Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

@Hidingbehindthechaos ”preying” on college students? You must have a pretty dim view of their intellect if you don’t think they’re perfectly capable of making their own minds up. He didn’t force anyone to attend his meetings or engage in a debate with him.

How much explanation do you want? I think the post I was responding to was tripe. That’s why I said it. And why would I need to question my feelings?

Anyone who thinks this whole thing isn’t an utter pageant is absolutely naive.

Abortion is black and white for people like CK. He was very clear on that and even when pushed with the extreme hypothetical example, did not waiver. He would not have considered allowing abortion in some circumstances to be a compromise, but a position of complete opposition to what he believed right.
However, he was very young, with limited life experience, and of course a man, so a less qualified person to take a firm view on the issue would probably be hard to find. So there is a remote possibility that in time with broader experience he may have moved to a more moderate position.
Unfortunately in the examples you list of an 'in some circumstances' approach, a compromise has not been reached. People who don't believe in the death penalty do not believe its acceptable in some circumstances. People who believe men can't change into women do not believe that this is possible in some circumstances.
Some people who believe these things strongly enough are not able to say 'oh well, that's what society thinks'. They want to change society. Which has forever been the case, and as forever has been the case, one side wins, one loses. Because a win/win isn't possible.

I find this response an excellent example of people being not only closed minded but also so full of righteousness they feel their response does not need any explanation, just their judgement.

No why it is 'tripe', no questioning of their feelings or my contribution to this thread, no asking why. At least in my opinion Kirk was better at this than this poster, he at least asked and questioned

What a load of tripe.

It all seems a bit too simple.
Even the text messages exchanged, who talks like that? I'm just changing my outfit. There is still one vehicle? A squad car? Where was the gun when he climbed off the building? Where did he it? They found the gun, not the type you can't tuck inside your waistband, climbing off a building.
It's hard to believe or accept the narrative.
Also suspicious that on the anniversary of Trump's near death experience, it's barely acknowledged. Shhh.

A common Christian view.

It’s an unusual person who can forgive in these circumstances.

It’s an extremely unusual person who can do so so soon in the grieving process.

I hope that this woman can grieve in privacy and that use has the support she needs.

I am not Christian so need not worry about it. But she gives an explanation that is probably acceptable to most Christians.

Kirk was certainly not racist. But when 60% of the murders in my home country are committed by 13% of the population, a conversation needs to be had. He understood that. Our cowardly politicians will hide and say the most mealy mouthed things, anything to avoid being called a racist. It’s horrific.

I am left wondering if this hypothetical situation with his little girl would arise, is his answer would still be the same. People can change their mind if they actually experience something or if something resonates with them. It is being open minded. Maybe he would reconsider, maybe he wouldn't, we will never know.
Abortion isn't black and white, we have a compromise in the law in the UK and most western countries, including some of the US states. That compromise was achieved by people actually talking to each other and finding that elusive common ground.
It is the same for gun laws (stricter laws, no automatic weapons), for the death penalty (only extreme case) and for the gender ideology (recognition for gender separare from sex). Everybody happy, no. I disagree with the death penalty for example, but society is more than just me. I am sure as a society we can make it work if we would just actually listen to each other.

As for Kirk's widow, I am glad she is against the death penalty and I hope the judicial system listens to her wishes.

But they are not hate. They are his views you disagree with. If we all label views we don't agree with as 'hate', all we are left with is hate

This is really interesting, most practicing muslims believe that homosexuality is wrong and you’ll burn in hell for an eternity for it, much like some Christians. I assume we can declare muslims who believe this to be hateful facists and not feel sad if anyone murders them? I mean his views are not actually unusual for a religious person. At least he was happy to expose himself to dissent and actually went out and debated people, no his views don’t align with my own on many issues, especially abortion (I’m an atheist and the leading your wife stuff no thank you) but at least he had the balls to argue with people instead of just yelling and crying.

People have religious beliefs which should be fine in a tolerant society. Grown ups say “oh thats interesting, why do you think that? I don’t agree for xyz reason”. We are clearly living in times when your average adult has devolved into a giant screaming toddler who can’t tolerate anyone who disagrees with them.

Fuck me, perhaps it’s the end times.

Dang... in this huge soap opera, that would be helluva twist.

I perceive that she is cycling thru the stages of grief too quickly, her cycle is shallow and she'll have to relive the cycles when they are initially too shallow. I know that repeat cycles of grief can be normal. It is shame that she has to deal with all this so much in public eye, I can feel for EK in that way.

Let's see what position EK takes in 6m or 12m etc.

Why? That was his grift. He wouldn’t speak with anyone who had actually qualifications. He would only “debate” college kids, and even then, if they were smarter than him he’d attempt to smear them online.

This thread is awful to read. Some people will apparantly call everything 'hate', even a hypothetical answer Kirk gave on his views on abortion.

They’re still his views, even if they’re based on a hypothetical.

I think, though I disagreed with many of his views that he can be admired for sitting on a chair and inviting people to disagree with him in discussion.

Any feminist that stuck her head above the parapet to even try discussing womens rights in recent years (specifically in relation to trans people) has been shut right down, smeared and threatened. It really opened my eyes to actually how unusal it is for people to actively want a dialogue with people they disagree with. Theres so little curiosity, people don’t actually try to argue with a point they basically just use ad hominem attacks. This has now become the mainstream default way of debating. It’s fucking shoddy to my mind and says something about the lack of intellectual rigour in society. I’m nowhere near smart but I can see that yelling abuse or attacking people you disagree with isn’t winning an argument, it’s sheer cowardice.

A common Christian view.

Enough with the condescension. I know you and your ilk believe your constant online campaign is winning. However, it’s online.

This is not an offline topic in mainstream Britain and if it is it’s people side eyeing the absolute weirdness. This noise is then reported on by journalists as though it’s a thing. It really isn’t as much as you are wishing so hard that it is.

These internet cultures wars are becoming so stupid that people are leaving platforms like X at speed and as a result it’s increasingly becoming a smaller group of chronically online people and bots yelling at each other. You’re driving people away.

I’ve even seen on here - a new poster comes on and says something inflammatory and within 5 minutes another 5 new posters come on to loudly agree with their buddy. It’s so transparent and as a result I’ve noticed I’m seeing fewer and fewer old school MN posters (I’ve been here 15 years but log in less now) who’ve clearly moved on as it’s tedious.

Problem is, for those with extreme views, there is no compromise, is there? You either believe that there should be no abortion in any circumstances, like CK did, or you don't. No compromise that kept abortion as an option would have been acceptable to CK, and no complete ban would be acceptable to others. So the fight continues, with both sides accusing the other of 'close mindedness' on the issue in question.
With any binary issue (can humans change sex? Should we have the death penalty? Does life begin at conception?) there can be no position of compromise, so the two sides will fight on, both close minded, both determined to garner sufficient support for their argument that they sway the mainstream.
The problems occur when one or the other side seeks to advantage itself by using huge platforms, misinformation, manipulation, misuse of government power, or violence to force others to their position.