He literally wasn’t. All available evidence points to the shooter as being far left of Charlie Kirk, rather than to the right. I know you would love for that to be the case, but it was never a reasonable explanation in the first place.

Lol the shooter was not a Nazi, where do you get your information?

I have no issues with human connection, but I am also subject to capitalism.

Yeah maybe. I assumed he said it because he took issue with the concept of affirmative action in general and wanted to talk about that.

They said it’s because they are black, themselves.

I agree that it’s human nature and always will be. But that doesn’t mean it’s ok or that we should shrug and say oh well. It means that we need to always be guarding against it and condemning it when it happens. There are times in history where ideological violence has gotten way out of hand, and i believe we can avoid that if we try. And if we instead encourage it then we will have another cultural revolution or holocaust like in China or Russia or Germany.

Those specific women said that they wouldn’t have got where they are without affirmative action. He interpreted that to mean that they were admitting to being lesser qualified.

THEY said they only got there because of affirmative action. I assume Michelle Obama meant that her husband wouldn’t have been elected if not for affirmative action as well, which i disagree with.

He said that in context of a few specific women, not black women in general. Seriously, taking things out of context is so habitual that I can’t believe anything.

You can argue that it’s a better place with him gone, but it’s a much worse place because it happened and because people are celebrating, because it implies that society accepts murdering people who express differing opinions.

Yes I meant the getting fired AT part

Society cannot allow or justify murdering someone for free speech. Op implied that murder was a response to speech, and I am saying murder should not be allowed or considered as a response. It shouldn’t be hand waved away like “ah well what did you expect”, or fafo or whatever. It should be condemned unanimously.

He certainly wasn’t trying to reach a shared truth. He was trying to win the argument. Which is usually the point of debate. But it would be nice if the goal was to reach a shared truth…

No the reason he asked that question about gang violence is because gang violence numbers are a huge percentage of mass shooting numbers, so if you take them out of the calculation then the percentage of trans shooters is much higher and it is a debate about trans shooters. On the other hand, if you include those numbers then it is a debate about guns in general and ideologies or mental health issues get lost in the noise. I would guess he mostly wanted to make a point that the definition of mass shooting is not really in line with how people think of them.

I was only allowed to read the first page, but it was really focused on poor Islamic countries. But hold on, are you suggesting that the right wing policies are intentional, with the goal of making extremists? Seems really simplistic and narrow in scope.

Op implied that free speech does not protect you from being murdered, which is technically true, but it’s nonsensical unless he believes murder to be an acceptable response to free speech. It might happen, and in fact it did happen, but it’s not ok so why even bring it up? Unless you think it’s ok, in which case you are an absolute moron.

I think a lot of people are confused about what constitutes incitement.

The fired at part

So I guess fights at professional sports games are justified violence, since someone probably incited it by insulting an opposing player.

No because that would be murder.