this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
277 points (97.9% liked)
Political Memes
9413 readers
4718 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
I don't know that I love equating rhetorical violence with physical violence. Seems like a bad road to go down.
"That guy advocated that I should be killed, so I was justified in shooting him in the face," isn't my favorite take.
It's not just that he was trash, or that he merely advocated violence. It's that the violent threats he made were credible. The state isn't a magical filter through which threatening people becomes okay.
That guy advocated for systemic policies that did kill thousands of people
At some point a line has to be drawn in the sand.
While I agree with you in a general blanket sense, there has to be a limit here. You can't let someone have a platform where they constantly advocate violence against millions of people to millions of people and then give him a pass because they didn't commit any visible acts of violence himself.
Do we say that Hitler is only responsible for the people he himself killed, or do we see him as the murderer of some 6 million Jewish people? Or how about Joeseph Goebbels? He had little to no legislative power, and as far as I'm aware we don't have any direct records of him killing anyone. Does he get the pass because he was just the messenger?
I understand your position, and in a general sense I agree with you, but there's an important intangible threshold that some notable rhetorical violence has passed lately, and we need to treat that as the existential threat that it is. I'd love to deal with such threats via lawful imprisonment and rehabilitation, but the government is currently aiding and abetting these people, because they're the same people. So, what's the solution? Minorities live in fear, day to day, until they're the next people on the list to wind up in prisons, camps and asylums?
The buck has to stop somewhere, or we just accept the extinction of anyone outside of the right-wing sphere.
Look, Hitler and Goebbels both directly ordered the deaths of civilians. It's intellectually dishonest to say Charlie Kirk was doing anything equivalent. There's a difference between hateful and violent rhetoric generally and actively managing and overseeing death camps.
I agree theres a limit, but I would put it at when you're rhetoric becomes action. Both Hitler and Goebbels took active actions that lead to peoples deaths. Actions that were more than simple rhetoric in the public sphere.
The only difference is authority. If he had the authority to directly order deaths, he would have.
So scenes like the Pulse nightclub shooting, chuds with guns raiding drag queen storytime events, and all the other anti-lgbtq attacks that Kirk and those like him had a direct influence on through their constant flood of hate and calls for violence just don't count then, eh?
about 3-4 posts down I see a collection of a particular someone's quotes
I can’t tell if these are Charlie Kirk takes or Jerry Seinfeld
Look, I fully agree Kirk was trash. You're preaching to the choir here.
But I shy away from saying "any extrajudicial killing is fine when it's against someone I think is trash."
If he'd died a natural death the world would be a better place for it, but that doesn't make it okay that he was murdered.
It's a dangerous game when we just start saying it's okay to murder bad people without due process.
Killing fascists is good, actually
nope I'm joyfull that he is dead.
I don’t think many people are saying it’s ok he was murdered. Just that we aren’t that upset about it.
No. It's cool. Lots of people probably have justified hangovers from celebrating too hard
I mean, perhaps you're right, but I bet if we took a poll here we'd get a majority of people sounding off that it was a good thing he was murdered.
But maybe you're right and everyone agrees it was bad he was murdered. I wouldn't bet on it though.
Didn't happen soon enough.
Then you shouldn't have a problem with a comic. It's rhetorical after all.
I don't have a problem with the comic in the sense that I think the author should be shot, in the same way that I can have a problem with Charlie Kirk and not believe he should be shot.
I can disagree with people without wanting them dead, shockingly.
Kirk was trash, but that doesn't justify an extrajudicial killing.
Yeah, laying the groundwork for Genocide and fascism is way worse than an individual killing. Agreed! Thanks for saying something!
Well take it up with the courts that would- oh wait the US is built to protect the hateful and corrupt.
Look, I’d love to have seen Kirk punished, even just mocked by the entire general public as a little weirdo, but that’s not the kind of country he and people like him built. I feel not a shred of sympathy, not even the littlest bit, and I’m the kinda person who’s even apologized to furniture that I’ve bumped into and try to not kill bugs if I can do anything to help it.
There exists a legal term called "fighting words". If a man walks up to me saying, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU!", I have every right to shoot him.
We can easily argue that a direct physical threat isn't in the same ballpark, but I am absolutely gleeful that Kirk was murdered.
In Germany, as far as the law is concerned, disrespecting someone's honor is effectively the same as throwing the first punch.
A general call for someone's death has never been ruled as fighting words in the history of US Law. But I don't think that was really your point.
The thing is, I see people calling for the death of Donald Trump all the time. I don't think that means he's morally justified in killing those people.
That's effectively what this comic is arguing, but in reverse.
Look, I hate Charlie Kirk as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean we need to say that assassinating him was a good and just call.
He can be a loathsome PoS, and shooting him to death extrajudicially can be a bad thing. Both those can be true at the same time.
Honestly, I'm kind of sick of arguing about it. What's done is done. The guy who most everyone says, "who died?" when they see it, has taken over the news cycle. Trumps fake ear injury didn't get this much press.
it is a fine take. they should be shot in the face