zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
pragmatically, you can't kill an idea with bullets. terrorism does one thing only: it triggers retaliation. nihilistic accelerationists who want a war can use terror to provoke one.

some of Charlie Kirk's last words:

> ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?

> KIRK: Too many. [Applause]

I don't think the shooter was trans. but I'm trans, and I don't see this going well for me, or for my community. the DoJ was already talking about classifying us as "mentally defective" to take our guns. now there's a martyr. the hornet's nest is kicked.

murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.

>>sterli+8j1
I vehemently disagree with all that Kirk seemed to advocate for, but agree that this debate, not murder, is the solution.

That said, Kirk, in this exchange was not engaging in debate so much as theatrics. The question that was posed to him was intended to force him to acknowledge that being trans doesn’t seem to be associated with a unique propensity to engage in mass shootings. Instead, he responded in a way that was ideologically motivated. Quite a few people praised Kirk for engaging in debate, but if this is exemplary of his format, not bringing in facts, then I would call it more performative than debate.

Regardless, this is awful; and I hope the repercussions for the trans community aren’t dire.