pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @didiplaywell OP 11h \ parent \ on: Debunking the Slander on Charlie Kirk: what he *Actually* said on Gun Deaths Politics_And_Law
What holes? The narrative is clear and is ubiquitous: that "he had it coming" and "he would have justified this murder as necessary". This is much bigger than Charlie and the murderer. You're seeing in real time that the left and the mainstream media consider that you should be executed for not sharing their views.
Do you have proof that this was indeed the motivation of the assassin, and not just what people say?
You're seeing in real time that the left and the mainstream media consider that you should be executed for not sharing their views.
I do not disagree with this. I only disagree with your statement that this is a fact:
Charlie was murdered by someone solely because that someone didn't like what he said
I also wasn't talking about the media's narrative, I was talking about what you think @79c9095526 believes, exclusively based on #1218566.
reply
But what proofs do you need? He was killed on the spot in one of his events. Do you have proof that a person killed in an assault was killed just to steal his money? And when the murderer confesses would you still say "we will never truly know"? It doesn't matter at all what your inner intentions are, your actions speak for you. If you kill the guy in the middle of an event, you're attacking free speech. Regardless of all the reserves you may have on what the inner intentions were, this will effectively affect how people express in public from now on. And you will see that.
reply
There is a difference between fact and plausibility.
And when the murderer confesses would you still say "we will never truly know"?
This is a good question. I think I would say it is plausible enough then that we can say it's a fact.
this will effectively affect how people express in public from now on.
I know, I agree.
reply
Fair enough.