this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2025
1539 points (98.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

34428 readers
5672 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 216 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (19 children)

His last words

He was asked how many shooters were trans in the last 10 years and replied "Too many"

He was corrected, the number is 5.

He was then asked how many shootings happened in these years (there were 5700)

He asked back: "Counting or not counting gang violence?" and got shot

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago

He was engaging in hate-mongering right until the end. Just like the Nazi propagandists of the WW2 era, he was spreading a message of a demonized minority group being responsible for countless crimes and social ills. He ran literally the exact same playbook against trans people as the Nazis did against Jews.

I have no more sympathy for him than the Nazi propagandists we hanged at Nuremberg. They're guilty of the exact same crimes against humanity.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 142 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

His last word was "violence".

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 51 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

A sniper with an innate sense of comedic timing?

[–] Klear@quokk.au 5 points 12 hours ago

I'm guessing shooting at any other point would produce similar results.

[–] sad_detective_man@leminal.space 18 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Maybe he was waiting for Chuck to say a number. But chuck was too slippery. One last owning of the libs, right before he was triggered. At least you know he died doing that thing where he opens his mouth and just kind of shows his gums with glee

[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 65 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 33 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 17 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

And isn't it poetic?
Don't you think?

It's like rain on that assholes birthday
It's a free ride when they've already paid
It's the gun shot that you just took to the neck And who would've thought? It figures

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 8 points 17 hours ago

If some historian a hundred years from now or whatever wants to say this moment represented a real turning point, please don't

If violence isn’t working, you’re not using enough violence.

shot; dies

Narrator:

the violence worked.

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 85 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I always said "You can tell when Charlie Kirk is arguing in bad faith by when his lips are moving and sounds are coming out."

And it was literally the last thing he ever did.

[–] lastunusedusername2@sh.itjust.works 55 points 18 hours ago (2 children)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 26 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Lying for money. I hope he saved enough for his family

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 23 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

I do unironically feel bad for his kids, even if they may grow up better without him they still watched their dad get ganked in public. Note they were with him at the time.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 17 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I did not know that... That sucks

And I wasn't being ironic either. I hope his ill gotten gains are enough for his kids to be ok... The damage he did collecting it will never equal what he squirreled away, but hopefully it at least is enough for his kids to grow up with food and therapists

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 11 points 17 hours ago

That's my take as well, right now they need comfort food and a highly respected trauma therapist. Maybe keep them away from crowds for awhile as well, who knows what issues will start to manifest in the coming days/weeks/months/years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EldenLord@lemmy.world 12 points 14 hours ago

Reality displayed an immaculate sense of poetic justice today.

[–] phoenixarise@lemmy.world 48 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

“Gang violence” = racist dog whistle. The assassin couldn’t have picked a more perfect time to fire. 😂

[–] Cruel@programming.dev -3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, most gang activity comes from young black men, but that does not mean it's racist to talk about it. I think talking about whether to include or exclude "gang violence" from a conversation about mass shootings is appropriate and not offensive in the slightest.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

a dog whistle has nothing to do with the facts but a shared agreement between people in the know as to its hidden meaning.

[–] Cruel@programming.dev 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I understand that. I'm saying that there is no hidden meaning. Gang violence is understood on its face by everyone.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 53 minutes ago

unless you use it as a overgeneral brush, and fill it with only minorities, and use it as a short hand for black people like it’s used in this context. are you a native english speaker?

dog whistles specifically use words with a cover meaning and the group agrees to internally change its meaning.

[–] phoenixarise@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

That’s why you just had to go out of your way to point out that gang activity comes from people of color. Not to mention lecturing to people of color about what YOU don’t find offensive. 😂 Thank you for your contribution, goodbye. 🙂

[–] Cruel@programming.dev 1 points 2 hours ago

"That's racist."

"It may involve a race, but it's not racist."

"That's why you said it involved that race!"

Bizarre logic.

Offensive was the wrong word. I meant that it's not racist. It's unhealthy that one would be offended by acknowledging the existence of gang violence.

[–] Treetrimmer@sh.itjust.works 19 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

I mean ideally it would've been at his time of birth

[–] phoenixarise@lemmy.world 12 points 18 hours ago

Okay, second-best time. 😂

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Seriously? We’re living in a movie.

[–] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 14 hours ago

It gets dumber...there was a school shooting today, 3 kids dead, 1 state over from this.

[–] jimmux@programming.dev 34 points 19 hours ago (10 children)

I would actually like to know what he was leading to with that question. Is the implication that gangs have an overrepresentation of trans people? Or that gang violence doesn't count for some reason?

I guess we'll never know.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 58 points 19 hours ago

It's a common talking point among the right that there aren't really that many mass shootings in America if you exclude gang violence. Y'know, which is done by and only effects those people

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 40 points 19 hours ago

Pointing out that gangs do a lot of violence is an attempt to shift blame onto the demographic groups which are overrepresented in gangs due to socioeconomic reasons (systemic racism).

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

He was obviously arguing that skin colour minorities were doing any shooting that trans Americans weren't. Because his goal in life was to make people feel like they belonged - by vilifying out groups. And then monetizing that shit.

[–] abir_v@lemmy.world 27 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Given who he was, probably the latter as a to-him socially acceptable racist dog whistle.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 21 points 18 hours ago

Using one minority as a scapegoat for gun violence wasn't working, so he was switching to a different minority.

[–] slaacaa@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

Just some good old racism

[–] BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world 14 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

It's a deflection technique. The intention was to not answer or address the question at all, but to shift to another topic he could more easily use to manipulate his audience. If you've ever watched him "debate" he was a master of deflection.

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago

he was a master of deflection.

With words, maybe. With lead, evidently not.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 19 hours ago

As others mentioned, "gang violence" is generally a euphemism for non white, especially poor, people. I used to listen to Knowledge Fight(stopped after election not because of the boys, but didn't want to hear Jones gloat) and during several shootings that involved black victims Jones dismissed it as gang violence.

One case I recall was a shooting in a school in GA that he was spinning some other way, until he found out the school was primarily black and the victim (who survived iirc) was black. He then just stated the kid was in a gang with no proof and dismissed the story.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It was more anti-trans hate mongering. 2 or 3 trans shooters out of 5700 is nothing. If you can whittle down the number of "mass shootings" to just a handful of incidents, can make it seem like trans people are vastly over-represented among school shooters.

[–] _druid@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The number of trans shooters versus non-trans shooters probably has trans shooters falling comfortably into a margin of error. I can't do the math, though, I'm no numbersmith.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Sure. Even if the raw numbers said that say, trans people are 1% of the population, and 1.5% of shooters, that would still be a meaningless figure. The sample size is too low to make any meaningful conclusion.

But the point is even if you don't apply statistics, even using the sample we have, trans people are vastly under-represented among shooters. We represent about 1% of the population and 0.1% of shooters. You don't even need to apply statistics. The numbers on their face show that there is zero evidence that trans people are over-represented.

Now, statistically, I would say that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the rate of trans shooters is any different from the overall population, higher or lower. But there is less than zero evidence that trans people are over-represented.

The trans shooter myth is simply blood libel.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)