| ▲ | robertwt7 5 days ago |
| This is crazy. Healthy debate and disagreement should be free in a democratic country, without any fear of violence, let alone death. |
|
| ▲ | croes 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Do you think Kirk showed healthy debates ans disagreement? Do you think the people they attacked with their speeches were without any fear of violence, let alone death? |
| |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What did Kirk say that would cause someone to fear violence or death? | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent [-] | | >In one interview with Gaines on Real America’s Voice, Kirk railed against “the decline of American men” and blamed it for transgender equality. Then he added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s." Or take some from his last words >At about 12:20, he is asked by a member of the crowd: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?" >He replies: "Too many." Do you think he would have said the same when someone would have asked the same question about gun owners or would have said something like:
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." Or pick one of those quotes
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk... He recommend the one about Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded | | |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's not what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WhMtFZtmcg. He was just talking about not allowing a transgender compete in a women swimming competition. None of this has anything to do with threatening or inciting violence. | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent [-] | | So how did we handle that in the 50s and 60s opposed to the 70s, 80s and 90s, the times when being anything else than being straight slowly wasn't considered a crime anymore? | | |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Given he preceded that with "I blame the decline of American men" and followed it with "as testosterone rates go down and men start acting like women", it seems that in his worldview, the decline of masculinity started in the 70s. A high school swimming coach from the 1950s or 60s likely wouldn't have permitted a biological male in the women's locker room. | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent [-] | | But he would have beaten up a gay because he is homosexual, and called a black man a "boy" before going home, getting drunk, and beating his wife. This is, of course, a condensed depiction. | | |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Kirk didn't say "I miss everything about the 50s-60s". He did none of those things, nor did he encourage them. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and the spread of such misinformation may have partly contributed to creating the deranged individual who thought he deserved to be murdered. | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | He doesn't need to say it, but for many of his fans the so not so good parts (if you're non white or female) resonate. You do know what a dog whistle is? And talking about the spread of misinformation, Kirk spread the lie of the stolen election that led to the January 6 riots and caused multiple deaths. BTW maybe you can comment under some of the other commenters where I try to explain than words aren just words and can cause damage, you seem to have the same opinion, whereby my reach is far below Kirk's so I think I have a much lower risk of creating a deranged individual than people like Kirk have. | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Have you read was Trump said? >For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals," >This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now." That from the same guy who painted all immigrans as pet eating, drug trafficking rapists. But I'm the one accused of spreading misinformation. Even in his message on TS after Kirk's death Trump can't stay with the truth >He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us. The first part is obviously nonsense | | |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Trump or Kirk spreading misinformation is not an excuse for yourself spreading misinformation. No matter his opinions, Kirk was a peaceful, non-violent person. | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Wait a minute, he spread misinformation about COVID and the „stolen“ election and reaches millions of people but I‘m the bad guy? He has definitely caused more violence than I. Kirk and others boost people like those here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo Show one who got influenced by me. That would be really interesting. That I spread misinformation has to be proven. He referenced the 50s and 60s on purpose, the good old times and he knows his peers and what the associate with that time period. So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive. Given all what he said there is a clear subtext you try to ignore. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > That I spread misinformation has to be proven. But you apparently expect "this is a dogwhistle" to be taken on faith. This is not a fair, consistent or reasonable standard. | |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well. > So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive. I disagree - you're extrapolating from very little. If you take into consideration his whole life and the context of the conversation, it's very clear that he did not believe in violence and did not advocate it. Does that look like someone who wishes violence against gay or trans people? Be real. https://x.com/GayRepublicSwag/status/1966219378971889949 https://x.com/LuckyMcGee/status/1966207117767164362 | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >You're both bad guys for spreading misinformation. >Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well. Interesting change. Don't forget my reach and his.
And I never spread the lie about the Great Replacement. The first clip sounds more like don't tell than real acceptance and it's quite ironic that accoring to this clip he says people aren't defined by their sexuality but every time a homosexual couple is show in a kids movie right wingers whine because now they have to talk about anal sex with their kids. What they don't have, like you don't have to explain hetero sex if a hetero couple is shown. The right is obsessed with the sexuality of gays. And calling it a lifestyle, that's one of the biggest misinformations often used to blame the victims of anti-gay violence for their bad "choice". Maybe watch this clip where he quotes Leviticus 18 https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306 But of course just saying. We all know you can say anything if you add "just saying" or "no offense". The second clip frames being trans as a mental disorder packed in clever words. | | |
| ▲ | olalonde 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure he had typical right wing and religious views, but did not advocate violence. Again that clip you linked was just him pointing out the irony of using Bible verses to support homosexuality while ignoring other very violent verses towards them. He was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals. FWIW, I disagree with Kirk on probably most topics (e.g. guns, religion, abortion, homosexuality being a bad "lifestyle") so there's no need to debate me. | | |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning. I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation. His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on. I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers. | | |
| ▲ | zahlman a day ago | parent [-] | | > The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning. He does the exact opposite of "completely ignoring the contradiction". He explicitly uses it to make his point. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | croes 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I find it interesting how he tries to dismiss the core message of Christianity with a reference to the old testament. Seems right wingers know the old testament pretty well but rarely quote the new one and even rarer live by it. It's often that authoritarian god, you know, the one who gave us the rainbow after multiple genocide and who said later on >Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Let's see those Christian values in action when they catch the shooter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vkou 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You're right, but this man did not share your opinion. When Nancy Pelosi and her husband were targets of political violence, Charlie Kirk's response was to suggest that whomever bails the attacker out would be a national hero. [1] To her credit, her response to the attack on him is much more dignified than his was. ----- [1]
"Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy (David DePape) out..." - Charlie Kirk |
| |
|
| ▲ | 8note 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | incoming1211 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | msie 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | myHNAccount123 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you're being too nice. Is rage baiting teenagers really a debate? | | |
| ▲ | PlanksVariable 5 days ago | parent [-] | | That’s one way to frame it. A cynical and disingenuous one. He presented an alternative to the indoctrination students often receive today at college campuses and through the media. He gave students a microphone and a chance to defend their views. If presenting an alternative political philosophy causes someone to become enraged (or worse), we’re in a really bad state. |
| |
| ▲ | sigmarule 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | (only replying here because I can’t reply to the parent) > Writes “Unfortunately the left cannot have debate and disagreement.” > Receives downvotes - literal expressions of disagreement incarnate. > Updates post to add “(weird way to prove my point, by downvoting)” I guess you’re implying you’re a liberal? | | |
| ▲ | incoming1211 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Where was the debate? I wrote "debate and disagreement", which refers to them being together. Not separate things. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Simulacra 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | al_borland 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We need to stop dismissing these comments and take them seriously. False claims like this are defamation, libel, and are inciting violence. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure these are all crimes that we’ve just been shrugging off. These are the results. If we want freedom of speech we need our speech to mean something and use it to seek the truth in good faith. This is especially true for those holding political office or in the media. They should be held to a higher standard, as they are the example for the people. | | |
| ▲ | thephyber 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Dude, you need to take a pause and read up on this. It’s your civic duty to be informed and you are so very wrong about everything here. Inciting violence is very different from defamation/libel. No, lawmakers making false statements is not defamatory nor libelous. In fact, they have complete immunity while on the debate floor. And defamation/libel have to be knowable false statements of fact which created demonstrable damage. Opinions can’t be defamatory. True statements can’t be defamatory. When Trump’s Chief of Staff, General Kelly, calls Trump a fascist and lists the definition of fascism and saying that he meets each one, that’s neither false nor inciting violence. Maybe check your priors to see if you are more mad because people aren’t being prosecuted, or because what they are saying has truth to it. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 303uru 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Name media calling for the death of republicans or republican commentators. I can name someone who called Trump a NAZI, JD Vance. Go look at Twitter right now, it’s NYE for republicans. They’ve convinced themselves, sans evidence, that this was a leftist shooter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of posts foaming at the mouth that they can now hunt liberals and that the civil war has started. You’re doing the thing you claim to hate and frankly it’s disgusting. 'I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage.' - Charlie Kirk | | |
|
|
| ▲ | esalman 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | boomfunky 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Because he would then hand you a mic to challenge his point. In a healthy debate. And you connected your own dots on the second point to satisfy your sick sense of justice. | | |
| ▲ | password54321 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Wow what an upstanding guy. He would hand us the mic. For what? To create a thumbnail on YouTube on how you pre-determinately got "owned" before you even received it? | |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A healthy debate about genocide ? ? | | |
| ▲ | Whoppertime 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Isn't that what happened in 1994? We debated if what was happening in Rwanda was genocide. We debated if there was Genocide in Bosnia between 1992-1995. And then debate what to do about it if we do recognize it as genocide |
| |
| ▲ | esalman 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | grosswait 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How can a civil exchange of ideas not be healthy? Agreement is not a requisite to the definition. If such a debate feels unhealthy to you, I’m not sure what to say. | | |
| ▲ | password54321 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You would probably get more out of debating with an LLM. Let's have an LLM with a mic on every campus for these "healthy" debates that are progressing humanity. Or maybe we can fine-tune an LLM with all his dialogue that has been recorded. I guarantee in the latter case no one would care, because the showmanship aspect would be gone, which is what it really was about. Entertainment. | |
| ▲ | esalman 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's unhealthy and double-standard-y about this is, people like Kirk in many quarters on the right have been talking about taking away constitutional rights like second amendment, maybe even first, for transgender people. | |
| ▲ | KingMob 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | docmars 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > Because his abhorrent ideas have already been rejected by civil society. I hate to break it to you, but judging by the outcome of last year's election, this statement is provably false. This means his opponents' ideas are by-and-large rejected by civil society, and the amazing irony is, he invited those ideas to be tested out in the open. Kirk gave a platform to ideas he and his audience abhor. If someone's views are "too egregious" to be tested openly, it's almost always the case that the person suggesting this knows their own views wouldn't hold up. It's a tell that they know they've lost the argument, before it even happened. Calls for censorship and deplatforming are the key tell for how feeble a person is. If their ideals are so great, why can't they survive under scrutiny? | | |
| ▲ | KingMob 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I would retort that a sizable fraction of society isn't civil, the gleefully malevolent who long to punish minorities. And a larger fraction is ill-informed about the first part, due to platforming liars and psychopaths, like you suggest. Only part of Trump's voters thought this would be the outcome, but we're stuck with the results. Please, quit playing word games. We've moved past that, and America won't survive if you treat this like your high-school debate club. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | smashah 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | For some people those issues exist in a realm of debatable topics because they're not affected by it. It's apparently within the realms of debate to justify mass holocaust of babies abroad. Kinda like a video game. And clearly, people shouldn't be assassinated for merely playing video games. |
|
|
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement." Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | When Kirk was on camera talking to a college student he typically used soft words and spoke calmly. The output of his life went far beyond these camera-ready moments. Saying "we should handle things like we did in the 1950s" when speaking about trans people using the bathroom of their choice is not my idea of kindness. | | |
| ▲ | theonething 5 days ago | parent [-] | | You still haven't supplied any evidence or proof of your claim: > But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement." His main purpose on his college tours was to promote the debate and discussion of different viewpoints. Very often the viewpoints of his listeners were very different from his, but he invited open expression and dialogue regardless. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Kirk deliberately deadnamed Lia Thomas in public. Is that healthy debate and disagreement? Kirk said of transwomen using the bathroom that "someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s." You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike? | | |
| ▲ | theonething 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, Kirk had strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. And in his public tours, he always had an open mic to give anyone an opportunity to express opposing views. The context of Kirk's words you are quoting are actually about a trans person winning an athletic event. More significantly, you misinterpret his words to fit your framing of him. He did not advocate for violence against LGBT people. The Sacramento Bee also initially misinterpreted his words in the same slant you are and after careful reexamination, realized their mistake, retracted their accusation against him and apologized. > An earlier version of this column included a statement that Charlie Kirk had “called for the lynching of trans people.” The basis for this accusation is a video clip in which Kirk was upset that a trans woman had won an NCAA swimming championship. In the clip, Kirk said that instead of letting the woman compete, “Someone should have took (sic) care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” Some trans advocates on social media extrapolated from Kirk’s comments that he called for trans people to be lynched - an accusation The Bee repeated. But a review of the video shows that Kirk never advocated for trans people to be lynched. In fact, he strongly denies the accusation. These notes have been added to the column. The Bee regrets its comments and we apologize for any misunderstanding this earlier version may have caused. https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article273103235.html | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I said that his words were not "healthy debate and disagreement" and I absolutely stand by the claim that deadnaming trans people is not "healthy debate and disagreement," even if that trans person did well in a sporting event. | | |
| ▲ | theonething 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike? What point were you trying to make here? Requoting your earlier claim: > But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement." This seems to be a general characterization of Kirk, that he generally did not advocate for healthy debate and disagreement. By watching his many videos where he frequently listened to opposing viewpoints and also by the fact that he always had an open mic during speaking events, it's pretty easy to disprove your claim. Cherrypicking one or two incidents where you interpret his words as against healthy debate doesn't support your claim. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Maybe you can help me understand how precisely he'd like to deal with trans women using the bathroom. And perhaps we can understand this within the context of the legal policies he advocates for regarding trans people. I also still insist that deadnaming people is the polar opposite of healthy debate. It is an action done to demonstrate a total lack of respect for another person. | | |
| ▲ | Whoppertime 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well I haven't heard stories about transgender people being lynched in bathrooms during the 1950s or 1960s. I haven't heard stories about Transgender athletes during that time breaking records either. It's a euphemism, people can read into it what they like. I would expect at some level he meant shaming and bullying | |
| ▲ | nailer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nailer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ryan_lane 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > your deliberate lie to claim otherwise is grist for the hate mill that led to his death Please don't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment. This kind of accusation is highly inflammatory and unfounded, and clearly against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It isn't against the guidelines at all. It is false to claim that Charlie Kirk "call[ed] for the deaths of specific groups, but . . . indirectly" People need to be reminded that they "cannot, month in, month out and year in, year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault . . . and not expect that brutal, violent natures . . . will be unaffected by it." (Theodore Roosevelt) | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's fine to refute a claim with opposing facts or opinions. We agree it was a bad comment, and we would have had no problem with a response that kept within the guidelines. But the guidelines are very clear about making swipes and posting in an inflammatory style. These are the guidelines are relevant here: Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | |
| ▲ | torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Literally none of those are relevant to what I posted. I didn't swipe or sneer at anyone. I said: - he never called for the death of anyone - claiming otherwise (despite apparently being familiar with his work) is a deliberate lie - falsely claiming that someone is a mortal threat is "grist for the mill" for people with violent tendencies None of the three components of what I said come anywhere close to violating the guidelines. Perhaps you're not familiar with the idiom? "Grist for the mill" just means that something is useful for a particular motive, it doesn't suggest being in cahoots or any intent whatsoever. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grist%20for%20one... | | |
| ▲ | tomhow 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's clearly against the guidelines to accuse someone of telling a "deliberate lie". None of us can know what they knew or sincerely believed when they wrote that comment. As I've kept saying I agree that theirs was a bad comment and agree that it should be flagged and killed, but we need you to try harder to avoid personal attacks and escalatory rhetoric like this. You've been here a long time, we value your contributions and tolerate some boundary-pushing from you because we want a broad spectrum of views to be represented, but sometimes we have to say "enough". Please just do your part to make things better here not worse. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xvector 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What are you even talking about? He was a shining example of what healthy debate looked like. I cannot think of a single other influencer that debated as openly as he did, on either side. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Members and leaders within the TPUSA chapter at my local university engaged in a year+ long harassment campaign against multiple professors, including a friend of mine. This included writing hate speech against trans people (my friend is trans) in coursework right up to legally protected boundaries. This was done in concert with an effort to get these professors fired for "discriminating against conservatives." I am confident that this was done in an organized fashion with support. There is no chance that these random children knew precisely where to place their hatred in ways that which keep them from getting expelled and also ensure that their professors had to regularly read hate speech whenever they went to grade assignments. Kirk has visited this university and celebrated the TPUSA organization there. Kirk's twitter feed is also filled with egregious homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism. Kirk attended organized debates and used soft words in those debates for the camera so that he could "own" college students. But if you expand to look at his public words they quickly stop being so soft. And if you expand to look at the output of his organization, things become much worse. | | |
| ▲ | xvector 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 4 days ago | parent [-] | | While I don't believe that Kirk personally organized this campaign, I do believe that this was materially supported by the TPUSA organization and that Kirk is responsible for the culture of the organization and the output of that culture. Kirk invited open debate in particular contexts while acting against open debate in others. He was not operating under a principle of supporting open debate but instead used specific on camera interactions as a rhetorical device. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | insurancesucks 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you don't consider what Charlie Kirk was doing "healthy debate and disagreement" you have no place in a free western society. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | password54321 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| it was the performance of a guy "owning libs". It is not much of an honest debate if the guy enters it with a set of pre-packaged ideas that never get updated. |
| |
| ▲ | alickz 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think you should be killed for performances either If you/society see the performance as beyond the pale, inciting violence then you should arrest the person and give them due process, or change the laws to reflect your beliefs | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree. How do we stop this from happening? You seem to implicate "you/society" as the issue, but I didn't shoot anyone. So really it's society's issue, and we're in this situation because the Overton window is so irrevocably wide. Moreso than ever before, our bipartisan system is chock-full of extremists. People who want to kill CEOs, people who want to kill politicians, people who want to kill minorities. The ordinary response is always "well, some gun violence is tolerable" but that doesn't seem to be reflected at all in this comment section. Many people are treating this as entirely unacceptable - so, from square one, how do we want to legislate a solution? |
| |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh well if he was a [political buzzword] i guess that changes everything and he actually deserves being shot for opening his mouth. | | |
| ▲ | password54321 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Nice strawman. | | |
| ▲ | akimbostrawman 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Thanks but you i can only credit you. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Their comment wasn't a strawman. The "event" in question was a political rally, not a moderated debate. He was there to promote his platform, anything else he did was part of the performance. |
| |
| ▲ | _rm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's actually how you feel though right | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | _rm 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
