3 ms·
What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused. > In one screenshot shared by the agency
by Calvin02 1y ago
What part of the quote below suggests encouragement of violence? Seems like one person’s pov about what Kirk espoused.
> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”
- ValveFan6969 1y agoWho is it that conveniently cut out the cruder bits of that post? https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799 https://x.com/StateDept/status/1978218114622910799 It's a gross verbal onanism over someone's death, mixed with the typical baseless dehumanization. If you want this sort of person in your country, my condolences.
- locopati 1y agoAnd what's your excuse for most of the Republican party and its media supporters who regularly call for violence against people they don't like?
- pas 1y agoplease point out any and all verbs or other terms that call for any kind of action. so you found 'remove', right? it's a call for ceasing friendship. is that considered violence?
- ValveFan6969 1y agoYou do realize what happened with Charlie Kirk is the apex of what happens when dehumanization language is left unfettered, right?
- tastyface 1y agoWords do have meanings. That comment may be cruel, but nothing in it is dehumanizing -- unlike, for example, this quote: "Mere weeks before his death, Kirk reveled in Trump's deployment of federal troops to DC. 'Shock and awe. Force,' he wrote. 'We're taking our country back from these cockroaches.'"
- ValveFan6666 1y ago[dead]
- ValveFan6666 1y ago[dead]
- andriesm 1y agoAmerican Citizens have the right to offensive free speech in America, a foreigner wishing to obtain a VISA does not and would be an idiot to think he should be allowed to visit if he was posting things like "f... ck America"
- IT4MD 1y agoAhhh.. 1A, but only for specific groups, in specific contexts, as long as you're ok with it. Yes, that's exactly what they meant when they wrote it. le sigh. I hope your enjoying the current state of the country. It's people just like you that brought it about, so carry on with the winning!
- aarond0623 1y agoThe first amendment says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." It's not a right granted to only certain groups. It's a restriction on what Congress, and by extension the government, can do.
- mothballed 1y agoAckshually there is part of the first amendment that applies to certain people, specifically the right for "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The courts have prior held that non-immigrant visas and illegal immigrants usually aren't "the people" referenced by the constitution, which is why they have no right to bear arms which also uses "the people" in reference to the people with that right. If they don't have the right to bear arms, it follows they are not "the people" and thus have no implicit protection to parts of the first amendment that explicitly assign protection to "the people." It may be up for interpretation whether the immigrants in question were petitioning the government for grievances, if so that may have not been protected if they are not people.
- UncleMeat 1y agoThis is just wildly incorrect.
- deleted 1y ago