Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 15, 2025

A.R. Moxon: Whose deaths get to be deemed unacceptable in supremacist America, and whose are deemed necessary? And who does the deeming?

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

"To a supremacist society, most of us are acceptable losses. Charlie Kirk is not. To a supremacist society, guns are allowed to kill most of us, and the pundits can debate later how sad our deaths were. But guns were not supposed to kill Charlie Kirk." www.the-reframe.com/acceptable-l ...

[image or embed]

-- A.R. Moxon (@juliusgoat.bsky.social) Sep 13, 2025 at 2:01 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

You know who I feel bad for? The kids. Two of them. Perfectly innocent of all this.

They were victims of a school shooting in Colorado, in one of our nation's many, many, many school shootings, a subset of our nation's many many many mass shootings, a subset of our nation's many many many gun deaths. The two victims are in critical condition. The shooter, a young white man who had been "radicalized through an extremist network," killed himself. Many such cases.

Which kids did you think I meant?

Oh, also on the exact same day as the kids were shot by a radicalized white supremacist, Charlie Kirk was murdered in Orem, Utah. This was also a school shooting. Like I said, they are extremely common. I also feel bad for Kirk's kids, for what it is worth, though I think everyone else already has those bases thoroughly covered. Nevertheless I feel compelled to mention it, because if I don't, then it will be assumed by many that this must mean I am very glad that they watched their father Charlie Kirk be murdered horribly by a gun, as Charlie Kirk warned us might be necessary.

For the record, I am not glad about that.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2025-09-14 06:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Charlie Kirk is an acceptable loss.

The 3 kids that were shot and killed In Colorado
By a 16 year old coward with a gun on the same day were not an acceptable loss.

#2 | Posted by a_monson at 2025-09-14 11:52 PM | Reply

"By a 16 year old coward with a gun on the same day were not an acceptable loss."

Can we honestly refer to a 16 year old a coward? Disturbed boy is probably more accurate!

#3 | Posted by danni at 2025-09-16 12:11 AM | Reply

You know who I feel bad for? The kids. Two of them. Perfectly innocent of all this.

While true its so sad and unfortunate for all involved, the reality is non-suicide deaths by fire arm are typically black on black.

Why does America ignore this?

And who does the deeming?

Well given gun violence is typically in blue cities. I would say Democrats can change it but choose not too, for some confusing reason.

Charlie Kirk is an acceptable loss.

Are black people? Or do you just hate White people that you disagree with?

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-09-16 12:36 AM | Reply

#4 Flag: Sophistry

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-09-16 05:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

#4 | Posted by oderous

Same garbage, different day.

Foreign trolls gonna troll.

#6 | Posted by Angrydad at 2025-09-16 08:16 AM | Reply

I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

--Charlie Kirk, at an event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk's conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023, per The Guardian

#7 | Posted by catdog at 2025-09-16 08:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If the pope won't do it (and he won't), surely Trump could be persuaded to issue a Sharpied executive order declaring Charlie Kirk Patron Saint of Acceptable Losses to Firearms Freaks. From what he said in life, it sure sounds like something Charlie might get a kick out of in the great mystery.

#8 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-09-16 08:26 AM | Reply

He gave his life... so that others can be shot too... (**sniff**).

#9 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2025-09-16 10:14 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

No matter how you spin whatever topic you are trying to gain political points on, when the spin contradicts reality and logic then you have to ignore it. First off, in the UK, knife violence is a significant problem. It doesn't matter that they have no access to guns, they still violently hurt people.

Second and most importantly, this has nothing to do with gun violence. This has to do with someone making the conscience decision to kill someone else. The tool they use means VERY little when there are a LOT of ways to kill someone if someone so chooses. Making this about gun rights only serves to blame the victim and not the criminal. Liberals go nuts when someone says, "She was asking for it" when it comes to rape. Because blaming the victim and not the criminal is very wrong. By saying that a shooting is because, "The person had the right to carry a gun" is no different. The criminal is the one who made the decision to do something bad. You DR lib kids are defending the criminal because you don't like what tool they used to commit the crime. That statement alone means your rhetoric is no better than Kirk. One could logically and rightfully say you support anarchy and all of the violence and death that comes with supporting criminals. Thus, the whole "Kirk supported tyranny and violence" is also what you are doing.

It all boils down to the fact that both sides can blame the other for supporting violence and/or destruction if you spin the information. WHICH IS WHY VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE WITH A DIFFERENT IDEOLOGY THAN YOU IS WRONG 100%. Very, VERY few politicians in America actually support violence against anyone; they support causes they believe in for the betterment of living in a society. Just because you don't agree doesn't make that person tyrannical, inciting violence, etc. And it definitely doesn't give EITHER side the right to support assassination. But both sides go to the extreme to try to get political points and it's disgusting. A Rep saying they don't want laws that cater to a specific demographic like trans people is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR different than someone saying they want violence against trans people.

A Dem saying they support immigration so people can get away from oppression is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR different than someone saying they are happy immigrants are killing, raping, etc. American citizens. And these are just two example of the extremes both sides go to to try to justify when violence occurs that meets their ideology. And, whether you choose to ignore this or not because I've cited it multiple times, but multiple prominent Dems are on record supporting and encouraging the BLM riots that caused destruction of local businesses and even harmed many people, including several deaths. So, based on how many liberals have responded to Kirk's death, Dems MUST agree that it is OK to kill those Dems because they supported violence and destruction.

The extremists on both sides feel violence is necessary when someone has a different ideology than you. Which is why we are now no better than ME countries ruled by religion who continue to kill each other because "My religion is right and yours is wrong", but in America it's, "My party is right and yours is wrong."

So freaking pathetic. And what's more pathetic are the people in those parties who don't bring down the strongest penalties for acting that way when they do. Instead, they try to justify it to avoid their party looking bad.

#10 | Posted by humtake at 2025-09-16 11:35 AM | Reply

10 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

You never answered the question:

How much money would it take to make you go away?

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2025-09-16 11:43 AM | Reply

#10 - TLDR.
Try putting that in ChatGPT and asking for it to make it succinct and clear. Let me do it for you, Humtake:

Oh my. This is what the result was - seriously!

Got it " that's a wall of chaotic ranting. Here's a tightened version that keeps the sense but removes the clutter and repetition:

"Violence isn't about the weapon; it's about the choice to harm. Blaming guns instead of criminals shifts responsibility, just like blaming victims in other crimes. Both political sides twist tragedies for points, equating policy disagreements with endorsing violence. Extremists justify harm when it suits their ideology, and leaders excuse it to protect their party. That hypocrisy is what's truly pathetic."

So you see? ChatGPT can make even Humtake make sense! Not that I agree with the above. It's too simplistic a view of the problem. But it's readable, at least.

#12 | Posted by YAV at 2025-09-16 11:55 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

The big difference I see is the President and the VP, along with Miller, Bondi, and on and on - all the very top people in our government are fomenting violence against everyone and anyone they think aren't sufficiently aggrieved over Kirk's death. Vance is all for doxxing everyone. Let's take a look at what Kurtz at Fox News has to say, shall we:

Trump: "The problem is on the left if you look at the problem " it's not on the right like some people like to say, on the right. The problem we have is on the left. When you look at the agitators, you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place, that's the left, that's not the right."

Trump: "They're already under investigation. They're already under major investigation. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left."

Trump: "Radicals on the left are the problem. and they are vicious and horrible and politically savvy. They want men in women's sports, they want transgender for everyone, open borders."

Democrats from Barack Obama on down, to their credit, are denouncing the assassination as unacceptable, even if they disagreed with some or all of what Kirk stood for.

www.foxnews.com

#13 | Posted by YAV at 2025-09-16 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No bullet.
Crime scene washed in 15 minutes.
Clear manipulation of video.
Hi Def cameras on stage removed - where's the footage?
Anyone see what a 30.06 does to a target?

This is all --------.

#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-09-16 02:30 PM | Reply

Can we honestly refer to a 16 year old a coward? Disturbed boy is probably more accurate!
-Danni

Absolutely we can, especially when he kills 3 little kids.
Hoping he gets tried as an adult.

#15 | Posted by a_monson at 2025-09-16 03:53 PM | Reply

#10 | Posted by humtake

TLDR pedo.

Where are the Epstein files?

#16 | Posted by dibblda at 2025-09-16 04:50 PM | Reply

Acceptable Losses: school students, people caught in random mass shooting, Black and Brown people killed by cops.

Unacceptable losses: Charlie Kirk.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-09-16 04:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Kirk's death is almost too satirical to be true. I have yet to hear any MAGAt argue their way around the supreme irony of Charles Kirk being shot to death by an anonymous killer in a completely public setting. The same Charles Kirk who believed a certain amount of innocent deaths and mass shootings by firearms are an acceptable price to pay to preserve the 2nd Amendment.

#18 | Posted by moder8 at 2025-09-16 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

MAGA was dying (sorry!) to have a Martyr, and now they have one.

Future political shooters should stop and think before they create a bonanza for the other side.

Then again, almost all political and domestic shooters nowadays are rwingers who shoot to make themselves heroes to the Base.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2025-09-16 06:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

A martyr was created. Like a fire in a Reichstag. That's how desperate they are.

#20 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-09-17 10:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort