For those who don’t find “far-right” to be an applicable descriptor with what is known currently, I acknowledge that the meme creator could have been more precise with their word choice. However, I feel the difference is academic:
We can replace “far right” with the easily verified “not leftist” without changing the meme whatsoever, primarily because the meme is about Nancy Mace and her mercurial, disingenuous opinion, not (directly) about the shooter.
Edit - I modified it, though I still find it to be a distinction without a difference - alt version for those who prefer (whoops missed one first time)
Is there some kind of “online discourse” about using the term far right instead of non left? That’s ridiculous.
So when they finally caught the shooter, I exclaimed “oh thank god he’s white” and did a fist pump.
Everyone in the office break room turned, looked at me, noted that I’m brown and then just nodded safely. A couple dudes smiled in solidarity.
Wasn’t he a Mormon? Didn’t he already find Jesus Christ? It didn’t seem to make a difference at all…
He doesn’t know the right Jesus. There are too many Jesus’s and everyone thinks their Jesus is the right one.
There once was a woman named Mrs. McBeavis who had 23 sons and named them all Jesus.
Mormons aren’t Christians, at least according to those Christians who hate Mormons. They might believe in Jesus Christ but they didn’t find him. This might seem like a distinction without a difference but only because it is.
And why would you listen to their definitions? They are Christianity, sure not mainline, but as kooky and deranged.
Took me longer than I care to admit 😅
sorry for my lack of red circles
No True Scotsman comes to mind.
Ypu are mistaken as to how that argument goes.
The idea is that Christianity is a separate faith from Judaism because they have an entirely different set of texts and a different view of the relationship with God and what is expected of the faithful.
Islam is a separate faith of Christianity and Judaism as it too has additional texts and a different perspective on God than what Judaism and Christianity has (which again differ themselves).
Thus LDS is a different faith because it has a wholly new set of texts, it has a radically different view of the relationship with God than every other Abrahamic faith, and we have a lot of evidence that suggests Joseph Smith was outright fabricating everything. That’s a critical difference and suggests it should be seen as something else following the same standards applied to all otherAbrahamic faiths.
I wouldn’t say “wholly new set,” more like “additional set.”
The KJB is a foundation of their theology and taught in all their churches.
And yeah, he was making everything up; that’s how you start any religion. :)
All of Smith’s texts are wholly new fabricated by him.
The fact is we don’t have the quantity of evidence for the fabrication of most faiths to the extent we have for LDS.
Yet people still follow it, dude literally just made it up
True, it’s relatively new compared to the others.
They found him at a 7/11 in Missouri, and then they get their own planet when they die. They’re like the Scientologists of Christianity. Which I think was L Ron Hubbard’s point.
There is no authority, no person or group of people, authorized to decide who is a Christian and who is not. That’s just not how such identity markers work.
There’s encyclopedias worth of schism and heresy, all just more reasons to hate one another, like true Christians.
Yes there absolutely are. If you don’t believe that Christ’s death on the cross redeemed the world of sin you are not Christian as that is the defining belief. There’s literally no point in the faith if you don’t accept this. By this standard LDS are Christians.
I gave a post earlier describing why you can assert that LDS is a different branch of Abrahamic faiths which I will repost below. This is of course ignoring that it is entirely acceptable to view LDS as a fraudulent creation by Joseph Smith.
"Ypu are mistaken as to how that argument goes.
The idea is that Christianity is a separate faith from Judaism because they have an entirely different set of texts and a different view of the relationship with God and what is expected of the faithful.
Islam is a separate faith of Christianity and Judaism as it too has additional texts and a different perspective on God than what Judaism and Christianity has (which again differ themselves).
Thus LDS is a different faith because it has a wholly new set of texts, it has a radically different view of the relationship with God than every other Abrahamic faith, and we have a lot of evidence that suggests Joseph Smith was outright fabricating everything. That’s a critical difference and suggests it should be seen as something else following the same standards applied to all otherAbrahamic faiths."
If you don’t believe that Christ’s death on the cross redeemed the world of sin you are not Christian as that is the defining belief. There’s literally no point in the faith if you don’t accept this. By this standard LDS are Christians.
well actually, the death on the cross is not that important to mormons.
To summarize, the person you responded to stated
There is no authority, no person or group of people, authorized to decide who is a Christian and who is not.
To which you responded,
Yes there absolutely are.
Followed by a wall of text that presented absolutely zero authority figures authorized to decide who is, and isn’t, christian.
All you gave is YOUR criteria, but there’s no reason anybody needs to follow your criteria. You’re also not authorized to decide. That’s the point.
First I reject the assertion that no one can make that determination so your “No True Scotsman” is not applicable
To be clearer there is one standard that all Christians agree to which is the redemption of Christ. If you don’t think Christ died to redeem sin there’s literally no point in the religion.
The rest of my post explains why those that think LDS aren’t Christian and what their claims are.
there is one standard that all Christians agree to
Except those that don’t. Your committing the fallacy right there. If those people over there that call themselves Christians don’t agree with your arbitrary criteria, then they’re not true Christians. Except your only evidence to back up your claim is, “trust me bro.” There’s no license or certificate from any kind of authority. It’s just you making shit up.
Allow me to demonstrate.
All Christians have a tattoo on their forehead of Jesus on the cross with a pool of blood at the base of the cross. Every year they go through a secretive cleansing and atonement ritual that culminates in an update to the tattoo that makes the pool of blood bigger. You can identify the most pious Christians by how big their pool of blood is.
If you don’t have this tattoo, then you’re not a Christian and your erroneous opinion of what criteria makes someone christian is irrelevant.
I think most of the early christian churches agreed on which books and gospels are part the Bible and in which order. The interpretations and translations of them often differ though.
Some groups like the Mormons decided to add additional books nobody else thinks is “inspired by God”.
In my personal view a better comparison than Scientology would be Islam. They also added stuff with the difference that they “degraded” Jesus to a prophet and made Mohammed the central figure.
Except we don’t have the outright evidence of fraud for Islam like we do for LDS
That’s only because Islam is older than 200 years and from a time before the printing press. If Joseph Smith had lived, say, 500 years earlier, Mormonism would be shrouded in the same “unprovability” that most other religions enjoy.
Other than the general acceptance that all religions are unsubstantiated fraud.
Nice that they have so clearly broadcasted their double standards
It demonstrates that rational people should not attempt to compromise with these cultists and prioritise blocking and removal. They are not reliable or consistent.
Nobody moral (who believed, at the very least, in the virtue of honesty) or rational ever gave them anything but the middle finger. But America was cooked from the get go, and with a national ethos similar to that of a greedy, unstable rapist, Trump, MAGA and everything we’re seeing now were inevitable.
I was just thinking about how i often fail to remember that this country was founded on the genocide of its prior inhabitants. We are the descendants of those responsible for that genocide. There is plenty of toxicity that got passed along the generations leading us here and it doesn’t seem likely it’s gonna go away.
Yep. And it goes back further. The religious freedom the Puritans wanted was essentially to be able to be more authoritarian.
Edited to add - in case this wasn’t blunt enough, just like conservatives have been for my entire life; the freedom they want on any given axis is actually the freedom to control others on that same axis.
There was a comedian that once said “remember, America is a country that was founded by people that were too uptight for England.”
I don’t know if that was George Carlin, but it sounds like something he’d say.
As I’m a missionary of St George, i can positively say it was not.
It was late 90’s or early 00’s. Probably one of those old comedy central compilations. Guy was flamboyant, wearing something like a Hawaiian shirt. I’m reminded of, but I’m also pretty sure it was not Greg Proops. Similar style, though.
ETA: I was wrong. Greg Proops is a national treasure, and a prophet. “Couldn’t you have worn a blazer…?”
Ironically, there’s a good possibility I internalized the same clip at the same time leading to my comment above in the first place. 😆
This thread is the only result for “remember, America is a country that was founded by people that were too uptight for England” on Google now
I’m famous!
The far-right stuff isn’t proven yet. He just seems terminally online.
Bare minimum he was a maga kid in a maga family, and that’s the reason for her change of tone. None of the other stuff is relevant to the point here.
Nothing is proven yet for anything, even that he was the shooter.
That said - these are all very specific references for a very specific community, even down to his Halloween costumes.
I’d be absolutely shocked if he held any belief that hinted toward the actual left.
Right. I see people here, who I share a lot of the same views with, as doing the same as the extreme right and just running with whatever is trending and not actually looking for the truth.
We can’t trust anything that is said by the media until we learn the actual full details.
Bare minimum he was a maga kid in a maga family, and that’s the reason for her change of tone. None of the other stuff is relevant to the point here.
I’ve only seen credible reports that his family were Republicans but didn’t seem overtly political on their socials.
Calling a dude far right when we don’t actually know that is no better than them saying it was a liberal. All we know is republican but moderate parents, who went to a Mormon church and he didn’t vote for republicans or democrats. It seems more likely that it’s someone who did this because they didn’t agree with Charlie Kirk rather than for political reasons.
I would like to hold myself to same standards I would hold anybody else, whether or not I agree with them politically is irrelevant.
seem overtly political on their socials.
I would note that 3 percenter gear is quite specifically political, and dad is in 3 percenter shirts in more than one instance. You don’t get those shirts by accident or in your local walmart.
I want to be clear here, there is a substantial amount of information here. This isn’t “he wore a red hat once!”
These are extremely signficiant indications of political belief.
Thank you. I’ve not heard of those.
Did you say his father has been pictured in those clothes as that does say a lot about the father. Also makes me wonder how that would lead to their kid killing someone I would deem as far right.
That is correct, his dad (in pictures on Facebook with him) has 3 percenter shirts.
Also makes me wonder how that would lead to their kid killing someone I would deem as far right.
Kirk wasn’t the “right” version of the right. Take a look at the groyper wars for a very specific connection between being against Kirk. This is part of what makes the (extremely specific) memes and costumes so telling about his attitude towards Kirk.
Based on the difference between the paraphrasing references and the quotes provided on the dinner discussion too, I’d lean towards the family not being fan of Kirk either, but that is pure speculation.
I will acknowledge that the meme creator could have been less (or more) specific. I still don’t think it changes the actual point which is that it was only death penalty worthy until Mace thought it was someone on “her team.” Now it’s “let’s pray for this troubled youth.”
Edit - You also seem to be reading much more moderate things about the shooter and his family than I have been, but I really don’t care to split that hair enough to trade sources with you. It will all come out in eventually, and again we know enough to know it’s just a matter of degree.
Yet another edit - Actually, are we moderate-washing magas already? Maga = far right.
Happy to share my source. I don’t really know which way it tends to lean as I’ve not read it for many years. It used to be the free newspaper we got on buses and trains in my city.
The only reason I chose the link is due to it being the one punished shortest time ago. But we will see. And I’m not tying to whitewash maga. Just trying to wait until the actual truth comes out and not jumping to conclusions like the person in this tweet.
If you acknowledge they were maga (which is what a Trump supporter is) then I don’t know what language you find objectionable.
And I apologize for assuming, but maybe you are not familiar with the on the ground mix of folks in the US. (Based on your source and your instance, which I realize are also arbitrary.) It’s not possible to be a Trump supporter and not be far right. It might have been possible in 2016, it really wasn’t in 2020, and no one who voted for him in 2024 can even pretend. They can reject the label, but actions speak louder than words, and everything he’s doing was telegraphed long before the election.
All we know is his parents are republicans and i, maybe naively, believe there are people that align with some of their values but are not terminally online like us that don’t see everything and i believe those people can be reasoned with.
You’re correct about my being from outside the USA, but the instance is arbitrary as accidentally joined a German one. I’m from the UK.
I know for a fact that people for instance that support Nigel Farage here are not all racists as sadly I’m surrounded by them. These people have just been tied to about who the boogeyman is and they’re not inherently bad people, just ignorant. I’ve been able to work in my closest friend and even see him pushing back on shaky narratives from the right now.
I’ve lost my train of thought now but what I’m saying is I think that there is more nuance than just they evil and we should shun them because that does nothing but radicalise both sides and I’m not comfortable with that.
The antifa and transgender shit wasn’t proven either, but it didn’t stop the fuckers from spreading that narrative far and wide. Who’s team he’s on doesn’t really matter. He hit his shot.
I never said it was. Just stop parroting every crumb of disinformation you come across.
What disinfo? He hit the shot.
Do we have any evidence of his political views from a named source that is verified to have been in close contact with him before the shooting?
Is that a requirement for a meme about Nancy Mace’s abrupt about-face? It seems a bit rigorous for a community where we share mostly regurgitated memes and screenshots.
I feel pretty satisfied. The viewer can make up their own mind, or find their own sources.
Edit: We can replace “far right” with the easily verified “not leftist” without changing the meme whatsoever, primarily because the meme is about Nancy Mace and her mercurial, disingenuous opinion, not (directly) about the shooter.
I think we should be careful promoting any claims as to why he killed Kirk. The narrative surrounding the Columbine school shooting was that the killers were loner loser nerds who were bullied and acting in revenge. The FBI profile released years later suggested they were bullies, weren’t popular nor unpopular and one of the killers likely had ASPD and would have potentially killed people in other situations.
We should be very careful how we promote the views of people involved in this crime until we know why he did it.
Lying makes the entire message fall flat
I find the meme accurate to the info I’ve seen aside from folks here in this very discussion, and have edited the body along with several other comments to clarify my personal position. You are free to disagree, of course.
There is no basis for your claim that this person is on the far right, and you’re outright refusing to take down or change the image you want to push.
Just makes it a statement backed up with a lie.
You’re outright lying
Having been corrected you continue to lie.
With no basis for your statement you continue to lie.
There’s a word for that
Here’s a Reuter’s article that has a bit more information about the shooter. Nick Fuentes has criticized Charlie Kirk for not being right-wing or racist enough. If the shooter subscribes to even a portion of Fuentes’ views, that makes him substantially further right than even most non-MAGA republicans.
From the article:
“the symbology found on the bullet casings suggests the shooter was part of the so-called Groyper movement, associated with far-right activist and commentator Nick Fuentes.”
Again even in that article it’s speculation, is a helldivers call-down, and a “you’re gay” statement enough to correlate that?
Didn’t another casing say “Hey fascist, catch”?
I’m just saying until there is anything definitive said by someone who knows and it’s just speculation then making assertions is tantamount to disinformation at best and outright lies at worst
I’ve seen one source posted by one person here who disagrees with what I have seen everywhere else. In the (check notes) few hours since posting the meme I’ve addressed that in a few places, but haven’t gone on a massive internet hunt to determine whether that one detail (which doesn’t change the point of the meme anyhow) may have been updated.
There’s a downvote button, and there’s a report button. There’s also a block button. You are empowered to use all three if you deem it necessary.
Bring back? Isn’t Utah one of the fuckwit medieval states (I mean the whole country is rotten but still) that still has bloodlust punishment?
Suprisingly enough, Utah tends to be more libertarian in ideology and leans more left/centrist than a typical red state.
Mitt Romney and a large part of the state rejected Trump, and he hasn’t ever polled well there.
They’ve been on the right side of a lot of civil/personal liberties and I wouldn’t mind living there.
It’s still not as good as a real blue state, but better than most red ones.
And yet, a fascist was still eradicated! Are you trying to tell me murdering murderers doesn’t prevent murders?
Who knew!?Man creates state.
State creates monster.
Man kills monster.
State kills man.-Thus Spoke Magathustra
No, that’s NOT what he’d want. He’d want us to bail him out: https://xcancel.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1587127536122732544
i got some questions for this dude, like What the Fuck and also What the Fuck
Removed by mod
I’m just wondering if the TPUSA folks are gonna get even with Nick Fuentes or if they are going to let the groypers get away with it like the little bitches they are.
Him being killed by gang violence right after saying “including gang violence” is just the cherry on top.
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-suspect-is-a-gun-loving-trump-supporter/ This explained pretty well what the references are. The Bella ciao etc. were used ironically, but I’m not seeing this being reported anywhere else.
They will let Fuentes get away with it an just deny the truth.
Not that hypocrisy carries any weight on the right, but for those who are keeping score.
For a fascist, overt hypocrisy is a sign of strength.
The sheep are bound by their previous statements. The lions do whatever they want.
When you accuse a fascist if hypocrisy, you are giving them a big, big compliment.
Christofascism in a nutshell 🤷
I think she was expecting a brown person to be the shooter and then she saw the news.
They were very sure that it could only be one of the millions of people in groups that were explicitly targeted by Kirk. Given how broadly he spread his hate, they had pretty good odds.
She rolled the dice and lost on her kneejerk reaction, and is surely lacking in enough self awareness to even have noticed, let alone feel any shame about it, I’m sure.
Or trans. I think they all were really, really hoping it was going to turn out to be a trans person.
Do they even delete the first tweet?
