Post

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Charlie Kirk wasn’t a good dude, but I condemn his assassination for three reasons. 1. Murder is immoral (duh) 2. Kirk’s death it doesn’t actually solve any problems. 3. It would have hurt Kirk a lot more to see his ambitions thwarted while he was alive.

Literally never said that. Are you trying to imply that Nick Fuentes shot Kirk? Because there's really no other way to read your comment unless you're just strawmanning (you are, but will you admit it?)

Do you have direct evidence that shows that the shooter not only identified as a groyper, but followed Nick? Btw I saw someone here claim he dressed up as pepe the frog which I haven't seen anything that corroborates that after looking.

0 reposts0 likes

There's evidence that he identified as a Groyper. It doesn't have to be perfect proof, it's convincing enough for people to form preliminary conclusions. That puts the burden of proof on you now. If you want to convince them otherwise, you need to present better evidence than they've already seen.

Bro they put Pepe into the slav squat meme. Slav squat has been a meme for a looooong time. There's nothing in that photo that suggests he was specifically trying to re-enact that one picture vs. literally every slav squat meme on the internet.

I get that you want a science-level of proof and logic. You're not going to get that in the middle of shstorm the size of Charlie Kirk's murder. This episode bent reality from the instant it happened. The story about the murderer being a leftist was planted long before the murderer was even known.

In the absence of good evidence, it's irresponsible to put forward a claim as if it's established truth. Even more irresponsible to make claims that are predicated on that baseless claim. That's why you don't see journalists reporting that he was a groyper, because they have standards.