• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

People are losing jobs due to social media posts about Charlie Kirk -NPR

jmotivator said:
This cartoon was created to defend Cancel Culture not that long ago.

View attachment 67589137
Click to expand...

jmotivator said:
The left is simply being held to the standard they created.

Back then you could get fired for not using a person's pronouns.. and the left celebrated it.

Of course, that idiots for planted, tended and harvested the fruit of cancel culture are now having second thoughts when it's served to them.

Eat it.
Click to expand...

Them chickens came home to roost!
 
Ikari said:
Get a clue. Talking to social media about limiting disinformation is not on the same level as MAGAs desire to curtain dissent and opposition to Dear Leader and Party.

Let me know when you find that ****ing clue.
Click to expand...
Ikari, your biggest problem is you skim the surface and assume you know. There is a lot of things going on in that case that are not just disinformation. There were a lot more actions than just banning posts due to Covid.
 
j brown's body said:
If we punish speech we disagree with, do we really believe in free speech?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, there is no free speech in the workplace.
Employers are free to set rules for decorum in their workplace that is meant to have a friendly work environment. If we don't like a company's particular employee policy, we should find a new employer.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Ikari, your biggest problem is you skim the surface and assume you know. There is a lot of things going on in that case that are not just disinformation. There were a lot more actions than just banning posts due to Covid.
Click to expand...
Your problem is that you only accept the propaganda taglines fed to you by Dear Leader and aren't willing to consider the situation or context of government actions.
 
j brown's body said:
Its a predictable turn.

View attachment 67589142
Click to expand...
There seems to be a lot more verbal cruelty happening in the current "political atmosphere"............and it is contagious and creating a more vile culture. ANY extreme is objectionable. ANY EXTREME is also ABNORMAL. This cruelty is now extended into very punitive measures that oppose what the country USED TO SAND FOR. It is a very different reality now.....and the symptoms of these cultural changes are evident and painful to observe. There is NO EXAMPLE of CIVILITY from or at the TOP now. NO other leader has ever gotten away with the kind of trash talk......threats, and vindictive verbiage before. This is extreme. This is ABNORMAL. (and psychologically unhinged) Sadly many dissillusioned folks think that "tough talk" is strength. It is NOT. It is a symptom of bellicose behavior that is totally couter productive..........(and fosters extreme reactions and behaviors)
BTW: all freedoms can be and are abused regularly. any "freedom" taken to the extreme is counterproductive and not what was intended. All bullies are weak in nature, personality, and usually psychologically troubled.
 
cpwill said:
...This is what we mean when we say someone is a bigot or being bigoted. We do not mean, for example, that they strongly dislike pineapple on pizza, and that despite pineapple on pizza being delicious, they remain attached to their unreasonable belief...
Click to expand...
"a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction..."

No, you're attempting ignore the first part of the definition by applying it to a ridiculous example. There is nothing unreasonable about someone's like or dislike of food. Reason; "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic" Logic tells us that it's reasonable to have different tastes in food. While it is unreasonable to believe blacks aren't qualified for a job without affirmative action like the bigot Kirk believed.

cpwill said:
We mean they are prejudiced against or antagonistic towards - they hate or think of as lesser - others based on their group.
Click to expand...
You don't have to hate or believe a group is lesser to be bigoted against them. A religious zealot might not hate, or believe gays are lessor, yet still be bigoted towards them. For example, opposing gay marriage because of their faith. Because we have a separation of church and state, reason and logic tells us gays have a right to a civil marriage just as interracial couples have....
 
ALiberalModerate said:
Gender is a human construct.
Click to expand...
No, that cockamamy assertion is a human construct. Gender has had, among others, "sex" as a definition for centuries.

Gender can mean "gender identity," but that is not the exclusive definition of the term, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or is lying to you.


ALiberalModerate said:
Sex is biological.

For example, it is a true statement to say that a female to male Trans person is biologically the female sex. It is being a total asshole if you refer to that person as "her".
Click to expand...
A trans male is a woman, and it is both biologically and grammatically accurate to refer to her as "her."

Ironically, whether it's considered polite or not to be accurate in your pronoun use is also -- get ready for it -- entirely a human construct.
 
Irredentist said:
Bigotry is when you express a strong, unreasonable belief or opinion against a particular group of people, based on their membership of that group.
Click to expand...
Then everyone is a bigot.
Irredentist said:
For example, believing that gay sex is immoral makes you bigoted against people who have gay sex. Gay people.
Click to expand...
 
Irredentist said:
Bigotry is when you express a strong, unreasonable belief or opinion against a particular group of people, based on their membership of that group.
Click to expand...

Like everyone who voted for Trump is a terrorist? Or Nazis?
 
Irredentist said:
I don't think that voting for Trump makes anyone a Nazi, or a terrorist. Stupid, maybe.
Click to expand...

If you said everyone who voted for Trump is a terrorist or a Nazi, that would make you a bigot. Right?
 
Josie said:
If you said everyone who voted for Trump is a terrorist or a Nazi, that would make you a bigot. Right?
Click to expand...
Sure, that would definitely be an unreasonable, irrational belief to have, so it fits the definition.
 
Josie said:
This can't be right. I've been told all of those videos about people celebrating his death are fake.
Click to expand...
Speaking negatively about him is leading to firings. It isn't just "celebrating his death". Stop trying to miscontrue the situation here.

Some people have been fired for just stating things that he said while he was alive. Hegseth said he was going to go after any servicemember saying anything negative about Kirk at all.
 
snakestretcher said:
Fired for criticising an outspoken far-right racist who happens to be dead? Did any sackings for exercising the free speech he was such an ardent advocate for, happen while he was alive?

www.rollingstone.com

People Are Losing Their Jobs for Criticizing Slain 'Free Speech' Advocate Charlie Kirk

The MAGA right says Charlie Kirk is a martyr for freedom of expression, but still want people to lose their jobs for criticizing his rhetoric.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
Click to expand...
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequenses.
 
Josie said:
Should those on the right who celebrate death or call for violence be fired?
Click to expand...
Depends on a lot of factors.

Should everyone who celebrated Osama bin Laden's death be fired? We have lots of video of that happening. So should we also fire them for literally celebrating pretty much all over the country that death?

Or is it only certain people's deaths that shouldn't be celebrated? So then who gets to determine what is a celebration and what is simply calling out what the person did while they were alive or even simply expressing happiness about their death? I'm not saying expressing happiness at someone's death is right, but it is part of free speech. I think why they feel that way should be considered. If I express relief that someone I know is dead, even if they aren't famous, should I be fired for that if someone takes it as me "celebrating" because I didn't provide proper context about it?
 
Irredentist said:
Sure, that would definitely be an unreasonable, irrational belief to have, so it fits the definition.
Click to expand...

I look forward to you calling it out on this forum.
 
roguenuke said:
Depends on a lot of factors.

Should everyone who celebrated Osama bin Laden's death be fired? We have lots of video of that happening. So should we also fire them for literally celebrating pretty much all over the country that death?

Or is it only certain people's deaths that shouldn't be celebrated? So then who gets to determine what is a celebration and what is simply calling out what the person did while they were alive or even simply expressing happiness about their death? I'm not saying expressing happiness at someone's death is right, but it is part of free speech. I think why they feel that way should be considered. If I express relief that someone I know is dead, even if they aren't famous, should I be fired for that if someone takes it as me "celebrating" because I didn't provide proper context about it?
Click to expand...

Celebrating Kirk's death is celebrating political violence. They weren't happy because someone who killed thousands of people died. They were happy because someone on the opposing side of the political aisle died. Someone who killed nobody - he spoke words. It's dumb to try to compare the two.
 
It is interesting to see how many people are documenting that they are perfectly fine with people celebrating an assassination for political reasons. I'm so so so so sure you will all have the same opinion if, God forbid, it happens again but on your side. I certainly won't be supporting anyone who celebrates political assassinations and will be calling for their firing. Will you have a change in tune or will you stay true to how you're responding to this situation?
 
Josie said:
Celebrating Kirk's death is celebrating political violence. They weren't happy because someone who killed thousands of people died. They were happy because someone on the opposing side of the political aisle died. Someone who killed nobody - he spoke words. It's dumb to try to compare the two.
Click to expand...
They were still celebrating a death. That was the initial claim was that no one should be celebrating a death. That should apply to everyone.

Being happy or relieved someone died is different than celebrating it.

There are also many factors involved in what is considered celebration, which you have yet to describe exactly what is meant by that.

If a hate preacher were to die tomorrow, someone who called for the killing of LGBTQ people, advocated for women to lose all their rights, for POCs to become 2nd class citizens, would it be okay to celebrate their death? Would it be okay to be happy or relieved the person had died if you were in one of those groups who that hateful person targeted?

Anyone celebrating Kirk's death, really celebrating such as throwing a party is despicable. And some deserve to be fired, like that teacher showing their students the killing on repeat. However, where is the line, as I've asked many times. Hegseth is threatening to punish any military members and possibly others who simply speak negatively about Kirk, someone who isn't even in their chain of command, not a military officer at all, just a political figure. Not even saying they have to be in uniform or on duty, just someone speaking negatively about him. Do you think that is okay, right?
 
Josie said:
It is interesting to see how many people are documenting that they are perfectly fine with people celebrating an assassination for political reasons. I'm so so so so sure you will all have the same opinion if, God forbid, it happens again but on your side. I certainly won't be supporting anyone who celebrates political assassinations and will be calling for their firing. Will you have a change in tune or will you stay true to how you're responding to this situation?
Click to expand...
What is your line for celebrating?

www.reuters.com

Charlie Kirk's allies warn Americans: Mourn him properly or else

Some Republicans have proposed deporting Kirk's critics from the United States, suing them into penury or banning them from social media.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

Is disrespecting him the same as celebrating his death? Would calling for his killer to be bailed out (obviously not a thing that is going to happen, giving him bail for such a case, but still possible for someone to be ignorant enough to say) be celebrating his death?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom