You began this tangent by deeming harmless anything Kirk says and claiming anyone who calls it hate speech is legitimizing his murder.
Not really buying the free speech banner-waving.
If you bothered to take the time to see who and what I was replying to (and you didn't), you would know that the post you quoted and I fored back at was, in fact, the post who kicked all this off!!
Also, STOP ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊-WELL MISREPRESENTING MY WORDS! You're a LOT better than that Johnny!!
I did NOT deem what Kirk said to be harmless. What I said was that he should be allowed to say what he said because it ought to be free speech. I am a free speech
near-absolutist, as I pointed out in this post...
Where do you draw the line? If I were to create a movement that regards a certain class of people as subhumans, but don't directly call for violence, even though it's very obvious where this rhetoric will lead, is that still okay?
We already have an example... we refer to Trump supporters as
"MAGAChuds" - in effect calling them subhuman (if you know what the slur "chud" means, you'll understand why). I have even used the term myself - and I should be allowed to use that term as should anyone else.
I use the
"sticks and stones" standard as well as the...
I use the "sticks and stones" standard as well as the "Brandenburg v Ohio" standard (speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"). The imminent and the likely are the most important parts. Saying "grab your gun, and go shoot David B. Smith; Attorney at Law" satisfies the standard for incitement to violence, and is speech that shoud not be free, but holding up a placard that says "the only good lawyer is a dead lawyer" does not meet the criteria. Everyone should be free to make a statement like this.
Anyone should be allowed to call extreme right wing people "white supremacists", call Trump a "moron", call a transwoman a man, ignore pronouns, misgender anyone they like, call a religious person a deluded god botherer, call a woman a bitch, call a homosexual person a faggot, call a white person "white trash" or "honky", and call an Asian person a"slopehead". I would criticize people for calling them such things, but I will still defend their right to say it. Words do not cause harm, only actions do... if people are offended, they can block the poster and don't read their posts - if you are offended by something someone says on TV, or radio, change the bloody station.
And if you want to know who REALLY put us on this tangent, look no further than
@plague311 in this post
God ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dammit with this trans ◊◊◊◊ in every ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ thread. Does it never ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ die? Can't it be contained to that one bull ◊◊◊◊, never ending thread. Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Christ.
Before that post, there was no mention of transgender people in a sense of either attacking them or defending them. EVERY mention of trans was related the the topic at hand (claims that the engraving on ammunition was trans/antifa, jokes about, for example, the NRL losing its mind at the suggestion that trans ought to be subject to gun control, incidental mentions as part of a wider discussion about free speech - is a topic that is inextricably linked with the death of Charlie Kirk.
The problem with the left-wing progressives as well as the right-wing ultra-conservatives on this forum, is that they are truly a reflection of society at the current time - BOTH groups profess to support free speech, but only if its speech they like. The moment either side says something the other side doesn't like, suddenly they don't want that speech allowed.
Frankly, I'm actually sick to death of with the lot of you on the extremes. Y'ALL are the cause of the tribalism in politics.
www.snopes.com
That ain't what ANYONE means when they are talking about Free Speech.