Stolen from reddit
Ah, the double standards of fascists: they can be absolute cunts, but everyone must be super nice and considerate to them.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
755 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
9413 readers
4651 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
the kind of respect that the right demands is the respect of an authority and superior. the maximum respect that the right gives is the respect of a human. but if you're in the out-group then more is demanded of you and less is given. it's very contradictory but also self-consistent because they truly feel superior, and truly feel you are subhuman. you don't need to bow down to subhuman logic if you are of the superior species.
So... They're basically batshit crazy?
Let me quote your idol's second favorite book, Laura:
“good publicity is preferable to bad, but from a bottom-line perspective, bad publicity is sometimes better than no publicity at all. Controversy, in short, sells.”
― Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal
You, your boy DJT here and hell, even Charlie Kirk himself, got famous by acting like complete fucking ghouls. "Making people famous" for acting ghoulishly won't have the effect you think it will.
Respect is a Social Contract, not a Right.
Did she really spend her night doing that? Or maybe just downing a few glasses of wine and some prescription meds (wink, wink) and doing whatever nasty people do? We may never know. Why would she care anyway? Were they BFFs or something?
People condemning "political violence" and sending "thoughts and prays" to Kirk are really telling on themselves that they only care when a peer who shares their class interests even if they occasionally cared dies.
It's not even sharing class interests. It's class worship and gullibility.
Most Republicans seem to still think that it's possible to live the American Dream (tm) and get rich through nothing more than merit, hard work, and effort.
When you point out the existence of the welfare cliff, boots theory, market capture made possible by under-regulation, and that the only way to gain wealth through merit alone is to have already started with more capital than your peers, they just start defending the rich because "they worked hard to earn their wealth" and calling you a socialist like that's a bad thing.
It's infuriating.
I'm sure she tweeted the same thing a few months back when those democratic politicans were assinated right? RIGHT?
Ask this cunt all the shit she'd said about the Minnesota incident or the hammer incident, fuck this cunt. Imma turn the death of gop politicians into a death drinking game I have an idea
I'm going to make you wish you never opened your mouth.
I'm going out on a limb here and guessing she is a free speech absolutist
Shot through the neck and you're to blame, you give Trump a bad name 🎶
You played your part, and they played their game,
Charlie
You give Trump a bad name.
Shout out to Charlie Kirk for not saying anything racist for a whole day
He also hasn't lost a debate in that timeframe. New personal best.
somebody needs to make that a website
days since he lost a debate
Real time fact checking.
Can someone with an account please comment that under there
I wouldn't comment on that platform, even if it was important.
He didn't get but halfway
You're right, we know the moment he last said something racist with exact precision cause he was doing it as his neck sprung a leak.
Unless he managed to gurgle something racist at the paramedics, but I think that's unlikely.
"b-b-bullet...was...woke..." dies
load more comments
(1 replies)
Listen, creature, it is very much already not in vain. There was never any question of that.
I gotta say, cheering on the death of somebody you hate is one thing. Cheering on the death of a poor drug addict murdered by police is a very special kind of evil.
But he was black, so she was hating him as well.
She plays a similar role to Charlie Kirk in the whole fascist agenda and is about as approachable. She should be careful.
An important distinction is that George Floyd didn't wish harm on people.
Didn’t he rob a pregnant woman at gunpoint?
More importantly, he tried to purchase something with a counterfeit $20 bill. Which we all know is far worse than all the deaths Charlie Kirk was directly responsible for.
No he legally tried to purchase something with a 2 dollar bills. And the dumb fuck cashier or whatnot thought they were fake. That is the way I heard it.
But did he wish them harm? Was the woman pregnant? Did he actually point a gun at anyone? What were the charges for his 5 year sentence? Does it justify being choked to death in the street by police?
Let's turn to our 8 panelists to discuss.
Ah, but he was a criminal! So it's obviously worse. Hope this helps.
(/s)
Don't forget that he was black, so a gang member too!
/s²
"Congratulations to George Floyd on being 5 years sober today."
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."
- Charlie Kirk (Oct. 12, 2022)
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.”
- Captain G. M. Gilbert, the Army psychologist assigned to watching the defendants at the Nuremberg trials
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?
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Charlie Kirk is dead!
Am I famous yet?
I want to be in the screenshot too
The screenshot won't look right unless there's a PARTY under the comment full of happy people replying to each other nested so deep it looks like half of a CHRISTMAS TREE! Like the one we're gonna use to celebrate the blood sacrifice of a human man for the greater good of all!
So much for the war on cancel culture.
They have ALWAYS been hypocrites. Cancel culture, wokeness, the fucking national debt, inflation… these have only ever been applied to democrats.
No, no. You misunderstand. Cancel culture is when the left does it. When conservatives do it, it's just getting justice.
view more: next ›