Media Matters

[LifelongFan]

In before "it's a form of hate speech to ask for the Epstein files" from Pam

 

[sixstar]

the pendulum swings. left suppressed free speech, now the right sees the opportunity to do it in retaliation. bad behavior from all.

 

[LifelongFan]

Obligation?

 

[NDVirginia19]

Bondi pretty much spitting on Kirk's legacy

 

[NDVirginia19]

Sorry citizen, you didn't mourn Saint Charlie enough.

If you think journalists have a duty to deal in facts, then falsely manipulating Kirk's quote to defame him following his assassination is a bad thing to do. Don't think she should have been fired though. I'm against the manhunt to call employers and get people fired, but let's not pretend that all of these people are getting fired for not mourning Charlie when the vast majority of them were actively celebrating a politically motivated (whether it be from the far right or far left) assassination.

 

[TorontoGold]

I already answered your first question. Read.
No, I don't hear "hateful = kill them." But I am not all people.
Depends on the religious text, clearly. Outside of the Bible? No, because other religions are false.

Ok, then you don’t believe your own statements or questions.

Lmao you aren’t aware of how ridiculous that sounds. This is literally the type of language that radical Islamic fundamentalists have when they’re doing ISIS recruitment.

 

[sixstar]

yes, many religious people believe their religion is the only correct one, and this includes, but is not exclusive to, both Christianity and Islam.
this line of thinking is also conveyed by athiests and non-religious people groups (to include party line political fanatics).

this is ridiculous to you? how many conservative values do you think are correct?
how is it any different than your loyalty to credentialism throughout the COVID debates?

Everyone has personal source(s) of truth. Could be a religious text, a book, a news channel, a Fauci speech, a political party, a societal movement, a person, the list goes on. What are your source(s) of truth?

 

[NorthDakota]

Can't print or write the name on the cup because it's political. Seems to me that refusing to write the name is also being political. And she does it with such a caring smile. lol

I probably would do it because i don't think they get paid enough to care, but what kind of dork is asking for Charlie Kirk's name to be put on their coffee?

If a place asks me for my name, I just give them my name. Isn't that what people are supposed to do?

 

[TorontoGold]

yes, many religious people believe their religion is the only correct one, and this includes, but is not exclusive to, both Christianity and Islam.
this line of thinking is also conveyed by athiests and non-religious people groups (to include party line political fanatics).

this is ridiculous to you? how many conservative values do you think are correct?

Yes, religious fanatics are ridiculous to me. Just like Taylor Swift fans thinking she’s the only artist in music. Dismissing everything else as false because you have a favourite is brain dead.

To tie this back to your original point (wouldn’t want you to get off topic!) justifying someone’s positions because it was in their favorite book, and that this rule only applies to them because, you need to trust me this is the only real book and all others are false is the most illogical argument one can have. It’s even more hilarious that it’s being made by the people who have a meltdown about pronouns.

What does my opinion on conservative values being correct matter? Stay on topic.

 

[Blazers46]

Government isn't firing them but they are telling people to get them fired. Maybe it's not a first amendment violation but the government says do not criticize our poor Saint Charlie, who is in Valhalla for some reason.

Okay… I think the only point you are making currently is that you are just a whiny little bitch.

 

[sixstar]

Yes, religious fanatics are ridiculous to me. Just like Taylor Swift fans thinking she’s the only artist in music. Dismissing everything else as false because you have a favourite is brain dead.

To tie this back to your original point (wouldn’t want you to get off topic!) justifying someone’s positions because it was in their favorite book, and that this rule only applies to them because, you need to trust me this is the only real book and all others are false is the most illogical argument one can have. It’s even more hilarious that it’s being made by the people who have a meltdown about pronouns.

What does my opinion on conservative values being correct matter? Stay on topic.

Everyone has personal source(s) of truth. Could be a religious text, a book, a news channel, a Fauci speech, a political party, a societal movement, a person, the list goes on. What are your source(s) of truth?

Why does your opinion on conservative value matter? Because - if you think conservatives are ubiquitously wrong, then you are no different than a Christian claiming that other religions are false.

 

[Blazers46]

Obligation?

Cry harder.

 

[NDWarrior]

I probably would do it because i don't think they get paid enough to care, but what kind of dork is asking for Charlie Kirk's name to be put on their coffee?

If a place asks me for my name, I just give them my name. Isn't that what people are supposed to do?

Starbucks baristas never get names correct anyway, so would probably get written out as Charlie Kook! 😂

 

[yankeehater]

I guess Charlie had mentored her, so she paid tribute live on air.

ABC Affiliate Reporter Resigns After Suspension for Charlie Kirk Tribute

Beni Rae Harmony, a reporter with WICS ABC Newschannel 20 in Illinois, resigned from her job this week after being suspended for paying a non-partisan tribute to Charlie Kirk.

www.breitbart.com

 

[BuaConstrictor]

then falsely manipulating Kirk's quote to defame him following his assassination

Cry harder.

Directly quoting Kirk isn't manipulating his quote. It's holding him accountable for the terrible shit he said.

 

[TorontoGold]

Everyone has personal source(s) of truth. Could be a religious text, a book, a news channel, a Fauci speech, a political party, a societal movement, a person, the list goes on. What are your source(s) of truth?

Yeah my source is the Communist Manifesto. No other sources on economic policy are true. Even if I rigidly interpret its points, you can not question it. How does that sound?

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Yeah my source is the Communist Manifesto.

I FUCKING KNEW IT!

COMMIE SCUM!

 

[sixstar]

Yeah my source is the Communist Manifesto. No other sources on economic policy are true. Even if I rigidly interpret its points, you can not question it. How does that sound?

sounds like you are avoiding a very straightforward question by spiraling into hyperbole. i answered your questions very directly, now answer my two questions, i'm generally curious.

 

[TorontoGold]

sounds like you are avoiding a very straightforward question by spiraling into hyperbole. i answered your questions very directly, now answer my two questions, i'm generally curious.

Many different sources. I like relying on data mainly, or academic sources.

Why is it ok for Christian fundamentalists and not Islamic fundamentalists?

 

[sixstar]

I never said it wasn't okay for Islamic fundamentalists.
I never said it wasn't okay for you to have your own sources of truth.

My point: people have them. For Christians, it is the Bible. For you, it is data and academic sources. You disagree with, discount, or dismiss sources outside of your personal sources of truth. It's the same thing, just with a different source. Does it sound ridiculous to you now?

 

[Irish#1]

Ok, then you don’t believe your own statements or questions.

Lmao you aren’t aware of how ridiculous that sounds. This is literally the type of language that radical Islamic fundamentalists have when they’re doing ISIS recruitment.

Curious, have you been recruited or read their propaganda?

 

[TorontoGold]

So do you believe that it’s wrong for people to be upset with strict Muslims that want sharia law? It’s their truth and what they believe.

I disagree with rigid absolutist positions that were made 2000 years ago. No problem with the bible.

 

[sixstar]

That's very ambiguous wording. But to answer your question: it's not a crime to "be upset." State of being indicates passivity.
It's also not a crime to disagree with something. Disagreement without action also indicates passivity.

 

[Irish#1]

This should make Lifelong smile.

 

[TorontoGold]

Curious, have you been recruited or read their propaganda?

No, I don’t think a baptized progressive is high on their list.

 

[TorontoGold]

That's very ambiguous wording. But to answer your question: it's not a crime to "be upset." State of being indicates passivity.
It's also not a crime to disagree with something. Disagreement without action also indicates passivity.

Read again. You said “I never said it wasn’t ok for Islamic fundamentalists” and I asked if you think it’s wrong for people to be upset with those views. You clearly believe it is wrong for people to judge Kirk for his religious views.

Don’t inject criminality in here, I’ve never said Kirk was a criminal. So let’s stay on topic.

 

[drayer54]

What are the odds.

 

[drayer54]

View attachment 3060088

Bondi pretty much spitting on Kirk's legacy

I don’t agree with the hate speech nonsense. Democrats tried to weaponize it and abuse government to enforce it and it’s no better if republicans try it. I can see why people don’t want to work with hateful assholes, but you have to respect free speech from the side of the government.

 

[drayer54]

not mourning Saint Charlie enough? Hate speech!

The right does not agree with her.

 

[sixstar]

Read again. You said “I never said it wasn’t ok for Islamic fundamentalists” and I asked if you think it’s wrong for people to be upset with those views. You clearly believe it is wrong for people to judge Kirk for his religious views.

Don’t inject criminality in here, I’ve never said Kirk was a criminal. So let’s stay on topic.

slow down, vortex. either you are twisting words to deflect (likely), you are truly lost on my points, or both. stop extrapolating. stop reaching. stop spinning.

maybe you are innocently conflating my personal opinions with how I think others should behave? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. If you ask me for my personal opinion on how I approach things, I answer for myself. And then I provide examples of how others would answer for themselves.

go back and re-read the thread.

Let me help:
you: "Yes or no - is it a reasonable position to defend your actions because of a religious text."
me: "Depends on the religious text, clearly. Outside of the Bible? No, because other religions are false."

you: "Lmao you aren’t aware of how ridiculous that sounds. This is literally the type of language that radical Islamic fundamentalists have when they’re doing ISIS recruitment."
me: "yes, many religious people believe their religion is the only correct one, and this includes, but is not exclusive to, both Christianity and Islam. this line of thinking is also conveyed by athiests and non-religious people groups (to include party line political fanatics)."

you: "Dismissing everything else as false because you have a favourite is brain dead."
me: "Everyone has personal source(s) of truth. Could be a religious text, a book, a news channel, a Fauci speech, a political party, a societal movement, a person, the list goes on. What are your source(s) of truth?"

you: "Many different sources. I like relying on data mainly, or academic sources.
Why is it ok for Christian fundamentalists and not Islamic fundamentalists?"
me: "I never said it wasn't okay for Islamic fundamentalists.
I never said it wasn't okay for you to have your own sources of truth.
My point: people have them. For Christians, it is the Bible. For you, it is data and academic sources. You disagree with, discount, or dismiss sources outside of your personal sources of truth. It's the same thing, just with a different source. Does it sound ridiculous to you now?"

you: "So do you believe that it’s wrong for people to be upset with strict Muslims that want sharia law? It’s their truth and what they believe."
me: "That's very ambiguous wording. But to answer your question: it's not a crime to "be upset." State of being indicates passivity.
It's also not a crime to disagree with something. Disagreement without action also indicates passivity."

you: "You said “I never said it wasn’t ok for Islamic fundamentalists” and I asked if you think it’s wrong for people to be upset with those views. You clearly believe it is wrong for people to judge Kirk for his religious views."

like - how do you even follow your own spaghetti logic?