fawkesalbus

4 ms·

1.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
This is an amazing thread and dialog. I commend both of you for keeping it civil and respectful (exactly how Charlie would have wanted). Just two things to add: 1. Driving, cleaning agents and all the other examples are effectively assumed
2.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
@zahlman your responses here are amazing and really articulate. I sincerely appreciate the effort. Thanks! Most people around the world who are criticizing Charlie’s philosophy and beliefs have never watched a long form interview with him.
3.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/charlie-kirks-allies-warn-a...
4.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
If you are concluding that he was a piece of shit based on what people have claimed here I would encourage you to see some of his videos for yourself. Here is an example of his interaction with a transgender male student - https:/&#x2
5.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
Which example are you referencing here?
6.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech”
7.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
He was interfering with the arrest, recording video etc. At least he didn’t get assassinated for exercising his first amendment rights like Charlie.
8.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
> Do I find Charlie's death hilarious considering his stance on gun laws? Yes. In fact, I think maybe we should come up to something similar to the Herman Cain award, but for gun lovers. No one actively made fun of the deaths of sch
9.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
Fair points. I was looking at it more from the perspective of star power and name recognition at such a young age. Also the fact that Taylor Swift causes irrational excitement among her followers and went out of her way to more or less end
10.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
You are correct. I reread how due process is supposed to work and the fifth and fourteenth amendments clearly say that it applies to “persons” and not just citizens or legal immigrants or anything like that. The requirements are more relaxe
11.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
That’s fair. And if they can be turned away from the border, then they can be deported too.
12.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
Many people here will tell you that cartoons represent violence, some types of speech represent violence etc. France no longer has free speech rights unless it is coming from the left
13.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
Removing the black and white people part makes it more relevant to the current times when it is not just black and white people but non negligible numbers of Hispanics, first peoples, Asians, Arabs and other minorities.
14.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
Indiscriminately is a loaded term. There is always some reasonable suspicion. Usually law enforcement always knows which pockets of a city, neighborhood have more illegal activity and can act based on that prior information.
15.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
But this “right to go before a judge” can be misused because of how long the process can take. All immigrants are required by law to be able to prove their legal status, so the right to due process, fair trial etc becomes complicated if one
16.
by fawkesalbus 1y ago
It can be argued that a lot of this is falling into the slippery slope fallacy. Also the media doesn’t always report the full story. Often the people arrested have some small/medium offense from years ago. Unlikely to happen to legal i