Runa216 said:
This right here is infuriating. Because it implies that the conflict is over a disagreement. Disagreement is for whether The Beatles or Led Zeppelin is the best. Disagreement is over whether to have chicken or beef. Disagreement is for liking Playstation or Xbox. What Charlie Kirk and his ilk did were bordering on hate crimes, and the discourse they sowed in the populace through their podcasts and TV shows and communities did active, continuous, egregious harm to what little unity we had in this world. He actively endorsed policies that demonstrably got people killed, thought the concept of empathy was bad, and regularly said borderline nazi shit. He wasn't just someone I disagree with, he was someone who indirectly did GREAT amounts of harm to a lot of vulnerable people all while smugly smiling about it. IT's fine to disagree about inconsequential stuff, not about who deserves dignity, respect, and basic human rights. And to disregard the whole counter point as a simple disagreement is disingenuous and frankly dangerous. You saying this is actively making the world a different place by framing VERY REAL And VERY DANGEROUS rhetoric as inconsequential. you should legitimately be ashamed of yourself for contributing to the problem by misrepresenting it. Gaslighting, really. |
Frankly, I find your attitude to be the "dangerous" and "harmful" one, that if somebody says things you don't like, then you think they deserve to die.
