Another one bites the dust

[Chef Boi RD]

US Professor Stacey Patton pens a letter:

“I am on on Charlie Kirk’s hit list.”

The Charlie Kirk’s have a responsibility in all of this, not just the “radical left”

https://www.left-horizons.com/2025/09/1 ... rlie-kirk/

[Cornuck]

... and we could be on the verge of learning about a whole internet subculture that we didn't even know existed.

This is what I've been reading, and it's quite eye-opening. This murder will likely shine a very bright (public) light on this subculture.

You’re new to this?

I'm referring the far alt-right subculture.

[Chef Boi RD]

We haven’t even begun to understand and respect what the affect social media is imprinting on the minds and emotions of the youth today. It’s truly out of control.

Edit add: so I think this vile stuff we see, I think it’s always right there, beneath the surface. The remarkable thing is how long these dark forces have been mostly held in check, and how in that process, we’ve achieved remarkable prosperity and political freedom and equality. But people feel both are now on the decline….

It’s always been just below the surface, and always will be. It’s hard living with races, lifestyles, religions, cultures one is not comfortable with. Since World War II we’ve managed to temper it to a degree, had a good run with it until a piece of shit like Steve Bannon and a bunch of his kind came along with his pet - Trump tapping into a toxic festering below the surface hate and making it “ok” again. MAGA my ass, lol. We know what MAGA really stands for.

[Cousin Strawberry]

Right...left....whatever association ostracizes or divides. This is the meat of it all. Not their actual perspectives

[Cornuck]

Right...left....whatever association ostracizes or divides. This is the meat of it all. Not their actual perspectives

54% of adults in the US have a literacy below a 6th-grade level (20% are below 5th-grade level) (42% in Canada). These people are easily led. This should be HUGE story and problem that needs solutions, but.... you know - politicians need sheep.

[UWSaint]

US Professor Stacey Patton pens a letter:

“I am on on Charlie Kirk’s hit list.”

The Charlie Kirk’s have a responsibility in all of this, not just the “radical left”

https://www.left-horizons.com/2025/09/1 ... rlie-kirk/

Wait, so Turning Point USA compiles a list of professors who publish things like maga = white supremacists who want to redo the civil war and too bad Trump survived the assassination attempt (Patton’s article, https://newsone.com/5381442/trump-shoot ... ck-people/), and the conclusion is Charlie Kirk has to take responsibility for what? Getting shot? It doesn’t follow. For amping up the temperature? I guess isn’t amped up when someone slanders her political adversaries as white supremecists wishing for another civil war and expresses a wish their leader was dead? But Kirk’s group linked to the article and categorized her as a professor as having a radical agenda? It was all fine until then. Got it.

I don’t know there was any call to action with the list (a “watch list,” not a hit list but cue “dog whistle!”) to harass this professor; certainly Kirk at his public appearances asked his supporters to not yell at, mock, harass people. And the watchlist website itself says “ TPUSA will continue to fight for free speech and the right of professors to say whatever they believe; however students, parents, and alumni deserve to know the specific incidents and names of professors that advance a radical agenda in our lecture halls.”

[Chef Boi RD]

Again…the divide. lol

I guess I’m wrong, Charlie Kirk was an Angel. The right ain’t culpable of fuck all.

Maybe the radical right are on to something, a “civil war” may be the only solution. Pick a side, dig in folks.

[UWSaint]

How many cities burned
How many violent protests

The 2 sides arnt the same

And here lies the problem, lol. Blame the other party. My party right or wrong. “Who us?” Noooooo”. Fucking hell, I hate this prevailing attitude, it ain’t helping. We all need to start getting back closer to centre instead of fostering hate.

Wait, does Rats’ point foster hate? His point is about civil disorder following events and the contrast between 2020 (blm, Chaz, Portland antifa) and 2025. His assertion is that difference in response is meaningful w/r/t propensity for political violence. I am interested in knowing why you think it’s a bad point.

Personally, I think there’s darkness in everyone. But as political movements, it isn’t obvious to me that all movements are equally willing to use degrees of violence. Some movements are more likely than others, might be a right left thing, might be on other lines, might be based on how many people are in the militant wings of their sides (meaning right and left equally capable of having a threshold for violence that is too quick, but that at this point in time there are more militants on one side than the other, more people who wish the other side were dead.).

[UWSaint]

Again…the divide. lol

I guess I’m wrong, Charlie Kirk was an Angel. The right ain’t culpable of fuck all.

Maybe the radical right are on to something, a “civil war” may be the only solution. Pick a side, dig in folks.

It’s not what I said.

[Chef Boi RD]

Right...left....whatever association ostracizes or divides. This is the meat of it all. Not their actual perspectives

54% of adults in the US have a literacy below a 6th-grade level (20% are below 5th-grade level) (42% in Canada). These people are easily led. This should be HUGE story and problem that needs solutions, but.... you know - politicians need sheep.

As we have all seen now, the sheeple these days are very easily triggered by the “influencers.” Right and Wrong? What the fuck is that anymore? The leaders today tell us what is right and wrong for the sheeple can’t seem to figure that out for themselves anymore. Oh, sorry I forgot, the Bible, that’s it. Lol

[Chef Boi RD]

How many cities burned
How many violent protests

The 2 sides arnt the same

And here lies the problem, lol. Blame the other party. My party right or wrong. “Who us?” Noooooo”. Fucking hell, I hate this prevailing attitude, it ain’t helping. We all need to start getting back closer to centre instead of fostering hate.

Wait, does Rats’ point foster hate? His point is about civil disorder following events and the contrast between 2020 (blm, Chaz, Portland antifa) and 2025. His assertion is that difference in response is meaningful w/r/t propensity for political violence. I am interested in knowing why you think it’s a bad point.

Personally, I think there’s darkness in everyone. But as political movements, it isn’t obvious to me that all movements are equally willing to use degrees of violence. Some movements are more likely than others, might be a right left thing, might be on other lines, might be based on how many people are in the militant wings of their sides (meaning right and left equally capable of having a threshold for violence that is too quick, but that at this point in time there are more militants on one side than the other, more people who wish the other side were dead.).

I could be wrong but there is an underlying sense in your opinions that it’s the “other side” that is the problem. A hint, I could be wrong. If I’m right then you’re just part of the problem aren’t you? Which is what I’ve been trying to get at. Centre is nothing but a big black dark void of nothingness with no one to be found. If anyone has been paying attention to Chris Cuomo these days, whether you like him or not, is he has shifted his views closer to complete centre trying to get everyone back together, meeting in the middle to talk about our differences. I appreciate this concept, it seems very foreign to some. A bit to rational and common sense.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Yeah his loyalty to Fuentes keeps coming up in Chefs research. According to Utah officials + police interviews with his family, Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk because Kirk wasn't conservative enough. (Robinson reportedly admired Nick Fuentes)

This came out yesterday, Chef. The body was still warm.

[UWSaint]

How many cities burned
How many violent protests

The 2 sides arnt the same

And here lies the problem, lol. Blame the other party. My party right or wrong. “Who us?” Noooooo”. Fucking hell, I hate this prevailing attitude, it ain’t helping. We all need to start getting back closer to centre instead of fostering hate.

Wait, does Rats’ point foster hate? His point is about civil disorder following events and the contrast between 2020 (blm, Chaz, Portland antifa) and 2025. His assertion is that difference in response is meaningful w/r/t propensity for political violence. I am interested in knowing why you think it’s a bad point.

Personally, I think there’s darkness in everyone. But as political movements, it isn’t obvious to me that all movements are equally willing to use degrees of violence. Some movements are more likely than others, might be a right left thing, might be on other lines, might be based on how many people are in the militant wings of their sides (meaning right and left equally capable of having a threshold for violence that is too quick, but that at this point in time there are more militants on one side than the other, more people who wish the other side were dead.).

I could be wrong but there is an underlying sense in your opinions that it’s the “other side” that is the problem. A hint, I could be wrong. If I’m right then you’re just part of the problem aren’t you? Which is what I’ve been trying to get at. Centre is nothing but a big black dark void of nothingness with no one to be found. If anyone has been paying attention to Chris Cuomo these days, whether you like him or not, is he has shifted his views closer to complete centre trying to get everyone back together, meeting in the middle to talk about our differences. I appreciate this concept, it seems very foreign to some. A bit to rational and common sense.

You don’t want to engage in Rats’ point. Instead you assume the conclusion (it’s all both sides and it’s all the same), and anyone who disagrees is a problem. Rats made the claim it’s not all the same and cited a reason why — actual civil disruption after significant political events, and I think it’s a fair point to address (is he cherry picking? Is he missing other examples, yea that’s true but). Your evidence of sameness is to quote some bad stuff some commentators on the right have said — basically, there’s rhetoric implicitly (or expressly) supporting violence on both sides. And that’s a good point too, and one I think Rats responded to indirectly by saying “but look what happens on the ground”.

My view is more nuanced than “pox on both their houses.” My view is that violence and darkness is within all of us, no matter our politics, and we are capable of acting badly, blindly, rashly. But we also erect structures and broader philosophies that curb violence — or at least raise the threshold for when violence is justified. (Most but devout pacifists believe that at some point you fight a war (say against Hitler); at some point when a bully wants your lunch money, you punch them).

While we all have the innate capacity for violence and mistake, I don’t think that means it manifests itself equally at any given moment in history along political lines. I think we’s all agree that in the first half of the last century the Leftist communists and the third way fascists (some call them right wing, I get that, but they saw themselves as the third way) were much more prone to using violence to achieve political ends or win a political battle than were the classical liberals, democratic socialists, and conservatives of that era (the people who were all small “d” democrats and believed in the legitimacy of representative government and valued that more than any one election or how any single crisis would be addressed).

I think there are some reasons to believe the bar for acceptable violence is lower within today’s left in America. Rats’ point is one reason. There was a summer of riots, they resulted in dozens of deaths and significant property damage, and while the mainstream democrats did not participate, they also did not prosecute in the way one might expect, and establishment left institutions called them “mostly peaceful.” It showed the numerous people who identify on the left will engage in political violence is response to an injustice, and that where the cause is just, the left wing establishment will tolerate it more than they might otherwise. It’s a kind of recognition that the intentions justify the means — which is an ethic that predicts a lower threshold for violence.

Another data point is simply how people report themselves. According to a recent yougov poll (https://today.yougov.com/politics/artic ... lence-poll), liberals are more likely than conservatives to believe political violence is acceptable, and more likely to say it’s acceptable to rejoice in the death of public figure. The numbers go significantly up among those who identify themselves as “very liberal,” and of course are higher among millennials and gen z’s than x’ers and boomers. In other words, among the people who would be most likely to participate in the violence.

But it isn’t that conservatives are shy of violence — the numbers are basically the same among moderates and liberals and conservatives when the question is using violence in self-defense. It’s *political* violence that’s the difference.

I note, too, that there is an increasingly large segment of people on the left who believe that words are violence. This is something I’ve studied for years, and the uptick started about 10 years ago (though the academic theory for words are violence goes back much further). I don’t mean “like violence”, I mean an erasure of the distinction. I think when trans people say they are “erased” by words, they aren’t just being poetic in their language. It’s something more tangible. I suppose this might have something to do with the fact progressive are probably more likely to recognize psychological harm as having parity with physical harm, but I don’t know.

The important part here is that *if* words *are* violence, there is created a moral argument for using violence as a response that looks more like a self-defense argument. Anyway, this phenomena (words are violence) seems to me be more on the left, but we are seeing more rhetoric on the right that equates nonviolence with violence, so I don’t know that the current distribution of how this lowers the bar for violence will remain assymmetric due to this factor.

So, if the question is “is the threat of political violence the same on both sides?,” one “not part of the problem” response is “no, because self-identified liberals tell us they are more tolerant of political violence.” That’s not dispositive — maybe conservatives are lying, maybe context is always changing, maybe it doesn’t matter because if there is widerspread violence, it will be met and exceeded by counter violence. But it is pretty good evidence.

[UWSaint]

And one more small point to add to my last post.

Let’s say it is only the most extreme elements of the right and left who would use political violence. If the numbers are even in terms of left and right, but the numbers aren’t even in their extremities, then there won’t be equal potential for violence. Why would we expect an even distribution on all “sides”. It might also make a difference whether the moderate group condemns, excludes, etc. those extreme elements, or whether there is permission to engage.

I fully suspect that online space is more heavily dominated by the extremes as compared to the general population. Why? Because most people with muted or heterodox (non ideological) beliefs less likely to engage and share their views. Those with no firm opinion on hot button topics or don’t think their resolution is all that important to their life in the broad view, are less likely to post, and not at all likely to initiate political violence.

[Cornuck]

former director of the National Hockey League Players Association Bob Goodenow has passed away suddenly at the age of 72.