What is wrong with America

[Lighthouse]

7 minutes ago, iansums said:

A contradiction in terms? An ordinary citizen wouldn't have a lengthy criminal record.

You’ve clearly never been to Minneapolis.

[hypochondriac]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Got what he deserved did he?

Clearly the more crimes you commit and the more you associate yourself with a world of criminality then I'm sure you bring the odds down. 

Associating with criminals and drugs is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.

Edited 19 hours ago by hypochondriac

[iansums]

10 minutes ago, whelk said:

Got what he deserved did he?

I don't think so, why, do you?

[egg]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Clearly the more crimes you commit and the more you associate yourself with a world of criminality then I'm sure you bring the odds down. 

Associating with criminals and drugs is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.

The odds of being unnecessarily killed by  police officers should never come down. 

The deaths of Floyd and Kirk are so different, it's ridiculous that they're even being mentioned in the same discussion. 

[hypochondriac]

25 minutes ago, egg said:

The odds of being unnecessarily killed by  police officers should never come down. 

The deaths of Floyd and Kirk are so different, it's ridiculous that they're even being mentioned in the same discussion. 

The deaths are very different. My point is that if you're going to say-as some on here have-that Charlie Kirk increased his risk of death due to his views and associations with controversial people, then you can say similar about Floyd. To be clear I think both were murdered and I don't agree with either view about Charlie and George 

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The deaths are very different. My point is that if you're going to say-as some on here have-that Charlie Kirk increased his risk of death due to his views and associations with controversial people, then you can say similar about Floyd. To be clear I think both were murdered and I don't agree with either view about Charlie and George 

I dont believe anyone is comparing he deaths. The deaths were obviously different but Kirk was dismissed with a "live by the sword" and "surprised it doesn't happen more" meanwhile Floyd prompted moral outrage. Just imagine if someone had said that about George Floyd. Kirk was shot for having a different opinon.

Edited 18 hours ago by Turkish

[Saint86]

Looks like they got the guy who killed Kirk - and it does seem to have been a political motivated assassination by an extremist / nutter on the left. Based on the bullet engravings and the tone of his conversations with those who knew him, he'd become radicalised by the rhetoric in America in recent years (stuff like calling Kirk a Fascist/nazi etc).

Surely this has to act as a warning to America to tone down the rhetoric? They'll end up fully down the path of tit for tat political killings otherwise.

Edited 18 hours ago by Saint86

[egg]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

The deaths are very different. My point is that if you're going to say-as some on here have-that Charlie Kirk increased his risk of death due to his views and associations with controversial people, then you can say similar about Floyd. To be clear I think both were murdered and I don't agree with either view about Charlie and George 

People can always increase their risk of harm from deranged people, but that's altogether different to the police. The two situations are completely different. 

[Baird of the land]

4 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Looks like they got the guy who killed Kirk - and it does seem to have been a political motivated assassination by an extremist / nutter on the left. Based on the bullet engravings and the tone of his conversations with those who knew him, he'd become radicalised by the rhetoric in America in recent years (stuff like calling Kirk a Fascist/nazi etc).

Surely this has to act as a warning to America to tone down the rhetoric? They'll end up fully down the path of tit for tat political killings otherwise.

It’s hardly as if the rhetoric is any different in other countries, it’s just that these individuals have easy access to guns.

[hypochondriac]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

People can always increase their risk of harm from deranged people, but that's altogether different to the police. The two situations are completely different. 

I think you're arguing with yourself. There's also deranged people in the police too.

Edited 18 hours ago by hypochondriac

[Sir Ralph]

Its actually ridiculous that anyone thinks that because Kirk had a political opinion that he vocalised he may have to some degree put himself at risk. If you accept that as a concept you might as well bin free speech if its going to offend any looney that might kill you then. This lunatic wrote 'catch facist' on his bullet.

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

I think you're arguing with yourself. There's also deranged people in the police too.

I'm really not. 

The general public and the police are entirely different. You can, and will, increase your chances of crossing a wrong un in the real world if you spout extreme stuff. That's a harsh reality. You shouldn't expect that from the police. 

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm really not. 

The general public and the police are entirely different. You can, and will, increase your chances of crossing a wrong un in the real world if you spout extreme stuff. That's a harsh reality. You shouldn't expect that from the police. 

He wasnt extreme. If you listen to what he says and his world view, and you still think that, I think your definition of 'extreme' is nowhere near my definition. I would say that about anyone on the left or the right. Your definition of "extreme" is exactly the problem with closing down debate. Sorry, thats just not correct.

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He wasnt extreme. If you listen to what he says and his world view, and you still think that, I think your definition of 'extreme' is nowhere near my definition. I would say that about anyone on the left or the right. Your definition of "extreme" is exactly the problem with closing down debate.

You're missing the point. 

There's a world of difference between a politically motivated killing by a civilian of another, and the racially motivated killing of a civilian by a police officer. The chances of the former, sadly can and are often increased because that's human nature. That's a world away from the police who's job it is to police and uphold the law, not breach it. 

The differences are so vast they don't belong in the same discussion. 

[hypochondriac]

5 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He wasnt extreme. If you listen to what he says and his world view, and you still think that, I think your definition of 'extreme' is nowhere near my definition. I would say that about anyone on the left or the right. Your definition of "extreme" is exactly the problem with closing down debate.

He had some views that could be described as extreme. Still doesn't deserve to be shot though.

[whelk]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He wasnt extreme.

Did you read what he said about Taylor Swift? The bloke had some obnoxious views to many. And no, of course didn’t deserve it but he wanted to shock and wanted attention

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

You're missing the point. 

There's a world of difference between a politically motivated killing by a civilian of another, and the racially motivated killing of a civilian by a police officer. The chances of the former, sadly can and are often increased because that's human nature. That's a world away from the police who's job it is to police and uphold the law, not breach it. 

The differences are so vast they don't belong in the same discussion. 

Who said otherwise? I literally said that the killings were completely different. Some were arguing that the actions of Charlie Kirk increased his risk of being killed. The same is true of other people who have been killed including George Floyd. I don't hold either of them responsible for their murders.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, egg said:

You're missing the point. 

There's a world of difference between a politically motivated killing by a civilian of another, and the racially motivated killing of a civilian by a police officer. The chances of the former, sadly can and are often increased because that's human nature. That's a world away from the police who's job it is to police and uphold the law, not breach it. 

The differences are so vast they don't belong in the same discussion. 

Give up mate. Anyone who thinks there is any parallels is going to be impossible to convince.

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Did you read what he said about Taylor Swift? The bloke had some obnoxious views to many. And no, of course didn’t deserve it but he wanted to shock and wanted attention

I'm not sure he was intending to shock. I think he genuinely believed what he said.

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

Give up mate. Anyone who thinks there is any parallels is going to be impossible to convince.

I'm not sure who is arguing with who.

[whelk]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure he was intending to shock. I think he genuinely believed what he said.

Yeah maybe so but you don’t get to tell people how to live their lives it such a patronising way. You could imagine a nutter killing Taylor Swift because she wasn’t submissive enough

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm not sure who is arguing with who.

I didn’t mean you - I think you can clearly see the difference. Ralph less so

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, whelk said:

Did you read what he said about Taylor Swift? The bloke had some obnoxious views to many. And no, of course didn’t deserve it but he wanted to shock and wanted attention

There is a difference between a view that someone considers to be obnoxious and an 'extreme' view. An extreme view needs to be seen as that. If we start saying that someone's view is 'extreme' too easily, it becomes a dangerous position. If you listen to his videos which arent debates you will understand why he did what he did - he didnt intend to shock and want attention. If you haven't I would encourage you to watch his non debate videos and you may see it differently.

Edited 18 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, whelk said:

I didn’t mean you - I think you can clearly see the difference. Ralph less so

I only recall talking about the difference in the public reaction / social disorder in relation to the two murders. I didnt get into the discussion about comparisons between the two deaths themselves.

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, whelk said:

Yeah maybe so but you don’t get to tell people how to live their lives it such a patronising way. You could imagine a nutter killing Taylor Swift because she wasn’t submissive enough

Thats just not correct - its called free speech. Just because you dont like it, it doesnt mean its wrong or shouldnt be said. Applies to both left and right view.

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

There is a difference between a view that someone considers to be obnoxious and an 'extreme' view. An extreme view needs to be seen as that. If we start saying that someone's view is 'extreme' too easily, it becomes a dangerous position. If you listen to his videos which arent debates you will understand why he did what he did - he didnt intend to shock and want attention.

TBF I don’t know a huge amount about him but I read what he said about Taylor Swift and it is like so many of these sorts  - probably wouldn’t let women vote if he could get away with it. 
Much of the extreme rhetoric comes from MAGA labelling everything that is tolerance as radical.

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

TBF I don’t know a huge amount about him but I read what he said about Taylor Swift and it is like so many of these sorts  - probably wouldn’t let women vote if he could get away with it. 
Much of the extreme rhetoric comes from MAGA labelling everything that is tolerance as radical.

He never suggested or said anything of the sort. I think you should watch a couple of his debate and non debate videos, including why he explains what he does. I think it might change your perspective of him a bit (even though you may not agree with his views)

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Thats just not correct - its called free speech. Just because you dont like it, it doesnt mean its wrong or shouldnt be said. Applies to both left and right view.

Ok but the Alex Jones of this world and all the other nut jobs who are always banging on about their free speech are just hateful pricks. Free to say school shootings didn’t happen, pizza places are holding kids for paedophiles etc.

 

[whelk]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

He never suggested or said anything of the sort. I think you should watch a couple of his debate and non debate videos, including why he explains what he does. I think it might change your perspective of him a bit (even though you may not agree with his views)

I have no axe to grind with him but clearly he was antagonistic. To be referred to as a staunch supporter of Trump is telling. 
Genuine question - are you a fan of Trump?

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, whelk said:

Ok but the Alex Jones of this world and all the other nut jobs who are always banging on about their free speech are just hateful pricks. Free to say school shootings didn’t happen, pizza places are holding kids for paedophiles etc.

 

I don’t know who Alex jones is and never listened to him. I saw he said something ridiculous about sandy hook which I would suggest that particular view is extreme.
 

Thats a different person though. Kirk is not near that (from the small things I’ve read about jones) so you shouldn’t dismiss someone like Kirk on the basis of the views from people who are actually extreme.

[whelk]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

I don’t know who Alex jones is and never listened to him. I saw he said something ridiculous about sandy hook which I would suggest that particular view is extreme.
 

Thats a different person though. Kirk is not near that (from the small things I’ve read about jones) so you shouldn’t dismiss someone like Kirk on the basis of the views from people who are actually extreme.

Did you know all this about Kirk before yesterday’s events?

[benjii]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

Clearly the more crimes you commit and the more you associate yourself with a world of criminality then I'm sure you bring the odds down. 

Associating with criminals and drugs is dangerous. I'm not sure why that's a controversial view.

Correct.

But absolutely irrelevant. 

[Sir Ralph]

Just now, whelk said:

Did you know all this about Kirk before yesterday’s events?

Yes I’ve listened to him before - less his debates more his own opinions and his reasoning for doing what he does

[Sir Ralph]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

I have no axe to grind with him but clearly he was antagonistic. To be referred to as a staunch supporter of Trump is telling. 
Genuine question - are you a fan of Trump?

I’m not a supporter of Trump as such. I think he’s done some good things and things that I’m not so sure about. On the flip side I preferred him to Harris but I think there should be better options for US president.

[benjii]

Done some research.

Seems like he was a nasty, racist cunt. Antithetical to the Jesus he would profess to love, typical of the grifting, bile-spewing, hypocrites that you would associate with Trump. A shock-jock.

No, I don't think he should have been murdered.

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, benjii said:

Done some research.

Seems like he was a nasty, racist cunt. Antithetical to the Jesus he would profess to love, typical of the grifting, bile-spewing, hypocrites that you would associate with Trump. A shock-jock.

No, I don't think he should have been murdered.

Have you watched his videos? If he was that extreme why was he allowed to debate in such public places under multiple governments. If he was racist he would have been arrested or stopped

Edited 17 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[LuckyNumber7]

7 minutes ago, benjii said:

Done some research.

Seems like he was a nasty, racist cunt. Antithetical to the Jesus he would profess to love, typical of the grifting, bile-spewing, hypocrites that you would associate with Trump. A shock-jock.

No, I don't think he should have been murdered.

Been watching him for years and never heard him say anything racist. Then again pretty much anything is considered racist these days.

[iansums]

54 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Its actually ridiculous that anyone thinks that because Kirk had a political opinion that he vocalised he may have to some degree put himself at risk. If you accept that as a concept you might as well bin free speech if its going to offend any looney that might kill you then. This lunatic wrote 'catch facist' on his bullet.

Always found it odd that those in the anti-fascist movement struggle to understand the meaning of the word fascist.

[iansums]

12 minutes ago, benjii said:

Done some research.

Seems like he was a nasty, racist cunt. Antithetical to the Jesus he would profess to love, typical of the grifting, bile-spewing, hypocrites that you would associate with Trump. A shock-jock.

No, I don't think he should have been murdered.

What has he said that was racist? Genuine question.

[hypochondriac]

20 minutes ago, benjii said:

Correct.

But absolutely irrelevant. 

As long as we agree that neither deserved to be murdered nor brought it on themselves then great. 

[Sheaf Saint]

10 minutes ago, iansums said:

Always found it odd that those in the anti-fascist movement struggle to understand the meaning of the word fascist.

There certainly does appear to be an inverse relationship between the extremity of a person's political leaning (whichever direction that may be) and their actual understanding of those they oppose.

[Weston Super Saint]

26 minutes ago, benjii said:

Done some research.

Seems like he was a nasty, racist cunt. Antithetical to the Jesus he would profess to love, typical of the grifting, bile-spewing, hypocrites that you would associate with Trump. A shock-jock.

No, I don't think he should have been murdered.

And didn't like Taylor Swift. Probably what did for him in the end.

[Farmer Saint]

Conservative activist and Turning Point USA cofounder Charlie Kirk has a lot of opinions on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

In 2015, Kirk called him a “hero.”

In 2022, MLK was a “civil rights icon.”

In December 2023, speaking before a group of students and teachers at America Fest, a political convention organized by Turning Point USA, Kirk struck a different tone.

“MLK was awful,” Kirk said. “He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.”

“I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it,” Kirk said at America Fest. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”

 

Definitely not a shock jock though.

Edited 17 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

Some things that Charlie Kirk has said...

Definitely not a shock jock. Maybe he's just a cunt.

Edited 17 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[The Kraken]

Well he sounds very reasonable and definitely not a chap with some extreme views.

[Sir Ralph]

24 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Some things that Charlie Kirk has said...

Definitely not a shock jock. Maybe he's just a cunt.

I only read the first two

What’s the context to these statements. The first one I found was false

https://deadline.com/2025/09/stephen-king-apology-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236529789/
 

The second comment was in the context of DEI - see video. He was using the second comment as an example. Do you really think he is being racist in this?

The individual statements need to be read in context. Whoever produced the list has lazily tried to make a point. People just accept and don’t read into things and make their own minds up. The exact problem. Respectfully I suggest you listen to his videos and make your mind up

Edited 16 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I only read the first two

What’s the context to these statements. The first one I found was false

https://deadline.com/2025/09/stephen-king-apology-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236529789/
 

The second comment was in the context of DEI - see video. He was using the second comment as an example. Do you really think he is being racist in this?

The individual statements need to be read in context. Whoever produced the list has lazily tried to make a point. People just accept and don’t read into things and make their own minds up. The exact problem. Respectfully I suggest you listen to his videos and make your mind up

Well at least Stephen King apologised in the stoning example.

Wonder if any people who follow Trump etc would do the same or just double down?

[trousers]

20 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

The second comment was in the context of DEI - see video. He was using the second comment as an example. Do you really think he is being racist in this?

 

I watched the whole video and it came across as the complete opposite of racism to me, in that he wants pilots, surgeons, etc, to be selected purely on merit rather than the colour of their skin or their sex. 

Edited 16 hours ago by trousers

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, JohnnyShearer2.0 said:

Well at least Stephen King apologised in the stoning example.

Wonder if any people who follow Trump etc would do the same or just double down?

Completely irrelevant to the point - muppets like King shouldn’t make false accusations.

in fact the king article is a good example of people that hugely took his comments out of context to make a point. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[hypochondriac]

45 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Some things that Charlie Kirk has said...

Definitely not a shock jock. Maybe he's just a cunt.

I don't know about all of those but I know for a fact that some of them are blatant misinterpretations of what he said.