for those making threats against George Abaraonye? (this was a response to the post who was hidden; post had claimed this is not a right/left thing - "both sides" engage in online bullying - which might have been an okay statement - marginally - with appropriate context - but then went on to raise an example about this guy I am writing about here, in a way that clearly supported Kirk's views. I think this example really shows the warped view of trying to draw equivalency between someone who makes a mean comment about someone they didn't like who had a bad thing happen - vs. organized harassment and threats)
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/sep/13/president-elect-to-face-disciplinary-proceedings-for-charlie-kirk-remarks-oxford-union-says
He's a young guy who reacted impulsively, and deleted those comments quickly when he learned Kirk had died. I have seen many clips of Kirk that support that he was outright racist. Just because Kirk was well spoken in a debate* only means he is well-prepped and crafty - not that he isn't an awful human being.
Meanwhile, people are actually threatening this young black man. There is a world of difference between posting a distasteful reaction to something bad happening to another person, and ACTIVELY HARASSING another human being.
Oxford says they will treat the accusations against George seriously. I hope they seriously weigh the relative harms of his quickly-deleted statements (miniscule) to the harm of allowing people to outright harass and threaten other people just because they don't like what they said.
And don't forget that Kirk's shooter was much more likely a MAGA disappointed in Kirk's attempt to mainstream TP, than any kind of liberal. (although I stick with the main motivation being the shooter was just nutz from a certain subculture, that hates "both sides" without having a fucking clue about anything).
= new reply since forum marked as read