SectionC3

This is exactly the point I'm making. The thought police appears to be in formation right now. I don't know if it's a good idea, and I have no dog in the fight in the private arena. But if the government is going to put its thumb on the scale, then . . . it shouldn't, and it should reconsider, but if it's gonna do it anyway, it's gotta go both ways.

Indeed. The question is whether "right wing" influencers, like Kirk, now have more time on task or impressions or whatever you'd like to call with metric than do college professors with college students.

Actually it's called inflation, and it's getting worse. As noted, grocery prices now are at their highest point in three years. Maybe if more actual cherries were picked we'd be in better shape here.

Not the issue. Why are Kirk comments cancelable, but Don Jr.'s comments about Pelosi not?

Nope. He's gotta go. That's my opinion. It's bad for any political party to run somebody like that now. It's representative of something greater than a job in the private sector.

Again, life is a matter of degree. So your point appears to be that getting hit in the head in a brutal attack with a hammer is funny because the victim didn't die, but premeditated murder is not funny and horrid comments about that incident therefore merit firing? Agreed. But JD is putting a thumb on the scale for this issue. Is he right? And, if so, should be more affirmative and direct about Don Jr.?

So he should be fired from whatever private sector job he has. Now we're getting somewhere.

It's not eggs. It's groceries in general. And, while what you say about the cattle count might be true, nobody wanted to hear it when the bird flu was the problem.

Not the issue. This is Don Jr., and the issue whether good applies to goose and gander, and if so, then why not.

Nope. You changed the nature of the point. I said "at institutions of higher learning." Influencers nowadays can be anyone--professors, the Kardashians, and anyone with a microphone and an audience. Like Kirk. How much of his content is consumed at universities? My guess is a lot based on what I read here.

That's part of the point here. Nearly everyone has said things that are objectionable. The Kirk stuff might be the most objectionable. Or it might not be. It's certainly the most recent, and it's certainly pervasive. But I wonder if we're going to establish a thought police and speech police how many people are going to get swept up in it. I don't know where he's employed. But JD seems to be calling for the private sector to act on comments like his. So should Don Jr. be terminated from whatever private sector position he might hold?

Nobody said you did. Don Jr. did, or at least indicated that he found the assault funny. The thread isn't about you. It's about him.

Nope. I don't. You project that. Or want to think that. Or something else. Point is, the "liberal" viewpoint historically was predominant at institutions of higher learning. But maybe that has started to change in the past several years. And, if the "liberal" viewpoint previously was a problem, then t's fair to ask why the "conservative" viewpoint that apparently now is much more prevalent on campus and on line somehow is not seen the same was as the former viewpoint.

Life is a matter of degree. So what I take from this is not fatal = funny, but fatal = right wing wokism?

So you acknowledge that he could have manipulated young people in a way similar to that of which you accuse the "libs" of doing?

Yeah he's gotta leave if he said that at that time. No doubt.

OK. So what about people cheering the assault of Paul Pelosi? It is not the same because he did not die? Or because you share the viewpoints of Don Jr., and disagree with those of Paul Pelosi?

They may well be. But they obviously listened to Kirk based on what I've read here. So perhaps it is that you're, shall we say, a bit hypocritical and selective in focusing on the "libs" influencing impressionable and inexperienced college students.

I'd be a lot more confident of that were it not for the whitewashing of J6. I'll add that it's hard to persecute hyperbole by engaging in hyperbole.

Me neither. I don't care what the private sector does on its own volition. I'm troubled by the federal government bullying/pushing the private sector to act a certain way, though. It's reverse wokism, if you will.

Totally agree. I thought it was early to make the point, but Woke is now a "Right" issue.

Agreed. So why cancel all of those people?

So they all supported or joked about a violent felony assault perpetrated against the husband of the former Speaker of the House?

Also, how do you know that college students pay more attention to faculty than they do to, say, online videos and podcasts? Because you know you'd land on the previous question. It's nice to have a boogeyman. But it's hard to ignore that Kirk had reach, that he had schlock, and that he might have done the same thing that you're accusing the "lib" professors to have done.

All I did was ask a question. There's nothing partisan about that. Care to answer it?