> when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions.

You are conflating the expression of an opinion with the opinion itself.

Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. I don't find it hypocritical to draw attention to that irony. I do, however, find it hypocritical to fire someone for expressing dissent about the opinions of a man who literally became famous for directly asking random people in public to enter into arguments with him.

> Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for.

He never advocated murdering people over political disagreements. He disagreed with banning guns, but even the people who advocate banning guns don’t usually openly advocate banning bolt action hunting rifles.

The sentiment here is to cheer and laugh at a premeditated murder. If you want to rationalize it, whatever. It’s no use trying to have a discussion with someone who cheers and laughs at a man getting murdered for having discussions.

You're right that he didn't cheer on political assassination.

He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males. A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one.

And to be very, very clear: ambivalence at his departure from earth is not equal to ambivalence of the manner.

I was happy Rush Limbaugh died of skin cancer. I was not happy Charlie Kirk died of murder.

> He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males.

False.

> A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one.

Lying about what other people say and mischaracterizing those statements as an incitement to violence is itself an incitement to violence. Stop lying and stop inciting violence!

"Transgenderism is a middle finger to God"

That's a provocative statement, especially taken out of context like that, but it doesn't necessarily imply the devaluation of anyone's life, and the broader context of everything Charlie Kirk said and the way he treated people, including people who identified themselves to him as transgendered, makes it obvious he didn't feel that way. But then again, that's exactly the reason you stripped that quote out of context and posted it to an online argument in which you are much more explicitly devaluing the lives of people you disagree with politically.

>makes it obvious he didn't feel that way

But he said it. So you're either wrong and he meant it, or you're defending the words of a disingenuous sack of... Well, let's say "lies". That bad faith provocateur act has no role in decent society.

His speech was legal and despicable. He was not a good person. He may have believed himself to be a Christian, I don't know his heart, but he was not Christ-like.

That's the same tradeoff we make with all civil rights.

Lots of people criticized Donald Trump's proposal of a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on", and rightfully so in my opinion. Do you think the irony would be thick if some of those people were murdered by Muslim terrorists?