[formatting changes were made]
I post these things to try to influence my sphere of influence however small that may be. Not gonna lie though, keeping up with the news and spending time to comment can get kind of depressing.
So, Imma take some time to talk about my right-wing confidante. My best bud. A man who can always make me laugh for one reason or another, Ben Shapiro. This might be on the long side, but I thought it’s probably better than spamming B. Shap tweets and got to be “fair and balanced.” Can’t just take one tweet, right? Everyone welcome Ben to the JonRa Show.
Thanks for coming on the show, Ben. I just wanted to talk about your recent tweets. It seems like you tweet almost as fast as you talk. The world isn’t graded like debate team, but it’s cool. Just spread them arguments. Spread them all over me.
Picture 1: I have no idea what you are commenting on–keen-eyed viewers might see this is a recurring motif. But let’s not worry about the potential homme de paille standing over your shoulders.
Just a quick question. Why can’t you shoot to wound? Is it because police departments train officers to shoot to kill so they don’t get stuck with the medical bill of a permanently maimed citizen or the potential backlash from a live victim? Or do the bullets just go for the vital organs?
Being the facts and logic man, I’ll assume you’re right for the time being whatever the mechanism. But, if you can’t shoot to wound, why is shooting seemingly the first step to control the situation? Do cops not have non-lethal or de-escalation tactics? Is that not how it works either? Like if “many” of the 68 unarmed people attacked the police (according to “official records” wink wink), did they have to kill them? They were unarmed and I don’t think Connor McGregors out there willy-nilly fighting cops.
Last point. By “many,” do you mean that you know there are cases of cops willy-nilly shooting unarmed people but that’s a sacrifice you are willing to make? It’s just the cost of doing business, I’m guessing. Real level-headed commentary. Real good, Ben. You Maverick, you. Really pushing those boundaries of them libtards.
Picture 2: Ben, I see that you are very patriotic. Is this what patriotism means to you? By “recogniz[ing] both truths,” I’m assuming people should just accept the status quo? Maybe this isn’t about the protests, but assuming it is, did someone tell you this is what they’re about? Angry black people who hate America because of the “history and the presence of racists?” Because i dont think that’s what they’re about. Maybe some of them are real sick of America, but I think they just tryna make America great. For the first time. I’ll keep this between me and you, but just so you know for next time, it’s not just the evils of history. George Floyd seemed real contemporary.
On a different note, as a conservative, who do you think hates your country more? The Americans that complain about “the good old day” or the ones taking direct action towards a “more perfect union.”
Either way, I’ll have to disagree with you. You know how much I totally respect your genuine intellect, but Canada seems mighty greater (though still terribly flawed and racist in our own way) than America right now. Using a phrase used by your president, some, in the world, might even liken current America to a sh*thole.
Picture 3: Benny boy, who is telling you America is unchangeably racist. If that was a fact of life, I don’t think anyone would protest. Like I don’t really like the snow, but I’m not marching down the street every winter. We must bring the media, politicians, and educational institutions to account for spreading the really dangerous lie that things can’t change. How awful for the disenfranchised in your country to be told that? Call them out, Shapster. We can go after them together. Thank goodness I have a level-head like you on my side otherwise I might let my feelings take over. But your tweets are very logos-based, none of that pathos, value-laden rhetoric here.
Picture 4+5 Bonus Round: I know this isn’t you, just a retweet. I just thought it was weird to see the triple parentheses. I’m not sure of Yair Rosenberg’s background but I’m sure he’s provoking all those snowflakes out there with his clever social commentary through the use of neo-Nazi shorthand to tRiGgEr them libs.
But really insightful comment. It doesn’t have to be physical violence to count as violence. Destroying someone’s livelihood is definitely a violent act. It’s like when employers have so much power over the working class by threatening their livelihood because of the decades of policies designed to deepen the wealth gap and put more pressure on the working class to conform. But as much as I agree with you as you probably inadvertently echo FDR’s rationale for an economic bill of rights, you want to know what’s also very violent?
Shooting people in their own homes. Shoving the elderly or anyone really. Bone breakers. Pepper spray. Ramming a police cruiser through a crowd. Oh. And kneeling on the back of someone’s neck for eight and a half minutes. That last one almost slipped my mind. Almost slipped right out of the conversation for a second. Almost.
Wake Up Sheeple! 