Charlie Kirk.

Others have been pointing out irony elsewhere in this thread, but here's another example. It took you 6 min to respond to my post pointing out how you casually dismissed the humanity of two named individuals - the kind of othering you'd no doubt abhor if it was done by someone from the "far right". When I provided incontrovertible evidence supporting my very simple assertions (that Charlie Kirk was a husband and father, and that JK Rowling is a successful author) you dismissed it within 13 min with a smart arse comment without in any way engaging with the content of the posts you quoted, and not providing any evidence for your assertions. You're a great man for demanding evidence, sources and proof (and I use the word "demanding" advisedly), but not quite so great when the shoe is on the other foot. 40 hrs have passed since I asked for (note: asked for, not demanded) evidence for your assertions regarding Kirk and Rowling. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as many weeks have passed since I asked you to stand up your characterisation of me as a liar - your response: exactly nothing. Full marks for consistency at any rate.

if not Nazis , why are they acting like them ?

"Comparing it to Germany 1933, the difference is Hitler got in early and neutralized any opposition."

Yes he neutralized the left-wing opposition (chiefly Social Democrats & Communists) after the Reichstag fire (27 February 1933) using it as an excuse.

The significance of the Kirk assassination is being hyped by Trump appointees as some sort of 'turning point', a warning of a threat from 'the left' that requires strong action. There are undeniable similarities.

I am in favour of protections against hate speech that are made in good faith

This is the line I draw. I think speech made in good faith should be protected broadly, with exceptions where that speech is clear incitement to violence or hatred.

Eg, If I am making an argument that climate change is not real because I sincerely do not believe that there is evidence to support climate change, then this is a good faith argument (even if it is wrong)

However, If I am someone who has deliberately doctored data to falsely claim that there is no evidence for climate change, then this is a bad faith argument, and it should not be protected.

I would put regulations in the press and mainstream media to protect the public against bad faith speech. Where it can be demonstrated that someone is wilfully deceiving in their arguments then this is not in the public interest and it should be possible to take a case against them to force a retraction. If that same person routinely repeats those same bad faith arguments, they should be guilty of an offense.

In social media, similar standards should apply. We have seen the absolute enormous damage that deliberately false and misleading claims can do to society. We are in a post information age world. We are in the disinformation age. Information has been weaponised to the point where our entire civilisation is at risk.

Bad faith arguments make online discourse impossible. It is impossible to have a debate with someone who will just lie right to your face, repeatedly knowing that they are lying. It is impossible to weed out disinformation if every good faith actor is outnumbered by a thousand bots and shills and ideologues who are deliberately and demonstrably falsifying informaiton. Especially when they are given a platform and legitimacy on mainstream avenues and never challenged on their lies or distortions.

Sometimes the people you call a Nazi, are actually Fascists

Kirk was a fascist, he supported a fascist in government, and now that fascist is going to use his death as pretext to do lots of very fascist things

Ultimately, it doesn't matter who Robinson was, Trump and Miller and Vance are just looking for any excuse to crack down on their political opposition (even more harshly than they already have done)

Trump has now introduced the thought police. If you don't show the gestapo that you're a supporter of the regime, you are at risk of being targetted by the Trump regime.

Well I never said anything about Civil War, it was you who brought it up and keep doing so.

I'm more concerned about some of the rhetoric, for example:

"Speaking on a memorial edition of The Charlie Kirk Show – hosted by JD Vance, the vice-president – Stephen Miller, Mr Trump’s deputy chief of staff, vowed to “disrupt, dismantle and destroy” Left-wing groups that organise political violence

“We are going to channel all of the anger that we have over the organised campaign that led to this assassination, to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks,” he said."

White House announces crackdown on ‘terrorist’ Left

What 'organised campaign' led to Kirk being shot by a lone 22 year old, allegedly.

Is it the cult of the celebrity, like the shooting of people like John Lennon or Gianni Versace? Seems more likely to me.