KaiBear said:

---

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?

---

Yes ...the dude was being a jerk. Under normal situations.....in most schools he would have not been expelled and you know it. Good grief I once got into a bar brawl right next to the local police station and no one even considered expelling me.

Honestly I believe Texas State is looking racist.

---

Please let everyone know what rules/codes/laws are to be enforced and when they are not to be enforced but still need to be on the books.

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:

---

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.

---

I am not seeing evidence of mass firings. I see Jason Donner, and Chris Stirewalt, who made the controversial call for Arizona on election night.

Regardless, these are nowhere near the same. No one was fired for allowing the mere presence of a single person with a different political opinion. So the Fox News firings are a red herring.
Are you saying there is no single liberal voice on any show on Fox News at all? That is the standard set by the New York Times that we're talking about here.

---

Of course the NYT has conservative voices, for example Ross Douthat, David French, Bret Stephens. The issue with Bennet arose from a single guest column calling for military intervention in the BLM protests. It had nothing to do with a blanket exclusion of conservative opinions. And wrong though the decision was, it wasn't nearly as bad as Fox News knowingly broadcasting lies and firing people for objecting.

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:

---

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.

---

I am not seeing evidence of mass firings. I see Jason Donner, and Chris Stirewalt, who made the controversial call for Arizona on election night.

Regardless, these are nowhere near the same. No one was fired for allowing the mere presence of a single person with a different political opinion. So the Fox News firings are a red herring.
Are you saying there is no single liberal voice on any show on Fox News at all? That is the standard set by the New York Times that we're talking about here.

---

Of course the NYT has conservative voices, for example Ross Douthat, David French, Bret Stephens. The issue with Bennet arose from a single guest column calling for military intervention in the BLM protests. It had nothing to do with a blanket exclusion of conservative opinions. And wrong though the decision was, it wasn't nearly as bad as Fox News knowingly broadcasting lies and firing people for objecting.

---

David French is not a conservative. I have read his work. Minimizing the firing of the news editor over a single conservative editorial? You're just trolling now.

KaiBear said:

---

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?

---

Yes ...the dude was being a jerk. Under normal situations.....in most schools he would have not been expelled and you know it. Good grief I once got into a bar brawl right next to the local police station and no one even considered expelling me.

Honestly I believe Texas State is looking racist.

---

What's your basis for that? Just that he was black? You don't think a white, purple haired tub of a lady man would've been expelled for acting the exact same way? (We could apply the same principal to a well dressed frat boy or sorority girl type, but it's difficult to imagine them acting that way which kinda spoils the hypo.)

You've just entirely missed the point on this one. That's ok. Happens to everyone from time to time.

KaiBear said:

---

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?

---

Yes ...the dude was being a jerk. Under normal situations.....in most schools he would have not been expelled and you know it. Good grief I once got into a bar brawl right next to the local police station and no one even considered expelling me.

Honestly I believe Texas State is looking racist.

---

Funny you should say that

Because if he had been doing something as a student that was racist he would have been expelled. And almost all other colleges would have done that extremely fast as well.

A student at Kentucky was expelled for a calling a girl at a dorm a racial slur while she was drunk

And several SAE guys were expelled for singing a racist song on a bus at an off-campus event at OU a few years back

Are Universities allowed expel kids off being racist jerks…but not other kinds of jerks?

[Racist incident in residence hall
Communications:
Statement March 2023: Ms. Rosing is no longer a student at UK and is banned from campus.]

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

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?

---

Yes ...the dude was being a jerk. Under normal situations.....in most schools he would have not been expelled and you know it. Good grief I once got into a bar brawl right next to the local police station and no one even considered expelling me.

Honestly I believe Texas State is looking racist.

---

Funny you should say that

Because if he had been doing something as a student that was racist he would have been expelled. And almost all other colleges would have done that extremely fast as well.

A student at Kentucky was expelled for a calling a girl at a dorm a racial slur while she was drunk

And several SAE guys were expelled for singing a racist song on a bus at an off-campus event at OU a few years back

Are Universities allowed expel kids off being racist jerks…but not other kinds of jerks?

[Racist incident in residence hall
Communications:
Statement March 2023: Ms. Rosing is no longer a student at UK and is banned from campus.]

---

As long as you aren't racist you can do and say whatever you want. Maybe that's finally changing …

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:

---

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.

---

I am not seeing evidence of mass firings. I see Jason Donner, and Chris Stirewalt, who made the controversial call for Arizona on election night.

Regardless, these are nowhere near the same. No one was fired for allowing the mere presence of a single person with a different political opinion. So the Fox News firings are a red herring.
Are you saying there is no single liberal voice on any show on Fox News at all? That is the standard set by the New York Times that we're talking about here.

---

Of course the NYT has conservative voices, for example Ross Douthat, David French, Bret Stephens. The issue with Bennet arose from a single guest column calling for military intervention in the BLM protests. It had nothing to do with a blanket exclusion of conservative opinions. And wrong though the decision was, it wasn't nearly as bad as Fox News knowingly broadcasting lies and firing people for objecting.

---

David French is not a conservative. I have read his work. Minimizing the firing of the news editor over a single conservative editorial? You're just trolling still.

---

FIFY

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

The NYT should hold itself to a higher standard than what we see from Fox News and CNN, which have devolved into partisan infotainment channels.

UPDATE: University of Kansas says they’re standing by their employee who said Charlie is “better in the ground as worm food” and she will not face any disciplinary action

You can contact @UnivOfKansas here: https://t.co/T9qwDZ1xZy pic.twitter.com/cQi6mY69k3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

Redbrickbear said:

---

UPDATE: University of Kansas says they’re standing by their employee who said Charlie is “better in the ground as worm food” and she will not face any disciplinary action

You can contact @UnivOfKansas here: https://t.co/T9qwDZ1xZy pic.twitter.com/cQi6mY69k3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

---

They've made a business decision. Let's see how it turns out when free speech from both sides keep the topic at the forefront.

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

satTexas 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?

---

Yes ...the dude was being a jerk. Under normal situations.....in most schools he would have not been expelled and you know it. Good grief I once got into a bar brawl right next to the local police station and no one even considered expelling me.

Honestly I believe Texas State is looking racist.

---

Oh come on Kai, that guy was more than a Jerk, no school would want to be represented like that. If they had left him on campus, this guy was gonna do something really bad. He just showed you that he was. And if they had left him as a student, all his buddies would start acting just like that idiot. And who knows where it would have gone

You are one of my favorite people Kai but you are reallly wrong with this. That guy is nothing but bad news

Redbrickbear said:

---

UPDATE: University of Kansas says they’re standing by their employee who said Charlie is “better in the ground as worm food” and she will not face any disciplinary action

You can contact @UnivOfKansas here: https://t.co/T9qwDZ1xZy pic.twitter.com/cQi6mY69k3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

---

It's up to their donors to reply. And how many applying students will drop those applications

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

Osodecentx said:

---

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

---

I can't believe you're trying to defend this guy.

30aBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

---

I can't believe you're trying to defend this guy.

---

It is alleged that a student violated the Code of Conduct and should be expelled. I read the entire code and was curious which section was violated
Is that defending the student?

You seem threatened by a question

Osodecentx said:

---

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

---

Are y'all talking about the one that says no drinking or extramarital sex?

Are we taking that seriously now?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

UPDATE: University of Kansas says they’re standing by their employee who said Charlie is “better in the ground as worm food” and she will not face any disciplinary action

You can contact @UnivOfKansas here: https://t.co/T9qwDZ1xZy pic.twitter.com/cQi6mY69k3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

---

They've made a business decision. Let's see how it turns out when free speech from both sides keep the topic at the forefront.

---

Forefront maybe 36 hours

Besides Kansas is the liberal school of their university system

Robert Wilson said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

---

Are y'all talking about the one that says no drinking or extramarital sex?

Are we taking that seriously now?

---

Texas State student

Assassin said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

UPDATE: University of Kansas says they’re standing by their employee who said Charlie is “better in the ground as worm food” and she will not face any disciplinary action

You can contact @UnivOfKansas here: https://t.co/T9qwDZ1xZy pic.twitter.com/cQi6mY69k3

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2025

---

It's up to their donors to reply. And how many applying students will drop those applications

---

Probably not many

It's surprising how many people outside of Texas (and inside of Texas) think UT-Austin is a conservative school just because it's located in a Red State and has the name Texas in it.

Most average people just don't follow this stuff very closely.

Probably why Universities have been allowed to run wild…the taxpayers are not focused on them

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

Nice try in implying I called them "The NY Slimes."

The standards at Fox News or any other organization is no defense for the NYT's standards. That's something former President George Bush, a very moderate conservative, saw in removing them from his list of news sources.

1. I do not care what American college students say.
2. I do care if foreign students are actively opposing us.
3. I want a single standard - it should not be okay to praise murder but abhorrent to believe in science.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

The NYT has less credibility than a drunk Democrat on MSNBC.

Osodecentx said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

---

Are y'all talking about the one that says no drinking or extramarital sex?

Are we taking that seriously now?

---

Texas State student

---

That's a relief. I'm sure they have waaaaay more fidelity to their very important student code than we have.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I think that BlueSky sky is where some Twitter users ran after Musk bought the platform and fired their favorite fact checkers.

The New York Times has been the premier newspaper in America. Retraction or not, that kind of error is symptomatic of a deep, serious rot.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done yet?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or it's not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you; you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

There are differences of opinion on the right. Tom Cotton isn't conservative by my ideal definition, but he is part of the conservative discourse, broadly speaking.

To say the NYT isn't as bad as Fox News is hardly minimizing. You just picked an extremely low standard for comparison.

---

We can be pretty certain who David French voted for, he didn't make it a secret. That's not a conservative, "broadly speaking."

George Bush Sr. stated while he was still alive that standards at the NYT had fallen so low he saw no point in reading it anymore as an information source.
That was before the NYT had a "political conflict" and fired their editor for a single editorial by a conservative senator. Do you support their firing him for that? Is that the higher standards you're defending here?

---

I already told you I didn't support it. That doesn't mean I'm going to plug my ears and yell "NY Slimes" every time they print a fact I don't happen to like. And the paper has a number of conservative columnists other than David French.

---

What do you think about the NYT having to print a retraction of their statement that Kirk was an antisemite? They said they relied on a "social media post" for their information instead of looking at a very easily accessible original source.

Do you think that reflects high journalistic standards? Do you think that was a "fact I don't happen to like"?

We're talking about journalism in a time where so many leftists on BlueSky were advocating the murder of more people that moderators had to do mass post deletions and pin their policy on advocacy of violence on their site. Do you think it was proper journalism for them to falsely claim Kirk was an antisemite, justifying his murder to many liberals in light of this atmosphere of potential violence?

---

I have no idea what BlueSky is. I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example.

---

I'm surprised you don't; you should have heard of it at some point if you read the front A section or editorial pages of the New York Times or Washington Post. It's liberal Twitter.

Publishing a retraction is the bare minimum of low bars for a news organization. It's not "many" news sources who should issue retractions when they are wrong; it's "everyone." I think calling calling a recently assassinated political figure an "antisemite" is a mistake that basic journalistic standards would have prevented from ever happening. You stated that you worry about retaliation from conservatives in this current atmosphere. Yet you absolve them for not doing the most basic homework of, wait for it... watching a short online video. They made an inflammatory false claim out of sheer laziness. That is a mistake no journalist should make, and it is clearly not a "sign of integrity." It doesn't matter if "everyone does it." It damages your credibility regardless.

---

Of course it damages their credibility. It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer.

Are we done?

---

Your statement has a significantly different meaning than your previous response.

This:

" I think issuing retractions when appropriate is a sign of integrity, yes. When it comes to false charges of antisemitism, there are many who should follow the NYT's example."

in no way means this:

"Of course it damages their credibility."

And

" It just doesn't put it near the abysmal level of some of the sources you seem to prefer."

is a rhetorical statement that shows you missed this: " It doesn't matter if "everyone does it."" We're not talking about other news sources in this specific event. We are talking about the New York Times. This is a journalistic failure of a pretty large magnitude given our current situation and it was so preventable; you're failing to see it and that's fine. The current national mood is either inflamed or its not. They're either potentially pouring gasoline on that fire or they are not. If you think the latter part of both statements is the true case, then I can see why you would see this as less of a problem (despite, still, the sheer laziness of not watching a short online video before making the claim).

Whether we're done or not is up to you, you are free to stop replying any time. I'm just hanging out here for a while and will probably go back to bearly speaking at some point soon.

---

My statements are consistent. I would love to see the NYT do a better job. I'm not switching to Fox News for obvious reasons. What exactly then do you suggest? The last time I asked someone here to recommend an "objective" source, they said I should look into the Washington Times. So with all due respect, I'm warming up the popcorn for this one.

---

There's not much out there, but there is some.

Osodecentx said:

---

30aBear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Willie said:

---

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.

---

He violated their Code of Student Conduct.

https://studenthandbook.txst.edu/rules-and-policies/code-of-student-conduct.html

---

Which section, specifically?

---

I can't believe you're trying to defend this guy.

---

It is alleged that a student violated the Code of Conduct and should be expelled. I read the entire code and was curious which section was violated
Is that defending the student?

You seem threatened by a question

---

here I found some info on the internet for you

The mocking of an assassination clearly could be considered "behavior that trivializes or promotes violence," which the university leadership has explicitly said violates TXST values. That kind of speech could be viewed as hostile, abusive behavior or as a verbal or written threat or simulation of violence.
The action likely disrupted the event (a vigil/memorial), causing harm (emotional distress) to members of the community. So it might count as conduct "disruptive to the academic mission" or "negatively impacting the community."
Because the conduct was off-campus or in a freespeechtype space (outdoor, statue, etc.), but it affected the university community, the jurisdiction clause could still apply.
Given the severity and visibility, Texas State likely considered that this was more than a minor violation, justifying the most serious sanction (expulsion), especially under the clause about creating behavior that threatens emotional safety or wellbeing of the community.