At this point, there is no amount of further evidence that will sway the liars.
They know this. But their masters have taught to “deny, deny, deny!” You know, people like the decrepit sexually suspect Saul Alinsky. Honesty is not their make up. Everything is deception and sneakiness.
They will try to gaslight, but this time it will not work.
But haven't you been celebrating people losing their jobs over "words"? And aren't you threatening your political enemies for their words?
Celebrating the death or Charlie Kirk, even in the grossest possible way, is still just words, right? Even demonizing ones political enemies, or simply groups one does not like-- as Charlie Kirk himself made a business of doing and as you are doing right now!-- is just words.
For actual deeds, the country has a legal system.
“Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences”
”private companies can do what they want”
I distinctly remember hearing these 2 quotes about Trump’s ban from Twitter in 2021.
Right. Charlie was free to say whatever nonsense he wanted. Turns out, his actions had consequences.
But haven't you been celebrating people losing their jobs over "words"? And aren't you threatening your political enemies for their words?
Celebrating the death or Charlie Kirk, even in the grossest possible way, is still just words, right? Even demonizing ones political enemies, or simply groups one does not like-- as Charlie Kirk himself made a business of doing and as you are doing right now!-- is just words.
For actual deeds, the country has a legal system.
“Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences”
”private companies can do what they want”
I distinctly remember hearing these 2 quotes about Trump’s ban from Twitter in 2021.
The point is, a supporter of free speech would oppose, not affirm or celebrate, someone losing their job over a speech act?
I mean, wasn't this what the right was up in arms about w/r/t to "cancel culture" a little while ago, and wasn't it why Musk at some point offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who "got in trouble at work" for a speech act?
Saying its the right of a private employer to fire some one for a speech act is a simple statement of fact. A statement of principle (i.e. for a true free speech advocate) would be to say that such a firing is wrong.
“Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences”
”private companies can do what they want”
I distinctly remember hearing these 2 quotes about Trump’s ban from Twitter in 2021.
What the libs are getting wrong here is that they’re making a behavioral issue into a free speech one.
Most large employers have a code on conduct and can fire you for what they deem unprofessional behavior.
Once they do that you’re free to go home and talk sh!t about Kirk all you want.
Right. Just relabel a speech act a "behavior" and, presto, you remain a free speech supporter!
Why didn't we hear this from people like you during the panic about "cancel culture"?
The right weaponized "free speech" discourse till the moment they felt they had the power to shut their enemies up. Now all of a sudden it's "speech has consequences"-- as banal a truism when spoken by censorious libs as when offered up by fascists.
“Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences”
”private companies can do what they want”
I distinctly remember hearing these 2 quotes about Trump’s ban from Twitter in 2021.
The point is, a supporter of free speech would oppose, not affirm or celebrate, someone losing their job over a speech act?
I mean, wasn't this what the right was up in arms about w/r/t to "cancel culture" a little while ago, and wasn't it why Musk at some point offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who "got in trouble at work" for a speech act?
Saying it’s the right of a private employer to fire some one for a speech act is a simple statement of fact. A statement of principle (i.e. for a true free speech advocate) would be to say that such a firing is wrong.
Whether the firing is wrong is subjective.
You can just as easily say the employer is making a principled decision by firing someone who would celebrate the murder of another human.
What the libs are getting wrong here is that they’re making a behavioral issue into a free speech one.
Most large employers have a code on conduct and can fire you for what they deem unprofessional behavior.
Once they do that you’re free to go home and talk sh!t about Kirk all you want.
Right. Just relabel a speech act a "behavior" and, presto, you remain a free speech supporter!
Why didn't we hear this from people like you during the panic about "cancel culture"?
The right weaponized "free speech" discourse till the moment they felt they had the power to shut their enemies up. Now all of a sudden it's "speech has consequences"-- as banal a truism when spoken by censorious libs as when offered up by fascists.
The left are the fascists. Look at their murderous behaviors. Their thrill at trans maniacs shooting up schools. Their orgasmic joy at “POC” thugs butchering women on trains, their calls to eliminate all speech from those who don’t say what the left wants… self deceptive hypocrites. They deceive themselves then try to deceive everyone else.
What the libs are getting wrong here is that they’re making a behavioral issue into a free speech one.
Most large employers have a code on conduct and can fire you for what they deem unprofessional behavior.
Once they do that you’re free to go home and talk sh!t about Kirk all you want.
Right. Just relabel a speech act a "behavior" and, presto, you remain a free speech supporter!
Why didn't we hear this from people like you during the panic about "cancel culture"?
The right weaponized "free speech" discourse till the moment they felt they had the power to shut their enemies up. Now all of a sudden it's "speech has consequences"-- as banal a truism when spoken by censorious libs as when offered up by fascists.
You sound like an entitled government worker who never owned a business. You don’t have the right to say whatever you want on somebody else’s dime. You can do it on yours.
This assassin, along with mass shooters (and including "school/university" shooters in particular) of the past 30-odd years ultimately subscribes to an ideology, or really anti-ideology, all its own-- "shooterism"-- the aim of which is to immortalize the individual person of the killer.
Ideologically motivated killers of the past tended to have legible motives-- "the politics of the deed", "accelerationism", etc. As simplistic, two-dimensional, and just plain politically wrong as these were, they could be usually be read as "left" or "right".
By contrast, people like this guy, and pretty much every mass shooter since the Columbine boys, have had as their main audience other online aficionados of highly public murder/assassination. And the ultimate act of affiliation-- plus guarantee of fully memed immortality-- within this group is to actually shoot people irl.
It may in fact now become the case that the assassination of political figures will replace the shooting up of schools and other public places as a preferred expression of "shooterist" ideology And this will simply be because these other kinds of killing have become so commonplace that they confer no notoriety at all anymore.
When other shooterists see the kind of attention this guy is getting it's quite possible that a few of them will seek out there own preferred targets, regardless of the target's ideology.
This is all much more a manifestation of "American Berserk", online version, than it is any kind of left/right politics, and it will never touch the lives of the vast majority of the population. The political violence that the average person should fear most, by contrast, will come from/is coming from the state. This kind of violence will affect the lives of everyone, and may end the American experiment in democracy.
I think you are onto something. Let's see what the US Government says:
* Identity and a sense of belonging are key ("radicalization" which is poorly defined, results from isolation, frustration, and hopelessness)
* Exposure and radicalization are not necessarily correlated (I didn't get a sense of what the key risk factor is...perhaps natural propensity to violence? Maybe this explains why it's young men and not young women who are almost always the perpetrators. We have a rich cultural tapestry to draw on to make more "common sense" conclusions here.)
* Intervention and deradicalization are possible, but difficult (made more so by something not contained in the report: lying to an FBI agent is a federal crime in and of itself...just ask Martha Stewart).
* The role of mental illness is overstated.
* Prosocial modeling (with a heavy reliance on principles drawn from Cognitive Behavior Therapy) are a plausible solution.
* The role of family and a support structure is key. (This part is almost circular and discounts natural adolescent rebellion; kids reject their parents values as a matter of routine.)
Well, it's an interesting read, even if it has some shortcomings. The FBI has a new class of domestic terrorist, the "NVE" or "nihilistic violent extremist." (Not mentioned in the report, very relevant in this case.) It also has the impossible task of preventing crime before it happens while balancing civil liberties. The report opens witn a quote from Christopher Wray that states something like "We don't deal with ideology, we deal with violent acts." OK, organization that had several secret files on MLK...It also contains an unattributed quote that reads "I was raised by the Internet." Overstated as it applies to everyone born after 1995 and I can only assume that the attribution was left of because they did not believe there was a person out there who calls himself "Childish Gambino." Thought-provoking uestions about what motivates attacks like these abound, anyway.
Tldr; you are right, this isn't a left/right thing...we now return to our regularly scheduled program...
This would why Grindr is really busy during the Republican national convention
Is that when you make the most money? We know you lefty gobblers will get down with anything. Men, men who think they can be women, barnyard animals, your own parents (that’s where it starts, we know)…
I guarantee you that you can find well Over a 1000 instances of right wingers on Twitter/X saying things exactly similar but just sub the words " black on black crime" for "right on right crime". Or " a dead leftist is the only good leftist" ... and worse. [ and then of course you can find WAY worse in the past on 4chan etc] And I guarantee you that you would chuckle and nod your head "Yes."
And musk promised he would cover anyone's legal costs for anything they said on X if it got that person in trouble at work.
Right Wing trolls LOVE a good, dark or racist or disgusting post if it mocking.... the other. Some of them love it no matter who it is degrading. Some of them might be posting dark degrading memes about kirk right now.
It's not just randos on Bluesky. It's teachers and regular people celebrating it under their real names and in public.
Check out the entire TMZ newsroom celebrating it. Of course they won't be fired because it's TMZ. But it shows you how leftists feel comfortable acting even in public.
This would why Grindr is really busy during the Republican national convention
Is that when you make the most money? We know you lefty gobblers will get down with anything. Men, men who think they can be women, barnyard animals, your own parents (that’s where it starts, we know)…
Yeah but at least we are not hypocritical about it. The CONS share similar interests but constantly lie about it. Live your truth.
“How___leftists”? What leftists? That segment of them. Like there are “the Jews will not replace us” guy are not the vast majority of those on the Right. what percentage of leftists feel feel doing that?
Are you just looking out for bad leftists, or are you looking across social media for instances of lefties who have expressed grief over the assassination and who have condemned these appalling celebrations of it?
The point is, a supporter of free speech would oppose, not affirm or celebrate, someone losing their job over a speech act?
I mean, wasn't this what the right was up in arms about w/r/t to "cancel culture" a little while ago, and wasn't it why Musk at some point offered to pay the legal bills of anyone who "got in trouble at work" for a speech act?
Saying it’s the right of a private employer to fire some one for a speech act is a simple statement of fact. A statement of principle (i.e. for a true free speech advocate) would be to say that such a firing is wrong.
Whether the firing is wrong is subjective.
You can just as easily say the employer is making a principled decision by firing someone who would celebrate the murder of another human.
My stance is that it’s the employers call.
If you're opposed on principle to someone being punished for a speech act (i.e. because "words are not violence", etc) then you oppose someone being fired for a speech act, whether the firer has the legal right to do it or not.
Everyone who participated in "cancel culture" against right wingers had a right to do what they were doing, but for free speech supporters it was still wrong on principle to do it.
So, yeah, it's always "the employers call". But if we're talking about free speech, the employers call can be ethically wrong-- i.e. in exactly the way the right was saying the suppression of certain forms of language was wrong about 5 mins before they got the power to start threatening people's use of language.
Should Musk make good on his promise to pay the legal bills of someone who "gets into trouble at work" for tweeting a celebration of Charlie Kirk's murder, or is this somehow different from someone getting fired for saying the N-word?
Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson was living with a transgender partner who was in the process of transitioning from male to female, a law enforcement source confirmed to The Post Satu…
Commentary on dangerous rhetoric in Stephen Miller’s rant:
“There is no war.
The most dangerous thing about this rhetoric is not the wholesale slander and dehumanization—though that is deplorable—it is the claim that ‘they’ are already at war with ‘us.’ That’s what conjures comparisons to Rwanda. The Hutus seeded the airwaves with claims that the Tutsis were the ones waging war on the Hutus and that turning machetes on them wasn’t an act of aggression, but one of self-defense against the ‘fifth-columnists,’ the ‘snakes,’ ‘rats,’ and inyenzi (cockroaches).”
You can just as easily say the employer is making a principled decision by firing someone who would celebrate the murder of another human.
My stance is that it’s the employers call.
If you're opposed on principle to someone being punished for a speech act (i.e. because "words are not violence", etc) then you oppose someone being fired for a speech act, whether the firer has the legal right to do it or not.
Everyone who participated in "cancel culture" against right wingers had a right to do what they were doing, but for free speech supporters it was still wrong on principle to do it.
So, yeah, it's always "the employers call". But if we're talking about free speech, the employers call can be ethically wrong-- i.e. in exactly the way the right was saying the suppression of certain forms of language was wrong about 5 mins before they got the power to start threatening people's use of language.
Should Musk make good on his promise to pay the legal bills of someone who "gets into trouble at work" for tweeting a celebration of Charlie Kirk's murder, or is this somehow different from someone getting fired for saying the N-word?
You're copping out on this and you know it.
You are confused. If you work for someone, they own your job, not you. Thus, you should be able to be fired for no reason at all. You seem to consistently equate being fired for speech to being killed for speech, and celebrating both of those actions. It's not morally equivalent for me to celebrate bud light dropping Dylan Mulvaney and you celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk.
