3 ms·

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-

by 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.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      This is exactly right. People get fired over social media posts all of the time. The 1st amendment absolutely gives people the right to boycott these employers if they see fit though.
      - lostlogin 1y ago
        Do you mean ‘The 1st amendment absolutely gives people the right to boycott these employees if they see fit’. Sorry, I’m not American so have little idea how it works.
        platevoltage 1y ago
        No, I meant what I said. I also did not agree against the legality of being fired for a social media post. It's been happening since social media first existed. You also can't boycott an employee. I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.
        lostlogin 1y ago
        I’m not trying to make a point. I was trying to understand if it’s legal to sack someone in the US if you don’t like their views and I didn’t read your comment carefully enough.
        platevoltage 1y ago
        No, you can't fire someone for their views. That's 100% illegal, but given the track record of our current Supreme Court, I don't see that being the case for long.
zahlman 1y ago
> no one was fired due to their insensitive comments about her and her husband. Who exactly made comments that attempted to justify or rationalize her death as a consequence of things she had said in the past? And what does your article — which basically just establishes "Trump doesn't like Tim Walz and didn't consider Hortman's case as important" — have to do with that? If you're referring to Senator Mike Lee's comment, I don't think it's anything of the sort. It comes across to me that Lee was speculating that the murderer was a "Marxist" (i.e., anyone he would consider more radical than Hortman). Political football, and offensive, sure. But not the same kind of thing. Besides which, can Senators be "fired"?
- danaris 1y ago
  > Who exactly made comments that attempted to justify or rationalize her death as a consequence of things she had said in the past? Well, gee, it sorta seems like that kind of behavior would be more prevalent when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Did Melissa Hortman say such things? Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Because if she didn't say stuff like that, then it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Charlie Kirk has said nothing of the sort, so none of this is relevant. > Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Kirk's organization is not dedicated to anything of the sort. > Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Kirk did not say anything about being happy about it; regardless this statement does not support killing people. > it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death. But anyway, this still doesn't matter. Suggesting that someone's words justified death is an absolute moral wrong no matter what those words were.

by jmclnx 1y ago

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.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    This is exactly right. People get fired over social media posts all of the time. The 1st amendment absolutely gives people the right to boycott these employers if they see fit though.
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      Do you mean ‘The 1st amendment absolutely gives people the right to boycott these employees if they see fit’. Sorry, I’m not American so have little idea how it works.
      - platevoltage 1y ago
        No, I meant what I said. I also did not agree against the legality of being fired for a social media post. It's been happening since social media first existed. You also can't boycott an employee. I really don't know what point you are trying to make here.
        lostlogin 1y ago
        I’m not trying to make a point. I was trying to understand if it’s legal to sack someone in the US if you don’t like their views and I didn’t read your comment carefully enough.
        platevoltage 1y ago
        No, you can't fire someone for their views. That's 100% illegal, but given the track record of our current Supreme Court, I don't see that being the case for long.

zahlman 1y ago

> no one was fired due to their insensitive comments about her and her husband. Who exactly made comments that attempted to justify or rationalize her death as a consequence of things she had said in the past? And what does your article — which basically just establishes "Trump doesn't like Tim Walz and didn't consider Hortman's case as important" — have to do with that? If you're referring to Senator Mike Lee's comment, I don't think it's anything of the sort. It comes across to me that Lee was speculating that the murderer was a "Marxist" (i.e., anyone he would consider more radical than Hortman). Political football, and offensive, sure. But not the same kind of thing. Besides which, can Senators be "fired"?

danaris 1y ago
> Who exactly made comments that attempted to justify or rationalize her death as a consequence of things she had said in the past? Well, gee, it sorta seems like that kind of behavior would be more prevalent when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Did Melissa Hortman say such things? Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Because if she didn't say stuff like that, then it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > when the person in question has actually said things in the past that support killing people. Charlie Kirk has said nothing of the sort, so none of this is relevant. > Did she found an entire organization dedicated to promoting bigotry, hate, and the inherent superiority of a particular "race"? Kirk's organization is not dedicated to anything of the sort. > Did she make explicit statements that we should all be happy to accept some innocent deaths every year as a cost of unlimited access to firearms? Kirk did not say anything about being happy about it; regardless this statement does not support killing people. > it would be much, much less likely that anyone would even suggest that her words were in any way related to her death. But anyway, this still doesn't matter. Suggesting that someone's words justified death is an absolute moral wrong no matter what those words were.