The reasoning for the shooting is pretty clear. He told his transgender lover that “I had enough of his [Kirk’s] hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”
The school shooting that Mr. Kirk lost his life to is not, "left wing violence". Unless you want to submit that most school shootings are "right wing violence" if the shooter hated public education.
> There are multiple statements from his relatives that his family are "MAGA", his parents are Registered Republicans.
To be fair, that doesn't necessarily say anything about his politics. I know plenty of liberals with MAGA parents. I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to his politics at this time.
Exactly, which was the point Kimmel was making. Apparently that suggestion was too much for the current administration, and the official narrative must not be questioned.
> Most leftists despise their parents[sic] politics.
And do you have a source on that? Anecdotally, most "leftists" I know have left leaning parents. But it's up to the person to define if they are or are not "leftist", because it's a rather narrow, small minded world view that has to define things in those terms.
> None of this suggests a rightward leaning of the culprit himself.
Nor does it suggest his leftward leaning. Maybe it suggests why he used violence as a means to enact social change on the world.
Wow. If you haven't met folks who don't fit, or don't consider themselves aligned with the "left/right" spectrum of American politics, you're missing out. The "us vs. them" mentality is juvenile, and it is sad you subscribe to it.
If you cannot comprehend the shades of grey in the world, maybe you need more exposure to it.
It was well known before Kimmel made his comments that the shooter was in a romantic relationship with a trans woman. Having said that, even if he did not know about that relationship it was irresponsible of Kimmel to repeat rumors he could not have known were true that the shooter was maga.
He did not assert they were unknown: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them,” Kimmel said in his Sept. 15 monologue.
I guess that leaves the question as to why Kimmel did not say: 'We hit some new lows over the weekend when people of all political stripes were trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them'. Because that seems like it gives more information to the viewer because that is what actually happened and acknowledging people from both sides were doing the 'bad thing' should help to bring people together instead of driving people apart.
Mr. Kimmel is making a series of jokes about how members of the party in power are reacting, including a clip of the president not seeming to care when asked about Mr. Kirk's death.
Confused politics isn’t all that unusual; look at Caitlyn Jenner for a concrete example. Add in the usual bad blood between well-armed groups and it certainly happens.
I wish everyone would wait a week for actual reliable info to come out. I wish we weren’t getting a bunch of said info from deeply partisan and untrustworthy fuckwits.
According to the latest iteration, his right-wing family said he was left-wing and even neighbors saw him with his roommate.
Freedom of speech is protected. That people are celebrating a man's death, and worse yet, justifying it, is evil but still protected. But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions. I don't want to live, work, etc... next to someone who thinks that it's ok to commit acts of violence against others just because we don't share the same views.
> But what's not protected is the consequences of these actions.
But this is protected in this case.
I can unfriend you on Facebook for saying “I’m not sad he’s dead”. (And to be clear, Kimmel didn’t even go that far.) I can kick you out of my birthday party. I can complain to your employer. They can fire you. (They can fire you for having tattoos, or red hair!)
But the government cannot do these things. That is the entire point of the First Amendment. The FCC can not threaten the license of a broadcaster for protected speech, but we are here anyways.
The entire point of the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from being thrown in jail or being prosecuted for speaking against the government.
Where do you see that here? The FCC chairman just said that
"...broadcasters are entirely different than people that use other forms of communication. They have a license granted by is at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest".
To be fair, the new revanchist right calls actual conservatives "left wing". They call libertarians "left wing". They call the shared American values of the past fifty years "left wing". They call straightforward consensus reality "left wing". They basically call anyone who doesn't subscribe to the extended reactionary cinematic universe "left wing". So the only data point there is that his parents are suffering social media psychosis.
Also, non-normative sexual behavior is more indicative of being a Republican ("I have a wide stance!", etc, etc, etc). Democrats just espouse not beating yourself up over it, whereas Republicans seemingly yearn for the closet.
> next to someone who thinks that it's ok to commit acts of violence against others just because we don't share the same views.
But that still only includes a subset of views?
I mean what you are saying is right. But these people were perfectly fine with ignoring or sometimes outright endorsing political violence until one of their own was the target. That does not seem extremely hypocritical?
My bias in these cases is that the simplest answer, same as any mass shooting, is that the killers motivations are a manifestation of mental illness and nothing more. Not always true but typically so; wasnt the trump would be assassin not left for instance? When i was told that i wasnt surprised, not because i think it was more likely of someone on the right, but because i think its mostly random. Eg we have a gun culture, a toxic culture, and a lack of mental health institutions culture. That will only ever produce (among other things) a consistent stream of random acts of violence.
In this particular case i am a little more curious than usual to find out if that holds up here if only because the narrative was so immediately anti left attacks.
Just look at the guy who shot Trump's ear. He had no discernable motive or explicit political leaning at all. And had supposedly been tracking both Trump and Biden. He just did it for attention.
Are you saying there are no conservatives who are attracted to those who identify as trans? Not too long ago you could say the same thing about being conservative and being attracted to the same sex, yet that isn't something be bat an eye at anymore.
Being trans (or being attracted to a trans person) is one of many aspects of that person. Other political positions may outweigh it, and the taboo nature of it may be an appeal (see also: stepsibling roleplay porn).
I feel like this is the sort of thing a prediction market might be able sort out.