Anonymous #1 1w

So? That has nothing to do with freedom of speech

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It does. If I own a business I can fire whoever I don’t think is representing my company well….or who is going to cause my company monetary losses.

52

Anonymous #1 1w

and if the government tells your boss to fire you "or else," that's just your boss making a decision all his own?

0

Anonymous #2 1w

No lol. That’s different. I’m explaining why Charlie Kirk was able to say whatever he wanted without being fired. He owned the company and wouldn’t fire himself. FCC has always done this stuff with tv stations, musicians, etc.

20

Anonymous #1 1w

So basically you’re saying business owners and anyone who employs you can violate your first amendment rights

-3

Anonymous OP 1w

I don’t think you quite understand the first amendment. You can’t go to your place of employment and say outrageous things that go against company policy and say you can’t be fired bc of first amendment. Imagine going to a restaurant if that was the case. Workers could be saying the most unhinged comments to you lol.

11

Anonymous #3 1w

do you think covid was real

0

Anonymous #4 1w

Where you could lose your job over essentially not being a liberal. The right (correctly) was mad about that, especially because of the government supporting such things under Obama. But they responded by essentially saying “the left has narrowed the Overton Window to essentially the allow only leftist or far leftist views, we need to respond to that by saying there’s no Overton Window period!”

1

Anonymous #4 1w

That is also not true, you can actually stop cutting someone a paycheck if they start talking about “how the world is run by a secret cabal of black Jews.” Now the left is saying “hey, you said there was no Overton window! Now you’re saying calling a murdered man a racist fascist monster is outside it? What gives?”

1

Anonymous #4 1w

The correct answer is for both sides to agree that there is a rough Overton window that includes the mainstream discourse and ideas of both sides, but excludes the violent fringes. Someone should be able to say we should tax net worth over a billion dollars at 100% AND that men are not and can never be women, and thus transgenderism is a mental illness.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

yeah except the logical conclusion to “tax billionaires” is better funded public services. the logical conclusion to “trans people are mentally ill perverts trying to make your children gay” is nazi germany

3

Anonymous #1 1w

The fcc has never forced someone to be shut down bc of one comment. They’ve been fined etc. they also have never said you must donate to the persons company. It’s true authoritarianism. And it’s scary asf. If a dem did it would be just as bad.

5

Anonymous #7 1w

The donation portion is insane. That isn’t Trump though? That’s Sinclair I believe? I’m sure Trump likes it, but he isn’t axing Kimmel.

0

Anonymous #1 1w

Trump is pushing for this or they Wouldn’t do it. Cmon.

3

Anonymous #7 1w

I just said he likes it. But I think ABC is doing it because they agree it makes majority of viewership upset. They let Kimmel go as a business move, not morality.

8

Anonymous #6 1w

See what I mean. You’re literally equating the beliefs of about half the population of the country and a vast majority of the world with Nazi Germany. That’s a massive false equivalence, essentially the same as my saying “the logical conclusion of “viewing trans as a mental illness” is better mental health and the logical conclusion of “tax the rich” is communist Russia. That’s a slippery slope and false equivalency fallacy at the same time.

5

Anonymous #4 1w

I just realized you’re also begging the claim at the same time. Three logical fallacies in one statement, that’s actually impressive!

4

Anonymous #3 1w

Bc a vaccine was there to save lives. Hundreds of thousands of people died

3

Anonymous OP 1w

You clearly never been employed or worked for a company yet..

10

Anonymous #1 1w

Kimmel wasn’t even getting enough viewership anyway and kept costing ABC too much money. Tik Toks get more views than Jimmy Kimmel. Everyone mad his show got suspended most likely weren’t watching his show either!

6

Anonymous #11 1w

you think he was holding back his real opinions?

1

They call anyone they dont agree with a white supremacist

1

Anonymous #12 1w

That’s crazy. He literally wasn’t special all he did was fight others for a living

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Exactly. I’m convinced his assassination was all just some attempt to distract people from other things

1

Anonymous #12 1w

If you can’t understand why people threaten other people for their words, you should also have an issue with people dying for their words

1

Anonymous #8 1w

In all honesty. I hate Charlie Kirk. But I didn’t even say anything about not having an issue with how he died. Gun violence isn’t going to solve anything. Hate the mf, but still

0

Anonymous #12 1w

I’m just making a broader point regarding how outraged people are about people losing jobs for something they said when we literally watched someone lose their life for doing the same thing. You don’t have to like the guy but nobody should feel that making jokes or insensitive comments about his death is acceptable. If they wouldn’t appreciate someone doing it to someone they care about, why do it to others? Thats all.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

I understand, and I apologize if it came off as me arguing at all. A lot of shit going on in this world and a lot of peoples emotions are like really high right now. It’s a mess

0

Anonymous #12 1w

No no no, trust me I don’t think we’re arguing at all. I appreciate being able to share my opinions with someone who is level-headed and open to civilized discussion.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

I always gotta clarify because I feel like it’ll be taken out of context, I’m glad you and I can both have this discussion. I do feel really bad for his family. It’s tragic that they were there at the scene, and I will never laugh at something like that. Ever. I may not like him and what he stood for but his kids are still going to bed each night without a father

0

Anonymous #12 1w

Totally understandable. And your viewpoint on his murder is EXACTLY what I’ve been trying to get people to understand about this whole thing. It’s really a simple, humanistic mindset that more people should have. Good on you for putting differences aside to be a quality human being.

1

Anonymous #12 1w

his family was not at the scene, that part was widely spread but untrue

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Either way, they have to live with the fact that the violent death of their husband/father was caught on camera and will remain on the internet forever. Nobody should have to live knowing that.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Thank you. Genuinely. It always did strike me as a little weird that his death was shown all over the internet. Of course, it’s no surprise, it’s the internet. Everything is shown there. But I don’t know, I found it extremely disturbing and it shook me up for the rest of the day

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Exactly. They won’t even really have any memories of him either. They’re 1 and 3. That’s way too young to be loosing their father like that. You can agree with Charlie Kirk or not, but I think we should all agree that it’s horrible that they no longer have a father figure

1

Anonymous #12 1w

I personally have made an effort to not watch any of those videos because I know how much it would affect me. I’ve heard so many people talk about not being able to shake it from playing over and over in their heads. I had unfortunately came across the video of Iryna Zarutska the day before & I couldn’t put myself through such traumatic imagery again. The internet can be a severely messed up place and there are people out there who are numb to that kind of stuff or crave it. It’s sad.

2

Anonymous #8 1w

I didn’t mean to, both times I’ve accidentally stumbled upon it. The first time was with trumps first assassination attempt, the second was with Charlie Kirk. Both messed me up pretty badly. I was always so worried I’d end up like the people that are numb to that stuff, because I’ve seen it so many times. I’m sorry you had to see that video, that’s horrible. I don’t even know much about what happened to Iryna Zarutska

0

Anonymous #12 1w

It’s unfortunate that social media has made it really easy to come across that kind of content without warning especially when it first happens and censors can’t be put on or before it can be taken down. I am already pursuing a pretty intense career and the last thing I need to see is horrible content online as well. I’d recommend just reading about Iryna and I would definitely avoid any video of it. I think it’s important to know her name but I wouldn’t tell anyone to watch her tragedy unfold.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

The vaccine was forced dude its undeniable

0

Anonymous #8 1w

Yeah, it really is. I don’t know who is pushing out that content, but it just isn’t fun to see. No exceptions. Once again, I’m sorry you had to see all that, especially with everything else that seems to be going on for you. I’ll definitely read up on what happened with her, I don’t even know how I haven’t heard of her until now. Guess it’s being kinda overshadowed by things

1

Anonymous #12 1w

I appreciate that. She definitely got pushed to the background after Charlie passed. But ironically she was one of the last things he was talking/posting about. Thanks for chatting with me. You’ve been a refreshing perspective.

1