Freedom of speech isn't tolerated by some

I don’t think you can know that with certainty

Not necessarily. It could be someone that is current or ex military, but equally it could be a skilled hunter proficient at making kill shots. The gun used was an imported Mauser 30-06. It likely is an ex service weapon (they have been and are still used by militaries), but in the U.S they’re commonly used for hunting bigger game like deer and elk.

It could be someone with a cause, or someone that wants infamy/ to be treated as a folk hero in certain circles (like Luigi Mangione). Could even just be a psychopath that was bored and wanted the thrill of the challenge, and/or to amuse himself with the resulting chaos.

Any source? The DEI initiatives in the US were creating academies to target black people for air industry roles, it wasn't about employing unqualified people.

You need to start from a recognition that structural discrimination exists. You need to look at all the research and evidence that exposes conscious and unconscious bias in the workplace. Then you can understand the ways in which people of diverse backgrounds are underrepresented and where they face barriers to employment, promotion, equal pay etc. We are not beginning from a meritocracy! Were workplaces in the 70s, 80s, 90s a utopia of equality where anyone could succeed regardless of race, sex and class, purely based on their merits? No, this was not the case.

So, you find that these barriers exist and the solution is to implement policies - DEI policies - to address the structural issues that mean access to opportunities are not equal.

Then some people complain because they don't like that people of colour, with disabilities, women or gay people are now getting the jobs and pay for which they are qualified. Not everything goes to white men anymore (though white men are still wildly overrepresented in board rooms). So these people start to say it's because of diversity policies that these people have jobs.

The answer is not to scrap DEI policies and allow discriminatory practises to continue. It's to implement them fairly and counter disinformation about how DEI (or EDI) works.

But the problem is with the people who assume no one black or female got their job on merit - not with the policies implemented to make access to the workplace less discriminatory than it used to be.

That's good news.

Agreed. This was not that difficult a shot with a scoped rifle, firing from a prone position.

It's been reported that they have a 22 year old suspect in custody.

nypost.com/2025/09/12/us-news/we-have-him-trump-says-suspect-in-custody-for-charlie-kirk-assassination

I know a lot of farmers kids who grew up with guns. They go lamping at night to take out foxes. Believe me they're lethally accurate.

The huge rise in anti-DEI rhetoric spread by the right in recent years has led to people of colour and women being called 'diversity hires' just for being in employment. The racists and misogynists are not stopping to find out a person's qualifications - they are literally seeing a black person or a woman with a job and assuming they aren't qualified for it. Influencers like Kirk fuel this and spread inflammatory disinformation to further the a sense of grievance and imagined victimhood among those complaining - a deliberate ploy to shift the blame for declining economic circumstances and quality of life from those responsible (the super rich) to an easy target - be that black people, immigrants, women, the disabled and so on. DEI becomes an easy scapegoat, it's just something to blame.

This post pulls off yet another wild distortion of reality - claiming DEI is a racist initiative and actually more racist than all the people who shout 'diversity hire!' at any black person they see with a job. There is so much inversion of the truth taking place on these threads, it's wild.

I would imagine that’s the point, though. If DEI policies weren’t even in existence and he saw someone black or female in a good job, I would hope he would assume they got there on merit and not by virtue of their sex or colour. Almost like the existence of DEI quotas in the first place would bring in to question whether the individual was a box ticking hire or a sensible one.

That is still operating on the assumption that someone black or female in a good job is not there on merit - before you have seen them work. Racist,

He doesn't automatically question the competence of white males.

I appreciate this post actually because I have always been sceptical of DEI but that’s obviously because I didn’t understand how it worked in practice. If this is DEI, then it makes sense.

I wouldn’t agree with having quotas, though and think the better way to facilitate a shift in hiring practices would be to pin point where people that DEI covers start to be more disadvantaged. But I doubt that’s an easy thing to achieve.

If you’re referring to the UK, you’re correct… we tend to call it EDI and positive discrimination and quotas aren’t permitted.

However, that’s not the case in the US which is obviously what CK was referring to.

All of that is only true if you believe it. I know it was said a lot in the aftermath of an air crash, but it was never substantiated. DEI initiatives aren't about promoting the less capable and qualified; they are about increasing representation where people are equally capable. It's only disgruntled white people who like to believe otherwise.

That’s not what DEI is.

DEI doesn’t select by skin colour or sex over qualification. It makes adjustments for opportunities minorities may not have had.

women are included in DEI. So what that would look like is assessing the reasons why women don’t apply and qualify for certain jobs. So it may be adjusting hours to fit round childcare, for example. Or running courses to help them achieve the skills they need for the role.

my place of work had some complaints for “DEI” hires when they set up a scheme to help mothers back into the workplace. It just facilitated access, it didn’t employ women over better qualified men.

much like those with a disability get an automatic interview. But they still have to be the best candidate.

another example is some of the scenes we have to facilitate black young people’s entry into Oxbridge. If you don’t have family that have been to uni, or have no experience, or no one to ask about how the application process works, what the interview will be like etc, your chances are low. So these schemes help those youngsters through the process. They still need the grades, they still need to get in on merit, it just removes some of the advantages that Tarquin from Harrow takes for granted.

DEI hires meet all the standards anyone else does.

His statements were incorrect. He was telling people DEI hires are not qualified, and they are employed in preference to better candidates. He clearly doesn’t understand DEI either and was using it to score his own racist, sexist points.

i mean, calling someone “a black moron” is just not on.

He didn’t say many black people “couldn’t” be appointed on their own merit, he said they - in many cases at least - “weren’t”.

That’s the fault of leftist DEI initiatives that prioritise identity and skin colour when appointing over actual ability and experience.

He wasn’t having a dig at those black people, but at the recruitment policies that turn racism on its head, which mean that black people have the stigma of knowing they were selected primarily to fill a quota, not because they deserved it.

It’s condescending and belittling to black people to have a system in which they are judged to be incapable of getting a job on their own merits. It’s actually incredibly racist.

Mmm? Does it or are they just giving examples of what made this charmless con artist so controversial?

How about the ‘gray area’ Kirk talked about around consent when the guy is drunk so no responsible for raping?
No-one is making this shit up! This ‘amazing’ Christian and family man not only said these things but said them IN public, at rallies and events ( the consent one was at another ‘Prove me wrong’ type one)

yeah buddy, you had a few drinks and that drunk girl said no, stop I don’t want this? Not your fault, you go ahead, it’s not rape it’s a ‘gray area’.

Free speech yes. I don’t think that means we should all support racism, hate speech, incitement or normalisation of violence.

I won’t support someone who thinks those topics are acceptable in society in 2025. That’s not ‘free speech’- it’s hateful, toxic and damaging for democracy. Which I am in support of.

Dont be brainwashed into thinking those on the far right of politics really have your best interests at heart. They absolutely don’t and their strategy is to divide societies and cause disruption which will allow for even greater inequality and a diminishing of our basic human rights.

What's manipulative about pointing out that this man assumed that black people and women in good jobs weren't there on merit? He said those things. Do you think they are acceptable?

I’m not misrepresenting his words, I’m repeating them. It’s not my fault he was a charmless, misogynistic, facist with extreme views on everything.

Bit extreme to want to televise executions! I understand why some people support the death penalty - I do not - but public executions goes beyond anything to do with justice and into a very dark and disturbing place. As we've all just had demonstrated to us.

PUBLIC executions. Public. They already have the death penalty.

If you thought about it for more than one second, do you think, possibly, he meant the death penalty for, I don't know, maybe paedophile murderers, someone like Ian Huntley? "His Words" you emphasise. What is your problem with them? Why are you deliberately misrepresenting them?

It's not really an unusual view to want to execute people like Ian Huntley. I don't share it, but I can understand why people think that. Can't you?

That article demonstrates just how out of touch The Guardian is.

It is unbelievably manipulative, and anyone who knows anything about CK can see it straightaway. What a foul piece of work.

No-one knows why the killer took that shot. Kirk once said he thought that public executions on ‘certain people’ should be brought back, public, quick AND televised. His words.
perhaps someone took him at that word?
perhaps charlie shagged someone’s wife.
perhaps it’s all a big MAGA conspiracy- what were those signals the security people
around him were giving??
Perhaps the shooter lost a child in a mass shooting?
Perhaps they were hired - looked professional, didn’t it??

See how useless and unhelpful speculating is?