America - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

 

[Tornado]

 

[Scaff]

i felt that reiginated beacue the trans shooters thing i never had hearead of it before the minessota shooting
but as you said, not being aware of it and it not being a thing are two very different things

Indeed

and i awnsered that the article misinterpreted both the bible and the religious view of community and explaned you why

So you are pulling the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy on it.

A significant proportion of evangelical Christians most certainly do believe this, and would consider your interpretation wrong.

 

[Famine]

this comment was so aunecessary man...
i know was sacatic but compare withh nobel, specially in heated split times, is so bad timed...

I thought that's what happened? Kill people, get the NPP. His AI-generated buddy seems to think so.

Maybe he didn't kill enough people yet. Or is it killing the right kind of people? I kinda lost track when Obama got it while escalating drone strikes and extra-judicial executions of American citizens.

 

[meganinja]

A significant proportion of evangelical Christians most certainly do believe this

i had not used a isolated case, while i had studied the bible by myself, what i said is a common faith opinion based in faith studies that was gave to me by the local churches here (most if not everyone has US connections) and opinions of fellow christians (ubotth us, brazilian and others) i talked with about the theme

they dont belive in the total destruction of the state of israel or something like that, that is not true and totally misleading, and i explaned what they truly belive with most detail i could put, i ask you to read what i wrote camly again

the people that wrote the article or mislead by accident or is using bad faith about the part of profecy envolving israel and a new world post the final judgment, with the idea of the distruction of israel

as i said, it is commonly told that israel would be attacked and invaded, but wouldnt be destroyed, quite oppsite, it is ofen said said that the kingdom of israel would be eternal as a promise of God himself

this is the common vision of the protestanism about it, it only differes if people will see it happening or if God will take us to some temporary place while it happens before he return definitly, too much teoloogical stuff that i dont want to talk about

I thought that's what happened? Kill people, get the NPP. His AI-generated buddy seems to think so.

Maybe he didn't kill enough people yet. Or is it killing the right kind of people? I kinda lost track when Obama got it while escalating drone strikes and extra-judicial executions of American citizens.

i am trying to know what you mean but it sounds a bit confusing, can you relaborate your point?

 

[Blitz24]

Probably not the right location for this discussion, but I'd say maybe half of the evangelists do believe that Israel needs to be destroyed in the end, so Jewish collaborators with them need to be careful. Adding a confusing wrinkle is the smaller sect of Jews for Jesus, which is a contradiction in it of itself.

 

[meganinja]

Probably not the right location for this discussion, but I'd say maybe half of the evangelists do believe that Israel needs to be destroyed in the end, so Jewish collaborators with them need to be careful. Adding a confusing wrinkle is the smaller sect of Jews for Jesus, which is a contradiction in it of itself.

revelations is a quite tricky topic tbh, people even debate if is already happened or if will still happen
then after this debate, have all sort of other debates (rapture timing, literal vs mettaphor, so on and on)

i just wantt to give my two cents about what i know and what i heared about it, at least here overall people dont belive in the utter destructing of israel, should have some that belive on i but assume everyone thinks this way is a strech

 

[Famine]

i am trying to know what you mean but it sounds a bit confusing, can you relaborate your point?

The orange guy in the White House believes he should have the Nobel Peace Prize. That's the guy who wants Gaza cleared of poor and foreign people so he can have a nice resort there, the guy who tried to get Ukraine to surrender to Russia and berated the Ukrainian prime minister in public on broadcast television for not saying thank you to him, the guy who incited the violence on January 6th 2021, and the guy who just last week blew up a foreign-registered ship in international waters because it might have drugs on it and declared war on one of his own cities.

Clearly there's a belief that killing people merits the Nobel Peace Prize among him and his group.

His group includes the guy that's the topic of recent discussion, thus the [unknown individual] who killed him should be up for the prize. Right? Unless it's only about killing the right kind of people, or lots of them - like when Obama got it while escalating drone strike campaigns that included extra-judicial executions of American citizens (one a teenage boy) who had Arabic-sounding names. Maybe killing just one white guy doesn't count.


Also that same guy also said that this sort of discussion shouldn't happen because people being killed in gun violence is an acceptable and necessary consequence of freedom and we shouldn't get caught up in an emotional response to gun violence victims. So my emotional response to his death by gun is:

😐

 

[Chris30]

Damn, I just read the article too about Charlie Kirk's death on CNN's website. Now I'll have to be extremely cautious where I go if we even travel anymore on the road out of state.

This is disturbing and unsafe! The killer had some motive as to why he killed Charlie Kirk. Maybe he did not like Trump.

 

[Touring Mars]

this justification for the murder is even more stupid beacuse everyone is aware that THEY WONT
if anything, they will double down, even worst, now that they have a martyr, they will have someone to show as a exemple of "hate of opinion" and make people get in arms

You're probably right, though that's all the more reason for people to tone down the violent rhetoric and be more prepared to engage in actual debate, rather than becoming/being so polarised that they cannot accept any other position(s) other than the one's they already hold.

It might/should also depend on who actually killed Charlie Kirk - considering no-one has been identified as a suspect yet, let alone the perpetrator, it's amazing how even the US President somehow knows that this was the work of the 'Radical Left'.

 

[Chris30]

I wonder how long it will take them to actually find out who did it. It could be anyone in that area. They would have to find some kind of method for doing it quickly. Well I will be watching my back and my mom.

 

[meganinja]

The orange guy in the White House believes he should have the Nobel Peace Prize.

he has a big ego, i must admit, but I also dont think he should be indicated anytime soon hahaha

Also that same guy also said that this sort of discussion shouldn't happen because people being killed in gun violence is an acceptable and necessary consequence of freedom and we shouldn't get caught up in an emotional response to gun violence victims.

as i mentioned before, being pro-gun doesnt give any reason to be shot at, indepedntly of who is victim
is the equivalent to advocate for people that dont like self-drriving to be run over only beacuse they like driving

though that's all the more reason for people to tone down the violent rhetoric and be more prepared to engage in actual debate, rather than becoming/being so polarised that they cannot accept any other position(s) other than the one's they already hold.

It might/should also depend on who actually killed Charlie Kirk - considering no-one has been identified as a suspect yet, let alone the perpetrator, it's amazing how even the US President somehow knows that this was the work of the 'Radical Left'.

this was my entire point but people here assumed some how i was defending the dumb things what he may saidin the past, when i just wanted to say that murder in any degree is wrong and injusificable in anyways

we need more uniting voices in all political spectrium, more peoople that bust all bubbles and chambers and bulid bridges
also doesnt help that social media was bulid by design to make us all didived as well....

Damn, I just read the article too about Charlie Kirk's death on CNN's website. Now I'll have to be extremely cautious where I go if we even travel anymore on the road out of state.

be save, i really am fearing that things may get dangerous to everyone

I wonder how long it will take them to actually find out who did it. It could be anyone in that area. They would have to find some kind of method for doing it quickly. Well I will be watching my back and my mom.

the FBI also doesnt help theyselfes, they first said that was one guy that they had cauhht, then said was the wrong person, then said thhat was 2, associated press says that could bbbe 3

at this rate will take monthhs before we know anything about the suspect

 

[Famine]

as i mentioned before, being pro-gun doesnt give any reason to be shot at, indepedntly of who is victim
is the equivalent to advocate for people that dont like self-drriving to be run over only beacuse they like driving

Cool. That's a bizarre equivalent and at no point relevant to anything I said in my post.

If you're going to quote me, respond to what I actually said - otherwise you're not engaging.

It might/should also depend on who actually killed Charlie Kirk - considering no-one has been identified as a suspect yet, let alone the perpetrator, it's amazing how even the US President somehow knows that this was the work of the 'Radical Left'.

It's also fascinating that he announced it first, and even got that shoddy video statement out.

Mandating all US flags be flown half-mast for the death of this guy - not a politician, not a dignitary, barely even a celebrity - after utterly ignoring the assassination of a state representative (along with her husband and dog) in June, from a party that's not his and in a state that's not his and whose governor ran against his VP last year, is... well, I guess pretty much on-brand.

Still, at least people forgot about how heavily he's implicated in the operations of the Child Rape Resort and the Epstein files for a minute.

Now I'll have to be extremely cautious where I go if we even travel anymore on the road out of state.

Well I will be watching my back and my mom.

I think that, unless you're planning on fronting a talk show about how black people are hunting whites, how Great Replacement Theory is real, how gays should be stoned to death, how political violence against "left" targets should be rewarded, how women should submit to men, how church and state shouldn't be separated, how school shootings are necessary to preserve the Second Amendment, and promoting anti-vax stuff, while also being in Utah, you're probably safe from this particular shooter.

 

[Dave A]

The orange guy in the White House believes he should have the Nobel Peace Prize. That's the guy who wants Gaza cleared of poor and foreign people so he can have a nice resort there, the guy who tried to get Ukraine to surrender to Russia and berated the Ukrainian prime minister in public on broadcast television for not saying thank you to him, the guy who incited the violence on January 6th 2021, and the guy who just last week blew up a foreign-registered ship in international waters because it might have drugs on it and declared war on one of his own cities.

Clearly there's a belief that killing people merits the Nobel Peace Prize among him and his group.

His group includes the guy that's the topic of recent discussion, thus the [unknown individual] who killed him should be up for the prize. Right? Unless it's only about killing the right kind of people, or lots of them - like when Obama got it while escalating drone strike campaigns that included extra-judicial executions of American citizens (one a teenage boy) who had Arabic-sounding names. Maybe killing just one white guy doesn't count.


Also that same guy also said that this sort of discussion shouldn't happen because people being killed in gun violence is an acceptable and necessary consequence of freedom and we shouldn't get caught up in an emotional response to gun violence victims. So my emotional response to his death by gun is:

😐

There are some insane levels of hypocrisy doing the rounds over this incident.

Seperate to the above, my personal stance is don't celebrate murder, no matter how much you dislike, despise or disagree with a person, celebrating murder is never cool. That's not to say someones untimely death can't ever lead to a greater good, at times it most certainly can, but don't be happy some guy just got murdered, even if you think they made themselves a target or had it coming. You might be right, you can really not give a crap, but celebrating it isn't the greater good and that won't bring about the greater good, it's just a poor stance to take. IMO of course.

 

[meganinja]

Cool. That's a bizarre equivalent and at no point relevant to anything I said in my post.

If you're going to quote me, respond to what I actually said - otherwise you're not engaging.

well you said

same guy had said...being killed in gun violence is an acceptable and necessary consequence of freedom and we shouldn't get caught up in an emotional response to gun violence victims. So my emotional response to his death by gun is:

😐

from what i read, you are implying that he deserved to be shoot/dont deserve any mercy beacuse he liked guns and had said things you dont agree with, and to compare with the absoudity of this argument, i pointed out that this argument is the equivalent to advotate that people that dont like self-driving cars to be run over beacuse they like driving, and driving cars can be used to hurt others badly

the equivalent is bizarre and absurd by design, is to imply that its a stupid way of thinking about someone´s death was justifiable when isnt, no death in any level is justtifable

my personal stance is don't celebrate murder, no matter how much you dislike, despise or disagree with a person, celebrating murder is never cool. That's not to say someones untimely death can't ever lead to a greater good, at times it most certainly can, but don't be happy some guy just got murdered, even if you think they made themselves a target or had it coming. You might be right, you can really not give a crap, but celebrating it isn't the greater good and that won't bring about the greater good, it's just a poor stance to take.

THIS 1000% THIS
its ok to dislike the person, its ok to not pay respects to him or ingore his death
just dont celebrate or dance around his blood, it is anything but a good thing

 

[TexRex]

its ok to dislike the person

Thanks.

its ok to not pay respects to him or ingore his death

Thanks.

just dont celebrate or dance around his blood, it is anything but a good thing

Stop me.

Rabid animals should be put down.

 

[meganinja]

Stop Me
Rabid animals should be put down.

then, dont complain when you enventually will be hunt down back as a animal, by those that you advocated to be hunt down as animal
"you reap what you sow" something like this, right?

who reaps violence, aows violence... who reaps peace, sows peace

 

[Famine]

You might be right, you can really not give a crap

It's what he would have wanted.

Like, literally. He said exactly this:

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights".

"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics."

"Of course, our hearts go out to the victims in Kentucky for every one of these situations. But we cannot allow them to emotionally hijack the narrative. You must use reason when you look at these things. A free society comes with a cost, and that cost is worth it. Liberty is worth it."

Rationally, and without emotion or empathy, he stated that his own gun-related death is worth the cost so that Americans can have and keep 2A (to protect the other "God-given rights"). He'd be fine with it. It's what he actually said.

Seperate to the above, my personal stance is don't celebrate murder, no matter how much you dislike, despise or disagree with a person, celebrating murder is never cool. That's not to say someones untimely death can't ever lead to a greater good, at times it most certainly can, but don't be happy some guy just got murdered, even if you think they made themselves a target or had it coming.

When you say "murder" are you specifically talking about a situation wherein someone is killed by another person in regular society, or does it include all instances of someone being killed?

Like, for example, if Putin was taken out by a Ukrainian drone (or, more likely, an underling, a window, and gravity), I'm not sure I could keep a straight face, but that's more in a situation of war. Same with the execution of someone like Ceausescu. Or, you know, that monorchid painter dude who cowarded out of it.

from what i read, you are implying that

Nope. You've chosen to infer that, for some reason.

Engage with what I said if you're going to quote me, or don't bother. What you make up that I said is not what I said, and it's not my responsibility to defend or clarify stuff I didn't say. Because I didn't say it.

What I said, and then resaid after you asked for clarity, was that the Nobel committee would have trouble finding the shooter to give them their prize if they were still at large, given that the guy who was killed was such a close friend of the guy who thinks that killing other people should get him a Nobel Peace Prize and therefore he should be eligible for it that he's order all national flags to be flown at half-mast for this event for four days. Unless the NPP is about killing lots of people and non-white people, of course.

The paragraph you've quoted and chopped is me not caring, as the first part of this post reiterates and as shown by the "not caring" emoji. At no point did I say he deserved to die, much less that he deserved to die for saying things I don't agree with - and the fact you'd make up that I did is reprehensible.

I'd suggest taking longer to actually read posts than you are doing, and a lot longer to write them, because if you keep "misinterpreting" stuff and then acting like it's been really stated my tolerance for your presence in this discussion will wear out.

who reaps violence, aows violence... who reaps peace, sows peace

It's a lovely aphorism, but not exactly one that meshes with reality.

When the peaceful transition of power was happening in January 2021, the fascist guy who didn't want to give up power fomented violence and it nearly resulted in the deaths of people who were doing their job - including his own vice-president - in that action. When it happened four years later, there was no violence.

Do you think that the people being beaten up and detained by ICE in the USA sowed violence? Do you think that the survivors of Child Rape Island - who were, I'll remind you, children - sowed violence?

 

[huskeR32]

not even close, in fact, if you had not told me earlier today that it happened i would not even know this happened, that is how much the right and social media overall cared about it, they just ingored or were indiference mostly
meanwhile, each time i try check the news about it on social media, i get 10 different posts of people bragging about the fact he is dead

Sounds to me like the social media algorithms have you pegged, then.

 

[Joey D]

Given what we currently know, or rather don't know, this incident doesn't feel like the work of someone who was just pissed off about what Kirk said. The shooter was clearly trained and knew what they were doing. To take only one shot and it's fatal while being on a rooftop 200yds away, all while the winds are gusting 20mph, is not the work of someone who just randomly decided to kill an asshole. I'm a decent shot, and I go target shooting pretty frequently; that would be a tough shot to make for the average person.

The fact that they haven't been identified yet is also grounds for it not passing the smell test here. It's a college campus; every inch of a college campus has CCTV, and you expect us to believe that someone walked into a campus building carrying either a long rifle or a case, got out onto the roof (which was probably an alarmed door), set up, did the calculations, fired a shot, and then escaped without anything to go on? We don't even have some grainy picture of a person dressed in all black to go on, which should be plastered all over the media.

Something doesn't add up here. Especially given what happened yesterday. The vote to release the Epstein files quietly failed in Congress and the Russians are on the verge of starting WWIII. Both of those things need a massive distraction, and what better way to distract than to make some dude a martyr? It very well could be a pissed off person, but I don't think we should instantly brand the idea of foreign involvement or even a false flag as crazy.

Utah has connections with Russia, even though it doesn't broadcast them. Russian oligarchs had planes registered with the Bank of Utah. The Bank of Utah said they terminated that but several planes are that are connected to Russian elites are managed by the Bank of Utah Trust. The planes land in Heber from time to time too and occasionally someone spots one. This is older, but it's the best I could find in a quick search: Reddit link with probably swearing

Mike Lee, Utah's senator, also has Russian ties and has visited the country under some dubious circumstances. Lee also was/is the biggest supporter of the US pulling out of NATO. And Lee is known for pushing Russian propaganda.

Oh and hey, fun fact, Utah Valley University also has accepted money from the US Russia Foundation which has been known to push Russian propaganda.

There's also the connection with SafeMoon, which is a completely shady cryptocurrency company that's commited a ton of fraud. Kyle Nagy, one of the main conspirators in this scheme, fled to Russia and is being protected there. While this is a bit iffy in terms of a link, it's still a link.

Utah behaving badly is one of my jams so this is something I do spend an inordinate amount of time on. I know I can't wait for the documentary about the killing because there's going to be some bat🤬 Utahns saying some bat🤬 things and I'm here for it.

 

[Dave A]

When you say "murder" are you specifically talking about a situation wherein someone is killed by another person in regular society, or does it include all instances of someone being killed?

Specifically the premeditated unlawful killing of someone by a member of society.

 

[novcze]

I know him from YouTube, where he debated university students and tried to present facts to challenge their misguided beliefs. It’s sickening to think that this could lead to someone murdering him over that. Of course, the motive could also be more intricate, but that’s how it looks to me at first glance.

 

[Liquid]

documentary [...] Utahns saying some bat🤬 things

Will they be told that there's a camera running? Sounds like another day at the office.

 

[TexRex]

I know him from YouTube, where he debated university students and tried to present facts to challenge their misguided beliefs. It’s sickening to think that this could lead to someone murdering him over that. Of course, the motive could also be more intricate, but that’s how it looks to me at first glance.

Nativist vermin mourns nativist vermin.

 

[Famine]

Specifically the premeditated unlawful killing of someone by a member of society.

It's... a line, certainly.

Let's take Putin as an example again then. Russia is, of course, in a state of war with Ukraine and as the leader of Russia he would be a legitimate target of Ukrainian military action. If he's droned into a crypt, that - I assume - is fine for a street party in Kyiv because it's... you know, a war thing? By the line above, if he's out in Russia doing some stupid-ass parade or something and a Russian (for whatever reason; let's say he's descended from Ukrainians a couple of generations back and is opposed to the war) takes a successful shot at him, it'd be not fine because it's just a member of society premeditatedly and unlawfully killing someone?

We could be less political and go for... a serial nonce who never saw justice due to technicality/oversight/corruption 'cos he's mates with the cops/judges getting beaten to death with a pickaxe handle by one of 40-50 survivors after witnessing him dragging a seven-year old down an alleyway. Not fine?

I'm not looking to catch you out, but to understand where you are with this.

 

[novcze]

Nativist vermin mourns nativist vermin.

You never disappoint, do you? ...otherwise completely unhinged.

 

[TexRex]

You never disappoint, do you? ...otherwise completely unhinged.

 

[GBO Possum]

meanwhile, each time i try check the news about it on social media, i get 10 different posts of people bragging about the fact he is dead

Which is EXACTLY why NOBODY should get their news from social media.

Social media wants engagements to drive advertising revenue, uses algorithms to deliver whatever drivel has been shown to engage you. It pays no attention to the rigor of the source, the facts of the matter, or the relative importance of the statements.

You are being manipulated every time you get "your news" from social media. Switch to professional sources which rigorously fact-check themselves and correct mistakes when mistakes are made, and aren't trying to deliver "news" to appeal to your propensity to click and dwell.

EDIT: Added bold emphasis to "You" and "your" above

 

[Dave A]

It's... a line, certainly.

Let's take Putin as an example again then. Russia is, of course, in a state of war with Ukraine and as the leader of Russia he would be a legitimate target of Ukrainian military action. If he's droned into a crypt, that - I assume - is fine for a street party in Kyiv because it's... you know, a war thing? By the line above, if he's out in Russia doing some stupid-ass parade or something and a Russian (for whatever reason; let's say he's descended from Ukrainians a couple of generations back and is opposed to the war) takes a successful shot at him, it'd be not fine because it's just a member of society premeditatedly and unlawfully killing someone?

We could be less political and go for... a serial nonce who never saw justice due to technicality/oversight/corruption 'cos he's mates with the cops/judges getting beaten to death with a pickaxe handle by one of 40-50 survivors after witnessing him dragging a seven-year old down an alleyway. Not fine?

I'm not looking to catch you out, but to understand where you are with this.

You make a good point, and maybe I would veer into being a hypocrite in very specific circumstances.

When it comes to your second example and vigilante violence, I'm not a fan of it, but on the specific scenario you described, I wouldn't be able to say it was underserved in any way shape or form. I certainly wouldn't feel bad.

If I was a surviving victim however, but not the one who killed him, I think celebrating would be quite understandable.

I suppose a more personal example would be that if the guy who murdered my older brother was ever released from prison and then I read that someone murdered him, how would I feel? Hypocritically, I'd probably feel quite good about it.

In all examples though, the people who have been killed have committed serious crimes/attrocities, Putin included. But then we get into the murky waters of, what do you consider an attrocity. Child abuse and murder most certainly.

So, you've raised a great point. I still stand by not celebrating murder, but maybe it should come with an asterix or two.

 

[McLaren]

Didn't Kirk literally push for laws to allow open carry on collage grounds, where the incident apparently took place?

I mean, that's typically all Republicans.

I know him from YouTube, where he debated university students and tried to present facts to challenge their misguided beliefs. It’s sickening to think that this could lead to someone murdering him over that. Of course, the motive could also be more intricate, but that’s how it looks to me at first glance.

The guy who said MLK was awful and the Civil Rights Act was a mistake is the one who didn't have misguided beliefs?