Bro was being racist literally the moment he was shot
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
915 points (98.8% liked)
Political Weirdos
1153 readers
899 users here now
A community dedicated to the weirdest people involved in politics.
- Focus on weird behaviors and beliefs
- Follow Iemmy.world TOS
- Don’t be a jerk
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
He was deliberately framing questions as accusations against trans and minorities. That’s pretty much the skill he employed besides dumping completely unrelated and inaccurate statements so quickly it prevented any concise rebuttal because it was so full of shit you didn’t know where to start.
His career started with him being racist, and it ended the same way.
Not sure why you gotta explain why “seeing a black pilot and wondering if he’s qualified” is racist. If you need further explanation, you may have more wrong with you than just racism.
You took that out of context!! /s
Fucking reddit is just slithering with people saying that shit and that he was a good Christian who never hurt anyone, and that he was murdered for "his opinion". Most of them have gotta be bots. I cannot fathom arguing so hard to defend that fucking Nazi.
Most of them have gotta be bots. I cannot fathom arguing so hard to defend that fucking Nazi.
They really are that fucking stupid, and any of the accounts that are bots are just parroting the morons who really do believe that shit. 77 million people in the US voted for Trump, some of them are on reddit.
I mean I agree a lot of people are that stupid. But the way a lot of these accounts write and will reply ad infinitum makes me think they're not real people.
Morons parroting propaganda looks a lot like bots parroting morons parroting propaganda. Plus a lot of people are terminally online and full of piss and vinegar. Heck the most prolific posters on the Fediverse are active nearly all of their waking hours.
Sure, it is probably amplified because that is how things go. They are probably in the middle of the pack to avoid standing out and the absolute worst or 'obvious' bots are probably just people who post too much and have a shitty worldview.
they aren't bots dude.
sorry if it upsets you, but most americans are quite conservative. even so called liberal/left democratic voters.
if you spend some time abroad you'll be shocked at how fare more left/liberal most europeans are than americans. also canadians.
fwiw most progressive/liberal types i have are all anti-racist... until they see a black/non white person walking down their street at night. then all the sudden they are 'worried' and 'scared'. and if i laugh at that bullshit and tell them it's just a preson minding their business... i'm a jerk who has no empathy for them and is 'privledged' to not fear black people or something...
No true Scotsman indeed!
My question is why murdering someone for their opinion is necessarily bad, if someone is openly advocating for slavery then I don't think it's beyond reason to want to kill them. Same if someone is proposing child marriage as a concept. L
It leads super quickly to a might makes right society. It ensures that "minority" opinions (like LGBTQ+ should have rights) are either closeted or wiped out.
Saying advocating for something awful like slavery or genocide is just an "opinion" is a bit of an understatement. And I don't really find it useful to debate what is and is not a murderable offense in general. I would say killing is always wrong, but in cases as extreme as trump, it would definitely be justified. I wouldn't say Charlie Kirk should've been murdered but also he ought to be dead.
Same shit I've been seeing all day in the comment sections related to the Framework / DHH racism thing. So many self reports; like yikes. They're all realm emboldened to say the quiet parts aloud.
“Never Explain. Your Friends Don’t Require It, and Your Enemies Won’t Believe You, Anyway.”
That’s the problem with the far right mindset. You can offer whatever factual and objective evidence you want and they just don’t care. They’re not going to read it and they don’t want their mind changed. Some say your should present the evidence anyway for others to see, but I’ve never seen anyone say, “I was reading this toxic argument and the one person totally changed my view based on the presented evidence!” The one thing I can say is that someone posting factual evidence is that at least those who do know and care understand they’re not alone.
I get where you’re coming from, have felt the same before, and would agree that it’s important to pick one’s battles. That said, I have 100% been the person you describe whose opinion on a topic was changed just because one person took the time to disagree and explain why.
In fact, since it’s often a thankless chore to counter a local consensus or hive-mind opinion using evidence or a well-constructed argument, I’ve come to really appreciate when anyone attempts to do so respectfully and in good faith, even if I’m ultimately not convinced.
WRT Kirk, there’s little room for nuanced opinions: one either knows nothing about him or takes his far-right christian nationalist and white-supremacist statements for what they are. Since fewer people will occupy that first category over time, attempts to reach them will see diminishing returns, so I think it suffices to just direct them to a reputable source re: his statements.
I have a similar philosophy, but framed a little differently: never argue with an idiot, because the best possible outcome is you’ll win an argument against an idiot.
So it’s more kind of “pick your battles”. Or, to widen the application beyond just discussion - always think “why am I doing this? What am I hoping to achieve?”
Since fewer people will occupy that first category over time
not anymore!
Honest to God I wish someone had told me that line when I was a kid.
Was at the bar this weekend. Ended up briefly chatting with a couple. The guy randomly says "How do you feel about Charlie Kirk being killed?" I knew I was dealing with an idiot at this point because who randomly brings up something like that at a bar with a stranger? I just cut to the chase and said "I'm not happy he was assassinated but I'm super happy he's dead." They immediately got all upset and flustered so I just said "Did you ever actually listen to him?" They stared at me blankly so I just got up and walked away.
No point in wasting time with dipshits.
I can't wait for a year from now when Charlie Kirk will be utterly and completely forgotten.
I would have responded to that question by saying that 'Charlie Kirk was a scumbag, his assassin is a 4chan nihilist groyper scumbag, and his widow is a scumbag'.
Queue family guy, who starts a conversation meme
Here's a smart sketch breaking down the right-wingers' little playbook that explains why they "don't sound racist" to their listeners.
Also shout-out to "The Alt-Right Playbook" by Innuendo Studios. Deeper dive into all of the propaganda the alt-right employs.
Also they are doing their best to delete all the shit he actually said because they want him known as a 'free speech and open debate' hero when he was an intensely hateful man who spent his entire life spreading hateful ideology that has done very real material harm to many, many people.
I try to explain this phenomenon like this: for them racist just means "something absolutely bad which is not allowed". So when they see someone they like or themself say something racist it can't be racist because they are not bad and/or they are saying it without bursting in flames.
for them racist just means “something absolutely bad which is not allowed”
Which is where you get "Self-Hating Jews" and "Anti-White Racism" and "Men are the Real Victims" rhetoric.
In the end, its just another form of censorship (increasingly state-authorized), where "Racist" is a thing you can say to shut someone up, regardless of the actual content of the message.
And, in a way, they're right. "Racism" is a political term with the ultimate intent to silence words and ideas that are distasteful and destructive to the social fabric. But then Being Racist is also a political act, intended to silence words and ideas that are distasteful and destructive to a racist polity.
it can’t be racist because they are not bad
"It's not racism, its race realism" was the trope back in the '00s.
Before that, you had Charles Murray and "The Bell Curve", which intended to re-introduce scientific racism through sociology and statistics.
Institutionalizing and propagandizing racism has been an ongoing project within the conservative movement straight back to the Plantation Era. Hell, back to the early Colonial Era. Racism as a heuristic and a rationalization for eugenics has been on the books for centuries. Worked great when the majority always qualified as "white" and you could paper over holes in your theory by importing new kinds of "white" people (Irish, Germans, Slavs, East Asian anti-communists, Cuban refugees) into the zeitgeist.
The big hang-up that modern white nationalists face is that they're not the biggest swinging dicks on the global stage anymore. So how do you explain your racial superiority when Old World Europe has collapsed, the American economy is thick with non-white plutocrats, and the whitest corners of the country are increasingly mired in extreme poverty?
MAGA is the white nationalist's effort to reinvent their corrupt failed electoral strategy as a fascist activist movement.
I live in a very gentrified part of my city and some security guards will still follow me around while they let white people freely walk around. And yet they always act shocked and insulted when I call out their racism. They couldn't possibly be racists — not them!
If those things are racist then it means they were wrong and it could also mean they are a bad person for supporting such things.
That’s enough for the human to animorph into an ostrich.
So when's that guy getting canceled/fired/whatever?!
/s
People still talking about that nobody?! Forget him and move on to important matters like the Nazis regime shooting citizens and kidnapping Americans.
You know what they say, "if it steps like a goose..."
That is because in their mind, racism equals with racial prejudice with ill intents for the sake of evil. The moment you have some acceptable reason, be it some old "trauma" or statistics, all while you at least treat "the good ones" a little bit better, you're okay.
A decade plus ago, I asked these kinds of people to describe what Hitler would have been. They all described a literal saturday morning cartoon villain doing evil for evil's sake. They were shocked to learn the nazis spread the same greedy Jew stereotypes (among others) to justify their genocide they also believed in. Worst was one of my former history teacher, who said Hitler's biggest crime was not presenting crime statistics to the population.
Conservatives believe in unequality, in an almost "corpo DEI" fashion celebrating it, except it boils down to stripping women's rights because "motherhood is beautiful", and collectively punishing blacks by letting the police to shoot them on sight for "suspicion of crime".