Stolen from reddit
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
932 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
9413 readers
4605 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Like... Really?
What the fuck is wrong with this broad? That's abhorrent.
Not to mention the 30,000 sickos who liked this of course...
It's worse and worse the more you think about it...
George Floyd was murdered by the police, a group that's supposed to protect and serve the public. George himself contributed money to their salaries (as we all do), and they killed him in cold blood as he begged for his life.
We don't know why Charlie was shot, but the biggotry and hatred he permeated far and wide into this country is his legacy. Imagine leaving this sort of quote (below) behind. What a legacy to leave...
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage."
He then died in the middle of a "debate" where he was incinuating that all trans people are violent and disturbed.
“In my work with the defendants (at the Nuremberg Trails 1945-1949) I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy.”
It's actually, sadly, quite easy. In her mind there are no shades of grey, no systems, no circumstances. There are people who are Good People and people who are Bad People, and which people are which is self-evident and not as related to their actions as you might think. It's just a case of identity. They're Good when they do bad things, and Bad People are bad even when occasionally doing good.
And so celebrating the death of a Bad Person is honorable, obviously, and celebrating the death of a Good Person is sickening and deplorable. Clearly.
And if I agreed that this was the way the world was, I'd probably agree with her. Unfortunately for me, that seems fucking nuts.
I mean this dynamic is not only found on the right. Many Lemmings seem to be caught up in the same mode of thinking.
I hope we can all agree that people suffering and dying, in isolation, is bad. Obviously the implications of a death can vary widely and that’s where things get complicated. But the basic moral principle should be widely shared.
I think the current moral question society is wrestling with is along those lines. Something to the effect of, how removed from the outcome of a decision does one need to be in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for that outcome? Essentially, why is it OK for a CEO or a President to cause thousands of deaths by signing a piece of paper but not OK for that same person to go out and shoot those thousand people one at a time? The outcome is the same there's just more obfuscation along the way in the first case. The greed motivation seems to be the difference. The CEO isn't usually killing people because he wants them dead, he's doing it because he views them as acceptable casualties in his quest to make money.
Charlie Kirk is a great example of that phenomenon as well. He may not have directly shot anybody but he undoubtedly influenced people towards doing exactly that. To what degree should he bear the blame for their actions? He certainly didn't do it in complete ignorance of the possibility that people could die but does the separation from the actual crime make his actions morally acceptable? Does it make any difference if his motivations were money and power as opposed to bigotry and hatred?
To me, diffuse harm is very obviously just as bad, but it is more difficult to quantify and fix. Furthermore, these types of harms are not comparable to a mass shooter where the danger is ended by killing or capturing them. The harms are produced by systems. Does killing Charlie Kirk end the harms he committed or will the billionaires propping him up simply replace him with another identical mouthpiece?
Individual assassinations don’t usually solve systemic problems.
Oh yea the "Good Person" who literally died the moment he was using outright lies to denigrate trans people and minorities - whom he felt should be eradicated, just as Hitler did.
That's all part of it. Those people all fit under "bad people", and it's up to "good people" to protect society from them.
It makes more "sense" if you think of Jack Bauer as being a guide to morality.
Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
Splitting isn't BPD specific, but it is heavily associated with all cluster B disorders.
But why? Is it intelligence related or genetic or learned? Can it be cured? Does punching them help or make it worse?
Considering studies have shown that conservatives have, on average, smaller parts of the brain that are related to things like empathy and higher rates of aggressive personality disorders and the like, I'd say all of the above. Bigotry is learned, not natural, but people are also emotion based and don't like to be proven wrong, so facts and logic don't really convince many people. It's why so many conservatives only change their opinions when it happens to them, and why so many who do have it happen to them continue to do the thing that hurts them.
Not enough time in the day to unpack that, friend