Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

I see that episode has been removed!

I hope you're not now trying to say that this was a racist incident where the girl was weaponising her whiteness and the poor guys (a group) were on the receiving end of racial hatred rather than arguing about a bike?

I did say 'I don't think that's what's happening here'. And the woman wasn't alone, she had a man with her.

But I'm glad we've agreed that the premise and labelling of that whole video being about CK conducting a vile racist rant is wrong.

No, we don't, I haven't seen CK's video, which is as why I asked for an independent link of the incident.

He may be exploiting it, or discussing it. But the content of the discussion isn't about the prowling bit - as i said its 0.05% of the whole. It's about whether the balance has shifted so the black voice is now believed more than the white voice. As I said. It was wrong in the 1950s, and it is just as wrong now to believe one person's account because of their colour, or their sex for that matter.

The black voice is believed more because, as I said, black people are now able to document racist experiences.

It's not fake news. It happened and there's a video of it. It's an opinion and talking point about the consequences of that snippet of a longer video being aired. You may disagree with that but you shouldn't misrepresent it or dismiss it.

You've misunderstood, by fake news I meant that Charlie Kirk lied that this was 'prowling blacks' but it wasn't, it was just a disagreement, with no swearing or violence.

But there is still a big issue with police violence against black people. Remember this case?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

He believed in the MAGA God, who appears to have failed to read the New Testament.

And Charlie Kirk did a broadcast about it basically saying "fair play to south park".

It disappoints me that idiots who blame the show can't honour the opinion of someone they regard as a martyr.

He liked it as well. So they're not even honouring his wishes in death.

The real problem that Charlie Kirk and his ilk have is that black people are now able to document these racist experiences.

I hope you're not now trying to say that this was a racist incident where the girl was weaponising her whiteness and the poor guys (a group) were on the receiving end of racial hatred rather than arguing about a bike?

That's really rather a stretch if so.

But I'm glad we've agreed that the premise and labelling of that whole video being about CK conducting a vile racist rant is wrong.

So Charlie Kirk is trying to exploit this incident but it's fake news, because the black teens aren't prowling after white people.

He may be exploiting it, or discussing it. But the content of the discussion isn't about the prowling bit - as i said its 0.05% of the whole. It's about whether the balance has shifted so the black voice is now believed more than the white voice. As I said. It was wrong in the 1950s, and it is just as wrong now to believe one person's account because of their colour, or their sex for that matter.

It's not fake news. It happened and there's a video of it. It's an opinion and talking point about the consequences of that snippet of a longer video being aired. You may disagree with that but you shouldn't misrepresent it or dismiss it.

South Park (increasingly the last bastion of US cable TV satire) nailed his debating style a month before his death.

The predictable response from the free speech crowd

Are we really still doing ‘white women tears’? In the year of our lord 2025, are we still talking about ‘white women tears’?

Our lord?

It does happen though, see the Amy Cooper Central Park incident.

We don't know what happened. Why did she insist on that bike? She hopped on another bike so why not just grab a different bike in the first place?

Anyway, apparently she's going to sue everyone, so let's see what comes out of her lawsuit.

clearly is a problem with white women (and sometimes men) weaponising their femininity and tears, there are videos documenting this and many have been fired from their jobs

Are we really still doing ‘white women tears’? In the year of our lord 2025, are we still talking about ‘white women tears’?

A black man slits a white girl’s throat for no reason on a train and she quietly cries as she’s dying.

I don’t want to hear people mentioning white women’s tears ever again. Hateful language intended to scare us into silence. I won’t participate in this any longer.

Charlie didn't like it that Ms Rachel said in a video she is Christian and loves everyone, including gay people and that her favourite Bible quote is 'Love thy neighbour:

Charlie responded in a video with his crones making fun of Ms Rachel's views and said:

'[...] is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death, just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.'

Perhaps his view evolved because it certainly contrasts with what he says here:

x.com/elonmusk/status/1967671619108901137

He absolutely said it in response to Ms Rachel

No, YOU are the liar, and you're a homophobe apologist.

Charlie Kirk attacked the YouTuber Ms. Rachel for quoting Leviticus 19: “love your neighbor as yourself.” He said Ms. Rachel should also read the rest of the relevant scripture.

He referenced Leviticus - “if a man lies with another man …” is an abomination and subject to punishment. He paraphrased this as “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.”

He added that the preceding chapter affirms “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

He called homosexuality an “error” in that same context.

You dont want a conversation about any of this because you've nailed your colours to a revolting fundie neo nazi bigot and any criticism of him causes you to constantly deny he said any of it.

Do you think it’s appropriate to ‘guard’ a bike by docking it prior to 45 minutes, so you can take it out for another 45 minutes, all to avoid charges that everyone else has to pay?

There clearly is a problem with white women (and sometimes men) weaponising their femininity and tears, there are videos documenting this and many have been fired from their jobs.

I don't think that's what's happening here but I also don't think these boys were trying to generate content. One of the boys checks with the other 'is the bike yours?'. In the end, the woman uses a different bike, so why was she so insistent on having one held by the teen?

I don't think there are groups of "groups of black men roaming" setting out to have these confrontations.

The real problem that Charlie Kirk and his ilk have is that black people are now able to document these racist experiences. As Will Smith said, "Racism isn't getting worse, it's getting filmed".

So Charlie Kirk is trying to exploit this incident but it's fake news, because the black teens aren't prowling after white people.

might be common, but its not right though

Of course she has. There's an enormous amount of pressure on victims to forgive their attackers in some sects of Christianity. It's often expected. Always seemed bonkers to me but it's true.

This is quite a departure from the earlier 'you have no idea what you have awoken, this wife's cries will reverberate around the world like a battle cry!' of just a week or two ago.

Turning Point relies on the donations and attention of the Christian right.

Oh well in that case, clearly as he "didnt say 'LGBTQ people deserve stoning because it’s “God’s perfect law.”' " then he was an alright all round good old guy!

No - his views were hateful and disgusting, I dont think anyone should be murdered for their views but I will not agree with the deification of this nasty individual either

LGBTQ people deserve stoning because it’s “God’s perfect law.”

That doesn't sound like anything CK would have said. Certainly quite contrary to what any of the footage I've seen of him speaking on the subject over the last week or so. (And I'm not a Republican).

Was he fuck. He would stage 'debates' (with no intention of considering the alternative viewpoint), wind some undergrad up until they snapped and then publish the edited highlights that showed him in the best light. Whenever faced by a strong opponent he wouldn't engage. British university students wiped the floor with him because he couldn't just talk over them and edit the footage.

Do you want a conversation about any of these? Or do you just want to repeat exaggerations or downright lies?

Let me know. Because the stoning one is a malicious lie, so the fact you’ve mentioned this really … is not a great start.

Please provide me with your working definition of 'the left'. You seem extremely fond of the label and I'd like to understand who you're referring to. Because I'm a woman living in the UK who describes herself as left wing and I want to understand how I fit the monster you have created to represent people with my views.
Then could you please provide me with evidence that the murderer of CK was the elected representative of the group of people you are calling 'the left', and that this group instructed him to commit murder rather than engage in debate?

I'm inclined to take her explanation. Not least because someone seems to be filming this from the get-go and because it seems her rental was one minute long which is more consistent with the premise that someone shoved the bike back into the dock immediately she took it out. His hand on the bike reinforces that explanation.

CKs position was that there has been a general shift in the world to automatic acceptance that any argument between a black person and a Karen or a Gammon must be the fault of the white one. A fundamentally racist assumption juat as bad as the 1950s when blacks were automatically disbelieved in such an argument.

In that argument he says that groups who want to generate "vile Karen" content for social media roam the streets and troll or bait potential Karen's. You say you see no baiting here but redocking your bike as you take it out looks like baiting to me.

In the context of the proposition that the balance of believability has shifted and that people deliberately set out to cause these confrontations then "groups of black men roaming" is not racist, just descriptive. Particularly he is stating his experience in Chicago.

If it were white men doing this to Asian girls, then would the description also be racist? Why is the "men" part not "sexist".

So that's where I think you're wrong.

You can disagree that the premise is wrong, or that people don't roam the streets to make social media content, but in the context of that discussion/polemic the phrase is not racist or used in a racist way.

Even more importantly it is less than 0.05% of that whole piece and yet the title that has been given to the clip implies the whole thing is a racist rant, intending that people will take away that headline without listening to the whole thing.

It's fundamentally dishonest to do that.

Wouldn't you agree?

It's not a scam, it's a welfare scheme that lets people on welfare ride the bike for 45 minutes at a time.

She hadn't paid for the bike yet, she had scanned it though.

From the video, it's clear that there is a disagreement. I don't know what the answer is and people have said that Citibike usage rules are not clear.

But why has this been turned into 'prowling blacks' going after white people? They don't swear at her or physically intimidate her. It's a disagreement, it happens every day.