The hypocrisy of the gop strikes again in Texas.

[Craig234]

I dont care what they said. They were wrong.

So, you go from 'it didn't happen' to 'you don't care'. Good argument.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I agree, the kid should not be expelled.

Indeed.

He should have gotten the shit kicked out of him though. Free speech never meant free of consequences.

Being a callous jerk doesn't justify being assaulted either, and that carries consequences too. The law doesn't protect people who assault others just because what someone said was bad.

 

[CSharp]

Uh huh, no thoughts about the patriots of 1/6?

I'm with you on that. 1/6 is closer.
Still, what the kid did was more like someone showing up at your moms funeral yelling about what good blowjobs she gave.

 

[bongsaway]

LOL, are you serious?

Do you know anything about American history? Yes, he's serious because it did happen. When whites in the south openly and brazenly, with laughter, called people the N word, were they trying to get a response? One they could maybe use to lynch the person?

 

[bongsaway]

Only from bullies.

No wonder so many people voted for a bully.

That's what they are.

And they think being a bully is OK.

Hello. No, it is not OK.

Being a bully is stupid.

Trump strummed the chords of every one of their fears which manifests itself in the form of hatred.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Buuuut what? Charlie Kirk didn't deserved to be killed, buuuut he wasn't the saint he's being portrayed as either?

See, heres the thing......I can believe that Charlie Kirk was a racist misogynist piece of shit and still not think that he deserved to die. That doesn't mean that when one of his supporters tries to paint a picture of him that I don't think is accurate that by pointing out what I think are inconsistencies in their logic I am advocating for him to have been killed. The two issues really are not one and the same.

100% this.

 

[bongsaway]

Standard right-wing behavior: selective enforcement. If their opponent does it, moral outrage, drastic punishment. If their side does it, not only zero criticism or punishment, but often reward. Can anyone name one punishment for mocking the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband? trump mocked the attack. Any criticism from Republicans? I didn't see one word.

Hell many loved they fact he was attacked.

 

[CSharp]

Do you know anything about American history? Yes, he's serious because it did happen. When whites in the south openly and brazenly, with laughter, called people the N word, were they trying to get a response? One they could maybe use to lynch the person?

And just because it did happen doesn't make it magically relevant to the discussion.

 

[bongsaway]

You godamn well know that isn't what we are discussing. Take your race baiting bullshit somewhere else.

Stating facts is race baiting in your world?

 

[Craig234]

Hell many loved they fact he was attacked.

Charlie Kirk said a "patriot" should bail him out. So Kirk supported/mocked attempted political murder. Hm.

 

[bongsaway]

No, it really isn't. It's just amazing how you guys turtle to racism no matter the topic. I mean, it's ****ing hilarious really.

Did you read the story about how the writer of Bear was pulled off a train because of an accusation by an elderly white woman? Did I mention the writer was a black man? This was recent, I posted a link to it in another thread, with video.

 

[Craig234]

Stating facts is race baiting in your world?

His argument is that any race issue not about racism against whites is race baiting, it appears, like so much of the right.

 

[Craig234]

And just because it did happen doesn't make it magically relevant to the discussion.

No, the fact that it's about the topic of when 'provocation' justifies violence makes it relevant, and your apparent lack of values or understanding of racial justice, and hostility to that justice, makes you deny it's relevant.

 

[Buster Keaton]

Like how we all laughed when abc put kimmel back on the air. It's the right who wanted him removed, you know the party that is all about law and order, the constitution and small government.

Great
I get to laugh at Kimmel some more

 

[Questerr]

And just because it did happen doesn't make it magically relevant to the discussion.

It is relevant. You are claiming “provocation” justifies assault. But you want to dance around when presented with historical examples of “provocation” resulting in assault.

 

[HenryChinaski]

I agree, the kid should not be expelled. He should have gotten the shit kicked out of him though. Free speech never meant free of consequences.

Internet tough guy advocates violence.

 

[CSharp]

It is relevant. You are claiming “provocation” justifies assault. But you want to dance around when presented with historical examples of “provocation” resulting in assault.

Not sure how you think you're scoring points. This is not about disgusting racist jim crow era behavior, this is about a person intentionally inciting a response. He had no other reason to reenact a murder at the victims memorial.
This does not excuse actions of biggot southerners - unless your point is that blacks truly where provoking whites. I don't believe that. Maybe you do.

 

[CSharp]

Internet tough guy advocates violence.

meh, he deserved it.

 

[Questerr]

Not sure how you think you're scoring points. This is not about disgusting racist jim crow era behavior, this is about a person intentionally inciting a response. He had no other reason to reenact a murder at the victims memorial.
This does not excuse actions of biggot southerners - unless your point is that blacks truly where provoking whites. I don't believe that. Maybe you do.

Blacks protesting Jim Crow were intentionally inciting a response. Should they have been assaulted?

Do you think sit-ins or using “white only” facilities weren’t designed to provoke responses?

You could always just admit you don’t actually believe that “provocation” justifies assault. Or you could admit to being a hypocrite. Either would be true.

 

[Citizen]

No that's not what I'm saying. First, what this kid did was not what kirk was doing. Second, I said the kid deserved an ass kicking (he did), I did not say nor implied he should be killed.

So if someone kicked Kirk’s ass for his hate speech, you would’ve been OK with that

 

[CSharp]

So if someone kicked Kirk’s ass for his hate speech, you would’ve been OK with that

If he did similar to what this kid then yeah.

 

[CSharp]

Blacks protesting Jim Crow were intentionally inciting a response. Should they have been assaulted?

Do you think sit-ins or using “white only” facilities weren’t designed to provoke responses?

You could always just admit you don’t actually believe that “provocation” justifies assault. Or you could admit to being a hypocrite. Either would be true.

I will not respond to this line of reasoning again. Feel free to keep shaking your race baiting fists though.

Just a quick suggestion, you should try debating without devolving to race. You know, just to see if you can do it.

 

[Questerr]

I will not respond to this line of reasoning again. Feel free to keep shaking your race baiting fists though.

Just a quick suggestion, you should try debating without devolving to race. You know, just to see if you can do it.

You could simply admit that provocation does not justify assault.

But you’d rather dance around the issue than do that. Because you know your argument is on the same side as white racists enforcing Jim Crow.

 

[Ikari]

You do whatever mental gymnastics you want to condone douchery. I can't stand it. So, mr internet tough guy, you keep provoking people to punch you in the face - don't be surprised when someone finally does it.

Kind of like what happened to Kirk, eh?

Just because people may get pissy at what folk says doesn't mean that they are justified in the use of force against them. It's time to behave as adults.

 

[HenryChinaski]

meh, he deserved it.

Keyboard warrior champions violence, Handling problems like emotionally disturbed 12 year olds.