Anonymous #1 6d

If you don’t think political violence is sometimes necessary in extreme circumstances, I don’t know what to tell you…grow up I guess?

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

Time to be rational. We are not in extreme circumstances for anything beyond rule of law. Vigilante justice is for the 3rd world. Let’s keep it that way

-2

Anonymous #1 6d

That is rational…why do you think I clarified it. Can you read?

3

Anonymous #1 6d

I have such awful news for you about women’s suffrage and civil rights and also labor laws

0

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

“Rational” and “political violence in the Us right now is necessary” bro please

0

Anonymous smithereen 6d

You cannot be serious. Neither of those is under serious legislative threat.

0

Anonymous #1 6d

LOL you just proved you can’t read 😭

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Yeah because we got them WITH VIOLENCE. There were actual firefights over labor disputes back in the day.

0

Anonymous smithereen 6d

Justifying, again

0

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

Is political violence in the current climate of the US necessary? Go ahead and “clarify”

1

Anonymous smithereen 6d

So fellas if he was a fascist. He wouldn’t have a mic for you to come up and express an opinion. That opinion you would express would have you in prison. Thanks

0

Anonymous #1 6d

You would look at miners dying in a mine and be like “have you tried asking nicely for improved work conditions”

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Given how things have really ratcheted the fuck up in the past 10 years? Uhhhh yeah.

2

Anonymous smithereen 6d

False equivalence. Kirk wasn’t a legislator.

0

Anonymous #1 6d

Holy shit! You’re so fucking close if you just scroll up and read

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Neither were industry leaders and the private agencies they hired to break up strikes lmao

1

Anonymous smithereen 6d

Agencies and agency regulations are part of the law still. To legislate means to make law. Regulations, while low on a hierarchy of authority, are binding laws. Kirk had 0 ties or authority to create any binding law

0

Anonymous #1 6d

And yet…I managed to clarify that.

3

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

You’re justifying political violence and claiming it’s necessary. I know exactly what you’re saying. I’m telling you you’re ridiculous. My parents have practiced the law and been leftist for 50 years. They say our times are unprecedented in how they are decisive, but that they’ve had greater times of fear for rule of law/fascism.

0

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

Just quite simply. Political violence should ACTUALLY be reserved for times of necessity. I don’t acknowledge there aren’t times that’s the case. To claim that’s right now is irrational as fuck, and devoid any historical knowledge

0

Anonymous #1 6d

Yeah…I don’t give a shit what your parents think bro.

4

Anonymous #1 6d

Dude. I’m talking about the fucking pinkertons.💀

2

Anonymous #1 6d

I don’t even think you know what the definition of violence is 😭

2

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

Good for you. They know and have experienced infinitely more than you. They went through Reagan. Through Nixon. Through Bush. Hell, even my grandfather isn’t worried, and he was a legislator in the 70s. You fucking young idiots who think you somehow know better are the only ones thinking this is a time of necessity

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Okay unc.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

I’m 21. Who are the people committing all these crimes of desperation? It’s people our age. If this was truly a time of desperation, don’t you think the ones panicking and acting out would be the ones with experience? Is that too rational for you?

0

Anonymous #1 6d

I’m not about to unpack the history of the United States post-WW2 for just to catch you up to the current conversation. Go bury your head in the sand with your parents, my dude.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

You can drink? Oh no

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

If you’re panicking and claiming this is a time of necessity for political violence, yet you are devoid of any understanding of our political history, especially recently?? You can pretty easily be called irresponsible at the very least. Disgusting is what I’d call it

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Panicking? Nah. I’m pretty locked in.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

From the same person who just claimed we were in a time political violence has become necessary. Inherent contradiction, pick one.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

You just keep using words that you don’t know the meaning of. I don’t think you know what “violence” is, I don’t think you know what “panicking” is, you quite literally glossed over the part where I’m essentially stating that Kirk WASN’T a legislator. You’re just a fucking idiot, man…no two ways about it

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

No, just simply put refusing to acknowledge it bc of how fucking hilariously dumb it is. So PV is now “necessary.” Yet this was misguided bc Kirk had no lawmaking power. What you’re failing to acknowledge is the downfall and ramifications of a political assassination of a high status political- a.la a Trump- would have. You, and we, don’t want to play that game

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

If you’re claiming our country is in such a state that political violence is actually necessary, you would be panicking, not “chilling.” I’d love to hear how you define and see those terms. Hell I’d love to hear an ounce of good reason PV is now necessary.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

😭 Thinking assassination or harming people are the only forms of political violence. Again, for the 4th time since you are being an intentional dipshit, I STATED THAT CHARLIE KIRK WASN’T A LAW MAKER. For someone with lawyers for parents, they should really sit you down and teach you what the fuck DE JURE means. Halfwit.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

You’re dense. Go ahead and read what I just said again, but slowly. I directly address your point that Kirk wasn’t a lawmaker. And I’d love to hear a form of political violence you find acceptable….

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

I promise you I’m 100x more qualified to speak on these matters than you are. Get off your high horse. For someone so adversarial and argumentative that I’m not reading what you’re saying, you glossed over every ounce of what I just said

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Burning down federal/state buildings depending on who is the offending party, destruction of property/equipment, etc. If masked men are coming to abduct someone, I’d say that’s pretty warranted to defend oneself. The only one on the high horse here is the one who invoked their fucking parents into an argument 😭 Grow up…for the 2nd time.

0

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

Their perspective is relevant to a conversation of necessity. Considering they’re both law trained(as am I, just to a partial degree), and have decades of experience with political happenings. Deny that all you’d like, it’s true. Destruction of property/equipment isn’t necessarily political violence unless you wish to adopt a very broad definition. You’re going to need to elaborate on your masked men analogy. I’m pretty sure you’re attempting drawing it to fascism but not well

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Hence why I said you don’t know what the fuck “violence” means. You can look up the definition if you’d like.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

Hey buddy. There is no single uniform definition of political violence under the law. If you’d like yourself or others to catch domestic terrorism charges to accomplish fucking nothing in a time of not yet imminent urgency, be my fucking guest.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 6d

You are way the fuck over your head in this conversation if you can’t even understand a basic legal concept that there is no universality of a definition unless otherwise specified in a federal or state statute. I’d suggest you see yourself out

1