pull down to refresh
11 sats \ 13 replies \ @didiplaywell OP 12 Sep \ parent \ on: Debunking the Slander on Charlie Kirk: what he *Actually* said on Gun Deaths Politics_And_Law
Part of being a bitcoiner is the ability of making checksums, with you clearly lack of.
You will not believe the obvious even after it becomes official, for then you will claim the official is also false. You don't want the truth, you simply want to stick to your narrative.
This is a post from a personal longtime friend of Charlie Kirk:
reply
Tbh, @79c9095526 does have a point. We do not know the motivation yet afaik.
You don't want the truth, you simply want to stick to your narrative.
Which narrative? Afaict, they did not reveal anything about which narrative they believe, they just mentioned that your narrative has holes
reply
What holes? The narrative is clear and is ubiquitous: that "he had it coming" and "he would have justified this murder as necessary". This is much bigger than Charlie and the murderer. You're seeing in real time that the left and the mainstream media consider that you should be executed for not sharing their views.
reply
Do you have proof that this was indeed the motivation of the assassin, and not just what people say?
You're seeing in real time that the left and the mainstream media consider that you should be executed for not sharing their views.
I do not disagree with this. I only disagree with your statement that this is a fact:
Charlie was murdered by someone solely because that someone didn't like what he said
I also wasn't talking about the media's narrative, I was talking about what you think @79c9095526 believes, exclusively based on #1218566.
reply
But what proofs do you need? He was killed on the spot in one of his events. Do you have proof that a person killed in an assault was killed just to steal his money? And when the murderer confesses would you still say "we will never truly know"? It doesn't matter at all what your inner intentions are, your actions speak for you. If you kill the guy in the middle of an event, you're attacking free speech. Regardless of all the reserves you may have on what the inner intentions were, this will effectively affect how people express in public from now on. And you will see that.
reply
There is a difference between fact and plausibility.
And when the murderer confesses would you still say "we will never truly know"?
This is a good question. I think I would say it is plausible enough then that we can say it's a fact.
this will effectively affect how people express in public from now on.
I know, I agree.
reply
Fair enough.
reply
reply
You too Sr.
Reread your first sentence, it doesn't make sense. Perhaps you just mistyped a word or two?
You're right, its hard to believe "official narratives" after the FBI yesterday leaked that the shooter has a trans ideology based on writings on the bullets. Now what was their 'proof' of this? The following images. When the decision was clearly made ahead of time to blame this on a particular group to fit the narrative the people in power prefer, you have to take all of this with a fuck-ton of salt.
reply
How could this narrative be fabricated in any way when you're seeing in real time that the entirety of the left and the mainstream media are celebrating and vindicating this, saying, textually: that "he had it coming" and "he would have justified this murder as necessary". Let alone to official and the unofficial, this is right in front of you. All of this people are expressing explicitly that if you do not share their views you should be executed.