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.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
270 points (97.2% liked)
Comic Book Shitposting
110 readers
176 users here now
For all your comic/manga/graphic novel shitposting needs.
founded 4 days ago
MODERATORS
He did engage, by saying that the only superhero is Jesus, which did indeed kill the humor.
I find that pretty funny though. Of course he would say that.
Now, did Chuck Norris diddle any kids?
Chuck Norris the person was flawed and stupid
Chuck Norris the meme is about to roundhouse ki
It looks like Chuck Norris got to them before they could finish their sent
He's not a shitty guy. Anymore.
Now he's basically compost.
Depending if they used embalming fluids he might not be very good compost for a long while.
Uh, good that I was very much out of the loop for this one. I could enjoy the memes until now ...
Chuck Norris was a shit guy, no need to pretend otherwise
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?
If you (vocally) support racists who are actively pushing racist ideology and legislation, then what's the functional difference?
He might have just been very brainwashed, tribalistic.
Actually fuck it, that's is functionaly just as bad.
Who exactly do you mean? I'm not being snarky. Thats genuine question.
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."
But... doesn't that mean that Democrats are Nazis, too?
You know, since they are sitting at the table with the Nazis
yes, well...anyone who takes that AIPAC $
no hes asking you to name them, not wax poetic man
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.
So unnamed person is trump, right? Wouldn't that mean that US is almost exclusively KKK racists?
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)
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.
Please read my comment again, slowly, instead of making up your own ideas of what you think I meant.
What your ment is clear. Im talking about logical implication of what you wrote.
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.
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.