General News Thread

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

There's nothing anyone can say to justify murdering someone even if all of the above is disgusting.

 

Really need to make a strong distinction between words and actions that somehow seem equivalent to some.  I strongly disagree with the incitement argument that words are enabling actions of others and it's somehow equivalent.  It isn't.

I never said justification. I argued against the point that Kirk was a fair debater. When we step into incitement that's past the point of reasoned debate. 

 

Kirk at event in 2021 did say “I mean, literally, where’s the line? How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” 

Edited 11 September 2025 by CosbehFox

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

"I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified,'

 

“ is that the death toll likely would not have been as high if it wasn’t for DEI.” - when referring to the Texas Floods and the Black lead fire officer of Austin 

 

I am subtracting all the stuff I would call racism as well but others wouldn't. However they are two outright disgraceful comments. His comments on women are on a similar line to Andrew Tate. 

Yes those examples popped up quickly 

also this from a few years earlier 

 

“We are all made in the image of God; we are complex human beings,” Kirk said. “Skin color is the most immaterial part of you. That is a sloppy, lazy and, dare I say, divisive way to actually try and say this is the most important way to think about your fellow human beings.”

And your last sentence re Tate is a bit of a generalisation at best 

 

The videos I’ve seen of his debates contained plenty of stuff I disagree with but his approach to talk things through is something we should value. 
 

No one claimed the fella was a saint.  Clearly a divisive character.  Being a victim of political assassination doesn’t absolve you of unpleasant things you’ve said or believed in.  But I don’t believe this was the general discussion on here.  It was about the fact he’d been murdered in public for his politics.  

 

[CosbehFox]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Yes those examples popped up quickly 

also this from a few years earlier 

 

“We are all made in the image of God; we are complex human beings,” Kirk said. “Skin color is the most immaterial part of you. That is a sloppy, lazy and, dare I say, divisive way to actually try and say this is the most important way to think about your fellow human beings.”

And your last sentence re Tate is a bit of a generalisation at best 

 

The videos I’ve seen of his debates contained plenty of stuff I disagree with but his approach to talk things through is something we should value. 
 

No one claimed the fella was a saint.  Clearly a divisive character.  Being a victim of political assassination doesn’t absolve you of unpleasant things you’ve said or believed in.  But I don’t believe this was the general discussion on here.  It was about the fact he’d been murdered in public for his politics.  

 

Birth control makes women ''angry and bitter'' and women past 30 'are beyond their prime' or 'aren't attractive in the dating pool'. 

 

I think a point to note is how his public appearances, he was certainly down a notch in the way he expressed his views and a lot of what is quoted is often when he's on a podcast or similar. He's talking to slightly different audiences and clearly had a self-awareness of that. 

Edited 11 September 2025 by CosbehFox

[AKCJ]

13 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Okay but I didn't disagree with any of that. 

 

On the other hand, someone can respectfully debate all they want but if what they're saying is something to strongly disagree with and abhor, I don't see the issue? If what they say actually sows division but they say it nicely, does that make them better than someone else? 

What I would say is that he generally debated naturally divisive topics (I assume because those farmed the most social media interactions). The problem with that is that if you plant your feet on one side of debates like the war in Gaza, abortion, gun control etc you're always going to abhor the other side of that debate.

 

But a society is strong when people war with their words. When two sides debate and listen to each other, that is surely for the betterment of mankind? (That's a rhetorical question, not aimed at you Stan) It's why debate must never be silenced and people like Kirk being shot down for voicing their opinion is extremely dangerous for everyone's freedom.

 

That said, I would point out that not all of Kirk's rallies/debates were there for good structured debates and they generally boiled down to him tying an unexperienced college student into knots by shifting the focus of their argument and claiming it as "owning the libs".

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, CosbehFox said:

Birth control makes women ''angry and bitter'' and women past 30 'are beyond their prime' or 'aren't attractive in the dating pool'. 

generalisations based on a some cases which are true 

 

Tate is accused of disgusting crimes against women. The inference of equivalence is a stretch 

[Finnaldo]

It keeps getting said but on here outside one individual last night has anyone remotely close to celebrating?

 

Charlie Kirk lived his life with the facts over feelings mantra, and the facts of the matter are: 

-Charlie shouldn’t have been murdered and it was an abhorrent act.

-Charlie believed in order to enshrine his political opinions, that deaths such as his were ‘worth it’. 
-His career was (being honest generally quite poor) debates on extremely inflammatory subjects that in some cases meant wholesale stripping rights (such as abortion) from people. No death should be celebrated and this act should be condemned but no one owes it to him to grieve.
 

It’s abhorrent a man has been murdered and left a wife widowed and children without a father, but it’s as much a disservice for me to pretend on a long drawn out prose how terrible this is when ultimately he himself saw deaths like his as acceptable collateral. 

 

He lived by the high-powered rifle and died by the high-powered rifle. I hope America can come to some sense but that’s two political murders following Melissa Hortman in a matter of months.and the place seems to be becoming more of a toxic hellhole every day.

Edited 11 September 2025 by Finnaldo

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

generalisations based on a some cases which are true 

 

Tate is accused of disgusting crimes against women. The inference of equivalence is a stretch 

Fair on the latter. Welcome the debate St Albans without the melodramatics 

[Bert]

49 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

He was entitled to his opinions. Irrespective of whether you agree with them or not, afaik, he never justified violence re political debate/protests.  If more people engaged with each other as he did with those who disagreed with him, the world would be a better place.  That’s not to excuse some of his opinions and stances (which I didn’t agree with) but jaw jaw is always better. 

 

I wasn’t specifically referencing this murder

 

it’s getting worse Bert 
 

sadly there are plenty 

and many asking why the media has suddenly moved away from their particular issue to discuss this. 
loads of whataboutery 

jeez we’re in a dark place 

 

 

It sure is mate. The world is increasingly becoming a genuinely scary place. I fear for my child, and everyone else who has young kids growing up in this generation. 

[bovril]

Don't really see the problem with saying stuff like "if you live by the sword...". He was a fanatically pro gun rabble-rouser in a country known for shootings and increasing political polarisation and violence. Surprised at the confidence of some of these people to be so openly controversial and confrontational in such a violent country. 

[st albans fox]

8 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Fair on the latter. Welcome the debate St Albans without the melodramatics 

Time out for a ‘pony and trap’

 

given the turn over in live news atm, we may be onto another subject by the time I’ve finished …….

 

Edited 11 September 2025 by st albans fox

[Bert]

1 minute ago, Finnaldo said:

It keeps getting said but on here outside one individual last night has anyone remotely close to celebrating?

 

Charlie Kirk lived his life with the facts over feelings mantra, and the facts of the matter are: 

-Charlie shouldn’t have been murdered and it was an abhorrent act.

-Charlie believed in order to enshrine his political opinions, that deaths such as his were ‘worth it’. 
-His career was (being honestly generally quite poor) debates on extremely inflammatory subjects that in some cases meant wholesale stripping rights (such as abortion) from people. No death should be celebrated and this act should be condemned but no one owes it to him to grieve.
 

It’s abhorrent a man has been murdered and left a wife widowed and children without a father, but it’s as much a disservice for me to pretend on a long drawn out prose how terrible this is when ultimately he himself saw deaths like his as acceptable collateral. 

 

He lived by the high-powered rifle and died by the high-powered rifle. I hope America can come to some sense but that’s two political murders following Melissa Hortman in a matter of months.and the place seems to be becoming more of a toxic hellhole every day.

Not so much on here but I’ve just seen a video of an American going round to people asking their thoughts on it and the general gist of the video is that pretty much everyone was happy about it, don't get me wrong he's obviously targeted the “right” people for this so to speak and I also don’t agree with the person going round asking people about it because it’s an antagonising thing to do which could cause more problems. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Bert said:

It sure is mate. The world is increasingly becoming a genuinely scary place. I fear for my child, and everyone else who has young kids growing up in this generation. 

Unfortunately given how the world is changing will affect the even basic needs of people (such as food and potable water) all the more over the next few decades, I think this fear is entirely justified.

 

The only way through it is as a species - the ideas of division based on national or demographic lines won't lead anywhere good. 

 

However, given that such divides seem to be gathering pace rather than the other way round, I very much hope that I'm wrong there. 

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Bert said:

Not so much on here but I’ve just seen a video of an American going round to people asking their thoughts on it and the general gist of the video is that pretty much everyone was happy about it, don't get me wrong he's obviously targeted the “right” people for this so to speak and I also don’t agree with the person going round asking people about it because it’s an antagonising thing to do which could cause more problems. 

I saw that video. I'd imagine that the person that made it was sure to cut the opinions of those who condemned it but still. It's scary just how many young people think that it's acceptable. The same for the amount of people that were devastated that Trump survived the attempt on his life.

 

Social media is awash with people that don't think. 

[Bert]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Unfortunately given how the world is changing will affect the even basic needs of people (such as food and potable water) all the more over the next few decades, I think this fear is entirely justified.

 

The only way through it is as a species - the ideas of division based on national or demographic lines won't lead anywhere good. 

 

However, given that such divides seem to be gathering pace rather than the other way round, I very much hope that I'm wrong there. 

Take me back to the 90’s man. 

[CosbehFox]

Just now, Bert said:

Take me back to the 90’s man. 

Bert, you'll have to go back to when time began. 

 

I remember as a kid in about 1994 having to evacuate Odeon Cinema where the Athena is now because it had received a phone call from someone pretending to be in the IRA claiming there was a bomb in the building. 

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, Bert said:

Not so much on here but I’ve just seen a video of an American going round to people asking their thoughts on it and the general gist of the video is that pretty much everyone was happy about it, don't get me wrong he's obviously targeted the “right” people for this so to speak and I also don’t agree with the person going round asking people about it because it’s an antagonising thing to do which could cause more problems. 

I can appreciate this and know those types exist but the reigning issue is that they’re American who continue to polarise and get more and more toxic everyday, there’s also a high chance this was edited to look more extreme in answers for ragebait. 
 

The biggest disservice you can do yourself immediately in the aftermath of these situations is social media. Frankly it’s an utter cancer and you’ll get the very worst in reaction as that is what’s ‘rewarded’. Being a forum with a recognised membership you can see a realistic reaction for the majority, which disagrees on the intrinsics but agrees this is abhorrent act anf shouldn’t happen. We might argue but none on here are particularly vile or encouraging of what’s happened and that’s a much more realistic reflection of the people around you than pits like Facebook and X.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

Take me back to the 90’s man. 

That's probably rose-tinted specs mate, but I do know what you mean. 

 

The sad thing is that as a species we have the knowledge and potential to be so much more than we are. 

Edited 11 September 2025 by leicsmac

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

 

Social media is awash with people that don't think. 

I created an anonymous x account and engaged with as wide a demographic as possible to ensure the algorithms delivered a reflective diet of tweets. 

 

Very interesting to get completely free of your echo chamber.  Obviously you have to continually appreciate that there are billions of folk out there to get some perspective - but wow.    The old adage that ‘it takes all sorts’ has never been truer.  

[CornwallFox]

10 minutes ago, Bert said:

Not so much on here but I’ve just seen a video of an American going round to people asking their thoughts on it and the general gist of the video is that pretty much everyone was happy about it, don't get me wrong he's obviously targeted the “right” people for this so to speak and I also don’t agree with the person going round asking people about it because it’s an antagonising thing to do which could cause more problems. 

On the other hand trump immediately politicised it and fox news literally called for "war". 

 

I think most people will have an opinion on him if they knew his work, and will feel that he shouldn't have lost his life and be sorry for his family.

 

But both sides of the political aisle contain people that aren't nice. I think we need the majority to rise above the politics and realise we need calm and less divisiveness, and that includes online political commentators. 

[foxfanazer]

I know what you mean @Bert. As much as I love them and can't imagine life without them I do feel more and more guilty for bringing children into this world. 

 

On the face of it we probably have more freedoms than previous generations but it feels like the world is run by maniacs and in general people are just more unhinged 

[CornwallFox]

2 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

I know what you mean @Bert. As much as I love them and can't imagine life without them I do feel more and more guilty for bringing children into this world. 

 

On the face of it we probably have more freedoms than previous generations but it feels like the world is run by maniacs and in general people are just more unhinged 

Social media and 24/7 news have honestly wrecked the country now than anything else.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, CornwallFox said:

Social media and 24/7 news have honestly wrecked the country now than anything else.

The former more than the latter, I think. 

 

That being said, how do you put the genie back in that particular bottle? The Chinese have their way, but it's not exactly nice. 

[Sly]

53 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

There's nothing anyone can say to justify murdering someone even if all of the above is disgusting.

 

Really need to make a strong distinction between words and actions that somehow seem equivalent to some.  I strongly disagree with the incitement argument that words are enabling actions of others and it's somehow equivalent.  It isn't.

It’s bizarre though isn’t it really, if you think about some people the West perceived as “radical” or even others might label as tyrants / terrorist.
 

People like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ahmed al-Rahawi and Gaddafi were assassinated / executed, however whilst the West might celebrate these, it drives and stokes tension within the East.

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

That aphorism might be an appropriate if Charlie Kirk had been a gang leader or professional hit man and went around shooting people in public, but as far as I’m aware he wasn’t. 
 

I’m as anti-gun as they come, but the implication that someone who was brutally assassinated had it coming because they were in favour of gun ownership strikes even me as a pretty wild take. 

Whilst no one should die like this, you can't advocate lenient gun laws and expect to be free of the consequences that entail.

[Sly]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's probably rose-tinted specs mate, but I do know what you mean. 

 

The sad thing is that as a species we have the knowledge and potential to be so much more than we are. 

I think without social media, the world was a more innocent place. 
 

We didn’t know about half the stuff that goes on now.