I’m legally allowed to yell n-gger anywhere I want.
Does that mean i get to do so without consequences?
2 Likes
Well, it should mean you can do that without fear of physical harm.
@OTay , he didn’t say he was going to kill them or anything like that, and he didn’t say anything that would amount to “fighting words.” And cheering a murder is somewhat different from debating political issues.
1 Like
And the consequence should be death??
It was for Charlie Kirk.
Feel it. Acknowledge it. Let it go.
Sometimes you gotta rage the fuck out.
On a pile of logs that get turned into fire wood.
Or on the bench with a bar loaded with like 135. Just repping the rage away.
Something productive or beneficial.
Edit: This has been on my youtube for a couple days. I like this guy. He’s pretty well grounded.
I don’t know how it applies to each individual. Thats up to them. But it does apply.
1 Like
What’s a reasonable age to get into them or observe what’s happening in one’s society? I’m in my mid 40s, have voted twice, and became aware of its deterioration at age 22. That’s was normal. And I didn’t own a home.
I was never big on voting because I instinctively knew presidential candidates were full of crap. Generally speaking, I hate them.
I’m not consumed by hate (I can’t afford and don’t want to be and that’s very stressful) but it is reasonable to hate what has happened to America. I will long for a normal society until I die.
Rage is a normal reaction in a healthy man.
3 Likes
I appreciate this guy’s take. It is my opinion that many people misinterpret the warrior archetype. The warrior creates a safe environment with as little force as is necessary.
The shadow aspect of the archetype is toxic masculinity. Grandiose, verbose, loud, immature and aggressive.
1 Like
What’s ironic is the comparison of MLK and Charlie Kirk on the net considering what he said about MLK later in his life. He also rolled back his stance on immigration, and I suspect that roll back indicated he might have no longer thought “America is an idea” (his words if I have it correct). He said green cards should be stapled to diplomas, and then later disapproved of H1B visas.
2 Likes
He also said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
Charlie did not deserve to die, but he was involved in a deadly game.
1 Like
MLK was a womanizing communist. Not surprising a conservative, Godly man would disapprove of that. And the Black community is way worse off after the Civil Rights Act. It destroyed the Black family. And then the left started to use it to allow men in women’s sports and women’s dressing rooms. Kirk was absolutely correct.
Edit: When you say “Kirk didn’t deserve to die, BUT…” anything, you are saying he deserved to die.
“I’m not racist, BUT…”
4 Likes
Thanks for that.
1 Like
Bad times are when good men must rise to the occasion.
This is a bad time.
3 Likes
But I don’t think he deserved it. I tbink he was a well-meaning, idealistic young guy who might have not known how vicious his opponents were.
So if “but” actually negates what was previously said (I don’t think it does in all cases), then I take it back.
I became aware of what you wrote at 22 years old.
2 Likes
I’d agree. Titles dealing with the private sector were absolutely a mistake, if not illegal.
5 Likes
In the few days since the assassination of Charlie Kirk:
- Ben Shapiro took over TPUSA
- Blocked the Epstein files
- Banned Pentagon from boycotting Israel
- Pushed bill to revoke citizenship for criticizing Israel.
- Approved $650M+ for Israel
- The right is calling for social media censorship and removal of people saying “mean” things. Claiming we are at war etc. All of them staunchly pro-Israel.
Charlie has recently been more outspoken and critical of the relationship with Israel, AIPACs influence etc. He was accused of antisemitism and was apparently fearful because of it.
Now the shooter is being labeled as a Nick Fuentes fan who was antisemitic and Bibi is on a media tour calling Charlie a friend of Israel.
1 Like
IMO Charlie did underestimate his opponents. I have some friends in the EP (Executive Protection) world and it’s my understanding he declined perimeter security. Or more accurately went ahead after the school declined to allow shutting down an area and keeping it secure after the pre-event sweep.
I think the other issue, aside from keeping responsibility on the shooter and anyone involved directly, is that Charlie was much more intelligent than his audience (and most people). You can’t deny he retained and could recall information at a rate computers function, and he processed and responded quickly as well.
Many, if not most people, are not going to be able to infer complicated context to understand his points as intended and will instead take a top-level, emotional reaction and knee-jerk response.
I believe Charlie debated in good faith, but maybe could’ve clarified a layer or two lower than he did in some cases. He left people feeling ostracized, and stupid, even if this wasn’t his intent. And I don’t believe it was.
You can see him recognizing people not understanding concept and walking down to their level, but he does it in most cases in an admittedly condescending way.
FTR, this is in no way at all an endorsement or celebration of what happened to him. But when your subject matter is already addressing and speaking to a crowd of mentally ill and socially rejected people…. there is a reason why you have a full time, high level security team.
Shooter and everyone involved should fry though.
2 Likes
I’m confused by this? Do you have an example?