Pretty much, but its what is desired. 

I didn't follow this thread enough before to know if you encouraged Charlie Kirk's demise.

But if 'Ben Shapiro' or someone like him is assassinated next, then yes, everyone here not criticising the outright incitement taking place, will be culpable to some degree.

That's how words work in the real world. You have to actually acknowledge the direct links to political violence.

If Ben Shapiro actually finds this site and wants to sue it for endangering his life, I don't want to be associated with any of you.

To clarify: I mean morally culpable for the most part. I would hope like hell no one here actually has ties to a militant activist group. You make that difficult though when you use all the exact same language.

What are your thoughts on the Trump administration's reaction to Charlie Kirk's death?

First seven and a half minutes sum up the situation:

Feel free to ignore the host's commentary and only focus on what Trump's people in charge are saying.

Part of the reason why the Kirk thread got closed down was because a few people were at least pushing it, when it came to "celebration". (as well as general conflict in the thread)

And there's a scale there, some people aren't actually celebrating his death, but arguing that his rhetoric such as "the 2nd amendment is worth some gun deaths" have led to these kinds of tragedies. Runa's post is pushing it, but it's closer to the latter.  

Does this go both ways? 

Are right wingers culpable when they were calling for civil war and calling Democrats terrorists? 

Left wingers have been arguing this for years, and right wingers usually just say something like "words are just words, they're not hurting anybody."

"And there's a scale there, some people aren't actually celebrating his death, but..."

There is no scale. The fact that you think political violence comes with any kind of caveat shows your mindset is already warped. 

The effort to reframe this with lies, misinformation and false equivalencies is beyond repulsive. You've shown a complete lack of accountability. How can you expect anyone outside your bubble to take you seriously.

Why is the right now interested in categorizing certain speech as "hate speech?" 

Because they didn't expect a very violent society to be directed toward them. White, middle to upper-class, conservative men aren't supposed to be the targets of political violence in America in the worldview of most moderate to right-wing white people.

You didn't see the right talk about "hate speech" when Dylan Roof shot up a black church or when the El Paso shooter targeted Mexican (and other Hispanic) people in a Walmart. 

Why? Because those people are not them. The right's empathy (as they gladly boast about with their heat-map meme, "toxic empathy", and Charlie himself espouse) ends with their capacity to see themselves in a situation. 

Civil rights are mutual accordances we agree to protect for each-other. If you didn't speak to protect the rights of others, why would anybody have a larger concern for your rights? That is the sentiment of much of the left currently. We're just taking what the right says about "toxic empathy" at face value and instead of associating the out-group to be BIPOC people, we see the out-group to be the authoritarian right. I think that is what is bothering you. 

According to your logic then, conservatives are basically always celebrating black people's death when they justify police actions.

George Floyd had it coming, right?

You realize, that's your argument, right?

You....don't seem to grasp much of anything, do you? 

My aggressive response to all that's happening right now is not 'I hate conservatives' (I actually feel centrist policies that balance left and right leaning legislature is the balance we need), but instead a reaction to modern conservatives actively stoking the fires of bigotry and inciting hatred towards pretty much everyone that isn't one considered to be like them. 

I don't try to criminalize being a conservative, but I absolutely do feel what people like Kirk are doing should be seen as criminal. Hate speech. Propaganda. You trying to 'same sides' the argument is laughable.

Side 1 - "I think every one of these people need to die, or be seen as lesser, or removed"

Side 2 - "Your propaganda is inciting people to commit crimes against people and I feel you should be held accountable for your actions"

You - "Both are the same"

One wants genocide and is being vaguely subtle about inciting it. The other wants to stop the genocide and is being loud and aggressive about countering the propaganda that is encouraging it. And you think we're the same? Seriously, fuuuuuuuuuck youuuuuuuuuu. Absolutely fucking disgusting take. 

You can't reason with someone so far removed from reality, morality, or objective truth. As I said before, my only crime/morally questionable action is saying that modern conservatives are villains for their incitement of hatred and violence, and with the current administration actual ACTION has to be taken to stop them. From committing genocide. You know, the thing we all agreed was bad and they're doing it anyway. 

Nobody WANTS violence, so many leftist/Liberal/Democratic policies are meant to help a wide net of people with the stated goal of lowering crime and poverty (with the studies, statistics, and facts to back it up). But when the GOP are breaking the rules and doing nazi shit (it is, it really is, just not specifically against jews), and 'playing by the rules' doesn't stop them, action needs to be taken.

When you refuse to abide by the contract, you are not protected by it. the GOP have broken the rules and are committing the most egregious atrocities while slowly making the US a worse place with all the early signs of genocide. They need not to be eradicated for 'different speech' but held accountable for their VERY powerful propaganda and resulting actions. 

Being held accountable for your actions (Inciting literal genocide) is not the same as being a victim of or trying to stop said genocide. And the fact that some people genuinely seem to not be able to tell the difference is mind-blowing to me.

Quick response to only this particular point. In many European countries hate speech is a crime because our rebuilt democracies after World War II recognized how powerful of a tool propaganda is. Hate speech is defined as the act of inciting violence against a person or a group of people in a public space. This means that people like Kirk who run massive platforms would have found themselves in court for their actions, convicted and sentenced.