The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations. If there was substantiation of their claims they would be trumpeting that non-stop.
"both sides" is only valid in the context of the party leadership being in service of their owners, oops, benefactors. Otherwise there's a vast gulf between what each side represents and promotes.
>The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations.
Are you talking about in the immediate aftermath or currently? For the latter it seems pretty safe to conclude he was probably left-leaning politically, even if he wasn't a card carrying DSA member or whatever?
For the latter it seems pretty safe to conclude he was probably left-leaning politically
All we know for sure is that he's left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights. It's not uncommon for right-leaning individuals to suddenly discover the humanity of groups they previously hated once they spend significant time with one of their members.
However, there are plenty of conservative viewpoints that do not hinge on prejudice, so I'll wait for more evidence before believing he went full vegan hippie liberal. A picture of the guy in a drum circle or animal cruelty protest while wearing a Che Guevara or tie dye and peace sign shirt would do ;)
>All we know for sure is that he's left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights.
"left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights" is an understatement. From the wikipedia article:
>When the roommate asked why Robinson had done it, he answered, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out."
Maybe he was some sort of libertarian that thinks "hatred" from right wing influencers needed to be stoped via exercise of the second amendment, but you really have to bend backwards for that theory. The far more plausible explanation is that he was a run-of-the-mill illiberal-left that thinks speech from the right need to be curtailed. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
He’s hard to pin down tbh but I’d say he’s a bit more akin to a black pilled 4chan troll than a “illiberal-left” (never heard that before so I think I know what you mean…?) or Marxist or even a traditional democrat. You may as well say “video games did it” if we’re going down this path.
Simply put: He’s complicated. Any attempt to slot him neatly as “left” or “right” is pointless. You are at least showing a little more nuance with this but my experience has been people are basically trying to boil this down to “your team did it, not my team.”
The politicians who pushed that he was [insert whatever] are not remotely equipped to understand a person like him.
>“illiberal-left” (never heard that before so I think I know what you mean…?)
"Left wing" but rejects classical liberal values like free speech (eg. favoring speech restrictions) or meritocracy (eg. favoring affirmative action or quotas).
>with this but my experience has been people are basically trying to boil this down to “your team did it, not my team.”
All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger. 45 and 43 percent of americans identify as "republican/lean republican" and "democrat/lean democrat" respectively. From those statistics you'd expect 88% of shooters to belong to one side or the other. Of course, just because a shooter belongs to one side, doesn't automatically delegitimize that side's political position, but the correct response to that would be something like "yes, he was left leaning, but his beliefs are not reflective of the left/democrats as a whole", not trying to insist "Any attempt to slot him neatly as “left” or “right” is pointless".
> All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger.
I don’t understand why this is so one sided in your opinion…? Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
>Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
Because even though there's no slam dunk evidence that he's left/right wing (eg. some manifesto saying "yep, I'm left wing!", it's far more likely that he was left wing rather than right wing, and therefore the left's attempt to distance themselves from the shooter is weaker and worth calling out more. If the circumstances were reversed (eg. this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Social_m...), and both the left and the right tried to distance themselves from the attacker, I'd call out the right more, even if there's vague tidbits implying he was left.
>He assassinated the leader of a right-wing movement;
Doesn’t make you a leftist. The two people who tried to kill Donald Trump were clearly not leftists.
> He inscribed "anti-fascist" slogans on the bullet cases, like "Hey fascist! Catch!" and "Bella Ciao" (which is used by Antifa organizations);
“Antifa organizations”? Additionally, the first is a reference to Helldivers which he also referenced on another bullet casing, which you omitted.
> He texted his roommate “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” in reference to Charlie Kirk;
Complicated statement using language the left sometimes uses, I can see what you mean on some level. However, I absolutely find it objectionable to claim that wanting to kill people over speech is somehow a leftist ideal.
> He was dating a transgender person, and had multiple references to the "furry" subculture.
Last I heard that was none of that is as clear cut as some outlets made it out to be, but let’s assume it’s all true: Conservatives can’t date people who are transgender/can’t participate in furry culture? That is a completely unfounded generalization and some cursory research will show you that not every conservative is a cishet dude. Also, what on earth does dating somebody who is transgender (or his maybe being a furry) have anything to do with this? You’re falling into the trap of conservative politicians trying to link everything bad in this country to the transgender community.
There is no doubt he held ideas that are of the left, but he is clearly a very complicated person. I would say he probably leans more left that he does right, but he is not “a leftist.“ The entire point of this discussion is that people are being way too myopic in their thinking. It’s easy to slot people into a neat binary when we are ranting and raving against caricatures of people who we disagree with. It’s different when we actually encounter them in real life.
> There is no doubt he held ideas that are of the left, but he is clearly a very complicated person. I would say he probably leans more left that he does right, but he is not “a leftist.“
By that logic no one is “a leftist“. You can always just state that someone is "complicated" and therefore doesn't fit your ever-narrowing definition of "leftist".
— "Marx? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
— "Obama? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
— "Luigi Mangione? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
— "Angela Davis? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
This just makes discourse impossible. Tyler Robinson assassinated the leader of a right-wing movement and made multiple explicit statements showing a radical-leftist motivation to that assassination. Calling right-wing people "fascists" and imagining oneself as an "antifa" fighting the "fascists" is a case of that leftist motivation. Right-wingers do not call people "fascists" as a motivation to attack them. Texting "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out" is a case of that leftist motivation. Right-wingers do not say they "had enough of their hatred" as a motivation to attack them. This is not something complicated. It is easy to understand. And refusing to meaningfully use the word "leftist" is the same as simply refusing to engage in the discussion at all.
You’re framing this as a “no true Scotsman” issue when it’s about leaving room for nuance and accepting that most people are not neatly “right” or “left.”
If discourse is impossible because someone introduces nuance than I don’t really know what else to say other than that isn’t discourse I want to participate in.
"both sides" is only valid in the context of the party leadership being in service of their owners, oops, benefactors. Otherwise there's a vast gulf between what each side represents and promotes.