Anonymous #1 3d

Find that very hard to believe Biden, Obama, and many other political activist went online and expressed condolences to Charlie Clark family

1

Anonymous OP 3d

There are several public videos of people cheering or laughing about him getting shot.

0

Anonymous #1 3d

I said political figures not regular civilians…

1

Anonymous OP 3d

And in response I was highlighting the moral decay within the left’s party at the societal level although it’s politicians played the game better

0

Anonymous #1 2d

Both the leaders and entire republican base cheered when 2 americans got killed by the government lol

0

Anonymous #2 2d

Who?

0

Anonymous #1 2d

The fact you don’t even know says it all lol. You’re so built into your echo chamber you didnt bother to even read about the americans who got slaughtered by the US government

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Who? You’re actively blocking me from learning if you refuse to tell me

0

Anonymous #1 2d

Which portion are you referring to

1

Anonymous #1 2d

You’re an adult why are you incapable of learning unless someone feeds it to you?

1

Anonymous #2 2d

Who was killed If I looked up america kills Americans it wouldn’t be specific enough It’s not the end of the world if I ask you to share information without. Like that’s how people learn by others communicating

1

Anonymous #1 1d

You didn’t answer

1

Anonymous #1 1d

You haven’t even tried to look it up? lmao

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I did when I asked who was killed Honestly you’re the one making a claim it’s not on me to look it up. And it would benefit friendly discussion if you could give me the names of the people you’re talking about so I could look it up without guessing. Unless you don’t know their names?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

I know their names. It’s peculiar to me that you don’t. You didn’t look it up, you said “if i looked up…” So go look it up, show me the screenshot of you TRYING then I’ll know you’re actually attempting to step outside of your echo chamber

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I am trying. The fact I am asking you to provide names is trying. That’s how discussions happen by communication facts and ideas back and forth. I will gladly go look up the events you’re talking about so we can be on the same page. I will not waste my time looking for them only to be unsure of them or if I’ll get confirmation of who you’re talking about.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

So which is it? To be clear Did you look it up or not? Because you have said all these things now. “If I looked up…”

1

Anonymous #1 1d

*in response to me asking if you looked it up* “I did when I asked who was killed” and now you’re saying you won’t even try to look it up if I don’t spoon feed you the info?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Okay my man it was good talking to you but if we can’t even give up a name without being difficult then this conversation will get nowhere. Have a good night.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Clarify that for me! I’m happy to give you the names I’m just confused why you lied to me

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Literally, Donald Trump.. are we not gonna forget what he said about Robert Muller

3

Anonymous #2 1d

I’m asking you for the names of the people who were killed that the right celebrated people and politicians. I lied to you?

0

Anonymous OP 1d

And he was wrong for them several conservatives called him out on that.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

You’re acting dense on purpose, that’s fine. Renee Good and Alex Pretti

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I’m really not. I really am trying to have a friendly discussion. Thank you for sharing the names. I can tell you that I saw many conservatives discouraged and upset at Good’s death. And I saw many of them question the justification of Pretti’s death. No one was happy they happened. Very unlike Trump’s statement about Mueller or the reactions to Kirk’s death.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Kristi Norm and Trump both called them terrorists. Thousands of conservatives justified it and even legacy media hosts on FOX and newsmax, big right wing figures wit millions in their reach for audience members reaffirmed they thought the world was better off without them

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Why are you intentionally dismissing the fact that Trumps admin perpetuated the lie that they were terrorists which objectively led to thousands upon thousands of right wingers parroting that talking point?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Justification does not equal celebration I am not dismissing anything. I can only tell you what I’ve seen and if I am in a right wing echo chamber it is odd that what I’ve seen are good people ashamed of how this country has ended up. Not them celebrating death or accusing people without cause.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

I’m aware, that’s why I’m explicitly saying things like “big right wing figures went on to repeat the talking point and go as far as to say we’re better off without them” and people in mass agree The right has a problem with vitriol and hate

1

Anonymous #1 1d

What you see isn’t the entire truth, you keep defaulting onto this idea that your personal experience is enough to justify your position. That’s not how reality works. You logically have to acknowledge things happen outside of the context of your own eyes

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Your point is based on your personal experience along with your bias against them. If people en masse agreed I would’ve seen that. What I saw was people saying this was an avoidable tragedy. I wouldn’t say that the right has a problem with vitriol and hate but chronically online people across the board do. There were people open about the fact they were glad Kirk’s children were partially orphaned. I do acknowledge I can’t see everything and I hope you acknowledge that as well.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

It’s not, it’s based on the general totality of opinion from the MAGA base. Your argument is flawed. I can easily say the opposite. If people on the right were against what happened I would’ve seen it. Therefore it’s not true because I haven’t seen it.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

The right 100% has a problem with hate. The current MAGA and republican base thrives off of it.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

How do you know it’s the general totality of opinion? At least you know I’m against it even if you’d believe I’m an abnormality. Hate is too undefined as a term. Are conservatives attacking people in the streets? And I’m not saying there aren’t hateful people but please acknowledge that they exist everywhere. Even in high school I had people I never talked to try to sabotage my prom date by telling my date lies about what I believe because I was slightly more conservative than them.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

It’s general math. That’s how. Yes they are. Your high school date is irrelevant in the context of what the conversation is

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Explain. How are you getting your data and doing your calculations? Is it more than you perusing Fox News. Are you personally talking to republicans and conservatives I remember the riots in 2020 when attacking in the streets was happening. Could you provide a few examples of who is being attacked and when? It’s not irrelevant it’s a real life example of hateful behavior coming from people because of liberal ideas. This is a personal conversation between two people not a presidential debate.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

I’m monitoring approval ratings in relation to specific issues and applying different criteria of approval for each comment made by big right wing figures. Sure! Most domestic terrorism has been done by people holding right wing ideologies, recently there was a conservative man who ran over protestors, right wing platforms are causing radicalism

1

Anonymous #1 1d

https://polisci.barnard.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/Emily%20Kramer%20-%20Right-Wing%20Extremism%20and%20Mass%20Shootings%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf It’s completely irrelevant. We’re talking about the right or left as a whole. I didn’t see you get sabotaged by your date therefore it just not have happened

1

Anonymous #2 1d

So you personally seeing it means it happened or not good to know

1

Anonymous #1 1d

That was your logic lol.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

That was not my logic. You claimed it was happening en masse and there was shared opinion amongst most conservatives. My response was sharing that myself and the conservatives I know do not share those opinions or those actions. Are you Emily Kramer?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

That was literally your logic. “If X thing were true, my personal experience would have confirmed it” You could know 1,000 conservatives personally and that wouldn’t not be the total. You never addressed that study I gave you!

1

Anonymous #1 1d

would not*

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Not if x was true I would’ve seen it It’s if x was a commonly held opinion like you claimed, I would know it. Like I know it’s a commonly held opinion that conservatives don’t like Biden or that liberals don’t like Trump. I literally asked you a direct question about it

1

Anonymous #1 1d

If I’m saying that a group en masse has this opinion, that definitionally means a minority will not. You asking that question doesn’t actually address the conclusion of the study. Address the actual substance of what that study is.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Unless that majority is 51% it would be almost impossible for a person of the broader group to never interact with that opinion on a larger stage. I was going to interact with the substance but background knowledge is important when discussing the validity of a study and using it form opinions.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

According to what? Impossible according to what metric? What background knowledge is required to invalidate or validate the conclusions and methodology of the study? The study lays out its methodology and researchers in it.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Common sense Well if it’s your personal study it would imply heavy bias. And I wanted to know if it was made for a high school class. Which considering its data is sourced from 2015-2019 would imply that. This isn’t a good study.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Your subjective opinion and view of what common sense is you mean? It would only imply bias if the methodology wasn’t sound. What portion of the methodology do you think isn’t considered logical or empirical?

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Okay You’re making a claim on present day using really outdated information. Information that is sourced from basically one source that is considered biased by many. There’s 3 citations. One is from a book about a definition that idk I’d agree with. Another is statistics from the GVA which okay fine the other is from the ADL which is often considered to have a left bias.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

It’s not enough sources to make the claim you’re making and even if it was it’s from 2019. Which ignores everything monumental that happened in the years since. Like the riots of 2020 or Kirk’s death.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

You not agreeing with the definition doesn’t make the definition invalid. You accept the GVA citation so that’s fine. Prove that the ADL had bias in this instance. Dismissing an entire source because you don’t like their general stances isn’t logical. If someone died and FOXnews reported it, I wouldn’t dismiss it because the claim is accurate.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

It is, it 100% is. Unless you can substantiate logically and empirically that they are incorrect. Prove to me that out of all the 2020 BLM protests that occurred, most of them were violent.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

Which is why I’m like whatever towards it The ADL has bias in general which means you need to look at their research with that in mind. Which doesn’t mean that I’m dismissing it just taking it with a grain of salt. One source is not enough to make any sort of claim about an entire group of people.

0

Anonymous #1 1d

So you’re dismissing information (that you can’t prove incorrect) because you disagree with the people who gave it? It wasn’t just one source.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I’m not making a claim about the 2020 BLM riots I’m saying that your sources are outdated because they do not include anything about present day or recent years. Your sources are more than half a decade old yet you’re using them to make a claim about present day motives and opinions.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I don’t actually know anything about that author or that book. I’m disagreeing with it cause it’s not how I would define extremism but I’m whatever towards it because you might define it that way, which is fine. That doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it. If I was, I would say that definition is incorrect because I don’t like it and you shouldn’t use it. There was only one source that made a claim. Which was outdated.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

You did, twice. Can you prove the study incorrect, yes or no?

1

Anonymous #1 1d

Here’s another article for you to ignore because you don’t like facts. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/right-wing-extremist-violence-is-more-frequent-and-deadly-than-left-wing-violence-data-shows This is even updated after the Kirk killing that comes to the same conclusion about right wing violence.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

I hope you have a good day and I hope your life is good, but I’m not gonna sit here and try to be friendly with somebody who’s determined to believe the worst of me. I really was trying to have a discussion for some common ground but we’re never gonna get anywhere if we can’t even agree on outdated information being outdated or not to insult each other.

1

Anonymous #1 1d

So after giving you an article with studies, updated to 2024 after the Kirk killing you decide to run away?

5

Anonymous #2 1d

The latest source in that article was 2021 even if the article was written in 2025 in fact the first source was a 2019 source. But I also shouldn’t be a hypocrite and continue to talk after deciding not to be insulted by you for no reason. God bless you

0

Anonymous #1 1d

Oh I see so you’re stubborn enough to want to just say your last piece to dismiss the article you didn’t even read or check the study of and NOW you’re going to run away. Thanks for proving the point that you would in fact ignore the data/facts lol. “I won’t engage but here’s how I’m justifying not acknowledging facts before I do decide to give up”

0

Anonymous #1 13h

left politicians were not celebrating. but i sure as well was. fascist down!

5