• samus12345@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Everyone always screws that up. The Darwin award doesn’t just mean the person died from their own stupidity, it means they did the world a favor and removed themselves from the gene pool before passing on their genes. By that note, people who are unable to reproduce also cannot be eligible for the award.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I’m a parent too, and that’s exactly why I am glad his disgusting voice was silenced in the most public and ironic way possible.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Ah yeah good edit, I wasn’t even considering that you could have meant it that way.

          I decided to go look up the rules in order to contribute something more useful to this discussion, and it turns out that the mere presence of offspring does not disqualify one from the award!

          Given their reasoning, I think Kirk would qualify. And given that his whole brand was about spreading stupid dangerous ideas to everybody’s kids including his own, and then he died in a spectacularly ironic and public way, I think he should actually win one!

          https://darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html

    • umbrellacloud@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      So did John Wayne Gacy, what’s your point?

      Charlie Kirk’s comment about “some gun deaths being necessary” was in response to a comment about school shootings involving small children, wasn’t it? I don’t remember exactly, why don’t you look it up yourself?