Taro T Posted Saturday at 03:59 PM Report Posted Saturday at 03:59 PM It's a LONG video (over 23 minutes) and have no idea who this is that's saying it. But he has a very important message. Hope people watch; if not, whatevs. Love ya all.
Demoted Posted Saturday at 04:19 PM Report Posted Saturday at 04:19 PM (edited) When the Minnesota lawmakers died, Trump refused to say their names, Trump said he wouldn't call Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, suggesting it would "waste time." So as far as killing someone else over politics that should never happen. You should use your power of voting. Trump organization brings this on themselves by using violence against others and spreading false information to incite more violence. The problem is the Trump administration is trying to take away the power of voting so in the end some will resort to violence. Edited Saturday at 06:20 PM by Demoted 1
Demoted Posted Saturday at 06:22 PM Report Posted Saturday at 06:22 PM (edited) 4 hours ago, Taro T said: It's a LONG video (over 23 minutes) and have no idea who this is that's saying it. But he has a very important message. Hope people watch; if not, whatevs. Love ya all. They did the same when the MInnesota lawmakers were shot and Magorly Crazy Lady posted a picture of her with a rifle. It is politics doing this, they took over social media and run everything that goes into your brain. No need to watch some guys 30 min video. Edited Saturday at 08:36 PM by Demoted 1
Taro T Posted Saturday at 07:35 PM Author Report Posted Saturday at 07:35 PM 1 hour ago, Demoted said: They did the same when the MInnesota lawmakers were shot and Magorly Crazy Lady posted a picture of her with a rifle. It is politics doing this, they took over social media and run everything that goes into your brain. Wadr, you seem to have missed the point of the video. Apologies for having wasted your time. 🍺 1
Demoted Posted Saturday at 08:38 PM Report Posted Saturday at 08:38 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, Taro T said: Wadr, you seem to have missed the point of the video. Apologies for having wasted your time. 🍺 I didn't watch the video. His message is just another in a million of others that are on twitter. Edited Saturday at 09:52 PM by Demoted
Taro T Posted Saturday at 09:27 PM Author Report Posted Saturday at 09:27 PM 46 minutes ago, Demoted said: I didn't watch the video. Well, that would explain how you completely missed the message he was trying to convey.
SABRES 0311 Posted 10 hours ago Report Posted 10 hours ago To answer the OP question I think it sucks for his wife and kids the most. His kids especially had no idea what he did for a living and only saw him as dad. This kind of stuff is pointless.
LTS Posted 2 hours ago Report Posted 2 hours ago On 9/13/2025 at 11:59 AM, Taro T said: It's a LONG video (over 23 minutes) and have no idea who this is that's saying it. But he has a very important message. Hope people watch; if not, whatevs. Love ya all. This would be why it might be helpful to post what your thought on the message in the video was. People aren't going to watch a long video.. or they might if they have some sense of what is in it. Overall, I think wanting harm to anyone is bad. It shouldn't happen. He should be allowed to speak his views and influence those who would listen and believe. But, there is a debatable point I think about when what someone speaks of might influence those who listen to cause harm to others. It's a very slippery slope. Are we to be held responsible for another person's actions because of what we might have said? Should Clark Griswold be held responsible for Cousin Eddy being stupid and kidnapping Clark's boss? (Yes, I use that as a bit tongue in cheek, but I feel the concept is there.) The bottom line to me is that both sides need to stop encouraging people to be so intolerant of those with different views. We should not be talking about violence against a corporate CEO any more than we should be talking about violence against someone for the sexual identification. Sadly we are on the path of escalation. I am hoping there's a shift in direction without there first being a seismic event that triggers it. 1
SABRES 0311 Posted 30 minutes ago Report Posted 30 minutes ago 1 hour ago, LTS said: This would be why it might be helpful to post what your thought on the message in the video was. People aren't going to watch a long video.. or they might if they have some sense of what is in it. Overall, I think wanting harm to anyone is bad. It shouldn't happen. He should be allowed to speak his views and influence those who would listen and believe. But, there is a debatable point I think about when what someone speaks of might influence those who listen to cause harm to others. It's a very slippery slope. Are we to be held responsible for another person's actions because of what we might have said? Should Clark Griswold be held responsible for Cousin Eddy being stupid and kidnapping Clark's boss? (Yes, I use that as a bit tongue in cheek, but I feel the concept is there.) The bottom line to me is that both sides need to stop encouraging people to be so intolerant of those with different views. We should not be talking about violence against a corporate CEO any more than we should be talking about violence against someone for the sexual identification. Sadly we are on the path of escalation. I am hoping there's a shift in direction without there first being a seismic event that triggers it. I can see someone being held accountable for influencing the actions of another if that person had some type of relationship. There was a girl who got into trouble a while back because she apparently influenced a guy who eventually committed suicide knowing he had feelings for her. Broader examples would be educators, close family, so on. That said, there is a constant bombardment of desensitization on the internet. Even if you don't know the people posting they can influence your perspective when it's the same message over and over. Also add in people gravitate to sources that affirm their existing ideas and the whole thing becomes a loop where people start to feel like the angry/violent thoughts they have are justified. Those groups and people are protected under the First Amendment and censorship is a slippery slope. However, they draw comparisons to the worst in humanity's history to get a prescribed emotional response. They do not want solutions because friction gets them what they really want which is clicks, views, and agitation. In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination, it's easy to see how jacked up in the head these people are based on what they are putting on social media. Some of them have been fired.
Recommended Posts