- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Anyone who shows empathy is going against Charlie Kirk’s beliefs.
Fuck that douche bag. He died the way he lived: getting shot so we can have the second amendment. What a patriot. More fascists should be patriots.
Glad to see you have chosen to honor him by not having empathy just as he said.
Going against his beliefs is the main thing I do in life, but I’ll make an exception since it’s a special day…
His neck, out choice
We shouldn’t allow his death to emotionally hijack the conversation.
Shit’s about to get real, isn’t it? I think we’re going to be entering one of those weeks when decades happen…
Shit got a real a while ago, it just took a little while for a good guy with a gun to show up
It will be interesting to see if it’s a progressive person who’s fighting fascists, or another right wingers who should have had their weapons confiscated long ago
Not to give that douche credit but he wanted the Epstein files released, perhaps MAGA?
No he backtracked on that when the demented rapist told him to.
Anybody who shoots someone in cold blood is not someone who should have access to firearms. Whether you want the person they killed dead or not, they are violent sociopaths and we need common sense restrictions to keep guns out of their hands.
Lol this wasn’t in cold blood. Kirk spent his life fueling hatred that led to very real consequences for a lot of innocent people.
You know who kills people in cold blood? Cops shooting minorities while breaking into the wrong address. People killing black kids who politely ring their doorbell. A cop kneeling on a man’s neck until he dies over $20. A health insurance company deciding you don’t need a treatment that your doctor is saying you need. That is killing in cold blood.
Except when it comes to fascists. There was a war about this
I would argue that shooting a fascist is an act of self defense. My point stands.
It sure is, this shooter was either acting in self defense, or was someone who was unhinged
Exactly. We don’t know their motivations. If they are unhinged, and I don’t think the odds are against that possibility, then they shouldn’t have ever had access to firearms. If they were acting in self defense, then that’s a different problem entirely. The former is a threat to everyone. The latter is a threat to fascists.
Yeah, whoever did this didn’t do it in cold blood. No matter which side they were on, they definitely had good reason to do what they did.
You can argue death is bad if you want, and I’ll agree with you. I just think some things are worse than death. For example, I think war is horrible. However, if you just let an opponent walk over you then things will be much worse for everyone. Eventually you have to be willing to kill for what’s right. That line is going to be different for everyone.
Fascists and Nazis aren’t people. They’re vermin and we’re in desperate need of more exterminators.
His blood was warm. It’s fine
That’s debatable. The first part.
“his”?
I’ve had this foreboding anxiety since last Saturday, first I thought it was Chicago, then Poland, and now this on top. Got the hat trick I guess
Gen Z taking over Nepal. French government collapsed and their economy is in shambles.
To be fair, French government collapses every second Tuesday of every third month. It’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Tomorrow, 9/11, some nutjob MAGA is gonna pop off.
Mass shooting… incoming.
so another thursday then?
Well, sadly, I’ll be more shocked if nothing happens.
About to? Just now? Where have you been?
Sorry. Took longer than I thought to buy smokes.
So . . . Where are we? Did Kamala win?
Sorry. Took longer than I thought to buy smokes.
Dad, is that you?
The Master Debater is dead but that’s a price he was willing to pay for the right to bear arms.
It’s what he would have wanted.
Oh no. So what’s for lunch everybody? I’m getting sushi.
I made a guacamole dip to eat with some pita bread for lunch. Unfortunately, the avocado I used was from a tree in my backyard and wasn’t nearly ripe yet. The dip came out pretty bitter, so I added some agave nectar to it. Now it just tastes like agave nectar.
Pasta. Gotta save some cash when we can.
Im making Sausage and Rice. First of many birthday meals this weekend.
Happy birthday!
I had a toasty. It was delish.
I’m having braised necks
I had a slice of hazelnut cake with for a midnight snack. Quite unreasonable but I helped myself because life is a fragile and unpredictable thing.
And also because I can and he can’t.
Had a big breakfast, probably some packet ramen later this afternoon
I was thinking freedom fries, but hold the ketchup. With gauze.
Fingers crossed for copycats.
“I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.” -Charlie Kirk-
Tell me Charlie…what does more damage? The word empathy or a rifle round to the neck? I’m curious.
My bad. You’ll have a little trouble answering now.
Good. All the Dems are saying there’s no need for violence and we condem this. Fuck off Im so tired of feigning sympathy for truly horrible people.
If anything instilling fear in them is far past time much like a certain insurance CEO did
You mean condemn, I think. If you know of any politicians condoning this, I would like to know who.
Ya sorry wrong word
I heard they aimed for his face but it was too small.
the bullet evaded in disgust
Dammit, I said “abort”, not “aorta”. Oh, well.
He’s such a reprehensible piece of shit that I cannot even say thoughts and prayers. He was a person who legitimately made the world worse.
Haha. Trump is still a pedo
Anyways.
Another Nazi down
Plenty to go.
PLEASE can we have dumpy next? PLEASE?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek#Controversies
In November 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center reported that Newsweek had “taken a marked radical right turn by buoying extremists and promoting authoritarian leaders” since it hired conservative political activist Josh Hammer as editor-at-large. It noted the magazine’s elevation of conspiracy theorists, publication of conspiracy theories about COVID-19, views such as support for a ban on all legal immigration to the United States and denying adults access to trans-affirming medical care, and failure to disclose potential conflicts of interest in the content published on Hammer’s opinion section and podcast.
maybe don’t direct traffic to a conspiracy-peddling right-wing rag?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Newsweek (2013–present): Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek’s quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013).
It’s in the warning category of ‘no consensus’ per Wikipedia’s source standards.
I point this out all the time in /c/politics and /c/news, but the mods (AFAIK) have never responded to my suggestions of source guidelines (such as generally following Wikipedia’s in the link above).
My argument isn’t based on journalistic integrity as much as political aims, Newsweek is ideologically committed to right-wing politics and we should boycott them as a result.
Eh, understood, but I’m a bit puzzled as to why you’d say that, as unreliable sources shouldn’t be linked either. Should they?
because on journalistic integrity standards, some Newsweek articles are acceptable to use, but by political standards all Newsweek articles should not be shared - there is a moral reason to not drive traffic to a right-wing website and help them profit. Of course that’s not to say journalistic integrity doesn’t matter, just that it under-determines what is already established by other reasons.
So it seems you’re trying to say that some of new week’s articles may not be of high quality so we shouldn’t dismiss them as a reliable news source. I feel like that’s a very low bar for a news source in a world with a lot of fake news, that ultimately makes Newsweek unreliable.
I mean what Wikipedia said:
evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis
IMO this article seems fine (at a glance). But I also think it’s reasonable to point out one should be wary of Newsweek, and probably avoid it when there are a sea of alternates for a headline like this.
Agree
Ahhh that’s why all the pictures of the nazi smiling, waving kids around.
Yeah its a damned shame.
What Newsweek is now.
Gov waltz and many others Dems are saying Charlie’s in their prayer’s. Why? Why the fuck do we have to be the good guys about this when it’s a Republican victim?
When have they ever show an ounce of respect for kids who have had their heads blown open while in school? Not even respect, they harass families so much that they have to move and create celebrities like Alex jones who made millions off their loss
Democrats coming in with their “they go low, we go high” bullshit like it hasn’t painted them as spineless and ineffectual for the last decade or so.
I dunno they have different media concerns than we do.
The Dems just don’t seem to realize how dire things are. It’s maddening.
right? they could’ve just said nothing
