Fuck Charlie Kirk and Fuck Your Mother

[Tablet County]

I don't know about you, but I have no potential to commit White genocide and replace Americans with foreign invaders, kill babies, groom, drug, & sexually mutilate minors for a suicidal sex cult, or go easy on criminals and let them terrorize the country. These Satanists do.

I suppose you didn't have the potential to skip breakfast this morning either.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I suppose you didn't have the potential to skip breakfast this morning either.

I never skip my liberal tears breakfast

 

[Mister Fister]

Now that I have your attention, I think the assassination of Charlie Kirk was terrible and this is not how political discord should be decided.

I come to you as someone who didn't know Charlie Kirk at all, never watched a vid, a stream, only seen photos of him and that's about it.

Now over the past few days I've heard many opinions on this dude, both from the left and the right, and I've determined that he was just another conservative dude that spoke at colleges (to own the libs) and sold merchandise. I will admit I am not the authority on Charlie Kirk's behavior due to the aforementioned not giving a fuck. At the same time I cannot sit by and let the first amendment go by the wayside while idiots argue about who can and who cannot be criticized.

People cheer for the doxxing of people that voiced an opinion. "Oh they were pushing for more political violence" really? Making a joke is political violence now?

Change the word "political" to "sexual" and all of a sudden this is a blue haired feminist movement.

What the hell happened? A person gets shot and the whole constitution goes out the door?
The conservatives were supposed to be the bigger man in all of this, and not only was it demanded that just about every stadium hold a remembrance for Charlie Kirk, but the EU hold one as well. And if anyone says anything critical they get the boot.

WHO GIVES A SHIT. Why do I have to care about some idiot that's dead, more than I cared when he was alive?

Charlie Kirk wasn't Fred Rogers,He wasn't Mother Teresa, He wasn't Gandhi, he was just another dude that went to college campuses and talked conservative politics.

If you're for the censorship of media of any kind (outside of like child porn obviously) then you're just a faggot.

Fuck your fucking face Uncle Fucker.

 

[Axiom.]

I don't get what's the debate about.
Censorship is gay and who cares about Charlie Kirk now.

 

[Speedrunner]

Making a joke is political violence now?

I think calling for the death of someone's wife and children shouldn't be considered a joke, but the left keeps doing it, and when they get fired they start crying about "muh freeze peach".
There's a difference between poking fun at a drug addict who died during an arrest and posting how Kirk's family should be killed. One's a joke, the other's a threat.

 

[Tremolo]

I don't think it's ridiculous to expect that a particular hard ideopolitical swing in one direction can create the conditions for a corresponding reactionary/counterculture movement. Especially if said swing is perpetrated by irresponsible retards, as it often is, which tends to create resentment. Yeah, it is silly to think that Right ideals will inevitably be conquered by Left ideals in a few years because of eldritch mechanisms beyond human understanding, but it's also silly to act as if using a pendulum to represent this idea is some kind of pagan superstition and not an analogy.

It is silly if you are going to try to use it as meaningful advice or a deterrent for action. "The counterculture can and will seize power eventually" is defeatist by nature, how would that be useful advice for anyone. I already said it is useful in the context of neutral spectating anyway, so I don't know why you think I'm completely dismissive of the idea.

Speaking of analogies, that's a very poorly thought out one. Nukes tend to have lingering negative effects long after their use, which is fine if you're trying to bring a foreign country to heel because you're probably not planning on using the land that you just flash-cooked. But if it's in your own backyard, then the radioactive crater you just created where enemies of the state used to be is now your problem as opposed to somebody else's. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

When I refer to nukes as an analogy it is in the context of cross-continental affairs, also obviously implied as an analogy to reference two opposing groups, so I don't know why you wasted your time typing out anything here other than the bolded sentence, but to elaborate on that: the actual sentiment expressed there is that no one (as a COMMUNITY) is acting on a desired tactic and then changing their decision based on fear of reprisal via those same tactics from their current enemies (also a COMMUNITY). Sure you can dismiss the nuke analogy if for some reason you think I was ascribing it to internal affairs, but I am strictly talking about retaliation from opposing factions, which again is metaphorically represented by the pendulum, which also again, does not matter if a community's desired goal is dominion over them. If your argument is about internal retaliation then yeah no fucking shit I agree you shouldn't do things that might fuck you over in the event of infighting, but this was obviously not part of what I was addressing.

 

[Shadow the Niggerhog]

What the hell happened? A person gets shot and the whole constitution goes out the door?

No actually, Pam Bondie was made to walk her statements about free speech back because they were stupid. Right now the floor is still very even with the left-wing trying to get the right-wing fired for their social media posts and now the right-wing is doing the same right back. The political pendulum everyone talks about will probably never swing into full on violence because these employers responsible for employing and keeping the population alive won't tolerate it. If the ability to become independently wealthy or self-sufficient easily becomes a reality I'm not sure what will hold people back. Except...

I think calling for the death of someone's wife and children shouldn't be considered a joke, but the left keeps doing it, and when they get fired they start crying about "muh freeze peach".

The fact that people will write stupid things online because the impulses that would prevent you from actually saying these things to someone's face in real life don't exist. It's easy to write "I want to kill every white person in the world" into a screen and see it pop up on a timeline but never actually feel a murderous impulse. Mike Tyson said it the best, the internet has made everyone too accustomed to saying radical things without getting punched for it.

 

[Tablet County]

It is silly if you are going to try to use it as meaningful advice or a deterrent for action. "The counterculture can and will seize power eventually" is defeatist by nature, how would that be useful advice for anyone. I already said it is useful in the context of neutral spectating anyway, so I don't know why you think I'm completely dismissive of the idea.

I misunderstood you then. I took the "neutral spectating" bit as derogatory.

When I refer to nukes as an analogy it is in the context of cross-continental affairs, also an analogy, so I don't know why you wasted your time typing out anything here other than the bolded sentence,

Then either I didn't explain myself well enough or I misread you again. It seemed to me that in your analogy you were treating leftism as a foreign country and "nuking" them would be fine because they're not a part of your land. I think that doesn't work because they are a part of your land, literally, in that they're also citizens and figuratively in that they share a lot of the same rights as you. I would think of "nuking" them as undercutting these rights in much the same way the left has for years now. In undercutting their rights, you're also undercutting your own, therefore nuking your own land to crush the enemy and having to deal with the fallout.
Bear in mind a lot of this is autistic quibbling. I realize I might sound like I'm tone policing, but I just find this sort of thing interesting.

but the actual sentiment expressed there is that no one is acting on a desired tactic and then changing their decision based on fear of reprisal via those same tactics from their enemies.

Carrying on the nuke analogy, MAD does come to mind.

 

[Deunan]

Did he?

Of course not lol

It's amazing, isn't it? They make these bold assertions clearly just to try and shut you up, because when you push back and ask for evidence, they either vanish or present some laughably tenuous edit that clearly says nothing of what they're purporting. They always act like this. The shamelessness of it is staggering.

Here's your evidence. "Oh he was only speaking in jest." So were the people criticizing Charlie Kirk, you want a world were jokes are threats, you got it.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Here's your evidence. "Oh he was only speaking in jest." So were the people criticizing Charlie Kirk, you want a world were jokes are threats, you got it.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=QTMibwVp1d4

Except it's not about unfavorable things like you said, it's about disinformation and propaganda. Unfavorable things should be allowed and nothing he said indicates he thinks otherwise, but the media goes well beyond that. He always takes the legal route, so if he revoked anything it'd be on a legal basis, for which merely "saying unfavorable things" does not constitute. Thus, you lied.

 

[Deunan]

Except it's not about unfavorable things like you said, it's about disinformation and propaganda. Unfavorable things should be allowed and nothing he said indicates he thinks otherwise, but the media goes well beyond that. He always takes the legal route, so if he revoked anything it'd be on a legal basis, for which merely "saying unfavorable things" does not constitute. Thus, you lied.

Sometimes I like to take a minute, breath some air, and wonder if the person I'm talking to has any idea what the hell I just told them. I wasn't talking about disinformation, Trump never mentioned disinformation in the video I provided.

I was talking about the first amendment. I was talking about how jokes shouldn't be perceived as threats.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Sometimes I like to take a minute, breath some air, and wonder if the person I'm talking to has any idea what the hell I just told them. I wasn't talking about disinformation, Trump never mentioned disinformation in the video I provided.

You: "Trump said he would revoke licenses to networks that said things unfavorable to him."

He didn't say that in your video.

I was talking about the first amendment. I was talking about how jokes shouldn't be perceived as threats.

What did he say which would violate the First Amendment, and how exactly? And jokes can be perceived as threats:

"Why'd the chicken cross the road? To rape and murder your family in front of you in your home at *insert address here*."

 

[not william stenchever]

No, fuck you. It's time to finally crush the Left in America and use their own tools, tactics, and rules against them

“Please remain calm while we kill your figureheads.”

They fear the might of liberty and what would happen if a certain Thomas Jefferson quote was finally enacted.

 

[VasonJoorhees]

 

[regalterry]

 

[Tremolo]

Carrying on the nuke analogy, MAD does come to mind.

Fair point on this actually, I could make an addendum that one side does not have such nukes accessible to imply the notion of a power imbalance, but ultimately that just makes the analogy more disconnected and still easy to poke holes in for reasons expressed below so I'll drop talking about it, my bad for trying to force it.

I think that doesn't work because they are a part of your land, literally, in that they're also citizens and figuratively in that they share a lot of the same rights as you. I would think of "nuking" them as undercutting these rights in much the same way the left has for years now. In undercutting their rights, you're also undercutting your own, therefore nuking your own land to crush the enemy and having to deal with the fallout.
Bear in mind a lot of this is autistic quibbling. I realize I might sound like I'm tone policing, but I just find this sort of thing interesting.

This is a fair sentiment, but people don't always comment about it from this angle, the main reason why I was even really sperging about it here was because earlier in the thread the OP specifically had mentioned the concern of retaliation from the left and being the "bigger man". If someone wants to say "but what if the Trump administration ends up disenfranchising you for criticising Israel" as a deterrent for rightoid elation at teachers getting fired I don't take an issue with the argument, but if you're trying to approach it from the "democrats will do it back when/if they get power " angle I think its a bit pointless. You could call that splitting hairs but I think the distinction of arguments is important here.
That all being said I was framing it in a way that makes it look like I don't think they're self-immolating or undercutting themselves, its more so I think that neither party actually believes they're self-immolating, at least up until the point they start smelling smoke, part of why I think that is because disenfranchisement for opinions has been pretty consistent for the past decade or so. You won't go to jail (?) or lose citizenship in America for your opinions but possibly getting fired for them has been established practice for a while now. The issue of private actors has been an obvious bypass of the right to free speech and it is correct to say it can be seen as an undercutting of rights, but it seems to have become semi-accepted on both sides as a viable tactic to use, whether it actually is one or not. Ultimately the USA first amendment is a bit out of my depth so I might have just been miscommunicating on my observations of it.

 

[PoopEater]

Kill yourself. You were silent when the left cancelled everyone for not using pronouns or baking cakes for fags.

Kill yourself immediately.


There's documented calls for violence. Kill yourself. All of a sudden "jokes" are okay now after cancelling comedians for a decade. Kill yourself NOW.


Swallow every drop of your own medicine libtard, kill yourself.


Kill yourself


Of course you bring that up randomly, that's on your mind at all times of day even when trying to persuade conservatives not to fight fire with fire, fucking libtards lmao kill yourself

Lmao weapons grade autism

 

[Party Hat Wurmple]

You really have the gall to argue on KiwiFarms of all places, that the left shouldn't be censored after Josh had to make his own fucking anti-DDOS software just to keep this place running and nearly six years of non-stop leftist tranny DDOS attacks? Niggers, please kill yourselves if you agree with OP.

 

[Billy Bob Dick]

They actually are being. The fact you can't understand this shows how lolbertarian-brained you are.

The Left utterly and forever fails to understand the deep and abiding goodwill and remarkable restraint of the American Right.

There are over 400 MILLION GUNS in America. Who do you think owns more than 90% of them? The people who want stricter gun control, or the people who support the 2nd Amendment?

The day the Right has finally had enough will be the day millions of heavily-armed militiamen march implacably through the streets, rounding up Lefties and lining them up against the nearest wall. Let's all hope that never happens.

 

[SlimyCuntStain]

Heckin' yikes, my dude. Calm it there. Hate speech isn't free speech. It's violence. You don't want me to call your employer do you?