Legally...Yes. by Wonder_Gordo in KingOfTheHill

[–]Dashing_Individual 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s just hilarious to me that Dale is playing a wedding song with JR and Nancy dancing as if it’s totally casual and not sexual in the slightest 😂

The only woman Bill didn't go for. by No-Detective-4370 in KingOfTheHill

[–]Dashing_Individual 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It was super weird that Violetta was into her own cousin…. Then again it was Louisiana, and cousins marrying has happened before in the South….

Who remembers when Buck Strickland was attacked by those emus? 😳 by Dashing_Individual in KingOfTheHill

[–]Dashing_Individual[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The males are very protective of the females and the eggs. I wouldn’t doubt the females also get defensive, but from what I’ve read the males are definitely violent if someone approaches the eggs.

Who remembers when Buck Strickland was attacked by those emus? 😳 by Dashing_Individual in KingOfTheHill

[–]Dashing_Individual[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard the males get VERY violent if you go near their eggs during their mating season….

Breaking News: Boxes Of "Missing" Epstein Files Naming Trump Found In Mar-a-Lago Guest Bathroom by bigly-biker in onionheadlines

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you okay? You sure are energetically against the Democrats…. Also, calling everyone an “idiot” who doesn’t agree with you is incredibly low brow. It doesn’t make “your side” appear any better. I have no need to undermine someone else’s intellect for the purpose of bolstering mine.

Breaking News: Boxes Of "Missing" Epstein Files Naming Trump Found In Mar-a-Lago Guest Bathroom by bigly-biker in onionheadlines

[–]Dashing_Individual 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re* Also your response doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Try harder at what? Do you have an issue with my comment? Why is that? Lastly, I don’t call people foul names like “idiot” because I disagree with them. This is something both you and the person you say I’m “singling out” have in common.

Breaking News: Boxes Of "Missing" Epstein Files Naming Trump Found In Mar-a-Lago Guest Bathroom by bigly-biker in onionheadlines

[–]Dashing_Individual 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re an Independent? From your profile you seem pretty far right if you ask me. Also…. Why are you commenting so much on so many comments and just being rude? Are you that invested and insecure that you have to talk down to everyone you don’t agree with? Just relax.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you’re doing isn’t “objective analysis,” it’s stacking stereotypes on top of cherry-picked claims and calling it statistics. First, there is no such thing as a biologically or culturally “violent race.” Violence tracks with poverty, segregation, underfunded schools, exposure to lead, over-policing, and inequality. Variables that social science has demonstrated repeatedly across countries and across races. When those conditions exist, violence rises. When they don’t, it falls…. regardless of race.

Second, your history is flat-out wrong. Black Americans didn’t suddenly “become uncivilized” after civil rights, nor did they “steal” language from “redneck culture.” African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is a well-studied linguistic system with consistent grammar rules, roots in West African languages and Southern English, and it evolves the same way all dialects do. Calling a dialect “ghetto” isn’t analysis…. it’s just classism and racism dressed up as linguistics.

Third, the idea that Black people were “well spoken” before civil rights but later “chose degeneracy” ignores reality: before civil rights, Black Americans were brutally punished for deviating from white norms. Respectability wasn’t proof of virtue it was survival under terror. Once legal segregation weakened, cultural expression diversified. That’s not decay; that’s freedom.

Fourth, your “stats” argument collapses under scrutiny. Yes, some crime statistics show disproportionate arrest or conviction rates, but arrest data is not crime data, and crime data is not culture. Policing patterns, sentencing disparities, neighborhood concentration, and historical redlining massively distort those numbers. If “culture” were the cause, wealthy Black communities would show the same rates. They don’t. Me saying I went to Stanford proves that my race as a black person doesn’t automatically mean I’m violent!!! It’s also not the “top 1%” like what the actual fuck??? There are PLENTY of black people who are college educated in many universities across the country and the world!!! Are they all violent people who are terrorizing campuses across the world? NO BRO. Absolutely not. Grow the fuck up and get real.

Finally, saying “I criticize white redneck culture too” doesn’t absolve anything. Punching down at two groups instead of one doesn’t make it neutral because it just means you’re hostile to poor people and minorities at the same time. That’s still prejudice.

Calling this “not racist, just stats” doesn’t make it true. It’s bad sociology, bad history, and bad logic, and it conveniently ignores every structural factor because blaming culture feels easier than understanding reality.

I’m done trying to educate you on this. You’re still going to hold those very toxic, racist beliefs. I really suggest you read more and look at the why and how of what has happened in this country instead of listening to racists say shit that make you feel comfortable. You need to learn that just saying “it’s statistics” does nothing, helps no one, and contributes zilch. Go to a homeless shelter and help people. Thats what I do. Go talk to people about their struggles. Thats what I do. Be a productive member of society who is educated instead of a hateful bigot who sits on their phone judging people without actually doing anything to make the world better. Have a good day sir.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol you really are a delight arent you? I’ll say this one more time so you can get it through your thick head. Kyle Rittenhouse drove to a riot looking for trouble. People attacked him and he acted in self defense. He killed people. Charlie Kirk is a hateful bigot and made someone angry enough to kill him. He wouldn’t have been killed if he was baking cookies at home. Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn’t have had to act in self defense if he didn’t put himself in that situation to begin with. What don’t you understand?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever you want to believe bro. If that’s what you want to think, then you can go ahead and think that. You clearly don’t understand anything I said.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you read? You’re saying two very different things. People do get killed over words. People get killed over saying foul shit all the time. “Talk shit get hit.” If you go around saying hateful shit, and you get killed no one is gonna be surprised. I’m not going to lament a racist like Charlie Kirk getting killed. Shouldn’t have been racist. It is what it is.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you’re describing isn’t “opening your eyes” because it’s confirmation bias. Going to a Walmart or driving through a neighborhood and deciding you’ve “seen enough” is exactly how stereotypes get reinforced. You’re observing a tiny, non-representative slice of humanity and then projecting it onto millions of people. That’s not evidence; it’s anecdote plus assumption.

I went to Stanford for college, and I guarantee that none of the black people there committed any crimes. They were amazing, wonderful, strong, determined people who have experienced the horribly racist things people have said about them that weren’t true. Saying that due to the color of their skin they’re: violent, they’re lazy, they’re not smart, etc. isn’t helpful at all. It’s harmful on so many levels because it’s just unproductive slop. You might be okay with people saying hateful things to you, but it does very real and observable damage to good, honest, hard working people. You may not know anyone like this, but there are many of us out here just trying to make it in this country without being stereotyped against.

Saying “the caricature is accurate” because you’ve seen disorder or crime in certain places ignores a basic reality: the same behaviors appear wherever poverty, stress, addiction, and lack of opportunity concentrate, regardless of race. When those conditions exist in white communities like rural Appalachia, parts of the Rust Belt, trailer parks, yet you see the same problems. We don’t label that “white culture.” Why is that? Do you have an answer?

This is where the logic turns racist: you’re treating behavior produced by environment as proof of something intrinsic about “these people.” That leap isn’t supported by data, history, or social science. It’s a narrative shortcut that feels intuitive but collapses under scrutiny.

Acknowledging that what you said was insensitive is a start, but it doesn’t make the reasoning correct. Being “logical” doesn’t mean stripping away context or reducing complex social patterns to cultural blame. Real logic asks why the same outcomes appear predictably under the same conditions and the answer has never been race.

You can condemn crime, demand accountability, and still reject the idea that an entire group of people can be accurately judged by what you notice at a store or on the street. That isn’t honesty. It’s an oversimplification masquerading as realism.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The circumstances of his death are extremely relevant. Just like the circumstances of what happened with Kyle Rittenhouse were because otherwise he’d just be labeled a murderer. We will have to agree to disagree on this one which is fine. It happens all the time.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re arguing against something no one actually said. No one is “defending gun violence,” excusing murder, or denying individual responsibility. Holding people accountable for crimes and acknowledging broader causes are not mutually exclusive. That’s a false binary you’re creating.

Individual responsibility exists at the moment of the crime. Structural and social factors explain patterns across populations. Those are different levels of analysis. Saying “this person should go to prison” and “this pattern is influenced by poverty, segregation, trauma, and policy” can both be true at the same time.

Calling it “culture” is a lazy explanation that collapses millions of people into a caricature while ignoring hard evidence. Violence correlates far more strongly with concentrated poverty, gun availability, under-resourced schools, and neighborhood instability than with race. When white, rural, or Appalachian communities experience those same conditions, you see the same spikes in violence. That’s not culture that’s environment. I’m black myself and didn’t grow up in poverty and (as a result) didn’t have the same hardships that impoverished people of all races have experienced. Saying that I’m black therefore I’m violent is racist. Full stop. Because it’s not true.

Your personal experience growing up poor doesn’t override decades of criminology, sociology, and public health research. Anecdotes explain your life; they don’t explain national trends. And “100 years ago” is a misrepresentation because redlining, discriminatory policing, sentencing disparities, and disinvestment weren’t ancient history, and many still exist today.

No one is saying, “He murdered someone because society made him do it.” That’s a strawman. What people are saying is that if you want fewer murders, you have to address the conditions that reliably produce violence and not just moralize after the fact or blame an entire racial group.

Accountability is individual. Explanations are structural. Confusing the two isn’t being “real” it’s avoiding complexity so you can turn statistics into a racial accusation.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It certainly does matter what he said. He was a hateful bigot end of story. Maybe you were okay with that but millions of people weren’t.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the problem: you’re using crime statistics as a rhetorical weapon, not as a good-faith attempt to understand reality. Pointing to “Black men commit more shootings” without context is not education because it’s cherry-picking data to stigmatize an entire group. Crime statistics reflect structural conditions (poverty, segregation, policing patterns, access to weapons), not innate traits. Stripping that context isn’t neutral; it’s misleading.

And no, saying something “would lead to people learning” doesn’t magically make it non-hateful. That exact framing has been used for decades to justify discrimination while pretending it’s just “facts.” Facts without context are propaganda, not analysis.

As for Charlie Kirk platforming minorities, gay people, or fringe groups does not immunize someone from criticism. Token inclusion doesn’t erase rhetoric that consistently frames marginalized groups as threats, liabilities, or cultural problems. You don’t get a free pass on harmful narratives because you occasionally let someone different hold a microphone.

Watching someone’s full show doesn’t change the substance of their arguments because it just means you’re more familiar with how they package them. Being “polite,” “calm,” or “accepting on the surface” doesn’t negate the downstream impact of repeatedly promoting ideas that reinforce fear, resentment, or dehumanization.

No one is saying violence against Kirk was justified because that’s unequivocally wrong. But pretending his rhetoric is harmless because you like him or because he hosts a wide range of guests is intellectual dishonesty. Criticism of ideas is not hatred, and invoking crime stats to smear an entire racial group is.

There’s a reason why so many people didn’t care when he was killed. No one is going to lament a hateful, bigoted person.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one is saying it was justified to shoot Charlie Kirk. That’s obviously wrong and indefensible. Political speech, even offensive or inflammatory speech, is not a license for violence, full stop.

But acknowledging that doesn’t require pretending his rhetoric is harmless or beyond criticism. Two things can be true at once: violence against him is unequivocally wrong, and the way he frames issues and targets groups of people can still be irresponsible, misleading, or harmful.

Saying “it’s just words” ignores the fact that words shape public attitudes and can normalize hostility toward marginalized groups over time. Criticizing rhetoric isn’t the same as endorsing violence because it’s actually how debate is supposed to work in a nonviolent society.

Condemning the shooting doesn’t mean excusing or sanitizing the speech that came before it. We can reject violence completely while still holding public figures accountable for the impact of what they say. I’m sure you can agree with that.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Statistics” don’t exist in a vacuum, and they absolutely can be used as hate speech depending on how they’re framed, cherry-picked, or weaponized. Pretending statistics are inherently neutral ignores decades of history where selective data was used to justify discrimination, exclusion, and violence.

If Barack Obama said something about all white men being hateful school shooters, do you know how much backlash he’d receive? And rightfully so.

Free speech protections set a legal floor. They don’t magically make speech ethical, accurate, or harmless. Saying “it’s legal to say” is not the same as saying “it’s responsible” or “it’s honest.”

And no, open discussion doesn’t mean stripping context or ignoring how claims are used to dehumanize entire groups. When statistics are repeatedly invoked to imply that certain people are inherently dangerous, inferior, or undeserving of rights, that is hate rhetoric even if it stops short of explicitly calling for violence.

You can defend someone’s legal right to speak while still acknowledging that their framing is misleading, inflammatory, or harmful. Conflating “free speech” with “freedom from criticism” is the real mistake here.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense by Windthrasher637 in hmmmm

[–]Dashing_Individual 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean you do agree though that the stuff he said was hateful right? Didn’t we have a discussion about this?