Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ quitspamming 5 days ago

I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc. We've all been taught since grade school it was a good thing to kill Nazis, even in small percentages there are mentally unstable people who will hear you call someone a Fascist and take the logical step from "it's good to kill nazis" to "they're a nazi so I should kill them". I am both very pro freedom of speech and right to bear arms, and I think where Canada and the UK have gone with hate speech laws are too far, but I don't know how you solve this.

▲tdeck 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

What do you think the definition of fascist is? Is it ever appropriate to apply that label to someone?

▲alickz 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I suspect many of the people on social media who use the word fascism could not define it

I think George Orwell was right when he said it has lost most of its meaning

https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...

>It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless

>By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.

▲dnissley 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

It of course has a technical/historical definition but it's not used in that principled way by most people.

Just like "neoliberal" this is a kind of buzzword that generates a particular emotional reaction for those on the left. Meaning people being labeled with them are not just bad but really bad.

▲tokioyoyo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I generally agree with you, but wouldn’t lump Canada into this rhetoric. Its hate speech laws are fairly balanced, if I’ll be honest.

It’s going to sound absurd, but right now, USA’s global image is a very good counter-ad towards “complete” freedom of speech.

▲all2 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

We are an excellent example of what happens when the Hegelian Dialectic is applied successfully by the small minority.

We are also an example when a people becomes completely divorced from their cultural and religious heritage. Without a moral anchor, we are a people cast adrift, lost in confusion, calling evil good and good evil, all trying to do our own thing and benefit ourselves, consumed by greed, by self-interest.

Freedom of speech, or lack there-of, plays no role in what is happening in the United States. This country and its founding charters were written for a moral people. That the country is byzantine, crumbling, has more to do with a people who have lost their way than it has to do with this-or-that law that the government no longer heeds.

▲ 5 days ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
▲kanbara 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

america is not a country founded on a religious heritage. and regardless of what you may think of the beginnings of the country, it very quickly became a country of immigrants. there is no religion that should be placed at the head of the country’s belief system.

what moral anchor do you think we need?

▲mothballed 5 days ago | parent [-]

Classical liberalism

▲billy99k 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲cthalupa 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not even a matter of calling people fascists or nazis - there's been plenty of violence towards the politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, too. Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Melissa Hortman, John and Yvette Hoffman earlier this year.

If it was just a matter of people internalizing that killing fascists is fine and thus that calling people fascists is dangerous, then we would not see the same sort of violence being perpetrated against other politicians not getting the same label.

Kirk himself suggested that a "real patriot who wanted to be a midterm hero" should bail out the man who nearly killed Pelosi's husband. The rhetoric around political violence in this country has been ratcheted up to an insane degree, with or without any accusations of fascism, and this will continue or get worse as long as that remains the case.

▲nailer 3 days ago | parent [-]

He then immediately said he was joking and this kind of violence was obviously awful. I don’t think it was funny, but it’s worth completing the quote.

▲mothballed 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No one shot the Skokie march Nazis and they literally showed up at a Jewish dominated town at a time when there weren't even background checks for guns. The ACLU even defended them in court, which is unthinkable that they would stand on their principles and do that today.

There's just less tolerance for discussing or exhibiting "extreme" or highly unpopular opinions, nowadays, it seems. Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.

▲magicalist 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.

I mean, you're almost there realizing the recency bias. The 1970s, when the Skokie Affair occurred, were arguably the high point for political violence in the post-WWII US.

▲dutchCourage 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You could've stopped your sentence at "I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive."

The main downside of abusing the words nazi and fascist is that it gives an out to the actual fascists out there. When it comes to gun violence, there are a lot more (self proclaimed) neo-nazis killing innocent people than people killing them.

▲engintl 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Good point. I don't think we can avoid gun violence. Maybe a good improvement would be to incent basic education ?

But I hate so much attacks on freedom from governments that will always choose freedom of speech.

▲foofoo4u 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“It’s good to kill Nazis” — this is certainly the prevailing sentiment in modern culture, reinforced by the vast number of books, stories, movies, and video games that support the premise. But something important is often overlooked in this view of righteousness:

1. People who believe they could never become Nazis are often the most unknowingly susceptible to it.

2. People who believe they can confidently identify a Nazi are often wrong — a mindset akin to witch hunts, where everyone is seen as a witch.

▲bcrosby95 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm old enough to remember Fox News hosts playing B-roll of Nazi footage while discussing Obama back in 2008.

▲drak0n1c 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm old enough to recall MSNBC in 2011 cropping video footage of an Obama townhall protestor to only show his long-sleeve shirted back with slung open-carry rifle. They used it to immediately launch into a pundit discussion claiming that the protestors were motivated by racial animus. Turned out the protestor was black.

News manipulating footage to cast aspersions to historical boogeymen is routine. All it takes is one pundit mentioning an imagined similarity to play the edited B-roll.

▲antonymoose 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’ll throw my hat in on another comment on this thread - my last wasn’t well received but ask you take it honestly.

Circa 2017 during then “punching Nazis” era of social discourse, I started a new job. The first week in I went for lunch with a Junior teammate and was told “violence against ‘Nazis’” is fine, it’s justified. I asked how. I was told, my brain is a part of the body, so if someone says something so stupid that it ‘hurts the brain,’ the speech is now assault, so counter-violence is justified.

I, with hint of irony, told my new coworker that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard and asked if I should now assault them for hurting my brain… and was met with hostility.

I don’t quite known I’m going with this exactly, but I feel folks are not giving the world around them an honest assessment, no matter their Ivy diploma. Politics isn’t a “gotcha game” and please stop tying to make it such.

▲throwaway-11-1 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲tdeck 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Don't forget law firms that participated in cases Trump doesn't like have been bullied into doing hundreds of millions of dollars of pro bono work for the administration. And his supreme court just decided, with no explanation, that picking people off the street based on their perceived ethnicity is OK. And people are being deported to prisons in countries they've never visited, where they spend all day shackled with no prospect of a trial.

▲antonymoose 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Nothing you’re describing is happening.

▲Cornbilly 5 days ago | parent [-]

So all those videos of masked men with no ID grabbing people off of the street are just AI I guess?

▲OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Calling people nazis and fascists nilly willy doesn't even count as hate speech...

▲sharkjacobs 5 days ago | parent [-]

"Hate speech" isn't just hateful speech, it's a specific term with a specific meaning. Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.

▲zahlman 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.

Sure.

But the overwhelming majority of people called "nazis" by their political opponents have objectively not chosen anything remotely of the sort.

▲OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No when it's a label deliberately misapplied to run of the mill conservatives. That's defamation with the purpose of generating hate against those people.

▲mindslight 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent [-]

> autocratic authoritarian with a track record of hating American liberties and institutions

It's that level of hysteria what causes moderates to shift to the right.

▲mindslight 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

[flagged]

▲OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent [-]

1) That's just your impression of him.

2) Enforcement of the law requires force. Who would have thought?

3) If an institution is corrupt it should be reformed or destroyed. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

▲mindslight 5 days ago | parent [-]

(1) is a postmodern relativist platitude. If you have a specific argument that I've judged something incorrectly, make it.

I can't tell what point (2) is supposed to apply to. In general authoritarians are eager to use force to enforce top-down prescriptive laws, yes.

(3) I didn't say it's wrong to destroy or gut institutions perceived as corrupt. What I said is that it's not conservative.

▲OCASMv2 5 days ago | parent [-]

1) You didn't even present an argument, just your personal impression of him.

2) Law enforcement. It's in the name.

3) Are you under the impression that "conservative" just means to keep things as they are no matter what?

▲mindslight 5 days ago | parent [-]

(1) A summary of lots of people's judgements of him, which line up with my judgement of his actions. I see the type of person that just barks orders, and when someone tells him it's unwise/impossible/etc he responds with "get it done". And when it doesn't magically happen "you're fired". He surrounds himself with sycophants instead of competence, which is why all of his policies have such terrible execution - one person simply cannot micro manage every detail.

Do you disagree that he is basically running the government as an extension of himself? To me, it sure seems that way when he uses chaotic tariffs to pressure other countries into making "deals" that often include his own personal financial interests.

(2) As I said, I don't understand what specific point of mine you're referring to. There are laws and enforcement in both individual liberty respecting societies, and also in dictatorships. So clearly it matters what the laws are, and how they're being enforced.

(3) No, which is why I was talking about respect for societal institutions. For every American thinker's elucidation of conservative values that I have tried to apply, if I squint I can see maybe 20-40% of them being applicable, with the rest being openly rejected.

Perhaps you would like to reference what specific set of conservative values you see Trumpism actually following? I don't mean aiming to destroy our society such to the point that conservative values will become more important, but actually applying those values to the present situation. Because as a libertarian who has entertained ideas all around the left-right political spectrum, the only thing I can find that lines up is anarcho-capitalism.

Or to come at it from a different direction, read Moldbug's "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations". He lays out a left-right framework that seems to be underpinning much of this movement, and explicitly rejects conservatism as ineffective.

▲OCASMv2 4 days ago | parent [-]

1) If that was the case he wouldn't have joined with RFK Jr, who is publicly against mRNA vaccines which Trump champions.

2) They are being enforced just fine.

3) You talk about conservative values but you mention none specifically.

▲mindslight 4 days ago | parent [-]

I don't see how your (1) is a refutation of a fundamental autocratic dynamic (furthermore Trump may "champion" mRNA vaccines with one side of his mouth, but he talks out of both). And you still haven't made any coherent point with your (2)s.

(3) seems to be the crux of the issue. I am giving you the opening to pick a thinker who has best articulated what you see as a good enumeration of timeless conservative values, which we can then use to judge Trumpism. Because believe it or not, I am open to changing my mind here and I really do want to understand.

If you'd like me to pick, I can certainly do that. But then I don't want to then hear that I haven't picked the "right" conservative for your taste.

▲8note 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲xienze 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲bcrosby95 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Plenty of people I know believe illegal immigrants should be deported. The difference between them and people accused of being a Nazi is they don't go around calling them all rapists and murderers.

The problem isn't the claimed actions they want to take, its the dehumanization being resorted to.

▲xienze 5 days ago | parent [-]

You’re exaggerating greatly, of course. Among those deported are rapists and murderers, naturally, and no one has stated that everyone being deported or even targeted is one (the recent Hyundai bust comes to mind). I challenge you to find that quote.

▲bcrosby95 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲xienze 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲ 5 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲o11c 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲xienze 5 days ago | parent [-]

Can you provide a source where a Republican says we need to target all immigrants? Or are you simply imagining things because the media always conflates illegal immigrants with legal ones?

▲o11c 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲xienze 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲kaycey2022 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't the whole point of the MAGA, non woke right, not to tone police people? How are you going to stop people from abusing other who they don't agree with? That is the basics of free speech.

▲oceanplexian 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc.

The same way it did for the last 250 years as the world's oldest Democracy. By respecting and upholding our Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

▲fabrice_d 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲BobbyThrowaway 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲superb_dev 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲allanmacgregor 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Can we stop pretending like the are not serious tribalization, polarization and problems on both left and right. Both sides are insane and there is no longer any people in the center.

▲amanaplanacanal 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most people are not in the extreme fringes. They just aren't.

▲ 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲CivBase 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Genuine question: What makes you believe actual nazi and fascist beliefs are being normalized?

I have personally not seen this at all. I've seen a lot of talk about it being a thing, but I've still never seen it. I know and talk with many conservatives and they are all extremely anti-nazi and definitely do not promote fascist ideals.

▲nullocator 5 days ago | parent [-]

There are federal law enforcement agents performing their "duties" while wearing masks. This is normalization of _something_, certainly, something that as far as I'm aware hasn't really occurred historically in the U.S. (happy to be corrected).

I'd call that something fascism because it's the word that comes to mind when I see secret policing.

▲CivBase 5 days ago | parent [-]

That is certainly alarming and I am firmly opposed to what ICE is currently doing and what they've been ordered to do.

However, they are obviously keeping their identities a secret because they know if they don't, they will become targets of violence. I don't see how that can be attributed to fascism beyond the surace-level aesthetic of masked law enforcement. The mask itself says nothing about their ideology.

Secret police wear masks to instill fear into the population because they never know who's watching. ICE is wearing masks so they don't end up like Charlie Kirk.

▲nullocator 4 days ago | parent [-]

> However, they are obviously keeping their identities a secret because they know if they don't, they will become targets of violence.

This seems to be what ICE/The current administration are using as the justification for the masks, but I'm not sure it matches reality.

Federal law enforcement are effectively immune from accountability at this point (qualified immunity, and destruction of Bivens [1] leave effectively zero recourse if you are a citizen who's constitutional rights have been violated by a federal agent).

So now that they are masking up they are also immune from being called out socially or in the media. There is no excuse for the police to hide their identities, they have the full power of the state behind them and to protect.

> they will become targets of violence.

What about the targets of violence coming from ICE? There seems to be real and substantial video evidence of ICE using excessive and unnecessary force all over the country. I have not, however, seen concrete evidence that suggestions federal agents are being regularly harmed by the public (Yes I saw the sandwich throwing video, no federal agents were harmed other than maybe their ego). I have seen claims from the administration that this is occurring [2], but the claims are about percent increases and I've seen some reporting that seems to indicate the publicized increase is quite misleading [3][4] "...79 assaults against immigration enforcement agents between January 21 and June 30, up from 10 that took place in the same time last year." The increase is certainly concerning but it does not seem like there is tremendous violence occurring against ICE agents on a daily basis.

[1] https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-again-rejects-exten... [2] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/15/dhs-announces-ice-law-en... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/doj-la-prote... [4] https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/1940047247229792320

▲CivBase 4 days ago | parent [-]

> This seems to be what ICE/The current administration are using as the justification for the masks, but I'm not sure it matches reality.

This thread is literally about an assassination of a political figure. It's a very believable justification.

> What about the targets of violence coming from ICE?

As I've already stated, I am firmly opposed to what ICE is currently doing and what they've been ordered to do. I'm not justifying what they are doing. It's abhorrent. But I don't see what this question has to do with my point.

▲rmah 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I have to strongly disagree with this. From what I've seen, it's very rare that positions espoused by those being called "nazi" have anything to do with fascism.

▲sojournerc 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Often people get their impression of someone like Kirk without ever actually engaging with the content. Too many hot takes and not enough real engagement. "It's cool to hate this guy..? Ok I guess he must be evil."

Painfully ironic given how open he was to debate.

▲dotnet00 5 days ago | parent [-]

Has he ever changed his mind from those debates? Or does he always pretend to "win" them?

I ask because for a while it was a common "right wing faux intellectual" thing (think Sargon of Akkad, Milo Yulianopolis etc) to go around asking to debate. Then to not actually do much factual debating or any learning of other perspectives, and claiming that the left is simply uncapable of civilized debate because they eventually just refuse to go along with the act.

▲donmcronald 5 days ago | parent [-]

This is it exactly.

When I talk to people that watch a bunch of right-wing content I shut down political topics immediately. They never change their position and are convinced their point of view is the only point of view. If you concede there's more than one side to a topic they care about, they think they've "won" and it reinforces their belief they're right about everything.

I consider myself to be a centrist. There are definitely things I like and don't like on both sides of the political spectrum. If someone gives me a solid logical argument for or against something, I'll either change my point of view or, more likely, end up with a better understanding of both perspectives.

I'm only one person, but my experience is that people on the political left or center are willing to accept the fact there are often two sides to an issue and that everything needs to be a balance. Most people on the political right won't do that.

It's really hard to argue against someone that never concedes anything especially if you're acting in good faith and acknowledge when they make a convincing argument for their point of view.

> claiming that the left is simply uncapable of civilized debate because they eventually just refuse to go along with the act

1000%

▲zahlman 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm only one person, but my experience is that people on the political left or center are willing to accept the fact there are often two sides to an issue and that everything needs to be a balance. Most people on the political right won't do that.

If you say so. My experience has, broadly speaking, been the exact opposite.

▲donmcronald 5 days ago | parent [-]

I've never even met someone I would consider an extreme leftist, but I've definitely met people that parrot far right talking points all day long and they're increasing in numbers.

Almost everyone I know would be center-left or center-right except the ones that have shifted far to the right from watching influencers. The center-right people will come towards the middle, so I should have been clear that I'm talking about the new normal of right wing politics that is way further to the right than it used to be.

▲zahlman 5 days ago | parent [-]

> I've never even met someone I would consider an extreme leftist, but I've definitely met people that parrot far right talking points all day long and they're increasing in numbers.

Again, my experience is very nearly the opposite. I have to seek out rightist views if I want to hear them (I have them in carefully curated feeds so that I can make sure I understand their logic); I can scarcely avoid being exposed to leftist ones (before the Musk takeover, even opening Twitter logged out and in an incognito tab would do this; now I can still have that experience on Bluesky and on most Mastodon instances).

> Almost everyone I know would be center-left or center-right except the ones that have shifted far to the right from watching influencers.

I have been in communities full of people who were commonly accused of having "shifted far to the right from watching influencers", and consistently noticed that no such thing had actually happened if I listened to their actual views.

▲donmcronald 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> I have to seek out rightist views if I want to hear them (I have them in carefully curated feeds so that I can make sure I understand their logic).

I don't watch anything political on platforms with recommendation algorithms. If I want to understand something like a proposed law I go skim the legislation. I might read opinion articles from leaders in a field.

I pretty much only talk about politics to people I've known for decades. We should probably talk about something else. Do you like technology?

▲zahlman 5 days ago | parent [-]

> I pretty much only talk about politics to people I've known for decades.

I'm guessing you don't know dotnet00 personally, but you still felt justified in replying with some ideological warring. My goal was not to "talk about politics" with you, but only to show that you are presenting a biased worldview that doesn't reflect a universal experience.

▲8note 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

have you actually met these people? or are they all social media folks you dont know?

i think theyre talking about people they actually know and have met

▲zahlman 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> have you actually met these people?

In many cases, yes. In at least one case I actually got to meet a "social media folk" in person. I've also in the past chatted with political livestreamers to discuss issues and solicit clarification.

▲dotnet00 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I can't really comment on left-leaning equivalents, they don't really tend to bleed into my circles the way right wing ones do. I think Destiny is kind of a left wing equivalent?

I was mostly thinking about how the way they (that is, "debate me!" types) approach debate doesn't really lend itself to actual debate.

They love to throw around unnuanced statistics, relying on the ability to throw so much shit at the wall that the opponent doesn't have the time to dissect it on the spot. This one's poisonous because to viewers it lends legitimacy to numbers that may actually be deeply flawed.

Another popular tactic is to never clearly answer a question and constantly ask for more clarification than necessary. Eg when asked how many trans mass shooters there have been in some period of time, answer "too many", then when given the answer and asked how many mass shooters there have been in that period in general, deflect from the point by asking if that's counting gang violence (supposedly this is what Kirk was doing before he was shot, but I can't be sure).

With tactics like these, it's no wonder that people wisen up and begin refusing formal debate. Debating them lends legitimacy to people who are far less interested in being responsible about the truth.

A related aspect about this is age, Kirk was ~31, he's been at this since 2012. He didn't finish his college education, and his experience in politics "proper" was limited. If a 31 year old undergrad dropout with no experience in astrophysics went around claiming to debate astrophysicists on the nature of black holes, he'd be laughed off as a quack.

Many others are very similar, they are/were young and lacking in education and/or experience with what a meaningful debate looks like, instead assuming that debates work the way the idiot box likes to portray them.

▲bdhe 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲runjake 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

> What is a better way to describe their unprecedented actions in this country?

I think you have the concepts of fascist and authoritarian confused.

▲ 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲lenkite 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Aren't they being very non-racist ? AFAIK all illegal immigrants get deported - brown or yellow or whatever. Why have immigration laws if they are not enforced ? If there should be 100% open entry & benefits to the US, then Congress should first abrogate those laws, right ? It seems in the recent past, I beg your pardon - only suckers - entered the legal way with documentation.

▲shmoe 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Because if you're racially profiling, you probably aren't tossing out the white immigrants. You may, in fact, revive the Office of Refugee and Resettlement for the creators of South American Apartheid instead.

▲lenkite 5 days ago | parent [-]

LOTS of white illegal immigrants have been tossed out. It doesn't really make the news though.

▲nsriv 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Who do you think gets stopped to meet quotas?

▲lenkite 5 days ago | parent [-]

Nah - ICE under the Trump administration has deported dozens of Irish folks who have overstayed in the US, even folks from Germany and UK. There have already been famous cases like Cliona Ward from Dublin. Lot of whites kept in solitary confinement.

You can accuse the agency of authoritarianism but not racism. They are going after everyone illegally in the US.

▲typpilol 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲nilamo 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲Affric 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲wallopinski 5 days ago | parent [-]

[dead]

▲crooked-v 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲michaelmcdonald 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲dotnet00 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲cpursley 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲camel_Snake 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

this is such a terribly bad-faith interpretation of the parent's comment to the point I'm assuming you replied to the wrong one?

▲dotnet00 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You might be cooked, though I don't know about anyone else, as that's an extremely uncharitable reading of my words, considering that I said that his murder shouldn't be condoned

▲pjc50 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲quitspamming 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's interesting that you don't think I'm talking about both sides. Rush Limbaugh used to call women he disagreed with feminazis. The "tea party" under Obama used to call everything communist and fascist.