Yeah, because only one side cares about language and the words we use. The other side is a bunch of disengenous fuck bags with zero beliefs outside of economics
post
I love reddit screenshots of a twitter post.
I love the fact that twitter screenshots are still racially segregated on reddit
I still can't believe they wanted people to send pictures of their arms to prove they are a person of color before posting/commenting. Okay, maybe I can believe that. What I can't believe is that anyone defended it
It was only like that for popular posts, I assume for mods to have some time to clean. You didn't have to prove shit to post or comment
We need to go deeper
It's not a screenshot, reddit changes their images so if you try the old right click save as they can tell you aren't in their app and add the frame around it for free advertising. If things get embedded then they are still getting their recognition. Not a bad idea for Lemmy tbh...
Fear of retribution by the current president is why.
It’s not like democratic presidents do shit about it
But, they shouldn't do shit about it? The president shouldn't be penalizing the media for saying things he didn't like.
I'm not complaining that the Democrat presidents let the media act like assholes, I complain that this administration tries to control the media and the media goes for it.
That's basically the playbook.
The right cries free speech, but demands everyone else's free speech be removed.

Слава Україні, Cлава Палестині.
I sure wouldn't say no if they got rid of Stephen Crowder, since he's the one in this meme.
what does "Слава" mean btw?
Fuck man. We are at peak stupid right now. Kirk was a piece of shit, the people leading the us are pieces of shit. Ceo's and leaders of racist/ fascist movements are getting shot in the streets.
The people are pissed, we are entering a tipping point
There is some notable discrepancy between how USA citizens describe their (theoretical & practical) "free speech" vs how the rest of the world sees their "free speech" in the same regard.
It's def a complex subject but I don't think a lot of people think USA is at the forefront of this.
(But it is extensively marketed - most countries/cultures/regimes have such tidbits, which differ a lot.)
Both sides are held to their own standards – but only one side actually has standards.
If you have zero standards, as does the right, what is there to hold anyone to?
Worse, when you’ve swaddled yourself in fanatic Christianity, where the only one who can judge you is a god, and he’ll forgive all your sins if you accept some guy into your heart, and the way to do that is to say you have, you can do literally anything and be accepted.
The rest of us hold each other accountable. As we should.
Don’t pine for the blind acceptance of sociopaths – it’s infernal for all of us.
Cowardice is a standard?
Depends on how you define cowardice, I guess. Care to enlighten me?
A company not standing behind its commentators who didn't even say anything false for fear of lawsuit from orange man or mob outrage.
Companies aren’t actually people and therefore cannot experience cowardice.
(e: nor the shame or stigma that accompanies it, thus their actions, and why actual cowards hide behind them.)
The media is captured by the right.
That's a VERY, VERY bad sign for our nation and democracy in general, and, historically, that's an indication that things about about to get REAL dark.
We should start printing flyers expressing views like the views this guy was fired for and posting them up all over our cities. We can't rely on the media to be able to express truth anymore. And posting said views on here or other, more censored, social media isn't going to cut it anymore. Doesn't reach enough people, and not the right people. The people on the fence. The people on the middle. The people that will end up being captured by the right because they control the media.
Yah but just release the list
Gramsci talked about this long before the 24/7 news cycles even existed. This is what the bourgeois hegemony is. Hegemony isn't defined only by the brute force of the state to enforce itself onto the people, but encompasses the ownership of cultural, political, and intellectual institutions too. The role of hegemony is to shape the views and values of the underlying classes as to make said values seem normal, organic, and timeless. This in turn will manufacture the consent the owning class needs in order to pursue its interests. As of now, the bourgeois hegemony has decided that Charlie Kirk needs to be brought on equal footing with other political activists. They have decided that the subordinate classes need to accept that Charlie Kirk's very real and tangible political activism is nothing but "opinions" in "the marketplace of ideas" and the consequences he has suffered at the hands of the system he helped build are unexpected. This is why everyone from the democrats to the republicans, from the liberal media to the conservative media is suddenly calling out "political violence" and mourning Kirk publicly. The bourgeoisie is trying to instill a new Zeitgeist and the people calling it out are a thorn in their side.
This is the absolute worst instance of what you're talking about that I've seen. I have no idea how you can say he advocated Christianity at his best. He was an effective political organizer of the conservative youth movement able to take oppressive messaging and wrap it in the vaneer of liberalism and Christian marginalization. He did this for some very powerful and monied institutions. He created a monster.
I didn't say any of that. I have no clue where you got that from
Being fired from your job over things you said has nothing to do with the right to free speech. That right means the government won't punish you. It does not stop anyone else from punishing you.
But you can easily make the argument MSNBC is suppressing there own "journalists" speech to not face backlash from the government. Just because the government isn't directly coming after an individual doesn't mean that they aren't at least attempting to suppress speech.
What if the government is putting pressure on the organization.
Then it becomes a free speech issue.
You mean like back in 2020-21, when the Biden admin was putting pressure on Twitter to ban anyone who was critical of their COVID policies, and they even ended up deplatforming the guy who pioneered mRNA vaccines?
Yup, that is classic suppression. Of course you could argue that is was for the benefit of public health as opposed to a witch hunt to get a bunch of people fired for not worshipping an alt-right propagandist.
You don't think celebrating the murder of a political enemy on national TV isn't setting a dangerous precedent to encourage more political violence from both sides? Do you really want to live in a world where people just get shot for having a different opinion from yours?
First of all no one did this on national TV. Perhaps you referring to edge lords on the Internet making snide or rude comments. This is nothing to worry about. I heard people talk about hanging or shooting Obama for several years when I lived in Idaho. Celebrating and fantasizing about killing the President did absolutely nothing.
Second, we already live in a society where the right wing is constantly calling for violence. They have been openly talking about killing people from the Democratic party for decades. Rush Limbaugh was particularly found of this and he received the Medal of Freedom.
Let's be clear here, a couple of edgy people have celebrated his death. A lot of people recognize he was a piece of shit and are not upset at all other than to say no one should have to die this way.
The violent rhetoric comes regularly from the conservatives. Even the president of the United States sent a message he was bringing the Department of War to Chicago to enact an apocalypse. Kind of blows a few edge lords cheering on Kirk's death out of the motherfucking water.
Well, since you can clearly tell the difference between talking about killing someone and actually killing them, I'm sure it won't be too difficult to tell the difference between fantasizing about someone's dead and actually celebrating it.
But the real problem is that while Kirk may have been a dunderhead, at least he was still willing to have a debate. The next guy they're gonna send likely isn't going to be so kind. You want fascism? Because killing the people who are willing to talk is how you get fascism.
No one is celebrating, this is the same lie told about Muslims celebrating 9/11. This is second rate propaganda and I am surprised you would peddle in this nonsense.
Kirk was much more than a dunderhead. Whatever the fuck that means. He was a hate monger and declared so by several reputable organizations. He is a horrible Martyr, one only a truly white supremacist could love.
I am under no illusion about fascism. We are a fascist nation that is slipping deeper into a techno feudalism state. I agree that Fascism thrives on violence. Going around killing people is what they already are doing. Just par for the course.
So many innocent children die every year needlessly thanks to gun proliferation. We should be collectively crying about this national loss we face year after year. It is now the number one killer of children outpacing motor vehicle collisions.
Instead we are trying to lionize a loser.
No one is celebrating
You literally said in your previous post that all the people who celebrated were edgelords, meaning there WERE people celebrating. Which is it? How about you get your own story straight before accusing me of peddling second-rate propaganda.
He was a hate monger
Whatever the fuck that means...
I agree that Fascism thrives on violence. Going around killing people is what they already are doing. Just par for the course.
Okay, so your plan for fighting fascism is doing the exact same thing that you say fascism thrives on... do you really expect that to work?
Instead we are trying to lionize a loser.
I'm certainly not trying to lionize him. I'm trying to get it through your thick head that making him a martyr for his cause was a phenomenally stupid idea, and everyone who was celebrating it is an absolute retard.
As objectionable and annoying as his words may have been while he was alive, none of them ever managed to fire up their base quite the way his death did. All this has accomplished is to pour oil on the fire. You thought fascism was bad now? Well, MAGA just got their Horst Wessel. It's about to get way worse.
Please provide proof massive amounts of people are cheering in the streets or holding block parties he is dead or just do us a favor and shut the fuck up. A few edge lords talking shit is insignificant. It is clear you are spreading propaganda at this point.
A hate monger is a purveyor of hate. It has a very clear definition unlike dunderhead which is meant to downplay the fascist little cunt he was.
What part about us living in a fascist state are you not getting. Open up your eyes for a second. We have a police force abducting legal residents, torturing them, and then sending them to random foreign countries to be imprisoned without a trial.
We are already there and have been for several decades. Did you miss the US toppling democracies and installing fascist dictators for funzies during the Cold War?
I am trying to get it through your white supremacists loving ass that this guy is the shittiest damn martyr ever. A racist asshat who openly advocated for the worst of humanity. A guy that unironically said people have to die to protect the second amendment and then was killed by a gunman.
Maga was already doing it all already, give me a fucking break. All you spew is propaganda and you are acting like a fascist apologist who wants to downplay a racist misogynist loser. Have fun erecting his statue and turning him into a saint.
Listen man, you can be angry all you want, but it's not up to me or you to determine who's a "good" martyr and who isn't. All that matters is that he was popular, and Kirk was VERY popular. Which is why it was such a tremendously stupid idea to make him die for his beliefs.
If he was still alive, he probably would have made a mistake at some point, gotten himself involved in some scandal or another, or otherwise ruined his reputation, but now he'll forever be the guy who got murdered over mere words. The satisfaction will be short lived and the regret will be long, because you can bet they're going to trot him out at every single rally from now on, as the guy that leftism killed because it had no other arguments.
Truly a profoundly stupid idea to be celebrating that.
Your just pushing that garbage propaganda built on a series of misconceptions.
It is clear that the right could care less, everything is an excuse for them to take away our rights. If it wasn't Kirk it would be some other made up bullshit reason. You fail to see this which is why you fall for the propaganda.
Edit: In regards to George Floyd, could you imagine how many on the right would have lost their jobs if the left was authoritarian shit stains like they are? The right literally still openly mocks and makes fun of his murder. The more I think about this the hollower your words become.
I hate to break it to you, but people were in fact fired for openly mocking George Floyd's death. Just because you don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I counted fifteen people total in the article. Are you fucking joking? They were not saying general things either, straight up racist vile shit and in positions of power like police officers.
Comparing a few people getting fired for racist statements and people getting fired for not praising Kirk are entirely different things and you should be ashamed for even bringing it up.
You might win a shitty conservative debate with garbage like this, but all I see is an apologist of the worst kind.
Kirk's anti-woke mob has already gotten over 100 people fired and counting. They are just getting started. How many major television personalities were fired like Jimmy Kimmel?
Most importantly they are still mocking his death on the regular without consequences.
Edit: Kirk's words about Floyd, "I am also going to offer some context and some nuance about the death of George Floyd that no one dares to say out loud. Which is that this guy was a scumbag. Now, does that mean he deserves to die? That's two totally different things — of course not."
Wow, so he is allowed the nuance, but everyone who says the same thing about him gets fired. Pathetic.
Let me get this straight: you're cool with a guy getting murdered for exercising his right to freedom of speech, but when people are getting fired for applauding that, that's a bridge too far? Seems a little precious if you ask me.
You can't just demand freedom of speech when it suits you, and disavow it when it doesn't. That's what fascists do.
Man, you have zero reading comprehension. I am going to do us both a favor at this point.
Constitutional right to free speech? Yes. The overall philosophical concept of free speech? Less so.
Unless you think we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
In which case the law is only there to enforce what we already own. And the concept of "Free Speech" goes past just laws.
Yes, some people misunderstand it. And others are too quick to "correct" them, even when their target is off.
Nobody is saying firing him was illegal.
Thank you! Seems like very few people understand the concept of free speech.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no consequences, which is seeming what a lot of people believe
No, you are conflating the first amendment, a limited protection of free speech, with free speech itself.
It is very much a violation of free speech, its just not illegal. It still is immoral.
EDIT: fixed second amendment to first amendment
*first amendment
Though some do conflate guns with free speech as well...
I guess I misunderstood something here.
I just don't think you should be able to say whatever you want without any consequences. Eg. Call someone a slur, get punched in the face. I don't think that's a violation of free speech
I also agree you should not be able to call people slurs. You should be punished but not by your employer.
But neither divisive nor hateful is a slur, neither are they inaccurate statements about Kirk. NBC most likely did not take the decision to fire the guy based on ethics.
Now let's say another news anchor grows some balls and says "Israel is committing genocide" and their channel fires them. Do you also think it's not a violation of free speech? That they should face consequences?
I am talking about free speech, not the second amendment, morality and ethics not US law.
Problem is there's a big undertone of the administration penalizing news organizations that day things that are unwelcome. Interfering with their business dealings, limiting their access to information they need to provide coverage, bending things a bit to help out "news" outlets that are treating him well.




top 93 comments