Still, I find it hard to get past the fact that: he was killed because of what he believed, not because he endangered anyone, not in self defense. Can you not see the connection to this center?
You know exactly what I'm talking about, you're just feigning ignorance and I'm not interested in playing the game.
>Can you not see the connection to this center?
There is no connection beyond white supremacists wanting to turn someone who was, at best, a mid-level right-wing influencer into a martyr for their beliefs in order to normalize those beliefs and galvanize hatred and retribution against their enemies. Which they tried to do but it all burned out in a few days of right-wing hate speech on Twitter.
But if you're looking for a political activist killed for their beliefs, there are plenty to choose from - MLK Jr., Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Manuel "Tortuguita" Terán, Sean Kealiher, Joe Hill, Yanar Mohammed, Muhsin Hendricks, Harvey Milk, and others. People who actually tried to advance the freedom of actually oppressed groups, instead of the grudges of white men.
I'm not responding further to this thread. I'll give you whatever gotcha reply you have at the ready and bid you good night.
Ironically this is a "bad faith shtick." You made a claim that has no basis in reality and failed to back it up. Charlie Kirk was many thing, but a neo-Nazi he was not.