Chicago principal claims teacher who made sick Charlie Kirk gesture is the victim

[Hazelelponi]

No, I'm explaining them to you! An indefinite, assumed and possible threat a long way from the US versus a guaranteed and immediate threat.

If your president says he's going to kill these people then is it acceptable to blow up a truck crossing the Canadian border and kill everyone in it?

well, we have always chased attackers to their own country (whether country of their birth or training) and taken the fight overseas as opposed to fighting people on US soil.

When people go to war against us we see it as an immediate threat - see Sept. 11

War is war and the Cartels decided this course of action for themselves. They are an immediate and clear threat on American soil - so we are fighting them, wherever they are found.

If they didn't want a war with us, similar to Hamas, they shouldn't have started one. People who don't want to fight wars should not start them. They are the ones attacking the United States and her citizens.

They can always stop. They can withdraw US operations and be happy living in countries who will entertain such illegality, but foreign adversaries don't get to kill US citizens indiscriminately without consequences.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

While I didn't know Kirk. Conservative national. I wouldn't want to forced Conservative national on any country. If he wasn't shot. Maybe he would have calmed down on his belief. But there's no reason to brag about shooting his neck. This lady got caught. And his supporters are mad about it. So, she must be punished.

I've likened these sort of situations to what I've called "The Rush Limbaugh Paradox"

Remember that guy and what he was all about?

He was the far-right radio show host who made a career out of saying polarizing things (much more abrasive than Kirk)

He made a series of brash statements about how every person who used drugs should be sentenced harshly and locked away.

Then as luck would have it, he got busted for illegally using drugs in the early 2000's and got in legal trouble.

At the time, people on the more progressive half of the spectrum were somewhat pleased with the fact that he got busted -- sort of a "hey, would you look at that...Mr. Anti-drug got caught with illegal drugs...well well well", and were then subsequently a bit frustrated with the fact that he worked out a deal to get treatment in exchange for his charges being dropped by the DA. They wanted to see him face the brunt of the draconian policies that he'd advocated for all those years.

Now, that wasn't because late 90's/early 2000's progressives wanted to see harsher drug penalties as a general rule...quite the opposite, in fact.

It's because every single person has a bit of that human element that gets a certain measure of satisfaction in seeing a rival (who pushed for things they didn't like) get "hoisted by their own petard" as the saying goes. (especially for things they've harshly and very vocally advocated for happening to other people)


With how that relates to this story:

From 2013-2018, there were a rash of incidents where in order to get a conservative person in "real-world" trouble, all a progressive person would have to do is go dig up an old tweet (sometimes years old), and then email it to their boss or HR department.

People were routinely “exposed” for past tweets, old YouTube clips, or Facebook posts — sometimes years old, many companies adopted zero-tolerance policies and were firing employees after online pressure, and some universities even rescinded admissions or scholarships based on resurfaced videos or old posts (e.g., high schoolers caught saying "offensive things" on video or social media a few years prior).

...so there are people who want to see the faction that supported those things, have to face some of those consequences from their own playbook. As sort of "social retributive justice" of sorts.

So the thought process is:
If some 24 year old back in 2015 was going to have their career prospects ruined due to "accountability and consequences" for something stupid he said/did when he was 17, and that was the "socially acceptable" approach to "teaching one's political enemies a lesson". Then why shouldn't this lady face consequences for something she did last week?

 

[Larniavc]

Diversion duly noted.

Not really. If he told me then I could go to the police. Surely that is what anyone would do?

 

[Chesterton]

Not really. If he told me then I could go to the police. Surely that is what anyone would do?

You'd go to the police because you don't feel safe, right?

 

[Hazelelponi]

...so there are people who want to see the faction that supported those things, have to face some of those consequences from their own playbook. As sort of "social retributive justice" of sorts.

You might enjoy this and while not exactly the topic is still the topic in general. I think there's some of what you said but there's actual principal too. There really are, in my opinion, things that are bridges too far.
.

 

[NxNW]

Not so much a flaw in logic. You're just very confused and confusing.

Feel free to elaborate. I made my point.

 

[Chesterton]

Feel free to elaborate. I made my point.

You're not making a lick of sense. You began this by asking me if Kirk ever said that Kirk had views similar to Kirk's.

 

[NxNW]

You're not making a lick of sense.

I think I've been pretty clear.

You began this by asking me if Kirk ever said that Kirk had views similar to Kirk's.

Never happened.

 

[Chesterton]

I think I've been pretty clear.

Yah, clear as mud.

Never happened.

Post #7 =

Accountability. I have socio-political beliefs similar to Kirk's. I would not feel safe working around co-workers who think it's okay to murder me in front of my family.

Post #43 (quoting post #7) =

Did anyone make such a statement (other than Kirk)?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You might enjoy this and while not exactly the topic is still the topic in general. I think there's some of what you said but there's actual principal too. There really are, in my opinion, things that are bridges too far.
.

That was an interesting watch, thanks for sharing, I haven't heard of that guy before.

I think he touched on an interesting aspect (and it's one I've thought of before).

He touched on the aspect of apologies, and commented on "the willingness of the people making hay about a situation to accept the apologies"

He's right about that...I've noticed that -- especially in the realm of comedy/entertainment, the people who give graveling apologies end up worse off than the people who simply make no apologies for what they've said in the past and go on about their business.

Often times the demands for an apology are just a way for the "hay-makers" to get their own position publicly validated in front of an audience to bolster their premise, just for them to keep on hating the person anyway.

For example, if Joe Rogan came out on his podcast tomorrow and said "I apologize, but I realize I was wrong, the covid vaccines are awesome, and I shouldn't have promoted all of those other alternative things, that was my bad", the "haters" would still hate him, and they'd be using his statement as a means to bolster their own arguments to use against him...there's literally no upside in apologizing if the people demanding it had zero intention of forgiving you either way.


Even though it's a comedy show (surprisingly I was able to find a clip from IASIP that doesn't contain any naughty language), they hit the nail on the head for why you don't try to apologize or contextually justify yourself to the angry mob, it's just throwing chum in the water for the sharks that wanted eat you regardless

 

[bèlla]

While I didn't know Kirk. Conservative national. I wouldn't want to forced Conservative national on any country. If he wasn't shot. Maybe he would have calmed down on his belief. But there's no reason to brag about shooting his neck. This lady got caught. And his supporters are mad about it. So, she must be punished.

The government is pushing it as well. Punishing people for differences of opinion regarding Kirk isn’t a crime. Here’s some snippets from Wikipedia.

After the assassination of American political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk in September 2025, there followed widespread disciplinary and retaliatory actions against people seen as celebrating, justifying, or trivializing Kirk's death. These efforts were promoted and directly engaged in by the U.S. federal government, with President Donald Trump explicitly condemning "the left" for the violence in his address to the nation in its immediate aftermath, and pledging to target left-wing groups and causes, monitor political speech, revoke visas, and designate far-left groups as domestic terrorists in response to the attack.

On the night of Kirk's killing, the Department of State announced it would penalize individuals considered to be "praising, rationalizing, or making light of Kirk's death". Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced an investigation into the reactions of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, as well as subsequent firings and dismissals of those found to have made obscene or blasphemous comments about Kirk.

Commentary cited as reasons for firings and other reprisals included comments which openly celebrated Kirk's demise, spoke critically of his politics or political influence, or which appeared to justify Kirk's assassination through citing his own views on the constant of gun violence or otherwise reposting Kirk's words in ways intended to dishonor his memory. In some cases, criticizing the Republican Party's response to his killing—regarded by some as seeking to opportunistically capitalize on Kirk's death to target political enemies and engage in a broad crackdown on dissent against the Trump administration—resulted in termination of employment or other disciplinary actions.

They also called for investigations into left-wing groups, universities, and the military for putative anti-Kirk speech. On The Charlie Kirk Show following his death, Vice President JD Vance called for people heard to make remarks deemed uncivil to Kirk to be reported to their employers for termination. Trump later announced that any network that criticized him too harshly could be subject to a revocation of their broadcast license.
…..

Florida lawmaker files bill to require all state colleges, universities to rename road after Charlie Kirk

Another Republican Florida lawmaker has filed a bill to rename several roadways after the late Charlie Kirk, the right-wing political activist and influencer who was fatally shot in September.

State Rep. Kevin Steele, R-Dade City, filed House Bill 113 Tuesday, which would require all of Florida's public state universities and colleges to rename one roadway on their campuses after Kirk.

The bill states that the Florida Legislature will hold back state funds "for any university or institution that fails to redesignate" a road after Kirk within a certain time.
…..

Special Charlie Kirk Honorary Recognition Withdrawn by Air Force Academy Board

Efforts by some encouraging the U.S. Air Force Academy to posthumously honor former conservative commentator and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk were rejected on Friday, according to the nonprofit membership organization Academy's Association of Graduates (AOG).

"We are grateful to all who have taken the time to reach out by phone and email, and to those who attended today’s meeting in person, to share their views," the AOG said Friday in a statement. "The AOG Board, serving as the governing body of the Association, took the thoughtful feedback received into account.

"The Honorary Member and honorary degree motions concerning Mr. Kirk were withdrawn."

*Note: There was a lot of pushback from soldiers and veterans. He never went the academy or served in the military.

~bella

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The government is pushing it as well. Punishing people for differences of opinion regarding Kirk isn’t a crime. Here’s some snippets from Wikipedia.

After the assassination of American political activist and commentator Charlie Kirk in September 2025, there followed widespread disciplinary and retaliatory actions against people seen as celebrating, justifying, or trivializing Kirk's death. These efforts were promoted and directly engaged in by the U.S. federal government, with President Donald Trump explicitly condemning "the left" for the violence in his address to the nation in its immediate aftermath, and pledging to target left-wing groups and causes, monitor political speech, revoke visas, and designate far-left groups as domestic terrorists in response to the attack.

On the night of Kirk's killing, the Department of State announced it would penalize individuals considered to be "praising, rationalizing, or making light of Kirk's death". Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced an investigation into the reactions of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, as well as subsequent firings and dismissals of those found to have made obscene or blasphemous comments about Kirk.

It all depends on whether or not it can be contextually defined as a form of a negative action that could inspire other bad behavior or increase the risk of copycatting. (with regards to whether or not governments start treating "differing viewpoints" as potential risks to public wellbeing)

If someone hopped on a social media platform after 9/11 and said "Haha, I think it's awesome what Bin Laden did", you don't think they'd be getting some visits from some folks in dark sunglasses wanting to ask a few questions?

If that example sounds a bit extreme, we don't have to go quite that far...

We've already seen the government try to police what it considered "speech that could inspire others to make bad decisions".

Did they or did they not haul a bunch of Tech CEOs up to Capitol Hill and grill them about "what are you going to do about this vaccine and election misinformation???" (with the implication being a mafia-style "those are some nice Section 230 platform protections you've got there, it'd be a shame if something happened to them")

 

[Chesterton]

He's right about that...I've noticed that -- especially in the realm of comedy/entertainment, the people who give graveling apologies end up worse off than the people who simply make no apologies for what they've said in the past and go on about their business.

Often times the demands for an apology are just a way for the "hay-makers" to get their own position publicly validated in front of an audience to bolster their premise, just for them to keep on hating the person anyway.

Yep, I've said this for years - Never apologize to the Left. Apologizing to them is like baring your neck to a wolf. It'll only be used against you. They don't understand the concept of forgiveness, until they desire it for themselves.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That was an interesting watch, thanks for sharing, I haven't heard of that guy before.

I think he touched on an interesting aspect (and it's one I've thought of before).

He touched on the aspect of apologies, and commented on "the willingness of the people making hay about a situation to accept the apologies"

He's right about that...I've noticed that -- especially in the realm of comedy/entertainment, the people who give graveling apologies end up worse off than the people who simply make no apologies for what they've said in the past and go on about their business.

Often times the demands for an apology are just a way for the "hay-makers" to get their own position publicly validated in front of an audience to bolster their premise, just for them to keep on hating the person anyway.

For example, if Joe Rogan came out on his podcast tomorrow and said "I apologize, but I realize I was wrong, the covid vaccines are awesome, and I shouldn't have promoted all of those other alternative things, that was my bad", the "haters" would still hate him, and they'd be using his statement as a means to bolster their own arguments to use against him...there's literally no upside in apologizing if the people demanding it had zero intention of forgiving you either way.


Even though it's a comedy show (surprisingly I was able to find a clip from IASIP that doesn't contain any naughty language), they hit the nail on the head for why you don't try to apologize or contextually justify yourself to the angry mob, it's just throwing chum in the water for the sharks that wanted eat you regardless

That's Pastor Doug Wilson, he's a reasonably popular reformed pastor. I enjoy his blog from time to time when the topic grabs my attention. He always gets me thinking.

I agree about apologies, many are just ridiculous with it. Thanks for sharing that clip - it was good.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I agree about apologies, many are just ridiculous with it. Thanks for sharing that clip - it was good.

But be warned, not all clips from Always Sunny are that "clean" lol, so while they have an astute sense of some political comedy, I wouldn't recommend watching it when the young ones are in the living room lol.

 

[Bradskii]

well, we have always chased attackers to their own country...

This was in International waters.

When people go to war against us...

I missed the declaration that Congress made about that.

And you are yet again avoiding the differences between blowing up a boat nowhere near the US and containing who knows what and blowing up a truck entering the US that you know contains drugs.

There are two reasons for not answering a question. The first is that you don't know the answer. The second is because the obvious answer shows an blatant inconsistency in any given position. I keep asking the question to highlight the second.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I missed the declaration that Congress made about that.

You may explore the issue yourself, it's not my field, which I have mentioned.already several times.

I'm sure if there are specific things you have issues with you can start a topic, we are talking about a school teacher miming death threats and the resulting public outrage in general.

I no longer remember how this topic even entered in, but it's off topic. Never fear I don't think sex and human traffickers should be allowed to be school teachers either.

 

[bèlla]

Did they or did they not haul a bunch of Tech CEOs up to Capitol Hill and grill them about "what are you going to do about this vaccine and election misinformation???" (with the implication being a mafia-style "those are some nice Section 230 platform protections you've got there, it'd be a shame if something happened to them")

I get what you’re saying but there’s going to be pushback. Christians and Trump are bedfellows now and you won’t be able to separate them. Everything he does in the name of christian principles will be blamed on them because they supported him. But in the grand scheme of things it isn’t a concern. I have no qualms with his supporters taking a hit as opposed to innocents.

~bella

 

[Chesterton]

Everything he does in the name of christian principles will be blamed on them because they supported him.

What do you suppose he's going to do in the name of Christian principles?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What she was exhibiting there in the video wasn't "centrist behavior".

Anyone who attends an activism protest typically isn't the "middle of the road on this issue" type of person.

On that issue, yes. But you didn't stop at what she did at this protest instead you assumed something about her behavior 3-5 years ago, that was what I am doubtful about. And you seemed to argue that point on the grounds that she was at a anti-ICE protest, but she wasn't at a anti-ICE protest. "Worst president ever", is a position a centrist can have: and it is not anti-ICE.

For example: Have you ever seen an "abortion-related centrist" protest? Or is it pretty much always either a staunch pro-life rally, or a staunch pro-choice rally?

I've never seen an abortion protest ever. They don't exist were I am. Abortion support is not split along party lines here, rather along religious lines. The only largish group opposing abortion is Catholics, plus some pentecostal congregations (taken together they are probably as numerous as Catholics). But there are a lot of others specific issue protests that are attended by persons across the political spectrum (LGBTQ issues and Israel-Palestine conflict for example).

Typically if a person feels so strongly about an issue that they'll take the day off of work, stay at home the night before making signs/special shirts/etc..., and yell slogans at people in cars as they pass by, that person likely isn't a centrist.

They probably have a view on the questions that are expressed at the rally, yes. However you argued that she celebrated doxxing and firing political opponents, that was not supported by the sign she carried.