21 ms·

Several people fired after clampdown on speech over Charlie Kirk shooting

113 points by Geekette 1y ago

jhp123 1y ago
when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people". When they killed Brian Sicknick, he called them heroes and pardoned them. If even 10 percent of the right had drawn a line against political violence after Jan 6 then we wouldn't be here today. They all embraced it when it was their side. Charlie himself chartered the buses and obstructed the resulting investigation.
- yepitwas 1y ago
  It’s be really nice if they’d repudiated political violence by not electing Donald Trump president after he mused on stage about how his supporters could shoot Hillary if she won, in 2016. That was the first big test of whether we were going to enter a new era of normalized political violence, and we (his voters, but collectively we as a country) flunked it. Wave of violence it is, I guess. Reckoned at the time it wouldn’t be much fun, and go figure, it ain’t.
- TheFreim 1y ago
  You have unfortunately been misinformed about both examples that you brought up. > when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people" Trump did not call the killer a fine person, nor did he call everyone involved on the right fine people. He explicitly stated that there were, "some very bad people in that group." The "very fine people" was referencing those who were peacefully protesting both for and against the removal of historical monuments. If you watch the original video instead of the selective reporting this is all made very clear. You can watch or read the transcript of the "very fine people" press conference here: https://www.veryfinepeople.info https://www.veryfinepeople.info > When they killed Brian Sicknick, he called them heroes and pardoned them. Brian Sicknick was not killed by anyone. The medical examiner ruled that he died of natural causes. There is no evidence that he was killed, which was reflected in the difficulty the prosecutors faced, and its why nobody was ever convicted of murder. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-died-natural-causes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-die... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#Misinformation_about_cause_of_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#Misinf...
  - jhp123 1y ago
    You don't seem to understand why the "very fine people" remark was unacceptable to many of us. Like I said, he was excusing political violence. A woman had been murdered by neo-Nazis and he went out of his way to minimize, justify and excuse the act, while condemning imaginary "alt-left" violence at the same event. On the topic of Sicknick, I don't find it credible that he died coincidentally the day after being assaulted. The timing alone is strong evidence that the two are related. Even if it was "merely" an assault on a police officer, it's political violence and it's acceptable to every Republican voter. You opened this door.
    - TheFreim 1y ago
      > Like I said, he was excusing political violence. A woman had been murdered by neo-Nazis and he went out of his way to minimize, justify and excuse the act, while condemning imaginary "alt-left" violence at the same event. I again strongly encourage you to go watch the video or read the transcript since it directly contradicts what you are continuing to claim. Trump explicitly said that that the neo-Nazis should be "condemned totally." A total condemnation is exactly the opposite of your claim that he was "excusing" or trying to "minimize" the events. I will also note that I find it quite odd that you claim to be upset about Trump allegedly downplaying violence, but then go on to downplay and minimize left-wing extremist violence. I believe that all political violence should be condemned, its unfortunate that you appear to believe otherwise. > I don't find it credible that he died coincidentally the day after being assaulted. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, I don't find it likely that I will be convinced to ignore the medical expert who examined the case and the corresponding documentary evidence that points against the idea that Sicknick was killed.
      - jhp123 1y ago
        Please take a look at the transcript in its entirety. Shortly after the part where he says Nazis should be condemned, he goes on to say that there are "fine people on both sides", undercutting his earlier claim.
        1y ago
- zahlman 1y ago
  > when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people". One person killed Heather Heyer. Even Snopes doesn't endorse the "very fine people" narrative (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/). There is a single-page site dedicated to the topic: https://www.finepeoplehoax.net/ https://www.finepeoplehoax.net/. The Politifact coverage (https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump...) makes it very clear that Trump's position was not at all consistent with the narrative you are trying to run with.
  - jhp123 1y ago
    The articles you linked actually confirm my point, did you mean to link something else? As Snopes and politifact confirms, Trump made the following statement about the "Unite the Right" protestors, a group of racists, anti-semites, KKK and neo-Nazis who had staged a violent rally followed by a vehicular murder: "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides".
    - zahlman 1y ago
      >The articles you linked actually confirm my point, did you mean to link something else? I meant to link exactly what I linked. The articles do not confirm your point. You did not make a claim that he simply spoke those literal words. You used a paraphrase that misrepresented who he was referring to. The sources do not say that he made this statement "about the 'Unite the Right' protestors". They also do not support describing them collectively as being all of those other things you call them. I do not believe you are engaging in good faith, because someone engaging in good faith ought to notice the clear logical holes in the argument you are making. Especially since it has already been explained to you repeatedly by myself and others.
      - jhp123 1y ago
        of course he was talking about the "Unite the Right" protestors. The violence occurred at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, what other "side" could he possibly have been referring to?
duxup 1y ago
Some local restaurant in my area announced they were investigating and would fire some folks who had some sort of video supposedly showing a celebration. I'm not really a fan of policing rando back room worker's response to an event, who may or may not have even known they were being recorded.
vkou 1y ago
Cancel culture in a nutshell. The far-right can say whatever it wants, but if you call it out on it, you'll be removed for creating social disharmony. Meanwhile, a Fox news anchor has called for the mass murder of homeless people yesterday. He still has his job, but he did apologize for saying the quiet part out loud. None of the other talking heads behind the table with him even said a word against him.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  Well the way this works is, if you're a customer of a company, you get to threaten to stop being a custom of that company. I doubt you're an avid Fox News fan, so unfortunately you don't have much voice in this situation.
ShonT 1y ago
[dead]
mkfs 1y ago
Could someone sympathetic explain why at least some of these people, specifically the healthcare professionals, shouldn't be fired, given that their statements reflect a lack of compassion in a field that demands it and a willingness to give substandard care to others based on their politics? Also, the school teachers: is it unreasonable to not want your children entrusted to educators who endorse political assassination?
ChoGGi 1y ago
Good old cancel culture.
shadowgovt 1y ago
I think it's easy for people to forget sometimes because the interface doesn't make it particularly obvious that much of social media is screaming from a soapbox in some of the world's largest agoras. The interface makes it feel like you're having a polite conversation among like-minded folk. In reality, you're like one of those folks on a street corner with a megaphone and most of the time the rest of the world isn't listening to you. But they can tune you in anytime they want, and there can be consequences for holding a strong opinion incompatible with the strong opinion of other people you will be wanting to do business with. ... That of course includes this medium. Watch what you say today everyone, your future and current employers are reading Hacker News.
blargthorwars 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- scuff3d 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bryanrasmussen 1y ago
    I didn't like or respect the guy but really that is probably the most reasonable thing he ever said (other than release the Epstein Files), if you believed the 2nd Amendment is important to have then you are essentially arguing for some gun deaths every year. Note: I believe the 2nd Amendment is really the proof that the founding fathers weren't the super geniuses the mythology has them as, but hey, too late now.
    - jameskilton 1y ago
      The only reason we look at the 2nd Amendment as we do today is because of the NRA. The founding fathers had vastly different ideas for drafting the 2nd.
    - scuff3d 1y ago
      Pretty much everything out of the guys mouth was either stupid or horrible. This just happens to be one of the most relevant to the current conversation
  - frugalmail 1y ago
    Do you think the same thing about "give me liberty or give me death?" "...cost of unfortunately..." Is that not clear? The context was he was responding about a question about the 2nd amendment. clearly the first order thinking would make it clear it's not the rule, it's the purpose of the rule that's important. The purpose is so you don't get arrested for some social media comment or other rights, like what is happening in the UK right now.
softwaredoug 1y ago
If there’s anything that this horrific event has taught me it’s to step away from social media political rabbit holes. These places amplify and feed upon themselves, and can lead you to a dark place where you’d glorify this kind of death. After all this is exactly how to shooter himself ended up thinking he had to assassinate Kirk.
- aklemm 1y ago
  The same can lead one to making a martyr out of a despicable voice.
- notmyjob 1y ago
  How many of these people were in lockdowns during their formative years? I don’t think it’s _all_ social media.
- estimator7292 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - frugalmail 1y ago
    what "peaceful means of protest" has the government shut down exactly?
    - jeremyjh 1y ago
      The ones at many Ivy League schools.
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      Cutting university funding if they don’t block protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      Literally every Israel protest.
jmclnx 1y ago
The only problem I have with this is: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/people-are-calling-out-trumps-reaction-to-charlie-kirks-assassination-vs-melissa-hortmans/ar-AA1Mn9bg https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/people-are-calling-o... No reaction occurred when Melissa Hortman was killed to people doing the same thing as people are doing now with Kirk. Edit: make things a little bit clearer, AFAIK, no one was fired due to their insensitive comments about her and her husband.
- frugalmail 1y ago
  What are you talking about, tons of people were asking for the guy to get investigated and his manifesto to be released. At least on X/Twitter.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  She was 4-5 orders less known.
- sointeresting 1y ago
  Huh? The link you posted shows that Trump condemned the shooting, calling it "horrific" and saying the shooter will prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You're equating not flying flags at half mast, despite condemning the violence, to gloating over murder. You're trying to justify the gloating and celebration of violence and it's disgusting.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    It is disgusting. And it’s also free speech to gloat about it. Is it legal to sack someone who is gleeful? The consensus on Hacker News was that New Zealand made an error blocking and banning the video of the Christchurch mosque shootings. What’s the right way to handle these scenarios? Kirk was a free speech advocate with strong views on gun violence, further complicating things.
    - sointeresting 1y ago
      The 1st amendment doesn't protect your job, never has.
billy99k 1y ago
[flagged]
- happytoexplain 1y ago
  This is the same train of thought as the murderer, and all the right-wing examples of praising murder/violence.
- ncr100 1y ago
  Do you have any detailed thoughts on what these people should have done or said, and what they actually did or said? This seems like you are feeling quite offended -- to judge (now ex?) friends as "inhuman", and to further alienate them by labeling them as "liberals". That's certainly over-stating the situation, no?
scuff3d 1y ago
"Free speech for me and not for thee..."
- frugalmail 1y ago
  That was mostly the case pre 2025. We all have to fight to undo the Obama Smith-Mundt Modernization Act that allowed the executive branch to create domestic propaganda.
- echelon 1y ago
  Unlimited free speech for everyone, but consequences for saying things that harm or offend. If you say "Democrats suck", don't expect them to buy your product. If you say "God doesn't exist," don't expect Christians to come to your business. If you say "I hate gays", expect to get fired from your medical clinic job. Have free speech, but use it wisely. Having free speech serves to diffuse social tension. It ensures we don't wind up as cattle, like in 1984. Just don't expect that you can praise the death of certain people and expect everyone to love you for it. Maybe above all you should be kind. Regardless of your politics. Articulate what you don't like with your free speech, but don't be an asshole. Unfortunately social media encourages fast engagement with little nuance, so we see a sewer instead of a noble land of open thought and debate. But we shouldn't throw free speech out with the bath water.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > consequences for saying things that harm or offend. Appropriate consequences. Death is never an appropriate consequence for this. Loss of employment is only appropriate where the speech demonstrates an inability to do the job properly.
    - zingababba 1y ago
      I mean, if a surgeon for instance was posting something like "Glad he died" on social media I'm not sure that would indicate whether or not they could do their job properly. However I'd still consider that individual to be slightly unhinged for posting something like that. Personally I think social media is almost entirely opinion policing garbage and engaging with it 'unironically' is a low IQ indicator but whatever.
cyanydeez 1y ago
Far as reporting goes, theres two tracks. Either he was upset with charlie not being far right enough, or somehow he was influences by the far left. There is an objective way to understand the fuzzy logic problem media provides, but that leads to one type of politic. The problem is rational thinking is whats under attack. Particularly when it leads to future predictions. Thats the danger because you can create a self fulfilling prophecy. The far right in every country is trying to spread isolationism to reduce the capacity of society to benefit the most people because economic slavery is the only way oligarchy survives.
- wkat4242 1y ago
  > Either he was upset with charlie not being far right enough, or somehow he was influences by the far left. I don't think you can get much further right than he was though. When I hear of all the stuff he was saying. I don't think even Trump has ever said some of that stuff. Like that women should be secondary to men. Apparently he also said that "a few deaths a year are a small price to pay for access to weapons". I wonder if he still felt that way knowing what was coming. I don't have the source link to hand though. News goes so fast now and I don't archive everything. Personally I'd never heard of the guy but I'm not in the US (and very glad about that right now, the country seems to be tearing itself apart) PS Also I'm not trying to defend the far right, I'm very left (especially by US standards which doesn't really have a 'left' compared to Europe, liberalism here is a moderate right-wing thing). But murder is definitely not ok in my book, of course. I would grin when I see a tesla dealership graffiti'd or a "swasticar" or "from 0 to 1939 in 3 seconds" poster at a bus stop. but that's about as far as it goes. You don't touch people ever. Or really destroy stuff of value.
  - 3np 1y ago
    > I don't think you can get much further right than he was though. Groypers.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      When Nick Fuentes first appeared, him and his little gang of nerds were definitely more far right than Kirk. TPUSA had a gay man on staff, and put him all over those little memes they made. Israel is about the only thing Charlie and Nick disagree on now.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
[flagged]
- platevoltage 1y ago
  I mean, TikTok was made illegal by congress many, many months ago. Charlie supported this. He also somehow supported the president "saving" TikTok, and was one of the most prominent influencers on the platform. Seems really easy to solve this problem. Follow the law. The president must love the CCP or something.
boredhedgehog 1y ago
I wonder what Kirk would have thought about these firings. I had never heard of the man before, but now his quotes and fragments of quotes are being weaponized on all fronts, making it hard to see what he actually believed.
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 1y ago
  Here is a good quote relevant to the case: "Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised." Charles James Kirk
  - KevinMS 1y ago
    good, maybe there would be fewer of them if they weren't hidden
    - krapp 1y ago
      You don't understand human nature or American culture if you believe that.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    How is an opinion on capital punishment relevant to social media campaigns to get someone fired?
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Kirk spent years trying to get professors fired and his organization maintained a "watchlist" of professors, who would regularly receive death threats and have people try to get them fired. FIRE, not exactly a liberal organization, called out TPUSA as a primary cause of increasing threats to speakers and professors on campus in recent years.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    The worst I could find said about TPUSA on thefire.org with a DDG search was an incident in which a professor had teaching assignments cancelled and the university later faced pressure from Senators to fire her (they allowed her contract to expire). The same search found me multiple stories about universities denying recognition to TPUSA chapters. FIRE is quintessentially liberal. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental liberal value there is, and education is where the free exchange of ideas is most values. American left-wingers (as judged by American standards) not liking that doesn't change what liberalism is; it informs what they are. There is absolutely a bias in FIRE coverage towards conservative and Republican organizations and ideas being suppressed. I have every reason to believe that this is because that's actually representative of what happens on American college campuses.
neuroelectron 1y ago
This is much more reasonable than getting fired over questioning mass experimental gene therapy or smiling in a photo with a Native American, or making the "ok' hand sign. Or ...
- platevoltage 1y ago
  "or making the "ok' hand sign." You just discovered why dog whistles exist.
  - sointeresting 1y ago
    "The entire scuba diving community is fascist!"
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      [dead]
mr90210 1y ago
Can we flag this post? It doesn't add value to the platform. PS: Take a deep breath before you reply. Don't let me ruin your day.
- vitanuova 1y ago
  If the platform consists of a large percentage of people who support this assassination, even some who used the word "hilarious", then it's good that this community gets exposed by a post like this. I for one will never come back after seeing how hateful and awful so many here are.
Swoerd 1y ago
[dead]
cornhole 1y ago
“facts don’t care about your feelings”
- zahlman 1y ago
  Putting aside that this kind of pithy quotation isn't contributing to productive discourse, it comes from Shapiro, not Kirk.
verdverm 1y ago
anyone from the administration? is it limited to people sharing a certain sentiment or common statement?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
AnEro 1y ago
[flagged]
- Simulacra 1y ago
  What we need is for politicians to not keep labeling their opposition with violent rhetoric. Everything from punch a Nazi, to death to communism, we've got to get the violent rhetoric out of politics. Too many unstable people.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    The most disconcerting thing about this murder is that it seems like the killer was relatively normal beyond being excessively involved in online politics. In many of these things there's fairly obvious symptoms of major mental illness, or at the minimum it's some guy who's basically way down out in life. This was a young seemingly smart guy who just decided to throw his life away, and murder somebody else, probably as a result of spending way too much time in online circle jerks.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - general1465 1y ago
        Inducing rage and anger is what algorithms on social networks are optimized for. So we are sooner or later getting governments to regulate almighty algorithms driving social networks of today.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        I see no reason whatsoever to believe that he had any such intent. He simply had strongly held opinions that you and others find disagreeable.
        yepitwas 1y ago
youniverse 1y ago
Interview with the guy who was talking to kirk as he got shot: https://youtu.be/18FNK6ZNGuo?si=CcBpH4n1E90817cc https://youtu.be/18FNK6ZNGuo?si=CcBpH4n1E90817cc
- hackable_sand 1y ago
  This is actually the interview medly that turned me off C5
melling 1y ago
Stephen King made the mistake of chiming in on X then having to apologize. I never heard of Mr Kirk until the shooting so I don’t want to support his beliefs or dismiss them but I think we need to promote freedom of speech/expression. People say things we disagree with, things that are truly horrible, etc. At least in the United States, we should be a bit more tolerant when we disagree.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  The things is... The things said do have consequences. Stochastic terrorism is real. Say people deserve to die (or are expendable) long enough and loud enough and someone ends up convinced. Kirk literally died in the act of making the case that mass shootings aren't statistically meaningful because most violence is black-on-black gang crime. He didn't get to finish his thought because someone turned him into one of those bloodless statistics. It seems that what many are reeling from in this moment is the consequences of speech like this had never blown back to harm someone they identified with, who looked and acted enough like them to engage all their empathy.
  - bilvar 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      Who is "the media" in this context? MSNBC just let someone go for even suggesting Kirk deserved what happened. If anything, it seems at least mainstream media is very conservative about the labels it assigns to political speakers.
      - melling 1y ago
        Here’s exactly what was said. “”” “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration,” MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd told anchor Katy Tur shortly after Kirk was shot at a Utah university Wednesday “””
FridayoLeary 1y ago
Fascinating how the guardian can spin people celebrating one of the most destabilising acts of evil committed this year into a free speech issue. There's something very wrong with people when they celebrate cold blooded murderers like luigi miagione. Reddit is full of people almost openly gleeful about this and the Guardian chooses to take their side.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  Brian Kilmeade called for the execution of homeless people on Fox news. Hopefully these same tone police/anti calls for violence people push to get him fired from Fox. Since he is talking a literal fascist talking point (execute the undesirables) there is no way my right wing friends can support him talking for them, since they HATE to be associated with fascists/called fascists.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  So what do you do? Ban that sort of talk and speech?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    No just make it clear that it is not tolerated in a civilised society. Well done to the guardian for challenging that idea. It takes a unique kind of courage to stick up for people who like political assassinations in todays day and age. I'm really impressed at their progressiveness that they are concerned about the rights of even such contempible people. Someone needs to look out for them. People calling for violence are one of the most suppressed groups, they deserve a platform.
    - DengistKhan 1y ago
      Ah, there's the misconception. The vote for Trump was a vote to end civilized society. Total misunderstanding on your part.
mapontosevenths 1y ago
[flagged]
- vitanuova 1y ago
  You posting this is truly unempathic... soooooo?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- reliabilityguy 1y ago
  > I would argue that the only people we do not owe empathy to are those who oppose empathy, as Kirk did. The full quote said that instead of empathy one should think about sympathy. However, with the full quote the argument looks weak. Edit: here is a link https://m.youtube.com/shorts/vojXvj2B6RI https://m.youtube.com/shorts/vojXvj2B6RI
- spwa4 1y ago
  Does that, in your mind, apply to everyone? For example, would it be okay to execute a few of the people people who protested in support of Oct 8 just when it happened, long before there was any reaction? I would also like to point out there is a very large difference between firing and killing. So no, people getting fired is not somehow equivalent to a killing. There are incredible numbers of people who support, even celebrate deaths. And we're not even talking about the other difficulties, like perspective (e.g. the death of a Russian father fighting in Ukraine, do you celebrate or mourn?)
- bilvar 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I understand your distress, but this is not an appropriate way to point out the issue with the argument.
    - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
xnx 1y ago
Is this the cancel culture people got so upset about?
nataliste 1y ago
They're just showing them the door: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ The people getting fired have shown themselves to be exactly the types of people Popper warned about in his Paradox of Tolerance: they "begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." These vigilantes are just socially (and constitutionally!) doing what Popper said to do when faced with those that teach people to answer arguments with bullets: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. It's called being a decent human being. As we say in America, if there’s a terrorist at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 terrorists.
deepfriedchokes 1y ago
I’m starting to think cancel culture isn’t about regulating behavior or speech and is just about abusing power to punish people. Both sides have used it the last 25 years and both sides have complained about it as an abuse of power when they’ve been on the receiving end. Perhaps we should focus more on learning and growing and healing than punishment?
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Importantly, it isn't even both sides. Social media pushes people towards this sort of "this guy sucks lets hurt him" outcome. Bean Dad getting shit all over on tiktok is the same impulse. In my mind where we do see a difference is in the willingness of politicians within the GOP to advocate for significant legal consequences in these situations.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > I’m starting to think cancel culture isn’t about regulating behavior or speech and is just about abusing power to punish people. One of the news sites showed a clip of the guy himself expressing support for people to be allowed to say outrageous or egregious things. One would think supporters of what the guy said would be more tolerant, instead, I think you hit closer to the truth of the matter. The backlash for saying negative things about a guy who spread discord, divisiveness and hate vs the collective "shrug" towards negative things when the same happens to a health care CEO; highlights what it's really about.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
So the government mandates it's okay to be insensitive about other people's deaths, all of which are horrific, just not this one. Got it.
- zahlman 1y ago
  There is no government mandate and nothing in this story has anything to do with government.
hypeatei 1y ago
It's hilarious watching the right wing embrace cancel culture now that they're in power. To be honest, I think most were waiting for a reason to go full mask off. Trump started blaming the "radical left" before they had even caught someone. I'm still not convinced we have the persons full picture. Some of the terminology used hints at in-group memes from the "groypers" He was also asked on a Fox News show what we need to do to avoid creating radicals on both sides and his response was the following: "I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. They don't want to see crime. Worried about the border. They're saying, We don't want these people coming in. We don't want you burning our shopping centers. We don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street" "The radicals on the left are the problem," Trump continued, "and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy, although they want men and women sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders." If you wanted to unify, this isn't the way. Witch hunts and dog whistles certainly won't help. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-blaming-radical-left-after-vow-after/story?id=125509965 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-blaming-radica...
- mkfs 1y ago
  > Some of the terminology used hints at in-group memes from the "groypers" The OwO thing is furry/gamer speak: https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/OwO https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/OwO Its use is replete on reddit, and there's even a "Furry OwO" game on Steam. Trying to pass this off as groyper-coded is insulting to one's intelligence and incoherent, being at odds with the anti-fascist rhetoric he also used. (Simultaneously signaling "groyperism" and anti-fascism?) If you really want to argue he's a "groyper," you'd do better to just admit the "OwO" thing is furry- and trans-coded, and consistent with the anti-fascist slogans, but that it's a false flag to be blamed on trans-furry Antifa types meant to inflame moderate Republicans of the sort Kirk represented to drive them further to the right for the sake of accelerationism. Of course, that would be easier if you weren't also trying to paint Kirk as so extremely rightwing that we ought to breathe a collective sigh of relief that he's gone, as if one of Hitler's top henchmen was just taken out by a partisan.
RickJWagner 1y ago
I for one do not want an airline pilot that praises an assassin, or my child to have a teacher that mocks people in mourning. I do have political opinions, but I try very hard to stay back from a line that would mark my words as unprofessional. Social media has normalized behavior that would have brought termination instantly 10 years ago. The firings are regrettable, but if they lead to more civil public interactions they are worth it.
grimblee 1y ago
[flagged]
tsoukase 1y ago
In Europe we call this job insecurity. The US has a long tradition of keeping employees hostages because they have debts, mortgage etc. All it takes is a warning from CEO and terror keeps things quiet. Now we see that at state/public level. This comes with no surprise with the current hostile government.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  You can be fired for this type of thing in Europe too.
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    example?
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      In France it would be considered "Faute grave", a violation of the duty of discretion/loyalty to the organization. You have to give that person a few days of notice but otherwise they can be terminated at will. Of course, that's the theory. Europe's courts are more politicized than in the US and laws are frequently vague. Someone might try to challenge such a firing. But the law does allow it. That's in France which has unusually vicious employment laws. In other parts of Europe it's more casual. In the UK you can be fired for more or less any reason outside of a few restricted reasons if you're within the first two years of employment. After that the rules get a bit stricter, but not enough to mean a company has to tolerate an employee bringing the organization into disrepute (which this behavior absolutely does).
- nec4b 1y ago
  There are plenty of layoffs and firings in European countries too. You must have been incredible lucky if have never witnessed it. Each country has different laws regarding employment and it varies a lot between them. Making this Europe vs USA is frankly weird.
  - hananova 1y ago

113 points by Geekette 1y ago

when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people". When they killed Brian Sicknick, he called them heroes and pardoned them. If even 10 percent of the right had drawn a line against political violence after Jan 6 then we wouldn't be here today. They all embraced it when it was their side. Charlie himself chartered the buses and obstructed the resulting investigation.

yepitwas 1y ago
It’s be really nice if they’d repudiated political violence by not electing Donald Trump president after he mused on stage about how his supporters could shoot Hillary if she won, in 2016. That was the first big test of whether we were going to enter a new era of normalized political violence, and we (his voters, but collectively we as a country) flunked it. Wave of violence it is, I guess. Reckoned at the time it wouldn’t be much fun, and go figure, it ain’t.
TheFreim 1y ago
You have unfortunately been misinformed about both examples that you brought up. > when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people" Trump did not call the killer a fine person, nor did he call everyone involved on the right fine people. He explicitly stated that there were, "some very bad people in that group." The "very fine people" was referencing those who were peacefully protesting both for and against the removal of historical monuments. If you watch the original video instead of the selective reporting this is all made very clear. You can watch or read the transcript of the "very fine people" press conference here: https://www.veryfinepeople.info https://www.veryfinepeople.info > When they killed Brian Sicknick, he called them heroes and pardoned them. Brian Sicknick was not killed by anyone. The medical examiner ruled that he died of natural causes. There is no evidence that he was killed, which was reflected in the difficulty the prosecutors faced, and its why nobody was ever convicted of murder. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-died-natural-causes/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-die... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#Misinformation_about_cause_of_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#Misinf...
- jhp123 1y ago
  You don't seem to understand why the "very fine people" remark was unacceptable to many of us. Like I said, he was excusing political violence. A woman had been murdered by neo-Nazis and he went out of his way to minimize, justify and excuse the act, while condemning imaginary "alt-left" violence at the same event. On the topic of Sicknick, I don't find it credible that he died coincidentally the day after being assaulted. The timing alone is strong evidence that the two are related. Even if it was "merely" an assault on a police officer, it's political violence and it's acceptable to every Republican voter. You opened this door.
  - TheFreim 1y ago
    > Like I said, he was excusing political violence. A woman had been murdered by neo-Nazis and he went out of his way to minimize, justify and excuse the act, while condemning imaginary "alt-left" violence at the same event. I again strongly encourage you to go watch the video or read the transcript since it directly contradicts what you are continuing to claim. Trump explicitly said that that the neo-Nazis should be "condemned totally." A total condemnation is exactly the opposite of your claim that he was "excusing" or trying to "minimize" the events. I will also note that I find it quite odd that you claim to be upset about Trump allegedly downplaying violence, but then go on to downplay and minimize left-wing extremist violence. I believe that all political violence should be condemned, its unfortunate that you appear to believe otherwise. > I don't find it credible that he died coincidentally the day after being assaulted. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, I don't find it likely that I will be convinced to ignore the medical expert who examined the case and the corresponding documentary evidence that points against the idea that Sicknick was killed.
    - jhp123 1y ago
      Please take a look at the transcript in its entirety. Shortly after the part where he says Nazis should be condemned, he goes on to say that there are "fine people on both sides", undercutting his earlier claim.
      - 1y ago
zahlman 1y ago
> when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people". One person killed Heather Heyer. Even Snopes doesn't endorse the "very fine people" narrative (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/). There is a single-page site dedicated to the topic: https://www.finepeoplehoax.net/ https://www.finepeoplehoax.net/. The Politifact coverage (https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump...) makes it very clear that Trump's position was not at all consistent with the narrative you are trying to run with.
- jhp123 1y ago
  The articles you linked actually confirm my point, did you mean to link something else? As Snopes and politifact confirms, Trump made the following statement about the "Unite the Right" protestors, a group of racists, anti-semites, KKK and neo-Nazis who had staged a violent rally followed by a vehicular murder: "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides".
  - zahlman 1y ago
    >The articles you linked actually confirm my point, did you mean to link something else? I meant to link exactly what I linked. The articles do not confirm your point. You did not make a claim that he simply spoke those literal words. You used a paraphrase that misrepresented who he was referring to. The sources do not say that he made this statement "about the 'Unite the Right' protestors". They also do not support describing them collectively as being all of those other things you call them. I do not believe you are engaging in good faith, because someone engaging in good faith ought to notice the clear logical holes in the argument you are making. Especially since it has already been explained to you repeatedly by myself and others.
    - jhp123 1y ago
      of course he was talking about the "Unite the Right" protestors. The violence occurred at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, what other "side" could he possibly have been referring to?

duxup 1y ago

Some local restaurant in my area announced they were investigating and would fire some folks who had some sort of video supposedly showing a celebration. I'm not really a fan of policing rando back room worker's response to an event, who may or may not have even known they were being recorded.

vkou 1y ago

Cancel culture in a nutshell. The far-right can say whatever it wants, but if you call it out on it, you'll be removed for creating social disharmony. Meanwhile, a Fox news anchor has called for the mass murder of homeless people yesterday. He still has his job, but he did apologize for saying the quiet part out loud. None of the other talking heads behind the table with him even said a word against him.

phendrenad2 1y ago
Well the way this works is, if you're a customer of a company, you get to threaten to stop being a custom of that company. I doubt you're an avid Fox News fan, so unfortunately you don't have much voice in this situation.

ShonT 1y ago

[dead]

mkfs 1y ago

Could someone sympathetic explain why at least some of these people, specifically the healthcare professionals, shouldn't be fired, given that their statements reflect a lack of compassion in a field that demands it and a willingness to give substandard care to others based on their politics? Also, the school teachers: is it unreasonable to not want your children entrusted to educators who endorse political assassination?

ChoGGi 1y ago

Good old cancel culture.

shadowgovt 1y ago

I think it's easy for people to forget sometimes because the interface doesn't make it particularly obvious that much of social media is screaming from a soapbox in some of the world's largest agoras. The interface makes it feel like you're having a polite conversation among like-minded folk. In reality, you're like one of those folks on a street corner with a megaphone and most of the time the rest of the world isn't listening to you. But they can tune you in anytime they want, and there can be consequences for holding a strong opinion incompatible with the strong opinion of other people you will be wanting to do business with. ... That of course includes this medium. Watch what you say today everyone, your future and current employers are reading Hacker News.

blargthorwars 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
scuff3d 1y ago
[flagged]
- bryanrasmussen 1y ago
  I didn't like or respect the guy but really that is probably the most reasonable thing he ever said (other than release the Epstein Files), if you believed the 2nd Amendment is important to have then you are essentially arguing for some gun deaths every year. Note: I believe the 2nd Amendment is really the proof that the founding fathers weren't the super geniuses the mythology has them as, but hey, too late now.
  - jameskilton 1y ago
    The only reason we look at the 2nd Amendment as we do today is because of the NRA. The founding fathers had vastly different ideas for drafting the 2nd.
  - scuff3d 1y ago
    Pretty much everything out of the guys mouth was either stupid or horrible. This just happens to be one of the most relevant to the current conversation
- frugalmail 1y ago
  Do you think the same thing about "give me liberty or give me death?" "...cost of unfortunately..." Is that not clear? The context was he was responding about a question about the 2nd amendment. clearly the first order thinking would make it clear it's not the rule, it's the purpose of the rule that's important. The purpose is so you don't get arrested for some social media comment or other rights, like what is happening in the UK right now.

softwaredoug 1y ago

If there’s anything that this horrific event has taught me it’s to step away from social media political rabbit holes. These places amplify and feed upon themselves, and can lead you to a dark place where you’d glorify this kind of death. After all this is exactly how to shooter himself ended up thinking he had to assassinate Kirk.

aklemm 1y ago
The same can lead one to making a martyr out of a despicable voice.
notmyjob 1y ago
How many of these people were in lockdowns during their formative years? I don’t think it’s _all_ social media.
estimator7292 1y ago
[flagged]
- frugalmail 1y ago
  what "peaceful means of protest" has the government shut down exactly?
  - jeremyjh 1y ago
    The ones at many Ivy League schools.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    Cutting university funding if they don’t block protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Literally every Israel protest.

jmclnx 1y ago

The only problem I have with this is: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/people-are-calling-out-trumps-reaction-to-charlie-kirks-assassination-vs-melissa-hortmans/ar-AA1Mn9bg https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/people-are-calling-o... No reaction occurred when Melissa Hortman was killed to people doing the same thing as people are doing now with Kirk. Edit: make things a little bit clearer, AFAIK, no one was fired due to their insensitive comments about her and her husband.

frugalmail 1y ago
What are you talking about, tons of people were asking for the guy to get investigated and his manifesto to be released. At least on X/Twitter.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
She was 4-5 orders less known.
sointeresting 1y ago
Huh? The link you posted shows that Trump condemned the shooting, calling it "horrific" and saying the shooter will prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You're equating not flying flags at half mast, despite condemning the violence, to gloating over murder. You're trying to justify the gloating and celebration of violence and it's disgusting.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  It is disgusting. And it’s also free speech to gloat about it. Is it legal to sack someone who is gleeful? The consensus on Hacker News was that New Zealand made an error blocking and banning the video of the Christchurch mosque shootings. What’s the right way to handle these scenarios? Kirk was a free speech advocate with strong views on gun violence, further complicating things.
  - sointeresting 1y ago
    The 1st amendment doesn't protect your job, never has.

billy99k 1y ago

[flagged]

happytoexplain 1y ago
This is the same train of thought as the murderer, and all the right-wing examples of praising murder/violence.
ncr100 1y ago
Do you have any detailed thoughts on what these people should have done or said, and what they actually did or said? This seems like you are feeling quite offended -- to judge (now ex?) friends as "inhuman", and to further alienate them by labeling them as "liberals". That's certainly over-stating the situation, no?

scuff3d 1y ago

"Free speech for me and not for thee..."

frugalmail 1y ago
That was mostly the case pre 2025. We all have to fight to undo the Obama Smith-Mundt Modernization Act that allowed the executive branch to create domestic propaganda.
echelon 1y ago
Unlimited free speech for everyone, but consequences for saying things that harm or offend. If you say "Democrats suck", don't expect them to buy your product. If you say "God doesn't exist," don't expect Christians to come to your business. If you say "I hate gays", expect to get fired from your medical clinic job. Have free speech, but use it wisely. Having free speech serves to diffuse social tension. It ensures we don't wind up as cattle, like in 1984. Just don't expect that you can praise the death of certain people and expect everyone to love you for it. Maybe above all you should be kind. Regardless of your politics. Articulate what you don't like with your free speech, but don't be an asshole. Unfortunately social media encourages fast engagement with little nuance, so we see a sewer instead of a noble land of open thought and debate. But we shouldn't throw free speech out with the bath water.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > consequences for saying things that harm or offend. Appropriate consequences. Death is never an appropriate consequence for this. Loss of employment is only appropriate where the speech demonstrates an inability to do the job properly.
  - zingababba 1y ago
    I mean, if a surgeon for instance was posting something like "Glad he died" on social media I'm not sure that would indicate whether or not they could do their job properly. However I'd still consider that individual to be slightly unhinged for posting something like that. Personally I think social media is almost entirely opinion policing garbage and engaging with it 'unironically' is a low IQ indicator but whatever.

cyanydeez 1y ago

Far as reporting goes, theres two tracks. Either he was upset with charlie not being far right enough, or somehow he was influences by the far left. There is an objective way to understand the fuzzy logic problem media provides, but that leads to one type of politic. The problem is rational thinking is whats under attack. Particularly when it leads to future predictions. Thats the danger because you can create a self fulfilling prophecy. The far right in every country is trying to spread isolationism to reduce the capacity of society to benefit the most people because economic slavery is the only way oligarchy survives.

wkat4242 1y ago
> Either he was upset with charlie not being far right enough, or somehow he was influences by the far left. I don't think you can get much further right than he was though. When I hear of all the stuff he was saying. I don't think even Trump has ever said some of that stuff. Like that women should be secondary to men. Apparently he also said that "a few deaths a year are a small price to pay for access to weapons". I wonder if he still felt that way knowing what was coming. I don't have the source link to hand though. News goes so fast now and I don't archive everything. Personally I'd never heard of the guy but I'm not in the US (and very glad about that right now, the country seems to be tearing itself apart) PS Also I'm not trying to defend the far right, I'm very left (especially by US standards which doesn't really have a 'left' compared to Europe, liberalism here is a moderate right-wing thing). But murder is definitely not ok in my book, of course. I would grin when I see a tesla dealership graffiti'd or a "swasticar" or "from 0 to 1939 in 3 seconds" poster at a bus stop. but that's about as far as it goes. You don't touch people ever. Or really destroy stuff of value.
- 3np 1y ago
  > I don't think you can get much further right than he was though. Groypers.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    When Nick Fuentes first appeared, him and his little gang of nerds were definitely more far right than Kirk. TPUSA had a gay man on staff, and put him all over those little memes they made. Israel is about the only thing Charlie and Nick disagree on now.

mensetmanusman 1y ago

[flagged]

platevoltage 1y ago
I mean, TikTok was made illegal by congress many, many months ago. Charlie supported this. He also somehow supported the president "saving" TikTok, and was one of the most prominent influencers on the platform. Seems really easy to solve this problem. Follow the law. The president must love the CCP or something.

boredhedgehog 1y ago

I wonder what Kirk would have thought about these firings. I had never heard of the man before, but now his quotes and fragments of quotes are being weaponized on all fronts, making it hard to see what he actually believed.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 1y ago
Here is a good quote relevant to the case: "Death penalties should be public, should be quick, it should be televised." Charles James Kirk
- KevinMS 1y ago
  good, maybe there would be fewer of them if they weren't hidden
  - krapp 1y ago
    You don't understand human nature or American culture if you believe that.
- zahlman 1y ago
  How is an opinion on capital punishment relevant to social media campaigns to get someone fired?
UncleMeat 1y ago
Kirk spent years trying to get professors fired and his organization maintained a "watchlist" of professors, who would regularly receive death threats and have people try to get them fired. FIRE, not exactly a liberal organization, called out TPUSA as a primary cause of increasing threats to speakers and professors on campus in recent years.
- zahlman 1y ago
  The worst I could find said about TPUSA on thefire.org with a DDG search was an incident in which a professor had teaching assignments cancelled and the university later faced pressure from Senators to fire her (they allowed her contract to expire). The same search found me multiple stories about universities denying recognition to TPUSA chapters. FIRE is quintessentially liberal. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental liberal value there is, and education is where the free exchange of ideas is most values. American left-wingers (as judged by American standards) not liking that doesn't change what liberalism is; it informs what they are. There is absolutely a bias in FIRE coverage towards conservative and Republican organizations and ideas being suppressed. I have every reason to believe that this is because that's actually representative of what happens on American college campuses.

neuroelectron 1y ago

This is much more reasonable than getting fired over questioning mass experimental gene therapy or smiling in a photo with a Native American, or making the "ok' hand sign. Or ...

platevoltage 1y ago
"or making the "ok' hand sign." You just discovered why dog whistles exist.
- sointeresting 1y ago
  "The entire scuba diving community is fascist!"
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    [dead]

mr90210 1y ago

Can we flag this post? It doesn't add value to the platform. PS: Take a deep breath before you reply. Don't let me ruin your day.

vitanuova 1y ago
If the platform consists of a large percentage of people who support this assassination, even some who used the word "hilarious", then it's good that this community gets exposed by a post like this. I for one will never come back after seeing how hateful and awful so many here are.

Swoerd 1y ago

[dead]

cornhole 1y ago

“facts don’t care about your feelings”

zahlman 1y ago
Putting aside that this kind of pithy quotation isn't contributing to productive discourse, it comes from Shapiro, not Kirk.

verdverm 1y ago

anyone from the administration? is it limited to people sharing a certain sentiment or common statement?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

AnEro 1y ago

[flagged]

Simulacra 1y ago
What we need is for politicians to not keep labeling their opposition with violent rhetoric. Everything from punch a Nazi, to death to communism, we've got to get the violent rhetoric out of politics. Too many unstable people.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  The most disconcerting thing about this murder is that it seems like the killer was relatively normal beyond being excessively involved in online politics. In many of these things there's fairly obvious symptoms of major mental illness, or at the minimum it's some guy who's basically way down out in life. This was a young seemingly smart guy who just decided to throw his life away, and murder somebody else, probably as a result of spending way too much time in online circle jerks.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - general1465 1y ago
      Inducing rage and anger is what algorithms on social networks are optimized for. So we are sooner or later getting governments to regulate almighty algorithms driving social networks of today.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      I see no reason whatsoever to believe that he had any such intent. He simply had strongly held opinions that you and others find disagreeable.
      - yepitwas 1y ago

youniverse 1y ago

Interview with the guy who was talking to kirk as he got shot: https://youtu.be/18FNK6ZNGuo?si=CcBpH4n1E90817cc https://youtu.be/18FNK6ZNGuo?si=CcBpH4n1E90817cc

hackable_sand 1y ago
This is actually the interview medly that turned me off C5

melling 1y ago

Stephen King made the mistake of chiming in on X then having to apologize. I never heard of Mr Kirk until the shooting so I don’t want to support his beliefs or dismiss them but I think we need to promote freedom of speech/expression. People say things we disagree with, things that are truly horrible, etc. At least in the United States, we should be a bit more tolerant when we disagree.

shadowgovt 1y ago
The things is... The things said do have consequences. Stochastic terrorism is real. Say people deserve to die (or are expendable) long enough and loud enough and someone ends up convinced. Kirk literally died in the act of making the case that mass shootings aren't statistically meaningful because most violence is black-on-black gang crime. He didn't get to finish his thought because someone turned him into one of those bloodless statistics. It seems that what many are reeling from in this moment is the consequences of speech like this had never blown back to harm someone they identified with, who looked and acted enough like them to engage all their empathy.
- bilvar 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    Who is "the media" in this context? MSNBC just let someone go for even suggesting Kirk deserved what happened. If anything, it seems at least mainstream media is very conservative about the labels it assigns to political speakers.
    - melling 1y ago
      Here’s exactly what was said. “”” “We don’t know if this was a supporter shooting their gun off in celebration,” MSNBC contributor Matthew Dowd told anchor Katy Tur shortly after Kirk was shot at a Utah university Wednesday “””

FridayoLeary 1y ago

Fascinating how the guardian can spin people celebrating one of the most destabilising acts of evil committed this year into a free speech issue. There's something very wrong with people when they celebrate cold blooded murderers like luigi miagione. Reddit is full of people almost openly gleeful about this and the Guardian chooses to take their side.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago
Brian Kilmeade called for the execution of homeless people on Fox news. Hopefully these same tone police/anti calls for violence people push to get him fired from Fox. Since he is talking a literal fascist talking point (execute the undesirables) there is no way my right wing friends can support him talking for them, since they HATE to be associated with fascists/called fascists.
lostlogin 1y ago
So what do you do? Ban that sort of talk and speech?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  No just make it clear that it is not tolerated in a civilised society. Well done to the guardian for challenging that idea. It takes a unique kind of courage to stick up for people who like political assassinations in todays day and age. I'm really impressed at their progressiveness that they are concerned about the rights of even such contempible people. Someone needs to look out for them. People calling for violence are one of the most suppressed groups, they deserve a platform.
  - DengistKhan 1y ago
    Ah, there's the misconception. The vote for Trump was a vote to end civilized society. Total misunderstanding on your part.

mapontosevenths 1y ago

[flagged]

vitanuova 1y ago
You posting this is truly unempathic... soooooo?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
reliabilityguy 1y ago
> I would argue that the only people we do not owe empathy to are those who oppose empathy, as Kirk did. The full quote said that instead of empathy one should think about sympathy. However, with the full quote the argument looks weak. Edit: here is a link https://m.youtube.com/shorts/vojXvj2B6RI https://m.youtube.com/shorts/vojXvj2B6RI
spwa4 1y ago
Does that, in your mind, apply to everyone? For example, would it be okay to execute a few of the people people who protested in support of Oct 8 just when it happened, long before there was any reaction? I would also like to point out there is a very large difference between firing and killing. So no, people getting fired is not somehow equivalent to a killing. There are incredible numbers of people who support, even celebrate deaths. And we're not even talking about the other difficulties, like perspective (e.g. the death of a Russian father fighting in Ukraine, do you celebrate or mourn?)
bilvar 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  I understand your distress, but this is not an appropriate way to point out the issue with the argument.
  - 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

xnx 1y ago

Is this the cancel culture people got so upset about?

nataliste 1y ago

They're just showing them the door: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ The people getting fired have shown themselves to be exactly the types of people Popper warned about in his Paradox of Tolerance: they "begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." These vigilantes are just socially (and constitutionally!) doing what Popper said to do when faced with those that teach people to answer arguments with bullets: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal." Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. It's called being a decent human being. As we say in America, if there’s a terrorist at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 terrorists.

deepfriedchokes 1y ago

I’m starting to think cancel culture isn’t about regulating behavior or speech and is just about abusing power to punish people. Both sides have used it the last 25 years and both sides have complained about it as an abuse of power when they’ve been on the receiving end. Perhaps we should focus more on learning and growing and healing than punishment?

UncleMeat 1y ago
Importantly, it isn't even both sides. Social media pushes people towards this sort of "this guy sucks lets hurt him" outcome. Bean Dad getting shit all over on tiktok is the same impulse. In my mind where we do see a difference is in the willingness of politicians within the GOP to advocate for significant legal consequences in these situations.
cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]
1659447091 1y ago
> I’m starting to think cancel culture isn’t about regulating behavior or speech and is just about abusing power to punish people. One of the news sites showed a clip of the guy himself expressing support for people to be allowed to say outrageous or egregious things. One would think supporters of what the guy said would be more tolerant, instead, I think you hit closer to the truth of the matter. The backlash for saying negative things about a guy who spread discord, divisiveness and hate vs the collective "shrug" towards negative things when the same happens to a health care CEO; highlights what it's really about.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

So the government mandates it's okay to be insensitive about other people's deaths, all of which are horrific, just not this one. Got it.

zahlman 1y ago
There is no government mandate and nothing in this story has anything to do with government.

hypeatei 1y ago

It's hilarious watching the right wing embrace cancel culture now that they're in power. To be honest, I think most were waiting for a reason to go full mask off. Trump started blaming the "radical left" before they had even caught someone. I'm still not convinced we have the persons full picture. Some of the terminology used hints at in-group memes from the "groypers" He was also asked on a Fox News show what we need to do to avoid creating radicals on both sides and his response was the following: "I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. They don't want to see crime. Worried about the border. They're saying, We don't want these people coming in. We don't want you burning our shopping centers. We don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street" "The radicals on the left are the problem," Trump continued, "and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy, although they want men and women sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders." If you wanted to unify, this isn't the way. Witch hunts and dog whistles certainly won't help. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-blaming-radical-left-after-vow-after/story?id=125509965 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-blaming-radica...

mkfs 1y ago
> Some of the terminology used hints at in-group memes from the "groypers" The OwO thing is furry/gamer speak: https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/OwO https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/OwO Its use is replete on reddit, and there's even a "Furry OwO" game on Steam. Trying to pass this off as groyper-coded is insulting to one's intelligence and incoherent, being at odds with the anti-fascist rhetoric he also used. (Simultaneously signaling "groyperism" and anti-fascism?) If you really want to argue he's a "groyper," you'd do better to just admit the "OwO" thing is furry- and trans-coded, and consistent with the anti-fascist slogans, but that it's a false flag to be blamed on trans-furry Antifa types meant to inflame moderate Republicans of the sort Kirk represented to drive them further to the right for the sake of accelerationism. Of course, that would be easier if you weren't also trying to paint Kirk as so extremely rightwing that we ought to breathe a collective sigh of relief that he's gone, as if one of Hitler's top henchmen was just taken out by a partisan.

RickJWagner 1y ago

I for one do not want an airline pilot that praises an assassin, or my child to have a teacher that mocks people in mourning. I do have political opinions, but I try very hard to stay back from a line that would mark my words as unprofessional. Social media has normalized behavior that would have brought termination instantly 10 years ago. The firings are regrettable, but if they lead to more civil public interactions they are worth it.

grimblee 1y ago

[flagged]

tsoukase 1y ago

In Europe we call this job insecurity. The US has a long tradition of keeping employees hostages because they have debts, mortgage etc. All it takes is a warning from CEO and terror keeps things quiet. Now we see that at state/public level. This comes with no surprise with the current hostile government.

qcnguy 1y ago
You can be fired for this type of thing in Europe too.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  example?
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    In France it would be considered "Faute grave", a violation of the duty of discretion/loyalty to the organization. You have to give that person a few days of notice but otherwise they can be terminated at will. Of course, that's the theory. Europe's courts are more politicized than in the US and laws are frequently vague. Someone might try to challenge such a firing. But the law does allow it. That's in France which has unusually vicious employment laws. In other parts of Europe it's more casual. In the UK you can be fired for more or less any reason outside of a few restricted reasons if you're within the first two years of employment. After that the rules get a bit stricter, but not enough to mean a company has to tolerate an employee bringing the organization into disrepute (which this behavior absolutely does).
nec4b 1y ago
There are plenty of layoffs and firings in European countries too. You must have been incredible lucky if have never witnessed it. Each country has different laws regarding employment and it varies a lot between them. Making this Europe vs USA is frankly weird.
- hananova 1y ago