EatMoreSalmon said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi
Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.
If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.
There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.
"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.
And the brief ministry of truth was just looking for honest to goodness misinformation to squelch.
And the targeting of parents at schools board meetings was totally legit.
And the different treatment of Biden and Trump over documents was just like the law should be.
And covid was not from a lab.
.....etc.
Assassin said:
Texas State does the right thing
haha, I doubt many schools want a student that likes to joke about someone that was just murdered. What a psycho.KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi
Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.
If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.
There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.
"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.
As I said, not necessarily. There are cases where what someone might characterize as "hate speech" is, in fact, criminal.
Redbrickbear said:Assassin said:
Texas State does the right thing
Texas State and Texas Tech taking a hard stance against far left hateful students mocking a man's death.
Their Administrations moving immediately to sever these students relationship to the university.
And is it still just crickets from Baylor Administration?
30aBear said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
haha, I doubt many schools want a student that likes to joke about someone that was just murdered. What a psycho.
KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi
Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.
If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.
There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.
"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.
As I said, not necessarily. There are cases where what someone might characterize as "hate speech" is, in fact, criminal.
Then there's really no need to say you're cracking down on a non-existent crime, is there? Historian said something pertinent on another thread:
"Instead of using the label tainted by the Left, she should use more standard labels with a long tradition of legitimacy: libel, slander, sedition, etc. Such things are clearly defined in the law code and in case law and not controversial. Maybe that makes it more difficult to prosecute."
Indeed. It would have been very easy to say something like this, but she didn't.
Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
1. Administrators have the right to select who they allow to attend their universities
They have had this right for a long long time. Every year tens of thousand of kids get turned down for admission. And many others are asked to leave for all kinds of reasons.
2. If care about free speech…then I have to wonder what hole you have been living in for the past 30-40 years as most of Academia has become a very very hostile place to free speech (provided that speech was conservative of course)
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi
Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.
If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.
There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.
"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.
As I said, not necessarily. There are cases where what someone might characterize as "hate speech" is, in fact, criminal.
Then there's really no need to say you're cracking down on a non-existent crime, is there? Historian said something pertinent on another thread:
"Instead of using the label tainted by the Left, she should use more standard labels with a long tradition of legitimacy: libel, slander, sedition, etc. Such things are clearly defined in the law code and in case law and not controversial. Maybe that makes it more difficult to prosecute."
Indeed. It would have been very easy to say something like this, but she didn't.
I'm not defending her choice of words, I'm telling you that things like incitement and true threats are not protected.
KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
The_barBEARian said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:D. C. Bear said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
That's pretty bad. I wonder where they got that idea?
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-opens-senate-judiciary-fbi-oversight-hearing-releases-additional-records-demonstrating-political- weaponization-and-misconduct-at-biden-fbi
Rest assured they will take it to new levels. I agree, and have always said, that the FBI under Democratic leadership abused its power to investigate Trump. But at least they were investigating suspected crimes. Bondi is proposing to arrest people for supposed "hate speech," which isn't even a real offense.
If those documents are right, they were not simply "investigating suspected crimes," and there is no justification for it. They were on a massive fishing expedition to use the FBI and DoJ as a for political purposes. This is J. Edgar Hoover all over again and could use a Church Committee.
There are certain situations where what one might characterize as "hate speech" is unprotected speech.
"Suspected" may not be the right word. They were fishing, but fishing for things they could prosecute as crimes. Bondi is more or less declaring open season on dissent.
As I said, not necessarily. There are cases where what someone might characterize as "hate speech" is, in fact, criminal.
Then there's really no need to say you're cracking down on a non-existent crime, is there? Historian said something pertinent on another thread:
"Instead of using the label tainted by the Left, she should use more standard labels with a long tradition of legitimacy: libel, slander, sedition, etc. Such things are clearly defined in the law code and in case law and not controversial. Maybe that makes it more difficult to prosecute."
Indeed. It would have been very easy to say something like this, but she didn't.
I'm not defending her choice of words, I'm telling you that things like incitement and true threats are not protected.
That is a *******ized law created by dim witted Judges.
The founding fathers did not restrict speech due to incitement or threats when they wrote constitution.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
Typically, you're missing the point.
It's not supporting free speech if it's condoning or celebrating the killing of people to remove their free speech.
KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
KaiBear said:
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
If you're talking about James Bennet, I disagreed with it. I'm a sometimes subscriber to the NYT and have written to them about my concerns with some of their editorial practices. It's been an ongoing struggle there between the old free-speech liberals and the young woke generation, who have different ideas about a newspaper's mission. I still think it's worth reading and supporting.
so far Linda is.Realitybites said:
With the broader investigtion now expanding to implicate a domestic LGBTQ terrorist network, is Baylor's administration content having a terrorist sympathizer at their institution?
30aBear said:so far Linda is.Realitybites said:
With the broader investigtion now expanding to implicate a domestic LGBTQ terrorist network, is Baylor's administration content having a terrorist sympathizer at their institution?
BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
If you're talking about James Bennet, I disagreed with it. I'm a sometimes subscriber to the NYT and have written to them about my concerns with some of their editorial practices. It's been an ongoing struggle there between the old free-speech liberals and the young woke generation, who have different ideas about a newspaper's mission. I still think it's worth reading and supporting.
Once a news organization fires people for allowing the single presence of a different mainstream political perspective in their paper, they have lost credibility as an unbiased source of news.
KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
Typically, you're missing the point.
It's not supporting free speech if it's condoning or celebrating the killing of people to remove their free speech.
Typically, you believe your opinion to be the only valid one.
Free speech is the respect for all viewpoints.
Especially the ones we don't like.
The Texas State student committed no acts of violence. Did not threaten anyone. Merely protested a memorial held on public property.
It is ridiculous for him to be expelled. Hopefully rational minds will correct the situation.
KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
atTexas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
Typically, you're missing the point.
It's not supporting free speech if it's condoning or celebrating the killing of people to remove their free speech.
Typically, you believe your opinion to be the only valid one.
Free speech is the respect for all viewpoints.
Especially the ones we don't like.
The Texas State student committed no acts of violence. Did not threaten anyone. Merely protested a memorial held on public property.
It is ridiculous for him to be expelled. Hopefully rational minds will correct the situation.
KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
Texas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
Typically, you're missing the point.
It's not supporting free speech if it's condoning or celebrating the killing of people to remove their free speech.
Typically, you believe your opinion to be the only valid one.
Free speech is the respect for all viewpoints.
Especially the ones we don't like.
The Texas State student committed no acts of violence. Did not threaten anyone. Merely protested a memorial held on public property.
It is ridiculous for him to be expelled. Hopefully rational minds will correct the situation.
Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
If you're talking about James Bennet, I disagreed with it. I'm a sometimes subscriber to the NYT and have written to them about my concerns with some of their editorial practices. It's been an ongoing struggle there between the old free-speech liberals and the young woke generation, who have different ideas about a newspaper's mission. I still think it's worth reading and supporting.
Once a news organization fires people for allowing the single presence of a different mainstream political perspective in their paper, they have lost credibility as an unbiased source of news.
I don't regard any source as unbiased. Political struggles happen in every institution. Mainstream newspapers like the NYT still do an important job. Without original reporting, we wouldn't have much to debate here.
BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
erheThe Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
If you're talking about James Bennet, I disagreed with it. I'm a sometimes subscriber to the NYT and have written to them about my concerns with some of their editorial practices. It's been an ongoing struggle there between the old free-speech liberals and the young woke generation, who have different ideas about a newspaper's mission. I still think it's worth reading and supporting.
Once a news organization fires people for allowing the single presence of a different mainstream political perspective in their paper, they have lost credibility as an unbiased source of news.
I don't regard any source as unbiased. Political struggles happen in every institution. Mainstream newspapers like the NYT still do an important job. Without original reporting, we wouldn't have much to debate here.
You're minimizing the level of bias here. There's a point where a news source is so biased that it is no longer trustworthy. Saying "political struggles occur in every institution" is meaningless. Stalinist Russia and the Marlin school board have "political struggles" but they are not the same. The school board is not executing their opponents.
Even CNN and Fox News do not fire people for having someone with a different political opinion on their networks.
BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
If you're talking about James Bennet, I disagreed with it. I'm a sometimes subscriber to the NYT and have written to them about my concerns with some of their editorial practices. It's been an ongoing struggle there between the old free-speech liberals and the young woke generation, who have different ideas about a newspaper's mission. I still think it's worth reading and supporting.
Once a news organization fires people for allowing the single presence of a different mainstream political perspective in their paper, they have lost credibility as an unbiased source of news.
I don't regard any source as unbiased. Political struggles happen in every institution. Mainstream newspapers like the NYT still do an important job. Without original reporting, we wouldn't have much to debate here.
You're minimizing the level of bias here. There's a point where a news source is so biased that it is no longer trustworthy. Saying "political struggles occur in every institution" is meaningless. Stalinist Russia and the Marlin school board have "political struggles" but they are not the same. The school board is not executing their opponents.
Even CNN and Fox News do not fire people for having someone with a different political opinion on their networks.
Assassin said:KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:KaiBear said:
atTexas State made a mistake.
The student didn't hit anyone ; didn't threaten anyone.
Universities are supposed to be about free speech.
Not just views we approve of.
If the student did something similar on a different campus regarding Hamas……would expelling him still be the 'right' thing to do ?
Student needs to be immediately reinstated.
How in the world could a university be about "free speech" if they allow the condoning, mocking, or celebration of murdering someone in order to prevent that person's free speech??
Really believe this is the very first time a university student mocked a killing ?
When US air strikes have been killing Muslims in the Middle East for decades ?
However in those circumstances I strongly doubt anyone got expelled.
Texas public universities are looking little different than all those east coast schools we were criticizing only a few months ago.
Free speech…..is free speech.
Typically, you're missing the point.
It's not supporting free speech if it's condoning or celebrating the killing of people to remove their free speech.
Typically, you believe your opinion to be the only valid one.
Free speech is the respect for all viewpoints.
Especially the ones we don't like.
The Texas State student committed no acts of violence. Did not threaten anyone. Merely protested a memorial held on public property.
It is ridiculous for him to be expelled. Hopefully rational minds will correct the situation.
Have you seen the video?
Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:BearlySpeaking said:Sam Lowry said:historian said:
The Left's accusations against Charlie were all lies. None of them had an iota of truth.
That may be. I didn't really follow his work and haven't accused him of anything.
They are false. When the accusations started racking up, they didn't jibe with the few video clips I had seen of him in the past. But there were a lot of accusations, so I went looking for the longer video clips where they claimed he said stuff they found hateful. In every case so far it turned out the accusations were false. For example, people who hated him would post that he said he didn't believe in empathy. The longer clip showed he said he preferred sympathy, because the focus is on the other person instead of your own empathetic feelings. Completely changed the available rational hermeneutical positions you can take on that statement. In looking for these quotes, I came across one video where he was talking to a guy who said he was trans and having personal difficulties and another with a gay conservative student who asked him what he thought about the presence of gays in the conservative movement. In both cases, he treated them respectfully and did not say anything that could be interpreted as demeaning, even when he acknowledged political/moral differences.
When the accusations started coming out, I started wondering if where there is smoke there is also fire. That is why I went looking for the videos. What I learned is what I already knew - the Internet is a wonderful machine for spreading lies. The long videos are available for you to judge for yourself. It's fine if you don't care, but this video content has become important because of the large number of people on the left I am seeing justify his murder because he held unacceptable ideas. If the specific accusations they have been making turn out to be false, many people are going to need to move on to another justification for his murder.
These are excellent points. If I don't care about the accusations, it's only because I've been so disgusted by the gloating over Kirk's death that it hardly matters to me if they are true.
On the other hand, I can't help noticing that many on the right seem eager for an excuse to escalate. I wonder how far we're willing to enforce this rule against "advocating or celebrating the murder, motivated by bigotry, of a specific individual or group of people." It seems to me that this is advocated and celebrated almost daily with respect to the people of Gaza, who are referred to on this board as animals, cockroaches, and pimples on the ass of humanity, all without anyone batting an eye.
I also wonder how much pressure is being exerted against Fox News since one of their hosts advocated the mass murder of homeless people. Thankfully I've yet to see anyone here endorse that, but I haven't seen any great wave of protest either.
Who on the right is looking for an excuse to escalate following the assassination of Charlie Kirk? What escalation actions are they advocating? Do you have specific examples? I'm leery about relying on general statements on these topics unless we have factual evidence underlying the discussion. I haven't seen any public calls for the murder of figures on the left by someone on the right, but I'm open to seeing the evidence and would expect them to be at least fired, if not investigated by law enforcement.
For example, from NYT:Quote:
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a first-term Georgia Republican, repeatedly endorsed executing top Democratic politicians on social media before she was elected to Congress, including telling a follower who asked if they could hang former President Barack Obama that the "stage is being set."
A review of Ms. Greene's social media accounts, first reported by CNN, found that she repeatedly liked posts on Facebook that discussed the prospect of violence against Democratic lawmakers and employees of the federal government. Ms. Greene liked a Facebook comment in January 2019 that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and liked another about executing F.B.I. agents.
After a Facebook follower asked Ms. Greene "Now do we get to hang them," referring to Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Democratic presidential nominee, Ms. Greene responded: "Stage is being set. Players are being put in place. We must be patient. This must be done perfectly or liberal judges would let them off."
In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Tuesday before CNN published its report, Ms. Greene did not disavow the posts, but accused CNN of "coming after" her for political reasons and noted that several people had managed her social media accounts.
How many tens of thousands of conservatives took to social media publicly celebrating this one person's statements about murdering Pelosi? Was she given column space in the NYT to spew her hate like the NYT times just did for Hasan Piker, who has called for the murder of conservatives in graphic terms following Kirk's murder? While she should have been investigated by at least the Secret Service for the assassination statement (the other statements about having a trial followed by an execution does not reach the same level as a celebration of murder), you have found one Republican politician advocating the murder of Pelosi, there are numerous democrat politicians who have celebrated Kirk's murders. It's not even close.
Apart from a sheer difference in scale and how calls to murder are being treated by the media (giving them a platform, lamenting them being called out or fired), this is not an example of escalation following Kirk's death. Who has escalated calls for murdering people on the other side of the aisle following Kirk's death? That was the question asked.
I'm not aware of Hasan Piker or any Democratic politicians doing that. I seem to recall there was plenty of celebrating or at least joking about the attack on Pelosi's husband. I don't know what form any escalation will take at this point. All I said is that people seem eager for it. Bondi, Rubio, and Miller are already promising broad (and likely unconstitutional) retaliation against their political opposition. If history is any guide, including recent events like the El Paso shooting, the Buffalo shooting, and the Capitol riot, we can also expect a significant number of those calling for civil war to put their words into action.
Recent behavior and polling on support for political violence shows you should be far more worried about near-future political violence from liberals rather than conservatives.
I was until a few years ago. Always assumed the right was aging out of power and the young commies would soon run rampant. Despite last week's atrocity, I'm not so sure any more.
The recent polling on support for political violence is consistent; you have more to fear from liberals on that point. As shown by the murder last week and the general liberal reaction to it.
What do you think about the New York Times treatment of free speech for firing their editor for allowing an editorial that was not a left-wing viewpoint?
If you're talking about James Bennet, I disagreed with it. I'm a sometimes subscriber to the NYT and have written to them about my concerns with some of their editorial practices. It's been an ongoing struggle there between the old free-speech liberals and the young woke generation, who have different ideas about a newspaper's mission. I still think it's worth reading and supporting.
Once a news organization fires people for allowing the single presence of a different mainstream political perspective in their paper, they have lost credibility as an unbiased source of news.
I don't regard any source as unbiased. Political struggles happen in every institution. Mainstream newspapers like the NYT still do an important job. Without original reporting, we wouldn't have much to debate here.
You're minimizing the level of bias here. There's a point where a news source is so biased that it is no longer trustworthy. Saying "political struggles occur in every institution" is meaningless. Stalinist Russia and the Marlin school board have "political struggles" but they are not the same. The school board is not executing their opponents.
Even CNN and Fox News do not fire people for having someone with a different political opinion on their networks.
Sure they would. Fox News fired people en masse for disagreeing with their 2020 election coverage.
