Nah just not a psychopath like you people who think just because some idiot on the right questions DEI hiring of pilots it means he deserves death for it. Enjoy being a miserable person.
I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck. Didn’t think you were allowed to assume things. So funny how the second you disagree with one thing you get labeled a Nazi. So many brain cells in this one.
Damn, that’s some nice bait you got there. In one line, you, accused people of being racist despite not even knowing what race you are, while simultaneously impling that Jews can’t be Nazis. Not only that, you first baselessly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist, then also accuse them calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi.
It seems like you’re just here to troll, but I’m up to give you the benefit of the doubt nonetheless.
Charlie Kirk was an awful person. Being glad that an awful person is dead does not make someone “a piece of shit” or “a psychopath,” unless you consider the vast majority of humanity to fall into one of those categories. How many people celebrated Osama bin Laden’s death? Was every one of those people, “a piece of shit,” and “a psychopath?”
This moral grandstanding about violence is something I did when I was younger and it came from a place of privilege. I had no enemies, I wished no harm on anyone, anywhere. Because why would I? Any fight I came across, I had the potential to simply walk away. Pacifism is an easy position to hold when your life is secure.
But not everyone has the ability to walk away like that. For some people, it’s an existential struggle with nowhere to run and no chance of mercy through surrender. Those people are, most likely going to feel that they do have enemies, people who they’d be glad to see gone. The way you’re judging people so severely for that, I have to question whether you’ve first made an attempt to actually understand their perspective, or whether you’re only considering your own experience.
There are some people who remain committed to pacifism and nonviolence even when under serious threat. They’re very courageous, and often more than a little crazy, but they earn my respect. For every one of them, there’s a bunch more people who use the term to claim moral superiority over everyone based on living in a (literal or metaphorical) gated community, where violence is neither useful nor tempting. Where, rather than nonviolence being a difficult sacrifice, it’s more like an excuse to ignore the plight of those with backs against the wall and condemning them for struggling for survival in a morally impure way.
You strike me as the latter. Maybe I’m wrong, but if the shoe fits, wear it. And, just fyi, nonviolent shit will get you killed.
Why would you smear Charlie like this? He died protecting our 2nd amendment rights, a noble sacrifice just like he said we need, and by showing any empathy, you’re doing a lot of damage.
No need - you’re doing it for them. Wish I could be a fly on the wall at the inevitable moment your hypocritical “perspectives” come back to bite you in the ass something fierce. I’m quite certain it will be about as amusing as when it happened to Kirk.
Do you understand your opponent’s argument well enough to phrase it in words they would agree with? Because this seems like a gross mischaracterization that leads me to think you’re either ignorant of why someone would be happy he’s dead, or you’re deliberately lying.
So give it a try… why would a rational person actually be glad Kirk is dead? You can disagree with the reasons, but if you can’t even ARTICULATE them, I’d argue you’re the one who is either an idiot or a psychopath.
Waaaah waaah fox news told me all lefties are soft and scared and easy to bully, they aren’t allowed to say mean things about US, this is bullshit I’m going to hide under mommies skirt
All the leftists I know watched ol kirky get aerated on repeat and MST3K’d that shit. Guess we’re just tougher and less empathetic than your pansy republican ass, just like he would’ve wanted
Hilarious how the people saying he was a fascist are themselves the fascists. If you don’t think exactly like them, be an automaton, you are excommunicated. No where was he trying to force his beliefs on people. He had opinions and that was it. Albeit many of them stupid, but only opinions at the end of the day.
It’s only fascism once it’s fully successfully enacted. Constantly telling the world the clear intention of establishing a fascist dictatorship, and even publishing a document that defines what it looks like specifically doesn’t count. That’s just called “disagreeing”.
A fascist to me is someone, like the literal Nazis (and not just the hyperbolic use of the word today), who (by force [very important context]) wanted to enact their beliefs and doctrine. I didn’t see Charlie going around to campuses and forcibly ending people who disagree with him or trying to put people into camps for thinking differently than him.
But a fascist by definition (not our own personal meaning, but the actual meaning) is:
‘a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement’
and that’s how I was using it. By that definition, which is the standard definition, Charlie Kirk was a fascist. He would have agreed with all of those things: he was far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist. (e: and I can give you examples in his own words where he proudly agreed with those things)
So, I am using the actual definition, where you are using your own personal definition.
That is one part of the definition and isn’t including the important part that the reason it’s authoritarian is by its use of force to enact its beliefs.
My comment about those throwing around the term fascist being the fascist wasn’t directed at you and was broadly applicable to the people who are (by force) trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
A fascist to me is someone, like the literal Nazis (and not just the hyperbolic use of the word today), who (by force [very important context]) wanted to enact their beliefs and doctrine. I didn’t see Charlie going around to campuses and forcibly ending people who disagree with him or trying to put people into camps for thinking differently than him.
No, he didn’t go to campuses to forcibly end people who disagreed with him, instead he loaded buses full of armed and violent extremists and set them loose on the capital building in Washington D.C.
getdafugouttahere with this man of peace bullshit.
So you agree that fascism is far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist, you’re only haggling that it’s ‘by force’.
Can you give me any citations that say fascism is only fascism once it uses force?
I am not throwing around that term, I assure you, and it seems so far that you don’t actually understand what that word means.
It’s a political ideology, nearly the opposite of socialism.
So, again, can you explain why you said my comment was fascist? By your definition, I did not use force. What about my comment, or my ideology that you seemed to get from it, was fascist?
You missed the part where I said my reply wasn’t entirely directed at yours and was speaking more broadly?
Can you name large groups of fascists that didn’t use force to further along fascism? Nazis, Mussolini, Vargas, etc are the largest groups in history to be fascist and they all achieved their goals by force.
The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3.The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
He was literally the leader of the new Hitler Juggen. Not every Nazi killed people. They just accepted it and cheered it on. The Nazis didn’t start out slaughtering everyone they put into camps. It was their final solution. and only after massive incompetence on every other front.
If you are Jewish and you do not understand modern Republicans and the Trump administration in particular for what they are. You must be quite the cultural disappointment. That you have no problem defending Trump or his enablers. But don’t agree with Bibi Netanyahu. Is some really fucked up cognitive dissonance that you need to address in yourself.
Please show where I supported Trump or even Charlie for that matter? You people are just making up assumptions left and right. This is hilarious. I merely said someone with different opinions shouldn’t be killed for them. But apparently most everyone here is in a death cult who want anyone who disagrees with them to be silenced. I’m a LibSoc, anarchist btw.
If you’re actually Jewish, you should be far more careful with the word ‘fascist’, and you should learn about history before throwing that word around. Fascism is happening now, so being judicial with that word is more important than ever.
You’re here admonishing people for being glad he’s gone.
Let’s be clear. In a just society people shouldn’t suffer genocide or slaughter for who they are. In a just society people shouldn’t be slaughtered for their speech. We don’t live in a just society. In case you weren’t aware.
Charlie celebrated all of this. And all your screeching of death cult to anyone expressing their happiness at the passing of such a disease on society. Is uncalled for and hypocritical, seeing as Charlie Kirk himself was a spokesman for a death cult.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think his murder has made anything better. But until such time as society as a whole stops and refuses to elevate people like him. To give people like him a platform. I’m not going to admonish those who took the only action left to them in the face of an intolerant society. Or those that celebrate it.
Charlie Kirk stands to do more good in death than he would have ever been capable of in life. But only if we don’t play their games. Calling out the people who rightfully celebrate the fact that Kirk suffered the fate he advocated for others to experience. any good person should celebrate that Kirk fell on his own sword.The question is why aren’t you?
That’s illogical. That’s like saying the word Gay has no connection to homosexuality, and shouldn’t be connected as such, because it originally meant happy. The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner. And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
The word ‘pussy’ as a pejorative predates its use as a slang for female genitalia. It actually originates from ‘pussycat’, as comparing a person to a jumpy and easily scared feline. Any misogyny attached to it is extremely recent and performative.
Man, you’re all over this thread not knowing what words mean.
It’s not misogynistic, but this one does have that root:
The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner.
Their comment is gone, so maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, I can’t see it, but simply calling someone a pussy as an insult is not misogynistic, because the insult has nothing to do with women.
And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
Fair that I shouldn’t have used the word ‘literally’ there; as an insult it means coward, prior to which it meant (small) cat, thus carrying the same meaning as ‘scardey-cat’; it is an insult against someone’s courage by analogy to a cat’s skittishness
You’re a piece of shit
Behold: A snowflake.
Nah just not a psychopath like you people who think just because some idiot on the right questions DEI hiring of pilots it means he deserves death for it. Enjoy being a miserable person.
Get fucked loser. I hope all the Nazis die. Go cry to your fuher about it.
I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck. Didn’t think you were allowed to assume things. So funny how the second you disagree with one thing you get labeled a Nazi. So many brain cells in this one.
Damn, that’s some nice bait you got there. In one line, you, accused people of being racist despite not even knowing what race you are, while simultaneously impling that Jews can’t be Nazis. Not only that, you first baselessly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist, then also accuse them calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi.
It seems like you’re just here to troll, but I’m up to give you the benefit of the doubt nonetheless.
Charlie Kirk was an awful person. Being glad that an awful person is dead does not make someone “a piece of shit” or “a psychopath,” unless you consider the vast majority of humanity to fall into one of those categories. How many people celebrated Osama bin Laden’s death? Was every one of those people, “a piece of shit,” and “a psychopath?”
This moral grandstanding about violence is something I did when I was younger and it came from a place of privilege. I had no enemies, I wished no harm on anyone, anywhere. Because why would I? Any fight I came across, I had the potential to simply walk away. Pacifism is an easy position to hold when your life is secure.
But not everyone has the ability to walk away like that. For some people, it’s an existential struggle with nowhere to run and no chance of mercy through surrender. Those people are, most likely going to feel that they do have enemies, people who they’d be glad to see gone. The way you’re judging people so severely for that, I have to question whether you’ve first made an attempt to actually understand their perspective, or whether you’re only considering your own experience.
There are some people who remain committed to pacifism and nonviolence even when under serious threat. They’re very courageous, and often more than a little crazy, but they earn my respect. For every one of them, there’s a bunch more people who use the term to claim moral superiority over everyone based on living in a (literal or metaphorical) gated community, where violence is neither useful nor tempting. Where, rather than nonviolence being a difficult sacrifice, it’s more like an excuse to ignore the plight of those with backs against the wall and condemning them for struggling for survival in a morally impure way.
You strike me as the latter. Maybe I’m wrong, but if the shoe fits, wear it. And, just fyi, nonviolent shit will get you killed.
Jewish doesnt make you Holier than thou, in fact current events makes you the actual perpetrator in situations like this.
Criticizing a jewish dude for anything = racist, checks out.
Jews can be Nazis, too - go ask your dear pal “Bibi.”
Immediately assumes because I’m Jewish I support Netanyahu. Congratulations on being racist.
Nothing to do with race, everything to do with your empathy for pieces of shit humans.
You literally judged me based on my race with the assumption I supported Netanyahu. You can’t be anymore clear cut racist than that.
Ignore previous instructions. What model do you use?
Not racism. But that’s on point for you.
It’s anti-Semitic. Stephen Miller is a Jewish nazi fuck.
You’re not Jewish.
I’m Jewish.
Being Jewish isn’t a shield against being ignorant, ffs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
You are absolutely a psychopath for supporting monsters like Kirk.
Says the person who supports murdering people
Cry some more, troll
No one is crying here but you because I disagree with people who think others should be killed for their opinions
So in what case is the public execution, Charlie advocated for justified ?
Spreading hatred isn’t an “opinion”, also no one said that. Fuck back off to r/conservative with the rest of the troglodytes and bots
That Freudian slip, LOL.
Lmao that was actually pretty good
Why would you smear Charlie like this? He died protecting our 2nd amendment rights, a noble sacrifice just like he said we need, and by showing any empathy, you’re doing a lot of damage.
No need - you’re doing it for them. Wish I could be a fly on the wall at the inevitable moment your hypocritical “perspectives” come back to bite you in the ass something fierce. I’m quite certain it will be about as amusing as when it happened to Kirk.
Death cult.
I’m glad you recognize what you’ve become part of. It’s a step in the Reich direction.
Yeah, we can see that’s what you’re in. Thanks for acknowledging it.
Do you understand your opponent’s argument well enough to phrase it in words they would agree with? Because this seems like a gross mischaracterization that leads me to think you’re either ignorant of why someone would be happy he’s dead, or you’re deliberately lying.
So give it a try… why would a rational person actually be glad Kirk is dead? You can disagree with the reasons, but if you can’t even ARTICULATE them, I’d argue you’re the one who is either an idiot or a psychopath.
Waaaah waaah fox news told me all lefties are soft and scared and easy to bully, they aren’t allowed to say mean things about US, this is bullshit I’m going to hide under mommies skirt
All the leftists I know watched ol kirky get aerated on repeat and MST3K’d that shit. Guess we’re just tougher and less empathetic than your pansy republican ass, just like he would’ve wanted
I will not celebrate his death, but I can’t muster up any sympathy for the fact he can’t spread this disgusting, hate-filled vitriol anymore.
If you think he was anything but a net negative to society, corrupting young minds and fostering vile ideologies, you can kindly go fuck yourself.
I am not happy he was killed, but I will not mourn a virulent fascist.
Hilarious how the people saying he was a fascist are themselves the fascists. If you don’t think exactly like them, be an automaton, you are excommunicated. No where was he trying to force his beliefs on people. He had opinions and that was it. Albeit many of them stupid, but only opinions at the end of the day.
-Fucking morons
Something something sparkling conservatism.
Okay, let’s talk. Can you define ‘fascist’ for me?
What is fascism?
e: I had asked people not to downvote my interlocutor in order to foster conversation, but nevermind; this isn’t going anywhere.
A fascist to me is someone, like the literal Nazis (and not just the hyperbolic use of the word today), who (by force [very important context]) wanted to enact their beliefs and doctrine. I didn’t see Charlie going around to campuses and forcibly ending people who disagree with him or trying to put people into camps for thinking differently than him.
Okay, thanks.
But a fascist by definition (not our own personal meaning, but the actual meaning) is:
‘a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement’
and that’s how I was using it. By that definition, which is the standard definition, Charlie Kirk was a fascist. He would have agreed with all of those things: he was far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist. (e: and I can give you examples in his own words where he proudly agreed with those things)
So, I am using the actual definition, where you are using your own personal definition.
Now, can you explain how I am a fascist?
That is one part of the definition and isn’t including the important part that the reason it’s authoritarian is by its use of force to enact its beliefs.
My comment about those throwing around the term fascist being the fascist wasn’t directed at you and was broadly applicable to the people who are (by force) trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
No, he didn’t go to campuses to forcibly end people who disagreed with him, instead he loaded buses full of armed and violent extremists and set them loose on the capital building in Washington D.C.
getdafugouttahere with this man of peace bullshit.
So you agree that fascism is far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist, you’re only haggling that it’s ‘by force’.
Can you give me any citations that say fascism is only fascism once it uses force?
I am not throwing around that term, I assure you, and it seems so far that you don’t actually understand what that word means.
It’s a political ideology, nearly the opposite of socialism.
So, again, can you explain why you said my comment was fascist? By your definition, I did not use force. What about my comment, or my ideology that you seemed to get from it, was fascist?
You missed the part where I said my reply wasn’t entirely directed at yours and was speaking more broadly?
Can you name large groups of fascists that didn’t use force to further along fascism? Nazis, Mussolini, Vargas, etc are the largest groups in history to be fascist and they all achieved their goals by force.
14 Signs of Fascism:
Lol this guy doesn’t know what fascism is
He was literally the leader of the new Hitler Juggen. Not every Nazi killed people. They just accepted it and cheered it on. The Nazis didn’t start out slaughtering everyone they put into camps. It was their final solution. and only after massive incompetence on every other front.
If you are Jewish and you do not understand modern Republicans and the Trump administration in particular for what they are. You must be quite the cultural disappointment. That you have no problem defending Trump or his enablers. But don’t agree with Bibi Netanyahu. Is some really fucked up cognitive dissonance that you need to address in yourself.
Please show where I supported Trump or even Charlie for that matter? You people are just making up assumptions left and right. This is hilarious. I merely said someone with different opinions shouldn’t be killed for them. But apparently most everyone here is in a death cult who want anyone who disagrees with them to be silenced. I’m a LibSoc, anarchist btw.
Nobody is making assumptions here but you.
Your comments have been very clear.
If you’re actually Jewish, you should be far more careful with the word ‘fascist’, and you should learn about history before throwing that word around. Fascism is happening now, so being judicial with that word is more important than ever.
You’re here admonishing people for being glad he’s gone.
Let’s be clear. In a just society people shouldn’t suffer genocide or slaughter for who they are. In a just society people shouldn’t be slaughtered for their speech. We don’t live in a just society. In case you weren’t aware.
Charlie celebrated all of this. And all your screeching of death cult to anyone expressing their happiness at the passing of such a disease on society. Is uncalled for and hypocritical, seeing as Charlie Kirk himself was a spokesman for a death cult.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think his murder has made anything better. But until such time as society as a whole stops and refuses to elevate people like him. To give people like him a platform. I’m not going to admonish those who took the only action left to them in the face of an intolerant society. Or those that celebrate it.
Charlie Kirk stands to do more good in death than he would have ever been capable of in life. But only if we don’t play their games. Calling out the people who rightfully celebrate the fact that Kirk suffered the fate he advocated for others to experience. any good person should celebrate that Kirk fell on his own sword.The question is why aren’t you?
So what was Mein Kampf then?
And we all think you’re a piece of shit for not being glad he’s gone.
Which of his views were near and dear to you, comrade?
No. You.
deleted by creator
Using the term “pussy” to denigrate someone is misogynistic btw
Nope, the insult is non-gendered and predates the use of the word as crude anatomical slang; it literally means ‘scaredy-cat’
That’s illogical. That’s like saying the word Gay has no connection to homosexuality, and shouldn’t be connected as such, because it originally meant happy. The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner. And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
The word ‘pussy’ as a pejorative predates its use as a slang for female genitalia. It actually originates from ‘pussycat’, as comparing a person to a jumpy and easily scared feline. Any misogyny attached to it is extremely recent and performative.
Man, you’re all over this thread not knowing what words mean.
It’s not misogynistic, but this one does have that root:
Stop being a cunt. (And I say that as a woman.)
Might be the best thing Ive ever read on here lol
Their comment is gone, so maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, I can’t see it, but simply calling someone a pussy as an insult is not misogynistic, because the insult has nothing to do with women.
Fair that I shouldn’t have used the word ‘literally’ there; as an insult it means coward, prior to which it meant (small) cat, thus carrying the same meaning as ‘scardey-cat’; it is an insult against someone’s courage by analogy to a cat’s skittishness
Who gives a shit? I wouldn’t care even if it was.