Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I admittedly never watched much of his speeches because I didn't like his "debate" style.
He would mostly "debate" ill prepared students and he would often flip the burden of proof. He would state a claim and then demand someone prove that claim false.
In a proper debate, when one asserts a claim, they have the burden of proof and must demonstrate the claim.
If he said the things you allege, wouldn't that technically be an indirect threat though? Not a direct threat?
I don't think the killer has a moral or a lawful defense claim.
I never said that there was any legal or moral justification. I certainly remember that when I said that Kirk's death was a consequence of his hate speech, and not hard to anticipate at that, all the MAGA lice swarmed on me and said that I was endorsing Kirk's killing. I said no such thing. I simply observed that if you advocate, loudly and in public, repeatedly, for the death and eradication of a person or group of persons, the danger exists that someone will take you seriously enough to defend themselves or their loved ones, and that defense may be violent or even lethal.
I recommend you do a Google search on some term like "Charlie Kirk transgender hate speech." Plenty of stuff to watch. I didn't find him using the precise words "exterminate" or "eradicate," but he was sure as hell advocating for precisely that. It's not like he was mincing his words.
I would have watched more, but frankly, I find his speech/debate style and tactics repulsive, interrupting his opponents, making ad hominem attacks, and constantly trying to shift the burden of proof away from himself. It was the style of an asshole, and quite frankly made me wonder if he had watched Trump debate performances to train himself.
I'm certainly, unequivocally, absolutely happy that he's dead, much as I will be when Trump dies. And if anyone should be "eradicated" or "exterminated," it's the young men who listened to and cheered his rhetoric and adopted his philosophy. Utah Hitler Youth.
I don't want to segue to "karma," because I'm not about to say that Kirk got what he deserved. For one thing, the world doesn't work that way. But that said, actions do have consequences. Kirk shouting about how half the world should be wiped off the map was like Bruce Willis's character in that third Die Hard movie stripping to his shorts and wearing a signboard that said, "I HATE NIGGERS." Would anyone have been justified in killing him? No. Would it have been exactly unexpected if someone had? No.