• fizzle@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    10 hours ago

    In some ways I completely agree.

    Its absolutely possible for someone who loves their husband to appear happy after they suddenly pass away.

    However, the pivot to capture the TP USA business is a conscious one, and it definitely feels pretty gross to anyone who understands that it is indeed a business.

    The thing is, to people receptive to their message, its not a “business”, its a cause or a movement. They can just say “Charlie would have wanted her to continue his work!”

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yes but even if it is a conscious decision and she doesn’t or didn’t care about him, there’s nothing illegal about it. It’s just unseemly. She should be able to do as she pleases, no different to any other awful grifter. It’s not really news. It’s gossip.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        33 minutes ago

        It’s not a matter of illegal, it’s a matter of how much of a grift it is. Celebrating merch sales about your husband’s death is just sociopath level.

        It matters in the context of this movement trying to play like they gave a shit about this man for the sake of sympathy when even his own widow clearly cared about engagement and merchandise than his actual death.

        Admittedly, not that newsworthy because most of the world has stopped thinking about him, but TPUSA is still rolling and still riding that martyrdom angle.

      • fizzle@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Nah the Trump administration hitched their wagon to the Kirks so her unseemly behavior is newsworthy IMO.