…should be cancelled?
No. I intended my comment to be more of a statement on risk assessment. Seemingly half the country is on the right. A non-insignificant portion of them would probably be empathetic to Charlie Kirk’s death.
If I’m reading the rest of your comment correctly, I’d say we are in agreement. I don’t condone the right getting people fired over this, I don’t think it’s fair, and I don’t think it’s right of them to do so. But I do think the right trying to get people fired was foreseeable and it surprises me just how many people have attached their names to their comments, especially if they aren’t set up financially to deal with any potential fallout.
I agree with you in principle. I just think, for the majority of people, it's not worth the risk of getting fired and getting set back in life for public comments over a YouTuber's death. I'm not saying there are no hills to die on, this just doesn't seem like the one.
I said this in a reply to someone else but my issue here is risk assessment, not whether the comments are abhorrent or not. I've read enough accounts regarding different periods of history where citizens turned each other in. If I'm going to get fired, doxxed, turned in, etc., I would want it to be over something that means more than opinions shared of Charlie Kirk.