All that has to be done is start whacking a few of these assholes and the rest will get the picture. It's like when you got your ass beat in class from the teacher in front of the rest of the class for screwing off. Oh but that doesn't happen anymore.....damn shame
Dude, let's step back a minute and look at what you're saying. I'm starting to actually believe that the majority of people here are either incapable of understanding hypocrisy or that they get off on it.
We have a tiktok video of a person making implied threats against ICE agents and their families. And the response here is to make direct threats against them.
So what makes it ok for people to call for violence against this tiktoker and whoever else you're associating with them ("these assholes")?
Seriously. I'm trying to understand what is going on in people's mind where they think that the logical response /moral highground to implied threats is direct, explicit threats.
Is it because you're only saying shit within this forum? Is that because you think people here will think you're just blowing smoke/talking tough and that you have no expectation of anyone here taking you seriously while someone making implied threats on tiktok is more dangerous because people there might actually take them seriously?
Is it because the tiktoker actually said the word "children" or "kids"in their video? As long as you don't actually bring up that your enemy has children, it somehow makes any children those enemies have magically go away? I'm pretty sure that tiktoker has children too. Do they not count? Are they going to be unaffected if some psycho actually takes you up on your suggestions and kills or harms that tiktoker? Do they deserve it, because their mom "started it"?
Seriously, I have to wonder about some of you sometimes. I don't know what the hell is going on in your heads when you do shit like this.
Again, I'm not defending the person in this video. Because I know that's going to be your knee jerk defensive position. I think that person is horrible.
People seem to be forgetting this lately. I get it, but it doesn't make it ok. Also, I think the person in the video is rage baiting. It seems disingenuous to me.
They are randomly saying it, they are coming out of the blue and saying it in an attacking posture.
Commentors you are questioning, are only saying it defensively.
Commentors you are questioning would NEVER go out and ask for violence against her because of her gender, race, whatever, they are only REACTING to her in a defensive posture.
What is the best defense? An even better offense. Ask the F16 raptor.
So that's what makes these remarks better, because they are within the framework of self defense.
"Defensively"? Seriously? So that's OK, then? It's OK to call for an attack on someone else, as long as it's "defensive"?
That's just a rephrasing of "She started it!"
Do I need to put on my Mom voice and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right?
They're being "defensive" on someone else's behalf. Not their own. Unless they want to identify as an ICE agent, which I seriously doubt they are. So there's nothing "self" in the "self defense" there.
If liberals used "reasoning" like that, then any attack on that tiktoker or the assholes the other poster was talking about could encourage them to practice some of your "offensive self defense" and just start killing Trump supporters, Republicans, anyone they see as a threat. And that would be OK, because it would be the very best version of "offensive self defense", according to you. Right?
I also have to point out that the tiktoker hasn't actually done anything. They haven't physically harmed anyone. They haven't even actually called for anyone to harm them. At most it's an implied threat of doxxing someone, possibly stalking.
Calling for someone to be killed when all they've done is made an implied threat is simply not even in the same universe as "self defense". This isn't just an opinion. It's just an asinine argument.
hard disagree, and again, you use chatgpt and completely ignore the sarcasm.
you believe so much in a thing you are incapable of forming your own words for it and must resort to the brain rot of chatgpt to argue for you.
and yes, for anyone else who stumbles this far down the comment chain, his comments is 1000% chatgpt, the sentence watermarks are such an obvious giveaway.
you can make chatgpt have arguments for killing babies, doesn't mean it's a good argument. you can gave chatgpt make arguments for why it's good Charlie was murdered. doesn't make it a good argument.
To be far, whacking could be like getting arrested or being hurt, up for interpretation. Getting whacked is like getting in trouble, but I agree we got a be careful what we say here. We are a peaceful army that fights with keyboards.
Well, to be fair, the entire video they're so upset about doesn't say anything at all about harming ICE agents or their families. Nothing to even be interpreted. So....
Also, for you to try to frame someone being whacked as something other than being killed is just...well, special.
So, your response to this tiktoker's implied threat against ICE agents and their children is an explicit threat against them and whatever other assholes you're talking about?
And you don't see the hypocrisy there?
What's the difference? She did it on TikTok and you're doing it here? Hers was against ICE agents and their families in general, yours was against actual specific people, with names and faces out there? Is that better? Worse?
I'm not excusing her. Obviously she was wrong and is a horrible person. But what you're doing isn't any better. It's actually legally worse, because you're not even going the "implied threat" route. That's an explicit threat. Nothing implied there.
Why do you think this is even ok?
Notice on the sidebar where it reminds us that we're the public face of Q, and that eyes are on us, and to "keep it classy"? Do you think this is "classy"?
What about smart? Do you think it's smart to make open calls of violence in a forum that you know is monitored by federal agencies?
Maybe take a few minutes on actually reflecting on that before the knee-jerk defensiveness kicks in and you try to double down on your claims or try to deflect. Actually step back and look at what you're saying here.
Standard movie villain tactic.
All that has to be done is start whacking a few of these assholes and the rest will get the picture. It's like when you got your ass beat in class from the teacher in front of the rest of the class for screwing off. Oh but that doesn't happen anymore.....damn shame
Dude, let's step back a minute and look at what you're saying. I'm starting to actually believe that the majority of people here are either incapable of understanding hypocrisy or that they get off on it.
We have a tiktok video of a person making implied threats against ICE agents and their families. And the response here is to make direct threats against them.
So what makes it ok for people to call for violence against this tiktoker and whoever else you're associating with them ("these assholes")?
Seriously. I'm trying to understand what is going on in people's mind where they think that the logical response /moral highground to implied threats is direct, explicit threats.
Is it because you're only saying shit within this forum? Is that because you think people here will think you're just blowing smoke/talking tough and that you have no expectation of anyone here taking you seriously while someone making implied threats on tiktok is more dangerous because people there might actually take them seriously?
Is it because the tiktoker actually said the word "children" or "kids"in their video? As long as you don't actually bring up that your enemy has children, it somehow makes any children those enemies have magically go away? I'm pretty sure that tiktoker has children too. Do they not count? Are they going to be unaffected if some psycho actually takes you up on your suggestions and kills or harms that tiktoker? Do they deserve it, because their mom "started it"?
Seriously, I have to wonder about some of you sometimes. I don't know what the hell is going on in your heads when you do shit like this.
Again, I'm not defending the person in this video. Because I know that's going to be your knee jerk defensive position. I think that person is horrible.
But what exactly makes these remarks any better?
People seem to be forgetting this lately. I get it, but it doesn't make it ok. Also, I think the person in the video is rage baiting. It seems disingenuous to me.
I get that impression too. Still a horrible human being, and it makes it all the worse if she's doing it for something as worthless as clicks.
There is a huge distinction.
They are randomly saying it, they are coming out of the blue and saying it in an attacking posture.
Commentors you are questioning, are only saying it defensively.
Commentors you are questioning would NEVER go out and ask for violence against her because of her gender, race, whatever, they are only REACTING to her in a defensive posture.
What is the best defense? An even better offense. Ask the F16 raptor.
So that's what makes these remarks better, because they are within the framework of self defense.
Just my fly on the wall take.
"Defensively"? Seriously? So that's OK, then? It's OK to call for an attack on someone else, as long as it's "defensive"?
That's just a rephrasing of "She started it!"
Do I need to put on my Mom voice and remind you that two wrongs don't make a right?
They're being "defensive" on someone else's behalf. Not their own. Unless they want to identify as an ICE agent, which I seriously doubt they are. So there's nothing "self" in the "self defense" there.
If liberals used "reasoning" like that, then any attack on that tiktoker or the assholes the other poster was talking about could encourage them to practice some of your "offensive self defense" and just start killing Trump supporters, Republicans, anyone they see as a threat. And that would be OK, because it would be the very best version of "offensive self defense", according to you. Right?
I also have to point out that the tiktoker hasn't actually done anything. They haven't physically harmed anyone. They haven't even actually called for anyone to harm them. At most it's an implied threat of doxxing someone, possibly stalking.
Calling for someone to be killed when all they've done is made an implied threat is simply not even in the same universe as "self defense". This isn't just an opinion. It's just an asinine argument.
Okay chatgpt. Good argument.
It's a good argument no matter if I wrote it, chatgpt wrote it, or J K Rowling wrote it.
But the point is you agree it's a good argument, so 🤷♀️ glad you agree. 👍
hard disagree, and again, you use chatgpt and completely ignore the sarcasm.
you believe so much in a thing you are incapable of forming your own words for it and must resort to the brain rot of chatgpt to argue for you.
and yes, for anyone else who stumbles this far down the comment chain, his comments is 1000% chatgpt, the sentence watermarks are such an obvious giveaway.
you can make chatgpt have arguments for killing babies, doesn't mean it's a good argument. you can gave chatgpt make arguments for why it's good Charlie was murdered. doesn't make it a good argument.
To be far, whacking could be like getting arrested or being hurt, up for interpretation. Getting whacked is like getting in trouble, but I agree we got a be careful what we say here. We are a peaceful army that fights with keyboards.
Well, to be fair, the entire video they're so upset about doesn't say anything at all about harming ICE agents or their families. Nothing to even be interpreted. So....
Also, for you to try to frame someone being whacked as something other than being killed is just...well, special.
So, your response to this tiktoker's implied threat against ICE agents and their children is an explicit threat against them and whatever other assholes you're talking about?
And you don't see the hypocrisy there?
What's the difference? She did it on TikTok and you're doing it here? Hers was against ICE agents and their families in general, yours was against actual specific people, with names and faces out there? Is that better? Worse?
I'm not excusing her. Obviously she was wrong and is a horrible person. But what you're doing isn't any better. It's actually legally worse, because you're not even going the "implied threat" route. That's an explicit threat. Nothing implied there.
Why do you think this is even ok?
Notice on the sidebar where it reminds us that we're the public face of Q, and that eyes are on us, and to "keep it classy"? Do you think this is "classy"?
What about smart? Do you think it's smart to make open calls of violence in a forum that you know is monitored by federal agencies?
Maybe take a few minutes on actually reflecting on that before the knee-jerk defensiveness kicks in and you try to double down on your claims or try to deflect. Actually step back and look at what you're saying here.
Point taken. Thank you
Welcome✌️
Which ICE agent?
🥾💥(his throat)