LogFAQs > #986428503

LightSnake posted...

This is an omission and I know you know the difference here. This isn't just "bad publicity," this cannot be divorced from the President and his Admin's open threats to retaliate against private actors. We have private companies and donors do things specifically because they are afraid of retaliation.

I'm not suggesting that's not a horrendous overreach of governmental power, but I'm unconvinced it actually did anything in this specific case. Gretchen's remarks were what I would consider fireable, even without Trump admin fuckery.

LightSnake posted...

Yeah, that's happening, too.

It is and it's bad. But, like I said, that's a different conversation, because whether or not someone's remarks on Charlie Kirk's death constitute a fireable offence depends significantly on what exactly was in those remarks. For instance, few reasonable people, even amongst Kirk's most ardent detractors, would suggest that the teacher who got let go for showing their class of 10- and 11-year-olds Kirk's killing and remarking several times that he deserved to die didn't earn their dismissal. By the same token, most reasonable people will agree that the broadcaster who said that Kirk was "no saint" was being perfectly fair and should not have been fired.

Hence why I'm trying to keep this on the subject of Gretchen's remarks specifically.

LightSnake posted...

"As soon as you do it?" It's happened. That's here. This already happened. The double standard has been established.

Yes, but right now the left can reasonably call for people to be fired who mock the deaths of, say, trans individuals or victims of police brutality to lose their jobs. If we then turn around and say, "Oh, but this person attacked a public figure on the right, so they shouldn't be fired," that's a pretty clear-cut case of hypocrisy.

Either you're OK with mocking murder victims (in at least some circumstances) or you're not. Personally, I'm not willing to go down that road, no matter how vile the victim is. I would hope most reasonable people would agree.

LightSnake posted...

And again, "don't celebrate murder" is not an equal, level set of standards because not all victims are equal.

So who gets to make the call as to which murder victims are OK to mock and which ones are off limits?

If you're open to the idea that some murder victims are OK to mock but not all, you kind of lose the justification to complain about Gretchen's firing because her employer decided, "Charlie Kirk is one of those victims we think isn't OK to mock."

LightSnake posted...

Which ties back to how we are policing the marginalized in how they respond to the deaths of people who openly wish for harm upon them. Again, let us discuss this honestly and seriously:

Kirk made a living on preaching hate and inspiring harm against people like Gretchen Felker Martin. He wanted Gretchen Felker Martin harmed. He did not want her to exist. He preached that hate his entire life.

By the same token, would you be doing this if a gay person said "Burn In Hell Fred Phelps" when he died? Should that fall under the same umbrella? Isn't it a little shitty we are enforcing this standard?

Fred Phelps wasn't murdered, so somewhat different circumstances there. That said, as Kirk himself discovered, in his last moments in this plane of existence, the anger you send out in the world has a nasty way of returning to you in ways you don't like or expect.

But to your point, I don't believe in giving minority groups, even those facing tremendous discrimination like trans people, some sort of "moral pass" to do things that no one else is allowed to do without consequence. I mean, what would it look like if DC said, "Ordinarily we would fire Gretchen for what she said, but she's trans so we've decided it's OK."

If a target is fair game for mockery, it's fair game for all.

LightSnake posted...

I am not sure how you fail to see that.,

I explained it here: "MAGA going after people who are saying relatively benign things is wrong. I've said so in this topic already. That doesn't suddenly justify celebrating murder."

LightSnake posted...

Every standard should be taken in its full context. If Richard Sackler was shot by someone addicted to opiates and people celebrated it (note: I am not saying this should happen at all) for the harm he had done, then should we be attacking them for "celebrating murder?"

YES.

Again, don't celebrate murder. It's really not that difficult.

We can acknowledge that some people - including murder victims - did shitty things without celebrating their deaths.