Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
STOP BEING MEAN TO CHARLIE!
this outrage is performative. Go through human history. Go through the last decade. Then the one before that, before that, before that.
people have cheered when people died. People they knew personally, too, if they had what they felt was a good reason. It doesn’t mean you endorse terrorists or violence. If you don’t think cheering when thatcher died was endorsement of violence, then it’s arbitrary af to say everyone who does it for Kirk is a monster because he happened to die from a murder. Maybe they just feel passionately about child grooming.
if you hold the (reasonable) opinion that Kirk made money off of targeting children and grooming them to the far right and his religious cult, telling young girls at women’s leadership conferences to submit to Christian men immediately on graduation… then it’s reasonable to think the world is better off without that guy. Guess what, I’m still never killing anyone and I’m still pro putting the shooter in prison or whatever they choose to do
also comedy exists and we should be allowed to joke about assassinations lol
this outrage is performative. Go through human history. Go through the last decade. Then the one before that, before that, before that.
people have cheered when people died. People they knew personally, too, if they had what they felt was a good reason. It doesn’t mean you endorse terrorists or violence. If you don’t think cheering when thatcher died was endorsement of violence, then it’s arbitrary af to say everyone who does it for Kirk is a monster because he happened to die from a murder. Maybe they just feel passionately about child grooming.
if you hold the (reasonable) opinion that Kirk made money off of targeting children and grooming them to the far right and his religious cult, telling young girls at women’s leadership conferences to submit to Christian men immediately on graduation… then it’s reasonable to think the world is better off without that guy. Guess what, I’m still never killing anyone and I’m still pro putting the shooter in prison or whatever they choose to do
also comedy exists and we should be allowed to joke about assassinations lol
I mean, i am not defending anyone of them or claiming they arent doing it. And i immediately reacted the same way on that laura loomer shit you shared, so i dont feel like im with you in that glass house, im definitely outside of it.
and if you are outside of this us vs them bubble and criticize either, the other side will foam from their mouths and get at your throat.
Post automatically merged:
and if you are outside of this us vs them bubble and criticize either, the other side will foam from their mouths and get at your throat.
People now pressure others to pick sides by flaming emotions and if you aren't on their side then they will see it as "you are against us".
They prefer to stick with "the team" rather than seeing the objective truth
What people doesn't realize is truth shifts and it goes beyond ideology ....being open minded matters more than clinging to a label or ideology.
Yeah I don't endorse the shooting
However the most sad thing about what happened imo is that he chose to live his life the way he did, Ravager said something like "do you expect every person who makes above 6 figures to donate all their money to children" and my answer was that's what they should do, almost all of their money anyway, and if Charlie Kirk lived that way the good he would have done would be of historic proportions, 12 million dollars put into funding unions and into charity would alter the course of history for the better so much it's crazy, but he liked it better sitting in his bank account
However the most sad thing about what happened imo is that he chose to live his life the way he did, Ravager said something like "do you expect every person who makes above 6 figures to donate all their money to children" and my answer was that's what they should do, almost all of their money anyway, and if Charlie Kirk lived that way the good he would have done would be of historic proportions, 12 million dollars put into funding unions and into charity would alter the course of history for the better so much it's crazy, but he liked it better sitting in his bank account
The righties are always the first to threaten to kick your ass if you’re mean to them tho
He was business partners and made money with some gay people who ran the same racket, ignore that he pushed kids toward Christianity while saying stoning gays was gods perfect law
why did he hold women’s leadership summits where he and the other speakers all told the women to submit to Christian men and avoid education and careers? Oh I misspoke, he told this to TEEN GIRLS. Can you spell GROOMER?
He said have more babies than you can afford with Christian men to his child audience, sold that to our youth.. yikes. If he was Muslim, I hope you’d agree he was engaging in child grooming.
we have to work against the tide of Christian grooming in our society, wouldn’t you agree? The plague of men pushing submission to boys on little girls… fucking pedo shit.
He was business partners and made money with some gay people who ran the same racket, ignore that he pushed kids toward Christianity while saying stoning gays was gods perfect law
why did he hold women’s leadership summits where he and the other speakers all told the women to submit to Christian men and avoid education and careers? Oh I misspoke, he told this to TEEN GIRLS. Can you spell GROOMER?
He said have more babies than you can afford with Christian men to his child audience, sold that to our youth.. yikes. If he was Muslim, I hope you’d agree he was engaging in child grooming.
we have to work against the tide of Christian grooming in our society, wouldn’t you agree? The plague of men pushing submission to boys on little girls… fucking pedo shit.
Sure
"the world is better off without charlie kirk due his very dangerous rhetoric and grooming of kids" is a perfectly rational and calm statement, but if you are singing songs, cheering and legit being happy about it, you should go see a special kind of doctor.
Im totally with you on the right being bitches and performative losers though. And making people lose their jobs and shit over this is ridiculous.
"the world is better off without charlie kirk due his very dangerous rhetoric and grooming of kids" is a perfectly rational and calm statement, but if you are singing songs, cheering and legit being happy about it, you should go see a special kind of doctor.
Im totally with you on the right being bitches and performative losers though. And making people lose their jobs and shit over this is ridiculous.
I don't know if it what you meant, but I interpreted that as you implying that both left are right are necessary for society to function, when in reality there is an ethical and an unethical side.
Technically, having those value is not what should place them on the left.
The real deal comes with the way they approach domination system. While some could lean on the left, overall, they are friends of capitalism and do not project to counter it or destroy it (aside from people like Sander who I could eventually call soc dem, a bit like the current PS in France at the moment, even LFI in a way)
Of course.
You are not wrong. There is a lot of performative politics. Especially on the left.
But that's a different matter that has nothing to do with identity politics. Pressuring people to pick a side through emotion is a legitimate political action.
For the left, basically, if you don't take a side when we are showing you oppression, then you take the side of the one who perpetuates it. It's basic ethics.
Lol no it does not.
For ex: slavery don't start to become ethical because political shift. It can become more or less accepted, but the ethic behind will not change.
This idea that truth is relative which would somehow justify the importance of not taking side or to keep looking at the rethoric of an unethical political side is simply a coping mechanism to justify our own refusal to act in front of oppression or unethical actions.
Technically, having those value is not what should place them on the left.
The real deal comes with the way they approach domination system. While some could lean on the left, overall, they are friends of capitalism and do not project to counter it or destroy it (aside from people like Sander who I could eventually call soc dem, a bit like the current PS in France at the moment, even LFI in a way)
Of course.
You are not wrong. There is a lot of performative politics. Especially on the left.
But that's a different matter that has nothing to do with identity politics. Pressuring people to pick a side through emotion is a legitimate political action.
For the left, basically, if you don't take a side when we are showing you oppression, then you take the side of the one who perpetuates it. It's basic ethics.
Lol no it does not.
For ex: slavery don't start to become ethical because political shift. It can become more or less accepted, but the ethic behind will not change.
This idea that truth is relative which would somehow justify the importance of not taking side or to keep looking at the rethoric of an unethical political side is simply a coping mechanism to justify our own refusal to act in front of oppression or unethical actions.
