Charlie Kirk

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Just remember everyone. You must be respectful and do not voice any remotely offensive opinions of the man or what he believed.

If you do say anything offensive. The noble free speech warriors of the right, who believe strongly in people's right to voice opinions will try to have you sacked from your job.

I didn't think my opinion of Vance could actually get any lower, but what an absolute clown he is.

[JamesWales]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Just remember everyone. You must be respectful and do not voice any remotely offensive opinions of the man or what he believed.

If you do say anything offensive. The noble free speech warriors of the right, who believe strongly in people's right to voice opinions will try to have you sacked from your job.

I didn't think my opinion of Vance could actually get any lower, but what an absolute clown he is.

He went too far in encouraging people to notify their employers, but this is where we have been for several years now, and someone would have to be pretty stupid to make light of someones murder whilst having their employer on their profiles

[Heathblue]

Re: Charlie Kirk

He went too far in encouraging people to notify their employers, but this is where we have been for several years now, and someone would have to be pretty stupid to make light of someones murder whilst having their employer on their profiles

The state is seeking the death penalty. Wasn't it his parents who dobbed him in ?

[JamesWales]

Re: Charlie Kirk

The state is seeking the death penalty. Wasn't it his parents who dobbed him in ?

I believe so.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but where it exists it will be used for premeditated murder like this

[Heathblue]

Re: Charlie Kirk

I believe so.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but where it exists it will be used for premeditated murder like this

I don't support a death penalty but a life behind bars without parole for premeditated murder.

[az city]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Second up. On the wider benefit of national pride; we all live in a family unit, a community, a city, a region, a county. We all feel a part of wider connections as men or black men or old men and we all feel random social and religious connections too. City fans. Catholics. Muslims. Train spotters.

Ultimately though we have to live in administrative and financial structures and those structures are countries. What else should they be? Why shouldn't we be proud of them? What's the alternative?

Presumably, this is your rationale for "othering" so you can discriminate among fellow humans. Laughable.

[JamesWales]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Presumably, this is your rationale for "othering" so you can discriminate among fellow humans. Laughable.

Yet again your presumptions are extraordinarily wide of the mark. Who have I "othered"? I'll leave that to you - no one on this website more regularly expresses hatred towards other people more than you.

Now if you don't have anything to offer on the debate in hand about the pros and cons of nation states and whether people should or shouldn't be proud of them, why not do everyone a favour and just say nothing at all?

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Yet again your presumptions are extraordinarily wide of the mark. And no one on this website more regularly expresses hatred towards other people more than you.

Now if you don't have anything to offer on the debate in hand about the pros and cons of nation states and whether people should or shouldn't be proud of them, why not do everyone a favour and just say nothing at all?

The ironic King of Free Speech strikes again!

[JamesWales]

Re: Charlie Kirk

The ironic King of Free Speech strikes again!

And what are you on about? I suggested if he takes things off topic and offers only personal attacks, perhaps he is better saying nothing at all.

It's merely a suggestion. He is still free to ignore the topic and write what he did, so are you. It's just a waste of everyones time.

[az city]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Yet again your presumptions are extraordinarily wide of the mark. Who have I "othered"? I'll leave that to you - no one on this website more regularly expresses hatred towards other people more than you.

Now if you don't have anything to offer on the debate in hand about the pros and cons of nation states and whether people should or shouldn't be proud of them, why not do everyone a favour and just say nothing at all?

I'm sorry you don't have the mental acuity to recognize the fact I was offering a critique of nation states as a rationale for "othering". That is, I offered you a "con" in your terminology.

You really do need to pay more attention to what people post before responding with your customary pomposity.

[JamesWales]

Re: Charlie Kirk

I'm sorry you don't have the mental acuity to recognize the fact I was offering a critique of nation states as a rationale for "othering". That is, I offered you a "con" in your terminology.

You really do need to pay more attention to what people post before responding with your customary pomposity.

Sorry, did you just accuse someone else of offering customary pomposity? 😅😅😅.

You can read what I wrote. You offered nothing whatsoever in relation to it at all. Just a totally random, made up accusation of "othering", when no "othering" of anything or anyone was made. It may have made a small amount of sense if "othering" required nation states in order for it to occur. But it doesn't, so your point wasn't even accurate.

Even from the master, that was a classic strawman from you.

As I said, if you can't stick to a topic and just resort to ad hominem attacks, then perhaps it's best to just stop wasting everyones time.

[Dorcus]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Just remember everyone. You must be respectful and do not voice any remotely offensive opinions of the man or what he believed.

If you do say anything offensive. The noble free speech warriors of the right, who believe strongly in people's right to voice opinions will try to have you sacked from your job.

I didn't think my opinion of Vance could actually get any lower, but what an absolute clown he is.

This is disgusting on every level and an affront to basic human rights. Vlad Vance should have changed tack completely and threatened to push a red hot poker up the backside of any CEO who's company even dares to think about firing an employee for merely expressing an opinion. These tw**s don't own us!

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Charlie Kirk

He went too far in encouraging people to notify their employers, but this is where we have been for several years now, and someone would have to be pretty stupid to make light of someones murder whilst having their employer on their profiles

If someone has their employer on the account I have very little sympathy, it's going to be against company social media policy and it's bloody stupid.

But most of this doxing isn't that straightforward. People are seeing something on Facebook then digging until they find out job details, trying to match with linkedin, reverse image searches etc. That is absolutely wrong as far as I'm concerned

[az city]

Re: Charlie Kirk

Yawn

[Heathblue]

Re: Charlie Kirk

If someone has their employer on the account I have very little sympathy, it's going to be against company social media policy and it's bloody stupid.

But most of this doxing isn't that straightforward. People are seeing something on Facebook then digging until they find out job details, trying to match with linkedin, reverse image searches etc. That is absolutely wrong as far as I'm concerned

Reporting to someone's employer, You do realise that this has happened on this message board dont you ?