This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
'His legacy is cringe': how Charlie Kirk became a meme among the young – even his supporters
It is gratifying, though unsurprising, that Kirk's death did not kick off a wave of revenge killings and mass violence, as fedposters fervently predicted. Regardless of what the Guardian's experts say, it was reasonable to deploy cancel culture against the most gleeful celebrators of Kirk's death. Killing people you disagree with in a democracy is bad, and celebrating it shouldn't be accepted. But the right clearly pushed their chips in too far trying to martyrize the guy and now his legacy is incomprehensible memes that have nothing to do with his life or message. Turning Point was always aimed at zoomers, and their verdict is in. There are probably a bunch of them who don't realize Kirk was a real person. And the less said about Erika the better.
As a side note, there are a whole bunch of retarded conspiracy theories around his death, because we can't accept that a guy could just be shot by a lone nut despite multiple videos. Even JD Vance isn't immune.
The Guardian is a leftist/progressive word-product-extruder. They have a credible claim neither to pop-culture insight nor to journalistic credibility. Like many nozzles studding the meta-Blue-Tribe superstructure, they say what they feel will be convenient to be seen saying at this moment in time. They arrived at simulacrum-4 many years ago, and are unlikely to ever leave.
It is not in the perceived interest of anyone involved in the extrusion of this particular word-product that Charlie Kirk be perceived as anything but a joke. It is not in their interest for people to take Progressive political murders seriously. It is not in their interest for people to take broad-based, grass-roots support for political murders of sympathetic victims seriously. Thus, it is important to them that the victim not be perceived as sympathetic. Unfortunately, a lot of people took both Kirk's murder and the obvious, undeniable and very widespread support for his murder quite seriously, and so this is a problem that needs to be dealt with.
The memeing of Kirk is the desired outcome of those managing this particular extrusion. They are not impartially reporting a fact of interest, they are selectively reporting whatever facts or slogans seem to make their desired end-state more probable.
The above three points cover the large majority of what it seems to me is useful to say about the article itself.
Yet! Growth mindset. On the other hand, his death did, I think, have a permanent and in my view highly salutory effect on intra-right wing discourse, creating large amounts of useful common knowledge within Red Tribe that move the conversation forward in a useful way.
Agreed. And yet, consensus on this point could not be achieved within our society, and common knowledge on that point likewise was generated within Blue Tribe. When the shoe is on the other foot, you are going to see large portions of Red Tribe responding to mirrored demands for unity against hate responding with quotes from prominent Blues from the Kirk aftermath, and flat rejection of the "unity" frame. If you would like an example of this process in action, check the discourse over the recent anti-immigrant riots in Ireland. Social cohesion is not an unlimited resource, and things like this are how it goes away.
It kind of was though, wasn't it?
Another way to frame this is that the right called on the ancient bonds of brotherhood and unity, and the reply was a brief period of initial, halfhearted opprobrium quickly transitioning into complaints about how these appeals to bedrock principles of social comity were all just "going too far".
Blue Tribe had no interest in allowing Charlie Kirk a legacy before his death, and they certainly have no interest in allowing him one after his death. Obviously, it is in their interest if Charlie Kirk's legacy is as a ridiculous meme, and to the extent that anyone anywhere is treating him this way, they will report it, and to the extent anyone anywhere takes him and his death seriously, they will either mock them or ignore them as seems most immediately advantageous. That is not my understanding of Kirk's legacy, nor the understanding of other Reds I encounter. I have no reason to prefer your interpretation to mine, nor to believe their interpretation is more accurate than mine. As for the youtube-slop video... I do not think your or the Guardian's read on such portents is accurate.
Can you please make this more explicit? Specifically, what common knowledge was established and how things have moved forward? Because from where I stood, it seemed like the Right squandered a generational opportunity to actually root out the violence-promoters on the left, instead deciding to flounder and squabble thanks in part to conspiratorial nonsense peddled by people like Candace Owens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I saw a post (I think on Substack) making the point that the way progressives talk about Kirk parallels Umberto Eco's observation that, in fascism, the enemy must be seen to be both strong and weak. When Trump wants to name a street after Charlie Kirk, progressives tend to roll their eyes and say that he's undeserving of the accolade because he was just some guy with a YouTube channel. But when people are saying that it was bad that Kirk was assassinated, progressives will turn around and say that it was justified, because he was a powerful and dangerous demagogue who used his platform to invite violence against [minority du jour].
Obviously, it cannot be the case that Kirk was both an insignificant YouTuber and an influential demagogue: only one of these things can be true.
That's because "Everyone I don't like is extremely dangerous and must be destroyed. But they're also, like, a total loser, man." is a general feature of human psychology.
(Very effective tactic too. Great way to get your lynch on when that needs doing. Justice, consequences, accountability, you know the drill.)
More options
Context Copy link
The point is reasonable enough, but my observation is that Umberto Eco's writings on the nature of Fascism are straightforwardly bullshit. A supermajority of those engaged in conflict at any scale are going to see their opponent as a threat ("strong") and also both deeply flawed and weak enough to be defeated ("weak"). There is no contradiction here; "Strength" and "Weakness" are not objective criteria, but rather meta-poles in a fuzzy, highly-multidimensional space.
From what I've seen, the rest of his analysis is shot through with similar problems.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Charlie Kirk was a meme prior to his death, though, surely? Those edits with the TPUSA slogan, and the tiny-faced Kirk? After Kirk's death I remember a wave of articles explaining that, contrary to what many on the left thought, he was not just a meme, but rather a significant and influential political organiser. As the immediate aftermath of his death fades, I am unsurprised that he is a meme again.
KYM has a page on TPUSA going back at least to 2017, thank you Internet Archive, and it includes pictures of Charlie Kirk used for meme purposes. Part of it, I suspect, is just that Kirk had a kind of silly-looking face, and when he tries to look serious, it always comes off slightly askew. I've since seen videos and he was a lot more natural-looking and sounding in person, but the goofy pictures of him made him easy prey for meming, and that hasn't changed.
Those memes had a message though. They were anti-Turning Point. They existed in the first place because Kirk was an influential political organizer. There is no message behind "put Kirk's face on everything and create new slang (lowkirkenuinely)", it's just irony poisoning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not only random shitposters, but even the most serious esoteric Catholic fascist conspiracy theorist who at the time correctly disavowed all conspiracy theories and called it what it was, act of self radicalized lone wolf, predicted this event to be the turning point, end of debate.
Well, 10 months after, even this did not happened, no copycats so far on any side.
There just aren't so many people willing to sacrifice their lives who are so functional they can track single even moderately protected target (instead of random indiscriminate massacre).
It all turned out to be one big nothingburger. Is current situation still far from revolutionary conditions, or modern culture of circus and spectacle just lacks the seriousness necessary to create martyrs?
I'ma let you finish, but E. Michael Jones is the greatest esoteric Catholic fascist conspiracy theorist OF ALL TIME.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I'm more than happy to make fun of anything - 9/11, rape, my own crippling need for validation from strangers (especially women).
But frankly I'm still pissed that he got killed and that the bloodthirsty circlejerk online and IRL went largely unpunished. The double-standard for violence between the right and left is untenable. I was, perhaps, even more furious with this than Trump's first assassination attempt, and I considered Kirk a bit of an edgelord previous to his murder.
I doubt you mean the first one.
More options
Context Copy link
There's been a minor news story recently after a teacher got well over a million bucks in settlement money, and there's a strong argument she shouldn't have gotten fired originally... and then you think about everyone who got fired and didn't get anywhere near the compensation or an order of magnitude under that, didn't get their jobs back, and didn't get the fawning political coverage, for something far less charged than saying the target of a political assassination (and his family!) deserved it.
But what really gets me is the dog that doesn't bark. Nicholas Decker's "When Must We Kill Them" (answer: when he wanted the substack revenue) wasn't accompanied by an involuntary commitment and a warrant; PopeHat's complaining about a Bluesky ban rather than the solitary confinement and involuntary medication after he called for people to kill Musk. Trace is back from his internship and has a lot to say, and can't quite get his dander up about the forum he built because TheMotte didn't respect the humanity of spree criminals and arsonists can't reflect on the humanity of a guy who talked. There's no serious investigation of all those Tesla arsons, nor are we getting lawsuits by people fired for supporting the Tesla arsons. Damore isn't independently wealthy; he got judges informing people the law required his speech be infringed. William Kelly probably got his job back, and if he got anything else it was a rounding error, for 25 USD in Rittenhouse donations.
We know what happens when people do things that progressive leadership oppose. It's not a surprise when it didn't happen here.
Welcome to the difference between public sector jobs and private sector jobs. https://www.fire.org/research-learn/what-free-speech-rights-do-government-employees-have
Because their speech is protected from the government under the 1st amendment. They did not make a True Threat. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/true-threats/ https://www.fire.org/research-learn/how-and-why-true-threats-are-unprotected-speech
Their speech would not be protected from private actors, such as a future (private sector) employer or their friends or whoever else.
In case you missed the reference
That stops a conviction (maybe). It does less than nothing against a warrant. Moderators here have been Very Concerned about warrants for speech that would easily avoid Brandenberg.
They came to an agreement about it https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/norfolk/norfolk-resolves-issue-police-officer-william-kelly-fired-donating-to-rittenhouse-fund/291-045c4a2f-444d-4d1f-9d13-0bb9619b4b90
Clearly whatever the result is, Hogge is fine with it and did not wish to pursue further. I imagine it's probably something like a reinstatement (or promotion?) with a significant pay raise, but who knows. Still, if he wasn't happy with the result he could sue and would likely win so it must be considered good enough for him.
In the US, it absolutely does.
It does a lot against warrants. Blatantly anti first amendment abuse like that is very rare in modern day America, and typically from lower level government officials in smaller towns and cities when they do happen.
The moderators can decide whatever caution level they please, it doesn't mean this properly reflects US law. Also of course, not everyone here is an American and they would have to obey the laws of their own respective country.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Lol. The satire is how you know it's working.
Humour is a coping mechanism. The medievals had an entire holiday dedicated to making fun of the church(it's evolved into mardi gras). Even the schizoid Candace Owens acid trips about Egypt and a french hit squad wouldn't be happening if there wasn't a recognition of the cultus of Charlie Kirk. His faction won and that's why people make fun of it. The Byzantine emperors developed a tradition of accepting mockery of themselves to show they were too important to be bothered. That's what we're seeing.
More options
Context Copy link
Zoomer humor might have done it eventually anyway, but the right wing reaction to his death was definitely a major catalyst. The ridiculous over the top cringeposting (such as people going like "this means war!") was not serious behavior. It was the behavior of people more obsessed with signaling how Cool and Brave they were to their audiences and like-minded peers. Throw in the conspiracy theories claiming that some trans witch coven, or Israel, or whatever other nonsense besides the literal guy who is on camera in the area who used his own family's gun and admitted to it to people in his life shortly afterwards, and how was it not going to become a joke?
If you act like a fool, people treat you like one. The reaction was ridiculously over the top, and that engineered its own mockery. They tried to force a martyr but that doesn't work easily when you're in a personal responsibility country and the lone wolf culprit is quickly caught and brought to justice. You can't form a meaningful protest or statement against anything, the killer was arrested the second he was found! There's no ongoing injustice to sustain anger against, unless of course you make shit up.
The only reason George Floyd worked even a little is because police are a government organization so blaming it on "policing" as a whole is reasonable in the minds of ordinary idiot citizens who don't actually understand how government works and that police departments in the US are highly compartmentalized from each other. And even that response was so large because COVID, people were bored and wanted something to do. You can't do a COVID era campaign in a non COVID time.
And as history has shown us, this was cringe. Incredibly cringe. His death is a meme because even his fans and allies (looking especially at those like Tucker Carlson claiming Israel killed him at the funeral, Candace Owens, and even as you pointed out Vance himself) couldn't help themselves from being cringe. That's why we got incredible jokes like this.
Just to add finally, this was pretty much unpreventable. The right wing media atmosphere now is tuned to making outrage slop, and pivoting on a dime to being serious is just not happening. Internet pundits can't take his death seriously, because the slop machine is on full throttle.
I grew up in Arizona. It upset a lot of people and was really, really gruesome. Edgy hasan orbiters were outright gleeful about it right after. I think it’s a lot more ‘cringy’ to make memes about a widow trying to carry on in public life after her husband gets murdered in plain view. I don’t get seeing a public figure get murdered and thinking it’s odd people try to find good things to say about them.
It also makes 0 difference whether it was a lone wolf. You seem to forget that this was less than a year after the attempted assassination of Trump. There was a real feeling that a cycle of violence was beginning. Thankfully that did not come to pass, but a lot of the ‘martyrdom’ was coming from ‘why exactly was a somewhat edgy college debater murdered?’ and ‘why are people snidely saying he deserved to be murdered?’
Yeah and that's old fart behavior. People joke about 9/11, and suicides, and all sorts of other dark crap. Wanting to be immune to it is another form of cringe and invites even more jokes. This is part of why Kirk cringe snowballed, because getting upset at the youth's memes just make them meme harder.
Correct, the feeling was bullshit. It was a real feeling but that's because people are paranoid idiots.
None of the jokes or memes I’ve seen have been from perspective of ‘Charlie deserved it’, just usual bizarre post ironic references, so I don’t really get what you’re saying. The whole problem people had was with the initial jubilant reaction towards the actual act of violence and people earnestly saying he deserved it.
The only stuff I’ve ever seen people get mad about is mean spirited stuff where people do a finger gun to their neck and intimate that some person deserves what happened to him.
More options
Context Copy link
An interesting position.
Shit, that doesn't seem very consistent. Reading this thread, it seems like you think people "joking" about "dark shit" is a very serious problem, sufficient to make a long and highly-uncharitably framed post about it, provided it's your outgroup in the hotseat.
Damn, check that out, a whole additional post and extensive comment thread where you very much seem to be attempting to frame this as a really serious, chronic problem that demands action! Can you point out any place in either of these posts or the subsequent threads where your critique of "old fart behavior" or "wanting to be immune to it is another form of cringe" impinges on your analysis?
Let us speak plainly. I don't think you actually believe anything you write here. You are a committed Blue Tribe partisan, and in each post you say whatever you think will advance your short-term partisan interests in the immediate context, with zero concern for any sort of long-term principle or consistency. You will (and have!) argued in favor of free speech when you perceived free speech to be of benefit to you, and you will (and have!) argued for censorship when censorship is of benefit to you. If you have anything recognizable as actual principles, I do not believe you have ever shared them here; certainly I do not believe that I have seen them.
Now to be very clear, I do not think you are breaking the rules by behaving this way, and as far as I am concerned you are perfectly free to continue as long as it pleases you. This place is for arguments, and you certainly bring arguments. To the extent that your pattern of argumentation is viewed as obnoxious by others, I encourage them to simply remember the things you have said, and repeat them back to you, and those who agree with you, when the moment becomes opportune. As an example, I think it is pretty likely that Blue Tribe is going to, at some point in the next few years, start experiencing what it's like to be on the receiving end of actual, motivated, grassroots political murder. And when that happens, and when Blues here discuss how prominent members of their tribe being publicly murdered worries them, I am going to quote them this line right here:
...along with a bouquet of similar quotes from your previous posts. And why shouldn't I? These are the arguments you choose to make, and the other Blues here choose to accept, are they not?
I think accusing Magicalkittycat of having beliefs in an overreach. Fairly high confidence it's just a work of contrarian performance art moreso than actually occupying any particular part of the political spectrum
Send me a few links to where he did that to liberals or progressives, and I might buy that. Niche independent online fora are weird place to do "contrarianism".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, not all sorts. What you're describing hasn't been believable for over a decade.
Plus making fun of sacred topics like Trans Suicides gets a totally different reaction from the Left
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This maybe one of the most egregious examples of outgroup homogeneity bias I've seen in a while.
Yes, Candace Owens joined TPUSA claiming to have renounced her woke ways in 2017, but then she attempted a hostile take-over of the organization in 2024, got kicked out as a result, and seems to have been nursing a personal vendetta against Kirk's wife Erika ever since.
Meanwhile, Carlson and Hanania were only ever "allies" of Kirk in the sense that they were all ostensibly Republicans, A a party that both have been working to distance themselves from for some time now.
Your standards seem ridiculously high if "former employee of 7 years with such a clear crush that people gossip about it" and "guy who literally spoke at Kirk's own funeral alongside the president" somehow don't count.
At that point who does?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the BLM riots didn't discredit George Floyd, then it's farcical to say that the circus of Kirk's death discredits him. Right-wing George Floyd 'I can't breathe' memes are scrubbed off the internet, while Kirkist mockery stays online because of leftist bloodthirstiness.
Tu quoque?
Even George Droyd has been banned off most major platforms, including X. It's less about bloodthirstiness and more about who controls the censorship apparatus. Some left-wing employee at YouTube or Meta is the one deciding which accounts get pulled for "harmful content" and which are allowed to continue existing as permitted political expression.
More options
Context Copy link
"Discredit" is the wrong word entirely. Kirk has not been discredited by being turned into a meme, people still widely think it was wrong to kill him (as you can see by the fact his alleged killer is on trial and likely to be sentenced).
BLM was a largely serious reaction by people who mostly took themselves seriously. The Kirk aftermath was silly and hyperbolic by people who didn't even believe in their own words. People like LOTT or Steve Bannon saying "this is war" are not serious. They did not and have not picked up arms or done serious protests (of what exactly anyway? Robinson was caught). They claim war, and yet do nothing. They do not mean what they say.
This goes up to the highest levels even. When we have JD Vance searching for conspiracies to believe in, and guests at Kirk's own funeral making it into a joke, how is anyone else supposed to treat it seriously?
Wildly? Half of the left wing said it was a good thing, and that he deserves it. (The other says its a bad thing, but also deplores what he said, thus negating the virtue of the first.) Virtuous centrists are a rounding error.
Maybe you are sincere. But there are certainly players that are not, and I am tired of listening to the snide and back-biting commentary of the partisans of the other side. You take it seriously because a man is dead because he was killed for speech, a right that he had every freedom to exercise. Nothing can diminish that, although you've certainly tried.
Comments celebrating his death were actually quite uncommon. They were so rare that the "Charlie's Murderers" site that was being passed around had to cast a web so wide for a decently sized list that it includes people saying things like I hope there isn't more violence in response, dark humor jokes, and comments literally saying it was awful he got shot. That's how far the digging had to go, it includes people who literally said it was bad the shooting happened but that they don't personally like Kirk and think it's hypocritical to care about him but not dead children. Outside of the generic internet edgelords who say edgy things about everything, there wasn't really much actual pro violence talk, and we can't take the edgy shitposters seriously given that they're edgy shitposters.
Of course if you choose to cast a ridiculously wide net of nonsense, you get a lot of fish. But most of them were not what was actually looked for. If you actually look at what political leaders were saying, anti violence was the general rhetoric from the left.
There wasn't much "more please", although there's some nuance there because most of the fully-mindkilled ones were in full denial and claiming the murderer was a fascist (also, most people aren't risk-tolerant enough to endorse terrorism in public, though Destiny arguably was). There was a fair amount of celebration, though, including that newsroom whose backstage got caught cheering in a broadcast. I would count some of the jokes (though not all) as celebration (including e.g. this) - I mean, telling jokes is one of the main ways you celebrate in a text format where you can't organically cheer/clap/laugh/hug/fist-pump.
"Half" is an exaggeration, though, and I agree the actual Democratic Party leadership condemned the shooting.
More options
Context Copy link
Come on. You're doing the thing that every edgy leftist is doing, and pretending that their not-so-subtle mockery wasn't concealing their glee at getting him. It does not convince, no more than 'in minecraft' is a defense against conspiracy. No comedian ever went on television and said that George Floyd was probably killed by a commie, and certainly no con was going around saying he deserved to die because he punched a pregnant woman (which is something he actually did.)
And yet, Kirk's assassination is deemed his own fault because of some amorphous harm to leftist causes, or something.
I'm not stupid. I can see the winks and the smiles. Your argument is unconvincing and insults the intelligence of anyone credulous enough to extend you the benefit of the doubt. The people who called him a Nazi have blood on their hands. People who use that word to rile up extremists to kill their political opposition have blood on their hands. If this isn't stoastic terrorism, it is at the very least 'turbulent priest' levels of wishcasting.
It is not too far to suggest that you have some infinitesimal part of his blood on your hands.
"If I substitute what you're saying with this imaginary thing you didn't say, it's just like you said the imaginary thing"
Yeah I guess so.
Damn, not only are words dangerous they can kill too?
Not a thing. It's never been a thing. You can tell because it's a modern invention for something that if it was real, should have been an established concept already. It's what gets said when people can't claim incitement (a legal term with actual standards) but still wanna whine about name calling or insults.
You say this sarcastically, but there are contexts where yes, the full moral responsibility of murder attaches for words. Ordering a minion (or, I suppose, a machine that takes text/voice input) to kill is generally considered murder or something that amounts to it (absent the usual affirmative defences).
I don't think that calling Kirk a Nazi is one of those contexts - though one can argue whether it's culpable to a lesser degree, as e.g. slander/libel - but you're overreaching here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the last update you heard in the news about Goode or Pretti? Or is the slop diagnosis something that's only goes on direction, or only means something one direction?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Right does not know how to do martyrdom culture. It’s sad because Kirk could have been a great conservative martyr. But we just don’t know how, apparently. We lost the technology. The, the spirit of a martyr should be carried through reverent rituals and heart-moving music. They tried to carry it with pyrotechnic displays, a colorful widow in too much makeup, really silly events, etc. Just terrible. Tasteless and senseless. You needed a song like Horst Wessel Lied that could be sung in a mass gathering under reddish hued lighting. You needed dedicated photographers to only present the experiences in the most powerful frame. You needed to associate his death with weeping women. George Floyd was effectively martyrized because the Public consumed his image intermediated by emotional actors (TV anchors), saddened women replaying his death, and cool people telling you to join them in a march. But the Left immediately de-martyred him through a face-swapping meme and the intentionally humorous “we are Charlie Kirk” anthem. Just plain social engineering that the right can’t compete with.
Okay, I know what you mean there, but that was the
it's just that the other side proceeded to vice-signal it away by reveling in it and vilifying her, what you're calling "de-martyring" him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your "verdict" link is broken because you forgot to include the "https://" part at the beginning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link