Politics CHARLIE KIRK SHOT IN UTAH

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Strenuus said:
My disdain for him is known, but I mean come on... for his kids sake, his wife's sake (and yes I know how awful she is)... anyone who knows him... like, I cant even begin to fathom watching someone i love have that happen to so publicly.

He had abhorrent views, no doubt about it. But no one should be watching the video. We can not get desensitized to this violence. (Though I know at this point that is futile).
Click to expand...
Oh, I absolutely agree. I was scrolling through Twitter that day and it popped up, and though I don't agree at all with censorship, I do think things like that should be taken down. I don't agree with it being out there. Just find it...funny isn't the right word, but that he had a discussion on what age should kids be to watch a public execution
 
RR7 said:
Which is ironic when he advocated for kids watching public executions.
Click to expand...
He was on the side of the billionaire tech Bros who want us all divided. He was funded by them.

This goes hand in hand with organized religion. These people were made for each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Strenuus said:
Still havent watched the video of it, and hopefully never will. We should never be shown anyone getting killed, period.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to say that I'm on par with someone who has fought in a war (etc), but as a long time user of the interwebz, I've seen things online that would make your skin crawl.

Just so we're clear, nothing with kids. Just random old videos of soldiers from the eastern bloc doing heinous things to prisoners of war, many of the beheadings during the aftermath of 2001 (seeing the old lady getting be-headed was pretty much the final straw for me, in as much as nothing phases me).

Usually seeing these kinds of videos is traumatic. For some, their reaction is just become cold and not get phased...for others, it makes them into really dark and soulless people. There's a word for it, but Im brain farting (I know it has "izing" in it...I keep thinking rationalize, but that's not it)...like when you watch something and it makes you go crazy, and it changes you. Infantalize? no...

Well, whatever, I think there are 2 different ways to take seeing videos like this. On the one hand, it might make it so if you see it in person you're calmer and don't freak out, but it also might make your a darker person.
 
julius said:
Radicalize. That's the word.

Me am smrt.
Click to expand...
simpsons-homer.gif
 
Phatguysrule said:
You can't reliably verify ID on a remotely used device, and certainly not on children who don't have ID (unless you're suggesting that every website have access to our social security numbers driver's license, passports etc). If you assume kids are going to bypass software they'll just bypass the ID check.

Not possible and definitely overreaching.


This is the parent's job. We need to give the parents the tools and education necessary to do it.

Minors would just get adult PCs or hack theirs to act like adult PCs.

See above. This isn't an improvement at all.

Schools already provide these. They're called Chromebooks and the school controls it. My kids don't use theirs unless they absolutely have to.

Everything you have suggested is a software change and could be overcome with software.

This is what Alex Jones and Trump (etc) were banned from many social media for spreading. Musk invited them back on and things have gotten worse.

The only viable solution is encouraging capable and accurate content moderation on social media, improving access to education, including parents, and requiring that software companies make sure parents can easily monitor and control every aspect of their children's devices.

That's it. There is no other way to do it without violating the constitutional rights of the kids and everyone in the household.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this.
I could be wrong, but i don't think the constitution gives the same rights to minors as it does adults?
 
Shaboid said:
Click to expand...


images (37).jpeg

"Maple Street, U.S.A., late summer. A tree-lined little world of front porch gliders, barbecues, the laughter of children, and the bell of an ice cream vendor. At the sound of the roar and the flash of light, it will be precisely 6:43 P.M. on Maple Street."


"This is Maple Street on a late Saturday afternoon. Maple Street in the last calm and reflective moment – before the monsters came."

"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices ... to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill, and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own ... for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is, that these things cannot be confined only to The Twilight Zone."
 

Attachments

  • images (37).jpeg
    images (37).jpeg
    44.4 KB · Views: 45
As someone who was raised catholic, this makes me ill.

 
SlyPokerDog said:
As someone who was raised catholic, this makes me ill.

Click to expand...

He knows what Jesus meant when he said Black women lack brain power, Jews betray white people, immigrants destroy the country and empathy is bad.
 
crandc said:
As originally written excluded enslaved people and Native Americans. Nothing about minors.
Click to expand...
Good point. In fact, doesn't it fully include minors by specifically stating "natural born citizens"? It seems to me that implies that protections start at birth...
 
Phatguysrule said:
The Constitution protects every person within US jurisdiction, unless specifically excluded (it basically excludes prisoners).
Click to expand...

So how do we then make laws where adults can do something but a minor cant? Drink? Drive? Smoke? Rated R content.
What differentiates these rights/freedoms restrictions for minors?

We have many restrictions for minors. Im not sure why we can't write something up for minors for doing social media like we have other things?
 
THE HCP said:
It’s just kinda embarrassing to idolize somebody who thinks completely different than you. Might want to actually think about it.
Click to expand...
Who says I idolize anyone? lol

What's embarrassing is your post.

I've figured it out, HCP stands for Horrible Cringe Posts! #BAM
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
So how do we then make laws where adults can do something but a minor cant? Drink? Drive? Smoke? Rated R content.
What differentiates these rights/freedoms restrictions for minors?

We have many restrictions for minors. Im not sure why we can't write something up for minors for doing social media like we have other things?
Click to expand...
The Constitution protects against government action. Pretty much all government restrictions allow children to do things in the home and/O7 with the parent's permission.

The restrictions are typically levied on businesses providing services to minors without adult supervision, or restrictions in public spaces. Kids can legally drink alcohol at home with parents. Kids are welcome to drive on private property, and can even own cars without a license. Kids can go see rated R movies with parents. Kids can get married before 18 with parent's permission. Etc...

Which is what I'm advocating here.

Make a law that companies who create algorithms have to do everything in their power to create algorithms which do not negatively influence or impact the user and operating systems must make a way for adults to monitor and control their children's devices. And they must provide education on using these features.

*Edit* The FCC should be revamped and given authority to ensure the internet is working for people and society first, rather than for profit first.

It's fine to make a profit as long as you're not causing harm to an individual (algorithms which depress people or anything else negative) or violating personal privacy (everything online should be encrypted and anonymous).
 
Last edited:
Phatguysrule said:
The Constitution protects against government action. Pretty much all government restrictions allow children to do things in the home with the parent's permission.

The restrictions are typically levied on businesses providing services to minors without adult supervision, or restrictions in public spaces. Kids can legally drink alcohol at home with parents. Kids are welcome to drive on private property, and can even own cars without a license. Kids can go see rated R movies with parents. Kids can get married before 18 with parent's permission. Etc...

Which is what I'm advocating here.

Make a law that companies who create algorithms have to do everything in their power to create algorithms which do not negatively influence or impact the user and operating systems must make a way for adults to monitor and control their children's devices. And they must provide education on using these features.
Click to expand...
okay. 100% on the same page.
 
SharpeScooterShooter said:
So how do we then make laws where adults can do something but a minor cant? Drink? Drive? Smoke? Rated R content.
What differentiates these rights/freedoms restrictions for minors?

We have many restrictions for minors. Im not sure why we can't write something up for minors for doing social media like we have other things?
Click to expand...

One is speech and one is actionable. You can restrict things that will be harmful actions, but youre never going to get speech taken away from them.
 
'No evidence' found yet of ties between Charlie Kirk's shooting and left-wing groups, officials say
Three people familiar with the federal probe into Kirk’s assassination told NBC News that investigators have yet to find a link between the alleged shooter and left-wing groups.

The federal investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has yet to find a link between the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and left-wing groups on which President Donald Trump and his administration have pledged to crack down after the killing, three sources familiar with the probe told NBC News.

One person familiar with the federal investigation said that “thus far, there is no evidence connecting the suspect with any left-wing groups.”

“Every indication so far is that this was one guy who did one really bad thing because he found Kirk’s ideology personally offensive,” this person continued.

In addition, two of the people familiar with the probe said it may be difficult to charge Robinson at the federal level for Kirk’s killing, while the third source said there is still an expectation that some kind of federal charge is filed against Robinson.

Factors that have complicated the effort to bring charges at the federal level include that Robinson, a Utah resident, did not travel from out of state; Kirk was shot during an open campus debate at Utah Valley University. Additionally, Kirk himself is not a federal officer or elected official.

...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...lie-kirk-shooting-left-wing-groups-rcna232513
 
SlyPokerDog said:
'No evidence' found yet of ties between Charlie Kirk's shooting and left-wing groups, officials say
Three people familiar with the federal probe into Kirk’s assassination told NBC News that investigators have yet to find a link between the alleged shooter and left-wing groups.

The federal investigation into the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has yet to find a link between the alleged shooter, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, and left-wing groups on which President Donald Trump and his administration have pledged to crack down after the killing, three sources familiar with the probe told NBC News.

One person familiar with the federal investigation said that “thus far, there is no evidence connecting the suspect with any left-wing groups.”

“Every indication so far is that this was one guy who did one really bad thing because he found Kirk’s ideology personally offensive,” this person continued.

In addition, two of the people familiar with the probe said it may be difficult to charge Robinson at the federal level for Kirk’s killing, while the third source said there is still an expectation that some kind of federal charge is filed against Robinson.

Factors that have complicated the effort to bring charges at the federal level include that Robinson, a Utah resident, did not travel from out of state; Kirk was shot during an open campus debate at Utah Valley University. Additionally, Kirk himself is not a federal officer or elected official.

...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...lie-kirk-shooting-left-wing-groups-rcna232513
Click to expand...
Even if true, too late. Nothing matters.
 
GoZers said:
Even if true, too late. Nothing matters.
Click to expand...

There could even be pictures of Tyler Robinson WITH Nick Fuentes and they'd still say "what about Clinton!?"
 
julius said:
There could even be pictures of Tyler Robinson WITH Nick Fuentes and they'd still say "what about Clinton!?"
Click to expand...

I've yet to see a complete and accurate accounting of Hillary Clinton's whereabouts at the time of Kirk's shooting. We all know what she did to Jeffrey Epstein to protect Bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top