Title by Charlie K.
After a decade of him smugly smiling like “what are you going to do about it” every time he politely explained why others deserve to be treated as lessers, I’m confused why people are shocked an American shot him. He was even in a school
Facebook is a shit show. So many conservatives coming out of hiding. Easy blocks for those I’ve missed over the years.
Sorry you still have to use it.
I do need to end that site. Need to download all my pictures and make a quiet exit
I don’t block them, they’re a window into that side of things from people I actually know irl
but I sure am glad they make themselves known
One of my “friends” started posting all over responses from others about Charlie Kirk. So I def blocked her. Who knows what MAGA creep is stalking your pages but also has the ability to get you fired. Not worth it
Indeed, it’s good to see what resonates with people who are actual humans and not just bots. Many have been quieter since all the Epstein backtracking, because they were sooooooo invested in it before.
And recently a dude I knew has two posts in a row that are incredible: one is literally cheering for the death of all the venezuelan people blown up in a boat (flag emojis and all), then the next post is him recounting how horrific it is that a political pundit was killed, and people cheering for death like that need to unfriend him. In the second post he is also going on about how Christian he and all these pundits are, which…bruh
That’s Steven Crowder, not Charlie Kirk.
Kirk was on his “Change my Mind” tour sitting next to posters that had that phrase on it, when he delivered his final racist question.
Kirk’s slogan was “Prove Me Wrong”. The person in your meme is Steven Crowder, who is the “Change My Mind” meme person. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/steven-crowders-change-my-mind-campus-sign
Different people.
There’s no empathy for them, only love of the tribe.
I doubt most people referring to empathy as a justification truly understand or practice it. It often seems they mistake empathy for mercy toward whomever they consider unfortunate & still put people in categories.
Empathy isn’t supposed to be convenient: the challenge of guiding choices by empathy is empathizing with everyone without reservation. It’s not placing people in different categories of deserving & undeserving based on who they are, whether we agree with them, whether they’d reciprocate, their conduct, or anything.
As soon as someone makes such distinctions and defends them, they admit their position isn’t strict empathy, either: they’re following some consideration other than empathy. When I see the left & right disagree over empathy, it seems less over strict adherence to empathy (which neither seems to accept despite claims), and more over demanding the considerations their selective empathy follows (ie, reasons).
I’m not claiming we need to give the least deserving our empathy or that it’s wrong to deviate from strict empathy. I am claiming, however, if we justify a conclusion from a premise of strict empathy yet clearly don’t accept that premise, then our argument is unsound until we develop that justification into something more plausible.
While empathy isn’t hard, people are extraordinarily bad at it.
