
This isn’t an either or statement, though. You can miss both in different ways. Or in the same. Charlie Kirk was PEACEFULLY spreading his believes. Practicing his first amendment rights. And was killed for it. Meanwhile Alex Pretti was recording ICE agents doing… not good things to immigrants, which is practicing his first amendment rights as well. You know what I miss most though. When peace wasn’t met with violence. When protecting people didn’t result in putting yourself in danger.
There was no “then.” Protesting (peacefully) has always been suffocated especially as it pertains to Black Americans and other minorities. To say, I wish we could go back to a time…doesn’t exist in the US. How many BLM protests were labeled as “violent” and now currently how many anti-ice protestors or everyday people are labeled as “agitators” and “domestic terrorists.” People have always been killed for protesting or just being…you are just unaware and not the target.
it's a terrible observation. people meming kirks death aren't happy about the deaths of people simply "different" than them. that's a moronic take. he was a national public figure with a massive enterprise dedicated to attacking people and their rights (human, constitutional and otherwise) who got killed by the very culture of gun violence and hate he so fervently helped manufacture. nobody is mad at him for being "different" they're mad at him for being a villainous ghoul
hate speech is not peaceful. ever heard of "fighting words"? that's not just a thing people say - it's a legal standard for what speech can reasonably get one's ass beat. that pennywise wannabe kirk spread nothing but violent, hateful rhetoric. can't stand people trying to sanitize the image of a ghoulish clown like him
Did you miss the part where I said unfathomable evil doesn't make lesser evil great? I'm not denying the severity of his evil nor have I ever. Are you saying that one can deserve the loss of their life? That the right to life is conditional? Because that implies that any right (which is supposed to be infallible) can be revoked without due process. Do you not see the contradicting logical and ethical issue here?
Charlie Kirk would not have become evil if society at large hadn't failed ethically. Not that he didn't become deplorable. Not that there isn't valid reason to be outraged by him. Not that there isn't honesty in lack of grief. Just that this was the culmination of years and years of cultural failure.
That would be the violent extremist rhetoric of people like Trump and Kirk lmao. I don’t know how you think you’re going to pin this on the left, but it isn’t going to work. Kirk was assassinated by a man who thought he wasn’t extreme enough, and the hilarious irony is that he was shot at a school after years of condoning school shootings and gun violence. It’s both sad and disgusting how ignorant you are of these things.
What makes you think I am unware of the facts? If that violent rhetoric is solely to blame rather than being a symptom of a larger issue, then how is it that the existence of that rhetoric alone hasn’t also turned you or I into violent right wing extremists? Something is missing here.