Frequently wrong, never in doubt.
I’m an atheist. I see ‘demonic’ things. It’s the religious white supremacy Americans. It goes against everything Christianity stands for. Spreading hate, indoctrination, racism, misogyny, child abuse, deportations, violence, crimes against humanity, etc. They don’t even know what, their own religion is about. These people are just pure evil and justify everything they say and do by a fictional man in the sky.
As someone who was raised Christian and considers myself one, I think Christianity has a few fundamental philosophical flaws (every religion does).
The major issue is hinging everything on an abstract ideal of faith. Under Christian doctrine one can only get into heaven by believing in Jesus. He is the only path to salvation.
This creates a mk Oral quandry. Could the worst person in the world beleive that Jesus is their Lord and Saviour and get into heaven? Perhaps not, they must also aspire to live a Christ-like life, and the worst person likely isn’t doing that.
Let’s instead imagine the most Christ-like and righteous person in the world. What if they don’t believe in Jesus? According to Christian doctrine, they will burn in hell for eternity.
If this is the case, what’s the point of living a good life? Can’t we all just believe in Jesus and just coast through life being morally ambiguous and still make it into heaven in the end?
What you end up with is a religion where it starts to feel like only one thing matters - do you believe in Jesus? It doesn’t take long before moral principles are thrown out the window and people start judging others less so by their thoughts, words and deeds but instead by just how much they beleive in Jesus.
Other religions have their flaws but particularly Eastern religious philosophy at least attempts to tackle how to live a good life a bit more directly.
The deeper you go into the Christianity, the more obsessive it becomes about faith and the less concerned it is with how to live a good life.
Which is pretty warped if you think about it - shouldn’t the whole point of religion be to learn how to live well?
Didn’t Christians talk about false prophets and the devil pretending to be holy?
They did. Several hundred years ago. Then it fell out of fashion.
I keep putting it off, but I’m creating an LLC so I can start a damn church.
I can’t get a fucking job to save my life, so why not just profit from the ignorance and stupidity of the lumpenproletariat?
My time is now.
Like L. Ron Hubbard (founder of scientology [pukes in my mouth]) once said: “You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”
Wyoming is supposedly a good state for LLCs, for tax and privacy reasons. Delaware is so overdone, it’s suspicious.
Good luck!
Rooting for ya, bud
Almost all of the people paying tribute to him didn’t care at all about him a couple weeks ago will stop caring about him completely in a few weeks.
Bingo. At least not beyond the tragedy of a young person dying.
To steal the term: ‘virtue signaling’
Eh, I’d wager alot of these people got seduced by self-righteous outrage. It makes people feel good about themselves.
Good riddance.
I have sound off and that’s enough to know about him.
I don’t condone what happened to Charlie Kirk, but Charlie Kirk condoned what happened to Charlie Kirk.
People often use the word “Ironic” wrong. A person who encourages gun violence, dying of gun violence, is a perfect example of true irony.
I could care less what happened. And hope a couple more go. They want the guns don’t care about shootings. Well maybe if a couple of them die instead of kids they well start caring.
They’ve never cared about the victims of gun violence before.
He wanted public executions and for kids to watch it.
he was unaware he was calling for his own, by someone further right from his own party.
Ironic that we all got to watch his, whether we wanted to or not.
Deliciously ironic. Not condoning it! But boy, is it rich! Not condoning. But lolol.
Proverbs 11:10:
When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
That’s a circlejerk. Everybody believes that they are on the good side.
Really dumb take, and simply not true. Plenty of bad people know they are doing wrong, and they do it anyway, because they want what they want, and they are going to get it. Every criminal knows they doing wrong, that’s why they try to hide it.
That’s a circlejerk. Everybody believes that they are on the good side.
- Hitler
Please elaborate.
I think whoever does evil thinks of the wrong people as good. Most will simply reject everybody as bad who opposes them.
So the sentiment is true but it doesn’t work as personal advice.
Hitler is an obvious example of someone who might have thought they are good and doing a good thing, but his death was celebrated by good people.
Because being good is mostly an outside measurement and not an inside assessment by the person, therefore your point is nonsensical.
By your point republicans celebrated the attack on Pelosi and her husband, those are not good people however you slice it.
So if Hitler’s grandma gave him that advice and he followed it, would he have done what he did?
Good people celebrated his death, but the personal advice doesn’t work because we personally decide what is good. We distort goodness to what we need, which is fatal if we are on an evil path.
It is not an objective, outside measurement, but it is sold as such, specifically because it makes good people do evil things for the good side.
Removed by mod
Pretty much what I expected tbh. Surprised it wasn’t worse
I’m sure glad he’s dead.
He is being turned into a martyr for the cause. Schools and streets will be named after him soon.
well the erika is too, she dint shed a single tear, and was selling MERCH at his funeral, plus the "memorial was a political rally for trump. Also the fact that she WORE WHITE too.
trump, and the gop is doing everything in thier power to do 3 things: distract from epstein, grift from the stupid voters, buying thier merchandise(especially at the funeral), shore up domestic alt-right support(must keep the propaganda going somehow), while not acknowledging the shooter was more right wing than he was.
Me too! Fascists deserve bullets!
I’m certainly not losing any sleep over it. Lived in hate and died because he didn’t hate enough.
You’re a piece of shit
Behold: A snowflake.
Nah just not a psychopath like you people who think just because some idiot on the right questions DEI hiring of pilots it means he deserves death for it. Enjoy being a miserable person.
Get fucked loser. I hope all the Nazis die. Go cry to your fuher about it.
I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck. Didn’t think you were allowed to assume things. So funny how the second you disagree with one thing you get labeled a Nazi. So many brain cells in this one.
I’m Jewish btw
you get labeled a Nazi.
So? Netanyahu is a nazi jew as well, move there, you’ll be right at home.
I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck.
Damn, that’s some nice bait you got there. In one line, you, accused people of being racist despite not even knowing what race you are, while simultaneously impling that Jews can’t be Nazis. Not only that, you first baselessly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a racist, then also accuse them calling anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi.
It seems like you’re just here to troll, but I’m up to give you the benefit of the doubt nonetheless.
Charlie Kirk was an awful person. Being glad that an awful person is dead does not make someone “a piece of shit” or “a psychopath,” unless you consider the vast majority of humanity to fall into one of those categories. How many people celebrated Osama bin Laden’s death? Was every one of those people, “a piece of shit,” and “a psychopath?”
This moral grandstanding about violence is something I did when I was younger and it came from a place of privilege. I had no enemies, I wished no harm on anyone, anywhere. Because why would I? Any fight I came across, I had the potential to simply walk away. Pacifism is an easy position to hold when your life is secure.
But not everyone has the ability to walk away like that. For some people, it’s an existential struggle with nowhere to run and no chance of mercy through surrender. Those people are, most likely going to feel that they do have enemies, people who they’d be glad to see gone. The way you’re judging people so severely for that, I have to question whether you’ve first made an attempt to actually understand their perspective, or whether you’re only considering your own experience.
There are some people who remain committed to pacifism and nonviolence even when under serious threat. They’re very courageous, and often more than a little crazy, but they earn my respect. For every one of them, there’s a bunch more people who use the term to claim moral superiority over everyone based on living in a (literal or metaphorical) gated community, where violence is neither useful nor tempting. Where, rather than nonviolence being a difficult sacrifice, it’s more like an excuse to ignore the plight of those with backs against the wall and condemning them for struggling for survival in a morally impure way.
You strike me as the latter. Maybe I’m wrong, but if the shoe fits, wear it. And, just fyi, nonviolent shit will get you killed.
Jews can be Nazis, too - go ask your dear pal “Bibi.”
Immediately assumes because I’m Jewish I support Netanyahu. Congratulations on being racist.
Criticizing a jewish dude for anything = racist, checks out.
Jewish doesnt make you Holier than thou, in fact current events makes you the actual perpetrator in situations like this.
It’s anti-Semitic. Stephen Miller is a Jewish nazi fuck.
Being Jewish isn’t a shield against being ignorant, ffs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
You’re not Jewish.
I’m Jewish.
You are absolutely a psychopath for supporting monsters like Kirk.
Says the person who supports murdering people
Cry some more, troll
No one is crying here but you because I disagree with people who think others should be killed for their opinions
Why would you smear Charlie like this? He died protecting our 2nd amendment rights, a noble sacrifice just like he said we need, and by showing any empathy, you’re doing a lot of damage.
No need - you’re doing it for them. Wish I could be a fly on the wall at the inevitable moment your hypocritical “perspectives” come back to bite you in the ass something fierce. I’m quite certain it will be about as amusing as when it happened to Kirk.
Death cult.
I’m glad you recognize what you’ve become part of. It’s a step in the Reich direction.
Yeah, we can see that’s what you’re in. Thanks for acknowledging it.
Do you understand your opponent’s argument well enough to phrase it in words they would agree with? Because this seems like a gross mischaracterization that leads me to think you’re either ignorant of why someone would be happy he’s dead, or you’re deliberately lying.
So give it a try… why would a rational person actually be glad Kirk is dead? You can disagree with the reasons, but if you can’t even ARTICULATE them, I’d argue you’re the one who is either an idiot or a psychopath.
I will not celebrate his death, but I can’t muster up any sympathy for the fact he can’t spread this disgusting, hate-filled vitriol anymore.
If you think he was anything but a net negative to society, corrupting young minds and fostering vile ideologies, you can kindly go fuck yourself.
I am not happy he was killed, but I will not mourn a virulent fascist.
Hilarious how the people saying he was a fascist are themselves the fascists. If you don’t think exactly like them, be an automaton, you are excommunicated. No where was he trying to force his beliefs on people. He had opinions and that was it. Albeit many of them stupid, but only opinions at the end of the day.
Okay, let’s talk. Can you define ‘fascist’ for me?
What is fascism?
e: I had asked people not to downvote my interlocutor in order to foster conversation, but nevermind; this isn’t going anywhere.
A fascist to me is someone, like the literal Nazis (and not just the hyperbolic use of the word today), who (by force [very important context]) wanted to enact their beliefs and doctrine. I didn’t see Charlie going around to campuses and forcibly ending people who disagree with him or trying to put people into camps for thinking differently than him.
Okay, thanks.
But a fascist by definition (not our own personal meaning, but the actual meaning) is:
‘a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement’
and that’s how I was using it. By that definition, which is the standard definition, Charlie Kirk was a fascist. He would have agreed with all of those things: he was far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist. (e: and I can give you examples in his own words where he proudly agreed with those things)
So, I am using the actual definition, where you are using your own personal definition.
Now, can you explain how I am a fascist?
That is one part of the definition and isn’t including the important part that the reason it’s authoritarian is by its use of force to enact its beliefs.
My comment about those throwing around the term fascist being the fascist wasn’t directed at you and was broadly applicable to the people who are (by force) trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
He was literally the leader of the new Hitler Juggen. Not every Nazi killed people. They just accepted it and cheered it on. The Nazis didn’t start out slaughtering everyone they put into camps. It was their final solution. and only after massive incompetence on every other front.
If you are Jewish and you do not understand modern Republicans and the Trump administration in particular for what they are. You must be quite the cultural disappointment. That you have no problem defending Trump or his enablers. But don’t agree with Bibi Netanyahu. Is some really fucked up cognitive dissonance that you need to address in yourself.
Please show where I supported Trump or even Charlie for that matter? You people are just making up assumptions left and right. This is hilarious. I merely said someone with different opinions shouldn’t be killed for them. But apparently most everyone here is in a death cult who want anyone who disagrees with them to be silenced. I’m a LibSoc, anarchist btw.
A fascist to me…
Lol this guy doesn’t know what fascism is
14 Signs of Fascism:
- The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
- The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.” 3.The cult of action for action’s sake. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
- Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
- Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
- Appeal to social frustration. “One of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.”
- The obsession with a plot. “Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.”
- The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
- Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
- Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
- Everybody is educated to become a hero. “In Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
- Machismo and weaponry. “Machismo implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality.”
- Selective populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.”
- Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”
It’s only fascism once it’s fully successfully enacted. Constantly telling the world the clear intention of establishing a fascist dictatorship, and even publishing a document that defines what it looks like specifically doesn’t count. That’s just called “disagreeing”.
-Fucking morons
Something something sparkling conservatism.
So what was Mein Kampf then?
Waaaah waaah fox news told me all lefties are soft and scared and easy to bully, they aren’t allowed to say mean things about US, this is bullshit I’m going to hide under mommies skirt
All the leftists I know watched ol kirky get aerated on repeat and MST3K’d that shit. Guess we’re just tougher and less empathetic than your pansy republican ass, just like he would’ve wanted
And we all think you’re a piece of shit for not being glad he’s gone.
Which of his views were near and dear to you, comrade?
No. You.
deleted by creator
Using the term “pussy” to denigrate someone is misogynistic btw
Nope, the insult is non-gendered and predates the use of the word as crude anatomical slang; it literally means ‘scaredy-cat’
That’s illogical. That’s like saying the word Gay has no connection to homosexuality, and shouldn’t be connected as such, because it originally meant happy. The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner. And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
The word ‘pussy’ as a pejorative predates its use as a slang for female genitalia. It actually originates from ‘pussycat’, as comparing a person to a jumpy and easily scared feline. Any misogyny attached to it is extremely recent and performative.
Man, you’re all over this thread not knowing what words mean.
It’s not misogynistic, but this one does have that root:
Stop being a cunt. (And I say that as a woman.)
Stop being a cunt. (And I say that as a woman.)
Might be the best thing Ive ever read on here lol
The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner.
Their comment is gone, so maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, I can’t see it, but simply calling someone a pussy as an insult is not misogynistic, because the insult has nothing to do with women.
And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
Fair that I shouldn’t have used the word ‘literally’ there; as an insult it means coward, prior to which it meant (small) cat, thus carrying the same meaning as ‘scardey-cat’; it is an insult against someone’s courage by analogy to a cat’s skittishness
Who gives a shit? I wouldn’t care even if it was.
…Simone Biles is weak? The fuck?
I knew about a lot of the other shit he said, but that one is just… baffling
I imagine he was talking about her decision to pull out of competition for a while due to mental health. (And now she’s back and crushing it again.)
Still makes him wrong. And he was still a racist asshole. But I bet that what he was on about.
She took a break from gymnastics for mental health reasons. I expect this is why she is “weak”.
I’m sure the real reason to attack her is to convince others to see metal health struggles as weakness, so they don’t stop producing capital.
Apparently she’s only the GOAT because of DEI, or maybe Critical Race Theory.
I guess thousands of hours in the gym since she was a baby, then winning dozens of tournaments and Olympics, have nothing to do with it. The only reason she’s considered great, is because her gymnastics judges from all over the world decided to apply DEI and Critical Race Theory to ALL her performances, and give her better scores then her white (or other black) teammates/ opponents, and they did it at every tournament, for YEARS.
That’s how she became the greatest of all time. Not because she really is. That title should go to a white gymnast, just because she’s not black.
she is black and a woman, that is enough of a reason for the righties.
eww. black AND a woman? is there any worse person ever?
/s to be safe.
The masses are asses.
I’m further insulted by the fact this person got such a platform to spout off absolute trash.
like shapiro, crowder, CANDACE owens, and others. they are propped up by Putin, through a SHell corporation. it isnt by accident, also plus the amount bots/AI to spread thier edited Videos on Youtube. they are essentially the “rabble rousers” of the gop.
As Charlie Kirk said, Candace Owens took a white man’s job.
So many welcoming arms 😡
Holy God man. I expected it to be bad and it was so much worse.
I do understand saying deliberately wrong things just to get attention, and I think assassinating anybody is a horrifying and wrong thing to do, but out of all the variety, the thing about Clarence Thomas being greater than MLK Jr makes me want to go punch his corpse in the face.
It is even worse. That clip at the end where he says “it’s worth it”, was in response to school shootings.
Sitting in a tent labeled “prove me wrong” in the US while arguing against gun control is just… well, let’s just say the only disqualifying thing for him is actually the fact he has children.
If someone can prove they’re not his then we may have a winner.
Edit their - > they’re
Its also heavily edited to make it look so much worse.
Ive give the first example, the “If I see a black man flying a plane…” one. The context was DEI. He was talking about the resent the cases where DEI initiatives were putting people into positions either in jobs or in colleges based not on their qualifications, but on their skin colour and/or sex/gender. It wasnt just a blanket statement that black people cant do jobs at high levels, it was statement about how shitting employment and enrolment practices are, that we are no long getting the best person for the job.
An example of this in my own country is the RAF. They were caught passing over more qualified straight white men for promotion because they wanted more women and people of colour. The excuse given at the end of the investigation was that it was “positive discrimination”, so therefor it was totally fine to do it. Turns out, it wasnt.
Another example here is George Abaraonye, the president elect of the Oxford Union. His grades didnt meet the requirement to even be considered for a place. But he got a place anyway based on… you guessed it. The fact that hes black. And even though hes made many public statements that call for violence over debate, hes now the president elect of the Oxford Union. A debating society.
So while Kirk is/was still a bellend, he didnt say what the video makes it look like it said most of the time. Why are people doing this? I dont know. Because the shit he actually said was bad enough. It didnt need this fiction that everyone repeats.
DEI initiatives were putting people into positions either in jobs or in colleges based not on their qualifications, but on their skin colour and/or sex/gender
…they just added those to “being good at sports” as far as US colleges go…
The DEI pilot clips were also edited alongside his comments about Michelle Obama and a couple of other prominent black women (the “brain processing power” clip) to make it seem like he was saying black pilots are stupid. However, the DEI argument is not an intelligent or nuanced one and you are falling into the trap of giving it more respect than it deserves. It’s an obvious trojan horse for racism and paragraphs of anecdotes from a different country don’t change that.
Im not giving it any respect, Im simply pointing out that his comments are edited. Thats it. Im not saying hes right. Only that we should be pissed off at what he said, not what clickbait told us he said.
That doesn’t explain why you felt the need to give examples from your own life that support Kirk’s argument.
Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?
The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say “yes, but…”. Too much of online discourse is “thats lie!” with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.
The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.
I don’t see how any of that is relevant, unless you are attempting to deflect criticism away from Kirk’s beliefs. It’s enough to say the DEI comments are edited. You don’t need to start explaining why his argument is technically correct in some cases, because all that does is justify its continued use. It’s a bad faith argument based on racial hatred. That’s it, there is no “well ackchyually” with this stuff.
Im not explaining why its correct, Im explaining why he made it. Because the general idea is that he was just straight up racist. Which may very well be true, but if you have the context of why he said it, or at least the context in which he presented the argument, then you can understand it and challenge it. No? If all you think of someone is that they are a racist, then you can easily dismiss them. But that doesnt challenge the point. And if you hate that so many others are listening to the point, then its on you to challenge them with truth, rather than just calling them bigots and getting a pat on the back from like minded internet strangers.
Im advocating for people to arm themselves with information. I dont really see why thats so wrong.
honestly I think he makes himself look plenty bad editing aside. have seen plenty of clips of him talking about women and minorities - there’s no ‘context’ that makes calling people of color DEI at every turn OK.
Frankly I find your fixation on the DEI thing - both in the RAF and otherwise - telling. you’re so busy worrying about what other people accomplished perhaps you should focus on your own fuckin lane.
no one took your opportunities.
Which is my point, he doesnt need to be edited.
As for the rest of what you said, sorry, but thats just not true. People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned. If you want to argue that its not that wide spread, thats fair enough. But it does happen, and I proved it with these two easily variable truths. Im sorry that hurts your feelings, but maybe you need to grow up a little bit, and understand that the heroes and villains of the world dont fit so neatly into the boxes youve prepared for them.
Also, the point about DEI isnt that black people or women or whoever else gets a job. The point is about the companies making these token gestures of representation so they can get a pat on the back from social media. And that its these companies that have created this atmosphere where people are looking at black people in jobs and unsure if they gained that job through merit or because some company wanted to fill a quota.
More to the point, because they create these token placements, we dont address other areas like black people have fewer opportunities to get the education needed to compete on an equal level. Black people arent stupid, but its easy to see that they are limited, especially in the US, to having access to higher education. And even more so prestigious higher education.
The problem, IMO, of DEI is that it addresses the symptoms in a superficial way for social media back slapping purposes, but doesnt address the causes of why these programs need to exist at all. Is this a right wing view? I think black people should have better access to the tools needed to compete, you think they should just be handed things as they need the charity. But you call me the asshole? Hmm…
People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned.
then start documenting it, if it’s real you should be able to prove a single instance for sure, right?
pft. you’re an unfettered racist. the problem, IMO, is that you only see what you want to see.
I already did. Twice in fact. What a silly goose you are. Just desperate to call people racist, so you can get your little up arrow touched.
Ok add the context: He was responding to the article that United was going to add more women and people of color to their… TRAINING program. Is there anything wrong with adding DEI to a training program as an opportunity? Both groups are drastically underrepresented, like in the under 10 percent range or so.
The qualifications are the same, they can’t be a pilot without the qualifying. It was not a pass to skip training or auto pass a test.
So either Charlie is lying, stupid, or just plain racist. He does not get a pass on that. He was definitely saying they cant do the job.
Thats fine. Thats a perfectly valid rebuttal to what he said. Because its addressing what he actually said, and not some edited clip to get clickable ragebait.
And the clip at the end about it being worth it was about school shootings. He thinks school shootings are worth it for gun rights.
This was about 250 clips. Are you telling me every single one of those was perfectly fine in context?
For clarity, I challenge you to quote the full statement with context perhaps with source providing it.
I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.
Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.
This is who he was.
No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
yeah you’re some child, who’s obsessed with someone getting something that they may have not earned, because you say so.
or you’re an adult who’s blaming their mediocre life on minorities getting opportunities.
either way it’s just sad.
Im not doing either of those things, but whatever you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel like youre winning at something…
So brave of you.
Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.
“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.
As a non American, I don’t understand how this longer quote is any different from what was said by the person you are replying to.
Also “God given right” to have guns? That’s a crazy statement.
Im not American, and I can see the difference between “paying a price for a greater good/convenience” and “Fuck them kids!”.
God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough. Its probably also worth noting the “god given rights” he was talking about was freedom. Hes talking about the people having a means(guns) to protect themselves from a government that would rob them of freedom.
An example of this would be Ukraine making a deal with Russia that they wouldnt have nukes. In exchange, Russia said they would never invade…
You keep calling it “rage bait” to quote him, but I think that’s missing a big aspect of this. The man was very intentionally phrasing these things in ways that he knew would upset people who didn’t agree with him. There’s a whole culture around that on the far right, where you’re supposed to say things that would enrage “the left” because that’s how people know you’re “based” and not “woke.” And obviously he’s not worried about people being offended because anyone who would be offended isn’t his target audience, while people who are his target audience will get a dopamine hit from hearing him offend those other people. It’s win-win for him. So with the thing about the pilots, he knows full well that the standards are the same, but he also knows that his audience are going to be sympathetic to the idea of being uncomfortable around black people, so the facts be damned, he’s gonna pretend that’s a rational argument against DEI.
So I don’t think it’s the clip videos that are the “rage bait” here. I think that’s part and parcel of the whole Charlie Kirk idiom.
Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said “all men are rapists by design!”, Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.
He is literally saying he thinks a few deaths a year are worth it. Not to mention we have a school shooting every 3 weeks in the country. And if he were asked about the one that happened the day he was killed, do you suppose he’d use his platform to demand better gun safety laws? How about the one from 2 weeks ago, and the day before that, and the last 300 months. Just curious which of those he wrote his pal Donny and demanded better gun laws.
Yes, its worth a few deaths to have the ability to defend yourselves against a shit government. What about that isnt fucking clear?
Gun safety laws are why I DONT AGREE WITH HIM!!! Im not arguing his point, I dont agree with him. Im saying that what he said want “Fuck them kids!”, which is what all of you are saying he said.
I know you want the worthless uparrows, but for fucks sake.
I have heard the entire thing. And I don’t see how what you wrote is any better. It doesn’t change the statement at all.
Removed by mod
“Charlie Kirk said that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns.”
“You brainwashed idiots are making stuff up and falling for outrage bait! What he said, if you look at the full quote, is that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns, AND a certain amount of traffic fatalities is worth it to have cars.”
“How does that additional context in any way change the relevant part that we find horrible?”
“You should just know, and if you can’t figure out why I think it changes it you’re a fucking idiot.”
What a conversation.
I suppose this is the part where you take offense to me summarizing your position instead of using direct quotes, while not explaining how anything you said is actually meaningfully different.
Well, Im not going to take offence, but I will point that you have in fact misrepresented what I said. The question is why?
I mean, you currently have Trump in the white house. He seems to be setting the stage for a tyrannical government that controls freedom of speech. His followers call for violence against those who dont agree. Its at this point you should be asking yourself, are you glad you have weapons to defend yourself if this orange buffoon comes knocking on your door to take away your citizenship and send you to a 3rd world prison for the crime of wrong think?
The question then becomes, was the few deaths every year a price worth paying for that protection? Its up to each of you to answer that question. There is no wrong answer.
The actual more important question is how can you have that protection, while at the same time lowering the amount of gun related deaths every year. But for some weird fucking reason, both sides want an all or nothing solution. No room for compromise, just anger and hate.
Also, lets see you get dogpiled and not just give up and start telling people to fuck off.
Well, no. Kirk was still a shit. These conartists will take a sliver of truth and build a racist narratives around it. Anyone who could cut though the bullshit and deliver a good faith discussion on DEI gets drown out by the charlitins because there’s no audience for that. Kirk was both proving a shit produce to his customer base and increasing that customer base because he always had to ratchet up his rhetoric because he’s competing against the other shitspinners.
Another example here is George Abaraonye, the president elect of the Oxford Union. His grades didnt meet the requirement to even be considered for a place. But he got a place anyway based on… you guessed it. The fact that hes black. And even though hes made many public statements that call for violence over debate, hes now the president elect of the Oxford Union. A debating society.
How do you even fucking know that? Why are you worried about a “debating society”? Are you worried that someone unqualified to be a debater has the position now and we’ll all have lower quality debates on the shelves of grocery stores? The only reason you give a shit about that is because someone told you to.
The context was DEI.
I think we knew that.
DEI done correctly doesn’t mean “less qualified”. It means dig deeper in the qualified pool perhaps with measures like mentoring & networking to bring them into the pool. A preponderance of research commonly shows systematic bias in the hiring process against minority names when resumes & jobs applications are otherwise identical. DEI includes accounting for that tendency in the past & counteracting it.
I think we knew that.
You might have, no one else seems to. They all think he was making blanket statements about race, rather than speaking specifically about DEI hires.
You might have, no one else seems to.
They did. Maybe you lack imagination?
The majority did not. You seem to lack being able to tell the truth.
I think we’re done here.
You seem to lack being able to tell the truth.
Nah, brah: it was obvious. Not our fault your perception is dull.
Yeah, posting the context of someones words is really weird. Better to just let you all have your circlejerk based on lies and well placed edits… Jesus fucking christ, you people are so fucking weird. Getting angry at being fact checked. You know who does that…
Is this a picture of you??? Cos it who you all sound like, when you get angry at being fact checked.Sure. Show me the full context, where before saying that Clarence Thomas was a greater man than MLK Jr he says, “I’m going to list out a few examples of statements which, if you ever hear someone say after a blow to the head, mean they should go to the hospital right away. Number one:”.
I never said everything he said was good. In fact, I said it wasnt.
I dont know about the Clarence Thomas quote, but I know he said the same about Ben Carson… Which is a big yikes, Im sure you’ll agree.
Half!
So it doesn’t help to shun his supporters.
Take back their hearts. The racists stole them. Fight the ideology, not the people.
Pretty much every NAZI trope
