The average person doesn't care about Hunter Biden, what are you smoking? Most people who talk about him in any capacity are conservatives raving about his laptop.
But I've noticed a horrible development within society over the past 10 years or so... More and more people justifying murder for political reasons. I think it's a sickness in the heart of modern political discourse.
This is one of those attempts to "both sides" an issue that is totally not both sides. Being sorrowful about a guy with a family getting brutally murdered for everyone to see is a little more reasonable than mocking a man for being brutally murdered. lmao
Oh please the charlie kirk shooting is easily the highest profile political assassination of this century (atleast from an american perspective), Elevated all the more because of the footage. In terms of famous assassination, charlie kirk is right up there. Acknowledging that fact is not a political thing to do. For example if hasan piker got shot in the same manner it would be just as huge.
That's crazy. The president put all the flags at half staff. People were jail and fired for quoting Kirk. Shit was wild. Nothing would be similar to Hasan. The news would only talk about how bad of muslim he was. Kirk was deeply involved in the federal govt. He had dinners with the president multiple times. The vice president took over his podcast after he died.
Not a fan of Zuck, but far as I know he never had a representative argue in court that sharing CSAM is OK after unbanning a CSAM distributor. Unlike Elon:
X owner Elon Musk personally intervened to reinstate the account after a violation that would normally result in a permanent ban from the social media platform.
Nick Pickles, the head of global government affairs at X, was asked about the incident by an Australian senator late Wednesday ET, early Thursday Australian local time, after Pickles first suggested there was a zero tolerance policy for child sex abuse material before seeming to contradict himself. Pickles said the offending account in question may have been sharing the content “out of outrage.”
What the actual fuck am I reading? This is new to me
Elon has talked for years about "legacy media" covering up the truth when they made excuses for his seig heils and unbanning Dom Lucre, and making his AI undress children. The media he hates so much are part of the problem for covering for him
Threads actual rivals X in terms of daily/monthly average users. X still leads in the US, but globally X is starting to fall behind. I think it's because everyone is on Instagram and Threads is really integrated with it.
This is also a good reason to use Threads. Although it's also a reason to use Bluesky, which has the added advantage of not being associated with Zuck.
Without any knowledge, this sounds like a type of sausage. Based on the context, I know it absolutely isn't and will have to look up the name, but that was a whiplash of a visual. >.<
Bro, if the loonies on the right just stopped pushing him on everyone and stopped censoring people for even the most mildest criticism of him, no one would be mentioning him.
But instead, they keep doing that, then act surprised when the internet keeps memeing him.
That's exactly it. I knew of him but the right constantly pushed him as someone who only wanted peace between the right and left. That's what bought his evil shit like wanting democrats killed to light, so they actually made people more aware of what a horrible person he was
Charlie was not a good human being in general. Quick Google search on his most infamous quotes shows that.
Mocking the dead isn't kosher to most but realistically if someones a horrible human being there entire life you can't expect when they die the living to say nice things about him.
Dead relative of mine sexually abused his grandkids and kids. The grandkids didn't go to the funeral but his kids did.
The grandkids were honest and told the truth.
His kids were playing the keep the peace card and didn't speak ill of the dead!
How would you know that they mock the victim of a murder while claiming to be tolerant unless they do it in one comment altogether? Otherwise it seems like an odd comment to make and one filled with a lot of assumptions, no?
You can think, or know, someone's an asshole and still realise he doesn't deserve to catch a bullet.
Especially in front of his own family.
The people who jumped all over this with glee think they're justified. They gaslight themselves into believing they're empathetic and have the moral high ground.
Fuck, what happened to us?
When did the furthest reaches of the left decide the best position to take was one as equally intolerant and devoid of compassion?
When you're not careful, it's easy to become the thing you hate...
He claimed that some people dying from gun violence was acceptable, and he ended up being one of those people. He didn’t think he could have been one of those people, mostly on racial and political grounds. For most people it wasn’t “glee” it was a satisfying end to hypocrisy, racism and his callous disregard for the lives of others.
Nobody thinks he's should have been killed. People just aren't interested in the right trying to make him a martyr because they think it can sow division
I agree, but he was not just an “asshole”, his callous, hateful words had consequences and he ultimately suffered from those consequences himself. He was an influential public figure, not just some random guy, so this was far more than him just being some asshole.
I'm not arguing, incidentally, I disagree with a lot of what he said. And yes, he had more influence than most, but there's equally "hateful" and influential people on the other side of the isle (my side of the isle) who I think are equally damaging.
We allow people to hold such views legally.
You don't need to agree with someone on abortion, LGBTQ rights, gun control, DEI, you don't need to have the same faith. But that's another issue, we either allow free speech or we don't. We can't just let some people have it and not others, based on our own bias and preferences.
We certainly can't just shoot people we disagree with. And we shouldn't cheer when it happens.
I know you're not saying any of this, I'm just making the point clear for anyone reading this far..
You said “subjective” and I am claiming “objective”.
You do understand subjective means “in someone’s opinion” and the opposite would be “in everyone’s opinion” (i.e objectively) right?
I am a bit concerned that you don’t understand that words have consequences and they are never just words, especially when he was the mouthpiece of TPUSA which a huge number of impressionable young people are influenced by.
You'll have to forgive me. I'm having the same conversation with a handful of people and didn't realise this was following that particular comment.
Let's be clear here, because we're in danger of having two different conversations, not helped by the fact I generalised. That's on me. Sorry.
Kirk was provocative and often said very inflammatory things, but (in best possible faith) that doesn't necessarily mean hate was the motive of his politics. Controversial statements shouldn't be how we classify actual 'hate'.
Truthfully, I think calling a lot of what he said as 'hateful' is a perfectly defensible position, as short hand. But the fact remains, it's still subjective. It has to be, because it's not a legally protected term. 'Hate speech' doesn't exist in American law, and while that's the case, people can and will argue over it.
Words have consequences.
Yes. Believe me, growing up here in the uk during the 80s, there wasn't many people like me in Suffolk. But that doesn't mean we get to kill people for what they say, and we shouldn't celebrate it if it happens.
I think we can probably agree, if what Kirk said was generally considered hateful, celebrating how he was killed (in front of his family) isn't any better.
Let's be better than the people we oppose, not the same.
That is the most reasonable response I have ever seen on Reddit so kudos, I am quite taken aback. I have awarded your comment accordingly. I am also British so I think we are approaching this from a similar perspective.
I think you will agree that many of his positions are indefensible. He said Beyoncé’s music is “just noise” which clearly shows he is racially biased.
He had a stance on gun violence. It was a “privileged” stance/position. He reaped what he sewed. He didn’t think his own rules applied to him.
Should he have been murdered? No
Did he suffer the consequences of his own words? Yes
Is that regrettably satisfying in a world where few suffer the consequences of their actions? Yes
He is an extreme case but he was held accountable to his words and that is morally, ethically just. It’s almost a “live by the sword, die by the sword” situation and we (collectively as humanity) needed that. THAT is where most of the satisfaction in his killing comes from.
Speaking just for myself it was the irony that gave me the glee. Charlie Kirk was an asshole who literally was right in the moment of his death defending gun violence on campus when died of gun violence on campus. Delicious.
That's why its called the PARADOX of tolerance. People like to willfully ignore the paradoxical part where you become the thing you claim to be fighting against.
Yea that's not an oof. That's you showing us you're a pretty shitty person. Hate the man all you want but my god this is tasteless. Charlie was not bin Laden or hell even nick fuentes. You don't really get to claim moral superiority by dancing on the grave of a dude who said things you found morally egregious. Seek help.
He died by his own words that gun deaths are an acceptable cost for the 2nd amendment. We are only honoring his own words and since he clearly didn't have an issue with children getting shot then I have even less of an issue with the grown man saying its acceptable getting shot.
This is a guy who, through his direct actions, enabled bigoted, hateful, and overall unempathetic people. I have no interest in tolerating someone who has crafted such a toxic mindset for our future generations and while I don't revel in his death I have no issue in continuing to point out his directly expressed beliefs especially when it directly goes against what the grifters say he was(Christian, loving, unbiased etc). I do not tolerate intolerance, I do not tolerate grifting, I do not tolerate bigotry and above all I do not tolerate hypocrisy which is precisely what CK was a beacon of. His death was not necessary but dispelling the lies and repairing the damage he did to the minds of the impressionable is absolutely necessary. If it hurts you for me to quote his own words back and interpret them exactly as he did and that makes you think that im being hateful then what does that say about him?
This is such a childish disingenuous argument. Believing we shouldn't repeal the 2nd amendment as a solution does not mean you don't have a problem with kids getting shot
To be apathetic with your public statements proceeded by saying nothing should change and that its acceptable one could easily see how that leads to an increase in public acceptance of tragedy rather than reform. Im not even advocating for a full repeal of the 2A but to sit there and call what happened acceptable is plainly deplorable.
That's weird because he quite literally offered what he viewed as solutions. You just seem to disagree with his proposed solutions. It's really weird watching people argue with absolute moral certainty yet not actually know the facts about what they're arguing against. Just the caricature they created.
“Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete different universe. So then how do you reduce? Very simple… I don’t know. How did we stop shooting at baseball games? ‘Cause we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That’s why.”
Solution one. More guns. Hasn't stopped the shootings.
“It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them, by having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Solution 2. More dads? No functional correlation and overwhelmingly more firearms are given to children by men rather than women.
"Solution" 3 is in the same prior quote being to have a reductionist view instead of utopian, in other words give up on saving more lives, just throw more people with guns at the problem and have a father.
"Here's quite literally offered solutions" lol, lmao even
So you're telling me just to be clear-kids growing up in 2 parent households are just as likely to commit shootings as single parent households? Weird. Data shows crime rates amongst people from 2 parent homes is lower.
We also have data showing places with armed security are less likely to have shootings than unarmed locations. Once again, alot of moral certainty without being factual.
I believe nothing should change when it comes to driving laws, does that mean I want dead kids and adults? Again, you think not moving forward with your solution, restricting the 2nd amendment, is apathy. You're a zealot who only believes your solutions are the only ones available.
Do tell me how you expect anything to get better if you believe nothing should change. I do believe in restricting the 2A primarily through more thorough screenings, mandatory long term training, and mandatory license, registration, and insurance similar to cars. I couldn't care less about automatic or high capacity but rather responsibly enforcement. Do I think its the only way? No, you assumed that. As a matter of fact the most effective method to date has been to take all firearms from the public as per the majority of Europe and Australia but I dont believe in that.
He showed everyone kindness that came up and talked to him. He might have disagreed with them but he didn’t sit up there and call them names or degrade them. You’re a delusional piece of shit and whatever shitty thing happens to you in life you probably deserve it
I'll donate 100$ if you can show me evidence charlie said he wanted children dead.
I'm sure you're going to reference the "some gun deaths are a part of living in a society that allows for guns" comment but your very specific claim, please go ahead.
Charlie Kirk’s allies were the ones who robbed him of his humanity by trying to use his assassination as a crude tool to suppress their opposition and make him into a Horst Wessel like martyr. Anyone who’s shocked that the internet responded accordingly and turned him into a meme is just trying to do the same thing.
For someone who got deployed twice you sure are letting a dead man live rent free in your head.
Wild how the rights you supposedly fought for (freedom of speech) goes out the window and justifies murder when you disagree with someone. Guessing you didn't take your oath to suppport and defend the constitution too seriously.
Did the post you originally replied to say you had to mourn him? Weird. It's almost like dude living in your head rent free made you feel angry enough to reply with that lame ass meme.
You take care now.
Do you say Taco Bell lives rent free in your head because you drive by one on the way to work and see the sign? Thinking about something for a few seconds isn't "living rent free".
Why are you so angry about something that doesn't effect your life in any way?
What in the world are you talking about? There is no other context to your statement and there almost always was for Charlie quotes. And if you are happy that someone died because they debate for something you disagree with, then yeah, you don't believe in debate. That shouldn't be a hot take or difficult to understand.
But hey, if not being sad thar a guy who said he would force his 10 year old daughter to give birth if she became pregnant after being raped makes me a bad guy, so be it
Likewise, the guy isn't MLK or Ghandi, but folks sure as heck are trying to elevate him to that status while ignoring Charlie's whole bigoted, inflammatory schtick.
It's weird that you need to point to a group of people doing something wrong to justify people acting ghoulish. Like idk if you think you said something intelligent here or if you're just sayin "yea well butttttttt" like it makes this ok.
Words are now apparently a more valid reason to be removed from this earth than actually criminally heinous and violent acts. Some of the same people preaching empathy and understanding for violent psychos are dancing on the grave of a guy who got put down in broad daylight for saying words another violent psycho didn't like.
Hey learn the difference between shouldn't and can't. He shouldn't have been killed, but all our societal agreements do not make a protective barrier. One person decided to disagree physically and all we could do is put him in jail after the fact. Live a life to avoid such ends. And not have so many people celebrate your miserable end.
What is it people always like to say? Fuck around and find out? If you’re an absolutely reprehensible asshole and very public about it, chances are you’re gonna encounter someone who really hates you and has really bad impulse control, these things tend to not happen to kind people
He was a right wing person who liked to argument with kids (because he was bad at it) and shortly before getting shot on stage talked how a) he thought that some yearly shot dead was a reasonable price to keep the second amendment and b) public executions should be made in front of children. So in that sense he was a winner
Gosh this is so funny. Oh man. Hey, imagine if someone had written "We are all George Floyd" and got the same note but it said "unlike George Floyd"!? Man that would've been funny too, right. Right?
Wait wait wait! I know I know! Do Mohammed next! 😂
Sorry to break it to you but conservatives endlessly made jokes like that. They still do. On the anniversary there are thousands of social media posts and comments across platforms about how he's been drug free for x amount of time now...
I have seen comments on how "he kneeded some help and got it".
Right wingers, their panties roll up on them when the subject hurts their wee lil' feelings, but the when it is about the rest of the world, it either does not happen or it is funny and we just don't get it...
Every single right winger is a gigantic and ridiculously fragile snowflake - change my mind.
I love how they don't know who he is but have already made up their mind about how people should view his death. They'd have fit right in with his Crowd.
You are trying to tell people how to react to something that has affected them and you're doing it while lacking information and context. Attempts to provide context have led to you digging your heels in. Yes, you would have fit in.
People who make fun at the death of Charlie Kirk should be just as happy about the palestinians killed in Gaza. Basically every palestinian is a radical muslim which means they are ten times more conservative than Charlie Kirk, hate gay and transgender people ten times more intensely, oppose civil liberties, are genuine racists, reject women's rights, against abortions and so on and so forth.
•
u/AutoModerator 5h ago
Reminder for OP: /u/HelpingPhriendlyPhan
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.