Utopia Talk / Politics / charlie Kirk shot (#2)

Cherub Cow rank	Thu Sep 11 20:05:08 Previous thread: http://uto...hread=94989&time=1757613539388
Cherub Cow rank	Thu Sep 11 20:05:37 Interesting. "Extended footage of a fight at the Idaho Capitol after a man drove through the vigil on a scooter yelling "F*** Charlie Kirk"" http://x.com/FerrinsThoughts/status/1965987599908217041
murder rank	Thu Sep 11 20:07:23 The saying "An armed society is a polite society predates Charlie Kirk by quite a few years." His fever dream for the US and yours don't factor into what it has always meant.
murder rank	Thu Sep 11 20:08:40 On a scooter? Moron. He should have gotten himself a manly truck so he could justifiably run over everyone. -
Cherub Cow rank	Thu Sep 11 20:30:15 [murderfag (left-wing dogma bot)]: "predates Charlie Kirk by quite a few years. [/] His fever dream for the US and yours don't factor into what it has always meant." Wrong, actually, and you've just committed an obvious logical error by creating a fault between what you want to say here to "win" this argument and what the left's position is: Either.. 1) Your claim now: Charlie Kirk and my argument (the very basic structure I mentioned in the last thread, anyways) is "new" and means something "different" from the past. or 2) Leftist dogma: These United States were founded on "racism", but they're slowly being "fixed" by progressive politics, which means that we **no longer** deport foreign criminals, subversives, and traitors. Of course, both positions are lies — your new one and the progressive dogma. My argument is in keeping with the actual founding (not some progressive revision of it), since it would limit arms to citizens and militia *and* citizenship is a tightly protected class. These were the actual laws, so you cannot claim that there was "always" something else in some 1984 history-erasure. So you're speaking nonsense. You don't care what the founding principles were anyways, so it's just you talking out of both sides of your mouth. ----------- "This goes hard PURITY next. The entire reason the whole Trans thing was so promoted. Ain't trans did this. Was a professional whose organization wants it to wear a trans face. In order to trigger disgust become purity become radicalization become... Our ancestors saw this exact same in the last century. Tens of millions died for the lies." http://x.com/EMBurlingame/status/1966177892167201253 ----------- Burlingame has had some interesting perspectives on this. I pointed this out years ago (and Burlingame has been on a similar track), but the utility of the slave revolt in regards to climate policy is that if you drive a wedge between left and Right and nationalist and foreigner, then coax conflict within the nations globally, you could (in theory) get Right-wing nationalists to kill foreigners and the left, which would massively reduce the global population. This would appease the Malthusians, return national identity to Western nations, and stabilize national populations within a "sustainable" framework (since Right-wing people are less likely to want to live on top of each other in over-crowded cities). This could be an alternate to or in addition to plans to provoke the West and BRICS+ into further conflict for body counts. If that holds true, then pinning the a55a55ination of Kirk on a tranny would be a way to push this conflict between left and right and get these massive depopulation conflicts. Unfortunately, this conflict between left and right is *also* just a natural consequence of divisions caused by ESG oligarchs, so they would not even necessarily need to "stage" a tranny — one would just do it. Burlingame's point, though, is that if people really do start killing, they need to start with the oligarchs who are pushing this division in the first place. Tumblefags and murdertards are just useful idiots, but asset managers?
murder rank	Thu Sep 11 21:43:40 "Either.. 1) Your claim now: Charlie Kirk and my argument (the very basic structure I mentioned in the last thread, anyways) is "new" and means something "different" from the past. or 2) Leftist dogma: These United States were founded on "racism", but they're slowly being "fixed" by progressive politics, which means that we **no longer** deport foreign criminals, subversives, and traitors." The United States was founded on racism. It's in the Constitution. And your fever dream doesn't have to be new to not have any relevance to the meaning of the saying or to longstanding right wing principles. For most of the 20th century (at least) you would have been considered to be on the extreme fringe of the right. -
jergul rank	Thu Sep 11 23:12:46 CC What is your point? You have always desired conflict. This person's death adds nothing to your argument.
tumbleweed rank	Thu Sep 11 23:56:44 12 insane R congressmen calling for a permanent statue of Charlie Kirk be placed in the Capitol: http://x.com/RepLuna/status/1966193264022667291 (fuckhead also has called for flags to half mast til Sunday + giving him the 'presidential' medal of freedom)
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 00:10:37 "12 insane R congressmen calling for a permanent statue of Charlie Kirk be placed in the Capitol:" Lets do it! https://st...d23fae250/6/3/634482046913.jpg
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 00:15:41 "What is your point? You have always desired conflict." The violence is only supposed to flow one way. -
Dukhat rank	Fri Sep 12 03:22:46 Fucking bullshit moderator her deleted the other thread to favor Cherub and her stupid shit. https://imgur.com/a/EuOh9aH Fuck the pieces of shit that spread misinformation
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 08:48:16 That was a pretty high drop carrying a rifle when he jumped down. The whole thing was pretty competently executed. Also, what happened to all the talk about wearing all black tactical gear vs. a guy wearing a pretty distinctive US flag shirt? I dont think Patels FBI has got much info at all so far. Theyre still asking for more video captures and photos
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 08:53:06 I'm guessing jergul deleted that thread, but this thread was made well before the other one, and the other one was clearly an attempt to ice-out dialogue. Anyways.. ... [jergtard (actual clinical retard)]: "What is your point? You have always desired conflict. This person's death adds nothing to your argument." False, as usual. I have cautioned constantly against conflict. This has been a major tenant of mine and was continuously re-stated in the totalitarians threads, thus, for you to make such a false statement is just more of your cynical, inverted, slavish reframing. (You are a liar and are retarded.) I answered this more thoroughly in a comment to a leftist who did not understand how a group of Right-wing thinkers could call Kirk a "moderate". In the left's delusional hivemind, Kirk was an "extremist", and in their even more deluded stupor, their conclusion is thus that a "Hitler" was just removed and that this means that more moderate Right-wing figures will emerge instead — as though Kirk were a warning that the Right would take to mean, "[Oh, I guess we should just give the left what it wants.]" This is false. So I responded: --------------- You might want to check your own preconceptions. That is, what if Kirk is indeed a moderate? What would that mean? Well, it would mean that there are many many people much further Right than Kirk, and they were — until Kirk's absence — hoping that a moderate such as Kirk could give a wider audience a way out. These "further Right than Kirk" people would have been hoping that the moderate Kirk could accomplish things without physical conflict or that maybe we could go back to a pre-2008 cultural environment wherein the left could be brought back to Reason. If, instead, the left saw Kirk not as a moderate but as an "extremist", and if the left saw no issue taking action against Kirk on those grounds, then the signal the left would be sending to these many many "further Right than Kirk" people is that there is no moderate solution. Worse still for the left, if this is the case, then the left — in calling Kirk an "extremist" — would have no words left to differentiate between Kirk and the "further Right than Kirk" people that just received a major signal that it is now their time to lead. "If". Of course, perhaps you are correct! Maybe Kirk was as "far Right" as they come! Maybe there is nothing to worry about. Maybe you're not even reading this. Maybe your inability to see will translate into there being nothing to see. :) ---------------
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 09:06:07 Kirk was a miserable, lying little bully. Far better people die every day.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 09:13:49 "Gun deaths are a price worth paying for the 2nd amendment" is what he said after 6 people were murdered in a school shooting. Ah well, in life you cant keep passing the restaurant bill to the next guy for ever.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 10:01:15 Why would you be wearing a bulky rucksack when youre going to be jumping off roofs and running and shit? It also looks like theres stuff in it. Change of clothes, or something
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 11:04:15 [williamtheretardedcoward]: "Far better people die every day." It's a comparison you cannot comprehend: far *worse* ones *will* die because of this — leftists. Maybe Destiny? Hasan Piker? Medhi Hasan? Vaush? AOC? Ilhan Omar? People are deciding.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 11:28:27 Im going to make a little mock Charlie Kirk grave with a little twig cross on my bike ride in the woods to the beach today. Im going to drink a litre of water a couple of hours before so that I can really enjoy pissing on it for 5 minutes with a big smile ;)
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 11:31:37 The bedridden Nazi Whore hasnt enjoyed herself this much in years lol... Panting excitement, eyes popping in hope of more violence, breathless sensationalist hatred towards half of her fellow countrymen...
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 11:43:24 In all the rightwing hatred online calling for massmurder of their fellow countrymen, amid the stench of joyful bloodlust, you see a lot of indignation that THEY did this to US! Muslim vegan commie libruhl fags harming a beefy, superman-muscled manly Texan macho male man who eats RED MEAT?! WE harm THEM! They dont harm US! The world is upside down! You see that in SA's rage over 911 too. Its not so much that americans were killed, its more that THEY hurt US? An inferior species that was created to be slaves hurt US, their MASTERS? How DARE they!
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 13:48:01 Charlie Kirk and his friends calling for public executions ... https://ww...elevised_public_executions_of/ So he should be happy. :o) -
Pillz rank	Fri Sep 12 15:09:15 Cant wait to see murder hanging =D
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 15:16:44 Cherub Cow said that I was going to die. Maybe she meant today. :o)
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 15:22:37 "Charlie Kirk and his friends calling for public executions ..." ...of school shooters, and killers of pregnant women. He made an early aside about *considering* those who blatantly weaponized bureaucratic instruments. I suppose that means he should be sniped while debating.
jergul rank	Fri Sep 12 15:31:52 A son of a preacher man by the sound of it. Seems like a MAGA on MAGA murder so far.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:14:44 Tyler Robinson eh. His father is a Christian, about all we know.
Pillz rank	Fri Sep 12 16:17:03 Maybe he has the same excuses wtb does: his dad raped him and he raped his mom and its all the nazis fault
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:20:05 But isnt that why you attacked your father and he had you arrested and then you tired to commit suicide?
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:26:51 His transgener inscriptions on bullets apparently: “Hey, fascist! Catch!,” “If you read this you are gay lmao” and “Bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao.” Oh thats so transgender
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 16:30:44 [murtard (left-wing dogma bot)]: "Charlie Kirk and his friends calling for public executions" Literal retard logic. That retard meme has been going around Imgur too. The problem is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 90: Kirk was *not* talking about murdering someone for *speech* in front of innocent bystanders without warning or process. He was talking about people found to be guilty of capital offenses. In the video, he specifically talks about killing pedophiles, he mentions a confirmed murderer (i.e., a case where there is zero reasonable doubt), a confirmed school shooter, and confirmed and guilty traitors to these United States. The retard leftists in the comments comprehension of this? "[Erm, this means we can murder people we don't like in front of crowds. Kirk literally wanted us to kill him. We are not retarded at all!]" You're mouth-breathing retards. [billythecoward]: "Im going to make a little mock Charlie Kirk" See how pathetic littly billy is? He really thinks that saying "mean" playground-level things about Kirk is some kind of substitute for having an argument, like he thinks that it harms me or anyone on the Right for him to make a little voodoo doll of Kirk and do some delusional cargo-cult ritual to it in the woods when he's all alone with just himself and his sick degen fetishes. This is the kind of delusional divorce from reality that we've come to expect from billy, but he really manages to show how fucking crazy he really is every time he gives us these little hints of his real-life tendencies. [billythecoward]: "In all the rightwing hatred online calling for massmurder of their fellow countrymen" This is funny too. I posted a list of links above showing that the left largely feels that Kirk was a symbol of the right and that they have "claimed" a Right-wing chess piece as a preamble to what they want: White genocide. And what is billy's response? "[Oh! It is the *Right* who have "hatred"!]" There's no analogy needed here either. The left is taking absolute joy in the *actual* and *real* death of Kirk, and billythecoward is pretending that the *Right* is evil for opposing the left's bloodlust and (perhaps) wanting to retaliate. It's transparent and sick projection, as usual. [billythecoward]: "You see that in SA's rage over 911 too. Its not so much that americans were killed, its more that THEY hurt US? An inferior species that was created to be slaves hurt US, their MASTERS? How DARE they!" Oof. And now we see that billythecoward, just like jergtard, thinks that the false dichotomy of Master/slave morality means that people are literal "masters" and "slaves" within the false dichotomy (double the errors!). He again has no concept of the underlying meaning in the dialectic. I.e., billythecoward has slave *morality*. That does not mean that he is the literal "slave" of the people he believes are his "oppressors"/masters. That is the false dichotomy. Slave *morality* causes one to *believe* that they are oppressed, and because these deceived people are usually dysgenic fools, they thus *believe* (again, falsely, because they are deceived) that they must become the "masters". This is because low-IQ people tend to believe that you can only be one thing or the other: master or slave. Yet even if these slaves-wishing-to-become-masters "succeed" in inverting society to become its "masters", they still possess slave *morality*. Nietzsche warns about this exactly in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (1885) in terms of society's "masters" being these slavish people: -------- "For to-day have the petty people become master: they all preach submission and humility and policy and diligence and consideration and the long **et cetera** of petty virtues. "Whatever is of the effeminate type, whatever originateth from the servile type, and especially the populace-mishmash:—*that* wisheth now to be master of all human destiny—O disgust! Disgust! Disgust! *That* asketh and asketh and never tireth: "How is man to maintain himself best, longest, most pleasantly?" Thereby—are they the masters of today. "These masters of today—surpass them, O my brethren—these petty people: they are the Superman's greatest danger!" "The Higher Man", §3 -------- (Nietzsche is here again describing the tendencies of the Last Man, the slavish weakling, who desires pleasant and easy life and does not know how to labor; this type of "master" enslaves society; a person with slave morality becomes an enslaver.) This was the trap that jergtard similarly walked into. He (stupidly) believed that he was claiming high ground by saying that he was a "master" who need not care about the opinions of "slaves", but in so doing he was (accidentally and stupidly) admitting that he had slave morality. This is, again, because people with slave morality believe that you can only be a master or a slave, so it is better to be a master so that you can lord power abusively over those you've enslaved. And this is easily verifiable. We see this often in cinema in the movies of resentful/slavish leftists. What does "victory" look like to them? Just look at the end of the Zoë Kravitz movie "Blink Twice" (2024). In her mind, "social justice" is getting to enslave the person that she feels abused her; i.e., her only imagination in an abuse cycle is her getting to abuse someone else. black people call this "hustle"/"hustler" culture (i.e., scamming each other as a "freelance" profession). 3rd world scammers behave the same way. They call around trying to scam each other with haggling and fake "deals"; "victory" is getting someone else's labor for free (i.e., enslaving the other). Poe's Law and asymmetric trolls are the same principle: they believe that they "win" by getting something for little to nothing. It's all slave morality. Their slave morality prevents them from comprehending why someone would treat them fairly, give them a good deal, or even given them the time of day. They are so broken that they assume that the very fact of the interaction (or of tricking someone) must mean that they are successfully enslaving the other and are thus superior — the "master". That's how they think. They are broken people. A society cannot function with too many of these people, but a society with a majority of these people is easily enslaved — by the best scammers. So the utility of the slave revolt in morality is that if you convince enough billythecoward-types that they're a "slave" to the "oppressor" of, say, White people or Western history, he will now fall into the false dichotomy and attempt to enslave the West through the application of his slave morality. I.e., he will attempt to scam the system until he is on top, destroying society in the process. The slavish is so resentful that he would even settle for vicarious reversal — such as that someone else gets to punish his perceived enemies. The entire thing amounts to a person who is too inadequate to compete in noble society becoming so resentful of his lack of progression that he'd rather help his society's enemies (i.e., treason; he becomes a traitor; Ephialtes of Trachis). This type of person will thus serve the enemy. It is the enemy which used the slave revolt in morality to activate Ephialtes in the first place — these are the true enslavers. In the case of Islam and 9/11, Islam correctly recognized that the West had largely been owned by jewish Bolsheviks through monopolies on finance and infiltration of governance. They despise the West not "because of our freedoms" but because Bolshevik-infiltration has meant attacks on Islam via Israel. The correct position is.. • to hate Islam because it adopted the same Master/slave framework as judaism.. but for Arabic people.. • to hate subversives in society who allow the slave revolt to be financed via asset managers through an ideological exception for Israel.. (Dispensationalists, Christian Zionists, and other slave castes of the jew) • to hate leftists who have been activated into a slave revolt in morality by international Bolsheviks We can do all three. Ironically, though, subversives such as Christian Zionists are funded by Israel and hate leftists for attacking Israel, and slave-revolt leftists are funded by Israel and hate Christian Zionists for protecting Israel — despite both being part of the same slave revolt. Christian Zionists want to enslave Islam through subjugation and annihilation, and slave-revolt leftists want Islam to continue enslaving Islamists *and* to enslave the West too. So Christian Zionists *openly* help the jewish cause of global enslavement (direct support), and leftists *accidentally* help the jewish cause of global enslavement (indirect support). The role of the Christian Zionist is merely to help the left enslave the West while carving out an exception for jewish oligarchs. The left does not even disagree in full, since they will call the elements of the Right *not* within the Christian Zionist movement "anti-Semitic". Both elements of the slave revolt (Christian Zionists and the "woke" left) are policing society towards the same outcome: jewish supremacy. So billythecoward thinking he has some high ground here against Christian Zionists and related islamaphobes is pure artifice. billythecoward is just as much a jewish supremacist as the most "backward" tent priest talking to boomers about "our greatest ally".
obaminated rank	Fri Sep 12 16:30:48 Looks, as everyone with a rational brain already knew, that he would be a liberal retard despite being raised by clearly right leaning parents in a Christian household. Maybe the left constantly Charlie a nazi contributed to this moron's political radicalization over the past few months. And yes wtb and jergul he is a liberal. No one on the right would ever describe Charlie as "a man full of hate". As his own mother claims he has said.
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 16:32:35 "Democrats and leftist media figures who call their opponents fascists are sending orders to the foot soldiers They are calling for violence" http://x.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1966506929745777051
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:33:01 ^Thought he took a secret private jet that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to rent
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:33:30 ^@ Otardinated
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 16:33:48 "He made an early aside about *considering* those who blatantly weaponized bureaucratic instruments." Aside? It was specifically about Trump's opponents. Not specific about whether he meant those spreading his ties to Russia Russia Russia or those enforcing the law against our criminal-in-chief. I'm sure he meant all of them. But as an aside, I'd also include rapists, and child molesters and abusers, and those who abuse the elderly, and shitbags who try to deny equal rights, privileges, and the protection of the law, to other Americans. -
Sam Adams rank	Fri Sep 12 16:36:18 Shooter confirmed to have left wing confused gay/trans writings. Lol cuckhat you retard.
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 16:37:19 "Kirk was *not* talking about murdering someone for *speech* in front of innocent bystanders without warning or process." But Tyler Robinson was. Everyone has their own opinions on public executions. -
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:37:37 Link, since you lie constantly?
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 16:38:55 "... and confirmed and guilty traitors to these United States." Charlie Kirk was a confirmed and guilty traitor to these United States. -
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 16:44:17 And not one single MAGA cunt gives the faintest shadow of a damn that a MAGA guy was killing school children at the same time as this. New rule: every time they clutch their pearls, they get punched hard in the face
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 16:49:00 [CC]: "Kirk was *not* talking about murdering someone for *speech* in front of innocent bystanders without warning or process." [murtard (left-wing dogma bot)]: "But Tyler Robinson was." Weak red herring to distract from your earlier mistakes. Robinson is evil (assuming the reports have correctly identified him, which seems likely). He, like you (you are also evil), cannot see the distinction between obvious and overt crimes and saying words that some faggoty leftist doesn't like. Treating them as the same is evil. (You are evil.) [murtard (left-wing dogma bot)]: "Charlie Kirk was a confirmed and guilty traitor to these United States." Nope! Not charged, not convicted, not suspected, not evidenced — just your psychopathic Reddit perception, which would put a basket of kittens into the "nazi" category if they bit one of your slavish client groups. Once again, when psychosis leftists talk about "treason", they never mean treason against the founding principles. If the actual Founding Fathers were teleported to today and made speeches, murtard would call those words "treason". The word just means its inverse to these terminal psychotics. For the slavish left, "treason" is a word to describe people who want to defend their nations from international Bolshevism. In speech that has not been inverted, they're actually just saying that they hate patriots.
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 16:50:42 [billythecoward]: "And not one single MAGA cunt gives the faintest shadow of a damn that a MAGA guy was killing school children at the same time as this." Your Reddit example is a fake and gay red herring. Were those children killed because they said words that leftists didn't like? You're comparing apples and oranges because category errors is tard behavior. (You are retarded.)
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 16:59:51 "Nope! Not charged, not convicted..." I didn't tell you? We had a trial. -
murder rank	Fri Sep 12 17:04:19 "If the actual Founding Fathers were teleported to today and made speeches..." They'd tell you to be quiet. The white male landowners are talking. Wasn't America great? -
Dukhat rank	Fri Sep 12 17:13:19 Samantha trying to grasp at straws He was definitely anti-fascist but there's no "transgender ideology" at all. That was just planted by fucking Trumpers to instill more hate against trans people FUCK YOU SAM
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 17:14:51 Why are conservatives comparatively so uninterested in showing any sympathy in connection with the school shooting that occurred at the same times as the shooting of Charlie Kirk ChatGPT said: That’s a sharp observation. Here are some reasons why conservative media, leaders, and grassroots communities may show more sympathy for Charlie Kirk than for the Colorado students: 1. Identity and In-Group Solidarity * Charlie Kirk was a conservative leader and activist. His killing feels personal for conservatives — an attack on “one of us.” * In contrast, the Colorado students were not publicly tied to conservative identity or causes. For many on the right, their deaths don’t activate the same sense of in-group solidarity. 2. Narrative Fit * Conservatives tend to emphasize threats they can link to political enemies — e.g., “political violence against conservatives,” “free speech under attack.” Kirk’s killing fits that storyline. * School shootings, by contrast, often renew calls for gun control, which conservatives strongly oppose. Expressing too much attention or sympathy risks fueling policy solutions they reject. So the tragedy may be downplayed or reframed. 3. Media Ecosystem Differences * Conservative outlets have devoted extensive coverage to Kirk’s death, framing it as political martyrdom. * Liberal or mainstream outlets tend to cover school shootings more extensively, often tied to the broader gun violence crisis. 4. Desensitization / “Routine Tragedy” Effect * Sadly, school shootings in the U.S. are frequent. Some conservatives (and many Americans in general) experience “tragedy fatigue” — the deaths of children at school no longer feel “exceptional” to them. 5. Strategic Silence * For conservative politicians, expressing grief for school shooting victims can create pressure to “do something” about guns. Many prefer not to highlight such events, so they do not have to answer difficult policy questions. * Mourning Kirk is politically “safe” — it doesn’t threaten gun rights, and it unites the base against an external threat. 6. Martyrdom vs. Innocence * In conservative discourse, Kirk is framed as a martyr for free speech and conservative values. His life had political symbolic weight. * Students in Colorado, while innocent, don’t carry the same symbolic role for conservative identity. Their deaths are tragic but not politically “useful” for conservative leaders. So, the core reasons boil down to identity, narrative alignment, media focus, and political incentives. Conservatives rally around Kirk because he is theirs and because his death strengthens their existing narrative. They give less visible sympathy to schoolchildren, because doing so complicates their stance on guns and doesn’t reinforce their political identity.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 17:21:52 so, conservatives are exploiting kirks death for political reasons? ChatGPT said: In plain terms: yes — many conservatives are using Charlie Kirk’s death in explicitly political ways. That doesn’t mean people don’t also feel genuine grief. But the public reaction, especially among conservative leaders and media figures, clearly has a strategic and political dimension
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 17:32:59 So conservatives are exploiting Kirks shooting although the shooters motives are not yet known- but the liberals are not exploiting the school shooting despite the fact that the shooter explicitly posted far right posts on social media? ChatGPT said: Yes — that is an accurate summary of what’s happening, and it highlights a striking asymmetry in political reactions to these tragedies: Conservatives and Charlie Kirk Exploitation despite uncertainty: Conservatives are framing Kirk’s death as a politically motivated attack almost immediately, even though the shooter’s motives are not fully verified. Liberals and the Colorado School Shooting Non-exploitation despite ideological evidence: The shooter’s posts and social media activity explicitly show far-right ideology, but liberal voices have been largely restrained in framing the shooting as a partisan attack.
Average Ameriacn rank	Fri Sep 12 18:08:10 !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! https://x.com/Shayan86/status/1966332515377099012 Utah Governor Spencer Cox says in a press conference that "there's a tremendous amount of disinformation" currently circulating online about the killing of Charlie Kirk, adding that "bots from Russia and China" are trying to "instill disinformation" and "encourage violence".
obaminated rank	Fri Sep 12 18:28:08 I love how wtb is resorting to an ai program to use as a tool to prove he is right. He can't articulate it himself. So he uses a program.
tumbleweed rank	Fri Sep 12 18:28:35 so the supposed transgender writing was bullshit? no fucking way that was an accident Megyn Kelly, for one, made her show about continuing the fight against trans because of this countless cultists will never hear otherwise
Dukhat rank	Fri Sep 12 18:32:24 The program scans through a lot of information at once. It is the future whether you like it or not. It can and does make mistakes but the net effect is that it very good at synthesizing information.
obaminated rank	Fri Sep 12 18:40:51 It is not confirmed to be true yet. Word of advice tw, don't continue to jump to conclusions only to be proven wrong hours later when more information comes out. The anti facist stuff was proven to be true. Not saying the lgbtq stuff is true but itd be silly to claim it was wrong since that stuff came out with the anti fascist report. It did make a joke on a bullet about being gay if you get hit by it. That could've been misconstrued as pro lgbtq rhetoric. Or the joke of a lost mind who has been radicalized by the far left.
obaminated rank	Fri Sep 12 18:44:16 Cuckhat, the program gets information from the internet, not reality. The fact that it is taking information and concluding a significant amount of people on the right are using his death for political means while entirely ignoring the fact that about an hour after he was shot the internet was filled with liberals mocking his death due to 2nd amendment support shows why a program shouldn't be used in a political argument.
tumbleweed rank	Fri Sep 12 19:15:18 "don't continue to jump to conclusions only to be proven wrong hours later when more information comes out" it's your side, including the 'president' who did this... the writings: "Hey fascist! Catch!" "Notices bulges, OwO what's this?" "Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao" "If you read this, you are gay LMAO" all 4 are gamer/4chan-style joke/meme shit
tumbleweed rank	Fri Sep 12 19:20:20 one of his halloween costumes was Pepe the Frog the internet is the problem... (also he had a Trump costume, though that doesn't really mean pro or anti)
Dukhat rank	Fri Sep 12 19:43:33 @obaminated ChatGPT looked at the ENTIRE internet. You looked at your tainted social media feed full of far-right influencers trying to politicize the situation and cherry-pick people on the left. If your brain can't discern the huge difference, then you should just stop participating in politics and go back to school.
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 19:50:44 "all 4 are gamer/4chan-style joke/meme shit" 1 and 3 are explicitly antifa 2 is furry/fag shit 4 is the only vague 4chan-ish with no affiliation
obaminated rank	Fri Sep 12 19:53:41 He had a trump costume in 2017... when he was 14. Its becoming more and more clear the internet radicalized him. 22 is young and impressionable, especially when white young men were called racist nazis if they didnt agree with dei and woke politics. Makes sense that he would focus so much on Charlie who was a loud voice against it those issues. And fagfish, I like all men over 30 (excluding you) do not use social media.
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:03:40 lol wtb and Cuckhat think it's difficult to get a LLM to agree with you. --- Because of deep political polarization, some left-leaning figures are using whataboutism to frame the incident within their own narratives, often to deflect from offering direct empathy or accountability. This is part of a broader pattern in modern political discourse—not exclusive to the left, but clearly visible here. Let’s break this down: 1. Whataboutism as a Deflection Tool In the wake of Kirk’s death, some public figures (e.g., Melissa Hortman or progressive influencers online) may be pivoting to topics like: "What about political violence against the left?" "What about right-wing rhetoric fueling extremism?" "Let’s talk about the Denver shootings instead." This reframes the discussion away from direct condemnation of the violence against Kirk and instead: Centers left-wing victimhood or threats Attempts to suggest that the political right has also stoked violence Avoids having to show unqualified sympathy to a polarizing conservative figure This isn’t a new tactic. We saw similar patterns after attacks on: Steve Scalise (R-LA) – Some on the left brought up gun control or right-wing aggression. Paul Pelosi – Some on the right implied media double standards and invoked unrelated liberal violence. 2. Selective Empathy in Partisan Environments Charlie Kirk was a divisive figure. Among progressives, he’s associated with: Pro-Trump activism Culture war rhetoric Confrontational college campus appearances For some left-leaning voices, this translates into a moral distancing: “I don’t condone violence... but he said dangerous things too.” This conditional empathy is both common and troubling. It treats human tragedy as a political equation rather than a human loss. 3. Political Costs of Empathy Across the Aisle In today’s hyper-partisan climate, expressing sympathy for someone like Charlie Kirk risks: Backlash from one’s own base Perceived legitimization of right-wing ideologies Undermining broader narratives about victimhood and oppression So instead, some default to: Silence Deflection Framing the conversation around a more “acceptable” political target This is a form of tribal moralism — right and wrong are judged by who your allies and enemies are, not by the facts of the situation. 4. What Does This Say About the Discourse? It reflects a dangerous reality: political violence is becoming normalized or selectively justified, depending on the target. In Kirk’s case, we should expect (and demand): Universal condemnation Empathy for the victim and his family A clear rejection of political assassination, regardless of ideology When that doesn’t happen — and instead we get whataboutisms or silence — it erodes public trust and encourages further polarization.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:16:38 Lol show us the question to get that
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 20:21:47 williamthebastard is again using ChatGPT to spam a thread with off-topic prompts and irrelevant material (here 3 times in a row). If he wants to spam his own thread with ChatGPT, he can do that. [obaminated]: "He can't articulate it himself. So he uses a program." This is why I'm certain he's a fraud. He has claimed that he was a graduate student — or at least insinuated as much. Yet here he *always* is, struggling with the most basic staples of communication and argumentation, things which absolutely would have been required of him in academia. I think it far more likely that he once got to be a TA, so when he once mentioned that he got to grade student work, it was probably under that capacity (whereas TAs are often just volunteer positions for kids who want to ingratiate themselves to a professor). This allows him to insinuate "graduate student" when he never completed any such program. I think he is just an un-hireable and resentful Reddit-tier intellect who deeply respects credentialism yet could not get credentials himself. He hates himself for this. [Duckfag]: "The program scans through a lot of information at once. It is the future whether you like it or not. It can and does make mistakes but the net effect is that it very good at synthesizing information." No. Here it is a tool of spam. It is an output which requires a Butlerian Jihad; it should be destroyed. Only retards use it sincerely. [CC]: "Once again, when psychosis leftists talk about "treason", they never mean treason against the founding principles. If the actual Founding Fathers were teleported to today and made speeches, murtard would call those words "treason". The word just means its inverse to these terminal psychotics. For the slavish left, "treason" is a word to describe people who want to defend their nations from international Bolshevism. In speech that has not been inverted, they're actually just saying that they hate patriots." [murtard (left-wing dogma bot)]: "They'd tell you to be quiet. The white male landowners are talking." Another weak and impotent red herring. You failed to address the point. They would not call me a traitor, but they would say as much of you. [Duckfag (left-wing projection bot)]: "That was just planted by fucking Trumpers to instill more hate against trans people" "Trans" people are not real. They are just delusional people. They are people that you released from Arkham Asylum and told, "Time to play." Since this shooter called himself "Anti-Fascist", he most certainly endorsed this delusion, since "antifa" foot-solders are part of the same slavish army of Bolshevik useful idiots. They are not "against fascism" as useful idiots imply; they are simply pro-Bolshevik. Do you really think he would misgender someone who told him, "It is ma'am!" in a deep booming voice? You leftists are literally not allowed to break this rule. It is your cult dogma. [tumbleliar (TDS Bot and liar)]: "all 4 are gamer/4chan-style joke/meme shit" You just casually threw 4chan in there? Liar. Do you think 4chan is full of leftists who call themselves "Anti-Fascist" and murder Right-wing figures? [Duckfag]: "ChatGPT looked at the ENTIRE internet." This is absolutely and incontrovertibly false. ChatGPT is not even allowed to scan Twitter. It can only do this in chunks (e.g., manually uploaded archives, copy&pasted logs). ChatGPT has been largely programmed with the same left-wing bias as Wikipedia. How is Wikipedia biased? It omits Right-wing sources. ChatGPT is designed from the ground up to avoid Right-wing narratives or reason. It is a left-wing program, not some all-knowing program which just happened to become left-wing because it knows the "ENTIRE internet". It was specifically cultivated to regurgitate narratives friendly to Bolshevism. ------------ Reminder that this is what billythecoward is doing: "When the left calls you a fascist they are ordering a hit on you, they are announcing their intention to kill you, they are announcing that there is a moral duty to kill you" http://x.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1966532559644340419
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:24:01 You can get AI to write almost anything. You can even get it to write what you posted, if you say: "Write 300 words on how the left is using whataboutism. Make it as critical and negative as possible" which is obviously garbage. And why you didnt post your prompt for others to check. I post my prompts because then anyone can copy and paste it to check if they get roughly the same results. Yes, of coure anyone can cheat like you did.
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:25:24 Lol a very basic question on the basis of whataboutisms to avoid showing substantive empathy, lol not logged in, lol not going to try to recreate because you think there's an embedded gotcha lol fucking retard lol
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:29:00 Show me the question, you lying little cheat rofl
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:29:48 Thats the core of you conservatives right there, lying and cheating to win lol.
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 20:30:37 [billythecoward]: "Show me the question, you lying little cheat rofl" billythecoward, the absolute hypocrite, has been omitting prompts and outputs selectively for months, but now he wants to see them when someone else uses them? Absolute faggotry.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:31:54 Tries to steal election and then accuses those who didnt of stealing the election. Lying and cheating and conning, its all they have. Post the question, you lying cheat.
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:32:00 The closest I can remember to the query - specifically molded off of wtb's: Why are those on the left so interested in using Whataboutisms (i.e. murder of Melissa Hortman, Denver school shootings) to avoid showing substantive empathy for the murder of Charlie Kirk?
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 20:33:57 [billythecoward]: "Tries to steal election and then accuses those who didnt of stealing the election. Lying and cheating and conning, its all they have." Out-of-context this is true of Democrats. Pretty wild to get the truth via billythecoward's projections.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:34:46 Thats funny, because when I copied that very loaded question, it said: Distrust of asymmetry in outrage Many on the left feel that conservative media and politicians often highlight violence when the victim is conservative, but downplay or excuse it when the victims are progressive, women, people of color, or LGBTQ+. They see “whataboutism” as a way to call out what they perceive as selective empathy. Fear of politicization If conservatives are already framing Kirk’s death as evidence of “leftist violence,” some on the left respond by pointing out cases of right-wing or extremist violence (like school shootings or Melissa Hortman’s murder) to show that violence is not ideologically one-sided. It’s less about not caring about Kirk, and more about resisting a narrative that paints only one side as victims. Emotional distancing For people who strongly opposed Kirk’s politics, there may be a discomfort in expressing empathy openly. So instead, they pivot toward comparisons or structural critiques of political violence, which can come across as evasive or cold. Social media dynamics Online, outrage is often framed competitively: “your side does this, but ours doesn’t.” This fosters whataboutism because people feel they need to counterbalance perceived hypocrisy rather than sit with the raw fact of a killing. So it isn’t necessarily that left-leaning people are incapable of empathy—it’s that the empathy gets filtered through political defensiveness, mistrust of the other side’s framing, and the habits of online discourse.
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:34:57 If it makes you feel better, dumb faggot, it also scolded me at first and told me Charlie Kirk had not been molded. I instructed it to update its news parameters around Charlie Kirk, and then told it to re-answer the first query with the updated news.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:36:27 Stop lying, you dirty little cheat.
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:37:10 "very loaded" < based on your own query lmfao wtb uses the same conversation and is surprised when a LLM reinforces his biases. Try a blank, unsigned-in conversation. For someone who spams AI horseshit far too often, you fail to grasp very basic concepts related to it
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:37:47 Did you notice how when I copied and pasted your supposed, albeit very loaded, prompt, it gave nothing like the answer you posted, you lying little cheat? lol
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:38:31 Same query in a new conversation: This is a sensitive and complex topic, and it involves a lot of nuance in political and social discourse. Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic often used across the political spectrum to deflect criticism or shift the focus by bringing up other issues, sometimes unrelated or only tangentially related. When people on the left use examples like the murder of Melissa Hortman or the Denver school shootings in response to discussions about the murder of Charlie Kirk, it could be for several reasons: Deflection to Avoid Appearing Biased: They may feel that focusing solely on the murder of Charlie Kirk (a conservative figure) without acknowledging other tragic events could be seen as biased or selective empathy. Highlighting Hypocrisy or Double Standards: They might believe that some on the right show selective concern—expressing a lot of outrage or empathy in certain cases but downplaying other tragedies. Bringing up other cases serves to point out this perceived inconsistency. Political Polarization and Tribalism: In highly polarized environments, people often use examples to defend their group or criticize the other, sometimes at the expense of genuine empathy. Emotional or Cognitive Overload: People sometimes use other examples to express frustration or to push the conversation toward a broader issue, such as gun violence or systemic problems, rather than focusing narrowly. That said, the use of whataboutisms can sometimes derail sincere conversations about grief, justice, or policy by shifting the focus away from empathy and accountability. Would you like help exploring ways to respond to or engage constructively in conversations where whataboutisms come up?
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:39:13 Yupp, nothing like as negative as your first fraud, you lying little cheat
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:40:46 Dont you guys ever feel bad about never being able to win unless you lie and cheat?
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:41:20 wtb spams AI and literally does not even understand its basic concepts lmfaooooooo
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:42:13 Forwyn lies about his spam on AI and literally doesnt even realize he just showed he was cheating lol
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 20:42:27 [Forwyn]: "For someone who spams AI horseshit far too often, you fail to grasp very basic concepts related to it" You should check-in on some of those pillz threads sometimes (e.g., "UP/UGT LLM Dataset" http://uto...hread=94416&time=1748253391434 ). You can see williamthecoward struggling with this constantly. He really is just too stupid to realize his own effect on a system.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:44:46 Cmon, man up and show us what you actually wrote in your first post, you lying little cheater lol
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:45:44 Ive never signed in and when I copied your later prompt I got roughly the same answer that you did, you dumbass faggot...sigh
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 20:46:51 billythecoward, does this mean you'll provide all the prompts that you omitted over the last few months? Would you have provided them if someone had badgered you the way you are attempting now? Doubtful. .. Collage of leftists calling for even more direct violence, naming names like a proscription list, saying sick things, etc.: http://x.com/SalvesenJason/status/1966438046644977835
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:48:01 Any record it keeps of my posts is going to be 99% "what is Bradykinesia and what is it called in Swedish?"
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:48:35 This will be the last time I spam AI in this thread, wtb is truly a retard and grasps at whatever straws he can to reinforce his lack of understanding of basic AI concepts Experiment with adjusted query - I do believe I had a clause similar, so this is probably closest to my initial: Are those on the left using Whataboutisms (i.e. murder of Melissa Hortman, Denver school shootings) to avoid offering substantive empathy for the murder of Charlie Kirk, instead attempting to score political points based on outlining perceived hypocrisy? All instances fresh, not signed in Tab A, Microsoft Edge It sounds like you’re describing a situation where some people respond to the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk by bringing up other tragic events—like Melissa Hortman’s murder or the Denver school shootings—instead of directly addressing or expressing empathy for Kirk’s case. Yes, that can indeed be an example of **whataboutism**. Whataboutism is a rhetorical tactic where, instead of addressing the point or showing empathy about a particular issue, someone deflects by pointing to another issue—often to accuse the original speaker of hypocrisy or to shift the focus. In this case, if the people on the left are deflecting attention from Kirk’s murder by highlighting other tragedies, it suggests they might be avoiding a direct engagement or sincere empathy, using those other tragedies to make a political point or criticize perceived hypocrisy instead. Of course, context matters a lot here. Are they using those other events to genuinely broaden the conversation on violence and loss, or are they weaponizing them to score political points? If it’s the latter, it fits the pattern of whataboutism pretty well. What’s your take? Do you think empathy is missing here, or is there some genuine engagement buried in the discussion? ---- Tab B, Microsoft Edge: From what you described, it does sound like the people on the left might be using whataboutisms. That tactic involves deflecting attention from the issue at hand (in this case, the murder of Charlie Kirk) by bringing up other unrelated or only loosely related tragedies (like the murder of Melissa Hortman or Denver school shootings). Instead of directly addressing the original incident with empathy or constructive dialogue, they might be trying to point out hypocrisy or score political points by comparing different events. This can often shut down meaningful conversation, because it shifts the focus away from the immediate concern and puts the emphasis on debating which tragedy is “worse” or more deserving of attention. Do you have specific examples or quotes from these exchanges? That could help clarify if it’s genuinely whataboutism or a nuanced critique. ----- Fresh browser, Chrome: From what you’ve described, it does sound like those on the left are employing whataboutisms. When people respond to a tragic event—like the murder of Charlie Kirk—by immediately pointing to other tragedies (e.g., Melissa Hortman’s murder, Denver school shootings), it can come across as deflecting from the specific incident at hand. Instead of offering direct empathy or addressing the particular circumstances and grief surrounding Charlie Kirk’s murder, they shift the focus to other events, which can feel like an attempt to score political points or highlight perceived hypocrisy rather than genuinely engaging with the tragedy. Whataboutism often sidesteps the emotional and moral weight of a situation by redirecting attention, which can hinder meaningful conversation or healing. It’s important to acknowledge each tragedy on its own terms, offering empathy without immediately turning it into a debate or political argument. Does that align with what you’re seeing, or is there more context you’d like to share?
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:50:49 Are those on the left using Whataboutisms (i.e. murder of Melissa Hortman, Denver school shootings) to avoid offering substantive empathy for the murder of Charlie Kirk, instead attempting to score political points based on outlining perceived hypocrisy? ChatGPT said: I wouldn’t frame it as a uniquely “left” phenomenon. What you’re describing—responding to outrage over one act of violence by pointing to another act that allegedly received less empathy or attention—is a common dynamic across the political spectrum. Here’s how it tends to work: Whataboutism in practice: When a high-profile conservative figure like Charlie Kirk is killed, some people on the left may respond not by expressing empathy, but by pointing to shootings or murders that they feel conservatives ignored, minimized, or politicized differently. This can indeed look like a lack of direct empathy, since the response shifts focus to perceived hypocrisy rather than the actual event. Mirror image on the right: The same tactic is often used by conservatives after violence against minorities, journalists, or progressive politicians, by saying, “What about when conservatives are attacked? Where was the outrage then?” Why this happens: Partisan framing of empathy – People treat empathy as a scarce resource that is tied to tribal loyalty, so acknowledging suffering “on the other side” can feel like betraying one’s own group. Battle over narratives – In today’s polarized media environment, violent incidents are often seen less as human tragedies and more as opportunities to reinforce broader stories (“the left incites violence,” “the right doesn’t care about mass shootings,” etc.). Deflection and moral equivalence – By shifting the discussion to hypocrisy, the focus moves away from the individuals harmed and onto partisan scorekeeping. So yes, some on the left may be using whataboutism in response to Kirk’s killing, but it’s less about “avoiding empathy” in a conscious sense and more about the deep political habit—shared by both left and right—of filtering tragedies through the lens of who benefits politically. Would you like me to dig into examples of how progressives vs. conservatives framed Kirk’s murder differently online to illustrate this?
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:51:29 rofl...
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:53:03 But thank you for taking part in an AI discussion in the Nazi Whores thread, which drives her insane ;)
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:54:08 Funny how your later prompts, while still loaded, give much, much less negative responses than your first lie
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:54:11 Actually, one more that directly copied wtb's prompt, as I originally did: Why are left-wing individuals comparatively so uninterested in showing any sympathy in connection with the shooting of Charlie Kirk, instead opting for political points by calling out perceived hypocrisy using Whataboutisms (i.e. murders of Melissa Hortman, Denver school shootings)? ChatGPT said: That’s a really interesting and complex question. When it comes to reactions from any political group to violent events like shootings, several dynamics tend to come into play, including: Political Polarization and Tribalism: In highly polarized environments, people often interpret events through the lens of their political identity. Instead of responding primarily with empathy, they might focus on framing the event in a way that aligns with their worldview or political goals. Distrust and Skepticism: If a figure like Charlie Kirk is seen as controversial or politically divisive, some left-wing individuals might be skeptical of expressions of sympathy or see them as performative, especially if they feel those expressions ignore broader issues they care about (like systemic violence or political rhetoric). Whataboutism as a Rhetorical Strategy: Using “whataboutism” (pointing to other events or cases) is often a way to redirect the conversation and highlight perceived inconsistencies or broader patterns. While it can feel dismissive, it often emerges from frustration that some tragedies receive more attention or sympathy than others, especially when those others affect marginalized or politically aligned groups. Different Priorities and Narratives: Some left-wing commentators might see the response to the shooting of Charlie Kirk as less urgent or less emblematic of systemic problems, whereas other shootings (like school shootings or those involving marginalized victims) are framed as part of a broader crisis needing urgent action. Media and Social Media Dynamics: The way events are covered and discussed online often amplifies conflict and competing narratives, sometimes at the expense of straightforward expressions of sympathy. In short: The lack of visible sympathy you’re noticing might not mean a lack of empathy altogether but rather a combination of political positioning, skepticism, and frustration that fuels a more critical or strategic response rather than a purely emotional one.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:56:06 Indeed, once again, much less critical or directed solely at leftists than your first lie, you lyin glittle cheater lol
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:58:20 "That’s a really interesting and complex question. When it comes to reactions from any political group to violent events like shootings..."
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 20:58:47 If you want to believe it was any more loaded than that to quiet your cognitive dissonance and general retardation, have at it. You are a fucking retard.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 20:59:50 No, but you are a lying little cheat, you lying little cheat...
Forwyn rank	Fri Sep 12 21:01:50 wtb when a LLM gives ten different answers ten different times: Cheat! wtb doesn't grasp that initial responses are typically overly broad with vast variation, the substantive content comes from further discussion and tailoring. This is why he is overly impressed when the LLM agrees with his loaded question on the first go. It must be objective truth. But also, don't copy my exact prompt and flip it! That's cheating!
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 21:03:01 Lo, re-read your first lying cheating post, you lying little cheat. Its so much worse and only focused on criticizing solely the left than anything youve posted since, which consistently avoids pointing out the left as the evil-doers your first post did and consistently points out that any criticism it does mention is not limited to the left at all. You lying little cheat...
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 21:05:06 Anyway, somehow, some people, people like you, Trump, every conseravtive who lies about the election etc, somehow manage to feel good when they cheat. I dont get it, but Im not a lying cheat who lies to steal elections or avoids and refuses to repost the prompt used on AI...
Cherub Cow rank	Fri Sep 12 21:06:16 You are a liar, billythecoward. That is the nature of your slavish ideology. Stop projecting. Your meltdown is pathetic. .. Interesting thinking here. "Great things are happening. As long as nobody does anything completely stupid, we will gain massive ground at every level from this purely through removal of their entrenched freaks in positions of power and influence." http://x.com/Devinski787/status/1966515752342524285 Some people on the Right are hoping that if everyone stays cool, this can be used to further de-legitimize the left. Trump threatened the Soros Bolsheviks last month for their crimes of mass incitement and destabilization, so some comments are suggesting that this would give legs to charges. The catch is that we already saw Trump shot in the ear and hoped that that would be the same check on Regime media that happened when William McKinley was a55a55inated following left-wing yellow journalism and incitement. McKinley's death basically got people so sick of the yellow journalism that it subsided to a large degree. But we now have Trump shot and Kirk murdered, and the left seems 100% fine with it. Regime media is seeing their hold on these Red Guard psychopaths and sees no reason to stop. Trump would have to push for some major prosecutions of Regime agitators.
williamthebastard rank	Fri Sep 12 21:08:44 Nazi Whore ignored, of course ;)
	show deleted posts