Profanity-laced posts with vague references to deeper thinking that you're going to employ at any moment, isn't a flex
Profanity-laced posts with vague references to deeper thinking that you're going to employ at any moment, isn't a flex
My point on this thread is that discrimination is bad. If that enrages you, then perhaps you should reflect internally
No. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying there's political violence happening right in front of us and you're obsessing over stuff that isn't.
What I find odd is that the responses to me say the same things over and over again. There's limited variation or intellectual curiosity. It's like the responses are pre-programmed to say "Oh he's a political moderate that's right of center. Let's call him x, y, z names"
The fascist talk needs to stop. I get that people think it's fun to frame simple disagreements as threatening but read the room
This is a variation of the old Norm Macdonald joke. The hypothetical backlash, not the tangible violence, is the real tragedy
Those groups aren't immune from criticism. Again, he was married. So not a misogynist. You can look things up before you post.
DEI does a disservice to minorities. Calling people names who stand for minority rights is a bad look, ma'am
You quote me but don't even get the quote right. DEI is inherently racist and the best way to not be racist is to get ride of it. That's fairly obvious to most people
Is calling out DEI considered racist now? And you can simply disagree with someone without calling it divisive. Diversity is our strength!
I mean the man was married with kids... Plus, he spoke out against the trans movement
I've never understood what prompts someone to type this kind of response out in reply to something so innocuous
I don't get the division part. He's gotten support from all sorts of people. I get that his views weren't universally supported but I can't figure out why you think he's views are inherently divisive (other than they don't align with yours). This reads like a copy and paste critique.
Trump already knows
I don't know. I got blocked by the OP. I told a truth, I guess.
Intimidate them to do what? The National Guard gets called all the time. When Gov Hochul called out the guard to protect the NYC subway last year, no one said it was to intimidate New Yorkers. I get some of the criticism of Trump but this one doesn't seem well thought out.
We tolerate your views just fine. I find them superficial, repetitive, narrow, and at times, ugly but I tolerate them.
America is a fundamentally good place and we must protect its democratic and free market foundations.
Maybe we can cut back on the Nazi talk simply because it's divisive, untrue, and counterproductive?
The outpouring of love and support he and his family are receiving contradicts this take. You seem to have a hard time separating your personal political disagreements with him and his character.
Affirmative action is strange. It's considered a necessity but pointing to examples of it being implemented is considered to be in poor taste.
Would it blow your mind if I told you the Constitution protects all Americans, not just white men?
Do you agree with the principle or not?
Bluesky is going into overdrive today DEFENDING an act of unspeakable violence. You're concerned about theoretical people are inciting violence, all without proof or context
We're talking about the murder of an innocent man, a father with two young children.
Again, do liars deserve to be murdered? This was your premise. I'm asking you to clarify it, not copy and paste an unrelated talking point from mindless Bluesky trolls
What exactly is violent rhetoric? And what are examples of Charlie Kirk using it? It's strange to be concerned about "violent rhetoric" (presumably because it would lead to violence) than the actual violence.
Let's ignore the hyperbole and unsubstantiated claims for a moment and take your argument at face value. Liars should be murdered? Is that your take? What are the others things that should cause someone to forfeit their life?
I'm not sure what you're point is. If someone says they would die for those they love, doesn't mean they want to die or that it's good if they're killed.
And that's considered divisive? That's not even the full quote
You keep avoiding my question. Why is it a vendetta to have the national guard? Is it a vendetta when the national guard is deployed after a riot?
Perhaps international fans can weigh in on how illegal immigrants get treated in their own countries
If you don't use dynamic pricing, what's the preferred rationing mechanism? The capacity of the stadium is fixed.
But why is getting the National Guard considered a punishment?
He was a Christian who engaged in open debate, not a hate-filled person. But I'm glad that you're against murder. Puts you ahead of most on this site
You're both making a weird point that blue cities in red states are somehow politically aligned with President Trump and that having the national guard deter crime in other cities is somehow a punishment. That would imply that crime is a reward.
No, I really don't. It's a BS standard that violent people use to scare people from engaging in open debate. A warning to those who might cross an arbitrary line of forbidden ideas that progressives get to define.
Ok. Show me what he said that justifies his murder
Usually the argument against "homophobia" is that the speech can be used to cause violence (as flimsy of an argument as that is). But ironically you're cheering actual violence as retribution for figurative violence. You've become the monster you claim to hate.
Karma for what?
I guess some parts of murder pass you off after all.
To carry your analogy through, what did Charlie Kirk do that was equivalent to October 7th or the bombing of Pearl Harbor?
www.snopes.com/fact-check/c... Read the whole thing. I can't believe I have to spell this out.
Not everything has to be blamed on Trump. Good grief
Do "aggressively divisive" opinions belong in a democracy or are those things that should rooted out?
Clearly. We have to go beyond this juvenile rhetoric that people who hold different opinions are Nazis. His different opinions, by the way, are that America is a special place and that open debate is essential. But because this is Bluesky, celebrating the death of conservatives is considered cool
You imply that his murder isn't tragic because he held opinions you disagreed with. I wonder how many other diverse opinions there are in this country of 330 million
If calling out people celebrating the death of someone who they disagreed with is moral superiority, then we have a very low standard indeed.
What's the standard for "aggressively divisive"?
You are unable to differentiate between solutions you disagree with and a lack of solutions.
Show me where he did that? What a horrible thing to say
Remember when Bluesky was promoted as an alternative to Twitter because Twitter had too much "hateful rhetoric"? This entire site is people celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old father of 2, because he held different political opinions. Evil people abound here.
Yes, but I'm not celebrating the death of leftists to prove a sick point
You clearly know nothing about him. You're celebrating the death of a caricature created in your own.
There are people on this site who find opinions like this abhorrent. What's wrong with you?
What a heartless and evil thing to say. No political disagreement should be a death sentence.
There are no political opinions that deserve a death sentence. We live in a big, diverse country. Celebrating the death of young father because you read a partial quote (that you don't understand) is evil.
Not to mention a CEO was murdered. Horrible stuff
This is a deranged and evil take. Fascism is celebrating the death of someone with different viewpoints.
That's a misleading quote but even if it wasn't, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to cheer his death and use it as an opportunity to chill speech
This is how third world failed nations operate.
What does that even mean? What opinions deserve a death sentence?
I'm not sure what you're point is. Most cities aren't red. If you want more law enforcement in those cities, I support that
He didn't promote people getting shot. That's a ghoulish statement
What's the "FA" part? Engaging in civil debate?
It's a fallacy to suggest there are people out there who are "ok" with mass shootings. This administration has prioritized border security in part to reduce mass shootings yet that remains controversial. People disagree on implementation and that's ok.
By what metric? I'm always against BS arguments but especially BS arguments made after a tragedy to push some poorly defined agenda.
Well you're now making things up so... yeah
Maybe they will.
Maybe this isn't the time to be cheerleading this shooting. People are fed up with what? Diverse political opinions? Let's try to act like grownups
New York deployed the National Guard to quell subway violence just last year. It's a deterrent
All of them did.
The OP is. I would go back to your first instinct and be apolitical.
Saying Republicans don't care about gun violence in response to a conservative voice getting shot is a silly response.
It happens all the time. But the point is that Republicans DO try to reduce gun violence
The general point is that Republicans do suggest policies to reduce gun violence but they're unpopular with Democrats so they choose to strawman. I don't have time to go rebut all of your points but I do want to point out that border problems impact more than just border states.
Agreed
I know this is Bluesky but let's not be silly
Send the National Guard there too. This doesn't have to get weird. DC and Chicago are huge problems though
Like border security? Like deploying the national guard to violent cities? Like involuntarily committing the mentally ill? Like moderating language when talking about political opponents? How about those?
The Gulf of what? Do you still call Asia the "Orient"?
Well if you think that response is Naziism, then I can see why you think a normally operating government is fascist
They started this conflict by murdering and kidnapping innocent men, women, and children.
This is a surefire way to end up reading lots of gay stuff
Do you have similar thoughts on Hamas?
There's a difference between the actual views of conservatives and the caricature of what you want the views of conservatives to be. It requires less brain effort to treat conservatives as monsters than actually debate & listen to them
Is this fascism in the room with us now?
The problem, of course, is that progressives have redefined facism to mean anyone to the right of Obama
If Democrats do the same thing, they're sincere. With Trump, whatever action he takes is given the least charitable read possible. And you bring up an interesting point, that DC crime levels are apparently tolerable and thus lowering them isn't in anyone's interest, apparently.
Co-ops require a homogeneous, high-trust society to function properly. The US doesn't have that
At least make them look before they leap
Only when it's against Trump though, right? #democratlogic
It is not. Likewise, throwing a punch is not free speech
Contrasted with the Democrat plan to let these people sleep in the streets, shoot up drugs, and make neighborhoods unsafe.
Do you always try to bully and intimidate people when you face diversity? Like is this your approach in real life when you meet someone from a different culture or someone who thinks property taxes are too high? I get that this appeals to niche progressives but it's antisocial behavior
Was it fascist when Kathy Hochul deployed the National Guard just last year to patrol the NYC subway?
It hasn't yet and we're in year 5 of 8
Is this you, brah? You want to go ahead and switch those "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" labels around?
It's weird that pointing out the inevitable hypocrisy of socialist politicians leads to violence fetishizing among their supporters. After you beat up people who provide diversity of thought, do they get the free healthcare in your utopia or only those who are party members?
The point isn't that it allows one man to have parity with all of law enforcement and the military. It's to make the government be mindful that there are potentially millions of one-man armies out there.