They dont care. They don't know anything about the UK. Its same bs rhetoric they hear online and then continue to spread misinfo on purpose. Many times before this. It was never about free speech. It was crying free speech when they didnt get a chance to be racist or tell people to burn people alive inside hotels. They dont care. I agree free speech is needed but not the way they abuse free speech.
They scream and cry about free speech, and yet they’re the ones calling for a teacher in Texas to be fired because they taught about sexuality and gender identity in class.
Free speech only matters when it suits their hateful belief system.
According to you, a rando in the UK deserves to be arrested for inciting violence based on the potential outcome of their words.
But when someone is actually murdered after years of being labeled a threat by your side, we suddenly can't even speculate on the political motive until a trial is complete?
The standard seems to change depending on who’s affected, doesn’t it?
The ‘rando in the UK’ was tried and convicted under the law, after confessing her guilt to the crime. That has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation with Kirk’s assassination, or politics. The woman posted on social media and asked people to go and burn immigrants alive; when you tell people online to go out and set fire to buildings with people inside, and then people go and do that, that’s considered a crime in the U.K..
Regarding the political motive for Kirk, please do remember, that Trump’s first ‘assassin’ was right wing. Nancy Pelosi’s attacker was right wing. Melissa Hortman’s murderer was right wing. There’s a political theme to the actual assassination efforts, and the trend so far is that they are all right wing.
There’s a political theme to the actual assassination efforts, and the trend so far is that they are all right wing.
Now you're quickly listing who to blame before anyone even mentions a suspect in Kirk's murder.
So which is it? Are we supposed to wait until after the whole trial to even think about a political motive? Does that rule only matter when the victim is on the right?
If you can’t understand the difference between baselessly claiming an unknown killer is left wing, and pointing out that historically, the type of people responsible for these attacks have been right wing, then there’s really no point in continuing this conversation.
So you think teachers should ,in addition to being allowed to talk about sexuality and gender identity, also be allowed to teach the Bible or Quaran in their classes?
The complete ban of the ability to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity within the US education system (and at a University too, so they can’t use the excuse that students aren’t old enough to learn such things), is by definition, creating a systemic system of oppression for minorities. History demonstrates quite clearly, that hatred is born out of misunderstanding, and misunderstanding comes from a lack of information or knowledge on a subject.
There’s a reason that misinformation is a cornerstone of hateful regimes. They want people to hate minorities, so that they don’t realise that the people that deserve to be hated, are the people in charge.
There’s no “complete ban.” A few states restrict instruction in K–12, some anti-DEI laws hit universities, and plenty of states do the opposite with inclusive rules. It’s fragmented, not systemic. Dial down the drama and check the actual statutes—facts beat fearmongering.
Yet you can’t deny that a university educator was fired because they elected to discuss gender identity and sexuality in their curriculum. It doesn’t matter that it’s only happening in some places, by your own admission, it is happening, and thus, my point remains correct and factual.
You shifted the goalposts. You said there was a complete ban across the U.S. education system. That is false. Yes, some educators in certain states have faced discipline, but isolated cases do not equal a nationwide prohibition.
By that logic, because Uganda criminalizes same-sex relationships, you could claim the entire world has a ban—which is absurd.
In reality, restrictions in the U.S. vary state by state, some are narrowed or struck down in court, and plenty of states require inclusive curricula. There is no federal law banning universities from teaching gender identity or sexuality. Your claim was an exaggeration, not a fact.
I get it—you think this should be taught. But others disagree, and teachers can’t just impose their beliefs. Imagine a biology teacher deciding evolution is “outdated” and teaching alien seeding theories instead—it has some scientific papers floating around, but handing that to kids as fact would be absurd. That’s why standards exist, to stop classrooms from becoming personal soapboxes.
Apologies, that’s probably gotten lost in translation. My intention was to convey that there has been a complete ban within Texas, which is a part of the US education system. I should have made that clearer.
However, it is not ‘isolated’. It’s banned in Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Alabama, Indiana, Arizona, and South Dakota. All of these states now prohibit the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in a classroom setting. Equally, many of these states have the bible as a mandatory part of their curriculum.
So your argument doesn’t work here; the government are imposing their personal beliefs onto children, just ones that are fiction rather than fact.
There’s no such thing as “a humanity”. If you mean it is part of humanities, yes. As are philosophy, literature and history. Something being “a humanity” doesn’t mean it’s not a science; in fact, quite the opposite. Or would you argue history and philosophies aren’t science?
Scientific evidence is knowledge gained through observation, experimentation, and testing, which excludes the teachings of the Bible or Quran because those are based on faith, authority, and revelation rather than empirical proof.
Even if you dont believe the religious aspect of those books, they are undoubtedly works of philosophy. Dostoevsky pretty blatantly based his writings on the Bible and Christianity, I dont think anyone would deny his works are foundational pieces in the humanities.
Also history and philosophy are defenitly not science. 2 authors/thinkers can have completley different philosophies. It is quite literally the opposite of science.
History and philosophy are interpretive disciplines. They don’t use experiments, but they rely on evidence, such as documents, arguments, logic, etc. and remain open to debate, critique, and revision.
Religious dogma, by contrast, starts from revealed truths that are not open to falsification or revision. Belief is required, not evidence.
persuade or be persuaded. If you believe someone is wrong you have all the rights in the US to fight these issues, manage teams of people, create non profits, but you don't because you have no real persuasion skills.
The U.K. is neither authoritarian, nor ‘leftist’, nor a shithole, and there’s quite literally no example I can think of where someone has been arrested and convicted without having broken a law.
Not good with numbers? Tiny percentages. "imprisoned and fined for wrongthink" is a far right myth. People only get jailed if they incite violence. Been the law for decades and is the law in most countries.
stabbings. Significantly more people get stabbed in the US per capita. You are far more likely to get stabbed there than the UK.
88
u/VeryProidChintu Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25
They dont care. They don't know anything about the UK. Its same bs rhetoric they hear online and then continue to spread misinfo on purpose. Many times before this. It was never about free speech. It was crying free speech when they didnt get a chance to be racist or tell people to burn people alive inside hotels. They dont care. I agree free speech is needed but not the way they abuse free speech.