t seem overtly political on their socials.
Calling a dude far right when we don’t actually know that is no better than them saying it was a liberal. All we know is republican but moderate parents, who went to a Mormon church and he didn’t vote for republicans or democrats. It seems more likely that it’s someone who did this because they didn’t agree with Charlie Kirk rather than for political reasons.
I would like to hold myself to same standards I would hold anybody else, whether or not I agree with them politically is irrelevant.
seem overtly political on their socials.
I would note that 3 percenter gear is quite specifically political, and dad is in 3 percenter shirts in more than one instance. You don't get those shirts by accident or in your local walmart.
I want to be clear here, there is a substantial amount of information here. This isn't "he wore a red hat once!"
These are extremely signficiant indications of political belief.
Thank you. I’ve not heard of those.
Did you say his father has been pictured in those clothes as that does say a lot about the father. Also makes me wonder how that would lead to their kid killing someone I would deem as far right.
That is correct, his dad (in pictures on Facebook with him) has 3 percenter shirts.
Also makes me wonder how that would lead to their kid killing someone I would deem as far right.
Kirk wasn't the "right" version of the right. Take a look at the groyper wars for a very specific connection between being against Kirk. This is part of what makes the (extremely specific) memes and costumes so telling about his attitude towards Kirk.
Based on the difference between the paraphrasing references and the quotes provided on the dinner discussion too, I'd lean towards the family not being fan of Kirk either, but that is pure speculation.
I will acknowledge that the meme creator could have been less (or more) specific. I still don't think it changes the actual point which is that it was only death penalty worthy until Mace thought it was someone on "her team." Now it's "let's pray for this troubled youth."
Edit - You also seem to be reading much more moderate things about the shooter and his family than I have been, but I really don't care to split that hair enough to trade sources with you. It will all come out in eventually, and again we know enough to know it's just a matter of degree.
Yet another edit - Actually, are we moderate-washing magas already? Maga = far right.
Happy to share my source. I don’t really know which way it tends to lean as I’ve not read it for many years. It used to be the free newspaper we got on buses and trains in my city.
The only reason I chose the link is due to it being the one punished shortest time ago. But we will see. And I’m not tying to whitewash maga. Just trying to wait until the actual truth comes out and not jumping to conclusions like the person in this tweet.
If you acknowledge they were maga (which is what a Trump supporter is) then I don't know what language you find objectionable.
And I apologize for assuming, but maybe you are not familiar with the on the ground mix of folks in the US. (Based on your source and your instance, which I realize are also arbitrary.) It's not possible to be a Trump supporter and not be far right. It might have been possible in 2016, it really wasn't in 2020, and no one who voted for him in 2024 can even pretend. They can reject the label, but actions speak louder than words, and everything he's doing was telegraphed long before the election.
All we know is his parents are republicans and i, maybe naively, believe there are people that align with some of their values but are not terminally online like us that don’t see everything and i believe those people can be reasoned with.
You’re correct about my being from outside the USA, but the instance is arbitrary as accidentally joined a German one. I’m from the UK.
I know for a fact that people for instance that support Nigel Farage here are not all racists as sadly I’m surrounded by them. These people have just been tied to about who the boogeyman is and they’re not inherently bad people, just ignorant. I’ve been able to work in my closest friend and even see him pushing back on shaky narratives from the right now.
I’ve lost my train of thought now but what I’m saying is I think that there is more nuance than just they evil and we should shun them because that does nothing but radicalise both sides and I’m not comfortable with that.
I’ve lost my train of thought now but what I’m saying is I think that there is more nuance than just they evil and we should shun them because that does nothing but radicalise both sides and I’m not comfortable with that.
I think they had a decade to see him for what he was and there is no excuse.
If they aren't racist white supremacists it wasn't a dealbreaker. At that point it's academic.
I'm closing in on 60. I've interacted with and/or been targeted by these same types for my entire life. And they all unified under maga. By removing maga from my life wherever possible, I've removed the same sources of toxicity that I can remember all the way back to my youth. It's the best mental health decision I've ever made. They weren't born maga, they chose it, and they continue to choose it. Fine. Thanks for labeling yourselves with the red hats and stickers, magas. Life is so much easier now.
Also, you are very close to making the point this comic was written for.
Firstly I’ll say I’m obviously outside your area if the world so perhaps I just don’t know how far gone the right are and I’m biased from my own perspective here.
Let me ask you this though, do you think removing those people from your life makes a difference to anybody but you and them. Are you changing the world or just pushing them to be more radical due to being pushed out by people.
No judgement with the above as you have to do what is best for you first and I understand that. I just wonder about how change could ever happen over there is nobody is willing to engage. I like to think that the only war should be a class war and anything that isn’t in support of that just detracts from my goal.
I don’t for a second believe that everybody that votes republican or conservative over here is an evil terrible person. I just think they’ve been radicalised. I think my entire comment history here over the last two years shows I am a liberal but I really fear we are just in an echo chamber in this place and no change is possible because everybody we engage with is already on board.
Let me ask you this though, do you think removing those people from your life makes a difference to anybody but you and them.
The difference being made is that I've taken charge of the sphere of people with influence in my life more effectively and assertively than at any time in my many decades, and I refuse to be shamed for not allowing them in. (not suggesting you personally are, but it seems an increasingly popular position)
Have they noticed? Some of them probably have. I have a complicated family life with a lot of obligations. We don't socialize much anyway. I don't really care if they have or not though. This is a decision I have made for myself.
Are you changing the world
Me? Certainly not. In aggregate though? Maybe. I think it's is a silent movement. I read and/or hear throwaway comments about people dodging their maga friends and relatives all the time. So, it probably is an inflection point of some kind.
just pushing them to be more radical due to being pushed out by people.
They had years to be reasonable. They had years to pull their head out of their ass. They had years to remember their humanity. And even today they still haven't.
I antagonize no one I meet, but I'm not letting that into my life anymore. Other people can pan the magas for gold.
I think the point is none of that actually matters. He's simply not the evil liberal lefty they clearly hope for.
I'm personally fairly positive he will turn out to be a far right goon, you have to be fairly far down the rabbit hole to be prepared to actually kill someone after all. But that's not required for mega to have a breakdown about it. They needed him to be a left-wing extremist, and therefore an enemy that they can use to justify further crackdowns. The problem is it looks like he might be one of them.
Nothing is proven yet for anything, even that he was the shooter.
That said - these are all very specific references for a very specific community, even down to his Halloween costumes.
I'd be absolutely shocked if he held any belief that hinted toward the actual left.
The antifa and transgender shit wasn't proven either, but it didn't stop the fuckers from spreading that narrative far and wide. Who's team he's on doesn't really matter. He hit his shot.
I never said it was. Just stop parroting every crumb of disinformation you come across.
What disinfo? He hit the shot.
He's a groyper, who is arguing he's not far right ?
You know it's bad enough that we have Nazis again for some reason. But worst of all they are now super duper cringe. I bet actual Nazis refuse to hang out with them because they're so embarrassing.
Original nazis were pretty damn cringe too.
No, that’s NOT what he’d want. He’d want us to bail him out: https://xcancel.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1587127536122732544
i got some questions for this dude, like What the Fuck and also What the Fuck
I’m just wondering if the TPUSA folks are gonna get even with Nick Fuentes or if they are going to let the groypers get away with it like the little bitches they are.
Him being killed by gang violence right after saying "including gang violence" is just the cherry on top.
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-suspect-is-a-gun-loving-trump-supporter/This explained pretty well what the references are. The Bella ciao etc. were used ironically, but I’m not seeing this being reported anywhere else.
They will let Fuentes get away with it an just deny the truth.
Not that hypocrisy carries any weight on the right, but for those who are keeping score.
For a fascist, overt hypocrisy is a sign of strength.
The sheep are bound by their previous statements. The lions do whatever they want.
When you accuse a fascist if hypocrisy, you are giving them a big, big compliment.
Is there some kind of “online discourse” about using the term far right instead of non left? That’s ridiculous.
I think some people feel that it's overused. The trouble is that does seem to be how the world works now. You have the left wing politicians, and then you have the far right. Nobody seems to be just moderately right anymore.
So you see a lot of online comments that are accurately describing people as far right to this, and far right that, and it makes it look like the term is overused. But the truth is, the far right are just overly present.
You have the left wing politicians
All 4 of them
Non-left is a bigger tent than far-right.
Yeah it also includes, uh...
Tent gets smaller every day, though
Do we have any evidence of his political views from a named source that is verified to have been in close contact with him before the shooting?
Is that a requirement for a meme about Nancy Mace's abrupt about-face? It seems a bit rigorous for a community where we share mostly regurgitated memes and screenshots.
I feel pretty satisfied. The viewer can make up their own mind, or find their own sources.
Edit: We can replace "far right" with the easily verified "not leftist" without changing the meme whatsoever, primarily because the meme is about Nancy Mace and her mercurial, disingenuous opinion, not (directly) about the shooter.
I think we should be careful promoting any claims as to why he killed Kirk. The narrative surrounding the Columbine school shooting was that the killers were loner loser nerds who were bullied and acting in revenge. The FBI profile released years later suggested they were bullies, weren't popular nor unpopular and one of the killers likely had ASPD and would have potentially killed people in other situations.
We should be very careful how we promote the views of people involved in this crime until we know why he did it.
Lying makes the entire message fall flat
I find the meme accurate to the info I've seen aside from folks here in this very discussion, and have edited the body along with several other comments to clarify my personal position. You are free to disagree, of course.
There is no basis for your claim that this person is on the far right, and you’re outright refusing to take down or change the image you want to push.
Just makes it a statement backed up with a lie.
You’re outright lying
Having been corrected you continue to lie.
With no basis for your statement you continue to lie.
There’s a word for that
I've seen one source posted by one person here who disagrees with what I have seen everywhere else. In the (checks notes) few hours since posting the meme I've addressed that in a few places, but haven't gone on a massive internet hunt to determine whether that one detail (which doesn't change the point of the meme anyhow) may have been updated.
There's a downvote button, and there's a report button. There's also a block button. You are empowered to use all three if you deem it necessary.
Here's a Reuter's article that has a bit more information about the shooter. Nick Fuentes has criticized Charlie Kirk for not being right-wing or racist enough. If the shooter subscribes to even a portion of Fuentes' views, that makes him substantially further right than even most non-MAGA republicans.
From the article:
"the symbology found on the bullet casings suggests the shooter was part of the so-called Groyper movement, associated with far-right activist and commentator Nick Fuentes."
Again even in that article it’s speculation, is a helldivers call-down, and a “you’re gay” statement enough to correlate that?
Didn’t another casing say “Hey fascist, catch”?
I’m just saying until there is anything definitive said by someone who knows and it’s just speculation then making assertions is tantamount to disinformation at best and outright lies at worst
Yeah and including "Hey fascist, catch?" every one of them is a groyper meme...
Every, single, one.
Anyone else finds the casing engraving situation to be a bit strange?
From a CNN article:
Officials who spoke during a news conference Friday did not address whether the inscriptions included references to trans people, but none of the writings they described appear to have any connection to that community. One law enforcement source told CNN that some of the markings instead appear to be a reference to video games.
Seems to me like they have no idea what they mean? Why have they not shared the actual engravings? They did that for the not-Luigi shooting, so I wonder what's different.
Anyone else finds the casing engraving situation to be a bit strange?
This is the best explanation I've seen (and I do think the engravings are shared out there somewhere)
I'm not steeped in internet culture enough to have known all this Groyper stuff before, though I'd heard the term. However, this has the ring of truth to me, and is consistent with other Groyper descriptions I've seen.
This is the explanation I'm seeing most often outside mainstream media where they are too busy running around trying to analyze it and speak truthfully about his life without getting fired.
More or less the same point but with more information here: https://www.tiktok.com/@aidanetcetera/video/7549640789652032790
Just when you think the US Congress could stoop no lower than Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace steps up to the plate and hits it way out of the park.
nancy has the overract much like kari lake to get noticed by trump. her only shtick, is that she was in the military.
Bring back? Do you currently not have the death penalty? That’s blowing my mind. I had no idea that was abolished in the US.
This is one of those weird right-wing talking points that can be easily disproved. I think this disingenuous discourse contributes to Fox News viewers' perception that crime in the US is out of control when it's actually at its lowest in decades in most cities.
The US does have capital punishment as a federal penalty, but it is not commonly used. There are particular "aggravating" factors to a federal murder charge that can make it eligible for the death penalty.
Capital sentences are far more likely punishments at the state level, and a little more than half of the states still use the death penalty.
I think she was expecting a brown person to be the shooter and then she saw the news.
To the point where fuckers online did post a picture of a random trans kid and claim they were the shooter. Which they do after every single major shooting now.
They were very sure that it could only be one of the millions of people in groups that were explicitly targeted by Kirk. Given how broadly he spread his hate, they had pretty good odds.
She rolled the dice and lost on her kneejerk reaction, and is surely lacking in enough self awareness to even have noticed, let alone feel any shame about it, I'm sure.
Christofascism in a nutshell 🤷
Do they even delete the first tweet?
Moral high ground be damned, it works for them.
I still haven't found a better analysis than this, so I feel pretty OK about what's posted, and the clarification I made, despite the occasional drive-by.
