u/CummingInTheNile

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/hatethissmug/comments/1x27wsn/i_hate_how_quick_people_are_to_dehumanize/

HIGHLIGHTS

nazis and p*dophiles are not humans. when your whole identity revolves around the dehumanization of the marginalized, you lose your humanity in my eyes. a dead p#dophile does not reoffend, and the only good fascist is a very very dead fascist. >P*dophilia is mental illness, not the action of harming children >>that’s irrelevant. anyone who abuses a child should not be treated as a human. >>>So we can keep having sick and shunned people with no alternatives, nice. >>>>not what I said >>>>>I didn't say you said that. I'm saying that's the implication. >>>>>>only when you put words in my mouth. learn how to read what people are actually writing instead of pretending they’re saying something else.

Oh here we go, the p#do defense force is out again. >This is probably bait and I fell hook line and sinker but no one is saying p*dos should walk around free or whatever. Lock p#dophiles in jail, I think they all should be placed in prison for their lives, but they are still people, people who have certain human rights that should be respected. You cannot say that someone isn’t a human being because of something they did and that has to go for everything. I hate p#dophiles but I understand that Human rights are an all or nothing thing and I would prefer them to be all. >>P#dophiles do not deserve human rights. >>>Nazis think disabled sterile women like myself also don't deserve human rights. >>>>There's no way you think those are even close to comparable holy shit >>>>>Nothing stops anyone from moving the goal post to another demographic if killing people outside of immediate self defense is justified. It happens every day. >>>>>>Bro comparing a disabled sterile person to someone who violated the rights and agency of others is fuckin insane

Can leftist stop defending p*dophilia every week, pls? >P#dophiles ≠ Predators. >>Oh, big difference! Let the p#dophile goon to kids, as long as he doesn't r#pe them it's okay, let him enjoy the Cod Points. 🥹✌️ Yeah, no. >>>Whose ass did you pull this argument from because I sure didn’t say that 😭 >>>>P#dophiles goon to kids, idk what do you expect from them, if you don't put in prison/kill a p#dophile then it will keep gooning to l#licon or real kids pics, expecting a p#dophile to not be a p#dophile is dumb. >>>>>They can goon in prison too >>>>>>to their imagination, not actual content

I’d agree if you decided to defend literally anything else on planet earth But no. Of every conceivable choice, you picked p*dophiles for your point Not the brightest bulb in the shed that’s for sure >P#dophile ≠ predator. >>Where did I say that??? >>>It was implied, cause why else would defending people who suffer from pdophilia be a bad thing? >>>>Suffer from pdophilia??? Are you being for real right now?? And no I didn’t imply anything, I meant exactly what I said in reference to the post and picture OP posted…. I’m not gonna give you the time of day to argue about this, instead I’ll just let what you said, stay on the internet forever Fucking sick to treat p#dophiles like victims >>>>>Are you saying that people who have these horrible attractions aren’t suffering? Do you think it’s a good thing? Do you think anyone wants those attractions?? >>>>>>I’m not letting you attempt to twist anything I’ve said so I’m not gonna argue about this, everybody knows what you said and that’s fucking sick At a loss for words >>>>>>>How am I twisting anything? Your first line seemed disbelieving of the notion. What else was that line meant to convey? (27 more comments of these two arguing)

Lmao at putting racists in the same category as p#dophiles. I’m sure this will get downvoted but there is a major difference between doing unspeakable things to children and not liking someone because of their skin color. Frankly, if you have the balls to tell me you don’t like me because of my skin color, I at least know what kind of person you are, and respect you for being honest about it. Saves us both the hassle. I genuinely don’t understand the desire people have to force their way into someone’s life who doesn’t want them there, regardless of the reason. >"there is a major difference between doing unspeakable things to children and not liking someone because of their skin color." Yes: one leads to a few victims, and the other to systemic oppression and genocide. It's funny how easily you can frame things in a way that supports your position, isn't it? >>No, because even when you phrase it that way you still sound insane for saying it. I don’t care how you frame it, racists are not as bad as p#dophiles, until the racist reaches a point of harming children. Then they could be equal. Systemic oppression will never be as bad as rping a child. Frame it however you want, that’s the truth. >>>Redditors be like "this shit not as bad as a few kids being traumatised" WWII holocaust photo >>>>One person experiencing racism is not as bad as one child being r#ped. Ten thousand people experiencing racism would not be as bad as ten thousand children being r#ped. You are saying “ten thousand people experiencing racism is worse than one child being rped” which is not really the conversation anyone else is having. >>>>>You think racists were not rping children? And do you understand what happened in the picture your responded to? >>>>>>If a racist is rping children then they are also a p#dophile. Your person fits into both categories so they're irrelevant. The majority of racists are not p#dophiles.

Your argument is fucking stupid. There is an objective, invisible social contract of right and wrong and if you violate it you're done. Gone. You know it when you see it. It's not even easy to run afoul of it. It's not one of those grey areas where you have to steal to feed your kids or defend yourself. If something wearing human skin can't do the bare fucking minimum to act human it shouldn't be treated like one. It's that simple. >Lmao you're really that simple, amazing >>How many kids you r#pe? >>>Look at this fucking edgelord guys. >>>>Bro if you ask stupid questions, you get answers at your level >>>>>Brody don't worry you're already made a stupid point, course I was coming at you with stupidity bruh >>>>>>I know that's all you can bring to the table, you actually did great!

Never understood this mindset. I think it spits in the face of every single victim. >This! As a victim, nothing hurts more than when people wring their hands and go on about how the type of person who abused me and traumatized me is “still a human!”. I have a right to dehumanize and hate my abusers, and it’s like spitting in my face to cry about how they deserve rights too >>...but that's what human rights are. Everyone deserves them, by definition. If you don't believe in human rights, that's a whole thing, but you can't claim both. >>>unpopular opinion once you commit the most horrific crime possible towards children i don’t think you deserve human rights. but i don’t think it’s anyone’s privilege to take them away, apart from the victim of course. >>>>What do you think human rights even are? Like if you're defining them differently, I get that, but if you're saying human rights are irrevocable rights and revoking them, that's hypocrisy. No amount of crime or good or evil would take away that is two contradictory beliefs. >>>>>Human rights as in the rights someone deserves simply because they exist? I don’t see how my statement is contradictory. Some things are capable of making your value less than that of a human being. But no human being has the right to take away that value. Therefore, even if your crime is heinous, there is no tangible way to erase the rights you were born with. >>>>>>Yes. If a person has human rights, and you believe they don't deserve human rights due to their actions, you are arguing that a human may, through action, find themselves in a state where they have no human rights. This contradicts the definition because all humans must have some rights simply because they exist.

I swear, redditors want to be contrarian so bad, they'll muster up an argument against considering the lives of child abusers worthless. It's like a creepy psyop to make people feel awkward for even considering pedes deserve to have their ticket canceled. >the more we dehumanize sex offenders the easier it is to ignore the attitudes of everyday humans that enable and create sex offenders >>Except p#do usually means LGBT people and particularly trans people on these shirts. It’s a dog whistle. >>>So in order to combat the sentiment on this shirt, you have to unilaterally interpret it as meaning something else, use the phrase "dog whistle" to justify it as proven, and we all just have to accept that as an appropriate way to interact with the English language? >>>>See these kind of arguments are really dumb to me, like what's your point people that wear these shirts aren't frequently considering LGBT people all p#dophiles? It'd be really cool if in your experience that wasn't the case but for a lot of us it is people seeing LGBT and #edophile is synonyms is shockingly common. But it's because they don't like gays it's easier to just call them a p#dophiles to make it so that gays are easier to hate. There are reasons to have problems with something that aren't Shadow boxing, but God forbid you have to put more than 2 seconds of thought and do an idea. >>>>>I understand the mental gymnastics bigots will to. That doesn't encapsulate the entirety of people who feel this way about p#dophiles. It's just common sense. I'm not going to use the hidden agendas of homophobes to represent a pretty common sense take.

Some people are sub-human. The pieces of shit who knowingly inflict pain on other people, without remorse for their actions. I don’t care about their rights. >It's a slippery slope. If all you need to justify denying someone basic human rights is that they do something unforgivable/bad enough, you can find a reason to apply this to anyone. And you would have to accept that someone else's definition of "They're an awful subhuman being" is just as valid, which means you support Nazis too. >>If you believe everyone deserves warm hugs then does that not mean you, yourself support Nazi’s ? >>>The “idea” of something being harmful and something actually proven to be harmful are two totally different things. I do hate p#dophiles and I justify not wanting them to live because they sexually abuse children and partake in a network of trafficking by consuming media created for them. >>>>Nazis feel the same way about me. They too insist that the harm my existence causes is factual. >>>>>this whole argument implies that some time down the road society will agree that child molesting and r#ping is acceptable

I unironically agree with this! I can excuse murder but not p*dophila, abuse of children/animals, or purposeful torture. I’m deadass serious by the way. Not that I agree with murder but I find the previous offenses actually pure evil and they can never be excused in any way. Maybe i’m a fake activist then but no I don’t believe in human rights for scum. >Yeah idk why this meme is even a thing, not all crimes are the same? Petty theft shouldnt result in execution but sex crimes damn well should >>So who decides where the line is? The government? You? How do you guarantee someone is guilty before they're executed? The death penalty is a fucking stupid idea >>>I'm not saying that you're wrong, but inmates cost around 130 USD a day (in the US, I don't live there but whatever). You can obviously not let criminals go free but locking up an inmate consumes a ton of taxpayers money, but execution is also bad. No matter what you do, it sucks. >>>>Going through with the death penalty is significantly more expensive than locking someone up for life. It is a cruel, inhumane punishment and there is no reason for it other than public spectacle. >>>>>Thank you for telling me that. I genuinely didn't know, since I don't live in the US. But even in the most convenient world imaginable, where someone convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to several lifetimes in prison could be executed privately and at virtually no cost, I'd still think the whole situation sucks. My point was simply that dealing with criminals costs society money, and none of the available solutions are particularly pleasant. But I guess people are free to enjoy dealing with criminals and downvote me for thinking it sucks. >>>>>>Well your point was wrong and dumb, no need to act like a victim over it

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/NewsThread/comments/1wtlxtc/farright_militias_were_infiltrated_by_a_mole_who/

Context: r/Newsthread is one of the thousands of alternative new subreddits. The Oathkeepers are a far right militia who participated in January 6th.

HIGHLIGHTS

The guy is a damn Judas >It’s spelled “p-a-t-r-i-o-t” hope this helps >>It's spelled n-a-r-c >>>I wonder if you’d say the same if it was a far left organization. >>>>Anyone who claims to be far anything is a tool >>>>>"the guys who think we should have universal housing rights and medical coverage for all are the same as the pedophiles whose entire reason for living is to hurt people and rape things to death" image >>>>>>Hate to break it to ya, but Democrats are in the Epstein files too. Nobody is innocent. And all that shit you claim they want to do or change is just polarizing topic manipulation. Stop falling for the red/blue pill and actually look at what is going on. >>>>>>>Buddy if you think the democrats in power are anywhere even remotely close to “far left,” then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

How is this non-political? >How is it political to want violent criminals out of society? >>Because said violence is political. It's literally a far right militia in a far right country, how is it not political? >>>If you consider Nazism to be a part of the political discussion, then you’re the problem. >>>>Acknowledging it exists as part of the political environment doesnt mean you agree with it... jesus christ.... >>>>>It’s not a part of the discussion. End of discussion. Nazis don’t have a place in our world >>>>>>Yeah no shit, but knowing that they exist doesn't mean you support them or are one... >>>>>>>Including them in the discussion ≠ acknowledging their existence. Hope this helps 💋

were they able to leak the BBQ recipe from the shooting range outing from last week?? >I thought it was funny, but boy people sure are hateful on here >>Where’s that hatred of which you speak, exactly? Surely you don’t consider downvotes to be “hate.” Because they’re meaningless. >>>Dude I count down voted by bots and dumb tools as a badge of honor since I am telling the truth, facts. >>>>Kinda sad to care about fake Internet points in either direction, really. But, sure. You do you. I'm guessing reddit is the only place you can even try to feel superior to another. >>>>>Social credit to create a hive mind echo chamber lol dork are gonna dork.. humm I own tech communities on other platforms. I used to mod and admin for tech on a Google platform but took myself and people with me when to a more obscure platform. >>>>>>Nobody believes you. No one with a fulfilling life acts like you. What a sad life, having to lie to a reddit troll just to feel good about yourself. Did it work?

Famously non hateful group, the nazis >Conflating gun owners with Nazis for Bloomberg gun grab astroturfing for billionaires who want a unarmed population, so much easier to win that way lol dorks on Reddit. >>The r*pist p#dophile that conservatives worship is literally a billionaire that wants a stupid, hungry, and sick population. He tricked so many idiots because he loves the poorly educated. >>>What about Hakeem and Schumer and others in camp Dem. Maybe they should quit and try to hide💯 All the dictators, Epstein class wants to keep people North Korea poor. Also crypto fascism is bad because it firewalls against popular up rising.AI pre crime just lets the Epstein class pick their victims and manufature evidence with deep fakes. >>>>“Popular uprising”? How many times have you read(and possibly masturbated to) the turner diaries (1978 Neo Nazi propaganda book about a civil war/race war which ends with Neo Nazis winning)?

Reads like reddit fanfiction because it is >Sure bud. >>*Sure bot 2 yo account & 10k contributions. That’s a LOT in a relatively short amount of time. You’d more or less have to be on Reddit most of the day/night. Kind of like a bot. >>>I think you need to check your math there bud. 10k contributions, almost entirely comments. 10k comments divided by 730 days is.. 13 comments per day. Not exactly bot levels of activity. That's not even a power user, pretty average I'd say. >>>>13 comments a day is faaaarrr above average lmao Edit: i’ve awoken a trove of reddit users that are upset that they comment more than the average person, interesting… >>>>>I just did 3 in the span of 30 seconds >>>>>>Good for you lol >>>>>>>Lol dont be mad

He uncovered shocking details like: They were practicing coordinated tactical ambushes with semi-automatic weapons. OMG HUGE SCANDAL >It’s literally against every single state law, to do paramilitary training, of THAT nature. It’s a felony. >>No it isn't >>>Here is one for the state of Washington (and every other state): https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2020/09/Washington.pdf Bite me. >>>>"prohibit private, unauthorized militias and military units from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. " Luckily they weren't engaging in law enforcement activities, you bootlicking tyrant >>>>>Calling someone else a "bootlicking tyrant"...oh the irony... >>>>>>Explain why it's ironic. >>>>>>>If you don't know what that term means then why are you throwing soundbites around like that without knowing what you're saying? Were you given talking points by someone else? Just your posts in this thread alone show you as a classic bootlicker so either you're trolling or you're being someone else's tool.

Based >Al Qaeda. Edit: Al-Qaeda translates from Arabic to mean "the base" >>The term is Y’All Qaeda >>>Al Qaeda means the base in Arabic (it was the name of the database the US kept of their Mujahideen allies) so the person was making a joke based on the based comment of the top level commenter. >>>>Yeah I actually did get the reference but I’ve always enjoyed comparing these militia freaks to their Islamic counterparts.

Easy to infiltrate. Regular people can pretend to be far right but the far right can’t pretend to be regular people. >Oh yeah? What's the most far right thing you can think to say? If you're not convincing, then I'll know you really are far right because any normal person could do this with ease. >>I think it's time for a progrom to clean up the undesirables in America. >>>We are losing our culture and its not going to get any better until the left is dealt with as well. Getting rid of the undesirables is just treating the symptoms, not the cause. how'd I do? >>>>You almost got handed a red hat, be careful! >>>>>THE TRANSESES ARE GIVING SEX CHANGES TO SCHOOL KIDS DRESSED AS FURRIES POOPING IN LITTER BOXES FEEDING CATS AND DOGS TO HAITIANS STEALING JOBS AND BRINGING THEM TO CHINA WHO ENGINEERED THE COVID VIRUS TO TURN OUR YOUNG MEN STERILE ENOUGH TO HAVE A MALE LONELINESS EPIDEMIC CAUSED BY MARXIST COMMUNIST SOCIALIST FEMINISTS USING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS AS REGULAR BIRTH CONTROL WHILE LETTING IN CARAVANS OF ILLEGALS COMING HERE TO PUMP OUT ANCHOR BABIES TAKING AMERICANS’ JOBS AND INTRODUCING SHARIAH LAW AS PART OF THEIR ATHEIST AGENDA TO TURN YOUR KIDS TRANS AT SCHOOL DRESSED AS FURRIES POOPING IN LITTER BOXES FEEDING CATS AND DOGS TO HAITIANS STEALING JOBS AND BRINGING THEM TO CHINA WHO ENGINEERED THE COVID VIRUS TO TURN OUR YOUNG MEN STERILE ENOUGH TO HAVE A MALE LONELINESS EPIDEMIC CAUSED BY MARXIST COMMUNIST SOCIALIST FEMINISTS USING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS AS REGULAR BIRTH CONTROL WHILE LETTING IN CARAVANS OF ILLEGALS COMING HERE TO PUMP OUT ANCHOR BABIES TAKING AMERICANS’ JOBS AND INTRODUCING SHARIAH LAW AS PART OF THEIR ATHEIST AGENDA TO TURN YOUR KIDS TRANS AT SCHOOL DRESSED AS FURRIES POOPING IN LITTER BOXES FEEDING CATS AND DOGS TO HAITIANS STEALING JOBS AND BRINGING THEM TO CHINA WHO ENGINEERED THE COVID VIRUS TO TURN OUR YOUNG MEN STERILE ENOUGH TO HAVE A MALE LONELINESS EPIDEMIC CAUSED BY MARXIST COMMUNIST SOCIALIST FEMINISTS USING LATE-TERM ABORTIONS AS REGULAR BIRTH CONTROL WHILE LETTING IN CARAVANS OF ILLEGALS COMING HERE TO PUMP OUT ANCHOR BABIES TAKING AMERICANS’ JOBS AND INTRODUCING SHARIAH LAW AS PART OF THEIR ATHEIST AGENDA TO TURN YOUR KIDS TRANS AT SCHOOL — 😵‍💫🥴🤢🤮 Sorry… I got sick from spinning around the circular MAGA logic

People need to read the article. The fascists are preparing for civil war, are you? >The fascists always lose. Every single time. >>Cool, but they don't lose because we type things out on reddit, they lose when they get buried. And so we need to start organizing to do that >>>Tbh I’m not worried about the gravy seals. >>>>You should be worried. Not scared, but concerned. A dumbass with a gun can be almost as dangerous as a competent person, especially if they get the jump on you. King Richard I was killed by a young boy and his crossbow. What I’m saying is that the fascists already consider us to be in a civil war, and are training as such. Never underestimate your enemy >>>>>They’re doing everything but reading. That is their kryptonite. >>>>>>Might be so, but we’re doing too much reading. Anyone ever think this is what institutions put out to sow division? I hear this a lot but I don’t see this happening in my hick town. More of Trumps base are waking up to the fact that Trump has been part of the “Swamp” this whole time, and he’s no different than other politicians enriching themselves. Maybe they want people to see one other as the cause for our problems rather than the state itself. And the state is not just the government - it is the institutions that regulate, enforce, enslave through debt, and all the rich assholes that pull the strings in tandem with the state.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/me_irl/comments/1wdhu6e/me_irl/

Context: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Frvq4ncwbiwoh1.jpeg

HIGHLIGHTS

(MOD) wow this post has 49 reports lol >normal people are afraid of the left because of this behavior They want half the country to “flat line” They even want war with centrists as they can’t handle someone not fully agreeing with them >>Even if that was your legitimate, non bad-faith argument (which it isn't), you're seriously going to act like the right doesn't want the same? Many of them salivate at the idea of "finally" being able to go outside and shoot whoever they want in a civil war. Not exactly welcoming or pro-life people, despite what they want to perform themselves as. >>>I don’t see them making posts like these 🤷‍♀️ Lefties even celebrated the Kirk anniversary 🤷‍♀️ >>>>Oh well if YOU didn't see them then it must not have happened! Magats are so braindead it's painful. I'll be happy when we give y'all eeeeeeeeverything you've been giving us the last ten years. >>>>>Where's proof. Send me a reddit post about people wanting XYZ public persona dead. >>>>>>Confederacy >>>>>>>So democrats? >>>>>>>>Conservatives try not to forget about the party flip (impossible)

It remarkable how they wish for death and more death on Reddit on a daily basis. What a life. >Trump celebrating Muellers deaths on Truth social >>So when he does it its bad but when you do it its ok? >>>Apparently it’s the other way around. >>>>Holy jumping for conclusions. Its not ok for anyone to wish or celebrate someone's death >>>>>Tell that to Trump? >>>>>>What? Again with the "he did it first"? Are you twelve years old? >>>>>>>Lmao now you’re jumping “for” conclusions lol. I’ve said nothing about who did what first or who is right and who is wrong. Literally just pointing out the hypocrisy of the original comment. Calm down, sport.

I've been sober since '22 and I'm breaking sobriety for that celebration. Looking at spending at least $500 for a bottle of red wine. >Do some LSD instead >>No way, they want to party and have fun, not die. >>>LSD doesn’t make you die. >>>>It can if you have a psychotic episode because of the LSD. That doesn't mean the LSD can cause death directly, though. In some ways I'd rather die than have a psychotic episode just because I've witnessed it and helped someone through it. It's brutal >>>>>Good thing there’s an all natural alternative. Shrooms!! 😋 >>>>>>That's what caused the psychotic episode 💀 >>>>>>>Mother Nature would never harm someone

I can't wait for the "other" side to start wailing about whoever celebrates his death is evil or some shit >Brother if you celebrate political violence simply because you disagree with that person, that is objectively evil. >>They’re brainwashed man. It’s absolutely wild to see it in real time of this app >>>Kinda like cheering about covid being over while a million of your countrymen perish? Oh wait I forgot: a single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is just a statistic. >>>>My father died of a heart attack but was classified as a covid death because he tested positive after his death. That's exactly why nobody believes your bullshit one million deaths statistic. >>>>>Covid causes myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmia, and blockages that starve the heart of oxygen (heart attack). Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Covid killed your dad.

Ahh yes, the side of “hate has no home here” 🤡 >Ahh yes, the side of "free speech" 👅🥾 >>The left killed a guy over free speech, but go on >>>By “the left” you mean one disturbed young man. Nobody I know killed anyone >>>>Good. Take this sense of not wanting to generalize and apply it everywhere not just your side. You need to be able to apply this to the other side. >>>>>Yeah, like what? What problematic ways do you think I generalize the right?

WOOOOO THE GUY I HATE DIED AT AN OLD AGE SURROUNDED BY HIS FAMILY AFTER GREAT SUCCESS WOOOOOO YEAH >And after destroying a country, the global economy, the climate and countless lives! >>Not the point of the comment >>>“No don’t bring context into this” >>>>I don’t think you comprehend what you are arguing against

Another Democrat excited about death for their political opposition. And they claim to be the “good guys” >Something Republicans have clearly never done lmao >>Some did but They arent popular, also democrats do it more often >>>No, you don't get to lie like that. I live in a red state, I know how you all act. >>>>Im Not Even American and nether am i Republican. Remember Charlie kirk? >>>>>Yeah, sure you aren't lol. No non-American gives a fuck about him dude >>>>>>Im from West Germany. The town is „Bottrop“ Google it. I Liked him a lot, i started watching him a view weeks before he got killed and a lot of what he sayed helped me in really dark time >>>>>>>You must live a terrible life lol

Electoralism is an illusion, you vote out the reps for dems to do the same shit. Its good cop, bad cop and it used as a tactic to keep the establishment in power. >Uhhuh. Bof pArTieS ArE tHe SaME gUYs! >>They are tho >>>It is if you just ignore all the nuance. Imagine you are an interviewer and you have 2 candidates. One of them is just kinda spineless, pretty incompetent, and generally not a good fit. Then the other comes into the office and shits on your table before calling you a racial slur. Both aren't really fit for the role, but there is a pretty clear better choice. "Both options are bad" just ignores all the things that the republican party does worse(especially if you start talking about how they treat minorities) >>>>It’s not that both are as bad as each other . It’s that both are right wing parties. If you want genuine left wing policy in America you can’t rely on your current electoral system, especially at national and state level. You gotta begin in local organising and work your way from there >>>>>THANK YOU. People shutting down the “both sides are bad” argument saying there is nuance we are missing fail to understand that the statement itself carries nuance if you have half a brain cell. Anyone who doesn’t believe our system of election needs reformation is still in the matrix. >>>>>>Yeah. But then you all go “the system is broken, we need to fix it” and then don’t vote or encourage voter apathy like in 2024. I’m not saying you didn’t vote, but talks like this online contributed to the low voter turnout against Republicans in 2024.

Can we first put him to court? EDIT: Thank you so much for the award! >He’ll die without ever seeing justice for any of his many crimes >>Yeah I gave up on that idea when he got re elected after Jan 6th, this man will never face repercussions and will die thinking he’s a god. >>>Same. The best outcome I see now is cholesterol does its thing, republicans lose their momentum and power, we strip away every instance of his existence, and actual adults can come back to salvage the damage. >>>>You dont need to worry about cholesterol when you get daily transfusions of baby blood. He uses so much it is disgusting but it is extending his life greatly. >>>>>What? Where is evidence of that? >>>>>>Its been pretty widely known for a long time. It was first reveled as part of the epstein files. You may have to go through it yourself though, videos of that content gets removed pretty frequently. >>>>>>>I just googled that. That's a Qanon conspiracy based on no evidence. There's endless reasons why this man is awful. There's no reason to make stuff up.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DoomerCircleJerk/comments/1wcqq94/is_there_anybodys_death_in_history_that_has_been/

HIGHLIGHTS

It's also only one side that increasingly responds in polling that political violence is acceptable. >Can you explain this for me? Do Conservatives not feel as if political violence is necessary? I am not an advocate for political violence but I can think of many situations where it would be, and many historical instances where it was warranted. If political violence is never acceptable, what is the 2nd Amendment for? Were American Revolutionaries in the wrong for the political violence they committed? Am I wrong for believing that the majority of this rhetoric is essentially moral grandstanding? >>They are ok with political violence they just want the government to do it. Why commit hate crimes when you can just join ice >>>Ice has been aroubd long before trump lol So ice is bad when trump is president but not when a dem is president? Got it >>>>Yeah and no one had an issue with it because they weren't invading cities and killing us citizens. No reasonable person has an issue has an issue with immigration enforcement it's how you do it >>>>>They did it. They just disnt get the new coverage cause orange man bad. Ice kept kids in cages and treated them like shit under obama and I dont remember reddit or media losing its mind about it. >>>>>>Progressives were constantly criticizing Obama. They would call him the deporter in chief.

Yes. They do it every time. Herman Cain comes to mind. >And Paul Pelosi and Alex Pretti and Renee Goode >>Pretti and Goode got themselves killed by committing crimes. Not even remotely comparable. >>>The crime of freedom of speech? Why are you dooming and justifying political violence? >>>>Interfering in ICE operations while armed and hitting an agent with your car is not freedom of speech. >>>>>She didnt hit him with her car, and again idk where you are but here in America I dont believe the federal government has the right to execute citizens >>>>>>His internal bleeding says otherwise. >>>>>>>Lol image

Mocked and misrepresented. Just gross >Direct quotes aren't him being "misrepresented" though, he said deplorable things, that happened his death doesn't erase that. >>Taking a sentence or 2 from a conversation someone is having and presenting it with zero context is a misrepresentation of a full conversation and the point someone is trying to make >>>Kind of like when people post a still frame pic of a politician with their hand in the air and say it’s the same as Elon’s blatant nazi salute.

People on the left will be throwing parties when Donald Trump dies... They are so angry and mad that all the assassination attempts that the loonies tried on him missed. But when he does die, they will be throwing parties, because of him dying. >There hasn't been an American president that's done more harm to international relations and diplomacy than Trump. Of course we'll celebrate - maybe then we can have an actual decent relationship with our "closest ally". For what it's worth, the man has done nothing but shit on my country and made up demonstratably false lies about our culture and policies. He's called us weak, useless, worthless, scum when thousands of my countrymen died for the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's called us a failing state; supported our adversaries and threatened to invade sovereign land. He has done nothing good for our country - so tell me, why should I feel sad when he finally moves on? >>I don't think that feelings been mutual for a long time. Even under Obama. Canada would rather be best buds with the EU with the benefit of being neighbors with the US. Also, begging for someones death is weird. Not a single politician I hope dies. Just win an election >>>"Also, begging for someones death is weird. Not a single politician I hope dies." http://npr.org/2016/08/09/489363581/trump-implies-second-amendment-people-could-stop-clinton >>>>You really want to me to take an NPR article from 2016 seriously? Even if he did say that I don't condone it. Trump has also been shot at twice and you all cheered and got a hate boner over it. Also whataboutism isn't an argument >>>>>https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116268334535345382 He thinks it's OK to celebrate someone's death... >>>>>>Was muller murdered? Again whataboutism

The same thing happens with JK Rowling - people share the most horrendous lies about her that are easily debunked if you spent even 30 seconds researching it. But they prefer spectacle and drama, so they don’t. I have clever and intelligent friends that I generally respect who have such a silly blind spot in this area! >Its funny to me how the vitriol against Rowling is that shes TOO feminist. >>The vitriol is that she's transphobic, which is not feminist in any capacity. >>>Defending femininity from the inclusion of fake women that don’t know what it’s like to be a woman is feminism >>>>trans women are women. They have always existed, and they will always exist, no matter what you say. the question is - do you believe others reporting of their own experiences? >>>>>Trans women are…trans women, not women. Just like trans men are not men. This truth will always exist no matter what you say. Someone’s recollection of an experience does not make their opinion based on said recollection factual. >>>>>>Trans women are a subset of all women, hence the name, trans women

I remember when after George Floyd died, folks were making fun of him for saying he couldn't breathe. Alex pretti and renee good were mocked for peacefully protesting. The cost of having guns is gun deaths, according to Kirk himself. >Are you for banning cars as 40k people die in car crashes every year and that's more than the gun deaths including suicide. No? Is it because the benefits of using cars outweighs the 40k deaths? Why dont you actually watch the full quote in context. >>The difference is that cars are a deeply productive economic tool and vastly more transformational to people’s QoL than some hick wanting a gun. 2A is 99% for LARPing purposes and a net negative. >>>And guns are a right given to protect against a tyrannical government... so it's also useful too especially since the secondary perks allow protecting against criminals and hunting Cars are a privilege not a right btw >>>>That’s what I meant when I said LARP. You’re never going to use it against a tyrannical government. Your entire political class has been exposed as being compromised by a literal pedophile and alleged cannibalist cult and not a single peep. The same people that scream about gun rights are the same ones who kneel and lick the boot first. Americans use guns first and foremost on themselves and create a fucked up tense society where every home invasion, routine police stop, and night out escalation can end up far worse than it needs to be. Only valid argument is that guns are cool as fuck and shooting is fun. Everything else is just role playing. Yeah, cars are a privilege. Don’t have a license, insurance and acceptable health? You’re not driving. Guns should be too. Don’t have gun license, a membership hobby club, and safe storage? Don’t get a gun >>>>>Oh your one of those people. You clearly can't be convinced so have fun living in your delusion aided by your cult >>>>>>Yeah, I have reason lmao. Muhhh tyrannical gubment!

I don’t think I can name a political assassination that was celebrated and/or mocked by conservatives. I know everyone here is going to give me some random person and random people but I’m talking political assassinations and main stream conservatives. >It is. Not a single main stream conservative mocked either of those individuals. >>Uh. Donald Trump mocked both of those incidents and the victims. Is he not a “main stream conservative”? Others who mocked the incident were a senator from Utah and house representative of Wisconsin (both conservative), and “political commentators/conservative influencers” Laura Loomer, Benny Johnson, even Elon Musk. >>>Where did he mock them? Source? >>>>Here’s a couple. There’s other articles on the interweb. Not sure your preferred source. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/29/trump-mocks-pelosi-family-as-he-rallies-conservative-support-in-california-00119243, https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/04/trump-circulates-false-claim-about-hortman-killing-democrats-condemn-post-as-depraved >>>>>None of that is mockery. None of that is making memes of someone getting murdered on live stream or hoping their children see it. You people are evil. >>>>>>Uh.. okay. “You people”? I never defended or said anything about what you’re talking about. The comment I responded to was to state that there are recent examples of what he said not happening was actually happening. Memes were made. Laughs were had. Those things happened too. Guess it’s okay because it wasn’t extreme enough for you?

Well the other side has a president who literally celebrates deaths constantly and celebrates politically violence. And he's not some guy on Twitter. But yes all sides should denounce political violence >One guy doesn't represent the masses. Am I to say dems have trouble remembering things since Biden did? >>The guy who is an elected representative doesn't represent the people who elected him huh? >>>Alright then. I guess all dems are old senile men since that's who they elected to represent them >>>>Yes the goat biden who helped a nation bounce back from covid better rhan any other nation. The guy who did the chips act and Ira yes you should associate biden with most dems lol >>>>>A) For your own good and health, regardless of my own opinion on the guy I advise you to not repeat this stance Infront of your political peers. Considering a good mass of the left considers Biden as much of a war criminal they consider trump. B) I remember quite the shitshow from the right when Trump celebrated the death of that one guy they didn't like semi recently. They did not let it slide and did not join or like it. I've yet to see something of that nature from the left. >>>>>>A. I'm not a lefty and I will gladly defend biden against tankies and wierd pro Pali people. B. He ran in 2024 saying he was going to pardon every jan 6 rioter and since he hopped on the political scene he has used violent rhetoric so no I don't buy it they saw who he is and voted for him even got the popular vote :)

George Floyd maybe. Travon Martin too >Are you kidding? Floyd was praised like a fallen prophet, it was sick to watch. At least Kirk was influential >>Literally no one did that, they just thought maybe police shouldn't abuse citizens to death and you lot lost your mind over it and made a bunch of memes about how funny they thought it was that he was murdered by the state. On the other hand Kirk got a state funeral and ridiculous honors, despite (or because of) the fact he bussed in hundreds rioters on Jan 6. >>>Dude at least be honest, it wasn't that long ago. Those riots were fed by misinformation about cops and emotions escalated it from there. Floyd's funeral alone was enough for me and yet that wasn't enough to these morons Kirk deserved the honor he received >>>>People went out and protested police brutality, and were immediately met with police brutality. People standing on their own porches were fired at with less lethal ammo, old men were pushed down on the street. Rather than admit they had a problem and working towards solving it, the police AND YOU RIGHT WING SLIMEBALLS showed that you were happy that the agents of the state were sticking their boots on peoples necks. Kirk was a youtuber that argued with college kids, and looked a fool whenever he debated a real debater. He was also a political operative who was picked by the wealthy to be the face of their propaganda. >>>>>Yea who knew that causing riots based on misinformation would cause problems or require police intervention. You clearly only paid attention to the sensationalized parts of the events to pull at your heart strings. I see it all the time with leftist news I'm curious if you have a video where he looked like a fool as I've mostly only watched his college debates and they were very civil discussions when the other person wasn't insane. >>>>>>No misinformation, the police killed George Floyd. I also saw the video of police abusing people from the first day of the peaceful protests, inflaming the situation immensely. You saw what Kirk released on his youtube channel, carefully curated to only make him look good even when he was surrounded by sycophants and was "debating" college students. Tilly Middlehurst tore his schtick to shreds at the Cambridge debate. Kirk wasn't a good debater, he had a schtick that he used. He was just another Ray Comfort but with more right wing think tank money behind him.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/TopCharacterTropes/comments/1w908ba/bad_people_or_villains_who_do_terrible_things_and/

Content Warning: Lotta child groomer apologia and direct quotes from the source material that will make your eyes bleed

HIGHLIGHTS

0 episodes of MT watched 0 pages read 100% larp knowledge >Found the Rudiddler defender >>I mean it's a grey area, he is a reincarnated person who just happens to have memory of his past life. >>>It very much isn't a gray area, wtf are you on. >>>>The grey area is that Rudiddle is acting as a horny teenager amongst other teenagers, while only the audience knows how problematic it all is. But as he grows into adulthood again, he becomes a genuinely upstanding member of society and a huge boon to the lives of everyone around him. It's a fucked up rehabilitation story, but there's a ton of nuance to how you can interpret it. I don't think anyone wanted MT to be a 4 minute singular episode of a p*do going to prison for the rest of his life. (It's also worth noting that in the anime, he never actually committed crimes, he's just a fucked up freak who wouldn't have been against the idea.) >>>>>Horny teenagers don't go around smoking panties like blunts, massaging breasts left right and center, and trying to groom under-aged teens into the 'perfect woman'. And if they are, you should report them, they need a psych-eval. Also...he very much doesn't get rehabilitated in the slightest, he remains Ruddidle. His usefulness to society bears no relevance to his depravity. >>>>>>Ohhh you haven't watched it By adulthood, Rudy no longer violates boundaries or lusts after minors, depending how "adult" you feel he is at 17-18 after he has his daughter. And no, teenagers don't really groom each other since they don't usually have the power dynamic to make that happen. Not really how grooming works. Why are you getting so agro..? It's an anime. I'm not accusing you of anytning. At this point in the anime, he's not particularly useful to all of society as a whole (seems like he's going to be soon tho, dont spoil me lol). He's "useful" to his friends and family. In this world, he's a respectful albeit leery young man who is a husband and father, magical prodigy, and renowned fledgling hero. His depravity is known only to the audience, and the entire point of his character is that we're watching that depraved 40 year old man slip away as he becomes Rudeus.

image Damn, is it normal for someone to steal panties and wear it on their face? Or is rudeus a fucking freak, plus anyone who idolizes him is >I mean the panties thing is a goofball quirk >>"Sexual harassment is a goofball quirk" Prison. No parole. >>>lmao do they even jail people for that? >>>>image >>>>>Stealing panties constitutes that? >>>>>>Yes? Are you stupid? It's both theft, sexual harassment, and possibly more.

quotes from the LN of Rudy grooming underage girls >"I did want to see how sexy her body had gotten now that she was thirteen" Christ, I feel sick typing that but I don't need to read any other line to immediately write that character off as a piece of shit. The only defence I could think of that is if the character who said it was the same age but even then, it's still a messed up thing for the author to write and I get the feeling, he wasn't the same age anyway. >>I mean, when I was 12 a 14 year old girl gave me a boner. It's relatable. >>>Sylphie is a homesick and easily manipulatable teenager when they see each other again. Rudeus is 54 or older. >>>>Was she homesick? It seems she's already dealt with and moved on from her families' deaths aside from when she tried to kill Nanahoshi. Also she's the one that wanted him to fuck, even giving him the aphrodisiac >>>>>"The teenager had a crush and started it, that makes it okay for a 54 year old to fuck them" MT defenders, everyone. >>>>>>Oh you use tiktok, that explains some things. Nah she is I think the same age as him? >>>>>>>I don't. Was grossed out- I googled something to react, first thing I found worked. Directly to jail, man. image The MC of MT was at least 54 years old at the time.

Is that an actual quote from the anime? >nope, see the show/manga/novel got a lot of hate for showing a pdo being accepted by flipping his settings. However that hate doubled/tripled from the fandom coming out in defence saying he has redeemed himself and everyone involved in production having no intention of acknowledging the problem. >>So is it actually worth watching or is it really made by pdo apologists / p#dophiles? >>>At best it handles it handles those subjects as bad as it possibly can. At worst it’s a show made by a pdophile, about a p#dophile who finds redemption (underage girls) and faces no consequences, and gets to live out a hero power fantasy >>>>It's a hard watch. I've been slogging through it, and the main male character is by far one of the worst fictional protagonists I've seen. This dude is human trash. But man... the production quality is so good. The music, the atmosphere, the presentation... especially in the first season, it's movie quality. And some of the supporting characters and the world itself are so interesting. But then the scene goes back to him and it is just relentless with his nonsense. The show's idea of him growing as a person takes the term "baby steps" to a whole new level. This is one of the first shows I've hate watched. At least with Overlord it was easy to lose interest and just turn it off, because it really just didn't have redeeming qualities. This is interesting enough that I keep gravitating back to it, even though just seeing the main character come on screen exhausts me. >>>>>Eh, I thought he actually grew a lot in season two. He still didn't the consequences of his past action, but he does stop being a full time perv. He experience heart broken, loneliness, friendship, and love. After that, I think he is matured and hard to see he is the same person as his earth self. Like in season 3, he hasn't act like an incl >>>>>>It's honestly strange how the vitriol for the show and Rudeus has tripled since season 3 began, despite how mature and almost heroic Rudy has become since season 1. It really feels like manufactured hate against the show for... I don't know, karma-farming? Or maybe reddit has gotten 3 times as puritanical since season 1.

I mean, yeah, Rudeus, but Polygamy is common in the world, so while most of the points stand, the last one doesn't. And actually, because of his harem the world can actually be saved by his kid so even the powers in the world would see him as heroic. >The polygamy part is not what people hate about MT lol >>Ehhhhh it's part of it lol >>>Not at all lol. Nearly every single isekai in existence includes a harem and are beloved. MT only gets hate because the MC is a pdophile and is written by a guy who doesn't find that problematic. EVERY THING ELSE ABOUT MT IS FANTASTIC, but ofc a p#dophile MC in a story about redemption and rebirth is gonna cause some backlash, let's be real. >>>>He's not though, all of his wives are as old as him. >>>>>He's a 34 year old man in a child's body. He isn't an actual child... If you were reborn with all your memories up till now, are you seriously gonna try to fuck a child? Don't try to answer with apologetics, just answer the question. >>>>>>Depends, 12 year old me got a boner from a 14 year old. Guess I'd not know until in that situation. >>>>>>>I- wow. Did you even read my comment you replied to? So you just don't believe memories have any stake in who you are as a person? This 34 year old jerked off to his irl underage niece, but because he magically has a body of child makes him justified in acting on his pdophilic urges? Is that really the stance your taking?

Haters are genuinely obsessed with Rudeus more than actual fans of the series at this point, it's hilarious. >It's even funnier to see the comments from the basement dwellers trying to justify the predatory sexual behavior displayed by the protagonist. >>I mean, I ain't here to speak for them, but I can't go a day without seeing a new person hate on the series specifically for Rudeus. >>>The series itself is great. Rudeus is the root of ALL the controversy. You seriously can't see why making your MC attracted to kids might be a bit controversial? >>>>Eh, I stopped caring about it cuz it got too heavy on the slice of life slog and you keep getting lambasted by people copy-pasting every bad thing they read on xitter without fact-checking first for saying anything positive about it. Now they got no one to argue with so they fish for it in every other reddit post on subs like this. >>>>>Have you considered that the OP just included it as an example because it clearly fits the trope? Not every post hating on Rudeus is some grifter hate nonsense. Rudeus IS a p*dophile. The author wrote him to be one. It's nothing subjective, it's a fact. Despite what you may think I'm still a fan of MT, so not all hate comes from some twitter hate club. Rudeus is just a horrible MC, objectively. >>>>>>Rudeus is a perverted scum in general. Be it petite girls or women in their 30s, where he was notably caught staring at even his own mother when he was a child. As for the grooming thing, I hate how the internet uses it these days as such a blanket term when it's supposed to be about actually raising someone into the mindset of being in love with you. Sylphy spent more years away from contact with Rudeus than beside him until they married. Eris was literally being tutored by him, and he had to teach her to act like a normal person instead of brash and temperamental. Again, this isn't defending him, cuz he was still attracted to them and acted pervy towards both, but people use buzzwords someone else said on the internet instead of knowing the source material of what they talk about, and it's tiresome. >>>>>>>I agree and it's another reason why I despise him. I just hate perverted characters in general, whether it's Mineta from MHA, or Meliodas from SDS. It's just a piss poor take on "humor", I guess? I just don't find anything funny about the random sexualization of anyone for laughs. It's just not my humor. Especially in a show that's supposedly trying to tell a compelling story. It just stops everything in it's tracks and makes me roll my eyes and skip forward.

What the actual fuck Japan >it's a meme. She has a valid crashout because of her shitty situation, but doesn't say those words or harbor any actual grudge against Rudeus at all (in fact, meeting Rudeus has turned her life around TWICE.) >>People always focus on what piece of shit Rudeus was before reincarnation(so, the whole point of the story) but never acknowledge how much actually good things he does for his friends after the reincarnation. Hell, as we learn in the epilogue He publishes all his research and scientific improvements under Nanahoshi's name so her friend has easier time learning that she also appeared in this world once he appears as well. Rudeus gets absolutely nothing from this >>>this somehow absolves him of jerking off to a nude picture of his niece? not to mention the way the mangaka behaves on twitter really doesn‘t help with allegations >>>>Don't worry; the MT fans are already claiming "fake screenshots" in this comment section (and therefore claiming that everywhere else too). Appalling. >>>>>This one is literally edited, season 3, episode 9. The whole scene starts at roughly 5 minutes. See for yourself instead of blindly hating. Should this kind of post even be allowed where people make up scenes to support their tropes? >>>>>>This wasn't about the post. This was about the deranged tweets of the author of MT. Where he's blatantly supporting p*dophilia even without the context of drawings and animation.

I advise to replace Rudeus with someone otherwise you might get attacked by fans. Though I don’t hate the media or it’s fans. >There's no denying that early Rudeus is a bastard, but the haters are so over the top that it gets really tiring. Especially since they all argue that "Rudeus bad" means "Mushoku Tensei bad" and if you even remotely like the story then you're a p*do yourself. Not to mention how haters constantly get things wrong as well, making him look worse than he is. OP too is spreading misinformation with this post. >>quotes from the LN of Rudy grooming underage girls Defend bottom left. >>>Brother, you're the one in need of reading comprehension. Stop moving goalposts. >>>>No goalposts have been moved, only set in the first place. "defend bottom left" Still fucking waiting. >>>>>Why should anyone do that? It's just one background info, two lines compared to thousands of lines later, that change things in the "present" (of the story). If you are so hung up on sexual things, the motivation for your vindictive glee sounds really icky itself. It's up to you to balance positive and negative and you are right when you dislike the negative more than the positive, but focusing on just one doesn't make your point right. Your funny little screnshot takes a feq quotes and just them. Nothing else. Big surprise if you cherrypick quotes you can point whatever picture you like. >>>>>>Rudy being a panty fetishet Not a defense of the quote. Didn't ask. Nice rant on behalf of a fictional freak, though. in the anime, as well as the manga, and light novel, Rudeus greyrat is a mentally 54 year old man who specifically gets a 15 year old drunk with the knowledge she'll try to fuck him after being intoxicated and unable to give proper consent

image >He fucking dies in the end. How does she get away with it, exactly? >>Didn’t die. Just became mentally unstable to the point of morphing into another form >>>So ego's death. Those are still consequences. You could even call it a punishment by the plot >>>>When did I say that wasn’t a punishment by the plot or consequences? I’m just explaining that you said they died, but abstraction is not death. Mentally unstable people locked up in psychiatric hospitals are not dead. Getting downvoted for no reason lol Edit: do people genuinely not understand the difference between dead people and mentally unstable people?

I see the MT obsession still going strong >Well it is actively airing, and i do get the complaints. Show is fantastic but at the same time you really wonder why the author decided to write Rudeus like that. There are about a thousand different ways he could of done it and it wouldn't of impact the character at all. Yet he choose pdophilia. >>honestly, i'm ok with it. Writing a character that would be more appealing to the masses is exactly the kind of thing we need less of. >>>There is a pretty big gap between appealing to the masses and not being a pdophile. >>>>sure is, but being afraid to have a unappealing characteristic or history attached to a character is how you get very sterilized environment.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/hatethissmug/comments/1w39xg4/i_hate_charlie_kirk_memes_that_show_his/

HIGHLIGHTS

yeah,you don't have to like him to acknoledge that doing this is not ok >Ironic considering conservatives are the most racist backwards individuals who love making rpe jokes, racist jokes etc but cry when ole charlie boy is clowned lol. >>I'm a leftist who thinks South Park and Youtube had turned him into such a joke, even among edgelords, that getting horrifically murdered was the best possible thing for his brand. And everyone with their hand up his puppet hole, before and since. They're making a fortune off of this. And their calls for a civil war are no longer dog whistles. Why would I want to help the right scare people into minimizing or worse, justifying even more right wing violence? >>>Who cares. He was a bad person and deserved to get mocked >>>>What does that have to do with traumatizing people with his corpse and triggering the part of the brain most likely to vote Republican? Explain why you want Charlie Kirk to pull an Obi Wan and score a win? >>>>>Him saying that hed force his daughter to carry a child if she were rped is far more repugnant than making fun of him..... he was a disgusting individual. You are literally just a conservative sympathizer. That's like saying you shouldnt make fun of hitler because it only emboldens neo nazis lmfao. Yeah everyone should just cower in fear because it might upset those poor, traumatized republicans 💔. #I stand with Charlie. >>>>>>Try again, to pose as one of us. I said he was a sick joke and a puppet. How does him being cool with r*pe translate to you wanting to traumatize people with his corpse, exactly the same way the right is desperate to do? >>>>>>>Lol he traumatized the public with his horrible takes, I think you'll be okay. Keep in mind his last words on this physical world was a racist dog whistle "counting or not counting gang violence" POP GOES THE WEASEL I mean ill give him credit. He died as he lived... getting his throat blown out by other men 😂

We're just keeping his memory alive after his valiant sacrifice to let us keep our gun rights! >Where's that attitude when someone makes a George Floyd meme >>This comparison makes absolutely no sense. >>>Both dead, both were shit people >>>>That covers quite a bit of ground. I do find it hilarious however that the two of them will be linked in certain people's minds forever. Like they are somehow two sides of a coin. I doubt Charlie would have wanted to be compared to George Floyd forever but LOL >>>>>I can hate both Kirk for debating with bad talking points and Floyd for being a terrible person all his life bro it's nothing special >>>>>>That's what I find so interesting. George Floyd was really not a special person at all he was a private citizen who committed a petty crime. It's just funny to me how he now gets equivocated to Kirk. Like he was somehow an ideological opponent. >>>>>>>It’s more the public reaction to their supposed “martyrdom” as who they are. Floyd wasn’t a good dude who freaked out over a cops being called over fake money and died from the fentanyl in his system (supposedly) but the reaction led to several riots across the USA and the UK, multiple deaths and a pathetic attempt at creating an autonomous zone which got two kids killed with shooters calling themselves “heroes” and trying to hide the evidence. Charlie Kirk was some Christian schmuck who debated people in universities whether in good/bad faith about social political which he was passionate about and when he got murdered (in front of his family) the aftermath was the opposite, aside from the weird funeral. So yeah, that’s probably why they’re compared so much. (37 more comments of these two arguing)

Murdered at the hands of the state vs murdered by another citizen makes a big difference. >Armed robbery and pointing a gun to a pregnant woman vs debating college kids >>Love how you conveniently leave out he and his organization were a major driving factor in the Jan 6 insurrection attempt. Not only did he help contribute to the false narrative he directly contributed to bussing insurrectionists to the capitol. So debating college kids… and treason. >>>I'm not saying he was a good person but I'd lather leave the keys to my house to Kirk than to Floyd >>>>Good thing nobody asked you to give him your keys. They’re merely asking you to not make light of the state executing people without due process. >>>>>Oh right, you guys don’t even believe people like Floyd need keys since no one is illegal on stolen land and are free to just break in, r*pe your daughter, and steal your tv. >>>>>>MAGAots should be neither seen nor heard.

“Political violence is good as long as it’s someone I don’t like.” >Exactly correct >>You’re really not far from a fascist lol. >>>Im just not a bootlicker towards the racists in our country >>>>“Our country” as if you didn’t say you support something fundamentally against our country’s values. By endorsing political violence have more in common with the neo-nazis you say you hate than anyone else. >>>>>How the fuck is murder against American values? We spent the last year drone striking Cuban fisherman for literally no reason you dumbass. >>>>>>Do I really have to explain to you how supporting killing anyone who disagrees with you is undemocratic and against freedom of speech and expression? >>>>>>>Don’t bother with debating these guys, man. Apparently once you label someone as a racist fascist nazi for moderate or conservative leaning political views, murdering them is totally fine. It’s all good though, you just have to adhere to their reactionary and dogmatic self righteous worldview and you’ll be fine. >>>>>>>>You're right. I just think it's alarming people genuinely believe in murdering their political opponents. Then again reddit is not politically representative of the average American so that's relieving lol. (20 more comments of these two arguing)

It's a good warning about what happens to bad people. >Leftists want you dead if you dare to criticize their cult >>Leftist celebrates the death of those who would celebrate mine. Fixed it for you booboo. >>>Weird how you base all that on an imaginary scenario in your head that never happened >>>>Sure bud. >>>>>it only happened in your head 🤷‍♀️ >>>>>>Uh huh.

"We shouldnt kill people just becahse we dont like them" is not a bootlicker position. >CK needed to die because he worked towards perpetuating the cycle of hate, he was a terrorist. >>Idk man, I dont see any cycle of hate in any of his content. I disagree with a lot of what he said, but calling him a terrorist is a stretch. Might have had dog whistles scattered throughout, but it still is worth mentioning anyway. >>>"Might have had dog wistles scattered throughout" You realize that is wrong, right? You just admitted he had dog whistles in his speeches. He constantly spread his hatred towards LGBT community and the black community or other marginalized communities. You are admitting in your comment that he tried to hide offensive terms and symbols in his speeches, like a shitty person would. >>>>So a person with views you don’t like is a terrorist? Are we in 4th grade still? >>>>>When the views hurt the greater population by spreading animosity, especially when he did it during very socially tense times, yes. He was a domestic terrorist through his words and his popularity >>>>>>You have no idea what a terrorist definitionally is. You can just say you support political violence dawg, no need to sugarcoat it. >>>>>>>Social terrorist, imo, he uses his platform to spread animosity and hatred, he was trying to destroy what this country took years to build. He was a terrorist.

Yeah an innocent guy was murdered by a terrorist. I get how you could laugh at that as dark humor, but saying that this was a good thing is just plain stupid. >Of course, such blatant violence is awful. But it is hard to feel bad for Kirk himself, when he was a shitty guy, and he shared the opinion that gun deaths are "worth it" to keep the 2nd Amendment.e >>I don't agree with happened to Charlie kirk. Charlie kirk on the other hand >>>Exactly. Americans hating on Charlie Kirk is so wild to me. HE'S YOUR COMPATRIOT. Your fellow American. Imo this is much more important than someone supporting republicans/democrats. Where's your beautiful sense of national unity? A guy who ultimately wants the best for your country, the thing you (if you have a brain) probably want too. And yet you treat him like a domestic terrorist. This is borderline idiotic. >>>>"HE'S YOUR COMPATRIOT. A guy who ultimately wants the best for your country" You either don't know much about Kirk's politics, are very naive, or are being purposefully stupid if you think everyone could just build "national unity" with Charlie Kirk. >>>>>Yeah I don't know much about Kirk I thought he was your regular Republican like say DeSantis, so pro-natalist, a bit anti-LGBTQ (not discrimination, just anti-DEI), anti-welfare, conservative, free markets, gun rights, etc. Did he promote any fringe ideas like say, Tucker Carlson or Trump? >>>>>>"Did he promote any fringe ideas like say, Tucker Carlson or Trump?" He wrote a book called "The MAGA Doctrine", a manifesto for the movement. He was a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson. He was advocating for Trump with Trump's family since 2016.

People who mock his death either, never watch full context videos of his stuff with a honest ear, parroting their friends or genuinely terrible people who think they're the good guys and incapable of doing wrong. Its worst on Instagram and tik tok. The one good thing that came out of this is that it reveals the demons wearing human masks. >yea... if you are gonna hate him at least understand why he said what he said >>Bit that would require being humble, honest with yourself and worst, open to admitting that you might be wrong and a possiblitybof changing your mind. We cant have that. Im reminde of this video https://youtu.be/C5IF0BJ7N0U?is=jqCesHNTTjyRmggQ >>>He used to shame young r*pe victims for even considering abortions. Do not speak about being humble if you support that. You will never change the opinion of people who are in their right minds about certain things, ever. No matter how well spoken you are. No chance I will end up wrong for being considerate about a young girl's life. Kirk did that while supporting a rapist to be elected as a president too. I hope I don't have to provide you court documents on Epstein to make you believe this. Surely you can do your own research. >>>>redditor in a nutshell >>>>>Just human

Idk why you're catching flak for this. Kirk was a bastard and frankly deserves every ounce of mockery he gets, but at the end of the day that's straight up a dead body people are posting to god knows where, often untagged. >Because anyone that says something even remotely not-negative about Kirk gets made fun of >>there's nothing positive to say about the man >>>If u can’t say a single thing positive about your opponent then you don’t have a rational mind nor do you want a resemblance of peace, you’re just as bad as any MAGA bastard >>>>say a good thing about Hitler >>>>>Hitler is a bit of a stretch compared to Kirk but I’ll bite: He was a good speaker.

As bad as what happened was I can't help notice the people making fun of George Floyd are very vocal about how we as a society should not celebrate someone dying🤔. >Ah yes, because a criminal drug dealer and armed robber dying of a drug overdose that he willingly chose to take is definitely on the same level as a political assassination because words hurt the shooter's feelings. I don't think either should be mocked as they are both human beings who died far too young, but there is a pretty clear difference lol >>"Both are wrong but one is more wrong". Funny how you prove my point. >>>And funny how you dismiss mine. Typical liberal behavior. A drugged up criminal dying of an overdose simply isn't the same as a political assassination. >>>>If we are allowed to make fun of shitty person A then don't complain when we do it about shitty people you support. >>>>>Again, an actual criminal is quite a different kind of shitty than words that hurt your feelings lol >>>>>>You seem to love this guy? I am not defending George or what he did but you are dying on the hill for CK. >>>>>>>? I don't really have an opinion on the Kirkster. He was just objectively a better person than Floyd lol. Kirky didn't have an essay worth of criminal history. Floyd did.

Once you have determine someone is an evil monster by your moral standards you're only allowed to be a shitty horrible person with no repercussion. >This is what his death made me very afraid of. Once political assassination is seen as a "good thing" and becomes celebrated, it's a very slippery and steep slope into just killing whoever you dont like. >>At the “slippery slope” argument. Yes, I suppose if you ignore all nuance and historical precedent, act like this kind of thing has never happened and there is no clear moral line crossed, it would be quite worrying. Of course it has and there is. Political violence and yes, even murder, has been used throughout history and been celebrated already. Take the American and French revolutions. Kirk was a major contributor to what many consider a corrupt and tyrannical regime, he also fed into the election denial and bussed people to the capitol, making him a major contributor to the failed insurrection on Jan 6. This is in addition to a long history of spreading vile rhetoric that directly contributes to the increased persecution, stigma, and yes, violence against marginalized groups. Just because he was a wealthy influencer who never had to dirty his hands himself doesn’t mean he is innocent. I’ll never advocate for or celebrate murder myself but let’s not act like people who did celebrate it are a bunch of violent psychopaths who would celebrate going around murdering anyone they disagree with. That’s absurd. There is a clear distinction. >>>That’s a lot of words to say “I’m ok with murder when I disagree with them” >>>>More like “while I don’t endorse it myself I can see why people would celebrate murder if the end result is a net benefit to society”. But go off. >>>>>This is why I can’t take people like you seriously. So you’re ok with murder if it’s a “benefit to society”. Who gets to choose who dies? Why not you? You take up space and food and resources, some might argue you dying would benefit society. What if someone disagrees with you politically, is it ok for them to shoot at you? I don’t care if you were a full blown communist or a raging republican, I’d defend your right to be free from the fear of violence because I believe in a society where people can live without that fear. I’m not gonna shrug my shoulders and pretend it’s ok and justify it. I stand by my moral compass 100%. And I think that’s something the Kirk situation showed us, a lot of people (on ANY side) are suddenly ok with murder if it benefits them, and they should definitely reflect on this and hopefully change. >>>>>>Kirk wasn't just some guy with opinions. You get that, right? He was an incredibly wealthy political commentator who made his fortune off mocking the deaths of gun violence victims and members of the LGBTQ community. People celebrating his death isn't going to lead to them murdering people in the street, stop trying to make yourself a victim

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/DuxburyDeathsFreeTalk/comments/1w1qoe1/i_sent_a_message_to_jen_sprague_via_linkedin/

Context: r/duxburydeathsfreetalk is a sub for talking about the Lindsay Clancy trial, that is staunchly anti-Clancy.

HIGHLIGHTS

(OP) Check out Jennifer Sprague’s profile on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennifer-sprague-195b5754?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_mweb&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile screenshot of OP sending fanmail to the lead prosecutor >Yikes.

Omg that’s so good to know thank you. I will do the same ❤️ >(OP) I never expected her to accept my follow request. She did first thing this morning and I immediately messaged her. Expected nothing back.. just wanted to share appreciation and support. Couldn’t believe she responded.. and she does need to hear she has a support system cheering her on. They are literally being bullied, body shaming, videoing her walking in the courthouse.. being heckled. My heart hurts for her. >>She’s been doing this for 22 years , I think she’s got more back bone than 90% of the people heckling her. Especially the Reddit trolls who clearly are just toxic and jealous she has a strong career as a woman . But I agree we need to support her and make it Loud :) >>>Do you believe men or women who criticize reddington are jealous of his incredibly successful career? >>>>No, they just don’t like his aggressive tactics and referring to professional female witnesses as eg “the Indian woman” >>>>>Saying, "the Indian woman" is perhaps a tactic to highlight that it's not only white women who and people who understand psychosis who may see this a certain way. He also said her name. Also, mentioning another culture might make people compare/contrast... Indian grandparents and grandparent-in-laws come to stay with new moms for months at a time. ...the isolation of white American culture along with the faux pas to say someone is acting unwell or needs to go sleep, plays a role in postpartum mental health. Other adults in the household would have been a factor to avoid this tragedy. A short visit or day visit is stressful in a way live-in grandparents isn't. >>>>>>News flash, Boomer-style offhand racism and misogyny isn’t a “tactic”

This is parasocial just like the people who are fans of reddington this is her job >I think Lindsay is guilty but this is def taking things a little too far. Equal to sending Big Red flowers lol >>You can’t possibly think sending a message on LinkedIn is equal to paying for and arranging the delivery of flowers to his office. >>>I think becoming overly involved in a trial in which you don’t know anyone involved is taking it a bit far. Is it the worst thing - absolutely not. I guess I just wouldn’t ever think go to “real world.” I say this again as “Lindsay is guilty” person. >>>>Both sides have gone off the deep end, it’s so bizarre to me. There are people that are legitimately obsessed with this trial it’s weird. I guess some will say I’m cold but I have zero emotional attachment to this so to speak. An absolutely horrific case but I didn’t know these people. >>>>>Agreed! Hoping everyone can go back to their regular lives soon regardless of the verdict, these are not our lives that were, or are going to be, affected.

Notwithstanding the MA SJC Rule on trial publicity and extrajudicial communications, the ABA created an entire rule in their Model Rules of Professional Conduct on the "Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor." I'm not commenting with an opinion on the Defendant. I'm commenting on the blatant unprofessionalism of these two ADAs. Specifically, subsection (f), which states: "(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule." Fangirl on...Rule 3.8: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_8_special_responsibilities_of_a_prosecutor/ Rule 3.6: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_6_trial_publicity/ >This has massively triggered you... and its weird. >>These are literally the rules we swear to abide by as lawyers, and there is a reason for them. We're officers of the court and administer justice, which is a pretty great privilege that we need to take care of, and a lot of moral responsibility comes with it. Sprague could be disciplined or be disbarred if she's engaging like this on an active case... or even after sentencing is complete. >>>Ok. Thats crazy to me.. obviously im not a lawyer and live at the other side of the world. But I sit watching a defence attorney with his sunglasses on taking photos with the Lindsey fans outside the court, making snide comments to influence public opinion and watched the nation pull the DA'S appart online... and if they respond with a thank you to a message of support they could get disbarred? I knew america was fucked up, but jesus christ! >>>>Don't listen to this person, they're full of shit. >>>>>Lol. I'm literally a lawyer and you've been cited the Model Rules multiple times in these comments. I'm dead curious as to what kind of weird satisfaction you get out of straight out lying about the existence of such rules when the average citizen with half a brain cell knows these exist? Do you too think Sprague gaf about what people on Reddit think about her? Did you send a cringe-ass inappropriate message, too? >>>>>>Sure you are

What about Shanan Buckingham? >(OP) I asked that she share it with her as well. Did not leave her out❤️ >>It's extremely strange to fangirl an ADA, as well as reach out to her in the middle of jury deliberations. Appreciate your post. >>>(OP) I’m pretty certain sending someone words of encouragement and support isn’t fangriling. I would think sending flowers, making posts over the top in a personalized way as if someone knew them personally… stuff like that would be a fangirl. I guess we can define things however we see them. >>>>You're missing the point. Do whatever you want in your spare time. Just do it privately. You chose to share it here, which changes the dynamic, if you will. >>>>>(OP) I am sorry I triggered you. Clearly this has upset you. Never meant to upset anyone. >>>>>>You're not upsetting me in the least. We'll see if anyone is upset on Monday. Enjoy your weekend!

I tried to send her a message about a week ago and because we are not connected and I don’t have a paid account. I could not get my message through. I actually also tried to send a connection request and I hope she will accept it. I would like to be able to tell her what a great job she did. What a great job they both did. I find it appalling that anybody could go after them or make such horrible comments. If you work for the district attorneys office, you have a job to do. And people need to understand that. >I told her that many people on Reddit are supportive of her 😁 I had to subscribe to a paid account lmao >>So many people on ONE reddit sub >>>lol Hundreds of people in this subreddit sweets And judging by who is trashing her with petty arguments + zero constructive criticism , who gives a F about them 😁 they can go shove a bow right up their ..🙈.. to displace the huge stick already lodged there. >>>>THIS subreddit, only lol. Everywhere else on the internet is not seeing the same as this subreddit, sweets. >>>>>Oh and the amount of lawyers with facts and education that have been kicked out of this subreddit 😂 clearly none of that matters here >>>>>>Plenty of people are also lawyers who think she’s guilty in this sub 😁 >>>>>>>Then why have many been kicked out and censored. And I have yet to see one person on these threads present information from a legal perspective. Lots of opinions and feelings.

I can't even imagine the deluge of hate she's received... she must be very tough. This kind of pressure and backlash would make most people crumble. I've heard that Attorney Buckingham actually doesn't even work for the DA's office anymore and had to be called back because Attorney Sprague was the only ADA that was willing to take this case! Major respect to Attorney Sprague for a very good job well done on an extremely difficult, sensitive case. And deepest appreciation for Attorney Buckingham for stepping in! >No other attorney in the DA’s would take the case?!?!?!! Seriously? >>Yeah it would be hard to prosecute a woman who clearly did the worst thing she could do during a mental health crisis. I wouldn’t forgive myself if I put her in prison on top of the suffering she has had. If she goes to prison, I imagine she will not last very long. She most certainly will finish what she started and join her children. Idk what’s more merciful. Letting her kill herself in prison or locking her in an asylum so she can live with her guilt for the rest of her life. Horrible…I don’t envy the prosecution. >>>You wouldn’t forgive yourself for putting a woman who strangled 3 children in prison? And you know in said “asylum” she will likely be out within the year? >>>>I don't know why people keep saying she'd be out in a year. >>>>>Because that’s how it works. Look into the process if she is found NGRI. Even seasoned attorneys, prosecutors, etc all say she will be out very soon. This is not a life sentence in a mental hospital. She is doing better and if she is not deemed a danger she will be let out. >>>>>>Completely false! The average time in Massachusetts is 15.5 years. One elderly man was released in 5 years. This info is available for all to read. Fact check before posting false info. >>>>>>>You are not understanding. LINDSAY WAS FAKING THE PSYCHOSIS. She was never psychotic. You cannot gauge off the statistics of others who are in mental institutions. There are people in there who SERIOUSLY ARE ILL. Lindsay’s was a “singular” psychotic event due to postpartum according to her defense. She is several years out from having her children so it won’t be that again. She is now on the “right meds.” They are literallyyyyyy prepping her rehabilitation story through this trial for her to be released. All of the prosecutors, attorneys, etc watching this case say the exact same thing. She will be out in no time.

Attorney Sprague if you are reading through this thread, know that you have support from the other side of the world too! From Ireland, thank you for giving Cora, Dawson, and Callan a voice 🩷🩵🩵 >I mean, I sincerely hope she has better things to do than generate more public condemnation for the Defendant she's prosecuting via Reddit, but you never know! >>Personally I don’t think the defendant gets enough public condemnation. People who kill helpless children can never get enough imo ☺️ >>>It appears there are many differing prosecutorial approaches. To be concerned about Attorney Sprague's mental health, and look the other way at Lindsay Clancy's, is mind-boggling. Two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. If I were a nurse, much less a labor & delivery nurse, I'm not sure I'd be so forthcoming either. I'd expect to uphold myself to the standard that was expected of me. The thing about mental health and true psychosis, is that after awhile you can no longer keep up the facade. The consequences, as they are in this situation, ultimately devastating. That's not to say to turn a blind eye to this condition. Enough is enough. NY v. Dimone Fleming. https://www.reddit.com/r/CasesWeFollow/s/1tXPI3qvpu https://archive.is/8gJYF#selection-3899.0-3902.0 >>>>We are still talking about the same Lindsay that strangled 3 children, right? >>>>>"On Monday, nearly four years later, prosecutors and a lawyer for Ms. Fleming, now 26, agreed she was in a state of psychosis when she killed her children. A judge found her not responsible by mental disease or defect. As a result, she will avoid prison, but could be hospitalized for months, if not years, if doctors determine she is still mentally ill........................... >>>>>>Out of curiosity, do you give the same energy to the people praising Reddington and calling him a “pop culture icon”? >>>>>>>Never mind all the social media stupidity, that place also brought the dumb pat clancy theories. My question is. Do you know how our judicial system works? It seems like your group, the "this is about the kids, send this baby killer straight to the chair" group, think we live in 1940s Germany or something

I mean that’s nice of you and we should not be cruel to people but she objectively did not do a good job. >You cannot say she ‘objectively’ didn’t do a good job. That is an opinion. And the jury would’ve reached a NGRI before the weekend if that was truly the case. She clearly persuaded at least one person on that jury that Lindsay knew exactly what she was doing. All it takes is one person to keep Lindsay from NGRI. >>Objectively means making a judgment or evaluating a situation based strictly on observable facts rather than personal feelings, biases, or opinions. >>>Your opinion is not objective. I’m not sure what is difficult to understand here. The observable fact is that the jury still hasn’t reached a verdict after 10 hours of deliberation. Clearly she was convincing enough. >>>>See above or below 🤡 >>>>>Again. The observable fact is that there isn’t a verdict after 10 hours of deliberation. That means she did her job. And I will come back to this comment and giggle if they find Lindsay guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder, or hung jury. >>>>>>The observable fact is that they’ve deliberated for 10 hours. “That means she did her job” is your interpretation of that fact, not an observable fact. You don’t know what they’re debating, how they’re split, or why it’s taking this long. And a verdict measures whether the jury believes the legal burden was met—not the objective quality of an attorney’s courtroom performance.

Her closing argument was better than Reddington’s imo >She walked right into KR’s trapped which lead her to lying. I’m confused where you see she did better? >>What did she lie about? >>>About the workout bands/Patrick’s testimony and what other witnesses testified to. Prosecution witnesses were not consistent in their investigations and she spoke otherwise. Kevin’s may have seen worse, but he opened up doors for her to walk through. She did not give a closing argument based on the fundamentals of the case, she simply responded to Kevin. Even with the quarters, he knew what she would do and she did it. >>>>Walked into his trap… LOL. 😆 It was hard to even follow his closing argument. And opening and closing statements cannot be used as evidence so it doesn’t matter what “trap” you think he led her into, because it only needs to convince ONE person on that jury. As long as there is one person who believes the prosecution proved their case, she will not be getting a NGRI. >>>>>The idea is to point out flaws and provide a story, he did that. Being able to use critical thinking skills to understand the trap would probably help. You think he left those quarters there on purpose? You do understand that if one person disagrees that’s a hung jury, right? >>>>>>1) The quarters aren’t some sort of “gotcha”. He left quarters to challenge her and she successfully accepted the challenge. 2) There is absolutely no way you have any critical thinking skills if you think some woman heard a hallucination for 18 minutes only once in her life, never before, never after, killed her kids, she must be psychotic! In fact you have to be really fucking gullible or low IQ to believe that theory. (18 more comments of these two arguing)

Jennifer Sprague is the kind of friend/family member LC needed in her life. Someone who would have told LC what she needed to hear and not only what LC wanted to hear. I am convinced LC is a liar and a manipulator who was enabled by everyone around her because that was easier then doing the right thing. >Just out of curiosity, if you found your loved one on the frozen ground, possibly dying would you take off your coat to keep them warm? Say that you love them? Beg them to stay awake? Follow up question: your loved one tells you the kids are in the basement: would you check on the kids if you already knew the house was silent and no one answered you from the basement when you called out? Would you at bear minimum look through the window feet away? >>I would call 911 and do what they tell me to do. The first officer arrived on the scene within 4 minutes and then Patrick checked on the children. How do you know he could see in the window? We know a first responsder was able to see but that was after Patrick was down there. We know a light was on because of Patrick's testimony but we don't know if that could have just been a light above the stairs and not one that lit up any of the rooms enough to see into them. Do not try and shift any blame on Patrick. There is one person responsible for the deaths of those children and that is the Murderess and all civilized human beings get it. >>>You’ve missed the plot of my questions but that’s okay, there’s a partner for everyone I suppose. >>>>Stop being ridiculous. You asked questions and I answered. I don't do subliminal messages so if you have something to say, say it. Don't come up with some "plot" you dreamed up in an attempt to blame the blameess. This isn't some kind of mystery where you have dream up a "plot." >>>>>It isn’t. And you hyper focused on his actions verses what I asked you directly.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/MoralityScaling/comments/1vzw55m/morality_of_destroying_private_property/

HIGHLGIHTS

[Immoral. How are we gonna make a new class of serfs without mass AI surveillance.? image >Silence radicalized basement dweller >>Silence pro-state surveillance (heh) flesh puppet >>>lil wannab criminal radical unwashed basement dweller on the last platform that actively reinforces any opinon other than one's own >>>>image Cool story >>>>>nice try but next time use words that create a coherent sentence and not the goyslop u just posted >>>>>>My kingdom for actual good bait. "Goyslop", really? Weak.

It’s not the camera being smashed. It’s that these kids are so easily programmed to break the law and smash things purely because they were told it’s the right thing to to do. >It is the right thing to do. >>Every villain is the hero in their own mind. >>>Flock is a private company that has no actual oversight that is doing constant surveillance of the general public, and tracks car locations in real time, and anyone in the police can search for a vehicle WITHOUT A WARRANT. I get the whole "destruction of others' property is bad" thing, but you are saying that not going along as we slowly become more and more of a surveillance state is "being programmed?" >>>>So what part of public information(being seen in public) requires a warrant? Do law enforcement agencies need a judge's approval for amber alerts? I truly hope flock catches a kidnapping, saves a child, and possibly exposes a trafficking ring some day soon, so morons can stop being paranoid about camara recording public areas. I mean it's already exposing corrupt cops. There has been many law enforcement employees arrested, charged with a crime, forced to resign or fired because of their misuse of it >>>>>It’s creating avenues for corrupt cops. IT CREATED THE ISSUE. You can’t say it fixed it😂 >>>>>>I didn't say it fixed it, i said it exposed them which caused them to lose their career, and some are losing their freedom. Are you thinking they only became corrupt because they had the opportunity to use flock? I personally doubt they weren't corrupted beforehand

Anything that can be viewed in public can be recorded. You have zero expectation of privacy. >It's not just recording, it's tracking. I.e stalking i.e invasive. >>No expectation of privacy while out in public. >>>I'm gonna come around and just follow you and take pictures every three seconds. No expectation of privacy, remember. >>>>Wouldn’t bother me one bit. Only people afraid of cameras are the people that have something to hide. >>>>>Can I have your license plate number? >>>>>>Not against the law to film license plates either. In fact, you don’t even own those plates, the state does. >>>>>>>I agree. It’s totally legit public info Can I have yours? >>>>>>>>Sure can (posts his supposed license plate number). Kansas tag.

To go with how you phrase it: It's immoral to destroy someone's private property without their consent. In the actual situation we're in, we're talking about 'private property' used by law enforcement and the company that creates and rents it out to law enforcement to generally creep and spy on private citizens in public spaces. I'd argue it's completely moral to destroy property being used to make people's lives worse and unsafe. >How does cameras make people unsafe? >>Cops stalking their exes, people being arrested for crimes they couldn't physically have committed, being used by ICE to hunt down people.... >>>So your issues is not with the cameras but with police implementation. Again, how do the cameras themselves make people unsafe? >>>>Because they allow widespread mass surveillance, and if you think that's fine then your really oughtta wake up to the way the world is going >>>>>They allow mass surveillance of public places. That has always been legal. There is no expectation of privacy in public. >>>>>>send me your address then >>>>>>>Flock doesnt record addresses, nor is that public information tied to anything on reddit. However, I could absolutely find your address and you find mine if you had my license plate.

image >So your issues is not with the cameras but with police implementation. Again, how do the cameras themselves make people unsafe? >>In the world we currently live in, do you really think 1984-style mass surveillance is a good idea? >>>Its not 1984 mass surveillance though, as all that is being recorded is public spaces. >>>>So why is my private backyard being recorded >>>>>If it is, you should count your blessings and sue flock, because that is illegal and essentially them handing you free money. >>>>>>I've seen more comprehensive brick walls than you. Convey my condolences to your teachers who had smowhow to put information through your overprotective cranium... Or inform your AI instructor about your ChatGPT quality ass chatbot algorithm needs a check-up

Immoral. If we allowed people to destroy private property over a personal belief. Nothing would be safe. >There are limits to that. If the private property in question is turning us into a surveillance state then it's absolutely moral to destroy it. >>A surveillance state is highly moral as well. Safety is more important than peoples useless paranoia >>>Hell no. That requires implicit trust in the morality of a government that's currently participating in a genocide. >>>>The government as a whole is as moral as the incentive structures force it to be US has outstanding checks and balances. They have access to far better technology than flock cameras if they ever decided to act a fool. Only thing protecting us is how our system is set up. >>>>>Checks and Balances?! What fucking planet are you living on?! >>>>>>Earth The one where United States is the strongest both economically and militarily. You dont get that way without doing some things right.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin Begone bootlicker. >Yeah yeah. He said that shit way before electronics existed. It made sense in his world. Not in ours. Its outdated feebleminded thinking. Surveillance is not that hard to put checks and balances on. We allow our government to have nukes and jets. But somehow cameras will break the camels back. Stupid. >>In country thst cannot even keep in check cops to bot turn or mute bodycams sure buddy... >>>We have no problem checking cops. True police abuse is incredibly rare despite how large the country is. BLM is the one that tells us that. Look at how pathetic their sample cases are. A dipshit like George Floyd would never get any attention if we had actual police abuse problems. Nobody would give a fuck. Its always some lousy dirty criminals wilding out. Never a regular person. Probably because cops dont actually mess with decent people. >>>>Lol. Lmao even. >>>>>Seriously would anyone even give a shit about George Floyd if we had an actual police abuse problem We'd have endless cases of them abusing normal law abiding citizens. Not sniveling useless aggressive drug addicts. Who mostly merked himself by chugging fentanyl prior to the encounter. Nobody would ever care about stuff like that because there would be much better cases to focus on. The fact that this is the best they can come up with shows us that. >>>>>>Lol. Lmao even.

But its not a goverment camera. You are essentially argueing for the destruction of private property that looks onto a public space, all of which is 100% legal. Of course, I have been advocating for years that the constitution should apply to large corps, including free speech and no mass surveillance, but have been yelled at for years for it. >"Of course, I have been advocating for years that the constitution should apply to large corps, including free speech and no mass surveillance, but have been yelled at for years for it." Because this is dumb. You still have free speech in private spaces. You dont have the right to be in someone else's space/ property. And the constitution doesnt protect against surveillance. It actually protects the surveillance. 1st amendment. That being said, my issue with flock is the stalking part. Having security cameras at your property is legal, filming in public is legal. Following someone around and recording their daily activities is not. Thats stalking. Just because flock uses software, doesnt change that. >>Stalking requires the person to reasonably fear for their safety or reasonably suffer extreme emotional distress. Cameras alone do not do that. Yes, people like you want your cake (corps having constituonal rights like people) and eat it too (corps not being allowed to do things people can). You cant change that. >>>"Stalking requires the person to reasonably fear for their safety or reasonably suffer extreme emotional distress. Cameras alone do not do that." Did you read what I wrote... That being said, my issue with flock is the stalking part. Having security cameras at your property is legal, filming in public is legal. Following someone around and recording their daily activities is not. Thats stalking. Just because flock uses software, doesnt change that................... >>>>"And all it takes for a stalking charge is Which if you use software to follow someone," Thats false, I provided the legal definition for stalking. If following somebody is stalking every single major tech company is stalking people. >>>>>"The ALPR system has come under scrutiny in recent months with critics questioning the privacy overreach. The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm that has filed lawsuits against Flock on Fourth Amendment grounds, has tracked at least 47 instances of officers being disciplined in some way for alleged abuse of the Flock system for stalking romantic interests." http://cnn.com/2026/08/26/us/flock-kentucky-police-officer-arrest "Sergio Rodriguez was charged with two third-degree felonies including allegedly stalking and misusing official information using Flock license plate readers to track his ex-wife for over six months." https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/police/2026/08/25/560301/flock-cameras-katy-police-officer/ Officers getting charged with stalking... but it isn't stalking. Can't wait to hear your legal expertise. >>>>>>Both were misusing the camera, and entirely proves my point as the cameras functioning and being used normally is not stalking. (39 more comments of these two arguing)

Amoral, but you should be punished because you are comitting the crime of damaging property that is not yours. The more expensive the damage, the worse the fine/punishment. >If I, as a private citizen were to place a camera unattended on a public street to monitor when you leave and return to your house. So I can sell that information to whoever wants it, no questions asked. what would you do? >>Taking it the legal way and having them lawfully taken down?? >>>taking abandoned stuff from public places isn't a crime. if anything, abandoning flock cameras in public places is littering. >>>>how does your brain work to reach the conclusion that they are abandoned? >>>>>a private company leaving their stuff unattended on the streets==abandoned. if I were to put a camera on a tripod in a public street facing your house, and go back after a week and it isn't there, I doubt the police will take me seriously if I complain about it being stolen. >>>>>>by that logic, any building that is left unattanded for any reason for example being the middle of being built and the workers are off the for the next week would also count as abandoned. you can only call something abandoned if it's left unattended and also not in use anymore >>>>>>>so, if I were to place a camera in a public street monitoring your house, so I can sell your data. I'm technically using it, if you were to touch it, would it be considered vandalism? would you respect my private property and not mess with it? accept that you are monitored for someone else's profit?

Immoral. These cameras help solve violent crimes like murder and child kidnapping. They do not violate the rights of anyone as legally a person doesnt have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. >Imagine the government makes it illegal to be Christian and suddenly these cameras data is used to track everyone who's driven to church since they were placed, and whether theyve gathers privately at someone's home and that that was used as cause to get a warrant to break in and arrest them at their private gathering. Replace Christian with any organization or type of person the government doesnt like and I'm sure you'll understand the reason for concern >>You guys always need to come up with tinfoil hat harebrained conspiracy theories to prove your inane points about mass surveillance. It's always 0 to 1984 for yall lmao >>>If you think my point is specifically about Christians I have a Modest Proposal you should check out. But seriously, we are already at a point where proponents of this are arguing that the moment you step outdoors you should accept that anyone would have the right to record your comings and goings, and that record can be held by private entities at the whims of the government. Why let it snowball for an obvious, unpopular wrong? >>>>Because you're not seeing the other side of it. You're automatically assuming that the powers that be are going to use it for some nefarious reason. But the other side of it is flock is helping solve violent crime, car thefts, and even missing persons and human trafficking cases. When you balance the two, it's very clear one side (saving human lives) is morally superior than the other (preventing mass surveillance).

It's moral. Capitalism and police states are bad >Capitalism isn't the problem. It's corruption. And abundant corruption will time and form of governing. That's why you see all these dei folks going into politics bc they gonna scam the people. Another reasons why they keep getting busted for it. >>Capitalism always brings corruption Social democracy is the least a system has to be to avoid rampant corruption >>>"Capitalism always brings corruption" Socialism does too ("some are more equal than others"). Power corrupts, whether you're at the top of a capitalist or socialist/communist society. >>>>Socialist societies have nobody on top It's literally democracy+ >>>>>Socialist countries are all shit holes. And you is be no wye? Bc of rampant corruption. >>>>>>"socialist countries are all shit holes" why are you calling Finland and New York shit holes? >>>>>>>Ny isn't a country you Dr rocket scientist. 🤦🤦🤦

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/1vtinxt/lindsay_clancy_supporters_dressed_in_pink/

HIGHLIGHTS

Did the system seem to fail her? Yes. Should she still spend the rest of her life behind bars? Yes. Whether that’s a prison or mental hospital, she needs to be locked away. >I mean... this doesn't make sense if the diagnosis is postpartum psychosis, because that doesn't make her a general danger. >>In don’t understand how you can say she isn’t dangerous after she killed three children. >>>She is in a wheelchair for life. She can’t have more children. Not sure how she’s a danger to society.

So we're supporting murderers now? >Do you know much about psychosis? >>enough to know the vast majority of people that have had it do not murder their three children. >>>Yes, different things happen to different people who have it. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the illness & their lack of capacity that caused the act >>>>but does mean they need to be held accountable. mental illness or not, you don't murder your three children. >>>>>Some people do murder because they’re ill. Lindsay isn’t the first case. Not all mental health conditions are equal. How can someone be held accountable if they had no capacity over the act? >>>>>>well if she checked herself out of the clinic, did she show any real attempt to prevent this then? >>>>>>>I would say by the fact that she asked for help and told doctor’s what she was thinking, yes. It’s not popular to say but I think sometimes it’s a little too easy for patients with psychosis to try to leave treatment >>>>>>>>so she just has zero culpability here in your eyes? everyone else around her is the reason she murdered her kids?

She wont go free but most likely serve time in a mental institution >Actually in Massachusetts she might go free, I heard a legal expert describe insanity defense in Massachusetts allows for that. It’s the only state that does. >>They do not walk free in Massachusetts in an insanity defense case, they end up in a psychiatric ward indefinitely. >>>If the judge determines she isn’t a danger to society she can go free. >>>>If that was the case she needs to be barred from being anywhere near children like a sex offender would be

Sometimes things won’t make sense to you unless you’re an expert or have the credentials to fully understand the issue. It doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy behind it. these conspiracy’s completely over shadow the real issue of Postpartum psychosis and takes up way too much space in this specific conversation. >I’m a physicist. I understand how heat and heat transfer works. You can’t have a core temp of 82 unless you spend consider time, exposed, outside. If not…there needs to be some other reasonable explanation. You can’t not explain it. >>Spinal injuries make your core temp lower faster. Something you would know as a medical expert but wouldn’t know as a physicist. >>>Something I would know as a physicist is that even if all of the mechanisms that prevent your core temp from dropping fail, there’s still a maximum rate at which you can cool to the equilibrium in your environment. Core temp wouldn’t/can’t cool to 82 in a few minutes outside in that case. >>>>Actually a spinal injury and losing a lot of blood can absolutely explain it, the defense put on a witness that did exactly that. You’re comparing her to a stationary object: bodies don’t work the same way.

Women's healthcare needs an entire overhaul. The entire system failed her and other women. >still killed 3 innocent children… >>And she likely wouldn't have had her psychosis been treated. >>>Maybe read more about the case. She never reported any psychotic symptoms to any of the multiple doctors and nurse practitioners she was seeing. >>>>And yet, was under treatment for mental illness and taking medications with known behavioral side-effects. It's not as simple as "she didn't have a diagnosis". >>>>>She was getting treatment for depression and anxiety. Depression and anxiety do not make you kill your own children. The reason this trial is taking place is to determine if she was psychotic at the time of the killings.

A woman murdered her three children which she has admitted to. The issue at hand in the trial is if she criminally responsible because of her mental state. It should be noted that both she and her ex-husband are suing several medical providers for negligence because she did report her mental health issues and no one could help her. On top of that because of insurance issues she switched doctors a couple times which also probably made the situation worse. Her ex-husband is on her side and is testifying for the defense. >Wow is he the father of the children? What a horrific position to be in and a pretty amazing human being to be able to reason like this despite the loss! >>[deleted] >>>I side eye the shit out of him for how fast that remarriage was. Like, I get that grief is wild and maybe he desperately wanted to go back to something that felt normal, but it’s barely been three years. >>>>No one would be batting an eye if the genders were swapped and the wife remarried after her husband killed their kids >>>>>Yes they would???

so basically another Andrea Yates? >[removed] >>But did she check herself out after admitting herself ? And lie to her providers regarding her medication and taking her medication ? >>>Yep. She had access to all help she could get and then didnt take it. There is no one else responsible for killing her children except for her. Disgusting that people are trying to blame it on her husband. >>>>It’s almost like insane people don’t make good choices. Why was she allowed to check herself out if she was openly admitting to wanting to hurt her children? For the record, I don’t believe her husband killed the kids, she killed her kids and justice needs to be served for her kids, but also we can recognize and criticize how it was ever able to get to this point. Part of justice is making sure shit like this never happens again. >>>>>She did not ever tell anybody that she wanted to hurt her children, if you watch the trial. There is no legal mechanism to keep somebody locked up for depression and anxiety. >>>>>>From watching the trial, a big problem was putting her issues into run of the mill “depression and anxiety” when her symptoms were very severe.

Multiple things can be true at once. She was failed by healthcare. Americans are failed by healthcare. American women are failed by Healthcare especially. New mothers don't get the support they need. PPD is real and terrible. None of that changes the fact that she is plainly guilty of murdering three children and the idea that she shouldn't face any consequences for that is completely absurd. >Punishing someone for what they did when they essentially weren’t steering the ship is unfair. It was post partum psychosis not post partum depression. People aren’t making actual choices when they’re psychotic. >>We don't know that she was psychotic >>>Zeizel, who said he spent more than 35 hours with Clancy over dozens of visits and reviewed her medical records, said she went to a perinatal clinic in December 2022 because she felt her "brain was damaged," "she should kill herself" and that she "is never going to get any better." She also showed signs of psychosis, was paranoid and feared that people could hear her thoughts and that she would lose her children. "She was worried that her children would be removed from her and that she would never see them again," he said. But just because she was in a psychotic state, Zeizel said, that didn't mean she couldn't do "everyday tasks of living" like driving and searching the internet, a reference to the fact that the day of the killings she took her daughter to the doctor, played with the children in the snow and searched online for a pharmacy and a restaurant. >>>>Zeizel was evaluating her after the fact so he knew the outcome, which her doctors did not. He also has conflicts of interest and I personally don't find him credible due to that Numerous doctors saw her beforehand and did not observe signs of psychosis SI and intrusive thoughts are not symptoms >>>>>I put more stock in him than you anyway >>>>>>I'm a psychologist and he did some pretty sketchy things in terms of boundaries and that call his objectivity into question.

Why should someone be locked away for the rest of the life over something they had no capacity over? >[removed] >>Do you know anything about psychosis? People who are in psychosis aren’t really acting in a way that they are choosing. Their brains are ill and are misfiring. She should be in treatment but she shouldn’t be punished as if she were a cold blooded killer. Why do you think we have not guilty by reason of insanity/reduced capacity? >>>It is not proven that this was psychosis. She claimed she had psychosis for 30 mins while killing her kids and that’s it, no other episodes before or after. None of the multiple clinicians she saw ever diagnosed her with that. What she had and what was thoroughly documented was severe depression and suicidal ideation. She was suicidal and wanted to take her kids with her (called altruistic filicide), but failed on killing herself. She was/is mentally ill, the system is flawed, but she needs to pay for what she did nevertheless. Most school shooters are suicidal, mentally ill, some even schizophrenic. Should we forgive and support them too? >>>>Can you tell me where she claimed she had psychosis for 30 minutes? >>>>>Her ex-husband testified during the trial that she told him on the phone that she had ‘a moment of psychosis’. >>>>>>Could you share a link with me to the quote please? When I search those words together it doesn’t come up and I’d like to read it in context >>>>>>>https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-psychology/a-husband-in-the-aftermath-of-his-wifes-unfathomable-act It’s in this New Yorker article where they interviewed him.

I understand about health issues and things like that but she still killed all 3 of her children in 1 go in a brutal manner, , even if she prevented jail by a miracle she still going to have to go to a mental health hospital for 2 or 3 decades Minimun. She killed her 3 babies what cant she not do to other people or other peoples babies? I am all for woman justice and mental health problems but ignorant people really want This woman out Just like that? Comon... 💀💀 >Punishing people for something they did that they didn’t really have control over actually seems ignorant to me. >>Getting her out free or not sending her to a mental hospital for help if she was not mentally okay when she killed 3 of their own children actually seems ignorant to me. >>>Why do so few people seem to not understand that free is not and never has been an option here? The entire purpose of this trial is to decide whether she goes to prison or the state hospital. >>>>She will potentially be able to get out of the state hospital tho - the doctors would have to declare her stable and not a danger to herself or others and then she would be allowed to go free. Not out of the realm of possibility at all. >>>>>You've misunderstood/misread me. Going home free from trial is not and never has been an option.

I understand having overall compassion for the situation for everyone involved, but are these people hoping she just goes free completely? It's never felt right for trials to become this much of a spectacle. We've gone way too far. >Unlikely. They are probably she succeeds in her insanity defense, which will mean she will be in a state psychiatric institution until she is considered safe to be released, which could well be never. There’s no scenario in which she walks out of the courthousr a free woman. It’s either prison or a psychiatric institution. >>That’s not true. She could be found guilty, guilty by reason of insanity, or not guilty. Edit: People need to educate themselves more. A not guilty is an unlikely, but possible verdict. Even if Lindsay’s lawyer isn’t shooting for a not guilty verdict, it is still possible. Please educate yourselves before blindly claiming it’s not possible when it is. Her lawyer literally mentioned these three possible verdicts at the beginning of the trial. >>>No, she cannot be found not guilty of the crime. Neither side is contesting that she physically killed her children. >>>>They aren’t contesting it, but she absolutely can be found not guilty. She almost certainly won’t, but it is an option for the jury. Here’s the judge’s opening remarks to the jury where he explains the three options; guilty of 1st degree, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of a lack of criminal responsibility https://youtu.be/0vqEjhYygp8?is=zrAq4C8v1EUz-1n1 >>>>>“If found not guilty because of a lack of criminal responsibility, she would be committed to a state mental health facility.“ Huh, so it doesn’t actually mean what you’re insisting it means. There is no scenario where she walks free. >>>>>>That's referring to NGRI which is different than being outright not guilty.

I do feel for everyone involved in this case. It is an absolute tragedy that it happened. I think that Lindsay never meant to intentionally hurt her children. Her trial should be just and fair. But, I do not support the idea that her husband did it. Postpartum Psychosis is a very under discussed issue. It is such a shame that she wasn’t removed from her children’s care when she mentioned that she is having dreams of harming them. >He was at the very least complicit. He KNEW and did nothing. He was the one that should have protected the kids. ETA: Y'all are wild. She verbalized her thoughts of harm towards her children, he knew she was struggling, and he STILL left his children with her. Imagine if the roles were reversed - wouldn't you expect a mother to protect her children from a violent father? >>Lowkey kinda crazy to turn the wife murdering her three children into being the husband’s fault >>>It's not his fault but imo it is absolutely negligent to hear you spouse say "I'm having compulsions about hurting our children" and then leaving her at home with them.. I'm sure he was in an awful position but like... the least he could've done is take the kids on an errand with him. It's not his fault, it's not his fault, but it's not hers either. And while she was given a lotof support,it wasn't enough for the severity of her case and a lot of factors contributed to that. He was a small factor. >>>>Yea I’m pretty sure it’s her fault… she strangled three children, how could she possibly not be at fault? I know all of the details. She could have had better support. But since when does having “intrusive thoughts” completely absolve you of blame? You still made the decision to act on them >>>>>It’s beyond intrusive thoughts. You have zero understanding of the psychology at hand here if you think this is a case involving intrusive thoughts