How Soon?

~ Clarissa

How soon will we hear that Kirk’s shooter was “mentally ill”?

I wish all punishments of hell on the evildoer who invented this stupid expression. Everybody is now “ill”. Nobody is responsible for anything.

How about we agree that a person who conceived a plan and carried it out effectively is not ill? How about we stop expanding the definition of illness until it includes everyone?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

71 thoughts on “How Soon?”

  1. That’s not mental illness. That’s a political assassination attempt (hopefully attempt).

    Shot “near the neck” (all the bulletins I’ve seen so far) doesn’t sound good and is also a really weird turn of phrase.

    Like

    Reply

    1. God, I hope he survives. He has small children. This is a tragedy.

      The shooter looks way too old to be doing such things. A bald boomer in eye-glasses. Why didn’t grandpa stay home instead of turning into an assassin?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      2. “I hope he survives”

        I do too…. but I saw the film (autoplay) and I really doubt that will happen. Don’t watch unless you have to… but I can’t imagine anyone surviving it….

        “shooter looks way too old to be doing such things”

        Probably imagines he was saving the country from “evil”…. once you label political enemies as ‘evil’ or ‘wicked’ rather than ‘wrong’ you’re up for bloodshed.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. There are so many people praying for him. If Kirk is lucky in anything today, it’s that his side is composed of people who pray. This might tip it over in his favor.

            Such a mild-mannered, clean-cut man. I don’t follow him because he’s too middle-of-the-road for me. But even such a seemingly non-polarizing figure is not safe.

            Can one be conservative to any degree in public life at all?

            Like

            Reply

  2. Sadly, unless the film was faked, he died instantly, with a massive hit in the carotid and maybe the spine. How much santimonious hatred do you have to be to murder a political opponent leaving a young widow with two very young kids?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

      4. “how he got radicalized”

        If he’s not a foreign agent. That’s also a possibility, as long as we don’t know anything.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Nah, I don’t remotely think they have the resources or the competence. Probably a lot of entities who’d like to see us descend into civil conflict. RUS, China, Iran, the various globalist entities who just got defunded. Who knows who else? Might even put cartels on the list.

            Or could be a run of the mill domestic transpsychotic with a new retired CIA friend on the internet.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

  5. Like someone else said, this is a political assassination. Very targeted and very planned.

    Disgusting someone would take a life just because they disagree politically.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I hope they catch the shooter, at least.

      Multiple outlets are calling Kirk “far-right.” Those poor bastards, they have no idea what far-right is like. It’s not filled with mild-mannered, quiet Charlie Kirks.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      2. Yeah. Kirk is the high king of “assume the best about people and let’s talk about our disagreements”.

        That is not. remotely. “far” anything. But dang if we’re gonna choose violence over *Charlie let’s-talk-about-it Kirk*... yeah I’m worried.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. These people sure know how to bear a grudge. The man is assassinated only a few hours ago, and they are pouting over a disagreement about hcq from 5 years ago.

            On our side, we forgive and move on. But these people, you say one thing they don’t like years ago, and they’ll beat you over the head with it forever. They’ll run after your coffin, yelling, “remember how you forgot to use pronouns? Burn in hell!”

            Like

            Reply

            2. Well, the man said what he said and he did what he did.

              Kirk should not have been killed–it’s horrific that he was. Keeping a clear head about his widely transmitted opinions is important–yes, they were words, but words were mostly what he was about.

              We’ve had abhorrent political killings on both sides in a very short amount of time. Listen to what all kinds of people are saying, especially our leaders. We see the dangerous divide in our country laid stark and bare.

              I think we’ve all heard by now how the President chose to respond. To cut back on my recent vitriol, I’ll only say that the choice Mr. Trump made was . . . telling.

              Like

              Reply

              2. Searched wherever I could and still came up empty. Can anybody explain what choice Trump made?

                I’m having a harsh day, so it’s probably my fault not being able to find it.

                Like

              5. Col. Potter:

                First you write: “Well, the man said what he said and he did what he did.“

                Then you follow with: “Kirk should not have been killed“.

                Do you think we are stupid or do you take us all for a bunch of retards?

                You know very well what you were doing there and so do most of the people following this blog.

                Liked by 1 person

              6. To Avi:

                ”First you write…”

                This…will take a while. When I am beset with aggressively combative and mean-spirited posts (I’m now dealing with 3 at last count), I try to step back and see where the miscommunication happened. I mean what I post and I post what I mean, so if there’s a question of my “doing something untoward, I can only assume I have erred in clarity. Let’s take this step by step, after which I will be thoroughly exhausted, as that is how my autism works.
                first: my youngest daughter is also autistic, with an IQ that falls below Low Normal. Her flights of fancy often shift to violent rage, as she trapped by being unable to process her shifting emotions—and she’s well aware that she’s trapped. So I don’t much care for the word “retard.”

                now, some posters are complaining about “inhuman” responses to the death

                Like

    1. Ah, well. I also don’t spend my days tiptoeing around trying not to offend furries, cosplayers, schizophrenics, bipolars, chronic depressives, or Wiccans. Just like your feelings, your fantasy world is your responsibility.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. “pointing out the obvious is polarizing now”

      Well, let’s consider context. Who DOESN’T Trump mention in his litany of political violence? I’ll give you a minute. One hint: Minnesota.

      Now are we clear?

      Like

      Reply

      1. Col. Potter:

        First you write: “Well, the man said what he said and he did what he did.“ Then you follow with: “Kirk should not have been killed“.

        Do you think we are stupid or do you take us all for a bunch of retards? You know very well what you were doing there and so do most of the people following this blog.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. To Avi:

          ”First you write…”

          Well, this is what I get for trying to post by phone. Let’s start again, from the top.

          This…will take a while. When I am beset with aggressively combative and mean-spirited posts (I’m now dealing with 3 at last count), I try to step back and see where the miscommunication happened. I mean what I post and I post what I mean, so if there’s a question of my “doing something” untoward, I can only assume I have erred in clarity. Let’s take this step by step, after which I will be thoroughly exhausted, as that is how my autism works.

          First: my youngest daughter is also autistic, with an IQ that falls below Low Normal. Her flights of fancy often shift to violent rage, as she trapped by being unable to process her shifting emotions—and she’s well aware that she’s trapped. So I don’t much care for the word “retard.”

          Second: my opening sentence, “The man said what he said…”, “the man” being, of course, Charlie Kirk. That was a direct response to the posted complaints about what the press said following Kirk’s death–what he said about COVID cures, other controversies, etc. And that surprised me, because that just struck me as standard obituary journalism–you tell some of the life story, and include some of the most notable events and incidents. Kirk’s most notable highlights were generally those of provocation–he enjoyed insulting, needling, and “owning” those of a liberal bent, and he made an enormous fortune thereat. Which was his absolute right to do. He did not deserve assassination, nor really any kind of punishment. If he had some “questionable” (in my opinion) ideas that he announced to his large audience, my only wish would have been that somehow his platform could be rendered ineffective. But his opinions and his well-publicized worldview–that was what he presented to the world, so I think it’s fair game for an obit.

          Third: we’ve also read some complaints about the “inhuman” responses to Kirk’s death. Morally, this gets a bit complex, but in general I would say that celebrating the man’s death is wrong. It’s not an inhuman response, though–it’s all too human, rather, as was, I suppose, Kirk himself. Other responses bringing back his notable quotes about guns (very significant for the shooter, of course–the “guns” section of Kirk’s speech was when he chose to fire), empathy being bad, etc.–that’s human behavior, too. Also, humans love dramatic irony, as does the media. Insensitive? Yes, I think so, overall. But it’s worth having a clear picture of who the man was while we mourn his death and denounce the violence.

          I think that’s what I wanted to say about this. And, as I accurately predicted, I am quite exhausted and need a breather. If there is still a question about something I was “doing there,” let me know (and I know you will), and I will cease to engage with this blog. I can participate happily with the blog under a number of assumptions about me–thanks to methylethyl, I can be happy here when people think I’m stupid; thanks to cliff, I can be happy here when people think I live in a fantasy world; and thanks to all kinds of people on the blog, I can even be happy when posters make merry mock of my teaching experiments and ideas–simply because I know what I’m smart about and what I’m stupid about; I know my relationship with reality; and I’ve been toiling away in the teaching mines for 14 years. I CANNOT remain on this blog, however, if there are people who think I am “doing something”–that I am somehow not posting in good faith. I can only find that unacceptable.

          As our president would say, thank you for your attention to this matter.

          Like

          Reply

        1. I don’t think Anonymous lives in my head, either, but I thank Anon. for saving me some explanation time. What if Trump had said that assassinating Charlie Kirk was wrong, and all the divisive political killing and violence must stop? Or what if he’d named Melissa Hortman, and the attempts on Josh Shapiro and Paul Pelosi? Or what if he’d just given a heartfelt eulogy of Kirk as he knew him, without the message that THE problem was the left-wing radicals? Because many readers interpret that speech as, “We must eradicate everyone who disagrees with me.” He could have made a choice to try to address the divide and make a step to mend it. Instead, he made sure it was as big as ever, if not bigger.

          I’m sorry if that’s still too stupid for you, methylethyl, or too much a part of a fantasy world, Cliff, but I think it’s a valid point that the President tends to fan the flames of separation and discord.

          Like

          Reply

            1. A whole section went up about Gavin Newsome’s heartfelt tweet about the children shot in church, and about how that would be interpreted. So… seeing how readers interpret text and speeches is pretty much all we’ve got, yeah? And does anybody give a speech or write anything without wondering a bit about how it will be interpreted, irrespective of control.

              Like

              Reply

              2. I’m not at all sure Newsom is capable of heartfelt. The dude is a reptile. That aside:

                Interpreted by whom?

                He knows how his base, and most normal people, will interpret it.

                Nobody is responsible for how unhinged very-online liberals will interpret it, because they are crazy people, and not living in reality. They are going to interpret everything however it suits them, to reinforce their weird mentally-constructed pseudorealities.

                Think about the online Israel-conspiracy-theory crowd. Whatever happens, they think it’s somehow The Jews. That’s their whole worldview: the Evil Jews Secretly Control Everything, so no matter what any world leader says or does, it always comes back to THA JOOOZ. Nobody sits down and asks themselves “Well dang, what if this sets of the Jewish Illuminati People?” I doubt Trump or any other world leader contemplates his hiring choices based on “Oh, he has a Jewish last name, what will the Illuminati enthusiasts think? Maybe I better pick somebody more Anglo so as not to rile them up.”

                Same deal with the remaining left nutjobs who think he’s the next incarnation of Hitler (but who don’t, apparently, have a problem with Stalin, which is weird). There is no point in tiptoeing around them. They’re lost to reason. What would be the point of “Gosh, maybe I better not do anything to look like Hitler” because it wouldn’t work anyway. These people’s absolute favorite game is “Find the Hitler”. There is nothing he could say to dissuade them.

                The late Mr. Kirk would disagree: he seemed to think everyone was worth talking and reasoning with. But apparently that gets you assassinated these days, so while I admire the man’s optimism… perhaps he was wrong about that.

                Like

              3. Everybody interprets everything.

                Only liars fuss every second about how each and every thing will be interpreted by each and every group, and fine-tune each publicly spoken line for maximum impact. There’s no honesty there: only market research.

                I don’t know about you, but when I see that kind of slick media image production, I interpret it as *manipulation* and we’ve had quite enough of that in the last three presidential terms.

                Not everybody likes to be manipulated.

                Do I think Trump always tells the truth? Of course not. Do I wish we had better options? Sure. But I also understand that after twelve years of slick manipulation, there’s a whole lot of the country that really *likes* Trump’s unpolished, imperfect, off-the-cuff approach to public speaking. He’d be foolish to abandon it.

                Like

              4. Forget about interpreting speeches. We are seeing people film themselves celebrating Charlie’s murder. Screaming with joy.

                Nick Fuentes publishes a more dignified response to the murder, condemning all violence, left or right, calling for unity and rejection of nihilism, than anybody on the left remotely attempted when Trump was shot. Remember how you guys behaved then. A person was dead and you didn’t care. I don’t mean you personally. I’m talking collectively.

                That people gave to wait for the far-far-right guy to speak about reconciliation and against political violence because nobody on the left is capable of anything except pouting over some imaginary grievance or keeping count, then just honestly.

                You will all say that young people turn to Fuentes by the million because they are white supremacists or whatever but the reality is that none of you even tried.

                Charlie was very famous and very important to millions of people. As tragic as the murder of Dem politicians in Minnesota was, they weren’t even a bit as widely known as Charlie. His assassination is a national trauma because he was a national figure. And that you guys (again collectively) can say nothing whatsoever about the campaign if viciousness to which you subjected this very mild and moderate guy for years is not a great sign.

                Want to know why you can’t win elections without mail-in ballots? This is why. If you read the most milquetoast conservative as “a literal Nazi”, this means you are at war against most of the population of the country, let alone the world.

                The abject failure of the Left to understand what a gift to them Charlie Kirk was and how much they’ve lost with his death speaks to it being utterly divorced from all reality.

                Like

        2. This is about Democratic Minnesota State politicians gunned down in cold blood. I think you latched on to the smear that it was done by a Democrat and hadn’t revisited that event since, so you won’t remember.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Ah! Now I remember. It’s terrible what Minnesota has become. Isn’t it supposed to be a sleepy, quiet state?

            It’s a terrible tragedy and a disgrace. My heart bleeds for these people. I don’t remember what was discovered about their killer, so if you have a good, not trashy link, I’ll be grateful.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Vance Luther Boelter: https://minnesotareformer.com/2025/06/17/vance-boelter-voted-in-2024-minnesota-republican-presidential-primary-records-show/

              Him voting in the Republican primary doesn’t mean much, but him preaching against abortion and LGBT issues in Africa place him on the right.

              Here is the Trump administration’s account of the shootings: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/after-two-day-manhunt-suspect-charged-shooting-two-minnesota-lawmakers-and-their-spouses

              Like

              Reply

              2. Ah, I don’t read insinuations and hints, so thanks for clearing that up, if it is in fact cleared up.

                I hadn’t pegged that one as political at all, actually, because the perp seemed to be a con artist with delusions of self-importance, maybe manic-depressive… though with some big red flags attached to whatever he was doing in the Congo– a place where sketchy NGOs go to conduct paramilitary training without nosy government supervision– and his fuzzy sources of income.

                Filed in the same category as that dude who stabbed eleven people in the Walmart and thought he was Jesus. Didn’t assume he was motivated by religion.

                Like

Leave a reply to Avi Cancel reply