you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Meaning they don't think the person who shot him was black, trans or had mental health issues.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 28 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Well according to the community forum for my crazy neighborhood it's definitely a minority trans person who did this.

    Also all mass shootings were done by trans people. Not even joking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    Trans people are like sub 1% of the us population. These guys are busy.

    I really don't understand how you can actually believe something like that. Because of my wild 20's i happen to know a lot of trans or gay or LGBTQ people in general, or more than the average person. If they were that violent, i would know so many murderers. In reality they are just the nicest people imaginable. I get that they obviously don't know trans people, probably have never seen one, or if they did, they didn't even know. But even that fact should make you wonder, no? I was at work and some random guy complained about how many jews live here and why that's a problem, and i just thought that i don't even know any jew. I worked for one once, and every now and then i see three or four walking around, but only recognise them because they are orthodox and dress like amish people. I actually had to look it up and in and around the next city, there are only 2000 jews, like what are you on about?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    WSJ is claiming that the rounds recovered from the weapon used had pro trans / "antifascist" things engraved on the bullets - make of that what you will. Generally WSJ's reporting is factually accurate but incredibly biased, so there's that? Fuckin' hell though this is already such a fucking clusterfuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    “Sources say” makes this highly dubious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    That's completely standard in journalism - and the WSJ, despite being an aggressively horrible publication politically and morally, is quite respected for the strict veracity of it's reporting. I don't doubt they were told that, by a reputable source. I have no idea if it's true beyond that however, since the trump admin isn't exactly overflowing with decent quality human beings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    Like I said, truly awful morally. Not about to argue against that. But your link doesn't speak to their adherence to reporting strictly true (if heavily manipulated as to the apparent context and implications) information, which is all I've claimed. They fuckin' suck, but they know that, and they delight in being able to pull a charlie kirk smug face and pull out the recipts when challenged on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If that's actually the case

    then I think it's just as likely

    that this was done by fascists

    to justify a "war" against "leftists".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I can't say I would be surprised for that to be the case.

    I think it's far more likely for it to have been one decent person who couldn't take the constant hatred spewed by Kirk. Everyone knows this has been brewing, for it to finally pop on Mr 'Puts His Punchable Face Right Out There And Taunts You For Not Hitting Him" himself isn't much of a surprise.

  • source
  • parent