>IMPLYING
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 14 de Dic, 2022
Thank you for being a good sport.
I don't disagree with your sentiment wholly, I do get it where it comes from, but there's certain caveats.
(1) Being legitimately pissed off is fair considering the circumstances involved. Kirk was a basic bitch politics-wise so combine that with seeing people celebrating his death, those same people would potentially celebrate the death of any one of us. People are just venting, ergo Catharsis. If a diatribe about twisting the shooter's head off will make you chill out, then go ahead. But it also grants a feeling of vindication. People have been waiting years for some of these issues to be acknowledged by anyone in a position of authority and now they finally are. It as much about getting frustration off your chest about the murder as it is celebrating the feeling of actual political inertia.
(2) Questioning the official narrative is entirely acceptable, people on the site do it all the time. It's the strength of those counter-arguments to the narrative that matter. Simply going, "Something smells fishy here," doesn't really add anything though. Raising doubts about something without providing a basis for the doubt is justifiably pushed back against, especially if it'll just go nowhere. It's also done for the same reasons you posit someone would reinforce the official narrative: they want to push a different argument entirely to the one people are already in alignment with. If you want to argue Charlie Kirk was killed by Israel for example, your argument needs to be stronger than, "he said we should be more sceptical," to Shapiro once, and, "there was rumours Netanyahu was upset with him." By that same metric Matt Walsh should've been shot for disagreeing with the strike against Iran, or Tucker Carlson for being a huge Israeli sceptic, and they're arguably larger names than Kirk is, at least online.
(2) Questioning the official narrative is entirely acceptable, people on the site do it all the time. It's the strength of those counter-arguments to the narrative that matter. Simply going, "Something smells fishy here," doesn't really add anything though. Raising doubts about something without providing a basis for the doubt is justifiably pushed back against, especially if it'll just go nowhere. It's also done for the same reasons you posit someone would reinforce the official narrative: they want to push a different argument entirely to the one people are already in alignment with. If you want to argue Charlie Kirk was killed by Israel for example, your argument needs to be stronger than, "he said we should be more sceptical," to Shapiro once, and, "there was rumours Netanyahu was upset with him." By that same metric Matt Walsh should've been shot for disagreeing with the strike against Iran, or Tucker Carlson for being a huge Israeli sceptic, and they're arguably larger names than Kirk is, at least online.
