383
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 55 points 2 months ago

I think the Chuck Norris jokes really only could take off because he was already retired and not on the internet when it happened. If he'd engaged, it'd probably have killed the humor.

[-] Pronell@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago

He did engage, by saying that the only superhero is Jesus, which did indeed kill the humor.

[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 3 points 2 months ago

I find that pretty funny though. Of course he would say that.

Now, did Chuck Norris diddle any kids?

[-] SirSamuel@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago

Chuck Norris the person was flawed and stupid

Chuck Norris the meme is about to roundhouse ki

[-] Noblesavage@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It looks like Chuck Norris got to them before they could finish their sent

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

He's not a shitty guy. Anymore.

[-] Ceruleum@lemmy.wtf 5 points 2 months ago

Now he's basically compost.

[-] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Depending if they used embalming fluids he might not be very good compost for a long while.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

This is exactly how I have been feeling. I have friends and people I respect who have been venerating this POS and it has been a real effort to not go off on them. Fortunately they haven't pushed for me to celebrate this fuck too.

[-] Akasazh@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago
[-] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 6 points 2 months ago

Uh, good that I was very much out of the loop for this one. I could enjoy the memes until now ...

[-] ideonek@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

Is.this accurate? He was deeply conservative and a creationist. Buy I don't belive there are credible indycators of him being a racist, were there?

[-] prole 23 points 2 months ago

If you (vocally) support racists who are actively pushing racist ideology and legislation, then what's the functional difference?

[-] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 6 points 2 months ago

He might have just been very brainwashed, tribalistic.

Actually fuck it, that's is functionaly just as bad.

[-] ideonek@piefed.social 3 points 2 months ago

Who exactly do you mean? I'm not being snarky. Thats genuine question.

[-] BambiDiego@lemmy.zip 10 points 2 months ago

As an example, when a known, unrepentant sexual predator runs for a high government office, anything other than "no, they are an evil person" is quiet support of their behavior.

It's much worse when the support is vocal and strong, it means their behavior is acceptable because they agree on other points.

"Oh sure, he raped/abused people/kids, but he really stands up for free-speech/gun rights/lower taxes/lower crime/healthcare."

It doesn't matter, their actions and choices have fundamentally shown they are evil, and are not doing anything to atone.

The fact that my statement applies to SO MANY people in office is just devastating.

[-] ideonek@piefed.social 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So unnamed person is trump, right? Wouldn't that mean that US is almost exclusively KKK racists?

[-] BambiDiego@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

Wut?

I said it applies to a lot, and I mean a lot, of people in office. I didn't even say the US.

Also, what's the leap in logic there?

Supporting a (despicable trait) person doesn't automatically make you a (despicable trait) person, but it does make you someone who thinks there's a level of excuse for (despicable trait)

[-] ideonek@piefed.social 2 points 2 months ago

He's your twice-elected peoples representative. Which by definition means that minority of "the people" "acctively oppose him". So everyone else met the same "anything less" criterion that was set for Norris.

[-] BambiDiego@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Please read my comment again, slowly, instead of making up your own ideas of what you think I meant.

[-] ideonek@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

What your ment is clear. Im talking about logical implication of what you wrote.

[-] III@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Your use of "almost exclusively" completely loses the concept. You are confusing individual support and majority voting. Just because Trump is president doesn't mean everyone supports him regardless of his crimes. Many people did, yes. But not even close to everyone.

[-] ideonek@piefed.social 1 points 2 months ago

No, I'm not talking about people who suported him. I talk about people who didn't oppose him. That's objective majority. And they fail to meet your "anything less than sounding 'no he's an evil person'" standard.

[-] BanMe@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

There was a saying in the 40s.

"What do you call a table with 6 nazis and 6 German farmers?"

"A dozen Nazis having dinner."

[-] Smaile@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

no hes asking you to name them, not wax poetic man

[-] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

But... doesn't that mean that Democrats are Nazis, too?

You know, since they are sitting at the table with the Nazis

[-] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

yes, well...anyone who takes that AIPAC $

[-] kodus@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

It’s accurate if one was and emotional lunatic yes.

[-] Aeri@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I was having a discussion in a community about Chuck Norris and people were shitting on me for badmouthing him. Like what are we all just pretending we're suddenly huge fans of Walker Texas goddamn ranger?

this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
383 points (100.0% liked)

Comic Book Shitposting

122 readers
1 users here now

For all your comic/manga/graphic novel shitposting needs.

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS