Morbid celebration of ideological murder

[GreatWhiteNorth]

17 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I’m glad you Ike the facts.  Thanks for agreeing Mr Snow Plow Driver from Mn!!!!!!!  How’s the night shift treating you???  Are you participating in the discussion because it sure looks like it?   

Am I participating in the discussion? C'mon dummy. Can't you see what is already obvious? 

[JimmySpeaks]

5 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

Am I participating in the discussion? C'mon dummy. Can't you see what is already obvious? 

Yep. I don’t need to change the way I communicate on here since you’re participating like you told me to. Yep it obvious how dumb you are. 

[1032004]

On 9/12/2025 at 5:34 PM, PortaJohn said:

I don't know what Charlie Kirk said about Muslims.  I never followed him

One example:

 

[jross]

26 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

One example:

 

 

This is a prime example where context matters.  Yes Kirk was tasteless and blunt against terrorism in that clip.  Who?  The specific Muslims from a specific area that murdered Israelis and who would murder their gay American supporters.  This is not a slur against all Muslims.

Quote

"It's funny.... I used to say if you as a gay person would go to Gaza, they'd throw you off of tall buildings, right? But now they don't have any tall buildings left [audience laughter]... Maybe you shouldn't kill Jews, you stupid Muslims!!"

[1032004]

22 minutes ago, jross said:

 

 This is not a slur against all Muslims.

Yes it is

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yes it is

They’re terrorists.  Jar should they be called?

even if it is.   Which it isn’t.  Why do you condone his murder and spend more time throwing shade on why you personally don’t like him.  

[jross]

 

 

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

They’re terrorists.  Jar should they be called?

even if it is.   Which it isn’t.  Why do you condone his murder and spend more time throwing shade on why you personally don’t like him.  

Jar is a typo.   What should they be called ?

[GreatWhiteNorth]

7 hours ago, jross said:

... "Yes Kirk was tasteless and blunt" 

There it is. In the simplest of terms, and as direct as possible, nicely done...

"Yes Kirk was tasteless and blunt"

[1032004]

11 hours ago, Caveira said:

They’re terrorists.  Jar should they be called?

He could have at least said “Stupid Muslim extremists” or something so as to not include all Muslims in his statement.

[JimmySpeaks]

7 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

There it is. In the simplest of terms, and as direct as possible, nicely done...

"Yes Kirk was tasteless and blunt"

So libs kill him because he was blunt and tasteless.  Party of free speech for sure. Smfh

[Bigbrog]

It's quite sickening to read some of you arguing nuance and minutia as some sort of attempt to downplay that a person was assassinated for having an opinion.  And even worse, assassinated for inviting people with different opinions as himself to express those opinions and engage in civil debate.  Do people on here not agree that civil debate is good?  Do you not agree that if people stop talking that is when the violence starts??

Add on top of that the media is playing this narrative game of downplaying who the shooter is and try and soften what actually happened.  One example is the ABC report claiming that the text messages back and forth were "very touching"...like seriously WTF!?!?!  The guy is texting about killing someone and you got from that that the exchange was "very touching"???  Anyway, this is the same crap some of you are trying to pull and it is and continues to demonstrate what despicable and horrible people you really are.

 

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

It's quite sickening to read some of you arguing nuance and minutia as some sort of attempt to downplay that a person was assassinated for having an opinion.  And even worse, assassinated for inviting people with different opinions as himself to express those opinions and engage in civil debate.  Do people on here not agree that civil debate is good?  Do you not agree that if people stop talking that is when the violence starts??

Add on top of that the media is playing this narrative game of downplaying who the shooter is and try and soften what actually happened.  One example is the ABC report claiming that the text messages back and forth were "very touching"...like seriously WTF!?!?!  The guy is texting about killing someone and you got from that that the exchange was "very touching"???  Anyway, this is the same crap some of you are trying to pull and it is and continues to demonstrate what despicable and horrible people you really are.

 

Really good take, but I’d add that Charlie wasn’t really killed for being Charlie, he was killed because they hate Trump, and Charlie had a relationship with, and some part in electing, Trump.  It’s like someone said:  “They didn’t kill him because he was fascist, or they thought he was fascist, they called him fascist so they could justify killing him.”  And the same thing can happen to any of his supporters. 

[1032004]

15 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Charlie wasn’t really killed for being Charlie, he was killed because they hate Trump,

 

Link?

[Offthemat]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Link?

https://intermatwrestle.com/forums/topic/8245-morbid-celebration-of-ideological-murder/page/8/#findComment-298789

 

[1032004]

49 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

It's quite sickening to read some of you arguing nuance and minutia as some sort of attempt to downplay that a person was assassinated for having an opinion.  And even worse, assassinated for inviting people with different opinions as himself to express those opinions and engage in civil debate.  Do people on here not agree that civil debate is good?  Do you not agree that if people stop talking that is when the violence starts??

Add on top of that the media is playing this narrative game of downplaying who the shooter is and try and soften what actually happened.  One example is the ABC report claiming that the text messages back and forth were "very touching"...like seriously WTF!?!?!  The guy is texting about killing someone and you got from that that the exchange was "very touching"???  Anyway, this is the same crap some of you are trying to pull and it is and continues to demonstrate what despicable and horrible people you really are.

 

Hopefully you’re not referring to me, as I’ve said repeatedly that he didn’t deserve to die.  But I don’t have a problem disagreeing with people saying things like “there wasn’t even anything wrong with anything he’s said,” or responding to a conservative asking who joked about Paul Pelosi being attacked with the factually correct answer of Charlie Kirk being one example.

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

https://intermatwrestle.com/forums/topic/8245-morbid-celebration-of-ideological-murder/page/8/#findComment-298789

 

Linking to your own post of a baseless claim, nice.  A new low.

[Offthemat]

3 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Linking to your own post of a baseless claim, nice.  A new low.

Prove me wrong.

[Bigbrog]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Hopefully you’re not referring to me, as I’ve said repeatedly that he didn’t deserve to die.  But I don’t have a problem disagreeing with people saying things like “there wasn’t even anything wrong with anything he’s said,” or responding to a conservative asking who joked about Paul Pelosi being attacked with the factually correct answer of Charlie Kirk being one example.

If you feel that my post may be referring to you than that is on you and you probably need to ask yourself why you feel that way.  

By the way...EVERYBODY says wrong things all the time, does EVERYBODY need to be shot?  And I'll ask again, what is worse, saying something you believe but may be seen as "wrong" in someone else's eyes and then turn around and INVITE them to discuss it with you in a civil debate versus saying something you believe but may be seen as "wrong" in someone else's eyes but refuse to engage in a discussion about it??

[JimmySpeaks]

39 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Really good take, but I’d add that Charlie wasn’t really killed for being Charlie, he was killed because they hate Trump, and Charlie had a relationship with, and some part in electing, Trump.  It’s like someone said:  “They didn’t kill him because he was fascist, or they thought he was fascist, they called him fascist so they could justify killing him.”  And the same thing can happen to any of his supporters. 

They killed Charlie because people were listening to him. And changing. 

[1032004]

12 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Prove me wrong.

Well for one “until proven otherwise” isn’t a thing, I guess conservatives started that because they know they often don’t have data to back up their claims. 

But nonetheless I’ll play your game.  In a search of the shooter’s discord messages, he only said the words Trump and Biden once each, both in mundane ways.

Also why kill Kirk because he hated Trump?  Why not kill, you know, Trump?

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by 1032004

[JimmySpeaks]

21 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well for one “until proven otherwise” isn’t a thing, I guess conservatives started that because they know they often don’t have data to back up their claims. 

But nonetheless I’ll play your game.  In a search of the shooter’s discord messages, he only said the words Trump and Biden once each, both in mundane ways.

Also why kill Kirk because he hated Trump?  Why not kill, you know, Trump?

 

 

Ummmmm the amount of security alone trump has makes it way harder.  Smfh  

[Bigbrog]

51 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well for one “until proven otherwise” isn’t a thing, I guess conservatives started that because they know they often don’t have data to back up their claims. 

But nonetheless I’ll play your game.  In a search of the shooter’s discord messages, he only said the words Trump and Biden once each, both in mundane ways.

Also why kill Kirk because he hated Trump?  Why not kill, you know, Trump?

 

 

Well they certainly tried to

[Gene Mills Fan]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Hopefully you’re not referring to me, as I’ve said repeatedly that he didn’t deserve to die.  But I don’t have a problem disagreeing with people saying things like “there wasn’t even anything wrong with anything he’s said,” or responding to a conservative asking who joked about Paul Pelosi being attacked with the factually correct answer of Charlie Kirk being one example.

Really when Paul Pelosi gets shot and killed, the humor will be eliminated. He already had the cops there, and was in his undies fighting for the object and got hit right in front of the cops. The violence was at total different level than a meditated assassination.

[1032004]

13 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Really when Paul Pelosi gets shot and killed, the humor will be eliminated. He already had the cops there, and was in his undies fighting for the object and got hit right in front of the cops. The violence was at total different level than a meditated assassination.

How about a sitting US Senator making light of the killing of Melissa Hortman?