pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 11 replies \ @k00b 15 Sep
This is a good point. I’ve been thinking about it for the last few days. I think we can all agree though that genuinely celebrating murder crosses a line that supporting a political candidate does not - so I wouldn’t be surprised if folks treat this differently. Anyone celebrating is brainwashed in certain way like we all are in a certain way. It’s disgusting but ultimately I think it’s a mistake in their world model.
reply
200 sats \ 10 replies \ @SimpleStacker 15 Sep
The pernicious nature of this post is that it is trying to equate celebrating a murder with disagreeing with identity politics (because that is the context of Matt Walsh's posts.)
It is the same logic that led to the murder itself: equating the sin of disagreeing with someone's identity to the sin of physical violence.
The two are not equal and should not be treated equally.
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 15 Sep
I agree they are not equal and should not be treated equally.
reply
0 sats \ 8 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 15 Sep
He specifically says you should ALWAYS oppose someone getting fired over a controversial speech.
It couldn't be any more clear how he is contradicting himself.
Take away your feelings about the situation, it isn't about that. It is about firing someone over a tweet, which he clearly disagreed with ALWAYS (meaning, without exception), but now he would like people to be fired over a tweet.
This isn't that complicated ;)
reply
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @k00b 15 Sep
I'm curious. Who is should be more ashamed in your view: matt walsh for contradicting himself or people celebrating the murder of a guy whose speech they disagreed with?
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 15 Sep
You're changing the subject to remove focus from the point of this post. You want to make this about something else to avoid the difficult reality of his change in stance when it no longer is beneficial to him.
The post is about a man saying no one should ever get fired for sending out a controversial tweet. But that seemingly only applies to people on "his team" that send out controversial tweets. It does not apply to 'others' who send out controversial tweets that he dislikes.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 15 Sep
i was just trying to understand what your interest is. i didn't realize talking to you implied an axe grinding contest.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 15 Sep
My post is self explanatory. You have strong feelings about something tangentially related (but not at all the point of the post) and you ascribed some other meaning onto my post to set yourself up to dunk on that meaning (which was invented by you).
When I chose not to engage with you and explained the point of the post (assuming you innocently misinterpreted me), instead of saying oh ok my bad, you then say I'm axe grinding.
You never engaged in good faith. You just needed to spit your venom and thought you had an easy target for it.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 15 Sep
I'm sorry if I did something wrong or unfair. I won't waste your time anymore. Have a great week!
view all 1 replies
30 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 17 Sep
People can update their views when new information arrives, especially over 9 years, this isn't that complicated. Did you never say something you would later disagree with?
(btw, people not even can, people SHOULD keep their views up-to-date)
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 23h
Your explanation is charitable and possibly what happened.
Is it also possible that this person lacked the ability to put himself in someone else's shoes (which is quite common)? He was unable to see that words can deeply hurt another person until those words hurt him. Then he called for people to be fired for saying those words because it actually affected him.
They say this is often what happens to people who hated the fact that they had to pay into the social safety net their entire lives, but then realized the value of this safety net when they ran into an unfortunate circumstance later in life. At this point, they will often complain the safety net is not sufficient to help people with their unique circumstances.
Another example may be the soybean farmers across america who are now demanding a bailout (which they will inevitably get as they did during the first trump admin) after voting in the man who destroyed their industry with his non-free market policies.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @plebpoet 15 Sep
yeah :/
reply