Right-wing provocateur Charlie Kirk shot

[C C]

[...] And the FBI is tracking down several online accounts that seemed to have foreknowledge of the attack, for the possibility of criminal conspiracy. [...]

Rather than full-blown co-conspirators, it looks like Robinson may have spilled the beans a bit ahead of time to someone, and then the "chosen" circulated it without a specific identity (of the potential assassin) amongst the gamer community. Though even with the multiple accounts involved, I suppose statistical-based coincidence can't be wholly ruled out. With regard to a few amongst tens of thousands converging during _X_ time period on expressing the same dark daydream wishes.

OTOH, it could have been the other way around. A private discussion transpiring in one gamer/furry clique that speculatively explored or fantasized about taking out Kirk on that day, and Robinson tapped into it and silently volunteered.

So the shooter is gay, has a boyfriend/roommate looking to transition to a trans woman (Charlie shot answering a question about transgender mass shooters), confessed to the shooting in a message to the boyfriend, and the FBI has DNA evidence linking the shooter to the gun. Utah is seeking the death penalty and has firing squads. And teh FBI is tracking down several online accounts that seemed to have foreknowledge of the attack, for the possibility of criminal conspiracy.

---

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/jlMUJbeRPUo

---

Charlie Kirk's compassion for transgenders: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOeiFkQiUYd/
He wanted transgenders to have the same body acceptance that people claim the obese should have (body positivity).

[confused2]

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/tpusa...ans-people
Here Kirk is reported as saying Trans People Are A "Throbbing Middle Finger to God". He seems to have different views depending on whether he is talking to young people he might be regarded as 'leading' and a more public face where he is trying to avoid alienating folks. As to which is the real Charlie Kirk is in the eye of the beholder.

[Syne]

Rather than full-blown co-conspirators, it looks like Robinson may have spilled the beans a bit ahead of time to someone, and then the "chosen" circulated it without a specific identity (of the potential assassin) amongst the gamer community. Though even with the multiple accounts involved, I suppose statistical-based coincidence can't be wholly ruled out. With regard to a few amongst tens of thousands converging during _X_ time period on expressing the same dark daydream wishes.

OTOH, it could have been the other way around. A private discussion transpiring in one gamer/furry clique that speculatively explored or fantasized about taking out Kirk on that day, and Robinson tapped into it and silently volunteered.

Yeah, the FBI says if it were only one or two accounts, it'd be more likely to be coincidence. The shooter admitted to only have planned the attack for "a bit over a week," so it could have been a response to the wishful thinking of these evil online communities.

---

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/tpusa...ans-people
Here Kirk is reported as saying Trans People Are A "Throbbing Middle Finger to God". He seems to have different views depending on whether he is talking to young people he might be regarded as 'leading' and a more public face where he is trying to avoid alienating folks. As to which is the real Charlie Kirk is in the eye of the beholder.

They are not different views. Most Christians believe that you hate the sin but love the sinner. IOW, you fully condemn the behavior, but you can show compassion to the individual sinner.
No doubt, a sentiment lost on this "transgender journalist."

[Magical Realist]

Most Christians believe that you hate the sin but love the sinner. IOW, you fully condemn the behavior, but you can show compassion to the individual sinner.

The problem with that being one's sexual orientation isn't something you can just otherwise not act on. It's intertwined with who a person is and who they can love and find their soulmate thru. The capacity for loving and for desiring is thus being condemned as sinful in itself, which is essentially condemning the person too for having such "unbiblical" propensities. They should've listened to Jesus when he said "Judge not that ye be not judged."

[Syne]

Most Christians believe that you hate the sin but love the sinner. IOW, you fully condemn the behavior, but you can show compassion to the individual sinner.

The problem with that being one's sexual orientation isn't something you can just otherwise not act on. It's intertwined with who a person is and who they can love and find their soulmate thru. The capacity for loving is thus being condemned as sinful, which is essentially condemning the person too for having such "unbiblical" propensities. They should've listened to Jesus when he said "Judge not that ye be not judged."

You have said you don't act on it. Do you lack "the capacity for love" just because you don't have sex?
Even if you "can't help yourself," you are more than the sum of your actions... according to Christian beliefs. While a gay or transgender may identify with their actions, as integral to who they are, Christians generally do not believe so.
"Judge not..." is about hypocritical judgement or judgement that seeks to adjudicate a final condemnation (which is reserved for God), not about abdicating judgement altogether.

[Magical Realist]

You have said you don't act on it. Do you lack "the capacity for love" just because you don't have sex?

Nope. I have it and all the desires of my orientation because it is who I am just as a straight person's love for their soulmate is part of who they are. This assumes my freedom to act upon it at any time in my life. It's simply not a moral issue any more than any other personal preference is.

Even if you "can't help yourself," you are more than the sum of your actions... according to Christian beliefs. While a gay or transgender may identify with their actions, as integral to who they are, Christians generally do not believe so.

Orientation is not just actions. It's the tendency of one's whole nature as a loving and sexual human being. And condemning it is condemning the person.

"Judge not..." is about hypocritical judgement or judgement that seeks to adjudicate a final condemnation (which is reserved for God), not about abdicating judgement altogether.

No it isn't. It's about not morally judging any person at all. "Who will cast the first stone" etc.

[Syne]

You have said you don't act on it. Do you lack "the capacity for love" just because you don't have sex?

Nope. I have it... 

Really? 

I don't sleep with anybody. I am gay asexual.

...and all the desires of my orientation because it is who I am just as a straight person's love for their soulmate is part of who they are. This assumes my freedom to act upon it at any time in my life. It's simply not a moral issue any more than any other personal preference is.

A pedo's "preference" is clearly a moral issue. A non-consensual sadist's "preference" is clearly a moral issue.
So such a blanket statement is obviously not true.

Even if you "can't help yourself," you are more than the sum of your actions... according to Christian beliefs. While a gay or transgender may identify with their actions, as integral to who they are, Christians generally do not believe so.

Orientation is not just actions. It's the tendency of one's whole nature as a loving and sexual human being. And condemning it is condemning the person.

Is sex necessary for love? What about asexuals, sexless marriages, etc.?
Again, while gays, etc. may believe it is part of their identity, Christians do not. The soul has no sex or gender.

"Judge not..." is about hypocritical judgement or judgement that seeks to adjudicate a final condemnation (which is reserved for God), not about abdicating judgement altogether.

No it isn't. It's about not morally judging any person at all. "Who will cast the first stone" etc.

Again, the blanket statement is not true.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is a biblical admonition from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1) that warns against hypocritical and condemning judgment of others. Instead of final condemnation, the passage calls for self-examination, humility, and focusing on one's own faults before offering guidance to others, with the understanding that the same standard of judgment used on others will be applied to oneself. 
Context and Meaning

    Matthew 7:1
    is the most well-known phrasing of this teaching, followed by Jesus' explanation in verses 3-5 about removing the "plank" from one's own eye before trying to remove the "speck" from a brother's eye.

Hypocrisy
is the core issue Jesus addresses. He criticizes those who are quick to point out others' flaws while overlooking their own significant shortcomings.
Self-Examination
is the primary call to action. The verse encourages introspection and humility rather than self-righteous condemnation.
The Golden Rule
reinforces this idea, as it is a principle of reciprocity where the way we treat others will be reflected back on us.

What It Does NOT Mean

    Blind Tolerance:
    The passage does not prohibit all discernment or the making of righteous judgments in matters of right and wrong.

Ignoring Right and Wrong:
The Bible doesn't ask believers to be uncritical but to be discerning with their judgments, emphasizing that God provides clear standards of righteousness.
- Google AI

Likewise:

"Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone" is a quote from Jesus in the New Testament, found in John 8:7, where he confronts a woman accused of adultery who was to be stoned. Jesus' challenge caused the crowd, including her accusers, to depart shamefully, and he then told the woman to "go, and do not sin again". The quote emphasizes mercy and self-reflection, highlighting that all people are sinners and fall short of God's standards, and should therefore be more compassionate and less judgmental towards others.
Context and Meaning

    The Woman Caught in Adultery:
    According to the Gospel of John, the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, seeking to trap him into condemning her, as Mosaic law prescribed stoning as a punishment.

Jesus' Response:
Jesus replied, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her," essentially challenging the crowd to examine their own lives before passing judgment on her.
The Outcome:
The crowd, confronted by their own guilt and hypocrisy, began to leave one by one. Jesus then addressed the woman, saying, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again," demonstrating forgiveness and a call to repentance.
The Lesson:
The phrase has come to mean that no one is perfect and everyone has sinned, so people should not be quick to condemn or judge others for their mistakes. Instead, the emphasis should be on self-examination, mercy, and the pursuit of righteousness
- Google AI

I'll be surprised if you can understand this relatively simple English.

[Magical Realist]

A pedo's "preference" is clearly a moral issue. A non-consensual sadist's "preference" is clearly a moral issue.

Not if it isn't acted upon. That's why there's no such thing as "thought crime".

Is sex necessary for love? What about asexuals, sexless marriages, etc.?
Again, while gays, etc. may believe it is part of their identity, Christians do not. The soul has no sex or gender.

Yes..it's an expression of love for your soulmate in both gay and straight people. Why should we force them to be celibate while allowing straights to have sex? It's senseless.

The phrase has come to mean that no one is perfect and everyone has sinned, so people should not be quick to condemn or judge others for their mistakes. Instead, the emphasis should be on self-examination, mercy, and the pursuit of righteousness

He didn't say don't be quick to judge. He simply said don't judge at all as all humans have their own faults and they therefore have no authority to judge. Hence none of the crowd could judge or condemn the prostitute because they had their own sins to attend to. It's a radical concept, and one that modern Christianity has tried to twist into its exact opposite. But it is the natural corollary of "love one another"..Most so-called "christians" are simply incapable of that sort of compassion.

[Syne]

You have said you don't act on it. Do you lack "the capacity for love" just because you don't have sex?

Nope. I have it... 

Really? 

I don't sleep with anybody. I am gay asexual.

So are you lying about this now, then, or are you on longer asexual? @_@

---

A pedo's "preference" is clearly a moral issue. A non-consensual sadist's "preference" is clearly a moral issue.

Not if it isn't acted upon. That's why there's no such thing as "thought crime".

You're the one specifically talking about preferences that are acted upon... otherwise you wouldn't be whining about Christians thinking the act is a sin.
Are you claiming these people have a greater capacity to not act on their preferences than gays, etc.?

Is sex necessary for love? What about asexuals, sexless marriages, etc.?
Again, while gays, etc. may believe it is part of their identity, Christians do not. The soul has no sex or gender.

Yes..it's an expression of love for your soulmate in both gay and straight people. Why should we force them to be celibate while allowing straights to have sex? It's senseless.

No one is talking about "forc[ing] them to be celibate." They're simply saying it is a sin. You're free to commit sins in a free country.
Just like we don't live in a theocracy, where religious values are enforced by the state, we also don't live in an authoritarian/totalitarian state, where opinions can be censored by the state.

The phrase has come to mean that no one is perfect and everyone has sinned, so people should not be quick to condemn or judge others for their mistakes. Instead, the emphasis should be on self-examination, mercy, and the pursuit of righteousness

He didn't say don't be quick to judge. He simply said don't judge at all as all humans have their own faults and they therefore have no authority to judge. Hence none of the crowd could judge or condemn the prostitute because they had their own sins to attend to. It's a radical concept, and one that modern Christianity has tried to twist into its exact opposite. But it is the natural corollary of "love one another"..Most so-called "christians" are simply incapable of that sort of compassion.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
- Matthew 7:1-5 NIV

Jesus literally said that you must address your own sins (plank in your eye) before you can judge another's sins (speck in their eye). And that you will be judged by the same standard you judge others, which is an admonition to use righteous judgement that you also hold yourself to.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
- John 7:24 KJV

[Secular Sanity]

The first time that I heard about furries was on here from C_C. And now there’s this other term that I never heard about that’s associated with Charlie Kirk. It seems like the whole world has gone mad.

I used to think it was clever to associate going down rabbit holes with quantum mechanics or whatnot, but nowadays, rabbit holes aren’t what they used to be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers

Could you guys ease up on the all the weird shit for awhile?