[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

[reliabilityguy]

> That's alright, reality is what you make it, it's a free country after all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

I hope you realize how ironic this statement of yours is

[dns_snek]

I'm not the one trying to rationalize clear calls to violence under the guise of oh gosh we can't possibly know what he meant in any one of hundreds of examples, but your continued gaslighting attempts have been noted.

You can't claim that things are being taken out of context when you can't possibly come up with context where his statements mean anything other than a call to violence when context is added.

There are HUNDREDS of these statements, but your idea of a debate seems to be declaring complete ignorance over the unambiguous meaning of most of these statements and declaring victory when the other person realizes what stripes you're really wearing and backs out.

Just to make a point, I think people like him should do what Hitler did in the end. What do I mean by this? I guess you'll never know.