> But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.

He didn't advocate for but against. He advocated against people who weren't his version of correct. He advocated for suppression, not liberation.

I don't think you're saying he advocated for the struggles of any marginalized group, but your comment could be read as such.

Charlie Kirk was a bigot who wanted his political "enemies" to suffer.

▲

fawkesalbus 4 days ago | parent [-]

Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.

He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).

He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.

This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).

	▲	toomanyrichies 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> He never suppressed or oppressed anyone..." Really? "Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." [1] "...he didn’t want anyone to suffer." Really? "We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately." [1] "He had no version of correct..." Really? "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white." [1] 1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...