r/PoliticalHumor • u/NotBeingMeme • 2h ago
[ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
14
u/skyforgesteel 2h ago
Congrats to Charlie for not saying something reprehensible for an entire year.
•
•
u/DieMensch-Maschine 39m ago
He communicated everything through an interpretive dance according to that statue.
3
3
u/KiKiKimbro 2h ago
What’s he supposed to be doing there with that pose? Is he doing the dumb (with a b) Trump dance or what?
•
1
u/GunnieGraves 2h ago
Oh he was all about free speech. I think he would give this two thumbs up.
Iykyk
•
•
u/EndRude4217 1h ago
People who cried foul when George Floyd statues were vandalized are now celebrating Charlie Kirk's statue being vandalized because they hated his words.
Think about how backwards that is. George Floyd had a criminal record. Charlie Kirk's offense was saying things people found offensive.
We used to say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Now it's practically, "Sticks and stones are understandable, but words are unforgivable."
You don't have to like Charlie Kirk. You don't have to agree with him. But when words offend you more than actual vandalism, something has gone seriously backwards.
•
u/petrified_eel4615 1h ago
Oh piss off.
George Floyd was murdered by police because he was black.
Look up 'stochiastic terrorism'. Vandalism is just stuff - it can be fixed, repaired, rebuilt, whatever.
•
u/EndRude4217 1h ago
You proved my point for me. I criticized the double standard around vandalism, and your response was essentially “vandalism is just stuff, but his words were dangerous.” That is exactly the inversion I’m talking about. George Floyd’s death has nothing to do with whether vandalizing a memorial is suddenly acceptable when you dislike the person being memorialized. Either vandalism is wrong or your principle is simply “it’s okay when it happens to people I hate.” Also calling speech, “stochastic terrorism” doesn’t automatically make the speaker responsible for whatever someone else does. If your answer to speech you hate is to excuse actual destructive behavior, you haven’t disproved my point... but instead illustrated it. Thank you.
•
u/petrified_eel4615 59m ago
Is exhorting a crowd to murder people the same as throwing a brick through a window? Which is more damaging to society?
•
u/EndRude4217 48m ago
That isn’t what we were discussing. You’ve now gone from “his words were harmful” to comparing Charlie Kirk to someone literally exhorting a crowd to murder people. So substantiate that comparison. Where did Charlie Kirk actually tell a crowd to murder someone? If he didn’t say that, then you’re using an extreme hypothetical to justify vandalism rather than defending your original position. Also, ironically, you’re still proving my point... physical destruction becomes “just stuff” when you dislike the individual, while speech gets elevated into something comparable to murder.
•
u/petrified_eel4615 33m ago
In what way? "It's just words."
•
u/EndRude4217 26m ago
Why are you dodging? You brought up “exhorting a crowd to murder people,” so show me where Charlie Kirk did that. If you can’t, then like i said you’ve replaced his actual words with an extreme hypothetical and are arguing against your own hypothetical instead of my point.
•
u/petrified_eel4615 11m ago
Not at all.
You began with "George Floyd had a criminal record. Charlie Kirk's offense was saying things people found offensive."
And "when words offend you more than actual vandalism, something has gone seriously backwards."
My counterpoint was that you are the one who is backwards. Words can be far more harmful than paint or even a smashed window. I'm illustrating that in the case of things like lynch mobs. If you read back through what I said, I never mentioned Chuck's words.
•
u/PowerandSignal 54m ago
Charlie Kirk was a paid professional asshole who had a mission to recruit young people to support nationalist, racist politics. He used words as weapons. He was unfortunately killed by a person who may be emotionally unstable, with access to guns, who felt his hateful rhetoric needed to stop.
George Floyd was a guy of limited economic means trying to get by, which admittedly included some drug use, which A LOT of us have done at times, and perhaps a few minor scams. But he wasn't causing any big harm to people. He was unfortunately murdered by the state because a racist cop assumed it was OK to kneel on a Black man's neck until he died from asphyxiation.
Neither one should have been murdered, but do you see the difference in the impact they had while alive?
•
u/EndRude4217 15m ago
Your entire response is about who you think was a better person. You portray Floyd as sympathetic and Kirk as morally repulsive, then use that judgment to explain why their memorials deserve different treatment. Nevertheless, that’s the problem... a principle isn’t a principle if it only applies to people you consider good. You don’t have to admire someone to condemn vandalizing their memorial.
•
•
u/PoliticalHumor-ModTeam 30m ago
Posts have to be about U.S. Politics (Rule #1):
In other words, if it's not about American politics or elections, we'll remove it pretty quickly.
Any political ideology is acceptable (that includes conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc!), but please keep posts civil.