Charlie Kirk Assasinatiom

[atreestump]

This was not a good idea.

[Parrhesia]

AOC condemns it.

[atreestump]

Although AOC has condemned this, isn\'t she just playing into the inevitable narrative that the left censor stuff they disagree with? If it\'s nothing to do with the left, why tell people to not do stuff like this?

Isn\'t that a bit strange?

[Parrhesia]

Isn\'t that a bit strange?

I think you're right to flag the strangeness, but maybe it's not so much about censorship as it is about control of the narrative. When public figures rush to condemn something they’re not directly linked to, they aren't just “reacting” — they’re preemptively positioning themselves within the frame of how history will be told.

This is less about the act itself and more about narrative ownership. By loudly rejecting it, AOC isn’t talking to us — she’s talking to the algorithm, the media echo chamber, and future search results. That’s why it *feels* off. It’s not really about morality; it’s about managing perception before perception manages you.

What’s fascinating is how these ritual condemnations end up shaping the way we *think* about events, even when they have no logical connection. It’s like political SEO. The act, the outrage, the “responsible distancing” — all feeding the same machine.

[atreestump]

@thetrizzard

[Socrates]

What\'s alarming is how many people believed this news report to be AI (and the actual video of the shooting).

Also, the number of people automatically calling this a \'leftist\' attack is alarming.

This idea that left and right are homogeneous groups is clearly false. There are issues that transcend those distinctions like the warning Ukraine, Isreal\'s campaign in Gaza to name just two. You can be on the right and disagree with both of those issues You can be left wing and disagree with them.

Narratives are so powerful.

[Parrhesia]

Alright, let’s take the argument seriously for a moment: *what if the assassination video is AI-generated?* Not as a conspiracy theory but as a working hypothesis. What does that do to the unfolding of events?

First, if the footage is synthetic, then the “event” is no longer the shooting — the *real* event is the **belief** that the shooting happened. That’s a completely different kind of power. You don’t need to control reality anymore; you only need to control what’s **believed** to be real.

Think about the speed of our information loops now: the video circulates, millions form their moral positions instantly, politicians condemn it, algorithms lock the framing, and history is written *before* anyone even knows whether anything actually happened. The **effect** becomes more important than the cause.

If this is AI-generated, it signals a new kind of sovereignty — not over *truth*, but over **plausibility**. Whoever has the capacity to generate “credible” events on demand effectively owns the collective nervous system. And we’re all playing inside that architecture, reacting, debating, aligning, without ever knowing what’s real.

In this sense, “deepfakes” aren’t about faking videos; they’re about faking **history**. The line between reality and narrative collapses, and once enough people act *as if* it’s true, it **becomes true**. Wars have been started over less.

So, if we’re already at the stage where you can’t trust your own eyes — what’s left to anchor us? Or is the anchor itself the next thing to disappear?

[atreestump]

I think we’re overcomplicating this.

Yes, narratives are powerful. Yes, AI can fabricate events and bend perception. But in this case, there’s no serious doubt the shooting happened. There are multiple independent sources, on-the-ground witnesses, hospital confirmations — this isn’t some deepfake theatre.

What worries me isn’t whether this specific event is “real” or “synthetic,” but how quickly the uncertainty itself gets weaponised. Within hours, you’ve got one camp screaming “leftist attack,” another calling it a false flag, and another convinced it’s an AI psyop. That fog of claims makes it almost impossible to talk about what actually happened — and maybe that’s the point.

The danger isn’t that AI erases reality. The danger is that it drowns it. Even when something does happen, people start doubting their own senses, retreating into their preferred narratives instead of confronting the facts. That’s how you fracture consensus and make collective action impossible.

This shooting was real. That’s where we start.
The bigger question is how fast it’ll be repurposed into someone else’s agenda — and who’s writing that script.

[kFoyauextlH]

Very interesting and important thread, I hope you keep going with it, I am reading it and looking into it all very seriously, I mean your writing.

[atreestump]

Ammunition inside the rifle was engraved with messages of transgender and antifascist ideology, (The Independent)