Not sure what to make of this yet...

Charlie Kirk and The Hate Speech Algorithm (— Evey Winters · Sep 18, 2025) — jorndoe

Fascinating analysis! I'm also not sure exactly what to make of it, other than that this seems to be a promising methodology and that her general observations of Kirk seem to have an objective basis.

But I'll focus on one statement I think problematic:
"There’s almost no way he wasn’t aware of his impacts during his lifetime."

Of course there's ways he could be unaware! First, it's not something Kirk would have been interested in, so he might not have given it a thought. Alternatively (or in addition), he may have had an point of view that's an idealization of NOS4A2's: free speech absolutism and holding speech blameless no matter how extreme it is. Such a perspective would deny any relationship between one man's speech and another's actions. Arguably, the statistics are evidence against that point of view, but anything short of deductive proof can be rationalized.

So the free speech absolutist makes an exception, when it entails retaliation by his side; a retaliation that's an order of magnitude worse because it entailed explicitly political speech, and threats to misuse the office of the FCC to inflict that punishment*, and threats of expensive lawsuits

If retaliation (in spades), is acceptable, then you should be fine if there were to be counter retaliation from the left. But obviously, you have no principles.

No, I’m pointing out that this is the world that people like Kimmel built. You want censorship you get censorship.

US attorney resigns amid pressure from Trump after sources say he refused to charge NY AG Letitia James

Trump and his Congressional sycophants accused the "Biden Justice Dept" as being "weaponized" against conservatives, on the basis of the fact that Trump was investigated and indicted. By painting it as "Biden's" DOJ, they sought to link Biden to it. It was "Biden's DOJ" only to the extent that he appointed the AG (a former nominee to the Supreme Court respected for his legal acumen) and a few other top positions. There was never one hint of Biden trying to influence any DOJ actions. Biden continued the post-Watergate norm of an independent DOJ. Presidents set priorities (e.g. prioritizing civil rights violations, or prioritizing violations of immigration law), but they have refrained from directing specific investigations or prosecutions.

Based on this false claim that "Biden's DOJ" targeted conservatives and victimized Trump, Trump & Co are explicitly, and unequivocally, politicizing and weaponizing the DOJ.

On a related note: a family member of mine is an FBI agent, stationed in Washington DC. He has spent most of his 15+ years with them in foreign intelligence (specifically not law enforcement, as some agents do). For the past few years, his full time assignment has been on one specific country- one of our biggest rivals in the world. He now has to spend 2 days each week patrolling DC, so he now spends only 60% of his time working intelligence. All for Trump's political theater.

, I’m pointing out that this is the world that people like Kimmel built. You want censorship you get censorship. — NOS4A2

I don't want censorship, but I have a more nuanced view of free speech than you. And I'm not a hypocrite - like you. I do not, and have not, advocated silencing people like Kirk for their speech. I support rebutting that speech, as I do with you. But if Kirk's speech, which clearly exhibits prejudice, is allowable - why wouldn't satire?

Let’s get this out of the way first—do you believe those in power should decide what you can and cannot say?

You answer that, in light of your support for the Trump Administration's threats to ABC.

Personally, I do not think those in power should wield that power to limit free speech. I believe that is likely unconstitutional, but absolutely believe it is wrong.

Of course there's ways he could be unaware! — Relativist

He managed to get rich. I suppose maybe he thought all that luxury just fell at his feet.

On January 5, 2021, the day before the Washington, D.C., protest that led to the January 6 United States Capitol attack, Kirk wrote on Twitter that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 "buses of patriots to D.C. to fight for this president".[51][52] A spokesman for Turning Point said that the groups ended up sending seven buses, not 80, with 350 students.[51][53] In the lead-up to the storming, Kirk said he was "getting 500 emails a minute calling for a civil war".[54] Publix heiress Julie Fancelli gave Kirk's organizations $1.25 million to fund the buses to the January 6 event. Kirk also paid $60,000 for Kimberly Guilfoyle to speak at the rally.[55] — Wikipedia

Personally, I do not think those in power should wield that power to limit free speech. I believe that is likely unconstitutional, but absolutely believe it is wrong. — Relativist

As a constitutional matter, the call for a free press is clear. What complicates the present issue is that the FCC was formed by Congress to restrict what enough people found to be offensive. That measure was aimed at certain expressions of profanity and extreme references to individuals and groups. Those limits are subject to changes of sensibility over time but also represent a set of negotiated agreements under constant review.

The elephant and the donkey in the room concern how ownership of the media influences that set of controls. That element also introduces the broader problem of regulation of commercial enterprise.

So, the administration uses some of their power to reduce the limits put in place by Congress and heighten other parts when it serves their political objectives.

U.S. Education Dept. unites conservative groups to create 'patriotic' civics content
^{— Sequoia Carrillo · npr · Sep 17, 2025}

I'm getting some vague 1920s-30s Italy vibes here. Isn't the US education system in need of basic improvements, rather than this?

I was getting 500 emails a minute calling for civil war — Kirk said · Jan 11, 2021

Extremist magnet. Who the senders were (domestic + foreign) might be informative.

Trump is going full totalitarian mode now. The latest outrage is the firing of Erik S. Siebert, a DA who had been told to rake up incriminating evidence on James Comey (previously FBI director), Letitia James (the NY DA who had successfully brought mortgage fraud charges against Trump) and Senator Adam Schiff (Manager of the first Trump impeachment). Apparently Siebert had concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges. Trump had Siebert fired, then blasted Pam Bondi in a public social media post, insisting that DOJ find a way to bring charges, more or less 'come hell or high water'. (He's now drafted another lackey, er, lucky attorney to do his dirty work.)

Such White House interference in Dept Justice actions is, of course, almost completely unprecedented and highly irregular to say the least. Trump complained that the two impeachments and five indictments brought against him were all 'based on nothing', so in his (twisted) mind, filing false charges against perceived adversaries is no different (and as usual never mind the actual facts). NY Times coverage (gift link). Rachel Maddow comment.

Extremist magnet. — jorndoe

He was bought, for his ability to speak, and would speak about whatever he was paid to speak about, regardless of whether he had any real belief.

, I'm reminded of this old comment ...

↪Baden Pompey worked out how to use the Roman army to intimidate his way into political power. Julius Caesar adopted his method and worked out how to manipulate popular support; he was defeated by the Senate. Augustus built on the strategy developed by Caesar, sidelining the Senate. The Republic was not overthrown at one blow, but by building on successive successful strategies.

The lesson some will be taking on board now is that fixing numbers in the Senate and popular cult status is insufficient; one also needs to gain control of the judiciary; and fixing numbers of Supremes is insufficient; State courts will also need to be fixed.

But the process for undermining any last semblance of democracy is in place; the oligarchy is becoming explicit. — Banno (Nov 14, 2020)

Hopefully that turns out a bit dramatic, yet the comment seems to have aged too well. The first emperor, Augustus (-27), also told Romans he was the only one who could save Rome, and they believed him, et voilà, imperial cult.

What a dumb equivocation. Are you really such an idiot you cannot tell the difference?

The recent behavior of Trump and MAGA seems to solidify the fact that we’re dealing with a narcissistic dictator wannabe who takes advantage of a crazy christo-fascist cult powered by with a team of actual nazis within his inner circle.

What laws and regulations can battle that if their entire drive is set on a “second coming of christ” delusion? I don’t think people realize how dangerous such a movement can become, especially when they seem to now self-radicalize because of Charlie Kirk.

It also cements that the US is a christian fundamentalistic nation, exactly in the same vein as how we view many Islamic nations, forming laws and values out of whatever skewed idea in their religious delusions they push forward as their primary creed.

I have no doubt that most of the people at the Charlie Kirk event want to burn the rest of the world in holy nuclear fire. We’re witnessing a proper cult getting dragged out from the dark by someone bathing in their love.

And few seems to actually care. :shade: