The irony is a group of people cheering for a person that died because he had different beliefs and opinions, otherwise known as persecution of their opponents. A characteristic of Nazism.
Defend this barbarism all you want. Own it. It’s who you are.
Charlie Kirk spouted hate and bigotry and built a career out of it.
He advocated for violence against trans and gay people.
Not every human is a good person deep down inside. Charlie Kirk was a terrible person, an ally to the fascists, and advocating violence against minority groups.
You want people that have different political beliefs persecuted because you don’t agree with him? You think they should be assassinated? Wow.
When did he advocate for violence towards those groups? I can’t find a link since the internet is mostly displaying information about the tragic fatal shooting of a father of 2 children.
You keep handwaving Kirk being a moral monster who was actively making the nation and the world a significantly more hostile & dangerous place for millions of disadvantaged human beings as “You just disagree with him.” Why?
You need to ask yourself who influenced the shooter to take action against another human being. Could it be other liberal outlets that called for his death?
“Someone needs to take him out” / “he needs to get shot”
Etc etc etc
These people put these subliminal messages out there hoping someone would act upon it. A good example is “8647”
Who is the bigger monster in this scenario? Charlie Kirk initiates an open dialogue amongst all parties, but he’s a monster because he maintained his convictions while agreeing to disagree, or the person who listened to the violent rhetoric of influencers, commentators and took it upon himself to kill a father of 2 children?
you act like violent rhetoric is not a staple of right wing tactics. if the left does it the right does it at the very least just as much but I would bet money it’s much more.
are you conveniently forgetting the Minnesota shooter who impersonated a cop and had a whole political hit list? the far right is not innocent of violent rhetoric.
Calling Charlie Kirk a Nazi while celebrating his death. The irony. This whole thread should be locked.
Do you know what irony is? Or do you just not know what a Nazi is?
Well put.
The irony is a group of people cheering for a person that died because he had different beliefs and opinions, otherwise known as persecution of their opponents. A characteristic of Nazism.
Defend this barbarism all you want. Own it. It’s who you are.
Charlie Kirk spouted hate and bigotry and built a career out of it.
He advocated for violence against trans and gay people.
Not every human is a good person deep down inside. Charlie Kirk was a terrible person, an ally to the fascists, and advocating violence against minority groups.
This is no simple different beliefs.
He got what he advocated and deserved.
You want people that have different political beliefs persecuted because you don’t agree with him? You think they should be assassinated? Wow.
When did he advocate for violence towards those groups? I can’t find a link since the internet is mostly displaying information about the tragic fatal shooting of a father of 2 children.
Charlie Kirk has been actively making the world a worst place, calling violence against minority groups and tried normalizing school shootings.
I think that Charlie Kirk got what he preached.
He debated college kids. And you think he deserved death. You’re the reason why we have division.
I’m confused as to why you think those things are incompatible.
We’ve been celebrating the deaths of people for a very long time, including much cheering when bad people die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden
bin Laden was a common enemy of the United States. Kirk was an American and you’re just tossing that aside just because you disagree with him.
Kirk is a common enemy of a group of people too, the ones who are cheering.
bin Laden had supporters too.
Bin Laden was an ally of the United States, he was on the front cover of newspapers titled as a “Freedom Fighter.”
Back in 1993 to celebrate his victory over Russia.
You keep handwaving Kirk being a moral monster who was actively making the nation and the world a significantly more hostile & dangerous place for millions of disadvantaged human beings as “You just disagree with him.” Why?
You need to ask yourself who influenced the shooter to take action against another human being. Could it be other liberal outlets that called for his death?
“Someone needs to take him out” / “he needs to get shot”
Etc etc etc
These people put these subliminal messages out there hoping someone would act upon it. A good example is “8647”
Who is the bigger monster in this scenario? Charlie Kirk initiates an open dialogue amongst all parties, but he’s a monster because he maintained his convictions while agreeing to disagree, or the person who listened to the violent rhetoric of influencers, commentators and took it upon himself to kill a father of 2 children?
you act like violent rhetoric is not a staple of right wing tactics. if the left does it the right does it at the very least just as much but I would bet money it’s much more.
are you conveniently forgetting the Minnesota shooter who impersonated a cop and had a whole political hit list? the far right is not innocent of violent rhetoric.
since i don’t hear about violent rhetoric nearly as much on the left i went to do some good-faith research. here’s the best article i could find on violent rhetoric by political ideology: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/