"Speech is violence so now I get to kill you." It will take some time to remove this line of code.

To everyone who is truly confused about how the people gloating over Charlie Kirk’s death can believe “It’s good that our side killed Charlie Kirk” and “Our side had nothing to do with killing Charlie Kirk” it’s because to them these are not facts that must coexist in a real,

I don’t think teachers who celebrate murder should be allowed to teach kids anymore

“Political violence is never the answer but I’d like to take this opportunity to talk about dangerous things that people say online”

You’re an ALP voter. You find out that a fellow ALP voter, a work colleague of yours, celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. Do you care?

You’re a Greens voter. You find out a fellow Greens voter, a work colleague, celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. Do you care?

You’re a Liberal (Australian centre right) voter. You find out a fellow Liberal voter, a work colleague, celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. Do you care?

If violence is sometimes necessary what’s the point of the parliament You could just use violence to get what you want instead of respecting a vote

I’m finding it kinda hard to care about the right engaging in cancel culture when the left has moved on to assassination culture.

This is what a proper condemnation of violence from the left looks like. Saying “It’s bad but here’s what he said” is justifying it If I said “it’s sad Jo Cox was killed but here’s her voting record” it would be extremely obvious what I was doing

Re-upping my polls

Re-upping my polls

Re-upping my polls

>"you said that you didn't believe in cancel culture and then you changed your mind" >"I was a big fan of cancel culture until you started trying to cancel me" both of these statements can be true, but you only see the first one kicking around