THE QUEEN OF VERSAILLES To Close December 21, 2025 — Page 20

Soaring29 said: "No, I hate MAGA. Violence is never the solution. Period. Yes, he was a terrible person and I'm not in mourning for him but it doesn't justify him being killed."

Yes it did.

Georgeanddot2 said: "Soaring29 said: "No, I hate MAGA. Violence is never the solution. Period. Yes, he was a terrible person and I'm not in mourning for him but it doesn't justify him being killed."

Yes it did."

This is some edgelord **** I expect from a 15 year old but I know you're much older than that...

QueenTwinnied said: "Oh stfu and put the pearls down. That evil man had it coming"

I'm not going to say he didn't have it coming, but that is not the same thing as "justified." If abhorrent speech is the line for justification for murder we're all danger, my Love. I thought the left was supposed to be against the death penalty?

QueenTwinnied said: "If his actions ended at "speech" we would probably be on the same page, but I fear you're one of those who doesn't actually know much about Kirk beyond "that conservative guy who debated college students.""

I am very well aware of who Charlie Kirk is and what he does so that is how I know that what he does ends at "Speech." He uses speech to advocate for very ****ty things, but that is what it is. Can you tell me explicitly what actions he has done that were not just speech?

TheatreFan4 said: “I am very well aware of who Charlie Kirk is and what he does so that is how I know that what he does ends at "Speech." He uses speech to advocate for very ****ty things, but that is what it is. Can you tell me explicitly what actions he has done that werenot just speech?"

You’re trying to draw a moral line between speech and action as if the things he’s spent years organizing, funding, and mobilizing don’t count. Speech isn’t the end of the story when it’s paired with coordinated campaigns, targeted harassment ecosystems, and real world political machinery designed to strip rights from actual people. If you honestly think his influence stops at “just words,” you’re not describing reality, you’re describing your comfort zone. The consequences of his work don’t disappear just because he delivered them into a microphone.

TheatreFan4 said: "pmensky said: "You’re trying to draw a moral line between speech and action as if the things he’s spent years organizing, funding, and mobilizing don’t count. Speech isn’t the end of the story when it’s paired with coordinated campaigns, targeted harassment ecosystems, and real world political machinery designed to strip rights from actual people. If you honestly think his influence stops at “just words,” you’re not describing reality, you’re describing your comfort zone. The consequences of his work don’t disappear just because he delivered them into a microphone."

Great... so now we're justifying murder for organizing. If you feel it's justified why don't you go ahead and start doing it? Go use a gun to solve all your problems. If the bar is Charlie Kirk, there are much bigger fish to fry if you actually want to accomplish anything (or think that you're accomplishing something)Sounds incredibly intelligent with no downsides. Like I said, you're just spouting edgelord bull****."

I never justified violence. You introduced that entirely on your own, and nothing in my statement supports it. The point was about the measurable political impact of coordinated advocacy, which exists whether you acknowledge it or not.

Updated On: 12/29/25 at 04:17 PM

QueenTwinnied said: "TheatreFan4 said: "QueenTwinnied said: "If his actions ended at "speech" we would probably be on the same page, but I fear you're one of those who doesn't actually know much about Kirk beyond "that conservative guy who debated college students.""

I am very well aware of who Charlie Kirk is and what he does so that is how I know that what he does ends at "Speech." He uses speech to advocate for very ****ty things, but that is what it is. Can you tell me explicitly what actions he has done that werenot just speech?"

It really isn’t my responsibility or worth my time to educate someone as ignorant as you. If you actually care to learn (I doubt you do) this video is a great breakdown of why no one should be mourning the death of that evil man or criticizing those who refuse to. It’s a great overview for people like you who have no earthly idea what you’re talking about

https://youtu.be/unXhfSyk9h8?si=TsFMEyVNBJ89DJ0I

"


saying that his murder was wrong does not equal "mourning". Hope that helps, brainiac.

TheatreFan4 said: "Again, because we appear to have some illiterate people here, I am not mourning his death. He was a piece of **** who is better off gone. The conversation started because someone explicitly saidthat his killing was justified (please go back up and read that). So if that's not what you believe, then maybe don't get involved in the conversation."

If you’re going to call people “illiterate,” at least write a sentence that connects its own ideas. Starting with “because we appear to have some illiterate people here” and then jumping to “I am not mourning his death” isn’t a cause and effect, it’s inarticulate gibberish. If you can’t keep your own point logically intact, maybe save the literacy lectures.

TheatreFan4 said: "pmensky said: "If you’re going to call people “illiterate,” at least write a sentence that connects its own ideas. Starting with “because we appear to have some illiterate people here” and then jumping to “I am not mourning his death” isn’t a cause and effect, it’s inarticulate gibberish. If you can’t keep your own point logically intact, maybe save the literacy lectures."

*Sigh*

Once Again, I mentioned mourning because the poster above literally felt the need to give me a video listing his misdeeds as a reason why nobody should be mourning him. This is a conversational space, not an essay. You should be able to follow from one post to the next which is why I'm questioning literacy or maybe you're just blacking out when it comes to reading certain posts... either way, it feels like a problem."

You’re reacting like this is some grand misunderstanding, but all you’re doing is inflating a simple point and hiding behind attitude. If you want to be taken seriously, try responding with something other than childish insults and theatrics.

pmensky said: "You’re reacting like this is some grand misunderstanding, but all you’re doing is inflating a simple point and hiding behind attitude. If you want to be taken seriously, try responding with something other than childish insults and theatrics."

Oh I know it's not a misunderstanding, you just fundamentally didn't read what I was initially responding to and decided I was saying something that I wasn't. I made my sincere points up above. If you do not feel his murder was justified (which was the statement I was responding to) then why are you continuing to respond? You're not blowing my mind that he was a bad person, I am aware.

pmensky said: "You insisted I “didn’t read” something even though I did, because it’s easier than admitting I just don’t agree with you. And it’s obvious how fast your rude, performative tone disappeared the moment you were challenged, and now you’re trying to frame it as a comprehension issue. If you’re finished, just say so. No need to pretend I’m confused."

So what exactly do you not agree with then? The initial issue was someone saying that his murder was justified and I disagreed. Besides that, he was a vile person who I am happy he is dead. So where is the disconnect? Because I called what he did "Speech" and "Organizing?" Because that's what it was?

pmensky said: "
You’re not actually asking what I disagree with, you’re trying to steer this back into a debate you feel safer having. I read everything you wrote. I understood it. I still found your approach and your attitude ridiculous. That’s the disconnect. You don’t get to rewrite the exchange just because you don’t like how it turned out.
"

I'm actually very okay with how it turned out. I made my points very clear and I stand by everything I said. So...