Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

Anonymous wrote:I totally support firing a person that cheers the death of a fellow American. You just have to be a psycho to do that.

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wear their Lui gi shirts and green today?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mindset of these idiots:

“He deserved to die for his opinions but it is horribly evil if I get fired for mine.”

No one is saying he deserved to die for his opinions. But he did just happen to die while scapegoating a marginalized population in an attempt to explain away our nation’s very real problem with gun violence. According to Charlie, deaths like his are just the price we have to pay for a Second Amendment. Or maybe he was just referring to the death of other people’s 6-year old kids as the price we need to pay?

Plenty of people have said he deserved to die for his opinions. Far more than I believed to be true. It’s gross and I am glad they are being tracked and reported to their employers and schools.

"It's gross" say the same people who had absolutely no problem with Trump's MAGA hordes chanting "hang Mike Pence" and bringing a gallows to the US Capitol. The same people who celebrated with that vile J6 horde that chanted it was set free from prison after violently attacking the US Capitol, smashing doors and windows, smearing shit on the walls, vandalizing and looting offices and conference rooms, taking confidential documents, and injuring over 100 police officers, several of whom died in the days following.

Anyone who voted for Trump and who still supports him doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

What do confidential documents have to do with murdering someone in front of their children and wife?

And I’d be totally fine with people being fired for gloating and cheering the death of Capitol Police officers as well. I fail to see your point.

NP. I just want to make a small correction for the record. Kirk was not shot in front of his wife and kids.

“Charlie Kirk's wife, Erika, and their two young children did not attend the rally where he was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Initial reports suggesting their presence were corrected, and no verified accounts, including Erika's statements or event coverage, confirm they were there. The family was in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time.”
-Grok

Well if Elon Musk says so

Correct the record, but if you are cheering for anyone to get murderer for having political beliefs you are scum, if their kids were present or not.

Charlie Kirk was a garden variety Christian conservative. He was just as much of a “Nazi” as Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum were 20 years ago. Only the lunatic fringe would have been cheering for their assassinations then and they would have rightly been fired from their jobs then too.

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mindset of these idiots:

“He deserved to die for his opinions but it is horribly evil if I get fired for mine.”

No one is saying he deserved to die for his opinions. But he did just happen to die while scapegoating a marginalized population in an attempt to explain away our nation’s very real problem with gun violence. According to Charlie, deaths like his are just the price we have to pay for a Second Amendment. Or maybe he was just referring to the death of other people’s 6-year old kids as the price we need to pay?

Plenty of people have said he deserved to die for his opinions. Far more than I believed to be true. It’s gross and I am glad they are being tracked and reported to their employers and schools.

"It's gross" say the same people who had absolutely no problem with Trump's MAGA hordes chanting "hang Mike Pence" and bringing a gallows to the US Capitol. The same people who celebrated with that vile J6 horde that chanted it was set free from prison after violently attacking the US Capitol, smashing doors and windows, smearing shit on the walls, vandalizing and looting offices and conference rooms, taking confidential documents, and injuring over 100 police officers, several of whom died in the days following.

Anyone who voted for Trump and who still supports him doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

What do confidential documents have to do with murdering someone in front of their children and wife?

And I’d be totally fine with people being fired for gloating and cheering the death of Capitol Police officers as well. I fail to see your point.

So, you want Trump fired then? He has made the perpetrators heroes.

I don’t care if Trump gets fired. I didn’t vote for Trump.

I do however have morals, and these people online gloating about the death of a conservative pundit in front of his wife and small kids are complete and utter scum and should rightly be cancelled and fired from their jobs.

If my employer found out I was doing cocaine on a long vacation I would 100% be fired, even if the effects wore off before I came back to work. Why would it be a less fireable offense to cheer a father getting shot in the neck and bleeding out in front of his two small children because I didn’t agree with his politics?

We need to bring the fear of going to Hell and/or God back. Far too many ghouls out there with no souls.

I agree that anyone cheering Charlie Kirk's death is disgusting. BUT saying that he peddled hate is NOT CHEERING HIS DEATH.

Most of the people that are coming out in the press DID NOT CHEER HIS DEATH.

It’s really telling how ashamed they are of Charlie Kirk’s own words.

Anonymous wrote:There is a fundamental difference between the cancel culture that the left engages in and the “canceling” that the right is doing in the wake of Charlie's assassination and the left's celebration of it.

The difference is that the left will cancel you for saying objectively true, good, normal things.

To the extent the right cancels you, it's for objectively abhorrent, perverse, sick things.

This distinction matters. For years, the problem with the left's attack on speech is not just that they're attacking speech, but that they're attacking true and right speech.

They want you to be fired for saying men can't have babies, women don't have penises.

The problem isn't simply trying to get you fired for saying something. They want to punish truth, and that will always be worse, obviously, significantly worse.

There is a difference between the statement 'Men aren't women' and the statement 'Charlie Kirk deserved to die because he was a fascist, Nazi, racist, bigot.'

What's the difference? The first statement is the most obviously true thing anyone can ever say.

The second statement is not only a lie that smears the good name of an innocent man, but also implicitly encourages violence against millions of people who agree with his politics.

The idea that we can't advocate social consequences without accepting or approving such consequences for the former statement is asinine.

The idea that society must treat all speech exactly the same is ludicrous.

I don't think that such ranting should be made illegal. I don't think the people celebrating Charlie's death should be banned by the government from saying those things. But it is good that they are humiliated and must live with the repercussions for it.

Free speech does not mean that we should act with anything but revulsion and disgust to people who say revolting and disgusting things.

Take the nurse. Her first reaction was to cuss out his kids and their mother and gloat about the murder.

That kind of statement is not just an expression of opinion. It is a revelation of character of someone who is barely human at this point.

It's the character of someone who should be shunned and alienated by society.

Not through force of law, not through legislation or legal consequence, certainly not through violence, but through social rejection.

Because people who cuss out the children of men who are murdered on live TV deserve to be treated as monsters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mindset of these idiots:

“He deserved to die for his opinions but it is horribly evil if I get fired for mine.”

No one is saying he deserved to die for his opinions. But he did just happen to die while scapegoating a marginalized population in an attempt to explain away our nation’s very real problem with gun violence. According to Charlie, deaths like his are just the price we have to pay for a Second Amendment. Or maybe he was just referring to the death of other people’s 6-year old kids as the price we need to pay?

Plenty of people have said he deserved to die for his opinions. Far more than I believed to be true. It’s gross and I am glad they are being tracked and reported to their employers and schools.

"It's gross" say the same people who had absolutely no problem with Trump's MAGA hordes chanting "hang Mike Pence" and bringing a gallows to the US Capitol. The same people who celebrated with that vile J6 horde that chanted it was set free from prison after violently attacking the US Capitol, smashing doors and windows, smearing shit on the walls, vandalizing and looting offices and conference rooms, taking confidential documents, and injuring over 100 police officers, several of whom died in the days following.

Anyone who voted for Trump and who still supports him doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

What do confidential documents have to do with murdering someone in front of their children and wife?

And I’d be totally fine with people being fired for gloating and cheering the death of Capitol Police officers as well. I fail to see your point.

NP. I just want to make a small correction for the record. Kirk was not shot in front of his wife and kids.

“Charlie Kirk's wife, Erika, and their two young children did not attend the rally where he was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Initial reports suggesting their presence were corrected, and no verified accounts, including Erika's statements or event coverage, confirm they were there. The family was in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time.”
-Grok

Well if Elon Musk says so

Correct the record, but if you are cheering for anyone to get murderer for having political beliefs you are scum, if their kids were present or not.

Charlie Kirk was a garden variety Christian conservative. He was just as much of a “Nazi” as Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum were 20 years ago. Only the lunatic fringe would have been cheering for their assassinations then and they would have rightly been fired from their jobs then too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mindset of these idiots:

“He deserved to die for his opinions but it is horribly evil if I get fired for mine.”

No one is saying he deserved to die for his opinions. But he did just happen to die while scapegoating a marginalized population in an attempt to explain away our nation’s very real problem with gun violence. According to Charlie, deaths like his are just the price we have to pay for a Second Amendment. Or maybe he was just referring to the death of other people’s 6-year old kids as the price we need to pay?

Plenty of people have said he deserved to die for his opinions. Far more than I believed to be true. It’s gross and I am glad they are being tracked and reported to their employers and schools.

"It's gross" say the same people who had absolutely no problem with Trump's MAGA hordes chanting "hang Mike Pence" and bringing a gallows to the US Capitol. The same people who celebrated with that vile J6 horde that chanted it was set free from prison after violently attacking the US Capitol, smashing doors and windows, smearing shit on the walls, vandalizing and looting offices and conference rooms, taking confidential documents, and injuring over 100 police officers, several of whom died in the days following.

Anyone who voted for Trump and who still supports him doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

What do confidential documents have to do with murdering someone in front of their children and wife?

And I’d be totally fine with people being fired for gloating and cheering the death of Capitol Police officers as well. I fail to see your point.

So, you want Trump fired then? He has made the perpetrators heroes.

I don’t care if Trump gets fired. I didn’t vote for Trump.

I do however have morals, and these people online gloating about the death of a conservative pundit in front of his wife and small kids are complete and utter scum and should rightly be cancelled and fired from their jobs.

If my employer found out I was doing cocaine on a long vacation I would 100% be fired, even if the effects wore off before I came back to work. Why would it be a less fireable offense to cheer a father getting shot in the neck and bleeding out in front of his two small children because I didn’t agree with his politics?

We need to bring the fear of going to Hell and/or God back. Far too many ghouls out there with no souls.

I agree that anyone cheering Charlie Kirk's death is disgusting. BUT saying that he peddled hate is NOT CHEERING HIS DEATH.

Most of the people that are coming out in the press DID NOT CHEER HIS DEATH.

Anonymous wrote:Can DON JR BE FIRED FOR HIS post?