Written By:
- Date published:
6:00 am, September 12th, 2025 - 169 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
Open mike is your post.
For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.
The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).
Step up to the mike …
Today's Posts (updated through the day):
This may not get past the moderators, but, hey, let’s go down a rabbit hole, and see what we can find.
All of the above is IMO, and not a little of it tongue-in-cheek (I hope)!
Just to reinforce the above, a blogpost with, if Trump does seize power, a very short shelf-life!
They've already begun blaming the Democrats despite no shooter being found yet so the opportunity is being siezed.
Skies are darkening. In related darks news Lachlan murdoch gets control from his siblings to take Fox further right.
I suspect the shooter got lucky. No professional marksman would aim for the neck. Just like the one that had a go at Trump was just slightly unlucky.
As for your tipping point thesis, could be feasible but depends on if Reps & Dems are really dead keen to fight it out or just pretending. Posture is everything.
The local cops will fume at the FBI: "These guys take forever to catch anyone. Look, all you need do in such situations is to stop some young black driver, yank him out, kneel on him to get the cuffs on, then frame him as the shooter."
Some saying it was the perfect hit, aiming for where the weak point is in body armour (not worn as far as I know) and bouncing up through the neck. It wasn't a long distance shot. But we know very little about the hit on Trump, so. And the right now have their martyr. Tit-for-tat will follow.
A bullet does not bounce up.
A bullet could “bounce up”, though the correct term would be ricochet or deflect. It’s possible the bullet hits a bone, or an item of clothing or hard object, causing the bullet to change trajectory, or so my gun nut work colleague was telling me.
Wearing a tee-shirt, no vest (unless very formfit), so not clothing.
He may have been aiming for the neck (Adam's apple), the head moves more when a person is talking to the left and right side of the audience.
You know nothing about the shooter and their skill, intent, and motivation.
The Trump shooter wasn’t a professional marksman and got killed, so keep your red herrings to yourself.
You don’t have to pretend to be a deranged racist conspiracist and use their framing to make the point that such people do exist. Keep you fantasies to yourself or write a book and self-publish it.
/
David Simon
@audacityofdespair.bsky.social
The aging, latent police reporter in me can't help put pause to remark on the unforced error of the SAC in Salt Lake's FBI field office making the unforced error of announcing they have recovered a “footwear impression.” A shout-out to toss or destroy those shoes, ASAP.
That's a detail you keep.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:tpcydhxibth3qbp2o3g4u37n/post/3lylaexd2tk2u?
Likely explanation down thread.
That might jumping off the roof onto grass or in dust/dirt on the roof.
I said I was going to wait a couple of days to see how this pans out, but you've put a few points out there that just need responding to.
First, as a 15 year old school kid I was expected to hit a 6" square target at 200 yards, using a WW2 Lee Enfield – no scope no tripod. Anyone who has fired a rifle more than once would have been capable to perform this act. High likely thats a slightly missed headshot. Not the first one this year. Not some fricken master assasin.
Second, at the moment, no-one except the person who pulled the trigger really knows the motivation behind the act, so stop with your pathetic conspiracy theories and deflections.
What is abundantly clear though has been the disgusting responses all over the world. People cheering and celebrating a person getting butchered in front of his own children. Many, many of those are very much of the left.
If you have looked at Kirk's mission, it has been to go and sit down and openly engage with anyone who wants to disagree with him. To dispute people's opinions openly, with respect and grace. Sure, I get not everyone agrees with his perspectives, thats your choice. But, he was incredibly effective at convincing literally thousands of uni and school age kids that there were other viewpoints worth exploring outside what they had been fed at their Unis etc. Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.
So he was using peaceful dialogue to put his point across. Unquestionably, he was murdered for that.
Calling someone an obnoxious piece of shit they day after they were murdered in cold blood in front of their family says a lot more about you than him.
Well written.
Oh, got it. If I wait for a day or two to call Kirk an obnoxious piece of shit, that's all right.
No-one on the left, as far as I know, has applauded his death, and no-one should be killed for his opinions.
But the indisputable fact remains, Charlie Kirk was an obnoxious piece of shit. Period!
lots of liberals/leftists/progressives have applauded his death. You need to get out more 😉
Or try youtube
Well done.
Cemented my opinion of you, and consideration of your opinions.
"But the indisputable fact remains, Charlie Kirk was an obnoxious piece of shit. Period!"
That is a statement of what you hold in yr heart. It's merely an opinion.
What is an undisputable fact is that he was a father of two and a husband.
Honestly, it is not worth yr while getting so het up about him
You don't know why he was murdered anymore than anyone else knows.
"You don't know why he was murdered anymore than anyone else knows."
Given the death threats he received regarding his opinions, it rates a high possibility.
Add the fact that he was targeted – and this was not a random act.
It is reasonable to go forward under the likely probability while being prepared to shift when more is known.
People can speculate, and will speculate, which is what Tony did in the original post, and then E Burke, and now you 🙂
I prefer to wait until something is actually known before proceeding down a path that might be hard to come back from.
fwiw, I also think Kirk was good at presenting debate style. I also think he was dangerous because of his position in society and his regressive social views.
Aside from general sadness at another gun murder, I think the US just crossed over a sociopolitical line that will be hard to recover from. I can't bear to think about the people I know in the US that I care about who cannot leave. As you know I think the left/liberals are making a massive strategic mistake in their response to what the right is doing, and we're seeing that play out again this week, both with the idiots who are celebrating the murder, and with those that can't or won't talk about the left's strategy.
" I also think he was dangerous because of his position in society and his regressive social views."
You've demonstrated the problem in a nutshell, weka.
really? You think having an analysis of someone as dangerous is a problem?
Apologies, weka.
Replied to both your comments further down:
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-12-09-25/#comment-2044008
(It's been a while…and probably short-lived…
)
People who can't admit uncertainty or errors find it "hard to come back".
I'm not one of them.
Due to the targeted nature of the assassination, and the existing death threats is is reasonable to speculate the assassin was someone who considered his "regressive social views" made him inherently dangerous.
(As opposed to viewing him as someone who holds "regressive social views" and is willing to say why he holds those views, while inviting others to share theirs.)
I have no idea of political affiliation or any other attribute, so don't propose any.
anyone can speculate about anything, and there is spectrum of reasonableness or not.
The recent trans shooter had a complex mix of politics and motivations not easily put in a box like you are here about Kirk's killer.
I didn't call Kirk inherently dangerous. And viewing someone as dangerous doesn't lead to people getting shot. And understanding Kirks debate style and understanding him as dangerous aren't incompatible.
I think you have a pretty good argument for thinking of the shooter in this way, I also think it's politically loaded just like everyone else's.
Framing him as "dangerous" – without detailing HOW his positions will manifest into dangerous outcomes in real life – will inevitably lead to some thinking of him as inherently dangerous as a person.
The failure to take the opportunity to challenge views and expose any contradictions or assumptions is – IMO – more perilous than any opinion that might be expressed. Well honed arguments will result from practice, and expose weak positions.
Many – as I'm sure you know – avoid that route and go directly to labels.
True dat :-), I am drawing inferences based on the amount of vitrol that gets pointed his way – agree noone knows yet.
all good. Tony was also speculating.
It has already been reported that the suspect/shooter appeared to be of college age, so would have fit in.
As you note nothing exceptional about the shot, many there in high school and other gun clubs would know this.
Most likely stochastic terrorism in a gun culture.
https://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.com/
There is a cultural division where there is ambition to build a ruling order in the image of one group.
Here the Christian nation, in contradiction with the constitutional republic concept of there being no state religion.
The opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
Why is it that GOP MAGA Christians think gun rights are more important than human rights and civil liberties?
If the USA changed the gun laws (or there was perimeter security at activist events) maybe he would have grown up to become the next generations Tucker Carlson.
He at least knew he had the right to be confronted and proven wrong, and over decades, not just years.
It's likely that the Trump administration has been looking for opportunities to reduce or eliminate any threat from the 2026 mid-term elections. Whether they manufacture that opportunity (as you are suggesting), or have it fall into their lap (as appears more likely), doesn't make a lot of difference in the end. And they won't be relying just on a single dramatic incident to achieve this – background work like voter suppression will still be happening. They may also be able to induce violent responses by doing things such as deploying the National Guard to Democrat-run cities, and then assign those violent responses to a generic 'left' rather than to an angry individual. The impression needs to be created that the US in in a 'national emergency' that requires a strong response.
"Sure, he was an obnoxious piece of shit".
Just isolating your quote for clarity, and adding another:
"You can tell a lot about a person by how they react when someone dies." – Charlie Kirk.
I now know more about you – and others – on this platform.
This young man followed The Standard's principles of robust debate, in real life and while receiving ongoing threats. He modelled civil, respectful discourse.
Can you name a prominent progressive that has done the same? No? Of course not. Even while you safely sit at a keyboard racking your brains for one. I'll leave you to it.
Charlie Kirk was a conservative, married, heterosexual, white Christian father of two young children, willing to discuss with anyone his opinions and positions.
People unable to bear witness to the tragedy of his assassination should perhaps refrain from commentary, lest they expose to others their real nature.
https://x.com/LiveAction/status/1965964317972684800
See KJT's comment at 4 below.
And 4.1
Shush, now.
KJT didn't make a comment below, he posted a meme without posting comment or explaining.
Well that was revealing.
(Bernie Sanders).
I think Molly meant the public forums that Kirk used to debate in. Not aware that Sanders did that. But the deeper point is that the left has increasingly turned away from open debate and towards suppression. Hence the rise of cancel culture, the widespread use of blocking on social media, the unwillingness to talk through ideas that are found abhorrent and so on.
In 2025 America, Democrats are holding town hall meetings across the states, but the GOP is not.
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/republican-angry-town-halls-mistake-trump-tariffs-rcna223867
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/04/us/politics/gop-town-hall.html
and at the town hall meetings are people allowed to debate with democrats about things the democrats would rather not talk about? What would be an example?
People get to ask questions at the Town Hall meetings.
sure, and those are good things, but it's not about asking questions. It's about active debate. As a random example I've just pulled of YT
https://youtu.be/tZUrBpNle20?si=sNUocaCOSKeCL6Th
I think Molly overstates the case (Kirk is definitely working this form to his advantage), but I think the left is afraid to do this because then we would have to talk about things we're not prepared to debate. I'm not recommending politicians do this btw, but Let Women Speak is the classic example of just how unprepared the left is for this.
Peter Boghossian is another RWer who does this kind of public debate. He calls it street epistemology. Much better format than Kirk's, not without its problems (he still has bias), but closer to the values I hold around robust debate. This is a recent example where he came to Auckland and asked three people to talk about indigenous vs western ways of knowing.
https://youtu.be/nlFlS7qhBC8?si=Qq54LIFGtzUYvw9x
Kirk was doing performance theatre.
In the shadow was this, the The Professor Watchlist.
This was a form of privatised HUAC operation sponsored by conservatives. Its purpose was to gangstalk academia seen as not supporting a social conservative Christian nation (no civil rights act – no DEI) America.
All while complaining about cancel culture.
the problem with Kirk (and one of the reasons I called him dangerous above) is that along with the performative stuff, he was also a master at dog whistling while also presenting a valuable debate forum that is widely respected and gets a range of people on board.
It's that last bit I want lefties to take notice of, because it's the kind of thing we could be doing. It engages people who are not already on board with the left, and it could build a kind of populist approach that we are lacking atm.
The left is getting into podcasting now.
That includes debates etc.
AI mentions Marina Purkiss (already knew of) and Tova (local).
yes, the left does a lot of good things. BHN, TDB and so on are excellent. But, that's not what I am talking about. I'm talking about ways to reach people that the left isn't already reaching.
There is opportunity cost about going down the rabbit hole of talking about/debating someone else's talking points.
If you want to get your message across then don't waste time on someone's else's message.
if you're a politician I think. But generally, not debating leads to echo chambers. Atm the left are losing, and one of the reasons is because we think our ideas are enough, that if we just keep saying what they are people will vote left. That's not happening, and there is some evidence the opposite is happening.
We don't have to debate someone else's talking points. We have to be able to stand up in society and talk coherently about what matters and when rw people attack that we have to be able to defend those ideas in ways that other people understand and like.
Kirk manipulated debate for his own agenda. But there are a lot of people who are otherwise socially liberal who are saying right now they like and respect his openness to debate. They're not saying that about the left. Admiration is a factor in elections and political movements.
Bernie Sanders? A career politician PAID to represent his constituents, with security detail? He is an experienced statesman and representative.
As a reasonable comparator? I don't think you have a good grasp on what Charlie Kirk was doing.
Bernie Sanders, however, did make a statement condemning his death and articulating the principles of freedom and democracy. Some unnecessary politicking, but mostly on point:
https://x.com/SenSanders/status/1966252385908699568
Charlie Kirk was no amateur, being a professional partisan was his career choice.
Sanders did have a security detail for a time in 2016, when a candidate for the party nomination, but not as a Senator travelling about as he is now.
As I mentioned:
"I don't think you have a good grasp on what Charlie Kirk was doing.".
Oh, I do.
That's not obvious from your offered example and comments.
…also, if I recall correctly, you don't even know what a woman is…
.
I consider that last comment to be flaming and if you do it again I will put my mod hat on.
All good.
If truthful comments which indicate previous examples of someone's self -professed (but not demonstrated) depth of knowledge is "flaming" then there is little consequence for those who practice it.
This has been a brief but useful return to a once valued place.
the flaming was in making a personalised comment about someone’s politics without any reference to where you got the idea from and likely to provoke a response because of the nature of the politics and the way you made the comment.
You aren’t the arbiter of truth Molly, and I’m less interested in “Truth” than I am in people being able to debate in ways that elicit further good debate. That’s the irony given what you’ve been saying about Kirk today, including referencing TS’s debate culture.
For pre-election stirring in 2023.
For pre-election stirring in 2023.For pre-election stirring in 2023 and engaging in the on-going (war) debate until a cease-fire command was issued.
Given you kept a record of the debates here, go ahead, recall what you are referring to.
If I recall accurately you could then at least send up yourself and other partisans in the culture wars.
can't see anything wrong with that from a mod pov. The issue is where people start justifying or promoting harm to political opponents.
https://substack.com/@drstaceypatton1865/note/c-154757002?r=ryrbu
Kirk’s death was the violence he advocated to be inflicted on others. I’m not going to cry for him!
I'm not crying for him either, although I feel deeply sad because of what his murder will likely do to the US.
Thanks for the link, this is the kind of thing that I find persuasive (rather than the memes).
Kirk was a very good propagandist.
so here's the thing the left don't want to talk about. I've watched exactly those tactics be used by liberals and sanctioned by the left for at least a decade. The main difference being that the liberals had people on the inside of the institutions.
This is what happened to gender critical people, usually women, often feminists. So called liberals used No Debate, cancel culture (literally getting events cancelled), no platforming, online targeted abuse, real life targeted abuse including reporting to police for rude but relatively mild social media posts while police ignored women's complaints about harassment.
Kathleen Stock is one example, who basically got hounded out of her university job over her rather mainstream beliefs about sex and gender.
This is the kind of abuse that women online got routinely on twitter for years until British GC feminist MPs hauled twitter into parliament to account for themselves, and then twitter changed it's moderation policy. I know because I spent a lot of time on twitter reporting those tweets.
https://terfisaslur.com/
I can't say this categorically, but it looks to me like that kind of cancelling was mainstreamed by the left in the gender/sex wars. It's not the only place it happened, and there were more fringe places it was happening before then (eg gamer gate), but we did and completely ignore the warnings that the right would do it to us too. And now they are.
The methods on this website are straight out of the liberal TRA playbook, where the idea is to take stupid shit someone says on the internet and get them fired.
https://www.charliesmurderers.com/
I would argue hate was on social media/earlier society long before the "gender" issue.
As was establishment cancel culture (McCarthyism/HUAC).
The Professor Watchlist was established in 2016.
Is there any prior cancel culture by liberals on other academics
(Stock was 2021, peak UK establishment gender rules under the Tories).
"We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist".
– James Baldwin.
of course. But I'm pointing to the problem on the left, which yet again you are diverting from.
A US academic, and evolutionary biologist at Harvard, also got hounded out of her job for stating that humans come in 2 sexes, and that it is binary, even though she also stated she respected people's identities and pronouns. She was described as a transphobe with unacceptable views.
Along the way her views were amplified and included stuff she'd never said by various actors getting in on the debate. Here she describes what happened.
And it goes on from there, with complaints to her faculty, and about her giving a talk, when she was a known transphobe who spoke against the interests of transgender people..
The timeline seems to suggest that there was an illiberal reaction to the Professor Watchlist from the so called liberal academic. With the cultural conflict most fierce on gender.
Why, well women's groups here and in the USA have supported gender equality as part of the civil rights movement 1950-1970's.
If biological sex and gender identity were not a perfect match, an issue on which to confront and divide feminists.
Provoke and response. The algorithm takes over, as human nature when groups are in conflict. Include and exclude.
As I've said in the past.
Attacking and cancelling speech was always going to backfire.
And be used against the left also.
My opinion has always been that it is better to let idiots and haters "out themselves" where they can be properly ridiculed and countered.
But. What about those who's "free speech" is doing serious harm?
"Cancel culture" has simply resulted in them festering away out of sight, with like minded followers and "influencers" until they got enough momentum and supporters to burst into the open.
New Zealands Cooker culture, the rascist underbelly in talkback radio land and Trumps fascists are prime examples.
The, sometimes called, "manosphere", of which Kirk was an example, shows the dangers of a culture of underlying hate! He was a victim of the polarisation and hate he himself played a large part in causing.
The problem is, how tolerant should we be of those whose speech goes way past "free speech" into the equivalent of yelling "fire in a crowded nightclub". Who, like Kirk, incentivise their supporters to attack the livelihood and even the lives of those they disagree with.
We have a US President who has no qualms about setting his pack onto any opposition. Seymour in NZ trying to cancel academics who show him up for the fool that he is. Wannabee fascists gaining power.
How tolerant should we be of the intolerant?
It's an important question, which should be followed up with: "what do you want to do with them?"
It's not like they're a hive mind. People are from all walks of life, politics, situations, and capacities to communicate. My main problem with Kirk is his relative position of power in society and his ability to appear very reasonable. He ran these debate sessions that were broadcast online, the left should have been able to challenge that. But we can't because we've largely given up on talking with people we disagree with and instead prefer strategies of ostracisation.
If someone is apolitical and looking at choice between Kirk and someone telling them they're shit because they're white or not left enough, why would they choose the left. Humans are motivated by safety and belonging more than values or policies.
Yes, countering the attraction of perceived deplorable ‘role models’ and/or behaviours without calling them out is tricky.
Acknowledgements: A.I.
who said anything about not calling out bad behaviour?
Not me – I wrote (@12:22 pm) that "countering the attraction of perceived deplorable ‘role models’ and/or behaviours without calling them out is tricky", e.g. if we want ‘apoliticals’ to "choose the left", and particularly if we want those on the political right to reconsider their choices.
Was unaware of Kirk before he was killed, and from what I've read since most of the political positions he espoused seem deplorable to me. To be clear, I don’t think Charlie Kirk was “shit” – just his political positions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Political_positions_and_activities
Those positions will continue to resonate with a many, but their attraction is beyond me – I can't summon the necessary empathy.
your comment has been edited since I replied to it 😉
It originally said,
Edit in haste – repent at leisure.
Yup. I sub-edit after posting … too much.
I repent (if too late) by striking out, then re-writing.
That's a disturbing account by Patton of the reach of Kirk's influence – something thin-skinned Seymour can only dream of with his silly "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome" jibes. We don't know how lucky we are, and were.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Patton
Well Takuta Farris is either going to get pushed out of the Maori Party or he's going to stop a future Labour-Green-TPM 2026 coalition.
His statements are far worse than anything out of Jones or Nash.
Would be great to hear from the Human Rights Commission this blatant racism.
Yip tpm is going to gift wrap the next election to the cocs, and tbh I would struggle to vote for a government that'll include them in their current form , entrenched radicalism is more dangerous than the act party.
I'm not defending Farris when I say this.
You don't see radicalism in Treaty Principles Bill, Regulatory Standards Bill, massive diluting of worker health and safety and the tearing away of Pay Equity mechanisms?
Under urgency and retrospectively?
You can't undo any of those things if your minor party just falls apart. Green MPs now have an approximate shelf life of 5-day Avocados. TPMaori are heading to be the same.
Voters could easily say "better the devils you know than the chaos you don't"
It’s just as likely the electorate swings back toward the two major parties, as we’ve seen before when minor parties looked like they’d overperformed: in 2002 (remember the worm) and again in 2017 (when NZ First was turfed out. Again.).
That’s not to say this isn’t a communications nightmare, amplified and framed as “racist” by a coalition short on both original ideas and a sense of irony. It will no doubt prove a fruitful attack line for National and ACT.
But the likelihood of voters switching from TPM or the Greens to National is very low. If anything, it could strengthen Labour’s hand: giving them the chance to argue that if voters want a stable, sane, left-wing government, they're the only credible option.
The electorate may well decide that they hate Labour the least. Or TPM less than ACT. Which is hardly the stuff of left-wing dreams, but this is politics: good enough is often what wins.
it's not TPM or GP voters that are the concern, it's swing voters who want competency and stability and look at a potential 2026 L/G/TPM coalition and go hell no and vote National. Or maybe don't vote, because the other option is NACTFirst.
It could also drop the GP vote, with people moving to L for the same reason, although I would guess that's more about GP than TPM perception.
I'd probably hold my nose very tightly and vot nzf,
really? But NZF are doing the same kind of daft politics as Farris.
Opposition-MP-generates-outrage is the kind of dead-end story that fades in a couple of news cycles, even at ole' Granny Herald.
NZF’s moral and policy failures in government, on the other hand, are the sort of thing that stick. And will stay at the front of people’s minds.
The two are not morally equivalent.
fair point. I was thinking more about how b as a voter might be seeing it, but they clarified below.
B is a he ,not a they. Buy the way
👍 I probably knew that but have a habit of using they where it’s not obvious from the handle.
While I agree this will eventually fade out of the news cycle, it won't be forgotten.
IMO, most of his supporters won't forget. Nor will most of those that were outraged. And nor will the right.
It's one of those moments that cements in voters minds
I'm betting he'll be well remembered for this.
I was chatting politics with a mate of mine.
He is from Northland and works in coastal shipping.
Jones and Peters get the tick from him for two reasons.
They came to the union and asked what investment was needed to make coastal shipping viable. There is a genuine enthusiasm for it.
The other is the Provincial Growth Fund. Sure there is a whiff of nepotism, what with $$ spent up North, but it was spent. Contrast with National that hold the seats but don't invest up there.
Yep really , I truly think the most dangerous internal threat to nz os a segment of Maori raised to believe they are victims of long past deeds , being radicalized by acting out with extreme violence.
It nzf would be the lesser of 3 evils, in coc government
Funny that is not actually happening, Eh?
Whereas Seymour, Peters, and the Coalition of cockups, are destroying the lives of the majority of New Zealanders.
It is no less violent because it is "legal".
Reaping a tide of resentment and disenfranchisement amongst the NZ youth whose lives they are blighting for decades. At the same time hypocritically trying to exploit the resentment, by directing it at the wrong targets.
You have to be joking. This is not the NZF of old. Peters (and his henchman Jones) have moved the party much further to the right; the party is now virulently anti-woke, anti-vax and anti-environment. Peters is lying through his teeth about the ferries.
I think Hipkins should rule NZF out. Give me TPM any day, minus Farris.
Labour does fine out of this – amazingly after losing the byelection.
The issue is TPM removing themselves from government.
If Labour keeps tracking to near 40% by the election, they can choose either Greens or NZFirst as their coalition option.
Opinion polling for the next New Zealand general election – Wikipedia
Losing a seat they’d already lost two years ago — to a party for whom they’re the only viable coalition partner? Doesn’t sound much like a defeat.
Realistically, we’re still about a year out from the election, and by then this will likely be only a vague memory. Whereas NZF’s role in the worst government in living memory will be front of mind.
If Labour keeps tracking near 40% into the election, they’ll have choices. And, as I said earlier, politics often isn’t about dreams — good enough is good enough.
Given the likely steep political and policy costs of bringing Winston and his hangers-on into government, even an ill-disciplined, less popular (with Pakeha) and somewhat extremist TPM would be the better option.
I don't see a decent into people killing people, embedded grievance inspired racism (which is the undertone I get from tpm, and other tales I here) is a recipe for disaster.
wait, did Farris talk about killing people?
No maybe I'm descending into silly old man stage,but there are Maori out here who hate pakeha, I could bore you with anecdotes but won't. And if we have mps pushing his sort of stuff what message does it send,
Yeah, Treaty Rights so radical. That said, I'm a new member of TPM, Te Tai Tonga electorate. Reconsidering my membership. Might go back to Greens. Still can't stomach Labour, so bougie.
TPM condemned Farris's remarks the first time round. Given that he has doubled-down by spouting more profoundly racist tripe, he should be dumped.
Farris has done us a favour, he's shown us what lies beneath in tpm ,gone are the days of Sharples, and Turia
Thank goodness for that.
Self-control is an under-rated and unfashionable virtue. It needs to be discovered and appreciated again.
That seems a bit unlikely though, in an age when everbody is so keen to say how ‘passionate’ they are about this or that or anything at all.
Heh! Not passion but outrage.
Someone presciently wrote a post along those lines a couple of weeks ago
/shameless plug
Really?
All the MP said was that the Labour MP was campaigning to be the MP for a Maori electorate using the resources (labour) of non Maori members of the Labour Party (people who could not vote in the electorate).
If someone was arguing that there be no foreign involvement in our elections, would you agree without question?
As it is, we have permanent residents, some for the pathway to living in Oz, voting in our elections. All without even a pledge to our values (Treaty/Human Rights/protection of our nations conservation estate/environment/social well-being etc).
I wonder how Maori see that?
Yep. & like I said yesterday his own quotes will come to haunt him (unless you agree with him of course).
"Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge."
"If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified."
"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different."
& so on.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs
[link fixed]
Yr selective quoting is what is so wrong with political discourse.
Devoid of context those statements only serve the purpose of sticking the boot in.
well here's the context for the feminism quote (it was linked in the Guardian piece).
He thinks Swift will stop being woke once she is married with children. He's saying women are better if they are married with kids. The problem I have is that I don't trust that he isn't also saying women belong in the home with the kids. Which is sexist and scary.
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-tells-taylor-swift-submit-your-husband-and-have-ton-children
it's ok for the left to point out the problems with Kirk's politics, even in the week he was murdered.
I'm not going to go into bat over his hopes for a married, maternal Swift.
They are conservative values and politics. That doesn't make them wrong nor problems and it doesn't devalue women.
We were talking about this recently, a buddies daughter is pregnant for the first time at 33. The usual 'devil may care' casual approach to life has been replaced by someone who's is getting lots of things in order.
I understand it is referred to as 'nesting'. As told to me by the maternity nurse.
in NZ terms, they're far right or fundamentalist values and politics. Most socially conservative people here don't believe that women belong at home with the babies. Thankfully.
And those problem most definitely devalue women. Try telling the women in your life that they're not in charge and should submit to their husbands and see how you get on 😉
I'm not sure what your point is and how it relates to Kirk's politics. Yes many women desire to have children and want to nest, yes there are problems with having children later in life. The solution to those problems isn't to take away women's autonomy and put men in charge of them, it's to build better family structures that support women.
I've been thinking about a reply. The easy part is the nesting is an illustration of how our values, principles and identity can change, especially when parenthood occurs. I know it was big for me and I am eternally grateful it happened to me in my 30s. I've long argued we boys don't grow up till we are 30. Not to mention having travelled, got a trade and business under the belt and fantastic family support.
I was able to sacrifice my own wants and put baby first. This was reflected to me by my wife.
The thornier, 'women at home' issue is what I have been mulling over. There are many angles to this. I'm gonna have a crack but this would be so much better done conversationally.
I think we can agree that caring, nurturing roles are criminally undervalued in our society. Covid bought that into focus, but we rushed back to BAU.
It isn't necessarily the Mum but one of the parents, or the shared role, ideally, be at home for those vastly important first five years.
Neo-liberalism is another barrier to putting things right. There is a parallel in housing, the 'market' decides rents, the citizenry can't afford them so the state 'solves' the problem by having an Accommodation Supplement. Obviously that doesn't solve the problem, it just transfers more wealth to landlords. Similarly with children, parents can't afford to have one at home, so the state subsidises ECE. Another wealth transfer that doesn't solve the problem.
I feel there is a direct link to our slide down the academic achievement standings and children hitting school without knowing so many of the basics, colours, numeracy, literacy.
The other tricky part, and I am going to mention an ideal again. When making a decision, especially an important decision, it is wise counsel to consider the larger group above. ie an individual decision considers what's best for family, a family decision, what's best for community etc etc.
Solutions? Perhaps the Guaranteed Minimal Income, UBI.. I know there are mechanisms to be worked out around extra support for the likes of disabled. There is also room for the role of parenting to be venerated, revered, aspired to, celebrated. Acknowledge the sacrifice our parents made. That is a big part of our commitment to be around now that our parents are elderly and need support.
Guaranteed income is a good idea and would help. A more radical idea is to pay women a living wage to bear and raise children to school age.
Nesting is a natural phenomenon imo, tied into evolution and women's physical bodies. Not all women have it, and not all to the same degree but as a generalisation about Homo sapiens, it's a thing. I'm less clear on how that works for men. And obviously socialisation plays a big part too.
The biggest issue for women about being stay at home mums is financial, but close behind that is that the nuclear family structure just sucks for women with young kids. If the man is out earning, it means the woman is left at home on her own, often going spare. It was so bad in the 50s that women ended up addicted to psychiatric meds as society tried to pathologise and medicalise women instead of acknowledging that women have a right to a life and being baby producing machines isn't that. Women need support so that they have time for their own wellbeing, intellectual lives, physical health and so on.
So many women pour their life energy into their children and a not insignificant number get wrecked by it. Not because of motherhood, but because the nuclear family structure deprives them of the resources and support women need to mother.
Over our long evolution, humans have raised children in extended family systems of various kinds. The nuclear family is very very new. It takes a village etc.
The thing I don't get is how you can say this,
Because conservatives like Kirk absolutely are wrong and they do devalue women. They want the nuclear family enforced, and that harms not just women but the whole of society.
What value or how important is raising a child to you?
To my mind it is arguably the most important job. Not to mention rewarding.
The harm of a nuclear family to the whole of society sounds like a big stretch to me.
I must add my thinking of nuclear is not isolated to parents and offspring. It brings in grandparents, aunts and uncles as well as grandchildren.
Perhaps nuclear is a little 1950s and whanau might better describe the ideal.
Nuclear families are by definition not extended families. Would you mind rereading my comment with that in mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family
Ok, we agree on nuclear family, it's a relic from last century.
I'm gonna roll with whanau, in that childcare, indeed elder care too is largely provided by the family unit, as wide as it is appropriate.
I wish it were a relic, but unfortunately society is based around the nuclear family. Houses are built based on the nuclear family, and it’s why it’s difficult to build more than one dwelling on a piece of land. The benefit system is based around two parent families (or when that breaks, solo parenting families), not extended whānau. Working for families too.
If you want to buy land with someone other than your partner, it’s been hard historically, although that is starting to change.
on and on, the whole of society functions around this. I was a child in the 70s and 80s, and had three grandparents living locally. I have so many friends who have raised their children away from extended family. There’s been a big push from neoliberalism, which has needed a mobile workforce. The housing crisis is part of it.
I do see some people changing that, it seems more common now for multiple generations to make a conscious choice to live in the same area at least.
Most elder care is provided by private businesses 🙁 There’s a whole thing about how the state charges for that and how that take family resources away from the next generations.
It's not a surprise we are both on 'Team Eend Neoliberalism'.
That's why I struggle with some feminist rhetoric where the role of motherhood is demeaned denigrated or not seen as highly valued.
This position plays into neoliberalism's hands nicely.
Not sure what you are referring to exactly but you have to bear in mind that second wave feminism was a response to the repression of the 50s. Women’s lived expanded during WW2 because the men were away and women stepped up and did things outside of their normal roles. When the war ended, women lost that. By the time the 50s came along with psych meds to help women deal with the isolation of suburban motherhood, there were enough women who could write about the problems with this.
Women got to go back into the workforce, but were paid less. Women could leave their abusive husbands with the invention of the DPB, and for many women at that time there was still extended family around, but the 80s pushed both the mobile workforce and the necessity of two income household units.
Where feminists said they wanted to be emancipated from motherhood, they were talking about things like isolation, boredom, depression. That’s understandable. Capitalism offered an alternative in the form of lower paid work and childcare, of course they were doing to take that. But if women had been in charge, that wouldn’t have happened. Instead we would have supported women to be mothers where they wanted to, and those that didn’t wouldn’t have to.
Now we talk about working from home as normal. Imaging if women were paid to bear and raise children, had sufficient support to not do that on their own at home while their husband was a work, could have good social, intellectual, worklife interactions.
Do you think women without children working in Starship Hospital have a less important job than mothers?
Ignoring the breach of one of Nana's rules – answering a question with a question, I'll answer.
Not sure about the childless aspect of Starship workers but I would answer yes, I value the mother role over that of doctors, nurses etc.
Yr suggestion of a living income to parents is a great idea. It's politically palatable and can be increased as the metrics demonstrate its value.
Back to my original question, how important is motherhood to you?
I don’t have children so it’s not the top of my list of important things. My most important job is looking after my health, which I do on my own (another casualty of the nuclear society). But politically, and central to my feminism, is the idea that society should be organised around mothers. Mothers centre the wellbeing of children, and everything else flow from that (from housing to jobs to climate).
Mothers also wouldn’t choose a nuclear family given a real choice. We have a lot to learn from Māori and other pro-whānau cultures, but my own Gaelic ancestors were the same and not that long ago.
it’s also why I find Kirk’s politics abhorrent and dangerous. We have nuclear families as the central organising principle because of men like him. Nuclear families are best when you want to control women.
Desiring a more mother-centric society I can see how gender ideology would be at odds to the foundations of that society.
The other awkward aspect about this issue is the moving backwards and forwards from what's experienced for an individual versus a family versus society.
quite difficult to shift a society out of half a century of neoliberal individualism. I think there are more opportunities for this now though. For instance, if we developed new land owning and land sharing models, I think we’d find people would take that up. Most adult Pākehā don’t want to live with their parents but they might be good with having two households on one property while the kids are growing up.
please supply a fact check for all of that.
All taken from the Guardian article, I am assuming they have fact checked it themselves before publishing, they're held to a bit of a higher standard than say a right wing rage bait grifter, for example.
"You can tell a lot about a person by how they react when someone dies."
& yes you can.
Here's a couple more…
"Last month, he denied the well-documented Israeli-imposed starvation in Gaza, echoing Israeli officials’ falsehoods that the United Nations-declared famine in the territory is “pure visual warfare”." – https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/11/israeli-leaders-heap-praise-on-charlie-kirk-as-a-staunch-ally-of-israel
"On Civil Rights: In another 2023 event, Kirk had called civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr "awful" and "not a good person" as he decried the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discrimination based on race, religion, colour, sex and national origin, and prohibited segregation.
"I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I've thought about it," Kirk said. "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s," he said at a December 2023 political conference hosted by his Turning Points USA group. He claimed that the law ushered in a "permanent" bureaucracy meant to promote diversity, equity and inclusion." – https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/charlie-kirk-assassination-gun-violence-to-china-virus-look-at-charlie-kirks-controversial-takes-9256666
South Park spoofed him & his ilk good, calling them master-debaters which I thought was perfect. Cartman is the template.
👍 all good.
my comment was about KJT's comment (essentially a meme with no links and no easy way to fact check).
Charlie Kirk called for an 'amazing patriot' to bail out Paul Pelosi's attacker in 2022 | Snopes.com
Donald Trump Jr. Shares Hammer Halloween Photo Mocking Pa… – Newsweek
Wasn't difficult!
Also noted Trump and his fascists reaction to the assasination of Democrat representatives, compared to their losing their shit over Charlie Kirk.
https://theconversation.com/charlie-kirk-shooting-another-grim-milestone-in-americas-long-and-increasingly-dangerous-story-of-political-violence-265115
“Charlie Kirk, figurehead of the American far right, took a question at a 2023 event in Salt Lake City about the second amendment to the US constitution and gun-related deaths. He answered: “I think it’s worth 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.”
If you “live by the sword?”
The real scary part is the number of young men in NZ I’m hearing, repeating the same misygonistic, rascist, wannabee fascist, incel and violent bile perpetuated by “influencers” online such as Kirk, Taylor and others. And some of our politicians.
hard agree on the last paragraph. What I'd really like to see is the left discussing strategy, because atm we are losing and mostly don't want to talk about it.
Unfortunately making another Horst Wessel – Wikipedia for US fascism, doesn't help get rid of it.
It will just encourage them.
I will have to check out South Park again, I've lost touch with them since before Covid.
The new season has been spot on, master-debators, labubus, "go wok go brok", "Trump is fucking Satan", Vance as Tatu (from Fantasy Island), the tech edgelords etc… they're going full bore political satire, pretty much the only ones doing it with this kind of energy.
I actually thought the "mastrr-debater" thing was so clever, I don't get this "Kirk was a clever debator" nonsense, he'll just be slippery & change subject/ move goal posts (like Jordan Peterson does) until it infuriates the other person & the master-debator gets to smirk & say "I've won, next".
Before he was shot he was doing exactly this, he was asked about mass shootings & he brought up something like "you mean gang violence?" or something. Totally disingenuous & in bad faith. I don't think that's great debating at all.
Again I don't think he deserved to be shot (who does? Certainly not the school kids he didn't care about or the Palestinian deaths he cheered on) I did think South Park eviscerated him & we just needed more of that. Also to have his death filmed has got to be the ultimate humiliation, just awful.
Also, I think a lot of the lefties "celebrating" is just a form of shock, a reaction. Though there are some women university lecturers he targetted, some gay people, trans, some feminists, some people of colour, some muslims etc who might not be sparing him much sympathy.
Thanks – South Park reruns are so good (imho), but I hadn't seen that episode.
https://www.thewrap.com/south-park-charlie-kirk-episode-pulled-comedy-central/
The Wrap article mentions Kristi Noem – we don’t know now lucky we are!
Here’s the segment in question.
I suggest viewers watch/listen to the 1m 33s clip themselves which will add context to the Rolling Stone's take on things – who of course have a nasty history of just making things up, like the infamous "rape" case of the varsity students years ago.
The key points Kirk was making about the Pelosi event were these:
– Blame was already being assigned to the GOP and the RW in general about the Pelosi attacker.
– So someone should bail him out so he could be asked questions about his motivations as a gay schizophrenic nudist (sarcasm doesn’t come across well in print).
– He also said the whole thing was horrible and awful – just like Democrat politicians and activists are saying now about Kirk’s death.
– Kirk pointed out that criminals arrested in San Francisco, even on charges of violent crimes against the plebs, like assault, are released on low or cashless bail – whereas attacking local Democrat Royalty like the Pelosi’s was treated very differently in that case.
the thing about Kirk is that he's very good at saying the thing by denying he's saying the thing. Is he saying the attack is bad? I know he said the words, but the way he is framing things there is odd and leaves doubt. If there is a point to his sarcasm about gay nudist hippies, it's not clear what the point actually is. Maybe it's a dog whistle I'm never going to get.
Maybe his real point here is that a white boy who assaults a Democra doesn't get bail unlike all those nasty black people in Chicago who just get out straight away.
Great to see there's still some justice in a really large democracy against the ruling elite.
Bolsonaro is going down.
Brazil’s supreme court finds Bolsonaro guilty of plotting military coup | Jair Bolsonaro | The Guardian
Damn right. Coup-plotting is a matter of perception of evidence…
You can't expect a lawyer to chew through 70 terabytes of data. You need an AI or quantum computer. The law stymied by too much evidence ain't a good look. Time for the judiciary to wise up and pull finger on their antique system of justice.
70 TB of data is of the order of what has been used to train LLMs. So, instead of drawing a logical & correct conclusion you spawn yet another harebrained narrative to have a go at the wrong target.
+1000…better still because it will get right up Trump's nose.
In reality Trump should be sharing the cell with Bolsonaro.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9819r2en4do
Duterte in the Hague too.
Working at the pointy end of social services my SO often remarked about abuse and the conduct of abusers that someone always knows.
They all knew about Jeffery Epstein.
.
Victims’ attorneys have described over the years how Epstein weaponized his wealth to emotionally control and manipulate his victims.
The spreadsheet contains more than 80 entries amounting to just over $75,000 in gifts for one victim, who asked that Bloomberg withhold her identity for fear of being subjected to additional abuse and trauma. Those entries include payments for a study abroad program, Thai massage lessons, a laptop and five Western Union wire transfers. Some of those entries include the annotation, “GM,” Maxwell’s initials. The “GM” annotation accompanied more than 250 of the spreadsheet’s nearly 2,000 entries. About half of the entries carry no initials and are simply recorded as numeric codes or “Wire.”
“Jeffrey Epstein was all about control,” said the woman, who explained the manipulative nature of the gifts and payments she received. “First, complete isolation. Once he was in control of my location, he had control of everything. Everything from finances to belief systems to even more perverse things like attire, vocabulary, exercise routine and all other daily activities. The manipulation was endless, instilling fear from all angles.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-jeffrey-epstein-emails-ghislaine-maxwell/
archivedotli
Someone here might be able to give me some ideas of what to do next.
We have noticed Poison Hemlock sprouting from time to time on our property. Our property backs onto a market garden. There is a mess at the back of the property, and Hemlock is growing vigorously amongst that.
Hemlock is an incredibly nasty dangerous plant as per this webmd article.
To make matters worse, the infestation is in a straight line to a large school in our subdivision and only several hundred metres away. When it seeds, a decent nor-wester would likely blow the seeds over to the school where children could be exposed.
Our local council (Christchurch City Council) doesn't want to deal with it because it is growing on private property. Ecan, our regional council doesn't want to know about it because, for some bizarre reason, it isn't on their noxious weed list.
My concern is to ensure that people in the subdivision, and particularly kids at the school, aren't put at risk from this.
Any suggestions what to do? I am going to talk to the land owners directly. But if they can't be bothered, I don't know what I can do.
Any ideas from anyone?
In your position I wouldn't be morally corrupting any Athenian youth.
Kill it.
https://www.weedbusters.org.nz/what-are-weeds/weed-list/hemlock/
Yeah. That is the answer. Unfortunately I don't have control over the killing part. I will talk to the land owner and hopefully he will do that. It is a worry that it is growning in a market garden area not far from growing food as well.
It is related to carrots, parsnips, parsley etc. So, has the appearance of something edible. So, if it starts growing amongst, say a field of carrots or parsley grown for consumption it is a worry. A few leaves consumed are enough to be fatal. Children have been killed before just blowing through the hollow stems of the plant.
The attitude of both the council and Ecan is they don't give a shit about it. Very frustrating.
It too me years to make inroads into >hectare infestation of convolvulus and wandering willie, transcantia, but I have, and now I'm at the dig and burn stage.
No doubt some will howl but the best method was a paint brush, glyphosate with a penetrant, and perseverance.
And knowing a market gardener, nothing's allowed to grow unless they want it to grow so I wouldn't worry about that.
Wouldnt worry too much, it's got an absolutly terrible odour there no way anyone would ingest fresh leaves accidentally.
The look alikes thaf are platable have a neutral or even pleasant odour.
dunno about the risk to stock, but humans can hand pull hemlock barehanded with no ill effect. Gardeners in NZ do this all the time. More caution is needed if doing large stands with machinery as the pungent smell is gross.
There are other members of the same family that one shouldn't handle barehanded, not common in NZ and don't really look like hemlock.
The risks of hemlock are usually overstated. What you don't want to do is ingest it, esp not children because smaller doses are toxic. You also need to be careful when removing large amounts because the crushed stems release a pungent scent.
Seeds aren't going to blow very far, and aren't a particular risk (you'd have to gather them and eat them). If they grow on the school grounds I'm sure the caretaker will be removing them as part of general weeding.
You also don't want it growing in a vegetable garden, because it can be mistaken for similar looking edible plants.
NZ doesn't use noxious weed lists. We have a national plant accord for not distributing certain plants, and regional councils usually have a list of plants they require land owners to control in various ways. I can't find hemlock on Ecan's website.
https://www.ecan.govt.nz/pest-search?Keywords=hemlock&PestGroup=&PestType=&ManagementApproach=
Have you talked to the market garden about removing it?
Will be doing that tomorrow.
We have had it growing in our vege garden and I have had to pull it out. The fact it is growing near a prepared piece of ground where food for sale is to be planted is a worry for the reasons you give.
It is weird that Ecan lists Blackberry as a noxious plant, whereas, at least that gives a nice berry even though it is annoying. But Hemlock, which is highly toxic, isn’t.
The mushroom poisoning woman used the wrong thing. She would have been better to throw a few leaves of hemlock into a salad to do the job, and plead ignorance that it was growing in amongst her parsley.
Blackberry is invasive in some places and hard to remove once it gets established. Hemlock is a biennial, so if you remove the plants and the new seedlings you can get on top of it easier.
I'd say something to the market gardener about the risk of it being mistake for carrot, but you might also find they already know. If it's not growing beside the carrot rows, I can't see it as a problem. It's a reasonably common weed in NZ and not a particularly big risk. The leaves are bitter, so won't work in a salad 😉 and the roots require some effort to eat. I can't recall hearing of hemlock poisoning in NZ, it must be rare.
The neighbour is a pain in the neck and has a lot of rubbish in that area, including blackberry that keeps growing over our fence and into our gardens. We may have more leaverage with that in terms of Ecan, who might point out the Hemlock issue at the same time maybe if I don't have luck with a direct approach.
sometimes the council person in the field is better to deal with 😉
Hemlock is an "organism of interest" in the Canterbury Regional Pest Management Plan.
Sorry can’t seem to link.
ta. I found their main page link.
https://www.ecan.govt.nz/your-region/plans-strategies-and-bylaws/canterbury-regional-pest-management-plan
From the Auckland Council link above, it looks like they take the issue seriously. Down here it seems to be a case of: "Meh, the worst that can happen is a few kids die. Whatever."
The reason we have different policies in different regional councils is because plants grow differently depending on climate and geography. I'm guessing hemlock is more invasive in Auckland than Canterbury.
Yes, some hemlock plants on a (pain in the neck) neighbour's property could be an inconvenience, but "a few kids die" sounds "over-hyped" to me.
Might the inconvenience be causing you to overstate "the actual risk"?
Anyway, I hope discussions with your neighbour resolve the matter – good neighbours are priceless.
https://tvark.org/neighbours-from-hell-1
Firstly, the council cannot deal with pest plants on private property as it is not their jurisdiction and also well beyond the budget.
Secondly, there is a set of criteria for which pest plants make it onto any pest control strategy whether at a local, regional or national level. Some of the criteria will usually be the level of harm (to environment, agriculture or human health), how invasive it is, whether it's not present already (so it is possible to exclude it/prevent it from establishing) and of course budget – got to focus on whatever is top of the list in pestiness!
That being said, talking to the neighbour is a great start. You can check out Weedbusters website for how to control poison hemlock. You can see if other people in your community would be interested in trying to control it's spread, including the school – it could be an interesting thing for the kids to learn about.
A practical thing that can be done if the pest plant can't be removed or sprayed is regularly remove the flower heads before they set seed.
You could also record your observations of it on iNaturalist, which is an awesome tool for citizen science for example, can help track pest distribution.
https://www.tiakitamakimakaurau.nz/protect-and-restore-our-environment/pests-in-auckland/pest-search/conmac/
What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?
Willux – sorted, out to lunch, and laser-focused on the Costcof living for 'everyday Kiwis'.
Seymour @ActNZ wanted Parliament to pay tribute to Charlie Kirk. Said he was the paragon of Free Speech virtue.
How do I research for other examples of ACT requesting similar tributes in Parliament?
Regarding the idea that no-one on the left has applauded Kirk's murder, a few receipts.
President Elect of the Oxford Union, allegedly said this in a Union private chat,
https://x.com/SwipeWright/status/1966348809702625513
The Oxford Union has issued a statement condemning the words and offering condolences to Kirk's family.
https://x.com/OxfordUnion/status/1966205678617600031
Here's Abaraonye at an Oxford Debate about moderation in the pursuit of justice. Don't know if he is left, but appears to be liberal,
https://youtu.be/B5JgxfpFbLY?si=Lu-cmTwEYYxPTNZf