Among the attractions at the Turning Point USA (TPUSA) conference being held in Phoenix, Arizona this weekend is an opportunity for attendees to get their picture taken in front of a re-creation of the tent where founder Charlie Kirk was murdered.The four-day event, called "America Fest" is the firs...
Is this meant to be a recreation of that specific scene? Or was it just meant to be a recreation of his normal setup when doing these?
Can’t say for certain… it’s almost like there’s … there’s these things. A bunch of them, just underneath the headline. Words and sentences in a smaller yet similar font which appear to be related to that very headline. They might even explain the situation in further detail…
Idk tho… I can’t read, so I can’t say for certain if these things are indeed related. You’d better ask chat GPT for an article summary, just to be sure.
Love the snark. The thing Lemmy needs the most is less engagement. So keep up your bullshit!
Second, I read the article, and nowhere did it mention if it was intentional. Which was the question. So maybe you need a lesson in reading comprehension.
I’m on the side where quality of comments > quantity of comments, but I do see how big data numbers via mindless engagement could have a similar kind of value. No relevancy to the article, however. I digress.
The first paragraph has the information you seek. If missed, fear not! It is mentioned at least one other time in the article (hint: look for the interview with the event staff). Good luck, and Godspeed! o7
At no point in the first paragraph does it say it is intentionally supposed to be a recreation of his death scene. It is mentioned throughout the article that the author and MS Now reporter that that’s what it is.
Now, where I am most dumbfounded by your comment is the fact that THERE IS NO INTERVIEW WITH THE STAFF. Did you misinterpret a report by a MS Now reporter as an interview with event staff?
I can’t believe you’re the one giving me shit. You gotta do more than look at the words. Comprehension is important too.
Well given that specific scene occurred in his normal setup it’s the same thing?
Like the car JFK was sitting in when he was assassinated is not just a normal car after that event.
OK, but if they considered his set up to be iconic during his life, then it’s not fair to say that they should never be able to reference it again just because some terrorist murdered him in it.
I certainly hate this dude, but I think there’s a big difference between saying “take your photo at a recreation of his assassination” and “we’re reclaiming this symbol as a celebration of his life”.
I just feel that things and places are tainted by horrific events that are associated with them, even if there’s a much more vanilla history.
As an example, the park at Bondi Beach in Australia where there was recently a terrorist massacre. It will always be the place where that happened, not the place where 10s of thousands of picnics were had.
Yes you can say that Kirk’s tent is a celebration of his life and his passion, but lots of people will find that to be in poor taste.
Everything about these people is creepy and weird. Before this guy died, I didn’t know who he was, but if I had I would have thought that making a living going to universities and manipulating people into signing up to this ideology was creepy and weird. His wife weirds me out too.
I get it. I just think that if it happened to somebody I liked, I would want to preserve the positivity of their life. Treating the iconic scene as a permanent tragedy is letting the terrorists win.