Anonymous #1 1w

One supported free speech, which turned into an outlet for hate speech. The other… said hate speech. Tell me the difference

2

Anonymous #1 1w

It’s really simple, hun: they both pushed hate and incited violence.

2

Anonymous OP 1w

Nah fam, that ain’t it. If you really think that it’s ok to murder people who express opinions you disagree with, you should be aware that that’s gonna come back to bite you in the ass when the other side starts saying it too

4

Anonymous #1 6d

Try and stay on topic here, the subject is what he did when he was living and whether “all he did was talk or not”

3

Anonymous #1 6d

In fact, neither OP or the og post cited their personal feelings on the matter as to whether they agreed with it. They are simply challenging a false narrative.

2

Anonymous #3 6d

I’m curious, what did Charlie Kirk say that was as bad as “the Jew is the forging tool of the soviets”

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

Please, point me to ONE place where I said murder was okay? I do not and never will support murder, death penalties, none of it. Also, no. It was not “opinions”, it was hate. Vitriol. Stone gay people, lynch trans people, deport, execute and televise it, saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake… he was not a good person, at all.

5

Anonymous OP 6d

Nobody should be murdered, ever. For any reason. But I’m not going to pretend he was some incredible person who loved and cared for everyone, because that’s not true. As per his own words.

8

Anonymous OP 6d

I don’t think he was a good person either. When did he say stone gay people and lynch trans people?

0

Anonymous OP 6d

You disagreed with describing his murder as an attack on free speech, which in fact it was.

-2

Anonymous #1 6d

Saying trans people need to be “taken care of” like in the 50s and 60s while talking to misogynist POS riley gaines and saying “God’s law” about sexuality was also demanded when referring to Ms Rachel saying the bible says to love everyone.

3

Anonymous #1 6d

It was, in fact, not. It was a shitty murder.

2

Anonymous OP 6d

How is murdering someone who expressed a political opinion in an open dialogue not an attack on free expression

0

Anonymous #1 6d

The government kidnapping and deporting people for protesting a genocide and saying they will continue to deport “terrorist sympathizers” is an attack on free speech. It’s systematic and “legal”. One individual’s actions, from the same political party, is not an attack on free speech.

4

Anonymous #1 6d

Human lives are not political. He spread hate, not “opinions”. It was a shitty murder from a shitty person, but silencing free speech would be the doxxing of people not mourning a white supremacist to intimidate, legislating minorities “out of existence”, and arresting and deporting innocent people.

5

Anonymous OP 6d

Canary is an attack on free speech. They were doxxing anyone deemed to be “anti Semitic” which was really anyone who was criticizing Israel.

1

Anonymous #3 6d

Why not?

0

Anonymous OP 6d

No, but actions are political, especially in this case where there was a clear political aim of silencing someone. As a side note, I am not a conservative, so the latter half of your message is really preaching to the choir.

0

Anonymous #1 6d

He was taken out for not being extreme enough to another far-right asshole.

0

Anonymous OP 6d

Which is, unless I’m mistaken, a killing based on expressed ideas. That they were political ideas is irrelevant, the killing was an attack on their (free) expression. Therefore it is an attack on free expression.

0