Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

I want that student's name and I want them expelled and kicked out of the fucking state. Fuck that sack of shit. Just even more proof of how fucked our universities are. Even in WYOMING you have these violent freaks.

Archive: https://archive.today/Hn8q2

From the post:

>The Wyoming Freedom Caucus on Friday called out University of Wyoming student newspaper The Branding Iron for quoting an anonymous student in a story who said political influencer Charlie Kirk “deserved” to be assassinated. Kirk was gunned down by a rooftop shooter during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. He was visiting the campus as part of his American Comeback Tour, an event that invites debate from students on social and political topics. In a story on the impact of the shooting in the publication’s Friday print edition, The Branding Iron quoted an anonymous student who said Kirk deserved to be shot in the neck.

I want that student's name and I want them expelled and kicked out of the fucking state. Fuck that sack of shit. Just even more proof of how fucked our universities are. Even in WYOMING you have these violent freaks. Archive: https://archive.today/Hn8q2 From the post: >>The Wyoming Freedom Caucus on Friday called out University of Wyoming student newspaper The Branding Iron for quoting an anonymous student in a story who said political influencer Charlie Kirk “deserved” to be assassinated. Kirk was gunned down by a rooftop shooter during an event at Utah Valley University on Wednesday. He was visiting the campus as part of his American Comeback Tour, an event that invites debate from students on social and political topics. In a story on the impact of the shooting in the publication’s Friday print edition, The Branding Iron quoted an anonymous student who said Kirk deserved to be shot in the neck.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (14).
[–] • 1 pt

No, we're not calling for censorship in the way you're thinking of it (Control by government), we're calling for NORMAL people, especially anyone to the right of these faggots, to excommunicate them from society. Not as governmental policy, but as community policy. There's a big difference, unless you're going to try and equate government attempts at thought control to being persona non grata by society as a whole for their vile, wicked, demonic ways.

Let them speak all they want, but we don't have to accept them or allow them to get away with saying whatever they want anymore.

[–] • 0 pt

Who’s we? You got a mouse in your pocket? You are not the person I was replying to.

[–] • 1 pt

We, as in the people calling for action to be taken against these people. Don't be a faggot about it, Ivan.

And is correct. We need to stop defending their free speech because they literally will kill us. Let them say what they want, but then we get to smack them down and give them actual consequences. Be it getting them fired, expelled or even full on pushed from civil society. Because these demons want to kill us, want to rape and mutilate children, want to destroy everything.

They attack us for saying "Don't brainwash and molest children," we as a SOCIETY get to say "Fuck off into the wilderness, you reprobates, before you do something we have to kill you for," and DENY them the benefits of society. Community enforced Exile, not Government.

[–] • 0 pt

Well all of the people you claim to speak for are disappointing me. You aren’t really saying that no one should have to employ or be around people who say things they find distasteful— that’s already obvious to anyone. It sounds like you’re calling for a social credit system. You’re going to deny that of course, but then, what? All you were saying all along was that people don’t have to be around other people they don’t like?

All this for Charlie Kirk, by the way. A zio-shill that was hardcore even by conservative media standards.

It’s disappointing. And a little sus that someone comes at me claiming “we” disagree. Speaking for everyone.