Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

Probably not, he was embalmed and got the presidential treatment. Maybe in 100 years though

-5

Anonymous OP 13w

they’re already in his eyes

22

Anonymous #2 13w

And yet still living longer than you

-2

Anonymous #3 13w

Lmao who did that to the dog, I don’t think he like it

-3

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

Prove it

-4

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

I double dog dare you?

-5

Anonymous OP 13w

i’ll go dig up his grave just so i can shit on him

7

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

Not a good idea, you might get labeled a terrorist and generally speaking digging up graves is sacrilegious and frowned upon in almost every society today.

-5

Anonymous OP 13w

i’m already labeled a terrorist as i am anti-fascist i got nothin to lose

9

Anonymous OP 13w

no he is literally not. he is not breathing lmaoooo

9

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

You say that but what part of digging up graves is anti-fascist?

-2

Anonymous #2 13w

And yet still living, in a figurative way I know you know that’s what I mean.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

that’s not anti-fascist inherently i just am anti-fascist which is terrorism nowadays cause of the woke snowflake right

4

Anonymous OP 13w

Embalming is a stupid and in many way very evil practice. It’s certainly befitting of Kirk to have his corpse be turned into literal poison tho.

3

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

So whatever you do, because you’re anti-fascist, can be anti-fascist

-1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Nice opinion. But yea, maggots won’t be getting on him soon, if it’s poisonous

0

Anonymous OP 13w

yeah like fucking ur mom is anti-fascist

8

Anonymous OP 13w

Yeah man, chuds everywhere remember him while they have anything but sex

11

Anonymous OP 13w

keep talking and i’ll tell your dad to get up from the chair so it can be his turn

10

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Why would you think about that in sex? Do you?

0

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

You’re my hero for that one. I saw it and I was so scared you wouldn’t take it.

8

Anonymous OP 13w

You must’ve misread what I said

6

Anonymous woodyguthrie 13w

Slow down their partner, you might get in an accident. We can talk shit, but let’s not bring in each other’s parents.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Bro don’t be a dork.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

square

5

Anonymous OP 13w

I guess that’s on brand for a Kirk fan

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Maybe I did

0

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Whatever could this possibly mean

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Can you seriously not just be self assured in your own supposed victory? Are you this in need of attention?

6

Anonymous OP 13w

Nope, not living. After his death a democrat won in a special election where Trump best Harris by 11 points. His death matters so little that it didn’t even sway the crowd that voted Trump for president lol

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

I know I’m right, just wanted to see what you guys were doing

0

Anonymous #2 13w

Damn.

2

Anonymous OP 13w

your feelings being hurt doesn’t make those feelings true

6

Anonymous OP 13w

“I just wanted to see what you guys were doing” Right. Attention seeking.

7

Anonymous OP 13w

You just need friends man

5

Anonymous #2 13w

Nice assumption. All I’m saying is, international reaction…vigils…movements…100mil tuned in to the memorial, very telling.

0

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

I do though? You wouldn’t know me, so not sure how you would be in the position to say that lmao.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

So you’re just ignoring the calls to war or violence. Or the ones who have literally attempted or threatened to take people’s lives?

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Youre posting about Charlie Kirk positively bud, that usually doesn’t speak well to someone’s social life

8

Anonymous #2 13w

What? So somehow the fringe of that outweighs what is going on internationally. Brother two things can happen at the same time, this is just what’s mainstream.

-2

Anonymous OP 13w

It must bother you that the right wing commits the majority of political violence.

6

Anonymous OP 13w

So you’re happy to dismiss the multiple calls and attempts of violence as important? You don’t have an issue doing that?

6

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

It doesn’t really say much actually. I could point out that you have a non-anonymous account on a political forum, is this all the people you feel comfortable talking to, or is this where you vent your anger on randoms?

-2

Anonymous OP 13w

Doesn’t say much to you.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I don’t condone it but I’m not going to pretend like it’s bigger than the martyr. Most people don’t want war for obvious reasons, and it’s clear that the higher officials making posts did so out of emotional anger. If civil war was the common view, you wouldn’t see moderates looking rightward.

-1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

It only says something to you. Your point?

0

Anonymous OP 13w

If civil war isn’t the common view why are higher officials using violent rhetoric?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I’ve seen few even do that specifically. If we look at the actions, the widow gave her forgiveness, Antifa has been labeled a terrorist organization, and people are being cancelled by other people for celebrating or for condoning. Nothing destructive, other than the people destroying vigils and ruining murals.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

Have you ever heard of stochastic terrorism? I’m genuinely asking.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I have heard of it, and I know who’s been guilty of it for the last decade.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

The right wing.

2

Anonymous OP 13w

Okay, so do you think it’s reasonable to accuse a group of people for the murder before the murderer was even caught?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Like when people accused Tyler of being MAGA, or trans, of course not. Now we actually know who he is, and is arguably a fruit of stochastic terrorism of labeling entire groups of anonymous and unquantifiable people as Nazis and fascists who need to go

0

Anonymous OP 13w

And so when Donald Trump and other major right wingers went on their platforms and called leftists terrorists, or advocated to harm leftists or trans people. You’re aware that statistically speaking, some form of objective harm onto those groups came from that rhetoric ?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I think so too, and from the left’s rhetoric of violence against conservatives. Treating people with mental crises as criminals doesn’t solve anything, and neither does dehumanizing people you disagree with.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

I’ve literally done the math, trans has one whole order of magnitude less mass shooters than cis, if the source I used was correct.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

Hold on. Yes you do acknowledge that harm came from that rhetoric from the right?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Harm can come from anyone. There is harmful rhetoric against people from that group. Can you acknowledge that the left, particularly media and political officials have dehumanized and villainized conservatives and right-leaning people to where we just had the Kirk assassination?

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Yeah nobody is going to agree with you on that because it’s just not true. You can have a victim complex all you want but you aren’t under attack and conservatives definitely aren’t under attack. It was a lone wolf acting on his own not with the support or sympathy from “the radical left” like you guys complain

2

Anonymous OP 13w

You didn’t answer. I didn’t ask about if harm came from everyone. I asked if acknowledge the harm that came from the right doing that and continuing to do that.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I think there are particular political figures who have a strong voice who advocate for that.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

I didn’t ask if you believed that people advocated for that or not I’m asking if you acknowledge the harm that comes from major right wing figures who did that and are continuing to do that yes or no

3

Anonymous #3 13w

It’s true because if the left wasn’t doing it Kirk wouldn’t have been shot. There’s literal compilations of stochastic terrorism by Piker, Destiny, incite of violence from democratic politicians and stuff of that caliber including the disingenuous from largely left-leaning media groups. You’re digging your head in the sand.

-4

Anonymous #2 13w

That’s literally what I said

-2

Anonymous OP 13w

so yes you acknowledge the harm that Trump and other major right wing figures perpetuated and continue to perpetuate?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Yeah, and will you take responsibility for the damage the left has caused against half the population?

-2

Anonymous OP 13w

can you prove the majority of the left is engaging in rhetoric that creates political violence? Statistics suggest that most of the political violence that stems from this country happens from the right.

8

Anonymous #2 13w

Case and point

7

Anonymous OP 13w

100 mil tuned in? Cite your source.

5

Anonymous #5 13w

TPUSA Spokesperson Andrew Kolvet, these are numbers for their livestream

-1

Anonymous #2 13w

Nice reframing the question. I said the left media and influencers engaged in such ways that promoted their voter base to take violent acts. Take Hasan’s “hyperbole” comments about bleeding capitalists out in the streets, or Destiny’s comment about putting the fear in conservatives, or the countless democratic lawmakers talking about “civil war”. You have people running their mouth on news media, and we see the fruits with sep 10 and the thousands of voters supporting it.

-1

Anonymous #2 13w

Why do you think your party is failing?

-1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Fairly certain that’s been debunked, and if it is a right-wing thing why haven’t there been any riots after sep 10?

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Are you fairly certain or was it debunked? Because I don’t give a shit if you think maybe it’s not true. It’s true. If you have contradictory data please share it, otherwise your conjecture isn’t necessary.

6

Anonymous OP 13w

And while there may not be riots, the very same day Kirk died a neo Nazi shot up a school. Before that, a neo Nazi shot a democratic lawmaker dead in their home. Before that, a transgender neonazi wrote “Jew gas” on the tip of the gun they’d later kill children with. Before that, a right wing loser shot a hole in Donald trumps ear.

3

Anonymous OP 13w

Before that, a man in Buffalo drew swastikas on a gun he’d later shoot innocent people at a store with. Before that a man shot up a nightclub while citing Kirk as an influence. Before that, I’m not sure. There’s more I can just only remember so many of these at a time, and there’s like hundred to thousands of examples.

9

Anonymous OP 13w

And most of these examples happened recently lmao. The first three all happened within the last few months, and they’re not even the only recent examples.

5

Anonymous OP 13w

So the source is not independent, credible, legitimate or periodical. The source is publishing numbers to make the source seem successful. 👌🏻

0

Anonymous #5 13w

Countering Violent Extremism: Actions Needed to Define Strategy and Assess Progress of Federal Efforts - Government Accountability Office, there’s your source buddy

3

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

A Republican shooting a Republican is a joke. The Hornman shooter had No-King’s posters in his car, did not have a party affiliation registered, and coincidentally she had just voted for a Republican bill.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

How is transgender and neonazi not an oxymoron?

0

Anonymous #5 13w

Also your dicktator in the Oval Office straight up deleted an NIJ source that said the same thing

7

Anonymous #3 13w

I found the source by looking it up. Most were from white supremacists, skinheads, Islamic radicals, only a few from right-wing.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Yeah, I can substantiate that rhetoric from the right leads to violence from the right. That includes political violence as rhetoric is one of the biggest things we look at when investigating these people. Can you do the same for the left? I’m willing to condemn it if it’s happening.

6

Anonymous OP 13w

Democrats have been largely winning their special elections for senate and congress. Do you consider a democrat winning, to be failing?

6

Anonymous #2 13w

The left is and has been demonizing half the country, do you condemn that, and how it has led to violence and ostracizing regular people?

-1

Anonymous #2 13w

I’m talking about people exodus from the left to center, center to right, and how several counties like in Virginia and New Jersey are showing up red arm

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Maybe if you don’t want to be demonized you should stop doing evil shit.

4

Anonymous OP 13w

you’re talking about the millions of individuals perpetuating this? Not the people who have influence like how Trump has influence over millions?

4

Anonymous OP 13w

Also that’s some of the weakest evidence against those shooters being conservative I’ve ever heard. And even if that did all mean that the Hornman shooter and crooks weren’t republicans, there’s still like hundreds of other examples

4

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Wow so 1/3 of the country is evil. You all say this stuff to random people who even have a slight lean towards policies they feel will help the country. You don’t ever talk you just diagnose people. Any kind of moral grandstanding tells me what I need to know about how valuable your judgement actually is.

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

You’re so out of touch. Most people are not bad people, or people who have good intentions but don’t take the best actions. If you want to demonize go ahead, but don’t expect people to care for your scrutiny.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

why are you willing to dismiss when the right engages in behavior that is harmful or demonize certain groups and call its behavior that is on the fringe of the right, but not do the same thing for the left? You don’t know a majority of the left. It’s statistically impossible for you to. Why are you generalizing if that’s not something you’re okay with being applied to the right?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Who had more influence in the media? Or in Hollywood? Or in those places where regular people are accessed to the most? A politician is only as powerful as their ability to use these communications. Now it seems things have flipped, but for a decade it was Nazi this and Nazi that and now it’s conditioned people to reject any type of dialogue with each other the moment those artificial red flags go up

1

Anonymous OP 13w

The right had more influence in the media. Fox ran the Tucker Carlson show which was one of the most watched TV shows of all time with a live host. Joe Rogan, Charlie Kirk massive internet personalities. Mark Zuckerberg publicly pushed conservative views on Facebook and Instagram. Elon Musk owns Twitter. All things that for the most part ran under the Biden admin.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I’m not generalizing the left. This just true that the political bias of social media, tele media, and other forms of communication aligned that way, and that’s what people were fed for over a decade. Doesn’t mean everything had some kind of messaging, but news and discussions of what is right wrong and evil were aligned that way.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

You 100% are generalizing the left, you specifically said “the left has been demonizing half the country” How much of the left has been saying this? How do you know factually it’s not just a loud minority? What percentage is it and how did you come to that conclusion?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Oh wow that was what three years ago? Not a decade.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Why are you dismissing the fact that, right wingers controlling and dominating mass media for the last presidential cycle wouldn’t have had an impact on millions?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

When I say that I’m not talking about the voter base I’m talking about people with power over people, like in news media, politics, social media, and in places like colleges or universities. You forget that Fox (which I despise) is the only large mainstream red news channel, so it has to take the conglomerate of views from anyone red. CBS, ABC, CNN all these channels existed in majority.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

OK, who do you think has bigger platforms Donald Trump or live TV host Don Lemon?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I’m not dismissing. I just don’t think it’s comparable to the decade of left dominance.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Why are you comparing the President of the United States to Don Lemon? The President always has a platform, this one just happens to be good at yapping.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Why not? social media worldwide has dominated multiple countries over a regular mainstream media like TV shows. Not only this social media is more accessible and more engaging to young voter bases and we saw that in the 2024 election. Quality of the impact should matter don’t you agree?

1

Anonymous OP 13w

“Most Republicans are not bad people” Why do republicans commit such a disproportionate amount of political violence then? And why do they support a child rapist for President? What’s up with that?

5

Anonymous OP 13w

but who’s platform is bigger? When talking about how one side uses their platform to engage millions into violence quantify the level of the platform they are engaging on.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

this is also not taking into your account how you can make plenty of good faith arguments as to why Republicans are morally. bankrupt for their support of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement as a whole.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

we need to also quantify the level**

1

Anonymous #2 13w

I would say left-leaning has been dominant in multiple dimensions of media, at least in the realm of propagandizing people.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

based off of what proof?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

“They” ok Mr generalizer. It was only profound in 2016. And you need to use your brain and take into account the different amount of information people knew about a President, what they expected, what their core values are, and where their experiences led them. It’s only wrong to support a pdf if you support because of pdf. People can like one or two policies or combinations. You can’t just say everyone has the same reasoning. That’s the rhetoric I’m talking about here. Treating people like bots

0

Anonymous #2 13w

Observation. Most celebrities, media influencers are in left territory and unfortunately people like to base their moralities on celebrities. If you want to see how news media has propagandized there’s video compilations of how many times a voter base has been called Nazis.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

So if I claimed that the right is 90% nazis due to my observation would you accept that as objective information?

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Movement being made of people is going to have a natural mix consisting of mostly decent people and then opportunists. Politicians are usually messed up, as power corrupts people. If you want to talk morality you need to specify your structure and definition of moral bankruptcy

1

Anonymous OP 13w

when I’m referencing the Maga movement, I mostly referencing Republican support among the first Trump admin plans, and actions and this one.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

You used a statistical percentage, you should have a source for that. It isn’t hard to find what I’m talking about, because it is literally everywhere. Why do people call others fascists or Nazis? Where does it come from, and it’s usually some kind of misinformation or conditioning. I don’t think one side is evil and the other good. I do think that when you prioritize shaming voters and dehumanizing voters rather than debunking their officials it becomes questionable on whether or not this is

0

Anonymous OP 13w

an endeavor in good faith

1

Anonymous OP 13w

My source, like yours, would be observation. Do you accept my observation as objective? If not, that’s fine. I just have no reason to accept your observation as objective either.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

You don’t have to accept mine, but the information is out there if you look for it. It’s not normal for a party to go after and smear the opposing party’s voters. Remember it’s calling regular people Nazis. My entire family is rep, though I disagree with them on things, and so is my extended family. Yet somehow they’re all Nazis and fascists and a problem according to media people, because apparently they know them better than I do. Pmo

0

Anonymous OP 13w

I’m asking if observation is objective. Because you’re claiming that “most” of a group does X. But if you acknowledge that my observation isn’t objective then what makes yours?

4

Anonymous #2 13w

Me or you saying it’s observed isn’t an objective statement, doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth. That’s for you or I to find out if we wanted to. You might find what I’m talking about or not, and then I’d be wrong. I’m just saying this is what I see, and I don’t think it’s as logically implausible as most of a voter base or extremely large movement being Nazis.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

“It’s not normal for a party to go after and smear the opposing party’s voters” Trump with the biggest right wing platform that influences millions called people the “radical left” “the enemy within”

5

Anonymous OP 13w

“some truth” isn’t how we define reality. I’m asking you for proof of your claim. And you’re acknowledging that your claim isn’t objective. I’m willing to be wrong but you can’t make a serious claim without external proof in good faith

1

Anonymous #2 13w

He literally spend multiple years saying democrats were pedophiles who stole the election. Now, he goes on TV on a regular basis and says they tried to kill him, despite that just being factually not true. All he does is smear the opposing parties voters all day.

5

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Democrat lawmakers, which isn’t entirely false because a lot of people on capitol hill are. As long as there’s discussion those can be debunked, but I wonder who was cancelled and told to shut up for five years?

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Alex Jones was cancelled but that’s because he was slandering the parents of kids who had their children torn apart by bullets. I’m sure you agree that was overall a good act right?

5

Anonymous OP 13w

Okay do you want to acknowledge the fact that he’s objectively talking about the voters when he says “they tried to kill me”? Just gonna gloss over that outright call for violence? Okay whatever I guess, terrorists do as terrorists do I guess.

2

Anonymous #2 13w

If that’s true, and his slandering was baseless it would be good for him to be debunked, but if you cancel him people will want to know what he said and not why he was wrong. Canceling was abused, like witch trials. Some people used it for personal gain or vengeance. Thats not a power we deserve to have.

1

Anonymous #2 13w

“Cancelled” for making illegal and defamatory claims about people who lost their children tragically, calling them actors. Calling them evil. Encouraging people to harass them. Is it really being cancelled if you just do illegal shit and then get in trouble?

5

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Did he say radical? Huh, didn’t say all left. And if anything that was shit thrown at the opposing party of Congress to win the election

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

Debunked? He STILL says it. On a regular basis. And you support him.

4

Anonymous OP 13w

It is true. He went to court over it and admitted it to be true in text messages during the hearing. you claimed that you were in generalizing, but then said most of a group did this thing. Then when I asked you what your proof is for that group doing that thing, you said observation. You are generalizing a group influencing millions based off of what you feel is true and what you’ve seen which you have to admit is not the totality of all left encouraging events.

6

Anonymous OP 13w

Does he not call Kamala Harris radical as well? Wouldn’t that mean anyone voting for her is radical? Cmon man, weak shit. Wake up.

4

Anonymous OP 13w

Would you support a candidate or person who smears party voters?

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

If it’s harassment there will be consequences. Cant be persecuting thoughts and insult words. Let society do the natural thing and block people out, but you start taking the voice away it starts taking more

0

Anonymous OP 13w

Yes actually you can persecute people for saying shit sometimes, it’s called defamation.

5

Anonymous OP 13w

Dumbass

6

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

No, but that’s what you think. Like I said people are varying on what they know and think and come from. Should be directed at her, since that’s what normally happens in political arenas, smearing each other.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

Name a single democratic figure Trump hasn’t at one point called radical.

4

Anonymous OP 13w

Just one.

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

That’s not saying shit then. That’s defamation.

-1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Why would that matter? Political figures shit on each other.

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

“A vote for any Democrat in 2020 is a vote for radical socialism” - Donald Trump. But yeah man sure whatever he totally doesn’t think the entire Democratic Party is radically left.

5

Anonymous OP 13w

Trump: calls all people who vote Democrat radically left | V Trump: says the radical left is trying to kill him And this is somehow not him calling for violence towards democrat voters, and also he never smears Democrat voters

6

Anonymous OP 13w

Fuck I didn’t even finish the full quote. He also accuses all Democrat voters of “destroying the American dream” as well as being radical socialists who want to kill him. But yeah totally. You definitely think smearing a whole voting base is wrong, you’d never support anyone who did that, the democrats have to be stopped, etc etc

4

Anonymous OP 13w

Again this is coming after you smear a group by generalizing and saying “you all say this stuff…”

2

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Good thing I don’t support either party

0

Anonymous OP 13w

Only when its convenient tho. Prior to that you spend literal hours defending one side specifically.

4

Anonymous OP 13w

Scumbag.

3

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Just because I’m defending someone doesn’t mean I can’t also take offense. I don’t condone any of this shit, but how can I defend and offend at the same time, when the pressing matters right now have been decided by fate

-1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

Just because I’m defending someone doesn’t mean I can’t also take offense. I don’t condone any of this shit, but how can I defend and offend at the same time, when the pressing matters right now have been decided by fate

0

Anonymous OP 13w

You do actually, by spending hours arguing the bad shit isn’t real and doesn’t exist you actually do sort of condone that bad shit. I mean unless youre trying to convince me youre so stupid you genuinely were unaware Trump antagonized the Democratic Party. Which is bullshit. You’re just a coward.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Are you asking me to believe you’re that stupid?

1

Anonymous mushy.the.mushroom 13w

He says he doesn’t support either party under a post where he smears leftists, makes generalizations about the left; and then calls Charlie Kirk, a prominent right wing figure, a martyr. He also straight up started ignoring me lmao

1

Anonymous #2 13w

Again I never generalized, this is directed at the people in high places of media and politics. It doesn’t matter what you think, the reaction the world has to his death and to what he represents is derivative of someone who has become a martyr, whether anyone likes it or not.

1