Elon Musk

Rank 38 of 47
|
Score -64
9/20/2025, 2:09:25 PM
X
In reply to:
Austin Cason
@dwight_the_owl
·
92d
@wil_da_beast630 @NickJFreitas Whats funny is the Libs don't understand that it almost doesn't even matter.

Even if it turned out that Robinson was MAGA, or that hes a patsy and Israel killed Kirk, the liberals still cheered. They still exposed themselves as monsters.
Wilfred Reilly
@wil_da_beast630
·
92d
This "the shooter was a Groyper" thing seems about to become the next Michael Brown-style Big Lie.

The shooter was a bisexual furry with a trans room-mate and lover, who opposed Charlie Kirk's "hate" and wrote literal AntiFa slogans on his damn bullets.
Derek
@DerekNeverFails
·
93d
A white conservative man was killed by another white conservative man at a conservative college in a conservative state and liberals are to blame.

The statement is part of a conversation that involves political and social issues, specifically addressing the blame and characterization of a shooting incident. It engages in public discourse by discussing societal issues related to political identity and violence.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly do harm with words, but it contributes to a conversation that involves blaming and labeling groups, which can indirectly cause harm. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not respect the dignity of others as it participates in a conversation that labels liberals as 'monsters,' which can be considered a form of hate speech. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion as it is part of a conversation that involves divisive and accusatory language. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; instead, it participates in a conversation that involves personal attacks and generalizations about political groups. [-2]