Jump to content

Charlie Kirk assassinated at an event in Utah (by a 22 YO groyper)


Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yeah, that's the thing. Everything is out in the open, on full display, for everyone to see.

It's Trump one super power that works exclusively on morons. Say the most idiotic or outrageous thing with confidence and they'll support it.

Trump: I don't care about you, I just want your vote.

Morons: LOL! How can you not love this guy?

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Just a lying piece of shit.

The reporters these days are spineless. They don't do any homework, ChatGPT together correspondence pieces and pass it off as real journalism. Start standing up to this administration and demand they tell the truth when sell you lies. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
13 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The nfl has some sort of monopoly exception doesn’t it? And Trump already hates nfl ownership for not letting him buy in and be one of them. 

Stephen A. Smith says the league denying Trump a deal for the Bills (because he didn't actually have enough money) is the reason he ran for POTUS.

Thanks, NFL.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

LOL. This is such a perfect example. We don’t like your opinion, so shut up fascist!

It was a complete mutilation of Second Amendment law.

The government can only regulate speech, that is, impose consequences like expulsion from school, when that speech is in a very narrow category of criminal or illegal speech.

Otherwise they have to leave us the fuck alone.

It's not a matter of opinion.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It was a complete mutilation of Second Amendment law.

The government can only regulate speech, that is, impose consequences like expulsion from school, when that speech is in a very narrow category of criminal or illegal speech.

Otherwise they have to leave us the fuck alone.

It's not a matter of opinion.

First?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 hours ago, C-Man said:

Fuck man, I'd go to that dude's church.

Fuck yeah. I was thinking the same thing when my kid showed it me. And I'm agnostic.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

Just say Charlie Strong and you need not defend yourself about DEI with the unwashed.

Posted
5 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Honestly it’s so damn all over the place and still evolving, so I’m not sure what the hell it means anymore.  In the context of my statements I consider a DEI hire to be someone who was given a job/promotion etc. solely, or in part because of an alignment with an underrepresented class (gender, color, orientation etc) at the expense of a more qualified candidate based on the job profile. 

Would it help if I told you that we have a DEI spray you can spray on the closet door that keeps the DEI from coming out at night and giving white people’s jobs to unqualified coloreds?

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s also the internal portion where you should try to build teams or seek input from a diverse group, since they may have differing perspectives because of differing backgrounds. 

And also that we should value that diversity of perspective because it allows us to better serve a diverse customer base. It’s just good business. 

Posted
4 hours ago, troph said:

How do you think this trans woman made the hiring team? And I dare any one of you mother fuckers claim I’m not qualified. The amount of opportunity I’ve lost from my little gender stunt would gobsmack everyone of you. There’s nothing mediocre about this ho. 

I don’t think I would be surprised at all. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Trump: I don't care about you, I just want your vote.

Morons: LOL! How can you not love this guy?

 

Morons: He really tells it like it is.

Non-morons: He just talked about how he rapes women.

Morons: Ah, you can't take him seriously.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

First?

Yes first.  I have a hungry, noisy cat waking me up in the middle of the night, so I wasn't in super-clear mind.

But long story short, he said it's not "illegal speech," but the university can't ignore it.  Well, yes, actually, the First Amendment requires a government entity to ignore "legal speech."

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Would it help if I told you that we have a DEI spray you can spray on the closet door that keeps the DEI from coming out at night and giving white people’s jobs to unqualified coloreds?

If you got some, I’ll take a case!

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Enchubben said:

You and I simply disagree on what he’s saying. I listen to that and I hear him specifically referring to those people he’s listed and potentially others that are DEI specific hires. Not all, or most, or many black women as you seem to be implying.  You want to hear or see hate from him, because you’ve been conditioned to dislike him and his opinions. I don’t think your interpretation of this is accurate or what he intended.

Michelle Obama was a DEI hire for what, First Lady? Is there a job application for that? Barack should have extended the opening to a more qualified white man? 
 

SJL was elected by her constituents. 
 

Any way you slice it the remark was incredibly stupid and doubling down on it is dumber. 
 

Edit: More than dumb, he just named four famous black women and said they were stupid. That’s pure bigotry. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Michelle Obama was a DEI hire for what, First Lady? Is there a job application for that? Barack should have extended the opening to a more qualified white man? 
 

SJL was elected by her constituents. 
 

Any way you slice it the remark was incredibly stupid and doubling down on it is dumber. 

And, whatever nuance may be behind the things Kirk said, the way he says them, e.g. "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously" and countless other examples doesn't permit that nuance.  And, I'm pretty sure he knew that and did it mostly on purpose.  If he didn't, then he sure slipped into racism easily.

Like "The Cowboys are so easy to hate."  Ok fine, I hate them, or more specifically Jerrah and what he made them, but the reasons for hating the Cowboys are manifold.  Fans could be one of them.  But why he immediately segued to short Mexicans in jorts boggles the mind if you are trying to assert that he isn't a racist.

Posted

It's kinda funny,  actually.  Like you could think of any topic and then go find a shitty, racist, sexist, or homophobic answer from ol charlie.

Kinda like improv comedy,  but it's improve shittiness

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, whatever nuance may be behind the things Kirk said, the way he says them, e.g. "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously" and countless other examples doesn't permit that nuance.  And, I'm pretty sure he knew that and did it mostly on purpose.  If he didn't, then he sure slipped into racism easily.

Like "The Cowboys are so easy to hate."  Ok fine, I hate them, or more specifically Jerrah and what he made them, but the reasons for hating the Cowboys are manifold.  Fans could be one of them.  But why he immediately segued to short Mexicans in jorts boggles the mind if you are trying to assert that he isn't a racist.

“Man, I really hate the Cowboys.”

”Yeah, Jerry is an ass and they haven’t won anything since 1995 but call themselves America’s Team. What a joke.”

”Plus what’s the deal with all the Mexicans at their games.” 

“Wut?” 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Candace Owens isn't the only right wing nut running with this vague Israel theory regarding Charlie Kirk. 

Meanwhile Fuentes is focusing on Israel...

and Trump. 

 

Kinda weird that they are not on the same page with the Trump administration, right? That these people don't seem to be buying the "leftist" killer angle at all? 

 

The Trans Jews did this.

Posted
6 hours ago, troph said:

I’ve been involved with a lot of DEI hiring processes and the best candidate at the end gets the job. I’ve seen it be white men, white women, people of color. The only thing that changes in a proper DEI process is at the outset, at the beginning, you make sure a diverse group is your starting sample set. The reality is though, there are more mediocre white men promoted in this country than there are excellent people of color, trans people, etc. DEI done correctly is exactly what we need in every organization and institution to ensure the best qualified candidate is chosen. 

If a proper DEI strategy was in place like the one you described (where it was meant to increase the initial pool of candidates) I don’t think most people would have a complaint here.

Thats not what happens in the real world, because the natural next step is to track “progress” which means hires of those candidates based on predetermined goals or quotas. What follows is incentivizing people based on hiring those with that criteria, then punishment of those that don’t. Again, I’m sure this isn’t everywhere, but this is my experience exactly, and I don’t think I’m alone.

I’d revert back to my initial point, which was Charlie’s arguments we’re never we don’t need black people in the workforce because they don’t have brain power. He wasn’t racist, and calling him that is cheap and lazy at best. I bet I would find something similar in what many find to be his most “deplorable” quotes or statements. People hated him because  their algorithm and social media circle told them to hate him, not because he was actually a bad person.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

If a proper DEI strategy was in place like the one you described (where it was meant to increase the initial pool of candidates) I don’t think most people would have a complaint here.

Thats not what happens in the real world, because the natural next step is to track “progress” which means hires of those candidates based on predetermined goals or quotas. What follows is incentivizing people based on hiring those with that criteria, then punishment of those that don’t. Again, I’m sure this isn’t everywhere, but this is my experience exactly, and I don’t think I’m alone.

I’d revert back to my initial point, which was Charlie’s arguments we’re never we don’t need black people in the workforce because they don’t have brain power. He wasn’t racist, and calling him that is cheap and lazy at best. I bet I would find something similar in what many find to be his most “deplorable” quotes or statements. People hated him because  their algorithm and social media circle told them to hate him, not because he was actually a bad person.

Can you please explain the nexus of DEI to Michelle Obama (First Lady) and SJL (elected official)? Why are they examples. 
 

Reminder that these are also elected officials:

image.jpeg.d97badbabc3aa5397d500148d55bd448.jpeg

 

Posted
23 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I’d revert back to my initial point, which was Charlie’s arguments we’re never we don’t need black people in the workforce because they don’t have brain power. He wasn’t racist, and calling him that is cheap and lazy at best.

Dude, what else could "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." possibly mean.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

I’d revert back to my initial point, which was Charlie’s arguments we’re never we don’t need black people in the workforce because they don’t have brain power. He wasn’t racist, and calling him that is cheap and lazy at best.

Your initial point is bullshit, because Charlie Kirk literally named every powerful black woman he could think of and said they only got where they were because of affirmative action and they lacked the brain power to otherwise be taken seriously.

Imagine a white college dropout calling a black woman with a Harvard law degree stupid, then other white people trying to defend him from being called a racist.

You're out of your fucking minds.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 4
Posted
9 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Imagine a white college dropout calling a black woman with a Harvard law degree stupid, then other white people trying to defend him from being called a racist.

So, like, Thanksgiving?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Enchubben said:

You and I simply disagree on what he’s saying. I listen to that and I hear him specifically referring to those people he’s listed and potentially others that are DEI specific hires. Not all, or most, or many black women as you seem to be implying.  You want to hear or see hate from him, because you’ve been conditioned to dislike him and his opinions. I don’t think your interpretation of this is accurate or what he intended.

You don’t think he intended to use the specific examples to be representative of the whole?

Why would he be against DEI in general if he only thinks the specific examples he uses are the problem and not ALL minority hires?

You aren’t that stupid you are a lying sack of shit. Fuck you

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
9 hours ago, coachherman'sgrill said:

Finally some push back

IMG_2993.jpeg

Pretty much every large district in the state issued a very similar statement.

Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

You don’t think he intended to use the specific examples to be representative of the whole?

Why would he be against DEI in general if he only thinks the specific examples he uses are the problem and not ALL minority hires?

You aren’t that stupid you are a lying sack of shit. Fuck you

Republicans are so used to rationalizing what are ultimately racially motivated policies that once they started saying the quiet part out loud they don't even see it.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

If a proper DEI strategy was in place like the one you described (where it was meant to increase the initial pool of candidates) I don’t think most people would have a complaint here.

Thats not what happens in the real world, because the natural next step is to track “progress” which means hires of those candidates based on predetermined goals or quotas. What follows is incentivizing people based on hiring those with that criteria, then punishment of those that don’t. Again, I’m sure this isn’t everywhere, but this is my experience exactly, and I don’t think I’m alone.

I’d revert back to my initial point, which was Charlie’s arguments we’re never we don’t need black people in the workforce because they don’t have brain power. He wasn’t racist, and calling him that is cheap and lazy at best. I bet I would find something similar in what many find to be his most “deplorable” quotes or statements. People hated him because  their algorithm and social media circle told them to hate him, not because he was actually a bad person.

 

You can make this same “argument” about you: You like Kirk because your algorithm and social media circle told you to like him and what he said wasn’t racist. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Alien Octopus said:

Just say Charlie Strong and you need not defend yourself about DEI with the unwashed.

Now do David McWilliams (who I love as a person BTW), Tom Herman, and every Cowboy coach other than Landry, Johnson, and Parcells (maybe Phillips)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Imagine a white college dropout calling a black woman with a Harvard law degree stupid, then other white people trying to defend him from being called a racist.

I haven't verified the veracity of the following story where, in an interview, he mentioned being turned away from West Point. If true, and combined with the earlier NFL Buffalo team story, suggests that New York has a particular gift at sussing out bs....

...the sad part is that the rest of us getting to pay for the subsequent revenge tours because rejection is, alas, something which we must all learn to handle.

Posted

If you want to start a deep dive into this goyper stuff here’s some places to start:

Understand that these folks are in the open spot of the political horseshoe. They are nihilists. I’ve seen Musk described as a goyper. They do everything for the lulz.

So that being said start with these things - gamergate, meme wars, transmaxxing, history of 4chan.

This is why the olds can’t compartmentalize the shooter. He doesn’t fit in their known boxes.

I’ve known of and had a basic knowledge of these things - so if I’m off base, someone that knows more, please correct me.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, SpiralOut said:

 


Hot take #567894
 

The shooter never actually meant to kill Charlie Kirk.

This was a botched Butler that got out of hand and they’re scrambling.

Always Sunny Reaction GIF

Edited by Dnaguy
Posted
57 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

If a proper DEI strategy was in place like the one you described (where it was meant to increase the initial pool of candidates) I don’t think most people would have a complaint here

Bullshit. People like Kirk and you mouth breathers have a “complaint” because such an applicant pool leads to more minority hires and you (wrongly) believe most if not all those resultant hires result in a less qualified person (ie not the white dude) getting a job. It’s circular reasoning, it’s objectively wrong, and it’s absolutely racist, misogynistic, and trans/homophobic at its core. 

P.S. Fuck you

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

You're out of your fucking minds

No he’s not he’s a lying racist piece of shit

 

45 minutes ago, G650 said:

Dude, what else could "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." possibly mean.

It means exactly what it sounds like. Enchubben is a lying racist

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:


Hot take #567894
 

The shooter never actually meant to kill Charlie Kirk.

This was a botched Butler.

What’s the TL/DW? That clip is 30 minutes 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

What’s the TL/DW? That clip is 30 minutes 

No. He hints > 1 person and likely the Jews.

No blood libel, though: 

Kind of lazy IMO.

Posted
34 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Bullshit. People like Kirk and you mouth breathers have a “complaint” because such an applicant pool leads to more minority hires and you (wrongly) believe most if not all those resultant hires result in a less qualified person (ie not the white dude) getting a job. It’s circular reasoning, it’s objectively wrong, and it’s absolutely racist, misogynistic, and trans/homophobic at its core. 

P.S. Fuck you

I’ll repeat it for you, I don’t think race, sex orientation religion etc should be used in performance evaluation or hiring decisions. If you want to die on that hill by all means, continue to do so.

I do have to ask though, does this mean you’re not coming to my birthday party?

 

Posted
3 hours ago, Alien Octopus said:

Just say Charlie Strong and you need not defend yourself about DEI with the unwashed.

Not sure what Strong being a shitty HC has to do with DEI. Saying he was only hired because he was black after the fact is lazy reasoning. At the time of hire, Strong's resume was superior to guys like Stoops and Dabo when they took their first HC gigs. It was also superior to the guy that ended up replacing him. Was every shitty white coach hired just because they were white? 



×
×
  • Create New...