To Heal Our Nation

[Carnal_Flower]

I didn't know anything about Kirk. I still don't. It doesn't matter. I think everyone should see the unedited video and absorb the total horribleness of it. It was traumatic, terrifying, and sickening. Look, people. That needs to stop, period!

 

[Bray123]

Why don't you fabricate a scenario and then fabricate corollaries based on the fabrication. Your credibility is on shakey ground.

I'm thinking of starting a campaign to get him the prize, just to troll the Narcissist.

 

[Chernosoth]

I'm quite sad, myself. The MAGA crazies will use this as their Horst Wessel martyr, their Reichstag Fire moment.

Some people don't bother voting when they are overconfident of victory. That will still happen, but probably in smaller numbers next year.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lets be clear here.

Charlie was a moderate who believed in coming together and debating and discussing issues. He NEVER advocated violence. He walys reached out to the other side.

He was the guy that wanted to bring us rogether and heal the country.

You killed him.

Now you have to deal with the rest of us, who aren't moderates and who don't give a shit for your feelings. As a country, we're not on a good path, but fuck it. That's where we are and the Left have only themse;ves to blame for what's inevitably coming.

Calling Charlie Kirk a "moderate" is an insult to the man's beliefs AND his legacy.

Charlie Kirk was, and has always been, a "Seven Mountains Christian Dominonist", aka a fringe Christian extremist who espoused "Christian nation" nonsense.

These Christian Nationalists clung to three "inerrant beliefs":

• America is a country for White Christian MEN.
• White Christian WOMEN should be seen but not heard.
• Non-white and/or non-Christian men AND women should be neither seen nor heard

As a non-white woman, your opinion would not be tolerated. While you would not be subjected to genocidal actions (like those in going on currently in Gaza), you would not be allowed online. You would exist solely in the general labor pool, someone would always be needed to iron Charlie's shirts.

Charlie made a small fortune convincing others that he was a "moderate" and was "open to ideas", when he was in fact neither. He made his money with his stacatto "gish gallops" at college events, throwing out non sequitur after non sequitur at young people who couldn't keep up with his rapid-fire subject changes.

People like you saw that as a sign of "moderation". It was not.

He lived his life as an extremist, and died an extremist's death.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lets be clear here.

Charlie was a moderate who believed in coming together and debating and discussing issues. He NEVER advocated violence. He walys reached out to the other side.

He was the guy that wanted to bring us rogether and heal the country.

You killed him.

Now you have to deal with the rest of us, who aren't moderates and who don't give a shit for your feelings. As a country, we're not on a good path, but fuck it. That's where we are and the Left have only themse;ves to blame for what's inevitably coming.

There you go again, blaming the nebulous "left" for everything that has gone wrong with your life.

What a sad existence you lead.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Elon Musk encapsulates the MAGA mindset: when facts don't agree with the narrative, it is the facts that must be "fixed".

https://imgur.com/JJwJC95

 

[RobDownSouth]

Good read here:
The sanitization of the sordid past of Charlie Kirk

 

[YDB95]

In particular, I should point out that with respect to the quote about the black pilot or the black cashier, his point, I think is not that all blacks are unqualified. On the contrary, his organization is full of black leaders he recruited. His quotes, however, articulate the disservice that DEI does to minorities. It raises in the mind of thinking people the very real possibility that my pilot (or my doctor, or other person with my life in his or her hands) was chosen not based on qualifications, but on the basis of some unrelated criteria having nothing to do with capability.

It only raises that possibility in the minds of people who don't understand how DEI works. It has nothing to do with promoting people who are unqualified for the role; rather it's about ensuring those who are qualified get a fair chance at it. And even in the (IMO highly unlikely) event that Kirk himself was not a racist, he was smart enough to know the argument being used here is very popular among racists. So if he wanted to make it clear he was not appealing to them (which I think he probably was, but hey, I can't read his mind), it was incumbent on him to make the point you made here, that in no way does the color of the pilot's skin mean he is necessarily unqualified. He did not do that.

In the absence of DEI, we have better (not perfect, but better) reassurance that my pilot and my doctor, regardless of race, or gender, or ethnic origin was chose because they were better qualified than the next person.

Do we really, though? Or is it just reassuring to people who, whether consciously or not, have concerns that anyone but a white male probably isn't really smart enough to do the job?

You don't have to agree with that analysis, but I would hope you would agree that it does not come from a place of hatred or intolerance, but rather from a rational thought process and a realistic world view.

I appreciate your playing the ball rather than the person here, but no, I don't agree. I think it's coming from a worldview that ultimately is rooted in racism. Since you brought up context, remember Kirk also said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "a terrible mistake".

If Kirk gets the Nobel Peace Prize - hear me out, the way MAGATs are talking it seems entirely possible, will President Pedo be happy for him or go into a jealous rage?

He can't get it. Nobel Prizes can be awarded posthumously, but the recipient has to have been alive when nominated.

 

[ll74]

"We need to beat the hell out of them" - dear leader

 

[73Seahawks]

It only raises that possibility in the minds of people who don't understand how DEI works. It has nothing to do with promoting people who are unqualified for the role; rather it's about ensuring those who are qualified get a fair chance at it. And even in the (IMO highly unlikely) event that Kirk himself was not a racist, he was smart enough to know the argument being used here is very popular among racists. So if he wanted to make it clear he was not appealing to them (which I think he probably was, but hey, I can't read his mind), it was incumbent on him to make the point you made here, that in no way does the color of the pilot's skin mean he is necessarily unqualified. He did not do that.


Do we really, though? Or is it just reassuring to people who, whether consciously or not, have concerns that anyone but a white male probably isn't really smart enough to do the job?



I appreciate your playing the ball rather than the person here, but no, I don't agree. I think it's coming from a worldview that ultimately is rooted in racism. Since you brought up context, remember Kirk also said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "a terrible mistake".


He can't get it. Nobel Prizes can be awarded posthumously, but the recipient has to have been alive when nominated.

Fact is that Kirk was a violent segregationist SCUMBAG.

 

[YDB95]

Fact is that Kirk was a violent segregationist SCUMBAG.

You said it, I didn't.

 

[ShandyLeer]

Fact is that Kirk was a violent segregationist SCUMBAG.

Did anyone get the violence on video as far as you know ?

 

[latecomer91364]

It's hilarious to watch the ignorant, gullible 'useful idiots' of the left screaming (using bold lettering) how Charlie Kirk was a 'Violent Segregationist.'

Show me ONE - just ONE coherent example.

They can't they're just brainless little leftist followers repeating some false mantra they've heard.

 

[stxjimmy]

Go fuck yourself, asshole. No one will miss you while you're gone and I, for one, will be sorry to see your hateful ass return after your self imposed exile.

At least you're better than rorbags. He still hasn't left, despite promising to do so for a full year, so you have that going for you.

Rather proving the point made by PaxNurgle.

And eloquence is always welcome in public discourse, maybe you could give it a go.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Rather proving the point made by PaxNurgle.

And eloquence is always welcome in public discourse, maybe you could give it a go.

You first.

 

[stxjimmy]

Lets be clear here.

Charlie was a moderate who believed in coming together and debating and discussing issues. He NEVER advocated violence. He walys reached out to the other side.

He was the guy that wanted to bring us rogether and heal the country.

You killed him.

Now you have to deal with the rest of us, who aren't moderates and who don't give a shit for your feelings. As a country, we're not on a good path, but fuck it. That's where we are and the Left have only themse;ves to blame for what's inevitably coming.

You can’t fool all the people all of the time, but with the content of this post you don’t need to, some will pick up the baton, echo and do it for you.

And to extol charlie kirk as a moderate does require a willingness to suspend belief and to propagandise.

Shame on the shooter, on CT and the cabal.

 

[YDB95]

It's hilarious to watch the ignorant, gullible 'useful idiots' of the left screaming (using bold lettering) how Charlie Kirk was a 'Violent Segregationist.'

Show me ONE - just ONE coherent example.

They can't they're just brainless little leftist followers repeating some false mantra they've heard.

In this case at least, it was 73Seahawks - who usually leans hard to the right - who made that claim. And it sounded to me like he was accusing me (falsely) of saying as much.
Kirk did say the Civil Rights Act was a mistake and that Martin Luther King was a terrible person. Which isn't violent, but you could make a case that it was segregationist.

 

[Lazaran]

It's hilarious to watch the ignorant, gullible 'useful idiots' of the left screaming (using bold lettering) how Charlie Kirk was a 'Violent Segregationist.'

Show me ONE - just ONE coherent example.

They can't they're just brainless little leftist followers repeating some false mantra they've heard.

I strongly suspect that Hitler never once committed a “VIOLENT Segregationist” act that was immortalized on camera (See also: DonOld Trump, Charlie Kirk, etc, etc).

That ^ is how scummy, cowardly little racist genocidal inciters operate: they wind up the maaaaany sympathetic racist genocidal “incitees” with their WORDS and then sit back and profit from the VIOLENT ACTIONS of those maaaaany sympathetic racist genocidal “incitees”.

But everyone already knew that ^.



We. Told. Then. So.

 

[latecomer91364]

^^^
As usual, 'Just sayin' with no 'news' to back it up.

Show us the receipts or STFU. WITH the full context.

 

[Lazaran]

^^^
As usual, 'Just sayin' with no 'news' to back it up.

Show us the receipts or STFU. WITH the full context.

No.



Also:

The truth in my previous comment is persuasive - because EVERYONE recognizes the truth in my comment.

And that ^ makes you VERY upset.



Cry more.

Cope harder.

We. Told. Them. So.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Dear American .... relatives,
I really thought about, what, to use your terms, the fuck your problem is. I've found it. You can't speak properly. Your language isn't just what it should be, you can't express what you think and believe. But don't be afraid, help is on the way. We will start with some very simple words, carefully chosen to describe a very "famous" politicial movement on your side of the pond. Taxonomy is important, isn't it?
One might say that English, bless its cotton socks, is a bit of a scoundrel when it comes to vocabulary. It's a magpie language, really, having pinched a word from here, a phrase from there, but it still seems to fall short. It's like a chap who owns a thousand tools but can't find the right one for a simple job. Why, we have a dozen ways to say "drunk," but not a single word for the feeling of anticipation before a journey. We have to make do with clunky phrases like "wanderlust," which is, of course, a delightful German import.
Our words are often so… direct. A "back-of-the-hand-slap-face"? Not quite the same, is it? We lack the poetic precision, the delightful specificity that other tongues possess. This isn't a criticism, mind you, merely an observation. It’s like a well-meaning but terribly dull guest at a dinner party; perfectly pleasant, but not exactly sparking a riveting conversation. The solution, my dear friends, is not to prune our linguistic garden, but to throw the gates wide open! Let the French, the Germans, the Japanese—let them all come! Let them bring their glorious words, their nuanced concepts. Let us shamelessly pilfer their linguistic treasures and, in doing so, enrich our own impoverished lexicon. Only then can we truly express the full, glorious tapestry of human experience.
Now, for those two magnificent German creations. They are prime examples of the kind of lexical riches we so desperately lack.
Backpfeifengesicht: This is a truly marvellous and precise word. It literally translates to "a face that's begging to be slapped." But of course, it's so much more than that. It describes a face so uniquely irritating, so utterly punchable, that it seems to be an invitation to violence. It's not just an ugly face, nor is it merely a smug one. It's a face that somehow radiates a specific, irksome quality that makes one's hand itch to deliver a slap. A true masterpiece of linguistic economy.
Kadavergehorsam: This one is a bit more grim, but no less descriptive. It means "cadaver obedience." It's a term used to describe a blind, unthinking, and absolute submission to authority. It's the kind of obedience that a corpse would offer—lifeless, unquestioning, and devoid of any will or thought of its own. It's the sort of servility you see in totalitarian regimes or cults, where individuals have surrendered all personal agency. It's a chillingly perfect word for a chillingly perfect concept.
Cheerio!

 

[Lazaran]

So “Backpfeifengesicht” applies to DonOld Trump, J. D. Vance, Charlie Kirk, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and Elon Miusk, etc, and “Kadavergehorsam” applies to the common MAGAts.

Got it!!!



Thanks for that ^ !!!

 

[Meekly_Anna]

So “Backpfeifengesicht” applies to DonOld Trump, J. D. Vance, Charlie Kirk, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and Elon Miusk, etc, and “Kadavergehorsam” applies to the common MAGAts.

Got it!!!



Thanks for that ^ !!!

You said that. I didn't.

 

[Lazaran]

You said that. I didn't.

There were a fuckton of MAGAt women in politics who I could have included in the “Backpfeifengesicht” group, but my parents taught me not to hit women…

 

[Meekly_Anna]

There were a fuckton of MAGAt women in politics who I could have included in the “Backpfeifengesicht” group, but my parents taught me not to hit women…

You didn't get the exact point of the meaning of the word. It's not what you do, it's what you feel about someone. So equality of all genders is totally legit. Your mom should have raised you better, you shouldn't ostracize women, just because they 'lack' a penis and have a better taste.
Well, some of them have the latter.