@pawthetic its different when its a widely resolved conflict from almost 100 years ago especially because rather than explicitly refering to the deaths related to the tragedy i am mentioning it in a objecive sense, and the fact that beyond being a weapon nuclear bombs are technological marvels

lets not lose the plot guys, wrong topic for this tomfoolery </3

@Fr3akalici0us1 i already drop the fat man in my toilet after a night of taco bell hiroshima on that porcelain throne

@pawthetic you cant just discredit th fact that your own words went against you by saying it was"one time", it still happened either way and youre saying it hadnt

w faps?

@seesaw i bussid to this!!!

you know me i have trouble shutting up at contreversy

@NightmareWolfie did not see this sowwy

@pawthetic heres what i want to make very evident; you dont have to give a fuck about charlie kirk dying, you dont have to like him. i personally do NEITHER. what you should give a fuck about is the fact that a man, charlie kirk or not, DIED, because he SPOKE in a way someone didnt like. period. and quite frankly your signiature definitely echoes that given theres a literal death threat for misgendering you

@Yanderemenhera probably fair. this shouldnt be an argument, im just defending against the idea that charlie was treated with more priority simply because of his race or identification

@pawthetic and as ive regurgitated for the millionth time, MOST PEOPLE HOLD THE SAME MORAL AND ETHICAL VIEWS EXCEPT FOR AVID POLITICAL SUPPORTERS if charlotte's death had the same popularity as charlie i'm sure the consensus would be the EXACT SAME; 'damn thats fucked up'.

@Yanderemenhera its a forum, its meant for whatever topic is at hand. i dont think someones death SHOULD be political but because hes a "cisgender white male" it makes him 'privileged'

@pawthetic i didnt really twist your words, i just said that you have yet to mention a single person in support of charlotte OTHER THAN YOURSELF although they are still a very abundant group of people

@pawthetic wolfie also didnt say that you said that. he said youre acting as if theres a support for that demographic as well, which is true. youre mentioning all the people who made fun of her suicide whilst ignoring and not making a single mention of people in support and greiving (other than yourself) which does her more of an injustice than anything. i'd be pretty pissed if i died, became international news, and then you just used me as a moral shield like "hey look how everyone hates this person!! but i dont!" rather than highlighting the positive reaction

@pawthetic okay, but youre going out of your way to resist what i'm saying, yet agree with someone else on something that i too agree with

@pawthetic twin why are you acting like i just got checkmated or sum i AGREE with wolf and understand their point. yours is leaned very far into systematic bias though

@Woof26 yeah to no end am i saying he was a good guy, but for someone to be assassinated for their beliefs is terrifying. people have the stance to learn on "oh he was disagreeable and a zionist!" which is FUNDIMENTALLY TRUE, but you wont be able to lean on that when its someone YOU support. to put it in perspective; the reason people are upset is because a man got shot for nothing more than someone disagreeing with him. that's all his life amounted to, and thats why his life ended. that's not a safe reality for anyone to live in no matter if their beliefs align with yours or not

@pawthetic and ive given you all the reasons as to why thats bs

@pawthetic you said charlie kirk is only recognized because hes a cisgender white male

and popularity isnt really rooted in support or distain, its just seeded in engagement. like how youre still supporting the algorithm of a video by disliking it