I would encourage people to read the Wikipedia page on George Floyd. He was a complicated and flawed individual, who definitely did some bad things and didn’t make very good decisions all the time. But he tried to improve later in his life with mixed results (at least with regards to drug addiction), and that counts for something, I think.
Derek Chauvin and Charlie Kirk, by comparison, tended to get worse as their lives went on. Chauvin may well have framed Floyd for a drug crime and Kirk espoused factually false information to millions of people just to gain fame and power in conservative circles.
These people are not the same.
mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
The “he’s a father” line has got to be the most slave-morality, don’t-ask-questions, get back to work and serve the Economy, don’t make trouble for the system, obvious bullshit I’ve ever heard.
One can make plenty of better arguments for why not to make fun of him posthumously, so why pick such a bad one? Oh right, because the vast majority of our society has never been educated to care about the logical validity of an argument, but only its emotional gut-feeling truthiness.
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Inability to use a condom doesn’t make anyone entitled to my sympathy.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
No i don’t think one can.
mfed1122@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
Better, but not ultimately valid :)
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Not good, but better than that. Things like 'it still had time to stop being a piece of shit and return to his humanity"
There are still much better ones for not, of course.
crunchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
He was a father, which means now his kids have a slightly better chance of not growing up to be complete pieces of shit.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 day ago
unless the mother jumps in bed with another magat influencer.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Yeah it’s a big tell to not take someone seriously in the future.