so joe is no longer a gas station worker, and is now a fire fighter, and no longer yelled in an elderly woman's face, but made a joke and tried to be funny.

but you are implying my analysis would remain the same, and that i am the person who actually boycotts for woke reasons, rather than just defends people's rights to boycott.

very crisp and logical post their friend, literally zero gaping holes in this one.

There you go. It's not a baseless claim. No self respecting adult responds with REEEEEEE constantly to arguments without having something wrong with them with little to no substance to the argument itself.

Your mental well being aside, the examples always given (dei pilot hires etc.) don't even include the whole context.

Who is the arbiter of what's racist anyway? We need definitions for this otherwise it's just "mah feelings" which aren't measurable and quantifiable (something people with your general disposition constantly remind us of; which is fair in almost every situation). The man never hated anyone based on their skin (at least not from what can be gathered from his public appearances/comments).

I am going to need actual evidence he hated women, other races, Trans people etc. He constantly reminded us he loved everyone. Pointing out destructive behavior isn't hatred.

Boom, already back to my original post.... "YOU'RE TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT!!!! REEE!"







This post was edited by Pyrotechx on Jun 10 2026 11:56am

Joe is representative of all the people fired for saying things that other people don't like. You made Joe an easily replaceable minimum wage moron who yelled in an old lady's face, so I took the other extreme and made him a vital member of the community who tried to be funny one time.

Both of these examples are relevant. We're talking about the generality of firing people for saying things that some people happen not to like while they are in no way representing their employer. You can not cherry pick one extreme and pretend the other does not exist. They are functions of the exact same principle.

The reason that Joe the firefighter does not deserve to be fired is because he was not representing his employer when he said whatever offensives thing he said. It has nothing to do with him being a hero. So Joe the gas station attendant does not deserve to be fired on the exact same grounds.

If your analysis changes based on Joe's occupation or how offensive you personally consider what he said, this is called bias. That's the thing I'm arguing against. How objectionable you or I consider anything said by anyone who is not at the time representing their employer is totally irrelevant.

You're the one who made the argument that the principle should be absolute, which is silly. life is all about limits, rules, and boundaries. The issue with free speech absolutists is they dont live in reality, they present an idea that someone should be allowed to say the most vile things known to man (to which i agree btw) but then that person should be allowed to live their life exactly as they did before saying anything. That other people are bound to let them continue being a member of society exactly as they were even though society is bound by the very rules they flaunt with their speech.

TBH the only reason we're even having this conversation is because woke leftists pushed the overton window on what was considered speech worthy of societal condemnation in the #metoo era and through the ever expanding definition of racism. This wasn't a problem in the 90s, it wasn't even a problem in an era where the N word was spoken regularly. It became a "problem" only recently, and pushed free speech absolutist narratives to the forefront as an extreme viewpoint to combat extremists on the left. This was a topic not even Ron Paul would push, it was like a fun hypothetical thought experiment for philosophy classes not bound in reality.

Free speech has always included social consequences. The debate is where criticism ends and coercion begins.



Context isn't bias. A firefighter, teacher, politician, and anonymous private citizen don't all carry the same responsibilities or public trust obligations.



If your argument requires comparing everyone you disagree with to Hitler, you've probably run out of argument.

This post was edited by BrittanyDebell on Jun 10 2026 03:49pm

Where did I do this? I am not a leftie screaming fascist every 5 seconds

Well, no, you're still warping my view. They should not be robbed of the possibility of gainful employment and they should not be physically harmed. This does not mean you have to invite Joe to your barbecue. I'm not saying you are forced to pretend they didn't say the things they said, that's bizarre.

You are free to socialize with whoever you want to socialize with and to refuse to socialize with whoever you don't want to socialize with.

If it's not related to his job, leave Joe alone to continue pumping gas or to pull people out of burning buildings. This is crazy. Stealing a man's job is no way to change minds, it's only a way to create desperate, insane people. Your solution is far worse than the original problem.

disregard. I misunderstood what you were saying my bad.

You seem to misunderstand, which is quite typical from people trying to defend Kirk. You saying that is just your way of avoiding the actual argument. I am challenging the principle you all seem to be defending. I'm not saying Kirk is Hitler. I'm saying your principle is flawed. History provides examples where speech helped create real world harm. Hitler is one example, but there are many others.

- If a gang leader publicly encourages violence against a rival group, we generally recognize that speech can contribute to harm.
- If someone spreads propaganda portraying a minority as dangerous or subhuman, that can increase hostility and violence toward that group.
- If a public figure repeatedly promotes false claims that lead followers to harass or attack people, the speech itself may not be the physical act, but it can still be a causal factor.

Free speech means protection from government censorship in many legal systems. It does not mean freedom from social, professional, moral, or legal consequences when speech causes harm or encourages harmful actions.