Them going mask off was sadly necessary. Fox news is now openly advocating to kill all liberals and forcibly euthanize the homeless against their will. Theres no more room for fence sitting, you are either with the fascists or you are pro democracy and the rule of law. The faster every sane Americaj wakes up to how insane the Magas truly are the better, we need everybody for the fight to come.
It's telling that the messaging from self-professed conservatives switched from demanding retribution to lamenting a lack of dialogue when the current suspect in Kirk's assassination was revealed to be a white man, possibly one associated with Nick Fuentes.
(It was funny to see Spencer Cox read online memes on live television, as macabre as it was that they were found on bullet casings.)
But it is also telling that people are condemning this shooting as political violence--which it is--but not also condemning as political violence policies like anti-homeless measures that see spikes put on public benches and such, in conjunction with policies that artificially limit the housing supply and cause skyrocketing land values, leading to increased homelessness. (To say nothing of youth homelessness caused by homophobic and transphobic parents who kick their queer kids out. As the online meme puts it, shall we kiss at the pro-LGBTQ park bench with anti-homeless spikes?) Violence is violence.
Your great writing here made my life bearable again.
Just want to 'zoom out' briefly on 'the medium is the message' idea that I think is a glaring omission in the coverage of the past week because it is hiding in plain sight. The mental states of both the shooting suspect and the victim were almost certainly shaped in part by the violence they saw in the media as children and adolescents. If their political points of view as forces that shaped them can be removed from consideration for a moment, we are still left with two young boys who took in an enormous amount of media violence.
Almost all young people have a strong tendency to imitate the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of others. How could they not have become violent?
We owe it to our sons to support their tenderness, to gain their trust by modeling that we are fallible as adults so they have no shame when they ask questions. We can be curious about who the child actually is and speak to them with a seriousness that show we respect them as whole human beings. After working with thousands of children, I can assure you, they are actually born into our world with their own little essence and personality in tact. For young boys, emotional vocabulary is really helpful. It lays a foundation for when challenges arise. It keeps a channel open for dialogue with trusted adults who can then intervene to de escalate harmful behavior by processing intense emotions. 🤍
Konstanin Kisins take was so hypocritical. He said all the talk about fascism directly contributed to the violence and those people have “blood on their hands”. Coming from someone who has sharply criticized the woke words are violence paradigms is beyond hypocrisy
> "But let me get this straight: If I call the Trump regime “fascist,” for sending military into cities and violating constitutional due process rights, I am somehow complicit in Kirk’s death and should be killed myself?"
Good question, maybe the one of the hour. Though your own answer seems somewhat self-serving at best. How about if you were complicit, at least an accessory after the fact in Kirk's murder?
Kirk had been murdered in the very process of condemning thuggery and murders by transwomen, transactivists and gender ideologues -- "trans women are women!!11!!". An ideology and mantra that the Democrats and Kamala -- she's for they/them -- Harris have fully endorsed, bought the farm, swallowed the Kool-aid, hook, line, and sinker. There's the smoking gun, and motive which the Democrats own. And need to take responsibility for it.
You've just demonstrated the exact fascist logic I'm exposing. You're claiming that Democrats are 'complicit' in Kirk's murder because they support transgender rights, while simultaneously arguing that accurately describing Trump's systematic constitutional destruction makes me deserve death.
So supporting the civil rights of transgender people makes Democrats accessories to murder, but calling for RICO cases against Democratic fundraisers, designating opposition parties as criminal organizations, claiming unlimited authority to execute suspected criminals without trial, and deploying military forces against American cities—none of that counts as fascist behavior that deserves accurate description?
Your smoking gun is that Democrats believe transgender women are women. My smoking gun is that Stephen Miller wants to criminalize political opposition and Trump claims unlimited executive power. And somehow you think the first justifies assassination while the second doesn't even justify criticism?
This is precisely the totalitarian inversion I'm describing: you want to make supporting civil rights grounds for murder charges while making opposition to constitutional destruction grounds for actual murder. You want transgender acceptance to be treated as violent extremism while treating actual violent extremism as reasonable governance.
You've just proven my entire point: you're fascists who want to criminalize your opponents' political positions while threatening death for anyone who accurately describes your own. Thanks for the demonstration.
I am most certainly NOT "arguing that accurately describing Trump's systematic constitutional destruction makes [you] deserve death."
You may well have a point about "Trump's constitutional destruction", though one might argue that your Republic makes the President an Emperor -- with or without clothes -- for four to 8 years.
But try thinking that there are different policies on each side of the aisle, of the fence that contributes to or motivates unhinged people -- not quite sure what else to call people who claim to be a sex they clearly aren't -- to go off the rails. It's simply an article of faith, a rather demented one in fact, that "trans women are women!!", that is causing no end of social problems, from the sterilization and castration of autistic & dysphoric children, to putting males into women's sports, prisons, and change rooms. Which the Democrats OWN -- sure the fuck hasn't been the Republicans doing that.
Moot of course exactly what sent Robinson off in that direction. But Kirk was speaking to the point -- AS he was speaking in fact -- about thugs and psychotics in the transloonie tribe that the Democrats have made common-cause with. You might also consider what he was saying at that time, and what Wikipedia records as his subtext, and how so many on the Democrat side go off the deep-end themselves about it:
QUOTE; Wikipedia: On January 21, 2025, Kirk praised Trump for revoking Executive Order 14004, which had allowed transgender people to serve openly in the military, and said, "Sorry, if you're Jeff and you think you're Jill, you are not going to serve in the U.S. military. Go find something else to do." .... On October 14, 2021, Kirk said "the facts are that there are only two genders; that transgenderism and gender 'fluidity' are lies that hurt people and abuse kids."[128] In early 2023, he said that transgender women in women's locker rooms should be "taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and '60s".[129] On April 1, 2024, Kirk called for Trump to propose a nationwide ban of gender-affirming care for transgender people.[130] The same day, he called for the imprisonment of doctors who perform gender-affirming care and demanded "Nuremberg-style" trials for them.
"Jeff" thinking HE is a Jill -- and demanding to be treated as such -- seems prima facie evidence of rank insanity, being charitable. But that is what the Democrats are peddling, whether they know it or not.
You've just proven everything I wrote about fascist methodology. You're arguing that Democrats are 'complicit' in Kirk's murder because they support transgender civil rights, while claiming that calling systematic constitutional destruction 'fascist' makes critics deserve violence.
You quote Kirk calling for 'Nuremberg-style trials' for doctors providing medical care to transgender patients and suggesting transgender people should be 'taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and '60s'—which is explicitly calling for violence against a vulnerable population—then argue that Democrats supporting transgender rights somehow caused Kirk's assassination.
So Kirk advocating violence against transgender people is reasonable political discourse, but Democrats supporting transgender civil rights is complicity in murder? Kirk calling for 'Nuremberg trials' for doctors is legitimate criticism, but calling Trump's behavior 'fascist' deserves death threats?
You've perfectly demonstrated the fascist logic: your side can call for violence against vulnerable populations while claiming that supporting those populations' civil rights justifies violence against you. Your side can advocate 'taking care of' transgender people 'the way we used to' while treating accurate description of your authoritarianism as grounds for retaliation.
This is exactly how fascist movements work: dehumanize target populations, advocate violence against them, then claim that defending their rights somehow justifies violence against the advocates. You want transgender people to face the kind of 'care' they received in the 1950s and '60s while claiming that opposition to that eliminationist rhetoric makes Democrats accessories to murder.
You're proving my point about death threat logic while making the case for why calling this fascist is accurate.
The funny thing is, this is how trans people were treated in the 1950s. You can find media articles from the time using feminine pronouns for Ms. Jorgensen.
The government of Mexico recognised Sr. Robles as a man for most of his life, from the 1920s until his death in the 1980s.
Meanwhile one of the Nazis' earliest book burnings was at the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin, attacking Weimar Germany's transgender community as one of the earliest targets of their oppression.
Still think it qualifies as rank insanity to claim to have changed sex and to demand to be treated as such. What do we normally do with the criminally insane?
Though, sadly, psychological and pharmological science hasn't progressed much past trepanning and bloodletting.
“When I was in middle school, I learned there were only two genders. When I did my bachelors in Biology, I learned that there are also people who are intersex and the importance of the SRY gene. When I completed my Masters in Neurosciences, I learned that sex is already hard to define, and gender is both social and in the brain, making everything a lot more complex. When people say ‘it’s basic biology’ they are telling you they haven’t moved past middle school.” (Rebecca Helm)
Prof. Helm detailed here why even defining "biological sex" is difficult, including a discussion of the aforementioned SRY gene, before one considers any difference between sex and gender: https://x.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207834357639139328
(She doesn't even get into things like androgen insensitivity syndrome.)
My point in bringing up Ms. Jorgensen, Sr. Robles, and Weimar Germany's trans community is that being transgender was generally socially accepted when the matter first came to public attention--right up until trans people became a convenient target for oppression.
As for "who started the clusterfuck", in the instant case, the current prime suspect in the shooting is, it appears, an acolyte of Nick Fuentes, who was critical of Kirk because he felt Kirk was insufficiently conservative.
(In a comment on a previous article I listed off thirteen cases of suppression of democratic discourse through killing, violence or parliamentary manoeuvre; in only one of those cases, the shooting at the Republican Congressional Baseball Game practice which grievously injured Steve Scalise, was the assailant known to be left-wing, having supported Bernie Sanders. The censures and expulsions were all done by conservative legislatures; Donald Trump was attacked by an assailant of uncertain political views; the Pelosis and Mike Pence were threatened by conservatives; David Amess was murdered by an Islamic State supporter; Jo Cox, Heather Heyer and Melissa Hortman were all killed by conservatives; and Charlie Kirk was also apparently killed by a conservative.)
> "So Kirk advocating violence against transgender people is reasonable political discourse, but Democrats supporting transgender civil rights is complicity in murder?"
🙄 I did NOT say that at all, I am most certainly not endorsing any of Kirk's supposed advocating for violence. You might try not reading between the lines.
And you might also ask yourself, who started that clusterfuck? Which may well turn out to be a tempest in a teapot, though I doubt Charlie and his wife and kids would think so.
But methinks it started when transwoman/transexual Christine Jorgenson claimed to have changed sex and demanded to be treated as such -- arguably a crime against nature, gawd, and the more ephemeral laws of man. And likewise when Bruce Jenner became Caitlin and garnered some demented magazine's prize for "Woman of the Year".
This is classic fascist methodology: first dehumanize the target population ('crime against nature,' 'transloonie tribe'), then advocate for their elimination ('taken care of the way we used to'), then claim that anyone defending their humanity is responsible for violence against the advocates of elimination.
You're proving exactly why calling this fascist is accurate. When you treat transgender people's existence as inherently criminal while treating Kirk's eliminationist rhetoric as legitimate political discourse, when you blame Democrats for Kirk's murder because they oppose dehumanization while excusing the dehumanization itself—you're demonstrating fascist logic in real time.
> "When you treat transgender people's existence as inherently criminal ... "
What pretentious and quite unscientific twaddle and ideological claptrap. Absolutely NO ONE is "denying their existence". All that is happening is that people are pointing out -- speaking of emperors without any clothes at all -- that they haven't changed sex, that transwomen, in particular, haven't replaced their testicles with ovaries of their own.
It's a brute scientific fact of far-reaching consequences that humans, and millions of other anisogamous species, come in either of two -- count 'em, two -- distinct body plans or "designs": those that produce EITHER large reproductive cells (AKA females) OR those that produce small reproductive cells (AKA males).
Absolutely no way on gawd’s green earth that any transwoman is going to replace his testicles -- the organ that produces those small reproductive cells -- with his own ovaries -- the organ that produces those large reproductive cells.
Hardly qualifies as any "dehumanization", "hate speech", or "invalidating the existence" 🙄 to point out those facts. You might try to get a better handle on them yourself -- this might be a good start:
Transgender people commit mass shootings at a disproportionately low rate compared to their share of the population as ascertained by census data, which is, I suspect, the point the person questioning Kirk was about to make when Kirk was shot. (I agree with Kirk that transgender people commit too many mass shootings, but that is because one mass shooting is too many, never mind five or five thousand.) I would like to see a citation on how many mass shootings are committed by non-trans activists or "gender ideologues".
On the other hand, men commit mass shootings at a disproportionately high rate compared to their share of the population. If any group's "thuggery and murders" should be condemned in this context, it is not that of trans people--it is that of men.
> "If any group's "thuggery and murders" should be condemned in this context, it is not that of trans people--it is that of men."
Indeed. Though, one might point out -- since it seems to have escaped the attention of many including Kamala ("she's for they/them") Harris -- that transwomen are, in point of (f)act, men and males. At least if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't ...
But ICYMI in the department of "Thuggery and stochastic terrorism from the transloonie tribe", you might give some serious thought to this bill of particulars:
Of the five identified transgender shooters, at least two were transgender men (who by your argument are actually women), meaning at most three were transgender women. Since, again, the data shows that the vast majority of mass shooters are men (how exactly we classify the transgender shooters in the denominators is a blip), this still leaves trans women as committing mass shootings at a disproportionately low rate relative to their share of the population. The only gender demographic that is confirmed to commit mass shootings at a disproportionately high rate is cisgender men.
(The AP article I linked was in the wake of the Nashville shooting, which was committed by a transgender man, and this same torrent of bullshit about how transgender people are disproportionately violent was spewed then, too.)
As for the second point, there is a quantitative difference between internet tough talk, or even burning someone in effigy, and enacting policies that harm a marginalised group or committing actual violence against actual people, which is that in the former cases no actual person is physically harmed or killed, and in the latter cases actual people are often physically harmed and/or killed.
> "... enacting policies that harm a marginalised group or committing actual violence against actual people ..."
🙄 You may wish to spare a thought or two for the autistic and dysphoric children who've been castrated and turned into sexless eunuchs by transgender ideology implemented in Democrat policies ...
I think it should be expanded to explain the culture war waged against American cities, and how the right has set up the scaffolding to occupy and pacify our populations.
The void of voices speaking in praise of our cities, and in defense of our rights is stunning. Trump and his Republican forces have deployed his maximum pressure campaign on us. But people urging an urban movement or saying how amazing it is that our cities have shown resilience to these tactics have been harder to find than people advocating concentration camps be built for our communities.
They have flooded us with armed forces, enacted over policing, exposed us to brutality against our neighbors, terrorized us with military weapons and equipment. They have set up hurdles to things which are necessary to dense populations (like vaccines), removed public school programs that made multicultural areas capable of airing differences without street fights, and defunded everything but police, in a nationwide front of urban factionalism policies.
They are trying to make voting impossible and they know that their policies are targeting our economy, and it isn't an accident.
Our cities deserve much better, and our representatives continue to attempt to expand American freedoms to all her residents.
"If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.” Kevin Alfred Strom
Them going mask off was sadly necessary. Fox news is now openly advocating to kill all liberals and forcibly euthanize the homeless against their will. Theres no more room for fence sitting, you are either with the fascists or you are pro democracy and the rule of law. The faster every sane Americaj wakes up to how insane the Magas truly are the better, we need everybody for the fight to come.
It's telling that the messaging from self-professed conservatives switched from demanding retribution to lamenting a lack of dialogue when the current suspect in Kirk's assassination was revealed to be a white man, possibly one associated with Nick Fuentes.
(It was funny to see Spencer Cox read online memes on live television, as macabre as it was that they were found on bullet casings.)
But it is also telling that people are condemning this shooting as political violence--which it is--but not also condemning as political violence policies like anti-homeless measures that see spikes put on public benches and such, in conjunction with policies that artificially limit the housing supply and cause skyrocketing land values, leading to increased homelessness. (To say nothing of youth homelessness caused by homophobic and transphobic parents who kick their queer kids out. As the online meme puts it, shall we kiss at the pro-LGBTQ park bench with anti-homeless spikes?) Violence is violence.
Your great writing here made my life bearable again.
Just want to 'zoom out' briefly on 'the medium is the message' idea that I think is a glaring omission in the coverage of the past week because it is hiding in plain sight. The mental states of both the shooting suspect and the victim were almost certainly shaped in part by the violence they saw in the media as children and adolescents. If their political points of view as forces that shaped them can be removed from consideration for a moment, we are still left with two young boys who took in an enormous amount of media violence.
Almost all young people have a strong tendency to imitate the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of others. How could they not have become violent?
We owe it to our sons to support their tenderness, to gain their trust by modeling that we are fallible as adults so they have no shame when they ask questions. We can be curious about who the child actually is and speak to them with a seriousness that show we respect them as whole human beings. After working with thousands of children, I can assure you, they are actually born into our world with their own little essence and personality in tact. For young boys, emotional vocabulary is really helpful. It lays a foundation for when challenges arise. It keeps a channel open for dialogue with trusted adults who can then intervene to de escalate harmful behavior by processing intense emotions. 🤍
😇 Thank you Lisa for helping so many children with such a loving, caring heart.
The exhortation to kill: is it a
political view, or is it the last command before the firing squad pulls the trigger?
Konstanin Kisins take was so hypocritical. He said all the talk about fascism directly contributed to the violence and those people have “blood on their hands”. Coming from someone who has sharply criticized the woke words are violence paradigms is beyond hypocrisy
Fix, not rail! Let's move on to solution.
We are seeing the world through different lenses.
Meanwhile, the elite relish the games they have us playing. They win! Up or down, they win!
But not if we see what they're doing. Unite. Be of one voice. Bring MAGA with us. No blaming! No us vs them. Don't abandon hope!
> "But let me get this straight: If I call the Trump regime “fascist,” for sending military into cities and violating constitutional due process rights, I am somehow complicit in Kirk’s death and should be killed myself?"
Good question, maybe the one of the hour. Though your own answer seems somewhat self-serving at best. How about if you were complicit, at least an accessory after the fact in Kirk's murder?
Kirk had been murdered in the very process of condemning thuggery and murders by transwomen, transactivists and gender ideologues -- "trans women are women!!11!!". An ideology and mantra that the Democrats and Kamala -- she's for they/them -- Harris have fully endorsed, bought the farm, swallowed the Kool-aid, hook, line, and sinker. There's the smoking gun, and motive which the Democrats own. And need to take responsibility for it.
You've just demonstrated the exact fascist logic I'm exposing. You're claiming that Democrats are 'complicit' in Kirk's murder because they support transgender rights, while simultaneously arguing that accurately describing Trump's systematic constitutional destruction makes me deserve death.
So supporting the civil rights of transgender people makes Democrats accessories to murder, but calling for RICO cases against Democratic fundraisers, designating opposition parties as criminal organizations, claiming unlimited authority to execute suspected criminals without trial, and deploying military forces against American cities—none of that counts as fascist behavior that deserves accurate description?
Your smoking gun is that Democrats believe transgender women are women. My smoking gun is that Stephen Miller wants to criminalize political opposition and Trump claims unlimited executive power. And somehow you think the first justifies assassination while the second doesn't even justify criticism?
This is precisely the totalitarian inversion I'm describing: you want to make supporting civil rights grounds for murder charges while making opposition to constitutional destruction grounds for actual murder. You want transgender acceptance to be treated as violent extremism while treating actual violent extremism as reasonable governance.
You've just proven my entire point: you're fascists who want to criminalize your opponents' political positions while threatening death for anyone who accurately describes your own. Thanks for the demonstration.
I am most certainly NOT "arguing that accurately describing Trump's systematic constitutional destruction makes [you] deserve death."
You may well have a point about "Trump's constitutional destruction", though one might argue that your Republic makes the President an Emperor -- with or without clothes -- for four to 8 years.
But try thinking that there are different policies on each side of the aisle, of the fence that contributes to or motivates unhinged people -- not quite sure what else to call people who claim to be a sex they clearly aren't -- to go off the rails. It's simply an article of faith, a rather demented one in fact, that "trans women are women!!", that is causing no end of social problems, from the sterilization and castration of autistic & dysphoric children, to putting males into women's sports, prisons, and change rooms. Which the Democrats OWN -- sure the fuck hasn't been the Republicans doing that.
Moot of course exactly what sent Robinson off in that direction. But Kirk was speaking to the point -- AS he was speaking in fact -- about thugs and psychotics in the transloonie tribe that the Democrats have made common-cause with. You might also consider what he was saying at that time, and what Wikipedia records as his subtext, and how so many on the Democrat side go off the deep-end themselves about it:
QUOTE; Wikipedia: On January 21, 2025, Kirk praised Trump for revoking Executive Order 14004, which had allowed transgender people to serve openly in the military, and said, "Sorry, if you're Jeff and you think you're Jill, you are not going to serve in the U.S. military. Go find something else to do." .... On October 14, 2021, Kirk said "the facts are that there are only two genders; that transgenderism and gender 'fluidity' are lies that hurt people and abuse kids."[128] In early 2023, he said that transgender women in women's locker rooms should be "taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and '60s".[129] On April 1, 2024, Kirk called for Trump to propose a nationwide ban of gender-affirming care for transgender people.[130] The same day, he called for the imprisonment of doctors who perform gender-affirming care and demanded "Nuremberg-style" trials for them.
UNQUOTE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk
"Jeff" thinking HE is a Jill -- and demanding to be treated as such -- seems prima facie evidence of rank insanity, being charitable. But that is what the Democrats are peddling, whether they know it or not.
You've just proven everything I wrote about fascist methodology. You're arguing that Democrats are 'complicit' in Kirk's murder because they support transgender civil rights, while claiming that calling systematic constitutional destruction 'fascist' makes critics deserve violence.
You quote Kirk calling for 'Nuremberg-style trials' for doctors providing medical care to transgender patients and suggesting transgender people should be 'taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and '60s'—which is explicitly calling for violence against a vulnerable population—then argue that Democrats supporting transgender rights somehow caused Kirk's assassination.
So Kirk advocating violence against transgender people is reasonable political discourse, but Democrats supporting transgender civil rights is complicity in murder? Kirk calling for 'Nuremberg trials' for doctors is legitimate criticism, but calling Trump's behavior 'fascist' deserves death threats?
You've perfectly demonstrated the fascist logic: your side can call for violence against vulnerable populations while claiming that supporting those populations' civil rights justifies violence against you. Your side can advocate 'taking care of' transgender people 'the way we used to' while treating accurate description of your authoritarianism as grounds for retaliation.
This is exactly how fascist movements work: dehumanize target populations, advocate violence against them, then claim that defending their rights somehow justifies violence against the advocates. You want transgender people to face the kind of 'care' they received in the 1950s and '60s while claiming that opposition to that eliminationist rhetoric makes Democrats accessories to murder.
You're proving my point about death threat logic while making the case for why calling this fascist is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Jorgensen
The funny thing is, this is how trans people were treated in the 1950s. You can find media articles from the time using feminine pronouns for Ms. Jorgensen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelio_Robles_%C3%81vila
The government of Mexico recognised Sr. Robles as a man for most of his life, from the 1920s until his death in the 1980s.
Meanwhile one of the Nazis' earliest book burnings was at the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin, attacking Weimar Germany's transgender community as one of the earliest targets of their oppression.
Literally Hitler, amirite? 🙄😉🙂
Still think it qualifies as rank insanity to claim to have changed sex and to demand to be treated as such. What do we normally do with the criminally insane?
Though, sadly, psychological and pharmological science hasn't progressed much past trepanning and bloodletting.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DM7238LsY5n/
“When I was in middle school, I learned there were only two genders. When I did my bachelors in Biology, I learned that there are also people who are intersex and the importance of the SRY gene. When I completed my Masters in Neurosciences, I learned that sex is already hard to define, and gender is both social and in the brain, making everything a lot more complex. When people say ‘it’s basic biology’ they are telling you they haven’t moved past middle school.” (Rebecca Helm)
Prof. Helm detailed here why even defining "biological sex" is difficult, including a discussion of the aforementioned SRY gene, before one considers any difference between sex and gender: https://x.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207834357639139328
(She doesn't even get into things like androgen insensitivity syndrome.)
My point in bringing up Ms. Jorgensen, Sr. Robles, and Weimar Germany's trans community is that being transgender was generally socially accepted when the matter first came to public attention--right up until trans people became a convenient target for oppression.
As for "who started the clusterfuck", in the instant case, the current prime suspect in the shooting is, it appears, an acolyte of Nick Fuentes, who was critical of Kirk because he felt Kirk was insufficiently conservative.
(In a comment on a previous article I listed off thirteen cases of suppression of democratic discourse through killing, violence or parliamentary manoeuvre; in only one of those cases, the shooting at the Republican Congressional Baseball Game practice which grievously injured Steve Scalise, was the assailant known to be left-wing, having supported Bernie Sanders. The censures and expulsions were all done by conservative legislatures; Donald Trump was attacked by an assailant of uncertain political views; the Pelosis and Mike Pence were threatened by conservatives; David Amess was murdered by an Islamic State supporter; Jo Cox, Heather Heyer and Melissa Hortman were all killed by conservatives; and Charlie Kirk was also apparently killed by a conservative.)
> "So Kirk advocating violence against transgender people is reasonable political discourse, but Democrats supporting transgender civil rights is complicity in murder?"
🙄 I did NOT say that at all, I am most certainly not endorsing any of Kirk's supposed advocating for violence. You might try not reading between the lines.
And you might also ask yourself, who started that clusterfuck? Which may well turn out to be a tempest in a teapot, though I doubt Charlie and his wife and kids would think so.
But methinks it started when transwoman/transexual Christine Jorgenson claimed to have changed sex and demanded to be treated as such -- arguably a crime against nature, gawd, and the more ephemeral laws of man. And likewise when Bruce Jenner became Caitlin and garnered some demented magazine's prize for "Woman of the Year".
This is classic fascist methodology: first dehumanize the target population ('crime against nature,' 'transloonie tribe'), then advocate for their elimination ('taken care of the way we used to'), then claim that anyone defending their humanity is responsible for violence against the advocates of elimination.
You're proving exactly why calling this fascist is accurate. When you treat transgender people's existence as inherently criminal while treating Kirk's eliminationist rhetoric as legitimate political discourse, when you blame Democrats for Kirk's murder because they oppose dehumanization while excusing the dehumanization itself—you're demonstrating fascist logic in real time.
> "When you treat transgender people's existence as inherently criminal ... "
What pretentious and quite unscientific twaddle and ideological claptrap. Absolutely NO ONE is "denying their existence". All that is happening is that people are pointing out -- speaking of emperors without any clothes at all -- that they haven't changed sex, that transwomen, in particular, haven't replaced their testicles with ovaries of their own.
It's a brute scientific fact of far-reaching consequences that humans, and millions of other anisogamous species, come in either of two -- count 'em, two -- distinct body plans or "designs": those that produce EITHER large reproductive cells (AKA females) OR those that produce small reproductive cells (AKA males).
Absolutely no way on gawd’s green earth that any transwoman is going to replace his testicles -- the organ that produces those small reproductive cells -- with his own ovaries -- the organ that produces those large reproductive cells.
Hardly qualifies as any "dehumanization", "hate speech", or "invalidating the existence" 🙄 to point out those facts. You might try to get a better handle on them yourself -- this might be a good start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms-justice-department-second-amendment
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-transgender-nashville-shooting-misinformation-cd62492d066d41e820c138256570978c
Transgender people commit mass shootings at a disproportionately low rate compared to their share of the population as ascertained by census data, which is, I suspect, the point the person questioning Kirk was about to make when Kirk was shot. (I agree with Kirk that transgender people commit too many mass shootings, but that is because one mass shooting is too many, never mind five or five thousand.) I would like to see a citation on how many mass shootings are committed by non-trans activists or "gender ideologues".
On the other hand, men commit mass shootings at a disproportionately high rate compared to their share of the population. If any group's "thuggery and murders" should be condemned in this context, it is not that of trans people--it is that of men.
> "If any group's "thuggery and murders" should be condemned in this context, it is not that of trans people--it is that of men."
Indeed. Though, one might point out -- since it seems to have escaped the attention of many including Kamala ("she's for they/them") Harris -- that transwomen are, in point of (f)act, men and males. At least if they still have their nuts attached, and sexless eunuchs if they don't ...
But ICYMI in the department of "Thuggery and stochastic terrorism from the transloonie tribe", you might give some serious thought to this bill of particulars:
https://terfisaslur.com/
And that's just the tip of the iceberg too.
Of the five identified transgender shooters, at least two were transgender men (who by your argument are actually women), meaning at most three were transgender women. Since, again, the data shows that the vast majority of mass shooters are men (how exactly we classify the transgender shooters in the denominators is a blip), this still leaves trans women as committing mass shootings at a disproportionately low rate relative to their share of the population. The only gender demographic that is confirmed to commit mass shootings at a disproportionately high rate is cisgender men.
(The AP article I linked was in the wake of the Nashville shooting, which was committed by a transgender man, and this same torrent of bullshit about how transgender people are disproportionately violent was spewed then, too.)
As for the second point, there is a quantitative difference between internet tough talk, or even burning someone in effigy, and enacting policies that harm a marginalised group or committing actual violence against actual people, which is that in the former cases no actual person is physically harmed or killed, and in the latter cases actual people are often physically harmed and/or killed.
> "... enacting policies that harm a marginalised group or committing actual violence against actual people ..."
🙄 You may wish to spare a thought or two for the autistic and dysphoric children who've been castrated and turned into sexless eunuchs by transgender ideology implemented in Democrat policies ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20201113021904/https://standpointmag.co.uk/speaking-up-for-female-eunuchs/
This is very illuminating.
I think it should be expanded to explain the culture war waged against American cities, and how the right has set up the scaffolding to occupy and pacify our populations.
The void of voices speaking in praise of our cities, and in defense of our rights is stunning. Trump and his Republican forces have deployed his maximum pressure campaign on us. But people urging an urban movement or saying how amazing it is that our cities have shown resilience to these tactics have been harder to find than people advocating concentration camps be built for our communities.
They have flooded us with armed forces, enacted over policing, exposed us to brutality against our neighbors, terrorized us with military weapons and equipment. They have set up hurdles to things which are necessary to dense populations (like vaccines), removed public school programs that made multicultural areas capable of airing differences without street fights, and defunded everything but police, in a nationwide front of urban factionalism policies.
They are trying to make voting impossible and they know that their policies are targeting our economy, and it isn't an accident.
Our cities deserve much better, and our representatives continue to attempt to expand American freedoms to all her residents.