Don't be violent against people you disagree with politically. That's not going to help anything, that's only going to validate what they've been saying all this time
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
281 points (97.3% liked)
Memes
52254 readers
1419 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
"Disagree with politically" is a wide brush: they are nazis and fascists. Killing one of them causes a crackdown on political opponents, killing them all doesn't. Paradox of tolerance and all that stuff.
Kirk believed LGBTQ+ deserved to be stoned to death, that women should be subservient breeding cattle, blacks had insufficient brain power to be leaders in our society and that the civil rights act was a mistake, children being murdered was worthwhile so that God could grant people rights, empathy was made up woke bullshit.
Are those the "politics" you're referring to? If those are your "politics" you might want to buy a neckguard.
He just lived in the society he advocated for. He literally believed a shooting now and then was worth the right for everyone to have guns.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
Those are his own words from 2023.
Just because it happened to him doesn't mean it wasn't what he wanted. For all we know, he died blissfully knowing he received a God-given bullet.
If people are violent against you, you have the right to defend yourself. That guy constantly advocated for violence against trans people, among many other groups.
Why a trans person have to sit and wait to be beaten up to death for some guy indoctrinated by this guy? They may chose their own life over the ones that are on a path to killing them.
Sometimes change can only happen through violence
I significantly doubt killing Charlie Kirk of all people is going to effect change. At least, it's not going to be positive change.
The right is emboldened greatly by every situation like this. Yes, they've just been looking for an excuse and would be horrible anyway, but this accelerates things by giving them more definitive cover.
They're already making shit up about evidence of "trans and leftist stuff" carved into the bullets or casings (tabloids and the WSJ have run with this) when there's no actual proof.
Turning Point USA will stumble for a bit while they find a new talking head capable of carrying their bullshit platform, but there's a glut of right wing influencers (and people willing to play one for money) that will fill the gap.
Also, he was shot in front of his kids. They're already fucked up enough having him as a dad without seeing him catch a bullet in front of them and die.
Look, I've got no tears to shed for this balloon headed ass. But this is not a victory. Even if you support the idea of using violence to achieve change, this was a piss poor target.
Ben Shapiro cancelled an event he was going to do today. It seems to me like the moment these fascist fucks feel like they could be in danger for the hateful shit they spew they cower in fear. They are keyboard warriors that don't realize that people can do a lot more than say hurtful things when you do that in public.
When the system doesn’t work and people are desperate they take matters into their own hands. What else are you going to do?
I could hang with accereated assassinations of facist politicians and they're cheerleaders.
Surely you understand that through violence the most violent people will rise to power Thats what happened in russia that became the ussr, china that became the ccp…
Do you want the most violent in power?
two bad examples. The populations of Russia and China were certainly better off after violent revolution. And of course, things got violent in 1776.
Objectively untrue for china from every perspective and is only briefly kinda true for russia; as serfs were freed but after Stalins takeover as the lands were took back and people were legally required to work
And the 1776 revolution would be not comparable in any way for the violence OP called for as the upper class led that revolution!
So you think that revolutions are only acceptable when the rich do it? The industrialization of Russia and China were probably the largest movement of impoverished people to relative stability in human history.
No, the us revolution resulted in much much different issues many persisting to this day like the inherent undemocratic system your lot clings to! But the power was distributed to the point where not one person could grab for it. Not that some didn’t want to have George Washington as a king…
Do you guys just make semi random statements? Industrialization did not raise Russian living standard at all! In the short term it decreased it and in the long term, compared to say Taiwan, progressed incomparably worse
I want to believe in the peaceful solution, but history tells us otherwise.
You can’t vote fascists out of power. The democrats are closeted fascists. Wonder why they never do anything productive even when they have a majority? It’s because they’re owned by corporations just like the republicans are, they just pretend to care about you. They’ll never actually do anything because it would hurt their corporate masters.