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

[Hound of Heaven]

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.

For all who are reading this, let me remind you of what our board moderator Canpakes mentioned regarding the assassination of CHARLIE Kirk. Canpakes said in a rather unpleasant manner, "Hi CHARLIE, Pretty amazing shot, wasn't that?" !!

Let’s examine another troubling situation that frequently arises in law enforcement to illustrate a point and highlight the reprehensible nature of Canpakes for mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Years ago, I had to view a video of one of my closest friends being raped to determine if I could recognize the rapist and his friends who were present during the incident. The camera was on a school, approximately 150 feet away, resulting in subpar picture quality. But it was still quite terrible to witness the men extracting her from the vehicle, removing her pants, and observing the man engaging for a duration of at least a minute to a minute and a half. As I watched this video, I was in the room with a technician who repeatedly played it back, allowing us to try to identify the suspects. Including myself, there were five people in the room; I remember it as if it were yesterday.

What Canpakes is doing by admiring the accuracy of the shot that the assassin used to kill Charlie Kirk is akin to one of the five men in the room during the time we were watching my friend being raped, shouting out, "that guy in the video has good thrusting technique, I admire his stamina!" The statement made by Canpakes is truly reprehensible.

Once again, Canpakes, claiming that the assassin's shot at Charlie was "PRETTY AMAZING " is akin to watching a video of someone being raped and then expressing admiration for the rapist's ability to thrust like a porn star while on top of his victim.

You do realize you're admiring the actions of an assassin, a murderer. Would you also admire the actions of a rapist if his technique was good?

Get a life!!

[ceeboo]

I am receptive to considering an alternative perspective, but i can't see one right now.

Perhaps the reason you can't see one is that it's not visible. Perhaps it's not of the material world.

Perhaps the reason that you (like me - and I would suspect millions of others) are deeply struggling to accept the stunning reality that American citizens are laughing about, and celebrating, and mocking, the public assassination of a young father and husband, an Amercian citizen, is because to accept such a mind-bending reality, we would be forced to consider evil - literal evil - where evil comes from - and all of the very weighty implications that are attached to merely considering such a thing.

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

I wish it were just about this board. It is not.

It is beyond sad.

[canpakes]

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

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

For all who are reading this, let me remind you of what our board moderator Canpakes mentioned regarding the assassination of CHARLIE Kirk. Canpakes said in a rather unpleasant manner, "Hi CHARLIE, Pretty amazing shot, wasn't that?" !!

More spineless MAGA whining.

1. When Whiskey self-identified as Charlie in that thread, would it not be respectful to address him as Charlie?

2. Remember when Hurricane Katrina wreaked an amazing amount of damage upon the Gulf Coast? Is saying so a celebratory or depraved statement?

Every time you avoid the question, you prove my point. Thanks.

[Whiskey]

I am receptive to considering an alternative perspective, but i can't see one right now.

Perhaps the reason you can't see one is that it's not visible. Perhaps it's not of the material world.

Perhaps the reason that you (like me - and I would suspect millions of others) are deeply struggling to accept the stunning reality that American citizens are laughing about, and celebrating, and mocking, the public assassination of a young father and husband, an Amercian citizen, is because to accept such a mind-bending reality, we would be forced to consider evil - literal evil - where evil comes from - and all of the very weighty implications that are attached to merely considering such a thing.

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

I wish it were just about this board. It is not.

It is beyond sad.

Thank you, ceeboo.

My sentiment exactly. Today, particularly the apologetics for the amazing shot comment, is significant. The process of gang apologetics for a despicable comment isn't just a rally, it is more than that. The depravity line may be the Rubicon. And, the gaslighting that any interpretation of "amazing shot" by an assassin, other than the convenient disgusting interpretation is not plausible or real - that is not a L on the forehead, that is just a threat to common sense.

[canpakes]

My sentiment exactly. Today, particularly the apologetics for the amazing shot comment, is significant. The process of gang apologetics for a despicable comment isn't just a rally, it is more than that. The depravity line may be the Rubicon. And, the gaslighting that any interpretation of "amazing shot" by an assassin, other than the convenient disgusting interpretation is not plausible or real - that is not a L on the forehead, that is just a threat to common sense.

Let me know when you get your courage up to tackle the question. I can ask as often as you can dodge. ; )

[Whiskey]

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



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

For all who are reading this, let me remind you of what our board moderator Canpakes mentioned regarding the assassination of CHARLIE Kirk. Canpakes said in a rather unpleasant manner, "Hi CHARLIE, Pretty amazing shot, wasn't that?" !!

Let’s examine another troubling situation that frequently arises in law enforcement to illustrate a point and highlight the reprehensible nature of Canpakes for mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Years ago, I had to view a video of one of my closest friends being raped to determine if I could recognize the rapist and his friends who were present during the incident. The camera was on a school, approximately 150 feet away, resulting in subpar picture quality. But it was still quite terrible to witness the men extracting her from the vehicle, removing her pants, and observing the man engaging for a duration of at least a minute to a minute and a half. As I watched this video, I was in the room with a technician who repeatedly played it back, allowing us to try to identify the suspects. Including myself, there were five people in the room; I remember it as if it were yesterday.

What Canpakes is doing by admiring the accuracy of the shot that the assassin used to kill Charlie Kirk is akin to one of the five men in the room during the time we were watching my friend being raped, shouting out, "that guy in the video has good thrusting technique, I admire his stamina!" The statement made by Canpakes is truly reprehensible.

Once again, Canpakes, claiming that the assassin's shot at Charlie was "PRETTY AMAZING " is akin to watching a video of someone being raped and then expressing admiration for the rapist's ability to thrust like a porn star while on top of his victim.

You do realize you're admiring the actions of an assassin, a murderer. Would you also admire the actions of a rapist if his technique was good?

Get a life!!

Hound of Heaven, your OP has certainly kept my attention.

If the shot was 5 yards shorter, would it have met the amazing threshold for academia, those who are wang chunging tonight, and the amazed canpakes? What about 37 yards shorter? What does canpakes and the tenured professor know about the target, wind, elevation, slope and distance that could, given the benefit of doubt, justify their ballistic amazement? If the shot had been taken at 17 feet, would it have been an amazing shot? How can a shot be technically amazing at the known distance, with a scope and not iron?

The answer to all of that, while you may entertain the questions, is that those trying to walk back the praise for the assassin, are incapable of doing so. They wouldn't do so without the cover of gang apologetics and anonymity. I mean, really truly, a tenured professor would be fired tomorrow if he walked down to the quad of his campus and sat at the table with a sign saying, "the shot that killed Kirk was an amazing shot, prove me wrong."

[canpakes]

If the shot was 5 yards shorter, would it have met the amazing threshold for academia, those who are wang chunging tonight, and the amazed canpakes? What about 37 yards shorter?

Nope.

I mean, really truly, a tenured professor would be fired tomorrow if he walked down to the quad of his campus and sat at the table with a sign saying, "the shot that killed Kirk was an amazing shot, prove me wrong."

Sounds like a topic Charlie Kirk would have taken on.

That would probably be an amazing debate. He apparently was more courageous than you, by a long shot.

[Kishkumen]

The OP is exactly right to draw a line between dissent and depravity. That line may not be blurred in this case — it was crossed. To describe an assassination with the phrase “pretty amazing shot” isn’t some sterile remark about ballistics. In common English usage, “amazing shot” is celebratory language. It is the vocabulary of praise — the same words you’d hear courtside at a basketball game, at a shooting range, or in a hunting camp.

A professor’s attempt to reframe this as nothing more than a technical observation of firearm accuracy is disingenuous. If the intent were purely descriptive, neutral language exists: “a long-range hit,” “a 150 yard shot,” “an accurate placement.” None of those terms carry an embedded compliment. “Amazing shot” does. That’s not a matter of interpretation — it’s linguistics, tone, and context all working together.

As the OP notes, the follow-up post sharing a video of someone reveling in the assassin’s precision makes the meaning even clearer: the comment was understood by others as celebratory. The subsequent apology tour is simply an attempt to walk it back after the fact.

Free expression without risk of tenure loss is not the issue here — no one is arguing these words can’t be spoken. The issue is that within a community discussing the assassination of a husband and father, choosing words that amount to applause for the assassin is depravity. To defend those words as mere “observation” is to deny the plain meaning and effect of language.

The OP asked how one could possibly arrive at a different conclusion. You can’t, not honestly. The words, the context, and the reinforcement by others make the intent unmistakable. On-campus or forum defense doesn’t change that — it only deepens the insult by gaslighting the community as if they can’t tell the difference between a neutral description and a compliment.

I can’t help you in your failed attempt to flatten the meaning of amazing to always refer to something one approves of morally. Your inability to imagine other possibilities that do in fact exist is not a tribute to your interpretive powers. No matter how many times you insist that amazing can only mean what you say, you will not be able to make reality conform to your will and rhetorical ability. I am not saying you are a bad writer. I am saying that not even your good writing can overcome the problem of your bad thinking.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

If the shot was 5 yards shorter, would it have met the amazing threshold for academia, those who are wang chunging tonight, and the amazed canpakes? What about 37 yards shorter?

Nope.

I mean, really truly, a tenured professor would be fired tomorrow if he walked down to the quad of his campus and sat at the table with a sign saying, "the shot that killed Kirk was an amazing shot, prove me wrong."

Sounds like a topic Charlie Kirk would have taken on.

That would probably be an amazing debate. He apparently was more courageous than you, by a long shot.

You really hit the bull's-eye with that observation, Canpakes. Whiskey certainly has a hair trigger temper when it comes to Charlie Kirk and was locked and loaded for an argument from the start. It's too bad he's run out of ammunition.

[canpakes]

I am saying that not even your good writing can overcome the problem of your bad thinking.

I’ve got a betting pool going to see how many times these two dodge the question because they know they’re stuck.

At least I’m getting them to work out some logical thinking processes. That’s a win for everyone, sooner or later.