Anonymous #2 1w

Okay and? You’re the exception and not the majority

25

Anonymous OP 1w

There should be no reason why what he did was ok. It’s just not sane. If you think it is you should be mentally instituted

11

Anonymous #7 1w

do you have twitter lmao

18

Anonymous #4 1w

Absolutely not. Nor does any sane person

-4

Anonymous #7 1w

what OP is referencing is the fact that some people did make hella memes about joe bidens prostate cancer and they still make them about george floyds death. and there is an overlap between those people and Kirk fans, tho not everyone, but thats the point theyre making

14

Anonymous #4 1w

I feel like advocating for and defending killing a political opponent is slightly different than those

-3

Anonymous #7 1w

bruh. who advocated for or defended his death?? saying ur “lowkey glad it happened” after the fact or making jokes is very different

13

Anonymous #7 1w

not a single person has said that the shooter had the moral right to do it. in the worst of it they are simply saying treating the situation as an ironic joke

7

Anonymous OP 1w

If I’m the exception you should talk to more people from the other side in an honest and kind manner. We should all have more empathy for each other

0

Anonymous OP 1w

This shows you have no idea what the majority is

0

Anonymous #4 1w

If you’re joking about being glad he’s dead, that’s still endorsing it, even if you hide behind irony. That is advocacy, whether you admit it or not

0

Anonymous #9 1w

okay i can get behind that, if you also agree that all dark or insensitive humor is also endorsing whatever they’re making fun of

2

Anonymous #4 1w

That’s a false equivalence. Dark humor about abstract or taboo topics isn’t the same as celebrating the real death of a specific person. One is tasteless, the other is endorsement of the outcome. Your arguments are hilariously weak

4

Anonymous #9 1w

what defines an abstract or taboo topic? taboo like death? would you say it is wrong to make fun of or talk insensitively about an event in which people died? could you define the parameters or what is okay or not for me. i rlly am willing to agree with you but im not sure where u draw the line

3

Anonymous #4 1w

it sounds nice in theory (like michael obama said that before trump nominated gorsuch) but decency doesn’t matter when they will just stoop lower to get what they want. their whole playbook is never play defense so ig we just gotta play ball

2

Anonymous #4 1w

You’re blurring categories that aren’t the same. Joking about abstract dark humor topics (dark scenarios in fiction, death as a concept) is detached from reality. Celebrating the actual death of any real person, on the other hand, is inherently an endorsement because the outcome actually happened. The difference is whether the humor is hypothetical or tied to a specific real event. Pretending those are equivalent is exactly the false equivalence I called out

0

Anonymous #2 1w

*proceeds to justify Floyd’s murder* but criticizing Kirk’s actions is too far. got it

6

Anonymous #11 1w

you have no critical reading skills, they said dying not dead

11

Anonymous #12 1w

the call is coming from inside the house i fear…

-3

Anonymous #4 1w

lmao im not gonna argue with someone who is at a 3rd grade reading level

6

Anonymous #12 1w

the comment u replied to is saying the difference is that biden didnt actuallt die (so its “less offensive” and additionally that biden spoke in support of kirk so we should too

-2