The Line Between Free Speech And Glorified Depravity Just Got Erased!

[Hound of Heaven]

In my view, there is a distinction between dissent and depravity, and it saddens me to say that I believe that line was recently crossed in another thread when one of our fellow board members asked a board member during a discussion about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, "PRETTY AMAZING SHOT, WASN'T THAT?". Is this a new benchmark for the board? If that’s the case, then I suppose congratulations are in order, as I believe the board has transitioned from toxic to perilous based on what this post from a board member reveals about the two individuals involved.

To clarify, I am not misunderstanding the implications of the troubling post, as the subsequent post from a friend of the individual included a video featuring a far-left extremist expressing satisfaction that the assassin's bullet hit its intended target. This indicates that he comprehended the true meaning of the offensive post and reinforced it with a message demonstrating their shared belief that Kirk's assassination was a positive outcome.

I still maintain that discourse does not need to be fueled by aggression. If you have a different perspective, perhaps consider what our purpose is on this board as we commemorate the passing of a father and a husband. Charlie Kirk doesn't deserve what just happened to his memory on this board.

Please, could someone go over to the other thread and read the actual posts from the two individuals I'm referring to? I'm not posting it here, someone else can, but I'm not doing it. I would appreciate an explanation of how I could possibly arrive at a different conclusion from what I've stated here. I am receptive to considering an alternative perspective, but i can't see one right now.

To view the two posts I’m referring to, please visit the Dancing on Graves, Lose Your Job: The Progressive Tango thread and check page 7. Its the very first post, succeeded by a second one in which another user endorses the disturbing implications of the first on page 7 by sharing a video of a man reveling in the assassin's precision.

Today marks a significant moment for the board, and I feel a sense of sadness.

[Kishkumen]

You mean, on the thread YOU started to GLOAT over people being FIRED for not having the right views on Charilie Kirk's death? THAT thread? You know, people with families, loved ones, friends, a need to make a living. You think they should lose their jobs because they exercised their free speech rights in ways that you do not approve of. YOU, the person who goes apoplectic over the WOKE MOB and its CANCEL CULTURE. Well, I guess we now see the limits of your valuation of free speech. Speech should be unfettered until it offends YOU. When it does offend you, it is obviously depraved and should result in jobs lost and lives destroyed. If those posts are grotesque, you are every bit as grotesque and probably more so, since you probably don't genuinely care about anything but stirring up trouble. You weep crocodile tears.

Personally, I think the death of Charlie Kirk was sad. He was a human being, a person who loved and was loved. He was an icon for a generation of young people. That said, I want to live in a country where people are not a bunch of lefty or righty SNOWFLAKES, who want different opinions from the ones they hold quashed by any means necessary. Charlie Kirk stood for that. What do you ACTUALLY stand for?

[Hound of Heaven]

You think they should lose their jobs because they exercised their free speech rights

Ah yes, it's great to hear from our resident board republican, Mr. YouTube Superstar himself, Kishkumen!

Let me clarify my understanding, you are a professor trying to compare being fired from a job to being fired at by an assassin and killed? You are definitely a talented individual, great job!

You're correct, I initiated a thread regarding individuals who lost their jobs due to their boastful reactions to a man's assassination. Rather than addressing the core issue presented in my initial post, the two board members I mentioned chose to divert the conversation, indulging in the details of the assassin's remarkable precision. They took it to a dark place, not me!

Since you mentioned free speech and expressed your admiration for it, why not share what might occur if you stood in front of your classroom today and conveyed to your students how much you appreciate the precision of the assassin's rifle shot? Additionally, could you share your thoughts on whether it is appropriate for businesses to terminate employees who publicly celebrate the death of an individual who was assassinated? Do colleges not have a code of conduct for faculty that extends beyond the classroom, particularly when off-duty behavior poses a risk to the institution's reputation? Could you provide an honest answer to that question?

[Kishkumen]

Let me clarify my understanding, you are a professor trying to compare being fired from a job to being fired at by an assassin and killed? You are definitelya talentedindividual, great job!

I wish I could help you learn to read, but unfortunately your distance from me makes that very challenging. So, let me clarify it for you. No, I was not comparing the two things. I was saying that it is ALSO awful to gloat about people losing their jobs.

Please get help.

You're correct, I initiated a thread regarding individuals who lost their jobs due to their boastful reactions to a man's assassination. Rather than addressing the core issue presented in my initial post, the two board members I mentioned chose to divert the conversation, indulging in the details of the assassin's remarkable precision. They took it to a dark place, not me!

You are already in a dark place. You don't have to go there. You entered the board in a dark place. You continue to occupy a dark place, and you are engaged in dark business. No one is fooled by your chicanery.

Since you mentioned free speech and expressed your admiration for it, why not share what might occur if you stood in front of your classroom today and conveyed to your students how much you appreciate the precision of the assassin's rifle shot? Additionally, could you share your thoughts on whether it is appropriate for businesses to terminate employees who publicly celebrate the death of an individual who was assassinated? Do colleges not have a code of conduct for faculty that extends beyond the classroom, particularly when off-duty behavior poses a risk to the institution's reputation? Could you provide an honest answer to that question?

Because you have been caught in your hypocrisy, you try to shift the burden on me. Not so fast, pal. You tell me about your great love for free speech and how that prompts you to gloat over people losing their jobs. I mean, you were the one WHINING LIKE A BABY about CANCEL CULTURE! LOL!!! You were the one asking about why people don't have freedom of speech to say things that other people find offensive! My God, man, grow a pair and actually stand up for SOME principle or other. You either care about people's tender feelings or you are concerned about cancel culture.

Where I have stood has always been crystal clear, and I have not deviated from it. I have always believed that free speech should be tempered by a concern for the feelings of others. I thought that before, and I think that now. YOU, however, can't make up your mind. And, I think the reason for that is obvious. You are really interested in driving wedges, turning people on each other, and the exercise of power over the people you hate. Admit it, for crying out loud.

[Hound of Heaven]

Let me clarify my understanding, you are a professor trying to compare being fired from a job to being fired at by an assassin and killed? You are definitelya talentedindividual, great job!

I wish I could help you learn to read, but unfortunately your distance from me makes that very challenging. So, let me clarify it for you. No, I was not comparing the two things. I was saying that it is ALSO awful to gloat about people losing their jobs.

Please get help.

You're correct, I initiated a thread regarding individuals who lost their jobs due to their boastful reactions to a man's assassination. Rather than addressing the core issue presented in my initial post, the two board members I mentioned chose to divert the conversation, indulging in the details of the assassin's remarkable precision. They took it to a dark place, not me!

You are already in a dark place. You don't have to go there. You entered the board in a dark place. You continue to occupy a dark place, and you are engaged in dark business. No one is fooled by your chicanery.

Since you mentioned free speech and expressed your admiration for it, why not share what might occur if you stood in front of your classroom today and conveyed to your students how much you appreciate the precision of the assassin's rifle shot? Additionally, could you share your thoughts on whether it is appropriate for businesses to terminate employees who publicly celebrate the death of an individual who was assassinated? Do colleges not have a code of conduct for faculty that extends beyond the classroom, particularly when off-duty behavior poses a risk to the institution's reputation? Could you provide an honest answer to that question?

Because you have been caught in your hypocrisy, you try to shift the burden on me. Not so fast, pal. You tell me about your great love for free speech and how that prompts you to gloat over people losing their jobs. I mean, you were the one WHINING LIKE A BABY about CANCEL CULTURE! LOL!!! You were the one asking about why people don't have freedom of speech to say things that other people find offensive! My God, man, grow a pair and actually stand up for SOME principle or other. You either care about people's tender feelings or you are concerned about cancel culture.

Where I have stood has always been crystal clear, and I have not deviated from it. I have always believed that free speech should be tempered by a concern for the feelings of others. I thought that before, and I think that now. YOU, however, can't make up your mind. And, I think the reason for that is obvious. You are really interested in driving wedges, turning people on each other, and the exercise of power over the people you hate. Admit it, for crying out loud.

Although you hold the title of professor, I will proceed at a measured pace and approach this as if you were one of my grandchildren. This means I will simplify the information so that it can be easily understood, much like explaining it to a 5-year-old, in order to help you grasp the truths I am sharing.

Here’s a straightforward word for you to grasp, ready? Here it is: EXACTLY!! You did it, I'm so proud of you!! I believe individuals should face consequences if they express views on Charlie Kirk's death that are not aligned with the code of conduct of the business THEY CHOOSE to work for, especially when they choose to share their opinions on a public social media platform.

As I mentioned, I am treating you as if you are one of my grandchildren, so I kindly ask that you read this carefully. Imagine being employed by a prominent company that upholds a code of conduct extending beyond the workplace. Instead of adhering to this code, you prioritize your freedom of expression and share a video online expressing your disdain for black individuals. Do you believe that the business is justified in terminating that individual for jeopardizing the institution's reputation? I do, because the individual was racist!

It's important to recognize that individuals have the right to free speech, and I believe we share that understanding. However, I see it differently in that if someone desires unrestricted free speech while engaging online, they also have the option to establish their own business and create their own rules. This way, they can express their views freely, but if they choose to work for a company that isn't theirs, they must follow the established code of conduct. Would you concur with this perspective, professor?

[Kishkumen]

I believe individuals should face consequences if they express views on Charlie Kirk's death that are not aligned with the code of conduct of the business THEY CHOOSE to work for, especially when they choose to share their opinions on a public social media platform.

I am glad that you believe that everyone, including right-wing bigots, should face consequences if they say things that cause hurt to many people. I expect you to call for the firing of Jesse Waters and many other radical right-wing pols and talking heads who stoked hatred against Democrats by falsely blaming them, not the man who pulled the trigger, for Charlie Kirk's death. That was wildly irresponsible, and you believe, so you say, there should be consequences. I expect that you will want to set the example and stand by your principles by contacting every so-called Republican or so-called conservative who irresponsibly acted in this way and calling for them to step down from elected office or resign from their job because they irresonsibly called for retribution against an entire political party when they had no idea who it was that had killed Charlie Kirk.

You had better get to work right away, as that is a really long list.

Or perhaps you don't REALLY believe what you are writing. I suspect that my last post was right on the money in supposing that what you believe in is obtaining and exercising unjust power over the people you hate. You could always prove me wrong by blind copying me on all the emails you will be sending to FoxNews, Congress, the White House, and other places demanding resignations and firings for incendiary calls to suppress and infringe on the rights of people who hold different political views from MAGA and did not kill Charlie Kirk.

I am sure you already know my email address.

[Gadianton]

I think it's an important topic and I thank Hound for bringing it up.

Free speech and depravity aren't on a continuum for which a line could be drawn somewhere. That's incoherent. The continuum is between free and limited speech. Free speech allows for depraved speech. If you don't believe so, you don't believe in free speech. That's not necessarily bad, I think there could be a healthy debate over whether free speech is a proper ideal, or whether speech should be "relatively" free rather than absolutely free.

The "line" that we should worry about is a possible line that protects free-speech from self-destructing. It's the basic observation that anarchy isn't stable. I didn't know much about the victim, I had no idea this person was so popular. On both sides, clips of this person "debating" are circulating like crazy on social media. If you take the laundry list of supposedly reprehensible things this individual said, my concern is mainly about the things said and the actions that rapidly advance an agenda to end free speech. If the present administration gets its way, there will be no travelling the country to debate college students, because any college student who questions the president will be deemed unamerican and arrested. This is the world Hound wishes to bring about.

[Kishkumen]

If the present administration gets its way, there will be no travelling the country to debate college students, because any college student who questions the president will be deemed unamerican and arrested. This is the world Hound wishes to bring about.

That is my concern. I think it is very telling that the firing of those who say anything slightly off about Charlie Kirk is celebrated, while those right-wing figures who irresponsibly called for war against Democrats after Kirk's death don't even raise an eyebrow of disapproval. It seems pretty clear to me that for the Right this is about power, not about decorum.

[canpakes]

Hound, are you arguing against the precision of that shot? It was amazingly precise, in my own opinion.

Do you yell at people at target ranges? Or firearms owners in general? Or do you just enjoy using the death of others to propagate faux rage in service to divisiveness and political propaganda? Explain.

[canpakes]

You mean, on the thread YOU started to GLOAT over people being FIRED for not having the right views on Charilie Kirk's death? THAT thread? You know, people with families, loved ones, friends, a need to make a living. You think they should lose their jobs because they exercised their free speech rights in ways that you do not approve of. YOU, the person who goes apoplectic over the WOKE MOB and its CANCEL CULTURE. Well, I guess we now see the limits of your valuation of free speech. Speech should be unfettered until it offends YOU. When it does offend you, it is obviously depraved and should result in jobs lost and lives destroyed. If those posts are grotesque, you are every bit as grotesque and probably more so, since you probably don't genuinely care about anything but stirring up trouble. You weep crocodile tears.

This fellow expresses the issue pretty well. He speaks to the difference between how some people are reacting versus how MAGA wants to disingenuously portray those reactions:

https://x.com/naretevduorp/status/19673 ... 44292?s=42

Personally, I think the death of Charlie Kirk was sad. He was a human being, a person who loved and was loved. He was an icon for a generation of young people. That said, I want to live in a country where people are not a bunch of lefty or righty SNOWFLAKES, who want different opinions from the ones they hold quashed by any means necessary. Charlie Kirk stood for that. What do you ACTUALLY stand for?

It’s almost depressingly easy to expose many MAGA folks for the authoritarian snowflakes that they actually are.