这次事件的起因是本版右派要求所有人必须“难过”吧

[suzziechu]

不难过就是没有“人性”？？？？哈哈

[suzziechu]

好像记得谈到floyd，本版左派从没要求其他人必须“难过”吧？？？？？

[牛大春]

好像记得谈到floyd，本版左派从没要求其他人必须“难过”吧？？？？？

弗洛伊德那个案子恶劣多了。美国警察暴力执法是普遍现象，受害者可不止一个弗洛伊德。

[resso]

好像记得谈到floyd，本版左派从没要求其他人必须“难过”吧？？？？？

lol，我从来不觉得floyd是个英雄，他只是一个手脚不太干净的倒霉人罢了。之所以，我们同情他，是因为大家需要安全感。
kirk是个靠煽动弄钱的人，他当然不是啥好人。当然他也是个倒霉的人，毕竟不是每个煽动者都挨枪子。右派大呼小叫的，其实还是希望把他的那些极端理论强加给社会，但是危险的地方是，他越这么推销极端的右派理念，大家就越不安全

[yoyo6713]

不难过就是没有“人性”？？？？哈哈

不是，是有人无动于衷，有人blame the victim, 更有人兴高采烈庆祝。 （庆祝这事让我想起911，至少欢庆911的人blame的是美国，而不是911的victims).

[suzziechu]

不难过就是没有“人性”？？？？哈哈

不是，是有人无动于衷，有人blame the victim, 更有人兴高采烈庆祝。 （庆祝这事让我想起911，至少欢庆911的人blame的是美国，而不是911的victims).

我无动于衷，加上不不喜欢极端人士，可以吗？？？？

[resso]

不难过就是没有“人性”？？？？哈哈

不是，是有人无动于衷，有人blame the victim, 更有人兴高采烈庆祝。 （庆祝这事让我想起911，至少欢庆911的人blame的是美国，而不是911的victims).

我跟你讲半天，就是说，一定有几个人要挨枪子了，是谁挨枪子靠运气，但是瞎几把煽动仇恨是闹着玩的

[yoyo6713]

不是，是有人无动于衷，有人blame the victim, 更有人兴高采烈庆祝。 （庆祝这事让我想起911，至少欢庆911的人blame的是美国，而不是911的victims).

我无动于衷，加上不不喜欢极端人士，可以吗？？？？

当然可以啊。

但你如果认为Charlie应该被杀我会认为你是blame the victim; 你如果兴高采烈庆祝我就看不下去了。话说其实我也不会干啥，最多会说你也没点人性。

[yoyo6713]

好像记得谈到floyd，本版左派从没要求其他人必须“难过”吧？？？？？

不知道你们聊了啥，当时有这个网站吗？

[yoyo6713]

不是，是有人无动于衷，有人blame the victim, 更有人兴高采烈庆祝。 （庆祝这事让我想起911，至少欢庆911的人blame的是美国，而不是911的victims).

我跟你讲半天，就是说，一定有几个人要挨枪子了，是谁挨枪子靠运气，但是瞎几把煽动仇恨是闹着玩的

你好像跟我不一样，我真不知道Kirk, 你倒是对Kirk煽动仇恨很了解啊。你有原始视频可以演示Kirk煽动仇恨的可以贴一下吗？不是那种剪辑过去头割尾那种。
明天我找找Kirk煽动仇恨的视频看找不找得到。

我问过chatgpt Kirk是不是煽动仇恨，得到回答是：

代码： 全选

That’s a big question, and the answer isn’t completely clear-cut — it depends on who you ask, what definitions you use, and which statements you focus on.

Kirk's Critics:
There is substantial evidence that many of Kirk’s statements and rhetoric are viewed by credible sources as divisive, and in some cases as hateful or discriminatory. The fact that his own alleged killer cited his perception of Kirk’s “hatred” suggests that for at least some people, Kirk’s rhetoric crossed a line.

然后我问了这些credible sources 是什么。得到如下回答：

代码： 全选

Good question — thanks for pushing me to be specific. When I mentioned “credible sources” in my earlier response, I was referring to mainstream reporting and watchdog organizations that have covered Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric. These aren’t unedited videos themselves, but they are publications with editorial standards that documented and analyzed his statements。

然后我问：Mainstream news are mostly left, it is not surprising they don't have agree with his views because they are biased to start with, right?

回答是基本要你自己去看原视频：

代码： 全选

 That’s a very fair point. A lot of people share your concern that many mainstream outlets lean left, and so their coverage of someone like Charlie Kirk — a strongly conservative figure — might come across as hostile or biased.

 Here’s how we can think about it:

 1. Bias in media

       You’re right: outlets like Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Al Jazeera, or Common Dreams often write critically about conservative figures.

       On the other side, outlets like Fox News, Daily Caller, Breitbart, or Newsmax often write favorably about him and highlight “cancel culture” or “free speech” angles instead.

       So both sides have bias — just in different directions.

2. Primary sources matter more

      If you want to avoid bias altogether, the most reliable way is to go directly to Charlie Kirk’s own unedited speeches, podcasts, and livestreams. Then you can judge for yourself instead of relying on someone else’s interpretation.

      Examples of primary sources:

      Charlie Kirk’s official YouTube channel: The Charlie Kirk Show
      Turning Point USA (TPUSA) YouTube: TPUSA Live
      Kirk’s Rumble channel (popular with conservatives who feel censored on mainstream platforms): Charlie Kirk on Rumble

      Podcast archives: Available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, etc. under The Charlie Kirk Show.

      These are usually posted in full and let you hear exactly what he said, with no editing by opponents or media outlets.