Charlie Kirk Got RDM'ed

[Pseudonym 244]

1 hour ago, Gwate said:

Did I just read this guy argue that African Americans had it better in America 80 years ago? 

What was Jim Crow Laws? Do you know what the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling was? What was Lynching? Sundown towns? White Race Riots? Segregation of State Sponsored Schools? The Tulsa Race massacre? Racialized police violence on Black Americans? WHAT WAS CIA INVOLVEMENT ON THE CRACK EPIDEMIC??????

You just pointed to a chart about stronger households and decided to ignore the next 120 years of state sponsored violence that targeted black families and tore them apart. I hate you and this is why I hate Charlie Kirk too. If this was the 1960s, you and Charlie Kirk would be the segregationist burning down my home or advocating to have me lynched. Anyone who can sit there and say getting legislation like the Civil Rights Act (which was resisted by southern states) which tried to protect Constitutional rights for African Americans to enjoy the same liberties their white counter parts did is someone who doesn't want me to live as an equal in their society. 

Remember folks, Charlie Kirk's argument for certain liberties like the 2nd amendment are that they are "god given" and are universal goods that must be protected even if they have unfortunate consequences like just a few gun deaths in America (ignore the school shootings tee hee). Yet the god given right to liberty and freedom, also things enshrined within the constitution and its founding fathers is terrible because black folks did more crime after fighting for freedom for slavery (and the next 120 years of state sponsored discrimination and violence against them)  

 

Rest in fucking Piss Charlie Merked

PREFACE: I am generally right leaning

I will say, torreto's messages could potentially have implicit racism, but I believe this message, Mr. Gwate, has some more explicit hatred. I think this is the commentary which more accelerates division. Maybe your justified in saying stuff like this, but I think there is no world in which this kind of message makes the opposing side relate to you more.

1 hour ago, Gwate said:

If this was the 1960s, you and Charlie Kirk would be the segregationist burning down my home or advocating to have me lynched.

it's not though, and he's not. if this was 100,000 years ago we'd be neanderthals. i don't know how a right winger would interpret this other than that you are currently saying they are probably find with burning your house down and lynching you, which I think almost non of them would explicitly think or tolerate that, but would think you might actually be violent if you believe that of them. This comment to non extremist right wingers makes them think that you are potentially going to be violent to them.

It's kinda like: Imagine if someone said "Jews eat babies!", like that person didn't explicitly say they were gonna hurt jews, but I'd kinda have an expectation that they might be more violent with them now.

Also, it's scenarios like you mention, where some people today might be sympathetic to the idea of lynchings, which is why a lot of people are pro gun. I can't guarantee to you that no one will ever try to lynch you, but I can say that if you get a gun and get training, that it's gonna be a lot harder for them to compared to if you were unarmed.

[Toretto 844]

2 hours ago, -dante- said:

The fact can be said about white America too. I know may white trash with many baby mamas. A buddy I grew up with who’s Caucasian as fuck had 4 kids before he was 20. All different women. This is a country problem, not a black America problem.

Absolutely agree that this is an issue across the world.

2 hours ago, -dante- said:

Focusing this as only a black America problem is intentional ignorance.

The issue to focus on is 75%+ of black families are raised without a father in the house. It was 25% in the 1950s. They also commit over 50% of the murders in the country and make up only 13% of the population (1)(2). In the debate where he says "black Americans are worse off today than the 1950s" the woman he is debating literally agrees with him. Watch from here, but at 1:2130 in the debate, he says the quote and she agrees. It's actually a phenomenal debate that is heavily twisted in TokTik and IG.

Spoiler

 

[Mr Miscellaneous 27]

I accidently made a post. Need this deleted from the thread. 

[20 sumthing hawks 11]

Everyone that thinks this is still a black vs white problem is an absolute bot @ -dante-  @ Toretto ………

Just now, 20 sumthing hawks said:

Everyone that thinks this is still a black vs white problem is an absolute bot @ -dante-  @ Toretto ………

That’s what they want you to believe 

[The Sovereign 210]

1 hour ago, Promethus said:

keep lying to yourself and your family, didnt get primed by any progaganda but i know your born with a dick or a pussy. your an attention seaker, its been that way since i came back to the community

Maybe you should do some attention seeking... then maybe some people would know who you are.  Sit.

[Gwate 44]

1 hour ago, Pseudonym said:

it's not though, and he's not. if this was 100,000 years ago we'd be neanderthals. i don't know how a right winger would interpret this other than that you are currently saying they are probably find with burning your house down and lynching you, which I think almost non of them would explicitly think or tolerate that, but would think you might actually be violent if you believe that of them. This comment to non extremist right wingers makes them think that you are potentially going to be violent to them.

I actually like you Pseudonym so I'm gonna fully engage with you.

People don't need to say outright that they advocate for violence against you to implicitly imply it. When someone like Charlie Kirk says the Civil Rights Act  of 1964 was a mistake, you need to break their statement down. 

Charlie Kirk wasn't an idiot so he knows what the Civil Rights Act was. I could give you 15 different academic legal articles on the context of the Act and it's content but just open Wikipedia. The Civil Rights Act was a prohibition of discrimination in 11 different ways (Titles). I'm just going to list them below with bold on very specific ones

1. TITLE I--VOTING RIGHTS
2. TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
3. TITLE III--DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
4. TITLE IV--DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
5. TITLE V--COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
6. TITLE VI--NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED PROGRAMS
7. TITLE VII--EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
8. TITLE VIII--REGISTRATION AND VOTING STATISTICS
9. TITLE IX--INTERVENTION AND PROCEDURE AFTER REMOVAL IN CIVIL RIGHTS CASES
10. TITLE X--ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE
11. TITLE XI--MISCELLANEOUS

The political reality of a person prior to the 1964 act and a while after because of the difficulty of implementing this in a country as racist as America at the time was that you were fucked from all angles. Southern states would give broadly written literacy tests to Blacks who would go to vote to disqualify them from voting (go search one of these up btw). You had to use the different parks than whites, you couldn't use the same fountains, or bus seats, movie theatre seats, you couldn't go to the same schools. You would be disqualified from housing or bank loans because you were black, you had to go to different (and often underfunded) black schools compared to whites. You couldn't get jobs in a variety of places if you were black. 

This is only the civil side, imagine the physical violence. Race riots, sundown towns, police brutality and shakedowns. When Charlie Kirk says the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, he says that the rights, liberties, protections and guarantees of the Constitutions were not made for you because the colour of your skin is of the undesired. Charlie Kirk in 1960s and before would want me to be lesser than him. I am no man to him, I'm a lower class of thing. 

Now I'm no republican but if someone said to you Pseudonym that you couldn't get a bank loan on a house because you were white. Or that you couldn't sit in the same bus spot as me because you were white. Or if I saw you outside of your house after dusk that I would hang you from a tree. I would be ready to kill, to die to secure a life of freedom because a life with no liberties is no life at all. 

That is what Charlie Kirk says when the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. That all that came before was acceptable manner of life. So when someone tells me that what Charlie Kirk says was "out of context",  there is no context where what he says is appropriate. Because if this was 1960s, he would be against my enfranchisement, he would be against me being treated as a person just as he was. 

So good riddance to him and the last reminiscence of his life being the blood stains he left on his shirt 

[The Sovereign 210]

FR though.. it was an absolute powerplay to look at a head/forehead combo like that and think "I'll go for the neck."  Like skipping the main holes on skiball and going for the 150 exclusively.  Bro's shaped like Mr Mackie.