LogFAQs > #986422447

darkknight109 posted...

"Again, those comments would get you fired from most jobs, regardless of who the victim was."

It doesn't feel like it would.

Only a handful of people who openly supported the murder of Heather Heyer ever saw consequences for it.

None of the Republicans who openly called for violence against trans people... amended: openly called for hate crimes to be committed against trans people before footage of the shooter was even released aren't facing consequences.

People don't get fired for laughing at Rittenhouse's murder victims, but there sure seem to be public consequences for calling him a quite supremacist when he hangs out with white supremacist militias and flashing white supremacist signs.

Kilmeade keeps his job for talking about murdering homeless people with a fake apology.

The comments getting people fired are only getting people on the left fired. No one on the right saying the same things for different victims is getting fired.

The victim totally matters when it comes to who get fired.

darkknight109 posted...

You say that he was not simply someone with noxious views, then go on to list all his noxious views. Do you not see the disconnect there?

Keyword, I think, in his argument is "simply."

Charlie Kirk wasn't the guy at the water cooler making an off-color joke about black people. His views weren't just reprehensible, they served as a call to action and to violence.

There's noxious and then there's actively leveraging and influencing the administration to harm trans people and genocide Palestinians, in two examples.

I don't think there's a disconnect for anyone in looking at the scale of his words and views, and then recognizing the impact they have on his followers and policy that directly affects people.

It's not "simply noxious views," because it's incitement to political violence using (among other things) the levers of power.

That's my read, if it's worth anything.

darkknight109 posted...

But you can do all that without mocking his murder. That's where the line is drawn and I think it's a good place for it.

That line is only ever drawn for people on the left. That's the crux of his argument, isn't it?

It's not whether or not he can mock someone's death, but that others are given license and liberty to do so without consequence.

darkknight109 posted...

Me, I think the second one is the problem. If you do too, then why are you advocating for more of it?

Because going high when they've gone low has been a consistently losing proposition?

Also, half of the "mocking" I've seen on other social media amounts to speaking truth to power/punching up, and doing it with some sarcasm on their tongue.

But that's enough for a termination for someone on the left while the entire right wing is posting for war and literal blood in the streets and keeps getting to punch in each morning.

It's just fucked, man. And doing the right and noble thing to not even speak truth in any tone of voice for fear of reprisal has left the marketplace of ideas selling only one thing unchallenged.