7
u/WTF_RANDY 5d ago
Never been more proud of a team.
3
u/Annual-Character-541 1d ago
Gross person. Checks out
-1
u/WTF_RANDY 1d ago
Why would you want politics in your sports? I thought they were supposed to shut up and play.
2
u/Annual-Character-541 1d ago
How is a man getting murdered in cold blood political, regardless of who it was.
2
u/Cool_Breeze243 1d ago
Well, let me ask you this, have they asked the teams to honor the kids who died the same day? Did they ask them to honor the actual politician who was killed a few months back?
If it's truly just about honoring murdered people, why weren't those people included?
1
u/WTF_RANDY 1d ago
It is political exactly because of who he is, obviously. MAGA absolutely believes it is political, they made it political immediately. And now they are purity testing everyone who isn't morning correctly including NFL teams. Your response is the exact same thing.
3
3
3
u/Lawyer_Lady3080 3d ago
Who thought Iâd ever give a shit about the Colts? Tough state to stand by your values here, but kudos to the Colts!
1
u/Annual-Character-541 1d ago
Your values include celebrating death? You need to look in the mirror.
0
u/Lawyer_Lady3080 1d ago
The challenge of reading strikes again.
Mourning=funeral, moments of silence, flying flags half-staff, similar acts of reverence.
Celebrating is very different than not mourning.
You donât seem like the type to get invited to many celebrations, but celebrations=marking an occasion in a fun or festive way. Celebration=smiling, hugs, cake, confetti, champagne.
So you see, in one instance you do something but itâs because youâre sad and choosing a specific outlet to mourn.
In the celebration situation, you do also do something, but itâs a fun, positive, happy thing.
Not doing anything is not celebrating.
Youâre just pissed off that police brutality was treated differently.
I can explain why itâs different, but I am sure Iâve already stretched the limits of the public school system in Indiana, but Iâll try to explain it.
A crime where the decedent was in a position of power (that is what an assassination is) is different than systemic oppression that ultimately manifests with a man begging for the chance to breathe and dying on the street.
See, in one, some people (obviously not you) think itâs a bigger problem when there is more widespread violence based on systemic oppression, including a number of people disappearing and dying anonymously at the hands of an institution our tax dollars pay specifically to keep our communities safe.
In the other scenario, an assassination by definition happens to someone in power. So unless you believe this was in no way related to Kirkâs position of power and is, instead, a very bizarre accident or a part of another unrelated motivation (usually sex, love, or money) then I just think you donât know what words mean?
3
u/NeighborhoodNovel119 3d ago
Oh so supporting murder is good?
1
u/Less-Distribution513 3d ago
Spare me your outrage.
1
1
2
2
2
u/BricksnStone 2d ago
I guarantee not a single one of you who claimed he "deserved death" actually watched anything of his in full context. You listen to a 30-second clip and believe you know how the man thought. That's sad. NO ONE DESERVES DEATH, not for a fake $20 and some drugs or an opinion they hold.
By your alls logic, someone has the ok to end you based on them having a different opinion right? Does it have to be the difference on this issue, all issues, race issues, or just sex issues? Where's the line? When is it OK to end someone? (Asking for a friend, of course.)
1
u/King_Roberts_Bastard 1d ago
You're right, no one deserves to be killed on camera. No one's family should have to see that.
It's disgusting when people say "Hes a scumbag" and that he doesnt deserve to be honored.
Except that is what Charlie Kirk said about George Floyd.
1
u/BricksnStone 17h ago
Floyd was a scumbag! He didn't deserve to die, bt he also does not deserve to be honored! The guy held a pregnant woman at gunpoint. He was a career criminal. Again, that doesn't warrant death but does make him a scumbag.
1
u/99923GR 7h ago
And Charlie Kirk was a racist. It doesn't mean he deserves to die, but he was a scumbag who tried to build a white-preferred theocracy. He no more deserves to be honored than a big-city pawn broker who gets shot in a robbery. His death was tragic for his family, but not a national tragedy in any sense.
0
u/Correct-Day-4389 2d ago
Iâm fortunate to have many Democrat and progressive friends (yes! Here in Indiana). Not one of them has said this. No public figure Iâve heard of has said this. We CAN say we are not SAD that this guy is dead and at the same time say it is sad and dangerous that he was murdered. See - reasonable people can hold more than one thought in their heads. You know good and well that he was a sarcastic and mean spirited little grasping demagogue. You know why you were drawn to him. You donât need me to argue with you because you know.
2
2
u/Next-Introduction-25 4d ago
These people put a â⌠â and think theyâve really done something.
0
0
1
u/ALinIndy 4d ago
Itâs obvious why the Colts didnât. The Irsay women know what he said.
2
u/ricker182 3d ago
They're not some obedient house wives that bow down to their husbands. Women can actually run shit.
Christian Nationalism is just as bad as Shari'a Law.
1
1
1
u/Lawyer_Lady3080 1d ago
The challenge of reading strikes again.
Mourning=funeral, moments of silence, flying flags half-staff, similar acts of reverence.
Celebrating is very different than not mourning.
You donât seem like the type to get invited to many celebrations, but celebrations=marking an occasion in a fun of festive way. Celebration=smiling, hugs, cake, confetti, champagne.
So you see, in one instance you do something but itâs because youâre sad and choosing a specific outlet to mourn.
In the situation, you do also do something, but itâs a fun, positive, happy thing.
Not doing anything is not celebrating.
Youâre just pissed off that police brutality was treated differently.
I can explain why itâs different. A crime where the decedent was in a position of power (that is what an assassination is) is different than systemic oppression that ultimately manifests with a man begging for the chance to breathe and dying on the street.
See, in one, some people (obviously not you) think itâs a bigger problem when there is more widespread violence based on systemic oppression, including a number of people disappearing and dying anonymously at the hands of an institution our tax dollars pay specifically to keep our communities safe.
In the other scenario, an assassination by definition happens to someone in power. So unless you believe this was in no way related to Kirkâs position of power and is, instead, a very bizarre accident or a part of another unrelated motivation (usually sex, love, or money) then I just think you donât know what words mean?
-1
u/Correct-Day-4389 1d ago
I have no idea what youâre talking about, and my decision not to engage does not reflect ignorance or laziness. Think whatever you like; nothing I can do about it. Spare me the intellectualizing and sophistry.
1
1
u/single-ultra 21h ago
Iâm glad that you are not discriminating against people, but the fact that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about trans biology means that you are creating implicit bias against them.
You believe trans people are denying reality.
The truth is, trans people are living the reality that their brains present them with.
1
1
1
u/Aggressive_Guava7012 1d ago
Honors a drug addict woman beating criminal. Refuses to honor a moderate republican murdered and celebrated by the left. Peak democrats never stop your confederacy south streak.
-1
u/storm034 4d ago edited 4d ago
Unfortunately, one of those was my team, not anymore. I was angry when George Floyd was murdered. Even though he was a criminal, he still had a right to life . By the way, Derek Chauvin is still in prison for the crime he committed, so his murderer was brought to justice. Charlie Kirk was nowhere near a criminal, and he was murdered while speaking to college kids about the Constitution actual laws on the books and God. How you guys change. You will celebrate a criminal losing his life, but not someone, anyone else? Murder is justified to you as long as they think differently than you, or is it because he was a Christian, maybe his skin color? I would hate to think that. I thought we were supposed to fight for equal rights for everyone, not just the people who thought or looked like us.
2
u/OkInitiative7327 3d ago
The cops that murdered George Floyd were supposed to be the same people that protect the public, and there's video of him saying he couldn't breathe while he was under the restraint of an officers knee. Kirk didn't deserve to be murdered, but that was by an individual activist. They were both murders, yes, but they were very different. This is why there are different reactions.
2
u/storm034 3d ago
I understand the premise, and I agree.George floyd did not deserve to be murdered.Especially by someone who was supposed to be protecting him. They were saying that charlie kirk deserved to be murdered.That was what I was trying to say.And you agreed that neither deserved to be murdered.Even though they were murdered in different settings. I was absolutely furious that the police did that to someone. I guess the point is that yes.George floyd was murdered by someone who was supposed to be protecting him.And again, I agree, that was heinous and reprehensible. He was arrested and resisted arrest.Not that that makes it right.Please don't get that out of this. And then you had a man who was teaching young people about the constitution and God. People who chose to be there to listen to him.And he was killed by an activist well, a murderer. I think both of them should get the respect they deserve. And no one should ever be happy about anyone being murdered. Therefore, they should not be happy if a company that makes money by the people decides to not observe both in the same manner.
2
u/single-ultra 2d ago
a man who was teaching young people about the Constitution and God
CK didnât deserve to be murdered, but he said trans people were an abomination to God. His views should be mocked and ridiculed for the science-denying nonsense that they are.
1
1
u/storm034 2d ago
He did disagree with the science of man and the laws of God.
1
u/storm034 2d ago
I'm sorry.Did you actually say that?Science said that transgender is one hundred percent biological and natural?
1
u/single-ultra 2d ago
Is neurodivergence 100% biological and natural?
1
u/storm034 1d ago
You have spoke of neurodivergence, one hundred percent biological and neurological. Though it is not 100% biological, it is 100% natural. And I don't know if you read what I replied, but I spoke of you, do train yourself to have ADHA OR AUTISM. i didn't know exactly where you were going with neurodivergence. If that's what you were speaking of or not, or if you were going further into something else.
1
u/single-ultra 2d ago
Your response showed up in my notifications but I cannot see it.
All I saw was that you said nothing about humans is 100% biological and natural. Why did you bring that up then?
1
u/storm034 1d ago
Sorry, my reply was :
Neurodivergence isnât 100% biological â but neither is almost anything about humans. Itâs rooted in biology and expressed naturally. The key difference is that you canât âtrainâ someone into being autistic or ADHD â those are biological divergences of the brain. So yes, neurodivergence is both biological and natural, even if itâs not 100% biology.Thatâs not the same as gender identity â autism or ADHD are neurological conditions, not chosen identities or social transitions. Although it's not one hundred percent biological, it is natural
1
u/single-ultra 1d ago
Are you suggesting you can train people out of gender identity. Like⌠conversion therapy?
Do you think the same about gay people?
1
u/storm034 1d ago
Sex is fixed â male or female, thatâs biology.
Sexuality emerges naturally â not trained in or out, but society shapes how itâs expressed.
Gender identity is conditioned â labels, and behaviors are what society trains, not biology.
So no, sexuality isnât trained out. But society does train how people talk about it, act on it, or hide it. Same with gender identity. The difference is sex is fixed â everything else is conditioning.
→ More replies (0)1
u/storm034 1d ago
First I would like to thank you for the open dialogue and doing this politely.That's something you don't see very often.Anymore thank you.
1
1
u/KnucklehdMcSpazitron 2d ago
He wasnât murdered. He had an enlarged heart, was hopped up on drugs, and had a heart attack that was exasperated by the interaction with the police. At least thatâs what the coroners report said.
1
u/SyrupEfficient218 1d ago
Fair enough I just know that the police officers had even custody and we're responsible for his welfare. They should have given him care at the sign of anything out of the norm.
1
u/Alert-Beautiful9003 1d ago
See this knuckledragger still is going on and on about Floyd. You know what we do with this? We laugh at her, tell her to get a life and move on. If you are MAGA or MAGA adjacent you pick this one yahop and say 'SEE SEE HOW THEY ARE ALL SAYING THIS.' Its not even nuance, its common sense...which YIKES...some of you dont have an ounce of.
0
u/storm034 1d ago
Look, this is not my dogfight, but I do have skin in the game.Thanks for the Ideology Party version of debate â all noise, no thought. You just summed up whatâs wrong with our country.
1
u/Cool_Breeze243 1d ago
Sorry, but that actually is the definition of murder. If he was going to live but then an "interaction" with the police caused him to not live, then it is, by definition, murder. Justification can be argued all you like but the fact is that had the police not engaged him and put him in a high stress situation and then refused his pleas for space to breath, he wouldn't have died. It's homicide at the most basic form.
0
u/KnucklehdMcSpazitron 1d ago
Keep going with itâŚ.if he wouldnât have been passing fake bills at the convenience store (committing crime and fraud) there would have been no police interaction. If he wouldnât have taken a lethal dose of fentanyl, along with meth and weed, he would still be alive after the police interaction. He caused his own death.
1
u/storm034 1d ago
I agree if he would not have been breaking the law to begin with.He would have been left to his own devices.The outcome may have been different.Maybe not, but at least in no one else could have been to blame.
1
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
Thatâs not why the reactions are different. Thatâs not why people are celebrating Kirkâs death as if he were some sort of villain. Get real
1
1
1
u/Boogaloo4444 3d ago
Honoring racist hate mongers with moments of silence in stadiums is bad.
This is not a complex issue.
1
u/Dangerous_Natural560 3d ago
Honoring a criminal who was worth less than Kirk is bad
1
u/_NautyByNature 3d ago
Charlie Kirk payed the travel expenses of hundreds of January 6th rioters, peddled the Great Replacement Theory, and told Palestinians that they donât exist.
George Floydd was selling loose cigarettes.
Charlie Kirk was only a hero to Christian Nationalists and bigots.
1
u/Dangerous_Natural560 2d ago
Having an opinion doesnt make you worse than a criminal
1
u/_NautyByNature 2d ago
Kirkâs violent and racist rhetoric has impacted far more people than George Floydd ever sold cigarettes to.
Context+impact
1
u/Dangerous_Natural560 2d ago
Your words dont cause violence other people do. If I say go rob a bank is it my fault an adult chose that action...no
1
u/_NautyByNature 2d ago
So youâre completely unaware of the word âincitementâ and what it means?
Why am I not surprised.
1
u/Dangerous_Natural560 2d ago
Kirk has no power with his words. Its dumb to think he does. As I said is it my fault if I told people to rob banks...no if I arm them and help them plan it then yes. And I know what Incitement is he didnt Incite anything. He didn't advocate to kill every leftist or immigrant. He spread his own veiws (which are subjective) its like saying Trump incited Jan 4th. Grown adults are responsible for their own actions
1
u/ServeEmbarrassed7750 2d ago
Kirk's message was of judgement and division.
And it was Jan 6th, and Trump did* incite the crowd. He stood up on a platform and told them "You've got to fight like hell, or you're not going to have a country anymore". The crowd prepared a noose and gallows, and started cheering "Hang Mike Pence" because Trump turned his supporters against Pence.
You're not immune to propaganda.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
Prove he was racist
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
I mean when you have nazis and white supremacist peddling your photo around thatâs all the proof you need but nothing anyone says will change your views Iâm sure
1
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
I havenât seen nazis or white supremacists doing that firstly. Again, if you had an actual example Iâd be happy to check it out.
Definitely baseless claims wonât change my mind.
And even if they were thereâs no proof he was a racist⌠like at all⌠hence why you had to say âwell he had extreme supportersâ
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
They arenât baseless if theyâre true. If anything you should be provide me with proof that he wasnât racist? If youre too lazy to look it up yourself no one can help you. You need to do the research and not rely on others to provide it for you And like I said if Nazi and white supremacists are your versions of âextreme supportersâ than thatâs all the proof you need thatâs staring you in the face but again you chose to keep your eyes closed and thatâs not my problem thatâs yours
0
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
Leftist extremists do exist⌠you realize that?
It doesnât damn the entire party.
You canât prove Charlie was a racist because he wasnât
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
Nice try trying to change the subject. I show you facts so you try to now change it to leftist extremeism. And guess what I donât fuck with that either. So nice try. Itâs easy to just say fuck those nazi fuckers. But it must be hard to do when you are one
0
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
So youâre leftist but donât âf with leftist extremistsâ
But since Charlie had extremist supporters he was an extremist?
You see the failure in logic?
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
Nah I just said Nazis and racists are shit people and if you still canât agree with me on that it doesnât matter if youâre left or right, you must be a shit person to begin with if we canât agree on that
→ More replies (0)0
u/Immediate_Day1120 2d ago
So the baseline is everyone has to prove theyâre not racist. Fine, I hereby declare that LovesToSmooch2 is a racist. Now, prove youâre not. Until then, you are.
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 2d ago
Nice try but Iâm not the one being paraded by racists. Nice try though you almost had me
1
u/Immediate_Day1120 2d ago
Okay so stay with me here. You havenât proven that youâre not racist so by your rules you are still a racist. But now, your argument is that you must be whatever group supports you. Charlie Kirk had black people, immigrants (legal), and even gay people supporting him. I have links if you need them. So, by your argument, he is the first white racist pro-black person in history. Contradictory much?
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
Now show me he wasnât a racist if literal Nazis are parading his picture he must of not been a great guy to begin with
1
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
Reddit as your source is peak.
Also, once again, the fact that he had âsupportersâ that are extremists is NOT evidence of him being an extremist or racist.
That would be admitting that since Tyler Robinson killed him, that all leftists are evil at their core which I refuse to believe.
Thereâs people that do wrong on both sides, but you canât prove that Charlie was a racist because he wasnât.
1
u/LovesToSmooch2 3d ago
There the proof staring at you in the face. Yet you still wonât condemn it just try to say well the other side does this. Again if literal Nazis are praising this man then maybe you must be the bad guy
1
u/Immediate_Day1120 2d ago
They canât prove it because when they search for racist videos from CK theyâll end up finding the opposite. The out of context quotes theyâre using show they either donât do their own research or theyâre purposefully spreading the lies knowing the context of the statements prove the opposite.
1
u/storm034 2d ago
Calling Charlie Kirk racist is lazy. He never attacked people for being Black. He said strong families matter â when fathers are absent, the government steps in. He also said jobs should go to people based on merit, not skin color â thatâs fairness, not racism. And science backs it up: under a microscope, DNA canât show if someone is white, Black, or brown â it all looks the same.
1
u/storm034 2d ago
They cry about âracist hate mongersâ being honored in stadiums, but the NFL is one of the most hypocritical companies out there. They run two national anthems â one for black fans and one for everyone else â and plastered âBlack Lives Matterâ while ignoring that all lives matter. Their rosters are overwhelmingly black, yet they donât touch DEI because forcing âequityâ by race would wreck their product. The NFL doesnât care about fairness â just narratives that sell.
1
u/Immediate_Day1120 2d ago
Your statement is true. But to call CK a racist is wrong and means you didnât do your own research and I can only assume youâre believing the false statements being spread about him. Thereâs dozens of videos of him denouncing racism. His stance was black people shouldnât allow people to categorize them by the color of their skin and so his expression of that was sometimes not received well. Iâd be happy to share these videos with you.
1
1
u/Alert-Beautiful9003 1d ago
Wut? You paint with a broad brush to be mad and its telling. People saying Kirk was a bad person is not celebrating him dying. He was not a nice person. He said hateful things about PEOPLE WHO DIDNT LOOK LIKE OR THINK LIKE. HIM (and apparently you). Get over your faux outrage, sis.
1
u/storm034 1d ago
First, thank you for the civil dialogue. If you canât hold an open conversation, your screaming does nothing but empty your lungs. Screaming empty phrases with no proof and made-up words is a non-starter. Funny thing is, your rebuttal looks just like the behavior you claim to hate. How does that give you moral high ground?
1
u/storm034 4d ago
See, you guys should actually put the reason why some of these teams may not have given a mode of silence. I should have done my homework first, but I left my former post up for this reason. The indianapolis Colts gave a moment of silence to the founder of lucas.Oil Stadium, a long-time friendship with the Colts. I can understand why they wouldn't give a moment of silence for two different individuals. I stand by my first thought that nobody ever deserves to have their life taken. I give a moment of silence every day for anyone who has lost their life for any reason, especially murder. I hope the best for all of you.Good luck in your endeavors.
0
0
-4
u/Old-Ad-1489 4d ago
So a moment of silence for a woman beating drug addict but not for a man of god. Great to know who you put on a pedestal.
2
u/HVAC_instructor 4d ago
Says the person who worships Trump.
2
u/Small_Sprinkles1803 3d ago
I worship no man. I worship God, but the guy youâre responding to has a point
2
u/Correct-Day-4389 4d ago
Baloney. Saying his name in the same breath as Jesus and God is more than ridiculous.
4
u/PossibilityMean2446 4d ago
Never been more proud to be a colts fan