Charlie Kirk.

What's also interesting about it is how they suddenly seem to have decided that hate speech is in fact a thing now - and that irresponsible words and rhetoric can in fact lead to terrible things happening. Of course, this only seems to apply when it's directed at them. Calling "the Left" the party of murder, portraying Democrats as Stalinist Marxists who want to turn the US into a Soviet tyranny, portraying trans people as demonic sickos who want to mutilate children, equating abortion to murder, vilifying migrants as rapists and savage pet-killers/eaters, claiming that the Left is engaged in an active campaign to wipe out and replace white people, whipping protestors up to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, equating the advocating of stricter gun laws with the imposition of tyranny, portraying Covid lockdowns as acts of conspiracy against citizens — this is all fine and there's no need to curtail any of this rhetoric even in the face of school shootings by gun nuts and the assassination of the Hortmans and the attempted murder of the Pelosis etc etc. But hey, Charlie Kirk gets shot by a gun nut from a conservative background Leftist activist who might have known a trans person and, suddenly, the Right miracualously concludes that rhetoric can be damaging.

Freedom of speech suddenly not a talking point for Trump and his band of shite.

I wonder what the leaders of this completely real antifa group think about all this stuff. Why have they been so silent?

The small few who are actually Anti-FA are probably going to ground, as who knows what lies in front of them. They certainly don't want to be attracting unnecessary attention to themselves right now.

They could be hauled off to GITMO.

FAFO comes to mind.

But surely this is a widespread organised movement if the president keeps mentioning them? Small few seems like there's not a lot of them?

Why have you hyphenated it like that btw? Should probably just type out Anti-fascist at that point and I don't think there would be a "small few" who would agree with that sentiment.

I get what you're saying but I think one issue here is that you are probably putting too much faith in the notion that Kirk was actually trying to convince anyone. I got the impression he had that evangelical philosophy where you talk about Jesus to fulfil your Christian mission and — also — his whole speed-debating Owning The Libs thing just became his job and a way to build his brand, success and influence. I can't say that he struck me as someone who had thought his points through critically in such a way as to be convincing. From what I saw, to the extent he was trying to be persuasive, it was more so on the Christian values stuff (the joy of being Christian, being married, having a traditional family etc) than on the political stuff.

You are holding that debating with bad faith actors is a reasonably valid lesson — which it is — but this discounts the fact that acting in bad faith in the first place is not a positive. Managing any adversity in life can be a good lesson, but it doesn't mean that people acting adversely towards you is invariably good (and I know you're not saying that, but it's just to illustrate my own logic). Kirk's so-called debates were all about saying simplistic things designed to be edited in such a way as to lionise him and vilify / denigrate the students themselves. The negative for society is that this kind of debate — ie, a war of words requiring a clear unequivocal winner — is becoming ever more popular in a world where themes and slogans are winning the day over thoughtful, critical discussion. Kirk was clearly not the only one guilty of that, it's a problem across the board but (with acknowledgement of my bias) I think it's a driver in Right wing politics in a much more potent way than for centrist or Left leaning politics.

All Chump had to do was threaten to take away funding to universities to curtail Palestinian protests. The right to speak, assemble or protest hinges on that now.

I have no idea, but you know how this actually works.

Each side will exaggerate the perceived threat posed to them by Fascists and Anti-Fascists.

Charlie Kirk was a Nazi, was he not? Therefore, there are tonnes of Anti-Fascist leftist mobs that need to be taken out…

I wonder if the left is regretting weaponising "Free Speech does not mean Hate Speech" ?

Remember the term that Free Speech does not mean you are free from the consequences of speech?

Yeah, I would 100% agree that those Trump Loyalists jumping on this issue are hypocrites, but the broad left need to take a good look at themselves in regard to their carry on over the past while. Did they really think that carry on was not going to bite them in the ass, when a more right-wing president with autocratic tendencies was not going to use their own words against them?

The man wrote a MAGA children's book called 'The Plot against the King' and is now heading up the FBI. If him wearing an LFC tie to a Senate hearing was the worst of it, America would be getting off rather lucky.

Its never been reported on, so we take it at face value.

And yet, here you have Pam Bondi doing EXACTLY what you think the left do.

Note, she is only taking aim at those who aren't really feeling any remorse for Kirks death, but she was totally fine with his rhetoric while he was alive…pot, kettle, is that you?

Yeah, I would 100% agree that those Trump Loyalists jumping on this issue are hypocrites, but the broad left need to take a good look at themselves in regard to their carry on over the past while. Did they really think that carry on was not going to bite them in the ass, when a more right-wing president with autocratic tendencies was not going to use their own words against them?

How has this got anything to do with Kirks shooting? So far, there is very little evidence to point to this being a left-wing based person, so you are either hoping it is, or being deliberately ignorant.

Free speech and all that…

I am joking, of course.

Em, did you miss the part where I said that the Trump loyalists are hypocrites?

Don't shoot the messenger, so. My comment was a general one regarding both sides using Free Speech and the crackdown on it, to further their own aims. Thats the issue really. Dont bring a knife to a gunfight.