Off Topic Charlie Kirk

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Thats the thing though, I clicked a news link when the story broke and x has decided that my feed can now be full of videos etc of it.

Should have stuck to the BBC website
I only use the 'following' instead of the 'for you' tab as this only gives you accounts that you choose to follow the 'for you' is the algorithm timeline.
 
I'm getting sick of the rhetoric being peddled now in the States... Blaming the far left, Democrats for the death of Kirk, without any knowledge at all of who did this and why. All these mass shootings or attempts on the lives on political people it’s NOT a left or right issue, Its not a Republican or Democrat issue, its not Red v blue.....Its right v wrong... They are so dim they cannot or will not accept this
 
I'm getting sick of the rhetoric being peddled now in the States... Blaming the far left, Democrats for the death of Kirk, without any knowledge at all of who did this and why. All these mass shootings or attempts on the lives on political peopleT NOT a left or right issue, Its not a Republican or Democrat issue, its not Red v blue.....Its right v wrong... They are so dim they cannot or will not accept this

Quite right mate.

As I said yesterday, anyone who shoots and kills other people isn't 'anything' unless it's in a military sense.
 
Exactly. But what is important to understand is that it is both sides of the argument doing this, and driving this polarisation. It has to stop.

This tribalism in politics is completely contrary to the purpose. I was half watching a piece about the Labour deputy leadership election on Sky News last night. Whoever was being interviewed started talking about doing "what is best for the Labour Party". No, they should be doing what is best for the country or for the people they are there to represent. The party, whichever one it is, should never come first. And neither should ideology.

I agree, mate. But it's how arguments are being framed now. The mainstream media doesn't help as it's now relatively dumbed down. TV is trapped in the 24 hour news cycle so needs stuff to fill air time, so they focus on minor stuff. The print media is basically dead, circulations have plummetted so they mostly pitch directly to their base audience for advertising revenue. Some will switch their support depending on how they sense the wind blowing, but otherwise preach to the choir, focussing on lesser things to make stories out of nothing to fill pages. Their online stuff is just the same, aimed for clicks instead of physical copies. Social media is the wild west now. No oversight or regulations, fragmented with echo chambers repeating the same things, often lies and distortion. Different sites linked together, sharing the same stuff, pitched at certain small sections of society, demonising people who don't share the same views. Meme culture to ridicule or stir up hate, fact checking non existent. And that's not considering the bot farms and organised multiple fake accounts to swamp platforms. Social media doesn't care, traffic brings clicks, which brings advertising money. The more the better, so long as people engage anything goes. Porn, violence, drug dealing, harmful behaviour. No matter, so long as it brings on the money.
 
I agree, mate. But it's how arguments are being framed now. The mainstream media doesn't help as it's now relatively dumbed down. TV is trapped in the 24 hour news cycle so needs stuff to fill air time, so they focus on minor stuff. The print media is basically dead, circulations have plummetted so they mostly pitch directly to their base audience for advertising revenue. Some will switch their support depending on how they sense the wind blowing, but otherwise preach to the choir, focussing on lesser things to make stories out of nothing to fill pages. Their online stuff is just the same, aimed for clicks instead of physical copies. Social media is the wild west now. No oversight or regulations, fragmented with echo chambers repeating the same things, often lies and distortion. Different sites linked together, sharing the same stuff, pitched at certain small sections of society, demonising people who don't share the same views. Meme culture to ridicule or stir up hate, fact checking non existent. And that's not considering the bot farms and organised multiple fake accounts to swamp platforms. Social media doesn't care, traffic brings clicks, which brings advertising money. The more the better, so long as people engage anything goes. Porn, violence, drug dealing, harmful behaviour. No matter, so long as it brings on the money.
I use it plenty myself so I'm being hypocritical really, but I think social media is probably one of the most harmful creations of the last couple of decades. It's effect on people's mental well-being is well-noted and I believe.the way people interact on it is beginning to seep into their real-world interactions. It certainly seems to me to be one of the biggest driving forces in the antagonistic way people deal with each other. Sadly, you can no longer dismiss it as 'it's just the Internet, not the real world', the Internet is the real world for a lot of people.
 
Exactly. But what is important to understand is that it is both sides of the argument doing this, and driving this polarisation. It has to stop.

This tribalism in politics is completely contrary to the purpose. I was half watching a piece about the Labour deputy leadership election on Sky News last night. Whoever was being interviewed started talking about doing "what is best for the Labour Party". No, they should be doing what is best for the country or for the people they are there to represent. The party, whichever one it is, should never come first. And neither should ideology.
Disagree with that, although it's on a bit of a technicality. The position being filled is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, not a government post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Norton Cat
Disagree with that, although it's on a bit of a technicality. The position being filled is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, not a government post.
Yeah, fair point.
But then, and I realise I'm straying away from the topic a bit, and to bring in another technicality, I'd say that the very existence of political parties is problematic. The requirements of the party are always going to have the potential to cause some degree of conflict with the requirements of the electorate and of the country.
 
Genuinely interested, why do you think he deserves to rest in peace? A sexist, racist, gun nut? A man who celebrated Israel's daily bombing of women and children? A man who deemed the regular massacre of innocent schoolkids to be "worth it" if it meant he got to keep his precious second amendment rights?

Personally I think RIH (rot in hell) is far more appropriate than RIP, in this case <laugh>
Wow !
Bloke who pulled the trigger probably holds the same beliefs
You have a lot of class. I’m not calling people a **** because they disagree with me. is yours caring politics?

Kirks shooting is appalling but if you peddle guns this is a sad consequence.

No condemnation of the arson attack surprisingly? Perhaps someone could be seen as a hate filled ****?
I live near where the alleged unconfirmed arson attack and that graffiti has been on the wall for weeks prior to the fire. The area has also been suffering from many cars being smashed up and set on fire right around the town as well as many burglaries. There are also other businesses in and around the Labour office that have been affected, they have someone so we will find out soon if its politically related but I wouldnt bet on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makemstine Roger
Couldn't disagree more.... If "idiots" didn't have "guns" then they couldn't kill with them
Guns only really have one function. So, if you own one you clearly want to give yourself the option to choose to use that function. Which eventually means that things are going to end badly and suddenly for someone or something.
 
Yeah, fair point.
But then, and I realise I'm straying away from the topic a bit, and to bring in another technicality, I'd say that the very existence of political parties is problematic. The requirements of the party are always going to have the potential to cause some degree of conflict with the requirements of the electorate and of the country.
As you say,very problematic! And,as democracy discovers all too frequently,the ability of the party to serve absolutely the requirements of the country and of the electorate is often compromised by the inability of party officials to separate their own requirements and ambitions from those of the country and the electorate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makemstine Roger
You are a vile hate filled person but sadly not alone in this country. We are in sad times.

Kirk peddled hate and division and sadly for him a gun culture.

Thousands of innocent kids have been killed in the US whilst him and his ilk have actively encouraged gun ownership. Sadly for him someone had a big gun that blatantly he shouldn’t have had to do what he did.

When it comes to guns it shouldn’t be a political debate but right or wrong. However given the Republican Party are in hoc and receive significant funding from with the gun industry sadly it is political and many more innocent people are going to loose their lives through people like Kirk.

As I have said it’s sad for Kirk’s family but if you live and actively promote gun culture you can’t have many complaints when someone who shouldn’t have had a gun shoots you.
Did you just copy and paste that from when you have been called out for it?

You show nothing but hatred on this board with anyone who doesn’t share your views. We both know that’s been well documented by several posters already.

You are basically a fascist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makemstine Roger
Guns have been a part of the American story, more or less since inception, the western archetype heading into the wilderness is deeply entrenched into the American psyche, a key component of its identity, even Americas founding narrative is taking up arms against tyrannical power. If I lived in America I would want a gun, they're never getting rid of them.