Is political violence acceptable? Is it hypocritical to gravedance on tranny suicides and then get upset about gravedancing on political violence?

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Yes to both. My big turning point was earlier in the year when that kid who had trooned out jumped off the bridge. A child who was sexually groomed into pharmaceutical mutilation killing himself was met with some of the most sadistic revelry I've ever seen on the internet. On here, Xitter, the few little enclaves I orbit, wherever I fucking looked. The same thing happened when those Minnesotan politicians were killed, but I'm of the opinion that violence is part of politics - forget that NRA bullshit about guns being for shooting cans and rabbits; the second amendment enshrines the right for a citizen to use extra-judicial means to fix problems. That was the beauty of the Constitution in action. Seeing a completely unknown child victim treated like that though changed me.

I realized that not only has the system failed, but everyone who's a part of it is deranged and evil. I can't muster sympathy for people who get the boogaloos and purges they so desperately begged for.
 
The earliest time I can remember grave dancing (aside from 9/11) was when Antonin Scalia was murdered died. Since then they have done it for anyone moderately right of Stalin. Hell, reddit has multiple subs dedicated to it, like leopardsatemyface and hermancaineawards. The left lacks any form of empathy, so when you see dirtbag leftists on here complain that we're hypocritical and we would laugh at Hasan or DesTINY getting ventilated, tell them to kill themselves.
 
rapefugee said:
Ok I found other sources for what he said about stoning.
×<MEDIA>@https://uploads.kiwifarmsaaf4t2h7gc3dfc5ojhmqruw2nit3uejrpiagrxeuxiyxcyd.onion
Click to expand...
Your interpretation of this clip is so disingenuous. From the context of the debate, it seems his opponent used a Leviticus quote in favor of LGBT or whatever, so he used Leviticus to refute their point. He never says he agrees with this or that all faggots should be stoned.
 
rapefugee said:
Charlie Kirk said that if his 10yo daughter gets pregnant through rape, the baby should be delivered rather than aborted.
Click to expand...
"He didn't immediately compromise on his morals in the face of a bad faith hypothetical that doesn't remotely reflect the reality of the debate that was being had. Clearly this man is an extremist."


Imagine having a debate on how giving reparations to black people for slavery is stupid, then some retard waddles up and askes "W-w-well what if a big scary black man broke into your house and held your family at gunpoint and demanded reparations for slavery, HUH? Would you support reparations THEN?!"

Then when you obviously say "no" because it's an insane circumstance that has nothing to do with the actual substance of the Reparations debate and saying yes doesn't make any fucking sense anyway, everyone clips that out of context and calls you an evil racist who values hurting the black community over the lives of your family.

That's the level of retarded we're at here.
 
gernig said:
South Koreans are also joining America in mourning the death of Charlie Kirk and remembering the great life he lived.
Click to expand...
Thats really wholesome. I've also seen australian youtubers bearing and sugar tits covering it. Its kinda crazy its definitely gone outside just the united states
rapefugee said:
Charlie Kirk said the 1964 Civil Rights act was a mistake, and that gays should be stoned to death. These might be normal views for KF and /pol/, but they aren't mild for normies.
Ironically, he also said that kids should watch public executions, that empathy was a bad thing, and that gun deaths were worth it.
Click to expand...
Hog Hunter said:
I'm sure that's exactly what Charlie Kirk said and there is no nuance being left out by the dedicated journalists of currentaffairs, snopes, dailykos, mediamatters
Click to expand...
IIRC, civil rights act was reffering to too much a focus on race, gays being stoned was just acknowledging the bible, kids watching executions was referring to teens and laughing about pedos dying, empathy was about SUICIDAL empathy, and guns was about you can't throw away guns JUST because of killers.
 
Political violence, gravedancing and approval of terrorists are all a-okay!
Until it's the other side that does it, in which case I will immediately clutch my pearls and go Greta Thunberg on your ass.
greta how dare you.gif
 
By this point one side has made clear that they will continue to use violence (and cheat and steal elections and whatever else) to get what they want.
Will the other side defend itself and what they believe in or will it be wiped out of existence with the comfort that they had the "moral high ground"?
I don't know. Either way, you can be sure that something will come out of this.

Kirk's death is a lot more significant than people think. As some people have said, it sends the message of "trying to work things out by talking and understanding each other is not an option anymore because one side will just assassinate whoever is influencing young people".
The shooter couldn't have picked a worst target. As much as they want to claim that Charlie Kirk was an "extremist", his views were as milquetoast as possible, it's the safest stuff that politicians on both sides would have spouted 15 years ago while campaigning.
The entire leftist "woke" ideology depends on a lot of housewives and "tolerant" people not really looking too deeply into what the left actually wants to accomplish. It has to convince them that troons "just want to live their life", that the people coming in illegally "just want a better future", etc. This shatters that illusion, at the very least partially.
Whether the shooter was a troon or not, they committed a heinous act to stop Kirk from going to college campuses to engage with kids. That will immediately raise alarm bells with normal people and make them wonder why they were so desperate to stop him from talking to young people.
Sure, the ones that are too far gone will celebrate and claim that the other side would do the same, and the ones that just buy whatever the MSM tells them about who is and who isn't an "extremist" won't change their minds, but the same group of people who aren't particularly political but changed their minds about Biden and voted Trump in will be affected by a young family man being shot because he was discussing politics with kids on college campuses.

If I'm being honest I never really followed Charlie Kirk, sure I've seen clips here and there and maybe heard him on a podcast once, but that's it. And somehow his death hit me way harder than I would have ever expected. Partially because of how cowardly it was and how horrific it is for his family (not to mention the video record of it that will always be there for them to relive the trauma), but also because it really represents the end of something. I couldn't tell you exactly what, but something else died with Kirk, whether it was the possibility of both sides ever finding a peaceful solution to the conflicts that have been escalating over the past 10-15 years, or it's something simpler like the illusion that political assassinations were something that only happened in third world countries and history books. I don't know, but either way I am deeply saddened by it.
Sorry for rambling and sounding like a fag but again, this affected me much more than I thought it would.
 
rapefugee said:
Not wanting to give a 10 year old rape victim an abortion is an extreme stance, because pregnancy is life threatening at that age.
Click to expand...
I agree that we should abort black babies but at the same time this is not considered an extreme stance for fundamentalist christians and it was not considered an extreme stance at all in living memory. It's sort of an odd thing to pick at. It's not a facet of his conservativism it is a facet of his religiosity.

The other stuff is whatever. Repealing the Civil Rights Act is less about vitriolic racism and more about freedom of association.
 
StacticShock said:
if you believe the schizoposting, he was killed after turning against his jew loving ways though.
food for thunkth.
:thinking:
Click to expand...

Probably an inside job. He supported Israel on the genocide of Palestine, did he went back on his thoughts?

If so, then obviously was going to get something for his "transgressions". You don't anger the cult and keep going like you were.
 
SirThomasMaloryII said:
I also don't believe people should gravedance, but instead of banning gravedancing, we just point and laugh and call them a bumbling retard.
Click to expand...
Agree with your post, this is an interesting part to dig into. What does it mean to be 'okay' to gravedance, exactly? That you won't forcibly stop someone from doing so, or make it illegal (same thing really)?

Null used the term "acceptable" in the title, which is a good way to look at it - what would you accept from society, and what would you cast out? I'm not talking about doing anything to a person who does unacceptable things, but perhaps you just say "I won't deal with this person in any way, I would ostracize them as much as I am able". I look at people posting "LOL THEY GOT KIRK #RIPBOZO" and I think, I don't want this person beaten to death by the police, but I definitely would cut them out of my life as much as I could.

So, what about cases like the high schooler bridge troon suicide where some soyteens dropped off printed pictures of soyjaks, and people thought it was funny? Is that hypocritical?

I don't think so, necessarily, I think you can both hold the idea that the death is a tragedy and you're not happy they died, and also that it's funny in kind of an absurd way that weirdo internet people left insane schizo cartoons on the memorial. Tasteless yes, things that are tasteless can be (and often are) funny because of the total contrast there - it wouldn't be funny if it weren't otherwise a very serious topic. The absurdity, and the juxtaposition of that against the tragedy, is what drives the comedy; humor in this case is somewhat of a sympathetic reaction. Notice that the gravedancing people on social media don't think it's funny, they're gloating, they're happy and pleased that he's dead. They're mocking, not to amuse, but because they hate and loathe the man and what (they think) he stands for, and any laughter is them expressing their utter lack of concern for his death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom