If I hadn’t been banned from Reddit for “showing extreme indifference” about Kissinger taking a dirt nap, there is NO way I would have made it through this week.
And it was converted to lower case before being printed and includes those stupid unicode 🅃🄷🄰🅃 🄾🄽🄻🅈 🅂🄿🄰🄼🄼🄴🅁🅂 🅄🅂🄴 ʇou ɹo IIƆS∀ sı ɥɔıɥʍ llǝʇ ʇ'uɐɔ noʎ ʇnq
“We need to be very clear, you are not going to get gun deaths to zero,” he said. “It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them, by having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
i was flabbergasted when i first heard americans have security & armed guards at schools. the closest to that any of the schools i went to had was cameras watching the doors and overweight PE teachers
Not nearly as many guns. No other country even has half as many guns per person as the US. But, even the ones that have a few guns (plus the ones that have almost no guns) have strictly enforced gun control laws, and treat gun ownership as a privilege not a right.
I can imagine why that might be. But, the Falkland Islands aren't a country. I would guess that if you go province by province, state by state, territory by territory, you can probably find others with very high gun ownership rates.
I would guess that if you go province by province, state by state, territory by territory, you can probably find others with very high gun ownership rates.
Well, yes, the Falkland Islands.
Out of the completely sovereign countries, Yemen would be second place, though the US more-than-doubles their gun ownership per 100 civilians indeed.
Now, Falkland Islands and Yemen also have far, far fewer guns than the US; their high gun ownership comes in part from their small population.
India and China rank second and third in total guns owned by civilians, but purely through their sheer population. Gun ownership per 100 civilians ranks low in China (3.6%) and so-so in India (5.3%).
Don't get me wrong, the fact that the US only barely doesn't double some tiny territory's gun ownership by population, still speaks volumes for the US's insane level of gun ownership!
I wonder about things like Canada's Nunavut, the North West Territories, Finnmark in Norway, etc.
Those are places where I wouldn't be surprised if every rural household had a gun, either for hunting or for protection from bears. But, they're also relatively poor, so there probably aren't a lot of houses with multiple guns. But, it's possible that there's one with Falkland Islands levels of gun ownership, maybe even US gun ownership per person, just with far fewer people.
This is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the idea that minorities aren't qualified.
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she's a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications? Or are you thrilled to get that surgery just because it's a woman doing it?
Average person cares about their ability to do the job. It's not racist.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees.
But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
See why these “debates” are so pointless? It gives a thin veneer of intellectual rigor to bigotry and white nationalism. And the guy “just asking questions” will argue in bad faith or just outright lie. Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
He also lashed out at the gay community, denouncing what he called the “LGBTQ agenda,” expressing opposition to same-sex marriage and suggesting that the Bible verse Leviticus 20:13, which endorses the execution of homosexuals, serves as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
The counter argument would be a majority of Christian faiths believe in the new testament so anything in Leviticus is irrelevant. That might be where Charlie was trying to go with that clip with Rachel. That's not a good clip to use if trying to prove Charlie Kirk held dangerous beliefs.
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees. But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
No, I don't know that, because it's wrong, or misleading at best. "Qualified" is a spectrum, unless you're talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you're looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for "black woman" as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You'd want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a "qualified" judge, most acting judges technically are, but it's unlikely that she's the most qualified. That's the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you're including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of "mass murder." However, most people don't care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
For those who stumble across this and are confused, this isn't how DEI works.
The reason DEI policies exist is that without them white male bosses were just blindly hiring white males and not considering anybody else because of their racism and sexism (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious). That meant pilots who weren't as good, musicians who weren't as good, bankers who weren't as good, etc. Aside from this being a guaranteed jobs program for white makes, and a roadblock for everyone else, it also led to problems because when everybody came from the same background, they all had the same kinds of blind spots.
So, DEI policies came along to try to make sure that companies were actually hiring the best people, and not missing out because of entrenched racism and sexism. So, instead of having a concert violinist hand her resume to a committee and then perform for them on stage, the person performing on stage performs behind a screen and uses a number so their age, name, gender, and connections aren't a factor, just the way they play.
So really, when you see yet another white male airline pilot who looks like he's former air force, you should be saying to yourself "I sure hope this airline has a DEI policy, and they didn't just hire yet another guy who was drinking buddies with one of their pilots when they were both in the air force together."
That's part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It's a form of "diverse sourcing" while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that's not the DEI the left supports, then they're awfully quiet about ridiculing it.
Those "other parts of DEI" are parts that don't actually exist.
Nobody's out there hiring unqualified or underqualified people. When IBM hires engineers they're not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they're just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified? Or is it that you think that Biden couldn't possibly have known that there were black women who were qualified to be on the supreme court?
Let's not pretend that everybody who gets a seat on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified. Justice Hugo Black (who was a white man, despite his name) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and served until 1971. His only experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court was 1 year as a police court judge. Other than that he worked as a personal injury attorney for a few years, then as a country prosecutor for a short time before joining the army in WWI, and then he was elected to the US senate.
Biden undoubtedly knew that there were plenty of black women who were qualified to be Supreme Court justices, but who simply had never been given the chance because of racism and sexism. The woman he ended up choosing had clerked for 3 judges for 3 years (including 1 supreme court justice), had had a stellar career as a lawyer for 10 years, was vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for 4 years, then a district court judge for 8 years, then another year on the US Court of Appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.
Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women.
The case you link to was someone suing Google claiming that it had such policies. Did he win that lawsuit?
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men? Or is it that they're making sure to give a fair chance to people who aren't white men?
When IBM hires engineers they’re not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they’re just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They're picking from a smaller pool, yet I'm supposed to think they won't be underqualified? That's not reasonable.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified?
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I'm not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically "qualify" as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She's not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don't think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone's race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don't think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I'll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president's cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don't like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men?
Only anecdotal. They're having similar problems as universities, where they have "too many" asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they're actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they're working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public "policy". I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they're trying to save money lol.
That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.
And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It's a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I've never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It's one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It's a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.
A simple DEI policy would be, for example, to remove the name from a resume before passing it over to the hiring manager for initial selection. That reduces bias against ethnic groups, religions, or genders.
This should in no way reduce the qualifications of the candidates. Quite the opposite.
If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.
So they're not racist for opposing DEI, they just don't understand what it really is, right?
This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.
Just get to the point, stop fucking around and just say you hate women and non-white people, we know that’s what you’re trying to dance around, that’s Kirk’s whole thing, none of us are fooled by your attempt at high school debate rhetoric, just own your misogyny and racism, you know you want to.
How is this a hard concept? You still have to be a pilot, you just can't have a policy - tacit or explicit - of only hiring white men.
Couldn't you have gone with the idea that it's "taking jobs from white men?" Then I could point out that there isn't a limited pool of specific unemployed people you have to pick from, and that even if you give a job to a white man it's still taking a job from a different white man?
The ironic thing is that this anti-DEI government has some of the dumbest, unqualified people in key positions. Clearly they were hired based on anything but their ability to do the job they were hired to do.
Every accusation is a confession with these people.
Yeah, without knowing context, you might think it's someone admitting that we need gun control, but no, his point was that we shouldn't care about the gun deaths so much...
I'm Canadian. I didn't follow this asshole before someone splattered him but what the fuck is up with his face? Is this the face of the white right? It looks like someone pinched all his features to the nose and pinned them there. Weirdness.
Wierd how it defaults to a blow up version of his face, I guess starting the slider at the correct 10% people would have a hard time finding his little face
It is like they genuinely forgot that this person has been advocating to deport migrants to concentration camps. And shooting Pelosi's husband. And a literal genocide.
The amount of hypocrisy of the right suddenly denouncing political violence now that they are on the receiving end is stunning.
IMO 104% looks normal. 110% looks plausible, but makes his mouth look a bit big for his jaw. 100% looks completely implausible. The space between the eyes shouldn't be smaller than the space from the eye to the side of the head.
Or the neck hit was more chance. There's an assumption that the shooter hit precisely where he was aiming, but it could have just been where the bullet happened to hit, close to the amining point, but not exact.
Even if so, nothing short of level 4 plates would have stopped a rifle round with that much energy. Handguns, sure, but he didn’t appear to be wearing a plate carrier.
My theory as someone who isn't a soldier or into killing people is that skulls can be pretty tough and a bullet at a slight angle could ricochet off. Ain't nothing ricocheting off your neck. I think the shooter knew exactly what he was doing.
He did. It was in the top 3 most gruesome things I've ever seen in my life. However, I only feel sorry for two people that saw it, and those are his kids. They didn't choose to associate with one of the lowest subhuman pieces of shit we have to offer, but the right sure did. His wife did, our pres did, a lot of our families did.
The world is a better place now that that fucker can no longer speak. All of his words caused pain, hate and suffering. Fuck him, amen.
You know? In Spanish, there's an idiom: "irse a hacer gargaras" (literally "go to gargle") that we say when something or someone ends poorly or incredibly wrong. This... well, he did go.
At least make a funny joke if you're going to mock murder victims. "LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS BLOOD" is not an attempt at dark humor, it's just enjoying death and violence.
The reason people are making these types of posts is because he was a blatant racist (source) who said that little kids being killed in school shootings is "worth it" (source) ridiculed disabled people in his circles (source) and said that children should witness public executions (source)
Yes he was murdered but not all murder victims are innocent saints either
I actually find it encouraging that people still respond to "evil." Like yeah we don't allow people to just be openly evil anymore. That sounds like a good change.
I'm not seeing it. Most those quotes were about affirmative action logically causing him to question the qualifications of blacks (because their race got them there via affirmative action). The rest are simply not racist or just bashing specific black individuals.
I'll say this is the only one even worth discussing, as it requires a lot of nuance. The other points below aren't good.
little kids being killed in school shootings is “worth it”
If he could, I'm sure he would say his own death was "worth it" in the context of being able to live in a country with gun rights. There are like ~1200 children killed by cars every year. Would you say that's not worth having cars? Would you outlaw them?
ridiculed disabled people in his circles
Making a joke about blind people is insensitive, but not even half the insensitivity of the meme in this post. I won't defend him necessarily except to say this is a pretty mild offense, especially for someone everyone is calling a fascist who deserved public execution. I'd expect something a bit more dire.
said that children should witness public executions
Do you know why? And do you have a reason for being so strongly against that? I don't have a reason. I don't know any studies on how this affects kids, but it could very well be a good idea.
Nah, you just assume that making kids watch public executions might have some benefit, which is to say you’re open to public executions in general. Eat shit, you fucking fascist. Go play with your dispersion trash some more, you fucking loser.
Also, the vote ratio on my comment vs yours kind of outlines how fucking dumb your comment is.
You act like you're not, in a thread of people celebrating a public killing. 🤔
I would actually be against public executions for political assassins like Vance Boelter, Tyler Robinson, and Luigi Mangione. It would radicalize more people, potentially making them more of a martyr for a cause.
Not being mad about a fascist who advocates for public shootings as a necessity for society getting popped while advocating such isn’t at all the same thing as supporting governmental public executions. Are you just against those specific people having public executions, because you haven’t denounced the idea other than those specific cases? What about making children watch, still on board with giving that a go? Who would you like to watch get hanged?
You're pissing yourself awful hard here for someone that has no reason to be against witnessing public executions. Go watch your leaders public execution again and report back how you feel; I'm smiling myself
The joke is that he was willing to let some people die at the altar of the Second Amendment (not him, of course), then he become one of those "some people."
It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the "price worth paying" for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would've only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?
Nothing I've seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.
Security and armed guards aren’t a sign of being willing to die for what you believe, they’re a sign of fear. Did Kirk ever join the military? Was he a soldier? That’s a moot comparison when talking about a fucking media personality who has been groomed and coddled by the GOP to be a rhetoric output machine since he was 18.
if that is actually the most likely way for him to have died, then I retract my statement, and add the comment that the US is an even more dangerous place than I thought
Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.
Nobody would be "celebrating" him if people didn't try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.
Lol. That was good but you need to double down on the irony at the end or else people might think you're serious. Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.
Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he's racist. That's why he shot a couple white people.
How is that a deflection? Excluding gang violence from mass shootings would change the number dramatically. So how could he give an accurate answer without knowing?
The definition of "mass shooting" varies and can potentially exclude gang violence. Excluding gang violence is often useful since most people don't care about criminals killing each other (which is most of gang shootings), and prefer to talking about innocent people who are shot.
“Gang violence” is the dog whistle if you missed it. If what im saying doesnt make sense to you, you might be part of charlie kirks target demographic.
We'd mostly have a different views if he weren't openly advocating for school shootings. He was literally framing them as a good thing. He was shock and awe, and drawing followers. It's not all jokes, people are happy he's dead and rightfully so imo.
When did he frame school shootings as good? Are you referring to when he said they were acceptable deaths if they were required to keep the 2nd amendment? Because that doesn't make them a good thing, it makes them tolerable.
Kinda like how we tolerate ~350 toddlers dying in swimming pools every year and nobody demands that we ban swimming pools.
So you want to outlaw everything designed to kill, I take it? Fine.
What about police officers that use guns to kill people who are actively attempting to kill others? If they're disarmed, more of these people will succeed in killing innocent people, right?
I mean in regards to the shitstain racist sexist propagandist in question I actually find "LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS OWN BLOOD" fucking hilarious.
Evil people dying is funnier than stand up comedy to me.
180 Comments
Hello_there@fedia.io · 211 pts · 333d
Spicy. This reminds me of reddit before it got corporatized
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 100 pts · 333d
Welcome! I use arch btw.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 40 pts · 333d
Stop opressing mint users!
/js
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network · 1 pts · 327d
This actually happens?
Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 327d
Nah I'm just kidding.
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network · 2 pts · 326d
As a Mint user, you got me worried about the community I'm in (^^;
WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca · 33 pts · 333d
If I hadn’t been banned from Reddit for “showing extreme indifference” about Kissinger taking a dirt nap, there is NO way I would have made it through this week.
SippyCup@feddit.nl · 8 pts · 332d
The only problem with Kissinger being dead is that if hell is real, Satan suddenly has a powerful ally.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 332d
Kissinger's intellectual prowess and abilities were vastly overrated.
Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 332d
Kissinger and Hussein having a spicy three way in hell.
chunes@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 332d
Luigi definitely would've got you first.
WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 332d
That guy who did nothing wrong?
Ghis@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 331d
Luigi got me, just like he got that CEO who I don't care to remember to name of.
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz · 4 pts · 332d
I saw this on Reddit some hours before being posted here
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 332d
I’m sure it’s been taken down. Reddit is full facist
RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 332d
It is just petty mods and advertisers
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org · 164 pts · 333d
It's so annoying that he's not even gonna see these killer memes about him.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 333d
No WiFi in hell?
rmuk@feddit.uk · 63 pts · 333d
Yeah, but it's, like, super patchy and you keep having to redoing the captive portal bit.
lemming741@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 333d
And it's $5.99 a day
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 333d
5.99 a day? Fucking hell...oh wait
rmuk@feddit.uk · 9 pts · 332d
"We've emailed a code to ••••••@••••••••m - you'll need to enter it to continue."
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 332d
Beelzebub will give you the 2fa code, but it's always just after it expires
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 331d
And it was converted to lower case before being printed and includes those stupid unicode 🅃🄷🄰🅃 🄾🄽🄻🅈 🅂🄿🄰🄼🄼🄴🅁🅂 🅄🅂🄴 ʇou ɹo IIƆS∀ sı ɥɔıɥʍ llǝʇ ʇ'uɐɔ noʎ ʇnq
Sorry 'bout that, had to include an example
krunklom@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 332d
Anytime you download something it goes blazing fast until it gets to 98% and then drops down to 1 byte/sec
MML@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 332d
Throws phone into lava, it reappears, fuck I miss my Zune
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 331d
LOL! The Christian cross Charlie's wife constantly displays will not save their useless asses.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 333d
Hope the older generation of american chinese print these meme and burn it for him.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 117 pts · 333d
“We need to be very clear, you are not going to get gun deaths to zero,” he said. “It will not happen. You can significantly reduce them, by having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Rothe@piefed.social · 75 pts · 333d
Ah yes, "the utopian one" like it is in the rest of the Western world.
shneancy@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 333d
i was flabbergasted when i first heard americans have security & armed guards at schools. the closest to that any of the schools i went to had was cameras watching the doors and overweight PE teachers
Whostosay@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 333d
We don't have that either. Best we can do is cops with excessive cowardice.
Source: uvalde, unfortunately
Cruel@programming.dev · -9 pts · 332d
Plenty of Western countries with lots of guns that don't have the same issues with gun violence.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 332d
Not nearly as many guns. No other country even has half as many guns per person as the US. But, even the ones that have a few guns (plus the ones that have almost no guns) have strictly enforced gun control laws, and treat gun ownership as a privilege not a right.
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network · 1 pts · 327d
Almost, if I can believe this Wikipedia article Falkland Islands has just over half as much as the US.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 327d
I can imagine why that might be. But, the Falkland Islands aren't a country. I would guess that if you go province by province, state by state, territory by territory, you can probably find others with very high gun ownership rates.
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network · 1 pts · 326d
Well, yes, the Falkland Islands.
Out of the completely sovereign countries, Yemen would be second place, though the US more-than-doubles their gun ownership per 100 civilians indeed.
Now, Falkland Islands and Yemen also have far, far fewer guns than the US; their high gun ownership comes in part from their small population.
India and China rank second and third in total guns owned by civilians, but purely through their sheer population. Gun ownership per 100 civilians ranks low in China (3.6%) and so-so in India (5.3%).
Don't get me wrong, the fact that the US only barely doesn't double some tiny territory's gun ownership by population, still speaks volumes for the US's insane level of gun ownership!
merc@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 326d
I wonder about things like Canada's Nunavut, the North West Territories, Finnmark in Norway, etc.
Those are places where I wouldn't be surprised if every rural household had a gun, either for hunting or for protection from bears. But, they're also relatively poor, so there probably aren't a lot of houses with multiple guns. But, it's possible that there's one with Falkland Islands levels of gun ownership, maybe even US gun ownership per person, just with far fewer people.
Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk · 43 pts · 333d
How many fathers was he suggesting each home should have?
Zink@programming.dev · 8 pts · 332d
For some it takes a village.
For some like Charlie it takes an orgy. Of exclusively middle aged dad bods.
Zink@programming.dev · 17 pts · 332d
A conservative saying something that sounds reasonable in order to convince the listener that the opposite is true.
Conservative messaging 101 right there.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 332d
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
Rooty@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 332d
Dude really had no redeeming qualities.
Cruel@programming.dev · -46 pts · 332d
This is a reasonable fear in a world where pilots are hired based on their status of being a minority. Is it not? That was the whole point, DEI practices enforce the idea that minorities aren't qualified.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 332d
At least you admit being a racist. Good for you!
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
Cruel@programming.dev · -23 pts · 332d
If you learned that your new surgeon was hired strictly because she's a white woman, is it racism to be skeptical of her qualifications? Or are you thrilled to get that surgery just because it's a woman doing it?
Average person cares about their ability to do the job. It's not racist.
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 332d
DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees.
But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.
See why these “debates” are so pointless? It gives a thin veneer of intellectual rigor to bigotry and white nationalism. And the guy “just asking questions” will argue in bad faith or just outright lie. Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.
So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?
Grilipper54@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 332d
The counter argument would be a majority of Christian faiths believe in the new testament so anything in Leviticus is irrelevant. That might be where Charlie was trying to go with that clip with Rachel. That's not a good clip to use if trying to prove Charlie Kirk held dangerous beliefs.
Cruel@programming.dev · -25 pts · 332d
No, I don't know that, because it's wrong, or misleading at best. "Qualified" is a spectrum, unless you're talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.
If you're looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for "black woman" as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You'd want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.
Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a "qualified" judge, most acting judges technically are, but it's unlikely that she's the most qualified. That's the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.
He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you're including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of "mass murder." However, most people don't care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.
He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 332d
If if if.
When in your life did you learn that someone doing something important for you was hired BECAUSE of the color of their skin?
Shut the fuck up you fucking loser.
Cruel@programming.dev · -10 pts · 332d
When Jackson was chosen for SCOTUS.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 332d
For those who stumble across this and are confused, this isn't how DEI works.
The reason DEI policies exist is that without them white male bosses were just blindly hiring white males and not considering anybody else because of their racism and sexism (sometimes conscious, sometimes unconscious). That meant pilots who weren't as good, musicians who weren't as good, bankers who weren't as good, etc. Aside from this being a guaranteed jobs program for white makes, and a roadblock for everyone else, it also led to problems because when everybody came from the same background, they all had the same kinds of blind spots.
So, DEI policies came along to try to make sure that companies were actually hiring the best people, and not missing out because of entrenched racism and sexism. So, instead of having a concert violinist hand her resume to a committee and then perform for them on stage, the person performing on stage performs behind a screen and uses a number so their age, name, gender, and connections aren't a factor, just the way they play.
So really, when you see yet another white male airline pilot who looks like he's former air force, you should be saying to yourself "I sure hope this airline has a DEI policy, and they didn't just hire yet another guy who was drinking buddies with one of their pilots when they were both in the air force together."
Cruel@programming.dev · -17 pts · 332d
That's part of DEI, and conveniently not the parts that Kirk, or most conservatives, complain about.
The policies complained about are the one that effectively turn race/gender into qualifications. Like affirmative action. Like IBM working to get 50% female representation in their engineering hires. Like Biden in 2020 campaigning on the promise of hiring a black woman to SCOTUS (2 years before he even looked at candidates). Like Google and other tech companies implementing policies to favor non-asian minorities and women. It's a form of "diverse sourcing" while making their actual skills and expertise a lower priority than their race/gender.
If that's not the DEI the left supports, then they're awfully quiet about ridiculing it.
merc@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 332d
Those "other parts of DEI" are parts that don't actually exist.
Nobody's out there hiring unqualified or underqualified people. When IBM hires engineers they're not hiring women who are underqualified just to get to 50%, they're just hiring very qualified women instead of very qualified men.
Do you think Ketanji Brown Jackson is unqualified? Or is it that you think that Biden couldn't possibly have known that there were black women who were qualified to be on the supreme court?
Let's not pretend that everybody who gets a seat on the Supreme Court is incredibly qualified. Justice Hugo Black (who was a white man, despite his name) was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1937 and served until 1971. His only experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court was 1 year as a police court judge. Other than that he worked as a personal injury attorney for a few years, then as a country prosecutor for a short time before joining the army in WWI, and then he was elected to the US senate.
Biden undoubtedly knew that there were plenty of black women who were qualified to be Supreme Court justices, but who simply had never been given the chance because of racism and sexism. The woman he ended up choosing had clerked for 3 judges for 3 years (including 1 supreme court justice), had had a stellar career as a lawyer for 10 years, was vice chair of the US Sentencing Commission for 4 years, then a district court judge for 8 years, then another year on the US Court of Appeals before she joined the Supreme Court.
The case you link to was someone suing Google claiming that it had such policies. Did he win that lawsuit?
Do you have any actual evidence that tech companies are actually choosing unqualified or underqualified non-white men? Or is it that they're making sure to give a fair chance to people who aren't white men?
Cruel@programming.dev · -11 pts · 332d
Only 20% of graduates in engineering are women. They're picking from a smaller pool, yet I'm supposed to think they won't be underqualified? That's not reasonable.
You seems to be viewing qualifications as a binary instead of a spectrum. When I look for an attorney, I'm not just looking for someone who passed the bar, even if they technically "qualify" as an attorney. I want to scrutinize their qualification much more than that.
She's not a terrible judge, necessarily, but not great either. There have been worse selections in the past, but I don't think that makes the decision acceptable to hire based on gender and race. Justice Thomas proves that merely sharing someone's race does not represent that constituents of that race.
I don't think Biden already knew qualified judges that were black women for SCOTUS, imo. It was just politics. Trump did the same when he picked a woman strictly because he was replacing another woman. I'll admit that SCOTUS, along with a president's cabinet, are often not chosen based on particular expertise or skill. I personally don't like this 🤷. Though I gues this can work fine if they have a skilled team while they strictly lead.
Only anecdotal. They're having similar problems as universities, where they have "too many" asians and want to take measure to pick other races. The problem is that they're actually not admitting asians to universities and hiring asians in tech because of their race. So to even the ratio, they would have to pick people based on race.
I suspect tech companies really avoid hiring underqualified people, which is why they maintain high asian representation even while publicly acting like they're working to be more diverse. The lawsuit could be related to that public "policy". I work in tech and personally have seen positions made specifically to get quotas, usually in non-tech positions. My company has tons of women in non-tech positions like quality assurance, HR, marketing to even out the lack of women engineers and programmers. Or maybe they just know about the gender wage gap and they're trying to save money lol.
NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 332d
Cruel@programming.dev · -6 pts · 331d
That suit was moved to private arbitration proceeding and settled out of court.
And I joked about hiring women to pay them more in my other comment. It's a joke because that implies that tech companies, publicly disclosing their desperation to hire women, are actually losing hundreds of millions (collectively billions), just to avoid hiring women. I've never met anyone working on tech that hates women that much. It's one of the most liberal fields out there. They bend over backwards to be diverse. It's a struggle because asians are overwhelmingly dominating in terms of qualification.
NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
shane@feddit.nl · 14 pts · 332d
A simple DEI policy would be, for example, to remove the name from a resume before passing it over to the hiring manager for initial selection. That reduces bias against ethnic groups, religions, or genders.
This should in no way reduce the qualifications of the candidates. Quite the opposite.
NotForYourStereo@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 332d
Cruel@programming.dev · -6 pts · 331d
If DEI is explicitly taking measures to not consider race/gender in hiring practices, then conservatives would largely support it.
So they're not racist for opposing DEI, they just don't understand what it really is, right?
This is the problem in politics when everyone is using the same terms with different meanings. Political discourse devolves into people speaking past each other with absolutely no point.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 331d
Just get to the point, stop fucking around and just say you hate women and non-white people, we know that’s what you’re trying to dance around, that’s Kirk’s whole thing, none of us are fooled by your attempt at high school debate rhetoric, just own your misogyny and racism, you know you want to.
Cruel@programming.dev · -6 pts · 331d
Me liking women and non-white people isn't even relevant. If you don't want to discuss the issues, then don't.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 332d
How is this a hard concept? You still have to be a pilot, you just can't have a policy - tacit or explicit - of only hiring white men.
Couldn't you have gone with the idea that it's "taking jobs from white men?" Then I could point out that there isn't a limited pool of specific unemployed people you have to pick from, and that even if you give a job to a white man it's still taking a job from a different white man?
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 332d
Lol. Found the dumbass loser.
BorgDrone@feddit.nl · 2 pts · 301d
The ironic thing is that this anti-DEI government has some of the dumbest, unqualified people in key positions. Clearly they were hired based on anything but their ability to do the job they were hired to do.
Every accusation is a confession with these people.
Ghis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
That's not how DEI works.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 332d
Yeah, without knowing context, you might think it's someone admitting that we need gun control, but no, his point was that we shouldn't care about the gun deaths so much...
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 332d
I guess the guy who shot his throat won the debate about Charlies shooters being trans and from fatherless homes theory and proved him wrong
Medic8teMe@lemmy.ca · 83 pts · 333d
I'm Canadian. I didn't follow this asshole before someone splattered him but what the fuck is up with his face? Is this the face of the white right? It looks like someone pinched all his features to the nose and pinned them there. Weirdness.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works · 70 pts · 333d
You may enjoy this
clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works · 26 pts · 333d
105% looks like the "normal" sweet spot.
Ghis@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 331d
This was exactly what I thought. I thought that 104 made him look most normal, but 105 is basically the same.
T00l_shed@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 332d
Wierd how it defaults to a blow up version of his face, I guess starting the slider at the correct 10% people would have a hard time finding his little face
Medic8teMe@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 333d
Fantastic!
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 332d
They're calling him their "MLK", which is equal parts hilarious and fucking pathetic.
MehBlah@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 332d
He was just a low level tool. He had a complete lack of empathy making him ideal to spout hate.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 332d
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 332d
Lot of cousin banging in his lineage for sure
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 332d
He has distinct chromosomal features.
Rooty@lemmy.world · 60 pts · 332d
Watching all the fascists weep for this idiot and ask for decorum has been the highlight of my week.
It's not fun when you're on the recieving end of political violence, is it not?
SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 331d
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 332d
It is like they genuinely forgot that this person has been advocating to deport migrants to concentration camps. And shooting Pelosi's husband. And a literal genocide.
The amount of hypocrisy of the right suddenly denouncing political violence now that they are on the receiving end is stunning.
CitizenKong@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 332d
Being able to change from attacker to victim in a heartbeat is a core principle of facsism.
Iwaku@lemmy.world · -19 pts · 331d
athatet@lemmy.zip · 22 pts · 331d
A father who said that if his daughters got raped he would make them care for the rapists baby… Physical injury is not the only kind.
SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 331d
snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world · 51 pts · 333d
Zozano@aussie.zone · 60 pts · 333d
I can't even tell if this has been edited lol.
Hard to believe his face is that tiny.
I guess that's why the shooter aimed for the neck?
simplejack@lemmy.world · 53 pts · 333d
https://blovish.github.io/kirkslider/
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 22 pts · 333d
The sweet spot where he has kinda human proportions is roughly at the 110% mark 😄
Zozano@aussie.zone · 19 pts · 333d
The fact that 110% looks wrong, despite knowing it's normal facial proportions, deeply unsettles me
merc@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 332d
IMO 104% looks normal. 110% looks plausible, but makes his mouth look a bit big for his jaw. 100% looks completely implausible. The space between the eyes shouldn't be smaller than the space from the eye to the side of the head.
Ghis@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
Yup 104% is the most human. Came to that conclusion when I found the site 2 days ago lmfao
Dudes face looked way smaller than 96% of normal proportions though, but I don't know how percentages work (if that 4% isn't linear or something)
rottenmummy@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 333d
That is hilarious
Kyrgizion@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 333d
He was wearing kevlar, and the shooter was likely aware of that, so head or neck were the only possible targets.
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 333d
The shooter was perhaps afraid of missing the brain.
Bluewing@discuss.online · 6 pts · 333d
Just because the head was large doesn't mean the brain was. Crocodiles have a very large head and a tiny brain.......
ByteJunk@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 332d
That's the joke I was making, brother.
Akasazh@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 333d
Savage
lordkuri@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
Then why didn't they aim at the other end?
merc@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 332d
The neck is never going to be a target. The fact he was hit in the neck means the shooter missed, but got lucky.
jj4211@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 332d
Or the neck hit was more chance. There's an assumption that the shooter hit precisely where he was aiming, but it could have just been where the bullet happened to hit, close to the amining point, but not exact.
AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 333d
He was wearing kevlar?
Kyrgizion@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 333d
Had been for a long time, it's almost standard for controversial public speakers in some circles
AFallingAnvil@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 333d
Huh. First I've heard about it. Guess he knew the hate he was spreading was going to incite something.
Fenderfreek@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
Even if so, nothing short of level 4 plates would have stopped a rifle round with that much energy. Handguns, sure, but he didn’t appear to be wearing a plate carrier.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 332d
My theory as someone who isn't a soldier or into killing people is that skulls can be pretty tough and a bullet at a slight angle could ricochet off. Ain't nothing ricocheting off your neck. I think the shooter knew exactly what he was doing.
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub · 44 pts · 333d
I cannot stop laughing at this
snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 333d
Did he died?
Whostosay@sh.itjust.works · 36 pts · 333d
He did. It was in the top 3 most gruesome things I've ever seen in my life. However, I only feel sorry for two people that saw it, and those are his kids. They didn't choose to associate with one of the lowest subhuman pieces of shit we have to offer, but the right sure did. His wife did, our pres did, a lot of our families did.
The world is a better place now that that fucker can no longer speak. All of his words caused pain, hate and suffering. Fuck him, amen.
simplejack@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 333d
He did a died
henfredemars@infosec.pub · 19 pts · 333d
Yep.
xavier666@lemmy.umucat.day · 9 pts · 333d
Haven't you watched Shrek? He was killed by the very magical creatures he was trying to oppress.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 333d
Good ol’ Carotid Artery Charlie
AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 333d
You know? In Spanish, there's an idiom: "irse a hacer gargaras" (literally "go to gargle") that we say when something or someone ends poorly or incredibly wrong. This... well, he did go.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 25 pts · 331d
I really hate to dance on someone's grave but some people make it so easy to laugh and cheer about their assassination and the following memes...
Sorry kirkie, you deserved this one and all the ridicule that followed. You sold your soul for money and power, of course most people hate you.
This meme shows perfectly why people laugh at your death.
I lolled hard at this meme
ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 331d
people are hunting and doxing people who post things like the above posted meme…
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 331d
They can dox Deez nuts
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 331d
Go ahead and do a whole Riverdance on that thing.
WanderWisley@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 333d
He lived as a meme and died as a meme o7
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 333d
nebar forgor 💀 🩸
ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 333d
When God sends you a message about the "god given right to carry arms".
Edit: typo
unknown@piefed.social · 13 pts · 332d
I think just I woke up my next door neighbour with how loudly I just laughed.
Nurgus@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 332d
Won't someone think of the feelings of the poor woke snowflake rightwingers.
Wilco@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 332d
Dammit, funny as hell. So morbid.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 333d
https://lemmy.world/comment/19317170
You missed attribution to me. But I'll allow given the joke was so easy and tempting to make.
hnnhmn7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 331d
live by the gun, die by the gun
Cruel@programming.dev · -54 pts · 332d
At least make a funny joke if you're going to mock murder victims. "LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS BLOOD" is not an attempt at dark humor, it's just enjoying death and violence.
frenchfryenjoyer@lemmings.world · 50 pts · 332d
The reason people are making these types of posts is because he was a blatant racist (source) who said that little kids being killed in school shootings is "worth it" (source) ridiculed disabled people in his circles (source) and said that children should witness public executions (source)
Yes he was murdered but not all murder victims are innocent saints either
rumba@lemmy.zip · 23 pts · 332d
He had a following cheering him on, too.
There's a family of kids who've died to school shooters. In a lot of cases, they're very upset and have very little to live for.
He was perpetuating it. I'm honestly shocked it took this long.
BanMe@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 332d
I actually find it encouraging that people still respond to "evil." Like yeah we don't allow people to just be openly evil anymore. That sounds like a good change.
Cruel@programming.dev · -22 pts · 332d
I'm not seeing it. Most those quotes were about affirmative action logically causing him to question the qualifications of blacks (because their race got them there via affirmative action). The rest are simply not racist or just bashing specific black individuals.
I'll say this is the only one even worth discussing, as it requires a lot of nuance. The other points below aren't good.
If he could, I'm sure he would say his own death was "worth it" in the context of being able to live in a country with gun rights. There are like ~1200 children killed by cars every year. Would you say that's not worth having cars? Would you outlaw them?
Making a joke about blind people is insensitive, but not even half the insensitivity of the meme in this post. I won't defend him necessarily except to say this is a pretty mild offense, especially for someone everyone is calling a fascist who deserved public execution. I'd expect something a bit more dire.
Do you know why? And do you have a reason for being so strongly against that? I don't have a reason. I don't know any studies on how this affects kids, but it could very well be a good idea.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 332d
Fuck, you’re dense.
Iwaku@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 331d
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 331d
Nah, you just assume that making kids watch public executions might have some benefit, which is to say you’re open to public executions in general. Eat shit, you fucking fascist. Go play with your dispersion trash some more, you fucking loser.
Also, the vote ratio on my comment vs yours kind of outlines how fucking dumb your comment is.
Iwaku@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 331d
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
My bad, thought you were dumbass up there, but you’re just defending dumbass. I apologize.
Cruel@programming.dev · -6 pts · 331d
You act like you're not, in a thread of people celebrating a public killing. 🤔
I would actually be against public executions for political assassins like Vance Boelter, Tyler Robinson, and Luigi Mangione. It would radicalize more people, potentially making them more of a martyr for a cause.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 331d
Not being mad about a fascist who advocates for public shootings as a necessity for society getting popped while advocating such isn’t at all the same thing as supporting governmental public executions. Are you just against those specific people having public executions, because you haven’t denounced the idea other than those specific cases? What about making children watch, still on board with giving that a go? Who would you like to watch get hanged?
athatet@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 331d
I don’t assume that. When did anyone ever say that? What are you talking about?
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d
You're pissing yourself awful hard here for someone that has no reason to be against witnessing public executions. Go watch your leaders public execution again and report back how you feel; I'm smiling myself
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 24 pts · 332d
The joke is that he was willing to let some people die at the altar of the Second Amendment (not him, of course), then he become one of those "some people."
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 332d
if you don't see the irony in the circumstances of his death, you may be stupid
Cruel@programming.dev · -4 pts · 331d
It only qualifies as ironic if Kirk would not support being a part of the "price worth paying" for gun rights. Do you actually believe he would've only accepted the deaths of others and not of himself?
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 331d
Absolutely. Yes.
Cruel@programming.dev · -4 pts · 331d
Nothing I've seen would suggest that he was not willing to die for gun rights. Seems more like you cannot even comprehend someone being principled and politically consistent. Seems like projection to me.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 331d
Yeah, that’s why he traveled around with all of those armed guards and security, right? Seems like sycophancy to me.
Edit: learn to draw, you unskilled bitch.
Cruel@programming.dev · -4 pts · 331d
I guess people in the military aren't willing to die for anything either. After all, they wear body armor and use weapons against their enemies.
You can't be so stupid as to think a willingness to die is the same as trying to die.
NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 331d
Security and armed guards aren’t a sign of being willing to die for what you believe, they’re a sign of fear. Did Kirk ever join the military? Was he a soldier? That’s a moot comparison when talking about a fucking media personality who has been groomed and coddled by the GOP to be a rhetoric output machine since he was 18.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 331d
It's ironic whether or not he actually stands behind the words that he said
Cruel@programming.dev · -2 pts · 330d
Using what definition of irony?
A situation is ironic if it defies expectation. Like how Steve Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, was killed by a stingray.
Kirk being killed by a leftist extremist, who thought he was a fascist, using a gun, is pretty much in line with how you'd expect him to die.
mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 330d
if that is actually the most likely way for him to have died, then I retract my statement, and add the comment that the US is an even more dangerous place than I thought
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 332d
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 331d
i'd send this to my grandpa who keeps asking the family to stop celebrating, but he'd just get more pissed
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 331d
Just send him a picture of the January 6th riot
Cruel@programming.dev · -7 pts · 331d
Rittenhouse defended himself against criminals trying to kill him, shooting one of them in the arm just as he was lowering a pistol to point it at him.
Nobody would be "celebrating" him if people didn't try to vilify him and lock him in prison for the rest of his life.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 4 pts · 331d
Lol. That was good but you need to double down on the irony at the end or else people might think you're serious. Maybe rift on him crossing state lines.
Cruel@programming.dev · -4 pts · 331d
Very true.
Rittenhouse traveled all the way to some far off city he had no interest in. Sure, his father, grandmother, aunt, uncle, and cousin live there. Sure, he stayed with his friend who lived there. And he used to work as a lifeguard there. But otherwise, he only went there because he's racist. That's why he shot a couple white people.
zbyte64@awful.systems · 5 pts · 331d
Oh, you actually serious?
I don't care enough about this to debate his motives, I just know stupidity when I see it.
Cruel@programming.dev · -4 pts · 331d
He was reckless, no doubt. Being around a dangerous mob always is.
Formfiller@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 331d
well January 6th would also be a good example of the right politicizing violence
LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 332d
Calm down Cruel, you just didn't get the joke
barelythere@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 332d
His literal last moment is him deflecting the question to a right wing dog whistle
Cruel@programming.dev · -11 pts · 332d
How is that a deflection? Excluding gang violence from mass shootings would change the number dramatically. So how could he give an accurate answer without knowing?
The definition of "mass shooting" varies and can potentially exclude gang violence. Excluding gang violence is often useful since most people don't care about criminals killing each other (which is most of gang shootings), and prefer to talking about innocent people who are shot.
barelythere@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 331d
“Gang violence” is the dog whistle if you missed it. If what im saying doesnt make sense to you, you might be part of charlie kirks target demographic.
Iwaku@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 331d
rumba@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 332d
We'd mostly have a different views if he weren't openly advocating for school shootings. He was literally framing them as a good thing. He was shock and awe, and drawing followers. It's not all jokes, people are happy he's dead and rightfully so imo.
Cruel@programming.dev · -13 pts · 332d
When did he frame school shootings as good? Are you referring to when he said they were acceptable deaths if they were required to keep the 2nd amendment? Because that doesn't make them a good thing, it makes them tolerable.
Kinda like how we tolerate ~350 toddlers dying in swimming pools every year and nobody demands that we ban swimming pools.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 331d
Stop using that tired false equivalence. The purpose of cars isn't to kill. The purpose of pools isn't to kill. The purpose of guns is to kill.
Cruel@programming.dev · -5 pts · 331d
So you want to outlaw everything designed to kill, I take it? Fine.
What about police officers that use guns to kill people who are actively attempting to kill others? If they're disarmed, more of these people will succeed in killing innocent people, right?
rumba@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 331d
I've had enough of you. I encourage everyone here to just block you.
Cruel@programming.dev · -6 pts · 331d
I see the real reason you guys hated Kirk so much. You seem very uncomfortable confronting differing opinions. That's not politically healthy.
TheBloodFarts@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 332d
Meh I'm enjoying it
SippyCup@feddit.nl · 6 pts · 332d
Every day a fascist dies choking on their own blood is a good day.
DarkFuture@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 332d
I mean in regards to the shitstain racist sexist propagandist in question I actually find "LOL HE GARGLED AND CHOKED ON HIS OWN BLOOD" fucking hilarious.
Evil people dying is funnier than stand up comedy to me.
Stamau123@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 331d
SonOfAntenora@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 331d