zlacker

[return to "Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah"]
1. vik0+66[view] [source] 2025-09-10 19:39:20
>>david9+(OP)
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow
◧◩
2. nicce+Vu[view] [source] 2025-09-10 21:32:11
>>vik0+66
At the moment he was shot, he was answering for questions about transgender shootings. If the timing was calculated, it could be a political message or very strong personal hatred in this context.
◧◩◪
3. qingch+wj1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 03:06:01
>>nicce+Vu
And his answer was bigoted. I'm paraphrasing, but I believe someone asked "do you know how many mass shooters are trans?" and he said "too many."

Didn't like the guy, but he was just a guy expressing a horrible opinion. Violence was not the answer.

◧◩◪◨
4. drewbe+ud3[view] [source] 2025-09-11 18:22:34
>>qingch+wj1
"Too many" is kind of a hilarious answer. It implies that there's a good or right mix of demographics for mass shooters, and, to Charlie, that mix should include fewer trans people. "Mass shooters should be cisgendered!" is a logical reframe of his position and it's just, like … what are you even saying?
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. qingch+LJ3[view] [source] 2025-09-11 22:02:36
>>drewbe+ud3
I like this interpretation. The right is saying that being trans is a mental illness removing their right to bear arms. But what if they're simply saying that being trans should remove your right to be a mass shooter? That the right to be a mass shooter should be something that is reserved solely for cisgendered individuals?
[go to top]