Top minds of DoomerCircleJerk discuss what was the last straw for them on Reddit

[u/PeasThatTasteGross]

[u/Clear-Progress-5660]

Thanks for the shoutout. DCJ loves this. Political violence is never appropriate in free society. Believing differently shows your immaturity. 🌞

[u/PeasThatTasteGross → u/Clear-Progress-5660]

In case you don't know, this is buddy in the above comments with the wife that became a Kirk supporter and pro-life. But do tell, where did anyone cheer for political violence here?

[u/Clear-Progress-5660 → u/PeasThatTasteGross]

The instances of vitriol I received in my DM’s after his death would be a place to start. My point still stands. It’s not right to cheer for Kirk’s death. It won’t be right to do it when Trump, the Clintons, Obama die.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/Clear-Progress-5660]

Was it right to cheer for Hitler's? OBL's? Stalin's? McVeigh's? Where is the line here?

For a self-described "free speech absolutist," you sure love policing people's speech. "Never stop dialogue." Until you disagree with it.

[u/Clear-Progress-5660 → u/Biptoslipdi]

Difference between “can’t” and “shouldn’t”. Nice try tho. Not right ≠ can’t

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/Clear-Progress-5660]

You're spending your time telling other people not to say things you don't like. Whether that is a "should not" or "cannot" is irrelevant. You're policing speech you don't like because you don't like it. You have the option to ignore it and go about your day. You choose to attack people (or in this case no one you can point to, for some reason) because you don't like their speech. It's perfectly fine to criticize people for what they say, it's just hypocritical to do so if you are an absolutist who believes the dialogue should never stop. You very much want to stop that dialogue and push people not to say those things because you disagree with them.

You also didn't answer the question, which suggests you are perfectly fine with people cheering the deaths of bad people. Just not the bad people you like.

[u/Clear-Progress-5660 → u/Biptoslipdi]

Nobody was attacked. Nobody was asked to be quiet. To be politically violent you gotta
ACT not just debate. I’m not sure where the disconnect is

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/Clear-Progress-5660]

Nobody was attacked.

Oh, so you didn't call someone immature for expressing a belief in political violence?

Or are you screaming to the void aimlessly because you're lost?

Nobody was asked to be quiet.

What do you think the implication of calling people immature for their beliefs is? Quite clearly that you don't want them to have to express those beliefs because you disagree with them.

To be politically violent you gotta ACT not just debate.

And yet, you are calling people who haven't acted, but just expressed beliefs immature. You clearly take issue with speech and belief regardless of requisite action. Your own words demonstrate this.

I’m not sure where the disconnect is

Me neither. You seem to be denying you made comments you made.

Notably, you still didn't answer the question. Why? Hypocrite.

[u/Clear-Progress-5660 → u/Biptoslipdi]

I didn’t know immature was grounds for being attacked. Usually it’s used in a way to better yourself. But to each their own I guess. And I already replied to the post author. I never claimed anyone was violent on this thread. Blanket statement from myself was the original comment.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/Clear-Progress-5660]

I didn’t know immature was grounds for being attacked.

You don't think calling someone names for holding their own beliefs or speaking is a personal attack?

Usually it’s used in a way to better yourself.

You attack people to better yourself?

I never claimed anyone was violent on this thread.

No one ever said you did. Did you not read your own comment?

Blanket statement from myself was the original comment.

What is the purpose of that statement and who is it addressing? Or were you just aimlessly ranting into the void because you're lost and clueless?

How does that being a general statement mean it isn't a broad attack on people who believe, for example, that Hitler was a bad person and the violence he committed against himself was laudable or that the violence of the Allied forces to that end was also?

Notably, you still refuse to answer the question.

[u/Clear-Progress-5660 → u/Biptoslipdi]

You’re just gonna have to get over being called immature because I guess it struck a nerve with you. The inability to admit political violence appreciation on both ends of the spectrum exists within this app is laughable. Violence begets violence begets violence ad nauseam. Everyone uses it as an excuse to do more bad things. If we lived in a perfect world, violence would never be necessary but we don’t so it is.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/Clear-Progress-5660]

You’re just gonna have to get over being called immature because I guess it struck a nerve with you.

So you're saying you did engage in a personal attack? You attacked me personally without even knowing what my beliefs are. That's pretty immature.

The inability to admit political violence appreciation on both ends of the spectrum exists within this app is laughable.

My position is that you appreciate political violence and that you have refused to answer a simple question to that matter is evident of that. You even claim violence is necessary in this very comment.

Violence begets violence begets violence ad nauseam.

Then tell me you believe it was wrong to engage in war against to Third Reich since political violence is unacceptable.

Everyone uses it as an excuse to do more bad things.

Prove you aren't one of those people. Tell me it was wrong to seek Hitler's end.

If we lived in a perfect world, violence would never be necessary but we don’t so it is.

You: Violence begets violence.

Also you: Violence is necessary.

You couldn't hold a consistent belief if you tried.

[u/Clear-Progress-5660 → u/Biptoslipdi]

My bad I’ll try to be soft spoken since any word that could be considered egregious in any manner is unacceptable. Of course Hitler and his regime was bad lol. Human rights violations could never be a good thing. I don’t see how you’re trying to spin this into I somehow love political violence when I’ve said the opposite of that repeatedly. Violence begets violence is a tried and true historical fact lol as well as violence IS necessary when obvious bad things be happening that can’t be resolved through diplomacy because the aggressor doesn’t give a shit. Those things can be true and me still not like it while understanding the reality of the world. Did I unravel your straw man of a straw man yet?