Fuck that. I can’t get E1 to land 2 rockets on the hulk with my strategem beacon stuck on it’s face.

It does have a game chat. Hardly anyone uses it. Also I don’t think he’s that big on helldivers since he did ⬆️ ➡️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️, when he should have done ➡️ ➡️ ⬆️ or ➡️ ⬆️ ⬇️ ⬇️ ➡️

Gotcha. 30-06 is so powerful it will completely blow a man’s head off his body, but it will pass through a T-shirt, hit a steel plate under the shirt, and bounce back out the shirt without making a single hole.

That’s a complete fabrication.

First of all, I was unable to find a source showing that Charlie was wearing body armor.

Second, body armor is not made out of steel plate for exactly this reason. Body armor is usually ceramic plates that are designed to dissipate kinetic energy by fragmenting, covering in a plastic or polymer jacket to catch and slow down any fragments, and then it’s usually in a kevlar (or other strong filament) carrier to further catch fragments.

If a round had hit his chest, and then ricochetted up into his neck, then there would be very obvious evidence of this. His shirt would have a decent entry hole, plus a big debris pattern of lead and jacketing material from where the round hit the steel plate. There would be a much larger and more ragged exit hole, more likely multiple, since bullet would have flattened and fragmented on impact with the steel plate. There would be a lot of smaller wound in his neck from the bullet fragments, instead, we get one clean hole.

To sum it up, he wasn’t wearing any armor. Even if he was, body armor is made to catch bullets, not deflect them into your neck. And if that did occur, then there would be multiple obvious signs that it did happen that way.

Not unusual in this timeline. Check the news about the head of the Department of Labor Statistics.

I don’t know him personally, so I can’t vouch for the guy.

I think a bigger factor is that what happened to Scott was an freak accident, no one was trying to avoid an active shooter when it happened, so he was able to get aid from his father (the guy behind the camera) immediately.

So yeah, you’re probably right.

We live in a post-truth world. It won’t matter at all to the people who used to listen to Charlie Kirk.

I feel the same way about this as I did about the Trump assassination attempt.

I’m upset he got shot at, but I’m not upset he got shot.

This is an indication of the real tension in the US right now.

Scott, from Kentucky Ballistics rather famously had a .50 cal explode in his face, a chunk of the gun perforated his neck and went down into his lung, and honestly. He survived and is, outwardly at least, doing pretty well. Stick a thumb in it.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Sure sure,

On the flipside though, if this student had been verbally and physically harassed multiple times while in the locker room while staff ignored his complaints, then he may have felt compelled to film simply to prevent worse harassment from occuring.

Clearly, there is more going on than what information is publicly available.

Not relevant to this thread. Since you’re here though…

…let’s analyze this a bit further… Who’s personal experience should dictate school safety procedures?

In fairness to my past self, a locker room was a place to change my clothes and get out. I was uncomfortable being in there with anyone for any length of time.

I’m trying to take a view from the other boys, who see him as a girl. You can’t reasonably expect people who’ve grown up in a society where they’re is a binary assignment between boy and girl at birth to suddenly understand and accept a trans person, without some kind of education, coaching and adjustment period. From the other boys perspective, this student was a girl, and he just came into the locker room and started filming them. If I went into a women’s locker room and started filming, I probably would get a police escort out of the building with some shiny new bracelets. There are two sides to this story. I’m not saying that the trans boy wasn’t being harassed. I was saying that there is more going on here, because a couple of boys saying “I’m not comfortable with this girl in the locker room” wouldn’t get them suspended for 10 days, the school district said the same thing in the article.

True. My guess is that this is something that has been consistently happening to him. Knowing how schools slow-roll harassment and bullying compliants (unless it has been massively reworked in the last 20 years) he probably saw video evidence as the only way to force the staff to intervene, and was willing to accept the risks of filming the incident.

I agree, but let’s analyze this a bit further… Who’s personal experience should dictate school safety procedures?

Edit : They did not want to discuss. They instead wanted to use a small grammatical mistake to avoid any discussion at all.

No, I think I got it alright.

and if he is willing, the trans student as well.

I imagine some girls would be equally as uncomfortable with this boy in their locker room. From the perspective of those other boys, there was a girl in their locker room. We need to teach understanding that trans people exist, and they need to use bathrooms and locker rooms as well.

I’m with you on having more availability of gender neutral locker rooms, but until schools either integrate all locker rooms (unlikely, seeing how parents have reacted) or build a 3rd locker room (equally unlikely IMO) then we need to teach about how trans people feel, and replace fear and discomfort with understanding and acceptance.

I think a lot of people have not read the article. Locker rooms/changing rooms are already uncomfortable. If there was a girl in my locker room in school, I would have been uncomfortable too. From the article, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it bullying, and suspending the students, but it’s clear that this is a time to have a talk with them, and if he is willing, the trans student as well.

In fairness to the school district, they said they would not have suspended the students for something like this, and they are investigating. So chances are there is more that happened than what is in the news cycle.

" You start out in 1954 by saying, “N****r, n****r, n****r” By 1968 you can’t say “n****r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “n****r, n****r.”

-Lee Atwater, former RNC chairman-

Honestly not sure if this is satire.