Anonymous #1 1w

?. You want hate to win?

13

Anonymous #1 1w

?

17

Anonymous dark_vad 1w

Right like this would be great but conservatives need to make the decision to break with maga extremism first

34

Anonymous dark_vad 1w

Yeah it’s not happening right now but maybe in the future that’s what I’m hoping for. It would probably take everyone uniting against a common enemy to put our differences aside like if aliens invaded Earth and tried to take over

18

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

did charlie kirk deserve it?

-8

Anonymous #4 1w

you are invited to the cookout

15

Anonymous #1 1w

LFGGGGGGG

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Absolutely not. He shouldn’t be confused for a martyr tho, he died because of the very policies he advocated for. Just one more needless loss of life in a country with a serious gun problem.

16

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

there’s an alarming amount of people who support his death, and more so active violence against figures they don’t like, it’s not just conservatives holding people back

-8

Anonymous #1 1w

Ah I see what you’re getting at; some type of argument that both sides need to let go of their extremism? Is that it?

15

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

pretty much but you made it seem one sided

-7

Anonymous #1 1w

Well sure it isn’t entirely one sided but it’s certainly not anywhere close to equal. America is undergoing a far right movement in government right now, not a far left one. Political violence has always been perpetrated by people on the right far more than those on the left and the rhetoric encouraging that begun on the right, often with the president himself.

16

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

broooo you guys burned down half of the metropolitan cities like 4 times in the past 5 years wym

-8

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

When a government takes a turn towards far right authoritarianism/ extremism (attempting to control higher education, scientific institutions, censor artists, violate the constitution…etc) then people on the other side of things are gonna be encouraged to say some mean things online sometimes. Still, there’s no way to say there is equal extremism, in government or general society

11

Anonymous #5 1w

And then there was a black and Indian VP and they didn’t understand how people can be mixed

8

Anonymous #1 1w

So interestingly enough leftist extremists are more likely to commit property damage while right extremists are more likely to attack or kill people.

7

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

sorry didn’t realize you were in an echo chamber my bad i’ll keep scrolling

-5

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

do you have examples?

-5

Anonymous #1 1w

That’s from an empirical study on political violence in America bro Wym 💀 if you can’t support your argument just say that

11

Anonymous #1 1w

I mean I can go find the study if you want, is that what you mean?

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

i mean most conservatives attacking people are individual based, and it likely comes from mental illness and extremism. There’s extremists on both sides, like the guy who attacked pelosy’s husband i group with people like luigi mangione. Individuals, not representative. There are drastically more organized violent outbursts from the democratic party

-4

Anonymous #1 1w

Well mental illness aside, the guy who came at pelosi with a hammer did so because he was a conservative who had political beef with democrats and wanted to harm a democratic lawmaker. Luigi was someone who was vaguely left and had beef with major corporations and attacked a ceo of one.

11

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Those examples aside, no, the majority of political violence is not found on the left, it is found on the right. That’s why I offered to find the study which analyzes all the instances of these types of crimes and found that the majority are committed by right wing extremists

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

I’ll see if I can dig it up for you rq

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

i mean you can argue semantics but my point is more so we can separate individual attacks with group effort. I watched the BLM and palestine protests destroyed LA

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

Ah yes mobs, those famously organized groups full of only people who are acting in the best interest of the movement

2

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

And again, do we really care more about property damage than human lives?

4

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

are you really making me choose one instead of just saying they’re both bad and both need to stop?

-1

Anonymous wubbalubbadubdub 1w

I have no hate for normal republicans as a democrat. Trump is the one that is ripping everyone apart and it truly sucks. It’s not even politics sometimes it’s the morals people have and supporting trump is disgusting. I have friends that are trump supporters so I can put aside differences but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s disgusting.

4

Anonymous #1 1w

No, I’m making the point that large issues and small issues don’t need the same energy to correct, they’re issues of different scales.

12

Anonymous dark_vad 1w

but you can’t condemn mass scale property damage because of a war on the other side of the globe

0

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

And I mean this is just talking about non governmental extremist actors, the og post seemed to be talking more about intergovernmental politics which is clearly severely right extremist. There is essentially zero left wing extremism in American politics

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Girl what? I don’t condemn any of it? Like what?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

If needed I think I also have a couple of articles that state that the far right is significantly more likely to commit more violent crimes. (I’d have to find them tho)

5

Anonymous dark_vad 1w

clarifying you are invited favor of mass property destruction

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Dude I mean think about the big picture of what you’re saying. The American hegemony is funding a genocide that is ending the lives of tens of thousands of people (mostly women and children) and the American government wont listen to the citizens who want that to stop, so protests are had and some bad actors cause property damage. You really think the property damage at the hands of rogue actors is the big issue here?

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

i promise you it’s not rogue actors, maybe rogue actors that initiate but it’s mass anarchy, i lived through most of it in LA

-2

Anonymous #1 1w

What the fuck are you talking about?

5

Anonymous #1 1w

Could you send me some of the protest material from the organizers where they asked people to burn down shops then? What part of the movement decided that property damage was going to be part of the program?

1

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

why can’t you just say it’s bad and it needs to stop

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Because I’m able to consider nuance? Yk some property damage happened during the civil rights movement, anti Vietnam war protests…etc. you think we should give equal airtime to condemning random property damage from agitators as we should to addressing the actual problem at hand?

3

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

Which is my whole point. America isn’t split right now because some people riot when protests happen. America is split because we have a right wing extremist government right now and most Americans aren’t extremists

9

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

sounds pretty extremist to me

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Protesting an American backed genocide is what’s extreme? Not maybe funding the genocide itself?

8

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Wonder who he means

11

Anonymous #5 1w

it would be so funny if this chud is unityposting to try and encourage antisemitism

17

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Groypers are subversive, this post is an op.

12

Anonymous #5 1w

I actually think peak liberal coexistence culture was a little earlier than that, in the late 90s, and then 9/11 is what broke a lot of people’s brains

1

Anonymous #11 1w

nah the tan suit was what broke it. also this idea of coexistence culture being a positive feels deeply harmful when you don’t acknowledge that the republican party of that era barely resembled the christofascist mess we see today

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I mean don’t get me wrong, the Republicans always wanted to break that coexistence culture, they were just a lot less obvious about it before the events that actually broke it

1

Anonymous #11 1w

absolutely, I’m making a point about how many of the calls for bipartisan unity are misguided when the current republican stance is so directly intolerant, nationalist, fascist, and authoritarian. In many contexts it feels like people are arguing that bipartisanship is a necessity of the legislature, but when the policies the GOP wants to enact are “disenfranchise millions of women across the country and consolidate power over elections on a level never before seen” I don’t want bipartisanship.

7

Anonymous xi.jinping 1w

They are a groyper, this is an op.

7

Anonymous #5 1w

Oh eww

9

Anonymous #9 1w

don't be shy op, why 109?

6

Anonymous fuuuckyikyak 1w

He obviously did… it’s the only just outcome for Nazis.

2

Anonymous #1 1w

because he was a nazi… and the only good Nazi is a dead one. He, like all MAGA figures are fighting for an agendas that involves the genocide of millions of people, a quick death is a mercy compared to what waits for them in the afterlife.

6

Anonymous #1 1w

Yes because the Republican party literally uses the government to do the violence for them…

7

Anonymous #15 1w

they literally tried to overthrow the government and murder members of congress dude, after J6 in any other country, the GOP would literally be a banned political party because its leadership ran a seditious conspiracy.

6

Anonymous #11 1w

I would say this is revisionist but I think that people are just so used to how toxic and divisive things have been the past 15 years that the 90s seem harmonious by comparison. Gingrich was an absolute menace that spun a lot of divisive rhetoric in that era that we’re dealing with the legacy of, we had race riots in multiple cities, the OJ trial, Waco and the OKC bombing… 9/11 at least united most of us, even if that didn’t include Arabs/Muslims and largely shifted to being at their expense.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

9/11 ‘united’ the US in Islamaphobia, and was then used as a justification for unending war in the middle east at the behest of the military industrial complex. Dick Cheney made money off the iraq war.

8

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Yep, definitely had bad outcomes overall, but for a little while there as someone who isn’t Arab it did feel like racial tensions, which were very present prior to that, kind of faded into the background and were forgotten about. Of course I’ve had Arab/Persian/Indian friends whose post-9/11 experience was completely different, I can only speak to how it felt for me as a Jewish kid in an area that was basically half black and half white.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I mean yeah, an enemy was created that the country united against. I really don’t think the perceived easing of racial tensions in the wake of 9/11 is the bipartisan win you think it is, it was literally the country just started being racist against someone else

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

Yea the bipartisanship didn’t last more than a few months, but the lessened racial tensions between black and white seemed to mostly continue until Obama started gaining steam and a lot of these boomer McCain voters came out of the woodwork with the “We can’t trust him” “He’s an Arab” bullshit. It’s not an excuse for the rise of Islamophobia and I’m not saying my perception of the aughts is accurate, or if it is that it’s a worthwhile trade off, just talking about how I remember things being.

1

Anonymous poopsock.pdf 1w

I’m with you but why are we using words like “unityposting” I think I might be ‘unc’

5

Anonymous #1 4d

Picture

1