Anonymous #1 6d

tbh I’d just be glad someone noticed me.

13

Anonymous #5 6d

fr

11

Anonymous #5 6d

George floyd practically killed himself from drug overdose. Charlie kirk was killed for his beliefs…

-24

Anonymous #7 6d

so close! george floyd was killed from a police officer kneeling on his neck till he died

113

Anonymous #4 6d

George floyd was a criminal with multiple arrests and convictions. He was also overdosing on fentanyl at the time and was said that he had a chance of dying regardless of the officer. You are defending a criminal that did nothing good for this world and comparing it to a man who did nothing wrong but exercise his first amendment right.

-13

Anonymous #4 6d

11 ng/mL

-3

Anonymous #4 6d

According to independent analyses of George Floyd’s toxicology report, the concentration of fentanyl in his blood would have been fatal for an individual without sustained fentanyl usage.

3

Anonymous #5 6d

Intellectual conservatives read the WSJ Opinion section, the National Review, The Free Press, and Reason.

0

Anonymous #10 6d

And that officer’s knee on his neck for almost 10 minutes was just the nice cop trying to help a poor drug addict :( “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

14

Anonymous #10 6d

“Intellectual conservatives” is an oxymoron

14

Anonymous #5 6d

The difference is that the dark humor about Kirk is punching up against someone with enormous power and privilege, whereas the dark humor about Floyd is punching down and was fueled by racist tropes. Idk where people get the idea that their bigotry is absolved so long as they claim it’s just humor (where’s the humor again?).

5

Anonymous #13 6d

Edmund Burke?

0

Anonymous #13 6d

Why are you objecting to the inclusion of important context?

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

A Nazi is dead. No one is condoning political violence here, yet there’s also no need to demand that everyone reverently mourns someone who made a career on excusing gun violence and actively on record calling for his political opponents to be killed. Some humans devote their lives to being evil and should be remembered as such.

11

Anonymous #10 6d

Because this “context” isn’t brought up in good faith and is only ever thrown out to absolve a police murder everyone witnessed. Grow up, wannabe provocateur.

3

Anonymous #13 6d

If I was on the jury, the farthest I would have gone is manslaughter. I’m acting in good faith by the way. Your telepathy skills need some work.

0

Anonymous #10 6d

Doesn’t take telepathy to read what you wrote and draw easy conclusions. Your hypothetical “manslaughter” verdict is a direct symptom of your sympathy for the life of a white officer and your devaluation of the life of a Black man that the officer clearly and obviously murdered for the whole world to see. Do you have a convenient excuse for Breonna Taylor’s murder too?

3

Anonymous #10 6d

Wasn’t aware that he subscribed to the WSJ, National Review, etc! Second rate thinker, only worth reading for historical purposes.

0

Anonymous #13 6d

The mind reading is back! Imputing tendentious beliefs onto your interlocutor is a petulant debate strategy. With that tripe aside, my “excuse” for the officer-involved fatal shooting of Taylor is the body of evidence that led to only one officer being charged and convicted of one federal charge. Notably, the conviction came after the officer was acquitted of state charges, and a mistrial was declared in federal court after the jury failed to reach a verdict on the same single charge.

-2

Anonymous #13 6d

Let’s recap: You claimed there is no such thing as an intellectual conservative. I provide an obvious counter example, albeit a historical one. You then act as if you initially averred that there is no such thing as a contemporary intellectual conservative when you did not. From this, I have a simple question: Are you a sophist? They have a tendency to move goalposts when engaged in debate.

-2

Anonymous #10 6d

triggered

9

Anonymous #10 6d

It’s really not that deep bro. I never said they don’t exist, just that it’s an oxymoron (jumbo shrimp exist, no?). You were speaking in the present tense, then moved to a historical figure as an example (because I guess there isn’t a readily available example in the present perhaps?) And lmao at you calling me a sophist and for thinking this is a debate (the lowest form of intellectual exchange, which is why conservatives fetishize it to death). I’m more of a pragmatist btw, thanks for asking.

10

Anonymous #10 6d

So you’re a triggered racist born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a thesaurus in your hand, got it. No mind reading needed! It’s called ✨reading what you wrote✨

2

Anonymous #14 6d

Nasty ass smile nasty asss gums

1

900 something likes vs your -6 lol 😂

1

Anonymous OP 4d

my bad gang i agree w u thought u responded to 13

1