She made only one direct reference to Kirk, quoting his own words:
“Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot”. - Charlie Kirk
The same Washington Post that reported with 100% confidence that the shooter was definitely, absolutely trans? And still hasn’t redacted their lies?
The Washington Post is really trying to become the New York Post
It’s owned by Bezos. Nuff said!
I honestly don’t know why anyone who isn’t a right wing ball licker even looks sideways at either of those shit rags. They aren’t news outlets, they’re propaganda distribution hubs for the neo-nazi right.
Where do you get news from?
apparently this piece of shit is gonna get a funeral service at football stadium. What a fucking joke
Watching the media try to whitewash this piece of shit is a real mask-off moment for them.
Washington post is owned by Jeff Bezos, no?
Affirmative, and it went downhill quick
Welp. I had cancelled after the last debacle, but resubbed on an extremely cheap offer.
I guess I’ll have to cancel again.
It’s really funny watching American corporate power fight federal regulation for decades only to immediately line up behind an authoritarian government to obey in advance the whims of a babbling narcissist who is purposely crashing the economy to satisfy his need for egotistical revenge. If all of our speech is tied up in media companies bought and paid for by corporate interests, or social media tech giants that deliver surveillance data to the government at will with our own tax dollars, how can it possibly even approach being “free”? It cannot, and that is pretty much the goal.
Retaliation just for quoting Kirk, a man who built a media and legal influencing juggernaut on his protected speech, is especially ironic given the great efforts made to develop and spread his ideas.
I’d like to see how sharing someone’s own public words is disparaging their memory. Isn’t that how he’d want to be remembered? Did he recant those words? Because if it is wrong to quote him, that implies those words shame his memory. But then why is it shameful to quote him, but not to speak the words in the first place?
I’m sure this is rhetorical, but in case anyone doesn’t know the game plan: they want to exploit the sudden uptick in people looking into Kirk to draw more people into his ideology, which works best if the newcomer thinks he was well liked and respected.
If someone sees his true beliefs from the beginning, they’ll be more likely to see it for the putrid vomit that it is, but if they first believe he was an intellectual free-thinker brutally murdered for speaking the truth, they may give his bigotry more weight when they stumble upon it later.
To quote Death Cab for Cutie, “he was a bastard in life, thus a bastard in death.”
I had no idea the Post was run by Reddit mods.
Sounds like a slam dunk wrongful termination suit, though now that rag gets even more raggedy
I don’t have faith that the courts will rule wrongful termination for telling the truth, the defence will simply cite all the ways that move damages their reputation and call that cause.
I don’t know if it is, it absolutely should be. But I don’t know if it is. Republicans and Democrats have so weakened labor power. And I’m sure the owners will try to point out something in the contract that justifies them doing this no matter how bullshit it is.
All media is currently Fascist, trust nothing from any news organization. It’s all carefully crafted to shift the national conversation ever more to the right.
What do you think about the guardian
They’re okay… I also read an article from The Nation that was okay. But these are not really what I would call mainstream. I should have said mainstream in the original comment
They published that Kirk’s high-school friend said he was a leftist (gave no details), then later retracted it because he said he couldn’t actually remember.
Maybe they should’ve corroborated that with some more of his friends before unleashing that?
I found this Carlos Maza video from three years ago to be illuminating about Charlie and his organization.
Anyone wanna bet she will be replaced by a white conservative dude?
Or some blonde pile of plastic surgery.
No thanks, I’d rather keep my money
And?
That quote is inaccurate though… He said “you” referencing specific women.
Standard disclaimer: Yes they were all women of color. Yes the subtext is that it applies generally. No I’m not saying anything else that you’re assuming I’m saying. I’m not saying this is the biggest issue or that there aren’t other more important problems. I’m just saying the quote is wrong.
I know you probably don’t care, but quotes do mean something, especially in journalism.
“journalism”
So it’s as bad as it sounds, if not worse, as he’s specifically speaking about accomplished people of color. I’m starting to think this Charlie Kirk guy wasn’t particularly kind.
Lemmy is friggin’ hilarious. I get modded down for stating a fact. You post a snopes link which supports exactly what I said and you get modded UP.
I can’t know why you were downvoted. I generally don’t downvote and didn’t in this case. But were I to speculate…
You pointed out a distinction without a difference. And the way you defended yourself preemptively makes you sound like you knew very well you were being pedantic and what the result would be. It doesn’t contribute anything of value to the conversation and leaves one with the impression you disagree it was outrageous to fire her — else why issue a meaningless “correction”?
I don’t know why you did that, but I strongly suspect your downvotes are related to that thought-process.
And the way you defended yourself preemptively makes you sound like you knew very well you were being pedantic and what the result would be.
Yeah - I’ve been around the internet before. You say “A” and you get 30 responses immediately for not saying “B”.
You don’t think I would have been accused of defending Kirk? Have you just created an account on social media for the first time?
Mate, I don’t really care. I responded with the idea that you were frustrated in good faith and just struggling with a bout of well-intentioned 'tism. I’ve been there before so I could relate.
Also, welcome to the internet has been cringe for over twenty years, and I’ve been here since social media was alt.rec.your.mom.
Of course you got accused for defending Kirk because there is no fathomable point to your post other than being disagreeable. The qualitative difference between what was said and your correction is nil. You knew what would happen, your preemptive protestations did nothing but make it clear you knew what you were doing and chose violence. But somehow “Lemmy” is the problem and not your comment.
Well, have it your way. I’m moving on.
I mean - I’m not frustrated - more amused than anything else. My hypothesis is that nobody actually read the snopes link and just assumed it said something otherwise. 🤷
leaves one with the impression you disagree it was outrageous to fire her
Definitely disagree here. They were clearly just trying to emphasize the importance of being correct, since being incorrect gives conservatives a way to argue against your point, even if it’s stupid and flimsy, it can be seized on.
There is no actual difference between “Black women” and “You [black women]”. Anyone who feels it is arguable isn’t worth the effort to engage them because they aren’t coming at the conversation from a place of good faith anyway.
Tell that to the Republican who now can accurately claim a misquote happened. You don’t need to convince me.
You could try working on using neutral tone if you want more internet points here.
Oh yeah. If I just posted that the quote was bad I surely wouldn’t be currently defending myself against accusations of “supporting Nazis”.
“Quote was bad” is going to get less internet points than “Quote was incorrect.”
“Bad” is tonally different from “incorrect” because of the added value judgement.
