The shoe is not on the other foot. Just the right foot is, as usual, projecting and being dishonest about their own well documented problems.
Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own.
https://www.professorwatchlist.org/tags/anti-1st-amendment
I just randomly clicked one of the professors in that list:
- "Shaviro has been suspended after he posted on Facebook that it would be better for people to kill their political opponents than to protest them. In a now-deleted post, Shaviro wrote:"
- “So here is what I think about free speech on campus. Although I do not advocate violating federal and state criminal codes, I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down.”
That's straight from the website, which may or may not be accurate or true. The way it looks, is still about the way it looks given the larger context of the rest of its post.
That seems worse than anything I have found a clip of Charlie Kirk actually saying yet. I didn't really follow him, just randomly came across a few clips of him over the years so most of what I've seen is over the past few days.
> Just as they did before they found out that Kirk was shot by one of their own.
I don't think this is true, based on the evidence. There are people spreading that idea around, but it may just be activism or ignorance.
You are basing this on.. the shell casings with Antifa slogans? Or the high school friend who claims he was "pretty left on everything" [1]?
[1] https://gellerreport.com/2025/09/tyler-robinson-was-really-l...
This article was updated on 12 September 2025 to remove quotes after the verified source who attended high school with Tyler Robinson said after publication that they could not accurately remember details of their relationship.
That reads more like "there's too much room for doubt for us to be willing to publish it", and not at all like "known-untrue bullshit". But it's a nice argument we're having - any uncertainty debunks my position, even when nobody has even disputed my strongest evidence, the shell casing messages, while the position I'm arguing against is simply taken as true without any evidence.
Hey why don't we flip things around? Why don't you give a source for "didn't know him at all", as well as for the "retracted as bullshit" (specifically the as bullshit part, not just "source was unreliable"). And if you can't find a reliable source, we'll assume the opposite is true. That's how you're making me argue, so it's only fair the same rules apply, isn't it?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2025/sep/12/charlie...
> Pamela Geller (born 1958) is an American anti-Muslim, far-right political activist, blogger and commentator.[1] Geller promoted birther conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama, saying that he was born in Kenya[4] and that he is a Muslim.[5]
This turned out to be 100% false btw
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/us/politics/kirk-shooting...
Please reflect on your biases, because they’re clouding your judgement in a serious way