What was the racism part?

No it’s ironic commentary on how easily people can justify horrific things happening to people they don’t like.

As long as it is someone we don’t like, then yes.

Edit: oops, I guess I need the /s

“If i name myself anti fascist, then anyone who criticizes me is a …”

I agree. One thing that bugs me about lemmy is how intellectually dishonest and blind people are when it comes to their own biases.

Everyone (pretty much) agrees that fascism is bad, but Antifa is a movement that means more than anti fascism. Antifa is branding or marketing in the same way that the anti defamation league is, or like the patriot act put a certain spin on a bill that stripped privacy rights from citizens. Groups use branding to gain power and aren’t all encompassing as to their motives or actions. In the case of antifa it’s less of an actual organization and more of a rallying cry that gets used for a wide variety of people with different motives, and it’s detractors point to a wide variety of actions or intents (real or imagined) when criticizing it.

All proselytizing or just the religious kind?

Being pro free speech has nothing to do with willingness to change your opinion. Rhetoric and philosophy are both contained within the free speech bubble. Also there are no ideologies that are free from the potential of stifling others free speech, which is why it needs to be vigorously protected by everyone, all the time.

I’m not familiar with this conspiracy, but it sounds spicy.

Charlie Kirk got murdered for saying offensive things.

That’s his whole shtick. He has been outraged and animated for his entire career.

In any event, Kirk was targeted specifically for his views, whereas school shootings are indiscriminate attacks.

Kirk’s killing is inherently more political. School shootings are a slightly different matter. I don’t think Robinson was capable of killing random people. He chose his target. It was an assassination.

Yes, just as there are those on the left who view the killing as deserved or somehow an acceptable outcome.

I read it as him saying that the shooter was unquestionably right wing, which is different than saying that the right wing is desperate to prove that it’s anyone else.

Neither Israelis nor Palestinians want a two state solution, that’s the whole problem. That said, the western world forced Israel into existence so theoretically it could do the same for Palestine, but it would be very messy.

Did you read the article? It’s not quite that simple.

The numbers are always skewed. It just depends on which narrative you are pushing.

I see, you could actually interpret it either way.

He literally said that the right is “desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them”.