You start your post here mischaracterizing the argument made. 

The argument wasn't words don't have meaning. It was the meaning of words are relational and inter-subjective. 

That's the basis of much of semiotics. 

We can literally measure this when we embed semantics in vector spaces. 

This isn't remotely what was said.  

It's hard to take anything you've said seriously, if you're either so incapable of understanding what arguments are being made, or if you're being intentionally dishonest about what arguments are being made.  

Most people here have been trying to follow whatever evidence/argument seems to come out.  

Still kind of waiting for better confirmation.  I think the better evidence right now points to them being left leaning. But if it was that simple, the media wouldn't have to be digging so hard to find trans people that he associated with.  

I also looked back at the past 20 pages, with ctrl + F to search the pages (which admittingly has had issues before), to find people calling Charlie Kirk an extremist. And I didn't get any hits. 

I doubt most people you're accusing of, even care if it is 100% a left winger. It doesn't particularly change what happened. There is always extremist violence in the first place, and most of it isn't done in the name of left wing politics.   

Julius Streicher was the publisher of Der Stürmer, a Nazi newspaper devoted to antisemitic hate. He wasn’t a general or a policymaker — his “crime” was words. At Nuremberg, the Tribunal ruled that his relentless incitement of hatred and extermination was a crime against humanity. He was executed in 1946 solely for propaganda.
That history matters today. Figures like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro dress up their politics as “commentary,” but what they’re really doing is classic fascist propaganda: scapegoating minorities, spreading fear, vilifying women, LGBTQ people, and immigrants. This isn’t harmless opinion — it’s rhetoric designed to dehumanize and radicalize.
If Streicher taught us anything, it’s that propaganda is a weapon. Free societies can’t afford to shrug it off as “just speech.”

No, that is literally what you are doing, right now. Unbelievable.

But I want you to speak. I want everyone to see the exact environment that's been cultivated here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity

Intersubjectivity is a term coined by social scientists beginning around 1970^{[citation needed]} to refer to a variety of types of human interaction. The term was introduced to psychoanalysis by George E. Atwood and Robert Stolorow, who consider it a "meta-theory" of psychoanalysis.^[1] For example, social psychologists Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish listed at least seven definitions of intersubjectivity (and other disciplines have additional definitions):

• people's agreement on the shared definition of a concept;
• people's mutual awareness of agreement or disagreement, or of understanding or misunderstanding each other;
• people's attribution of intentionality, feelings, and beliefs to each other;
• people's implicit or automatic behavioral orientations towards other people;
• people's interactive performance within a situation;
• people's shared and taken-for-granted background assumptions, whether consensual or contested; and
• "the variety of possible relations between people's perspectives".^[2]

Let me ask you something simple then. When did everyone suddenly agree to change the definition of these words? I sure as hell don't remember being invited.

Uncanny how the definition always gets changed by people who want to throw them around without consequence.

Now people who have infamously been labeled with 'extremist', 'far-right', 'fascist' and 'Nazi' are suddenly being mudered, and no one wants to take responsibility for these words anymore?

What are you arguing? That the Nazis weren't bad or that Runa is as bad as a Nazi?

"When did everyone suddenly agree to change the definition of these words? I sure as hell don't remember being invited." 

Think of language like the market. There is no central authority that causes semantic shift to happen just like there is no central authority (outside of unique contexts) that sets the prices of goods. These arise through stigmergy or spontaneous order. 

Your "actual history of these words" is ridiculous. It is extremely telling that every right-leaning or right-wing person in this thread shares propagandized Youtube videos as their "sources of information." Do you guys read books or papers at all? Or is knowledge gathering through a rigorous process of validation just too "elitist" and "left-wing?" 

Socialism is a word that describes a wide-range of views and has always had nuance. So much so that you had people like G.D.H Cole write five volumes on the topic in works like A History of Socialist Thought. That was in 1953-1960. 

As for the Nazis, they quite explicitly aimed to carve out a new definition of socialism that fit their right-wing (hierarchy-oriented) view of class. In reality, they were about as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democracy, or even really a republic, at this point. 

The latter.

If you exhibit the evil you accuse others of, you are that evil.

Everyone here needs a very long look in the mirror.

5 hours of exhaustively documented rebuttals, and you just shrug it off as 'propagandised YouTube video'.

Yeah, that's about as much conviction in your beliefs as I was expecting.

The latter.

If you exhibit the evil you accuse others of, you are that evil.

Everyone here needs a very long look in the mirror.

Literally just one page back: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9614999

"Once you enter the area of extremism - which is where Charlie Kirk is located in when it comes to politics - then Kirk being not extreme enough suffices as a reason to kill him.

The reason why far-right thinking leads to many more killings than far-left thinking is because the far-right's most common form (fascism) is explicitly about killing and getting rid of political opponents or groups of people who don't fit a clearly defined racial profile."

Cotinuing to spread slurs that dehumanise people. The exact same slur used by the radical shooter even. With many people agreeing.

So can you sum up what you are trying to say.  Are saying that currently people are saying far-right or people who consider themselves far right are being dehumanize as being violent.  Or are you saying people are labeling Charlie Kirk as far right and that is not true and thus dehumanizing him.