[dns_snek]

> the same standard of being polite and reasonable person should apply.

I'm curious how standard this "standard" is, did you (and the rest of America) mourn the death of Osama bin Laden? Did you express condolences to his family and try to remember him by the positive things he did in life?

[reliabilityguy]

> I'm curious how standard this "standard" is, did you (and the rest of America) mourn the death of Osama bin Laden? Did you express condolences to his family and try to remember him by the positive things he did in life?

Perhaps I missed the part where Charlie Kirk organized a group of guys to hijack a bunch of planes with civilians on board, and then crash them into buildings.

On a serious note, if you cannot see a difference between these two, I have no idea what to say.

[dns_snek]

Let me be more specific, how much division, hatred, pain, and violence does a person have to be responsible for before it's socially acceptable to express an opinion that the world is better off without them?

How much before it's okay to party on the streets after learning about their death?

Clearly there's a difference in magnitude between Kirk and bin Laden, but both were merchants of hate and violence, so where's the line?

If people are whitewashing his history then it's to be expected that other people will speak out to set the record straight. That's how free speech works and trying to silence it on the basis of "decorum" is dishonest and manipulative.

[reliabilityguy]

> Clearly there's a difference in magnitude between Kirk and bin Laden, but both were merchants of hate and violence, so where's the line?

To answer this question, we would have to first agree on the term "hate", and what does it mean to be a "merchant of hate". Then, we examine the evidence, and arrive to the conclusion.

So, what is "hate"? What is "merchant of hate"? Why Kirk, in your view, was one?

[dns_snek]

Hate is calling for violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s".

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-...

Are you really this unfamiliar with his work? Because if you agree with his ideology then just be honest and say that, don't try to drag people into these quasi-intellectual debates about what constitutes hate.

[reliabilityguy]

> Hate is calling for violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s".

Can you provide me a link to a source where he calls for a violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s"?

The article you provided does not prove it at all. Instead, they take something he said, and provide an interpretation of it that fits their narrative. Alternative interpretation, which is way more likely given what he said, is that man today are not as decisive w.r.t. matters of what he considers "right" and "wrong", i.e., letting transwoman compete in woman sports.

You can take these six words (i.e., "like in the 1950s and 60s") out of almost a minute monologue, and make your own interpretation (it's a free country after all). However, if your goal is to show me that he was calling for violence, then you kind of failed, because he did not do it there. If there is a video or an article where he did so, please share, I would like to learn more.

So far, I do not see hate towards minorities or transgender people.

[dns_snek]

> So far, I do not see hate towards minorities or transgender people.

That's alright, reality is what you make it, it's a free country after all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism