To Honor Charlie Kirk, Reject Cancel Culture

Plus: Trump and governors threaten social media regulations, activists push blacklists and firings, and how to resist apocalyptic politics.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

To Honor Charlie Kirk, Reject Cancel Culture

HD Video Download

This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch confront the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination. They open with reflections about the history of political violence in the U.S. and whether reactions online are amplifying fear rather than clarity. The panel critiques early attempts to pin the blame on social media—highlighting Trump and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's calls for new restrictions—while contrasting them with Colorado Gov. Jared Polis's argument that responsibility rests with individuals, not platforms.

The panel also considers how quickly tragedies get folded into pre-existing narratives, and whether calls for broad regulation risk undermining civil liberties without addressing the real problem. The conversation then turns to attempts to punish speech, including proposals to fire public-university employees and revoke licenses for those who made offensive remarks about Kirk's death. A listener question about the books on the panelists' shelves offers a brief detour, with each host highlighting a few favorites in view of the camera.

"Is mass immigration good for America?" Join us for a Reason Versus live debate on October 2 in Washington, D.C.

 

0:00–The role of social media in Charlie Kirk's assassination

18:15–Crisis politics and the growing censorship creep

39:30–What is the path forward?

52:30–Listener question on host's bookshelves

58:00–Weekly cultural recommendations

 

Mentioned in This Podcast:

"Social Media Didn't Kill Charlie Kirk", by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
"The Standard for 'Vicious' Speech Trump Laid Out After Kirk's Murder Would Implicate Trump Himself", by Jacob Sullum
"What the Messages on the Bullets of Charlie Kirk's Assassin Mean", by C.J. Ciaramella
"Charlie Kirk and America's History With Political Violence", by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch
"The Killing of Charlie Kirk: 5 Idiotic Responses on Social Media", by Robby SoaveWhat If "We Acted Like Political Violence Was a Problem?", By Matt Welch

"The Apocalyptic Faithlessness of Trump/Bannon Conservatism", by Matt Welch

"Politically Motivated Violence is Rare in the United States", by Alex Nowrasteh

 

Upcoming Reason Events:

Reason Versus — Mass Immigration Is Good for America, October 2

Today's Sponsor:

Therapy can feel like a big investment, but the state of your mind is just as important as your physical health. Let's talk numbers. Traditional in-person therapy can cost anywhere from $100 to $250 per session, which adds up fast, but with BetterHelp online therapy, you can save, on average, up to 50 percent per session. With BetterHelp, you pay a flat fee for weekly sessions, saving you big on cost and time. Therapy should feel accessible, not like a luxury. With online therapy, you get quality care at a price that makes sense and can help you with anything from anxiety to everyday stress. Your mental health is worth it—and now, it's within reach. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally. It's convenient, too. You can join a session with the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp connects you with mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise—so you can find the right fit. Plus, switch therapists at any time. Your well-being is worth it. Visit http://betterhelp.com/roundtable today to get 10 percent off your first month.

 

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Video Editor: Ian Keyser

What are we consuming this week?

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• Turo

Matt Welch

• Rev250 at Historic Red Hook

Nick Gillespie

• Modern Psychedelics: The Handbook for Mindful Exploration, by Joe Dolce

Peter Suderman

• The Long Walk

---

Comments

[Chumby]

Not a surprising take from Matt “red wedding on conservative journalists” Welch.

[Groovus Maximus]

What more do you expect from a eunuch?

[Chumby]

Not much from Dicked magazine.

[VinniUSMC]

To dishonor Charlie Kirk, continue to let Matt "Red Wedding" Welch work at the "Libertarian" magazine.

REEEEEason. Fuck Matt Welch. Fuck everybody in a position to remove Matt Welch from Reason.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Stop exposing the death culture and insanity of the left seems to be the argument Reason is going with. Kirk did just that often. So please tell us how you were all followers of him.

It is private companies choosing to fire after exposure.

It isnt Biden or the dems pushing threats of government for misusing pronouns or talking badly of vaccines.

Why is there is much push back now than during the covid censorship you all fucking denied for years?

[Groovus Maximus]

To Honor Charlie Kirk, Reject Cancel Culture Assassination

FTFY.

The platforms are fine as is. Public shaming of self-evident sociopaths both tacitly & explicitly approving the murder of a noted Free Speech 1A kinda guy doesn't rob them of speech, but may, oh, I dunno, cause one to reconsider future consequences of at, the very least, spectacular lapses in taste & judgement.

Is this how Matt Welsh (H/T Sevo) manages to be an unsightly hanger on, despite his, "Red Wedding" banquent for known conservatives, ahem, "suggestion?"

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Has he ever even admitted he said it since he did?

[MasterThief]

Not in Reason, but he argued with a few people replying to his tweet.

[Groovus Maximus]

His testicles are still in France...

So. No, not to my knowledge.

Fruit Sushi is more of a man than Welch is.

[Rick James]

And an out and proud conservative...

[MasterThief]

To honor Charlie, reject leftism and embrace religion and family. Reason chooses to pervert the moment to their priorities rather than read the fucking room. This "cancel culture" is about not associating with people who have shown they want conservatives and libertarians dead. It is really tedious to keep reminding Reason of this inconvenient fact to their narrative.

[freedomwriter]

Right wingers are sick fucks that live in glass houses. No one is more divisive than Trump and Rush Limbaugh before him. You fucking losers will not say the same about the right even though a radical righty killed Melissa Hortman and had an entire list of Democrats to kill. So SHUT THE FUCK UP you hate filled clowns

This particular right-wing nut, Kirk, mocked the brutal assault of Paul Pelosi. Any of you sick fucks say shit about your radical right friend? How many of you knew that guy?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

a noted Free Speech 1A kinda guy

Are you talking about the guy who created "Professor Watchlist" so as to chill the speech of certain professors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Watchlist

[damikesc]

So, holding up statements by professors, made by said professors, is bad? Got it.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Could be good, could be bad. Either way, not exactly consistent with being "a noted Free Speech 1A kinda guy", is it?

[damikesc]

I did not say he was one.

He tried to talk to your side and you killed him for it.

Moral: Do not try and talk to your side unless you're well-armed.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I haven't killed anybody.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

How do we know that?

[Vernon Depner]

He means no adults.

[Groovus Maximus]

Listing a gaggle of profs is not the same as quelling speech.

Nowhere does the Mission Statement say, "They MUST self-censor!" Now, if they say something that either the uni and/or those that fund it find objectionable & hold them accountable, well, that happens in a free society, no? Nobody said they couldn't say whatever; conversely, nobody has ever guaranteed immunity from consequence either, in this context.

Seems like more an informed consumer, "Buyer Beware," type list. Like the FDA listing side-effects & adverse reactions for a drug or group of drugs.

I'm sure you're a fan of prof disclosure for the benefit of the individual, like say, a potential student, yes?

Your ability to manufacture straw leaves The Steppes in awe in wonder.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Listing a gaggle of profs is not the same as quelling speech.

No, it is chilling speech. Which is the whole point of the "watchlist". And inconsistent with being "a noted Free Speech 1A kinda guy".

Also, Charlie Kirk was in favor of Trump revoking the AP's press pass because they refused to do the Gulf of Mexico name change in their reporting. That doesn't sound like a "free speech" kind of position.

His "debate college students" schtick was an act.

[Groovus Maximus]

You're a real pip...

1) Nothing is being "chilled" (and yes, I can both read & parse). Period. Full Stop. End of Story. A college prof is a position of power; I, as an informed consumer, would be interested to know such things.

They said it, they own it. If they didn't want it advertised, perhaps they should have exercised more discretion as per locale, or verbiage. If what's said cannot survive scrutiny, then perhaps their ethics & character are questionable; consequently, putting their competency as a prof into question.

Freedom to say or do is *not* immunity from consequence.

2) That was an official change of designation for geography. I would think holding the press accountable for factual reporting of geographic locale official name is desireable, if not imperative.

3) His encounters at the scores of colleges he visited were part of his Mission Statement as per TP-USA.

You're dishonest as the gravity your fat deposits generate, Sir Cumference.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Nothing is being "chilled"

Oh that's bullshit and you know it. Professors have power over the students in the classroom, yes, but university administrators have power over professors. And that was the real intended target of the "Professor Watchlist". It was to create so much bad publicity and outrage that administrators would fire or punish the professors over their speech so as to make the publicity go away.

holding the press accountable for factual reporting

That's not the government's job. That is a CORE COMPONENT of the First Amendment - the government doesn't get to decide which speech is "true" or "false" using its coercive power.

Sure there are reasonable arguments to be made in favor of Charlie Kirk's positions here. They are just not the arguments that someone who is a "1A kinda guy" would make.

[Groovus Maximus]

Professors have power over the students in the classroom, yes, but university administrators have power over professors.

Which TP-USA, as an independent organization, recognises. Subsequently, they decided to report on what profs were actually saying, again, no different than pharma manufacturers disclosing known adverse reactions & side effects of drugs currently on the market.

That's not the government's job.

For opinons, no. It's not.

For demonstrable, falsifiable geographic designations, I see no problem with it.

I would feel the same if reporters kept saying, "Mt. McKinley," as oppposed to, "Mt. Denali," (The official geographic name designation), as then-Pres. Obama's adminstration renamed the historical, "Mt. McKinley." The current official geographical name is, "Mt. Denali." Demonstrable, factual, & falsifiable.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Subsequently, they decided to report on what profs were actually saying, again, no different than pharma manufacturers disclosing known adverse reactions & side effects of drugs currently on the market.

Not the same - adverse reactions are disclosed for ALL drugs, not just a select few. The "Professor Watchlist" did not report on ALL professors, only the ones that his organization wanted to target. It was not about 'honesty in the classroom', it was a pressure campaign to try to get *certain* professors fired. Again, not a "1A kinda guy" type of position.

For demonstrable, falsifiable geographic designations, I see no problem with it.

That's fine. But it's not a "1A kinda guy" type of position for the government to revoke a press pass from a news organization because that news organization chooses to express their speech in a way that the government disapproves of. It's entirely contrary to the idea of the government not punishing speech it disapproves of.

[Groovus Maximus]

Adverse reactions are disclosed for ALL drugs, not just a select few.

True. However, not every drug is reported on *every* year if there is no change in the relevant statistics pertienent to that drug or family of drugs. A new crop of drugs released in a year for, example, will only contain information for those peculiar drugs, not every single drug contained in the US Pharmacoepia for that given year.

They listed professors as was presented based on what the profs themselves said. I can reasonably take the assumption they reviewed all professors, and reported on pertinent ones, as they saw fit. As per a 1A Free Speech kinda guy.

But it's not a "1A kinda guy" type of position for the government to revoke a press pass from a news organization

If that news organization has expressly shown that they are willfully intent on deceiving the public of demonstrably factual, falsifiable data (as it would appear in an encyclopaedia or authoratative refererence), then there is sufficient cause to deny a pass. There is this thing called, "Fraud," no? Or do you believe the 1A applies to fraud? (Hint: It doesn't).

See also: Kamala Harris & the Disatrously Edited Interview.

The public has a right to know, & know factually correct data. I would prefer the press to be present; if that news organization acts beforehand with fraudulent practices, then their claim of being present at will is seriously compromised at best.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I can reasonably take the assumption they reviewed all professors, and reported on pertinent ones, as they saw fit.

Not even they claim to have "reviewed all professors". They operate based on tips that they received. They say so themselves on the site. You made that part up completely.

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/aboutus

Furthermore, they are quite open: they are targeting a specific "radical agenda" that they disagree with. They are not going after professors who may be generally poor teachers. They are trying to chill the speech of the professors that they don't agree with. This isn't some harmless "rate my professors" site.

Don't take it from me: This is what an actual professor on that site thought about the watchlist.

https://archive.is/AfE7j

Albert Ponce, a professor of political science at Diablo Valley College, a community college in California, ended up on the watch list after a 2017 public lecture on white supremacy in the United States was edited down to a two-minute clip and circulated on conservative media outlets, starting with a right-wing site called Red Elephant.
“It ended up on Fox and Breitbart. Once it hit that ecosystem, it was gone,” he said. Hate mail turned into death threats against him and his family. Pictures of his family, including his then 9-year-old daughter, appeared online. He told a public radio show that he stopped letting her open the mail.
College administrators were flooded with demands that he be fired.
Now a tenured professor, Ponce said he has no intention of backing down from his scholarship, but he understands why many of his colleagues are worried that with Kirk’s death, the attacks on scholars could escalate.
“Now in this moment for what we teach, our areas of expertise, we’re all targets for these organizations that try to silence us,” Ponce said. “For anyone who touches these issues now, it’s open season.”

He certainly believed he was being targeted and silenced.

If that news organization has expressly shown that they are willfully intent on deceiving the public of demonstrably factual, falsifiable data

It's not "demonstrably factual" that the Gulf of Mexico is now called the Gulf of America. The Gulf of Mexico is the internationally recognized name. But EVEN IF IT WAS, the president alone shouldn't have the power to decide who is being truthful and who is lying and to punish a news organization for disagreeing with him. If it was truly "fraud", when was the trial? And NONE OF THIS is consistent with the SPIRIT of the First Amendment which is that the government should have a "hands-off" approach to ALL of this and should not be in the truth-deciding business. I know you understand this so you are just trying any argument at all to see what sticks. It would be better if you just admitted that Charlie Kirk took the WRONG position here - from a "1A kinda guy" perspective - in trying to defend Trump unilaterally revoking the press pass of a news organization because they chose to use the internationally recognized name of a body of water against the wishes of the government.

His "Free Speech" schtick was AN ACT. It was about IMAGE over principle.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Say stupid things, win stupid prizes.

[Groovus Maximus]

PS

I noticed you purposefully missed my ADDENDUM. All I've stated thus far, falls well within the purview of being a "1A Kinda guy."

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No it doesn't. Certainly not within the SPIRIT of the First Amendment, which is that individuals ought to be free to say what they like, including college professors, including news organizations. And not even within the letter of the First Amendment itself, when the government is punishing news organizations for speech that the government doesn't like.

Look, you are plainly trying to rationalize and stretch and cloud the issue so as to attempt to preserve the image of Charlie Kirk being some type of "1A defender" when that was more of an act than a principled position. He went to college campuses to debate poorly informed college kids as a type of standup gig. It's the same as when standup comics call on members of the audience, and then use the audience members to tell a joke at their expense. He USED college kids to advance his media image and political standing. If anyone on the other side pulled these kinds of stunts, you would call that person a huckster and a charlatan, and you'd be right.

[Groovus Maximus]

You're flailing.

Individuals *ARE* saying what they like. Others are scrutinizing what's being said, & holding up a mirror for others to see. That's accountability, something Kirk clearly enunciated &, moreover, put into practice on his debate events.

Again, and this is the point you're purposely & obtusely missing: There are limits to speech, & society imposes them, sometimes formally, often informally. There is no such thing as, "I'll say whatever the fuck I wanna say whenever I'll say & be totally bereft of any and all consequences forever & ever amen!" You just don't like that paradigm being applied to you & your petulant ilk.

Kirk understood that risk, & paid for it with his life. That's authentic adherence to principle. That's not something grifters & charlatans do.

Try not to stroke out, in every sense of the words, Sir Cumference.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

There are limits to speech, & society imposes them, sometimes formally, often informally.

What happened to "culture of free speech"? Gee, that didn't last long.

I'm well aware that there are informal limits to free speech. I have never argued otherwise. *I* was the one arguing the same thing back when the "culture of free speech" crowd was trying to use that argument to defend bigoted speech on social media. And in the current discussion, I have always been clear that those who are genuinely "celebrating" Kirk's death probably ought to suffer some consequences. But your team seems to have a rather opportunistic view on the whole "culture of free speech" thing: it's great if it allows you to display your inner bigot, but it's horrible if it's a mocking comment about someone you like.

[Groovus Maximus]

ADDENDUM:

TP-USA was well within their 1A rights to publish known, factual, information WRT those profs. Anything else would be libel, therefore, actionable.

[DesigNate]

The only thing chilling speech is leftist cheering one assassination and calling for more.

[AT]

No.

A year ago, sure, I would have agreed with you.

Not anymore.

I truly believe in the United States. I am now 100% convinced that large swaths - large blue swaths - have ZERO interest in that. They hate us, they want us dead, and they celebrate when we die. And celebrate even harder when we're murdered. The exact same way jihadists do.

I will no longer defend that element of America. They have no interest in unity, no interest in peaceful coexistence, no interest in rational debate, no interest in the Constitution or its Rights - and it's now past time pretending like they do. Does that make me a hypocrite? I don't know. Maybe. I've always objected to punishing people for wrongthink.

But I don't think we're actually talking about wrongthink anymore. I think they've crossed into actual evil, and those who want to obfuscate it by bastardizing the virtuous principles of things like 1A.

So, I'm done. I've always loved and respected LOTT for what she does. She reposts the evil and horrific thing that evil and horrific people say and do. She holds up the mirror. If there are now serious consequences for those evil and horrific people - good. Blacklist them. Fire them. Go full on McCarthy on the subject. I don't care anymore.

I'm beyond sick of this perversion of goodness and freedom that rationalizes killing people and celebrating it under the auspices of serving the Constitution.

A: "Kill that man."
B: "OK."
C: "Why did you say that!?"
A: "1A."

Screw that. Time to burn Speaker A to the ground.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I truly believe in the United States. I am now 100% convinced that large swaths - large blue swaths - have ZERO interest in that.

Finally, the mask has slipped completely away. This is the end result of MAGA-ism. It is the weaponization and politicization of the concept of patriotism itself. It is the belief that a true patriot must have a specific set of IDEOLOGICAL beliefs, which just so happens to align with nationalist Christian conservatism. Those with views that disagree, are insufficiently loyal to the Republic and are labeled as traitors.

This is the end goal of MAGA - a culturally homogeneous America, where most people agree with most things, and stifling social conformity is the norm. Those who disagree are scared to express their disagreement in any way for fear of retaliation.

This is a big reason why you are called fascists. Because you cannot tolerate dissent and disagreement. Because you want to label any substantive disagreement as equivalent to treason. Because you just don't want to live with other people that aren't virtual clones of yourselves. You want a "pure" America. It's just not the racial purity that the Nazis wanted, but a cultural purity.

[damikesc]

"Finally, the mask has slipped completely away. This is the end result of MAGA-ism. It is the weaponization and politicization of the concept of patriotism itself. It is the belief that a true patriot must have a specific set of IDEOLOGICAL beliefs, which just so happens to align with nationalist Christian conservatism. Those with views that disagree, are insufficiently loyal to the Republic and are labeled as traitors."

No (weird how basically every response to you starts with you being wrong), it is a statement that we have TRIED to find common ground and your side has decided they do not wish to do so. You, INSTEAD, would rather kill a centrist conservative who tried to reach out to you and, rather than condemn it, you have tons of monkeys on your side celebrating it and then whining it when consequences follow.

YOUR side needs to tone down its rhetoric, but it will not. We do not trust any of you. We have no reason to.

"This is a big reason why you are called fascists."

Your side CELEBRATES and defends a guy who murdered somebody for speech.

There is nothing more fascist than that.

[Marshal]

This is a big reason why you are called fascists.

They're called fascists because unprincipled assholes call their enemies the worst thing they can think of.

Because you cannot tolerate dissent and disagreement.

It's just bizarre leftists can't apply their standards to themselves. They've driven all dissent out of every institution they control. But leftists are only interested in criticizing their enemies, never in evaluating everyone according to consistent principles.

[Minadin]

If they didn't have double standards . . .

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But leftists are only interested in criticizing their enemies, never in evaluating everyone according to consistent principles.

I guess that makes you a leftist then.

[damikesc]

Leftists MURDER people for saying things they do not like.

Tell me MORE about the fascism.

[Marshal]

I guess that makes you a leftist then.

I see your perfect record of failing to accurately analyze anything is intact.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

Conservatives can't retain their teaching positions for failing to use preferred pronouns, or denying climate catastrophizing...

Let's say a hypothetical middle school teacher or untenured college lecturer had posted a celebration video after the death of George Floyd (or Mike Brown, Trayvon, etc) which said the following - "One more dead worthless N***** we won't have to feed and house. Good riddance!"

Would this person have kept their position? should they? How would black parents feel about them educating their kids?

[Groovus Maximus]

Would this person have kept their position? should they? How would black parents feel about them educating their kids?

1) No.

2) No.

3) I doubt *ANY* decent parent would object to such a person instructing his or her child, regardless of race. I would imagine a black parent in particular would find this highly objectionable & evidence of bias in instruction & poor character.

I would feel the same if said hypothetical teacher said that Iryna Zarutska deserved her fate from a racist nutjob who stabbed her in the neck for no other reason than her racial demography.

[Groovus Maximus]

Correction:

"I doubt *ANY* decent parent would *NOT* object to such a person instructing his or her child...."

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The racism analogy doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny here. A teacher who expresses overt racism should be fired because bigotry against a person based on race is based on the target's intrinsic qualities that the person has no power to change. A person who disagrees with a POLITICAL view does not fall into the same category. People have the choice whether or not to believe in the views that they choose to believe in. Besides, your apparent standard here would disqualify anyone from making any criticism of any political view, because someone somewhere is going to be offended that THEIR view was criticized - why should that person want their kids taught by that teacher? It means ultimately that teachers lose all voice in both their professional and private lives.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Celebrating someone being murdered is completely wrong.

[Groovus Maximus]

And *that* is the point that Sir Cumference stubbornly (purposefully?) is missing.

FAFO is a real thing. Again, having the 1A to say whatever speech =/= complete immunity from *ANY & ALL* potential consequences of said speech, in this context.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, let's just be honest then about what your team is actually doing. It is targeting not just people who "celebrated" Kirk's murder. It is targeting people who merely made sarcastic or mocking comments as well, AS IF that also means they were "celebrating". What your team is actually doing, is attempting to enforce a conformity of thought in which anyone who didn't feel as grief-stricken as you or anyone else on the right should be shamed and hounded to the point of losing their livelihood. To the point that NO ONE MUST EXPRESS AN OPINION OTHER THAN SADNESS. Oh and rage and retribution against "the left". That one is okay too.

[Groovus Maximus]

Seems to me individual people are merely exercizing their 1A Free Speech rights in the SPIRIT that you mentioned elsewhere.

Those, allegedly, being "targeted", as you claim (flaccidly). Others are 1A Free Speech responding to that speech.

I see no coercion here, as claimed. Just an exchange of SPIRIT, no?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Did you celebrate when Osama bin Laden was murdered? Be honest.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And by the way. I am NOT comparing Charlie Kirk to Osama Bin Laden. I'm simply pointing out that "celebrating" someone's death is not automatically wrong.

[DesigNate]

It's telling you had to pull a guy that directed people to carry out a terrorist attack on American soil as your counter, instead of another American who was needlessly murdered by a psychopath.

[Chumby]

Anything to help protect the rainbow cult.

[Marshal]

A person who disagrees with a POLITICAL view does not fall into the same category.

Of course it does. The way the left uses its political control is no different than a dictator punishing his enemies economically by ensuring they can never be employed above subsistence level.

That's what Jeffey is protecting.

[Groovus Maximus]

the target's intrinsic qualities that the person has no power to change

Rachel Dolezal, The DEI Mafia, & The Rainbow Trantifa would all like a word with you...

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Umm, what?

[AT]

This is a big reason why you are called fascists.

Because you don't know the meaning of it????

You want a "pure" America. It's just not the racial purity that the Nazis wanted, but a cultural purity.

What's wrong with cultural purity?

If one culture says, "Torturing and killing small animals is awful" and the other says "Torturing and killing small animals is a neat hobby," which culture is correct? Which culture is superior? Which of those two cultures is more pure?

Heck, I'll make it easier for you:

If one culture says, "I would like to speak on college campuses and advocate Christian conservative viewpoints without being shot in the neck for it" and the other says "Nah F that shoot him in the neck, piss on his corpse, and desecrate his memory," which culture is correct? Which culture is superior? Which of those two cultures is more pure?

Which one do you want to have as your neighbor?

You don't get to babble about "cultural purity" when YOU'RE the one shooting people in the neck, Jeff.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

What's wrong with cultural purity?

I rest my case.

[AT]

No you didn't. You just avoided the question.

What is wrong with cultural purity?

[DesigNate]

You didn't even make a case. Just a bunch of assertions.

[damikesc]

So, "Kill anybody we dislike" is part of a culture we wish to have? This is the route you wish to take?

Again, these rules you are championing for will suck, hard, for you when fully implemented.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

When did speech cease being the proper response to vile speech? Is telling the world about vile people and their vile speech not the counter speech we are always told about?

If those vile people didn't want anyone to know what they said, they could have just not said the vile things they said. Are they not proud of the vile things they said? Do they not want the extra publicity they are getting for the vile things they so proudly posted for the world to see?

[Idaho-Bob]

This will be the Reason sermon for awhile. Leave the left alone, they should not be held accountable. Charlie would've wanted it this way.

The left murdered Charlie. Now you fuckers get the rest of us. The lesser tolerant is in the bullpen and warming up.

[sarcasmic]

When the left cancels people it’s a crime.

When Trumpians do it it’s divine retribution.

As always you determine right wrong based upon who, not what.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Fuck off , sarc.

[AT]

You don't get to hide behind the children anymore, jihadi.

[sarcasmic]

You don't get to hide behind your brown shirts anymore, fascist.

[AT]

That doesn't even make any sense. The Nazis wore their stupid uniforms with pride. Kinda like how you raise your rainbow/jihadi flags.

Seriously, why did you even post that?

[Chumby]

Your beloved Biden used govt to coerce employees to cancel people. Folks supporting the debater, who was assassinated by a team blue rainbow cultist, are asking employers to review any employee that felt it appropriate to celebrate the murder of said debater. With you, it is always the who known as team blue.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I'm sure the guy who wrote the sarcastic tweet of, "is the gun safe?" deserves to be canceled for "celebrating".

[Chumby]

That isn’t your decision to make no matter how much gaslighting you do about the team blue rainbow cultist member assassinating Charlie Kirk and its aftermath. The employers are making shared collective reasoning decisions whether they want to retain toxic people representing their brands. You are free to hire any and all of the recently unemployed.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Sarc is just scared he is next.

[sarcasmic]

Democrats did it first. That makes it ok.

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

Same old tired shitty strawman. Sarc, find a new batch of straw, fuckhead.

[Rick James]

How do you do, fellow kids... isn't this Cancel Culture thing like, the worst?

[Groovus Maximus]

Nick looks like Boris Karloff from Universal's, "The Mummy," (Yeah kids, THE OLD ONE!)

He has not aged well. The Jacket itself looks less leathery....

[Rick James]

*raisess hand*

Missus Mangu-Ward... can we do it just for a little while so they'll finally have to admit that it exists AND that it sucks?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But they aren't going to "admit it sucks". Instead they will double-down on it and do it harder next time. That is the natural result of the tit-for-tat game theory, right?

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

Just like you do? You always double down on your bullshit, obfuscation, changing the subject, and false equivalencies.

[DesigNate]

"next time"

1. They are STILL fucking doing tit. How is there going to be a "next"

2. So everyone just needs to lie back and think of England. That's essentially what you're calling for from anyone to the right of Obama.

[rbike]

I am all in on it. Firing them is great. Loving it.

Anyone dumb enough to post stupid things online deserve all they can handle.

And, yes, I take this personally as they would definitely want me dead too.

[AT]

That's the funny thing about it. Normies don't do that kind of thing in the first place. Sure, maybe some fringe ultra-MAGA alt-right incels do - and by all means, hold them to the same standard.

What the left - including Reason - hates about all this, is that it's revealing that this is the norm among the American Left. They're absolutely desperate to try and kick that particular dirt under the rug, trying to gaslight us against the fact that we can all plainly see the glaring lump under their rug.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

it's revealing that this is the norm among the American Left.

But it's not. Go ahead, go to the "Charlie's Murderers" site and read some of the comments. You will find a few that are actually horrible comments and should be condemned. But the big majority of the comments are either sarcastic, mocking, or pointing out some of Charlie's worst takes. They aren't "celebrating" anything. They just aren't grief-stricken.

But you, safely ensconced in your right-wing bubble, are told that the one guy who was cheering on video, is representative of ALL who didn't join in with the grief. That's just not true.

[AT]

They just aren't grief-stricken.

Why not?

Dude got shot in the neck. Why aren't they grief-stricken?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Let's imagine that Ibram X. Kendi, noted "antiracist", is murdered tomorrow.

Would you be sad? I can imagine, maybe a little.

Would you condone the murder? I would imagine, probably not.

Would you be grief-stricken? Would you attend a candlelight vigil in his honor? Would you scour the Internet for people making sarcastic comments about him and try to get them canceled? Would you go to the Reason comment forums and make angry denunciations about the murder and how he didn't deserve to die like this and how this means there's just some people who don't really like America anymore? Probably not.

In fact, you might even think "well, I don't approve of his murder, but I am kinda glad that he's not indoctrinating college kids anymore." I think that's a possibility.

What do you think?

[AT]

Would you be grief-stricken?

Yes. I will never not be horrified by a senseless murder. You know who else I'm grief-stricken for? The guy that shot Charlie Kirk. Yesterday at Church, I not only prayed for Charlie's wife and children, I prayed for the young man who murdered him. I prayed for the salvation of a soul so broken and corrupted who did such a horrible deed deluded by evil into thinking he was righteous for doing so.

It's the same prayer I have for the LGBT Pedos. And for the Islamist terrorists. And for the Democrats. They are all the same broken people, and they're the ones most in need of our prayers, and of God's grace and salvation.

That's the difference between people like you and the rest of America, Jeff. That's the thing you don't understand about your very own neighbor. You hate him SO much, and he has nothing but love for you. Or at least he really really tries to.

And even if he's forced to kill you out of self-defense for what horrible things you intend upon him, he does so with a sense of tragedy. Not of victory. Not of pride. Not of happiness.

Every death is tragic, Jeff. Even the microscopic little ones inside a womb. Americans understand that.

You clearly do not.

In fact, you might even think "well, I don't approve of his murder, but I am kinda glad that he's not indoctrinating college kids anymore." I think that's a possibility.

Um, you realize that it was Charlie Kirk who was murdered - and not some random leftist college professor, correct?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

This has got to be satire.

[Minadin]

Said everyone who has ever read one of your posts.

[AT]

Like I said, you clearly are incapable of understanding.

That's a choice, btw.

[DesigNate]

Atheist like jeff will never understand, because they would never do what you just said.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And, yes, I take this personally as they would definitely want me dead too.

Who wants you dead?

The people who are actually celebrating his death? Possibly.

The people whom you claim are "celebrating", but are actually just pointing out some of Charlie Kirk's views that they viewed as horrible? Probably not. They're probably just limited to hating on Charlie. They probably don't give a shit about you.

The people whom you claim are "celebrating" but who really are posting sarcastic remarks? Definitely not. They are just being Internet smart-asses.

But it's good to know that right-wing victimhood culture is alive and well. Take a few people who said some horrible things, and you immediately extrapolate that to THEY ALL WANT TO MURDER ME.

[damikesc]

You've shown that you will kill when given the chance.

Forgive the Right for not just assuming things have not changed after your side killed a man and celebrated it.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

after your side killed a man

So, you now know for certain what Tyler Robinson's motives were? At first we were told he was some left-wing radical. Then the story was, he's a Groyper. Now the story is, he's a gay militant angry about Charlie Kirk's anti-homosexuality positions. So which "side" is this side supposed to be?

and celebrated it.

Of course, your side is doing its damnedest to define "celebrating" to mean "any comment that wasn't effusively grief-stricken.

Tell me, do you think the sarcastic comment of, "is the gun safe?", constitutes "celebrating" his murder?

[damikesc]

"So, you now know for certain what Tyler Robinson's motives were? At first we were told he was some left-wing radical. Then the story was, he's a Groyper. Now the story is, he's a gay militant angry about Charlie Kirk's anti-homosexuality positions. So which "side" is this side supposed to be?"

Well, Nick Fuentes condemns the killing outright, so a Nick fan seems highly unlikely. His family and friends say he was left-wing on pretty much everything. ALSO, The ONLY people supporting it are the Left. YOUR side loves that the man was murdered. Sure, his young kids saw it, but hey, his fault for having kids, right?

Perhaps applauding a guy who murdered somebody is something your side should, you know, avoid doing. But you do not. And you have no problems with it. That is OK.

You've changed the equation. We are adapting to the situation your side initiated.

"Of course, your side is doing its damnedest to define "celebrating" to mean "any comment that wasn't effusively grief-stricken.

Tell me, do you think the sarcastic comment of, "is the gun safe?", constitutes "celebrating" his murder?"

Hey, we are just remembering that is now HILARIOUS for somebody we oppose to be murdered. We should not CONDEMN such activity --- we should champion it.

Welcome to the world you've built, jeffy. As I've said a lot in the past --- you will not like the rules you have set up here.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, Nick Fuentes condemns the killing outright, so a Nick fan seems highly unlikely.

Nick Fuentes does not control every single one of his followers. So this fact, even if true, does not disprove the claim that Tyler Robinson could have been a Groyper.

His family and friends say he was left-wing on pretty much everything.

This claim is based on a Guardian story that was retracted, because the source they relied upon for this claim proved to be unreliable.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/paper-retracts-claim-suspected-kirk-173533310.html

ALSO, The ONLY people supporting it are the Left. YOUR side loves that the man was murdered.

Go read the "Charlie's Murderers" site and tell me how many of those entries come from people who could be fairly judged as LOVING that Charlie Kirk was murdered. Go on. You will find it was maybe a handful. Besides, that some people were not upset that an act occurred, does not mean that those same people CAUSED the act occurred. For example I was rather pleased that the Sun rose this morning, however, I did not cause the Sun to rise this morning.

And I can tell by your hyperventilating response that you agree with me that no, the sarcastic comment of "is the gun safe?" should not reasonably be considered to be "celebrating" anything. Other than bad sarcasm, perhaps.

I am not a conservative, so I am not interested in condemning every comment that makes me sad, I am not interested in creating a society of bland conformity. That's you.

[damikesc]

Who on the Right is celebrating the murder?

The celebrants are exclusively of the Left.

The assassin was a Leftist. That is not even a dispute at this point. To claim otherwise is to be a mendacious liar. I know where I expect you to fall on that.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

I still remember when jeff and shrike celebrated Herman Cains death due to covid.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The assassin was a Leftist. That is not even a dispute at this point.

Yeah it is in dispute. The single source that claimed he was "left on everything" was found to be unreliable and the story was retracted. I even presented the story to you. I'm not surprised that you ignored it.

[damikesc]

No, it is not. He was a leftie. There is absolutely zero dispute over that.

You're lying, as per usual, which is not a dispute.

[But SkyNet is a Private Company]

We all knew immediately, you stupid worthless gaslighting twat.

The anti fascists messages on the bullet casings were a further clue, before we even knew his name

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You all ASSumed immediately.

[Minadin]

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-says-motives-unclear-of-killer-who-wrote-manifesto-entitled-here-are-my-motives

[Minadin]

There have been so many videos and posts of leftists celebrating it openly, that it's almost surprising to see you try to deny it.

Almost.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I'll be honest, I haven't seen a single video of anyone legitimately "celebrating" Charlie Kirk's death. But then again I don't watch Fox News.

[Marshal]

Maintaining tactical ignorance is a key strategy on the left.

[damikesc]

He does one better. Chemjeff foregoes the "tactical" part.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You would know a lot about "tactical ignorance". You don't even know who your enemies really are and you choose not to find out, instead presenting only simplistic caricatures.

[damikesc]

People applauding the murder of Kirk and those defending those people are the enemy.

I am explicitly clear about who the enemies are. Most people not of the Left are.

[Minadin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GnEz-B9Z2E

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I love the juxtaposition of Maher saying "Charlie Kirk wasn't a monster, he was a real human being" with the lady news anchor saying "Just LOOK at those monsters on the left!"

But anyway, so there were, what, five or so clips of people "celebrating" his death? Fine. I will note that at least two of the clips weren't "celebrating", they were simply pointing out some of Charlie Kirk's comments that they disagreed with. Even in this little montage that you posted, you are still conflating people who were literally cheering, with people who were just not sufficiently sad to your taste.

You really do demand that EVERYONE should feel just as sad as you do, right? I might have been persuaded that you think everyone ought to feel sad that any human being was murdered, regardless of their views, except I see how MAGA generally regards people who are outside of their tribe - not exactly overflowing with human compassion. Every time I or others bring up immigrants who are suffering in concentration camps "detention centers", you all blow off those complaints as made-up lies. MAGA is all too willing to characterize immigrants as violent thugs and predators and to advocate harsh measures to be used against them.

[Minadin]

Just because Charlie Kirk was not, in fact, the monster that the left made him out to be, doesn't mean that there aren't any.

If I'm sad, I'm sad that there's an entire side of the political spectrum that seems to think that this is fine or even justified in some way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRnSZdzvlYM

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And by "entire side", what you really mean are "a handful of TikTok videos".

Can you even understand how some people might have a problem with some of his beliefs?

[VinniUSMC]

"A handful" of 20,000+. Fuck off pedo jeffy Leftist.

[Minadin]

I think it's very telling, that you know how bad this looks to have all these evil, gleeful, demonic people post so openly and unanonymosly about the joy they feel in the cold-blooded murder of someone they disagree with politically.

Because you aren't defending it. You're denying that it happened. Then when it's proved to have happened, OK, but it's not as widespread as we're making out. Yeah, it's widespread and it's absolutely disgusting. At least people like Bill Maher have the sense to denounce it immediately.

[DesigNate]

I don't watch Fox News either and have still managed to see stuff.

You're either not looking or you're lying.

[Minadin]

I've never watched a minute of Fox News. Or MSNBC.

[AT]

They're probably just limited to hating on Charlie. They probably don't give a shit about you.

https://x.com/Black_Pilled/status/1965880897548485042

[TJJ2000]

Cancel Culture.
[WE] didn't do it! It was all Trumps Fault! /s

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

I blame the tariffs.

[tracerv]

Seriously. Fuck off with this shit. Reason is truly a gaggle of cunts.

[Stuck in California]

Is gaggle the correct collective noun for cunts?

There have to be good alternatives. A Clowder? A Dripping? A Queef? A Fupa?

Whatever. +1 Bunch of disingenuous cunts.

[damikesc]

So, private entities are NOT sacrosanct, now?

Proud enough to shoot a video and post it? Don't whine if somebody shares it.

[Chumby]

Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson reportedly admitted his guilt in his Discord chat just 2 hours before he was turned in:

“Hey guys, I have bad news for you all. It was me at UVU yesterday. I’m sorry for all of this. I'm surrendering through a sheriff friend in a few moments. Thanks for all the good times & laughs.”

- WaPo via Live Leak

[damikesc]

I think him refusing to talk to the authorities is going to be a very poor idea.

[Chumby]

Not sure anything he does now is going to change the outcome.

[AT]

Stop using his name.

[Chumby]

Round 3 of People Employers Found Toxic

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bXcSFbrsePk

[AT]

Man they curse a lot.

[Chumby]

I’d guess some of those women never knew their fathers.

[Groovus Maximus]

They all most likely have the same one. Known colloquially as, "Uncle Sam."

Man, that guy sure gets around....

[sarcasmic]

To Honor Charlie Kirk, Reject Cancel Culture Do It Harder

After all, you know who did it first, and that makes it ok.

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

Fuck off, Sarc.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Every single Reason editor without out exception lectured us for years explaining that censorship and cancelling were AOK as long as it was done by private companies. Even when it became undeniable that government was censoring via private companies Reason described it as jawboning, a more palatable term than authoritarian tyranny. Of course those being censored and cancelled at the time were not the leftist adults in the room that Reason strategically and reluctantly endorsed. But now libertarians are worried about people openly advocating violence maybe paying a price for being assholes. What if they get fired by private companies? I'm sorry but this Kirk assassination is really pissing me off and to come here and witness the blatant hypocrisy of Reason is just too fucking much. No one in this dismal circle jerk has a shred of credibility. Maybe just shut the fuck up for a week or so and hope we all forget what asses you are making of yourselves.

[sarcasmic]

Keep lying and promoting the narrative.

The moment that it became known that the White House was directly influencing private companies, they were against it. They waited until they had facts. You know those things Trumpians are allergic to.

The only thing Reason is guilty of is not defending rumors and waiting on facts.

So keep telling lies.

If you told the truth my hate club would disown you. And you wouldn't want them dropping turds on all your comments. So you better keep telling lies.

You are afraid of them. If you weren't then you'd tell the truth.

You're a scared little pussy. Too scared to defend the truth.

Meeeooooow!

[sarcasmic]

So call me names. Say I'm a drunk or whatever the cool insult is. That will save face.

But don't you dare say that cancel culture is bad by itself. Bad is determined by who, not what.

[Marshal]

Fake sarc pretending he is civil:

So call me names. Say I'm a drunk or whatever the cool insult is. That will save face.

Real sarc:

You're a scared little pussy.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh look, it's Marshal the leftist again.

But leftists are only interested in criticizing their enemies, never in evaluating everyone according to consistent principles.

[VinniUSMC]

Oh, look at fatass pedo jeffy pretending to have principles.

[Stuck in California]

I have questions. These are sincere, if anyone can fill me in please do.

And, for info, I literally knew NOTHING about Charlie Kirk before this. I guess he's martyr by one definition, because I do now. But I'm not that online. Not even here anymore because... well you know.

So:
1. Seeing the videos of the fired from another thread here... who would trust these people or consider them reliable empolyees? I base that on obviously bad decision making and at a level of that makes them a liability as a representative of a company.
- For example, if you're the type of person who cries, screams, goes into a rage, starts lashing out, or anything like that at being disciplined for your public face, you're immature and obviously unworthy to be given ANY sort of responsibility. I, personally, wouldn't hire someone if I knew they did that. But, doing it and then posting it on public media for the whole world to see? That means you're also a malignant narcissist with absolutely no sens of boundaries or propriety and I REALLY don't want you working for me.

[AT]

What's your question?

[Stuck in California]

>who would trust these people or consider them reliable empolyees?

[AT]

I guess the short answer is that most of them DON'T know that about them at the time of their hiring. When I hire someone, I don't deep-dive their social media to find out what kind of human they are - I just try to discern if they're qualified for the job or not.

But if they go out of their way to illustrate what a despicable human being they are and it's brought to my attention - then yea, trust and reliability diminishes.

[Stuck in California]

B. Is it really cancel culture if you're making what is an obvious, direct, and cruel statement about a significant event that just happened, and that reflects extremely badly on you? Especially if you are in a position of power or responsibility, like a school teacher or a government official.

I kind of considered cancel culture when online mobs would dig through past posts for comments or jokes made a decade before that were completely mainstream then, but ran afoul of the wildly changed left wing zeitgeist post 2015. I'll leave this one here, I could type paragraphs on the topic. I honestly want to know if others have a view like this.

[DesigNate]

That was the standard understanding of "cancel culture" up until last week.

[Stuck in California]

Third: How much do 50 centers REALLY get paid?

Because there's a standard way of doing things here. A topic, ANY topic, comes up and one or more of a standard cadre of shitposters drops in with their shtick. Trolling 101, rage baiting, being willfully (or maybe actually) stupid or obstinate, or deliberately contrarian simply to get responses.

Maybe not just "paid". What's in it for you? Seriously, why would you do this if you're NOT getting paid, but even if you're getting paid what kind of person do you have to be for your profession to be destroying reasonable discussion?

Anyway, too much typing. I have too many opinions here and not enough understanding to base them on.

[Vernon Depner]

Don't try to make sense of the behavior of mentally ill people.

[Mickey Rat]

Are people being fired for disagreeing with Charlie Kirk or because they are celebrating the political assassination of Charlie Kirk because they think that should be the fate of people they politically disagree with?

There is a tremendous difference there.

And again, Reason staff do not acknowledge any enemies to the Left.

[Chumby]

When an editor at Dicked magazine called for conservative journalists to be invited to a location and experience a “red wedding” and they are retained on staff, I’m not sure they are anything other than an ally to the “left” you reference.

[MasterThief]

It's still insulting that he's who they trotted out first to discuss the assassination. As usual no integrity or responsibility shown to address the conflict.

[Social Justice is neither]

Not insulting, revealing. To me everything written here on the subject is filtered through the lens of their chosen representative and his advocacy for the very political violence we are supposed to NOW condemn.

[Mickey Rat]

"I think of the paradigmatic example of cancel culture was Brendan Eich, who was fired from his position at Mozilla because he had supported a California ballot proposition that reinstated the definition of marriage as one between one man and one woman. Eich’s firing was part of a wider campaign in which leaked information was used to target and harass people for peaceably participating in the political process and cultural contestation. The view he expressed seems to me not just reasonable and defensible but is also one that is in some ways obliged on him and me by our shared religion.

I would not have opposed Eich’s firing if the precipitating event had been a social media post in which he lustily celebrated the violent murder of someone he considered a political opponent, and particularly if that celebration was meant to further intimidate roughly half of his fellow citizens into silence. I don’t think it’s some kind of high hypocrisy to say that the critique of cancel culture wasn’t intended to protect all speech from normative judgment, but to preserve the necessary space for democratic deliberation and contestation."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/cancellation-and-violence/

[Incunabulum]

Reason: 'To honor Kirk, stand in front of a large window, backlit.'

[Incunabulum]

Listen, there's only going to be one set of rules for everyone. The Progressives wanted this rule - fine: Now they will be made to live by their own principles.