Just like Kirk was murdered by a left-winger because they made groyper references that most of the world doesn't get, while 4chan laughs because they know what's up >_>

Hortman was murdered by an anti-abortion loonie with a Republican history.

You are correct in your assumption that I am a conservative, but I abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right as much as anyone. But the fact remains that the roots of this behavior are in men like Foucault and Marcuse, who were squarely on the left.

No, but they did condition employment based on being left-wing:

Required ‘diversity and inclusion’ statements amount to a political litmus test for hiring - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...

Diversity Statements Required for One-Fifth of Academic Jobs - https://www.schoolinfosystem.org/2021/11/11/study-diversity-...

Berkeley Weeded Out Job Applicants Who Didn't Propose Specific Plans To Advance Diversity - https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...

A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. - https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/policy-report/the-new-loy...

Mathematicians divided over faculty hiring practices that require proof of efforts to promote diversity - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mathematicians-divid...

“If you write: ‘I believe that everyone should be treated equally,’ you will be branded as a right winger,” Vinod Aggarwal, the chair of Asian Studies at the university, said in an interview. - https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm...

UC Berkeley’s rubric for evaluating diversity statements penalized candidates for saying that they prefer to “treat everyone the same,” or for objecting to racially segregated affinity groups. As my reporting has shown, by the early 2020s, the Berkeley rubric had become something of a gold standard, used by search committees across the country, including at the University of New Mexico, University of South Carolina, Northwestern University, and Ohio State University. - https://www.city-journal.org/article/a-death-knell-for-diver...

(to debunk the usual counterpoint that these diversity requirements merely test for being able and willing to teach all demographics of students)

> Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?

Did the right? What incidents are you referring to?

What about the stuff around George Floyd. Weren't people accosted and forced to kneel down and repent?

e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8664345/Aggressive-...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1267283980514201610

https://twitter.com/i/status/1269043437275435016

Etc.

Maybe some of them knelt voluntarily. But what would have happened if they hadn't. To me at the time there seemed to be a lot of social pressure to "kneel" and accept the narrative and the will of the mob.

I fear I've been misunderstood, or at least over-interpreted.

> mass harassment, rape and death threat

From what I've seen (and notwithstanding the claims in TFA, which are unsupported by evidence other than allegations), these things aren't happening this time either, and the voices organizing the firing campaigns are against them.

In particular, Ms. Gilmore's story cannot be reconciled with the evidence available to me.

I have in some places seen dehumanizing rhetoric. This is of course still not okay, but it clearly comes from a place of genuine hurt.

Also, my standard objection here: telling people that you hope a terrible thing happens to them is not acceptable, but it is also objectively not a "threat", and it bothers me when it's falsely characterized that way.

> for not sufficiently mourning someone

This is not a reasonable representation of the cause of action. We're talking about people who outright celebrate Kirk's death or insinuate that it was somehow deserved.

> Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein.

Strongly disagree. Matt Rose, James Damore, the list goes on and on (but I've left behind the days when I kept track in any serious way).

> Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays

I feel much the same about people who equate a guy getting killed for his political beliefs with people losing their job for expressing ideology that can reasonably be considered incompatible with doing the job.

(I'm sure there are people outside the professions I mentioned in the other thread getting targeted. As I already said, I oppose that.)

Don't feed the trolls

Whatever happened to "be the better man". Stoop to the perceived level of your worst enemy and you're just like you perceive them to be.

Kirk shouldn't have died. But he also didn't say very nice things about people who aren't white males. There's a difference between celebrating his death and merely saying "he wasn't a very nice person unless you were white and male". Unfortunately, those two are being conflated. The very first listing on "charliesmurderers.com" is a woman who states in her tweet "I don't believe violence is ever the answer. It just makes everything worse" and "I hope Charlie survives", in response to those taking issue with her worrying that some further far-right Kirk followers might see this as an opportunity for "revenge". She did not champion his death. She didn't celebrate it. She just raised a point.

Unfortunately, he was killed by someone who didn't think he was as far right as they wanted. Ever heard of a "groyper"?

An eye for an eye eventually leaves the entire world blind. Better we just act out of principals of liberty and charity in my opinion.