Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

@5128gap I just rewatched the whole Cambridge debate as I didn’t recognise it from your description. The first female questioner in the hijab was bizarre, she asked and he fully answered her random question three times. It was about a you tuber who Kirk was allegedly avoiding (he’d debated him twice and he had a date to come on to his podcast) and she gave no reaction, just yet again repeated her question. Kirk showed her no contempt but he was clearly puzzled as would anyone have been.

There’s no point throughout the whole debate where he doesn’t listen to the questions nor where he is unnecessarily rude. The overall tenor of the debate is mild compared to many.

Yes, my apologies, I did read your post and have been thinking about it.
I think my response would be that your second two points are pretty standard. I don't think many people truly believe people can change sex. I think even fewer think violence is preferable to discussion.
With regards to the first two, I'd refer to your summary as CKs 'headlines' rather than a reflection of his actual views on racism and same sex relationships. He's doing the 'I'm not racist but...' thing. I think we need to dig deeper into what comes after the headline before we decide whether we agree.
Because yes, I can agree that people should be judged on merit not skin colour, but I don't want to sweep aside important questions like, who decides what merit looks like? How does an individual reach the position where they are the most meritous? Are we confident that every person has an equal opportunity for their merit to be recognised, nurtured and utilised? If not, what might be the factors predisposing some groups to consistently be seen as having the greatest merit?
CK hides these important considerations behind a blanket statement that few people are going to argue against, so garners an agreement with a principle, while much remains contentious when we move beyond the superficial.

To judge whether a debate was even would require a vote at the end to identify how many were convinced by the respective arguments.
I dont think it matters whether he objectively won or lost, but the question was whether he conducted himself respectfully, and i think he did.

But yesterday you asked what views someone like you might share with Kirk, I made a couple of suggestions. Did you disagree with any of those points or do you indeed share some common ground?

Donald Trump has no intention of "doing both". He cancelled the funding so even in 20 years this will continue to be a problem.

By the way, crime in DC in early 2025 (so before he started deploying troops) was significantly down compared with 2023.

I can imagine. It was interesting the way kirk chastised her for looking at her phone. She was clearly looking at notes for the debate, and all the male students had used notes also. Mask slipped.

@5128gap I'm fairly certain Kirk was joking but such was his lack of humility, no-one could say was sure.

The way a lot of conservatives piled into the students' social media afterwards. The misogyny directed towards the blonde girl was all rather unedifying.

To judge whether a debate was even would require a vote at the end to identify how many were convinced by the respective arguments. As this didn't happen we have no objective measure. People can watch the debate and decide for themselves who was more convincing.
I personally thought it ended very awkwardly. Kirk said that the students had been 'too easy' to debate (so he would debate the professor) and it was unclear from his tone whether he meant this or was joking. It fell flat regardless. At the end he left looking pretty annoyed I thought. Then, as we know, slated the UK as soon as he returned home.

I'd say it's confirmation bias. To me, the Cambridge students tied him in knots at times, but then that's exactly what I had hoped would happen. Kirk had an odd debating style, though, littered with random gotcha questions. It definitely seemed to end amicably, I agree.

I havent seen the full thing, but from the segments I've seen it seemed pretty even, and it all ended amicably.

A young black guy turned up at one of CK's campus chats and said he had been racially abused by a bunch of white students in a car.

Kirk then aggressively told him he was lying as he didn't have proof. As others have pointed out, Kirk didn't want to listen. He wanted to preach. Awful man.

He was debated by some of the finest young minds of the UK, with a strong understanding and knowledge of their subjects. It would be unrealistic to expect unsubstantiated opinion based on belief to ever prevail when his usual advantages of control of the arena and the ability to intimidate were absent.
However, if he were the man he is purported to be I'd have expected an openess to learn from those with greater knowledge than he. The Christian virtues of humility and of generosity in acknowledging the knowledge of others.
Instead he showed anger and contempt and later avenged himself with insults to the UK.
CK did not want to talk. He only wanted to be listened to.

Thanks so much for the information. Mine is only from reading various people praising him for being open and courteous - but then again, maybe that's only in comparison with Trump, who is neither. The one brief exchange I saw with a student-follower gave me the impression that he was manipulating the conversation in a rather creepy way.

He's not particularly educated, which may account for his inability to argue well.

What are the views of CK that you feel people who are anti racism and anti sexism should be able to agree on, out of interest?

Well everyone has their own views, but as someone anti racist and anti sexist, the things I agreed with him on were...

That people should be judged on merit not skin colour.
That what gay people do in their private lives is of no concern of anyone else.
That humans can't change sex, and "gender affirming surgery" on children is wrong.
That dialogue is better than violence.

There was also much I disagreed on. No two people agree on everything.

What are the views of CK that you feel people who are anti racism and anti sexism should be able to agree on, out of interest?
Because all I see on these threads are his words, which sound racist and sexist to me, followed by a bunch of people twisting those words seven ways till Sunday, and calling it 'context' to tell us he was not in fact either. That we have misunderstood. For a man supposedly skilled in making his point, he certainly seems to need a lot of people to explain for him to prevent him being misjudged.
It would be interesting to here some of his moderate and sensible views that we could understand by ourselves from his words, and maybe agree on.

Well I'll continue to not be racist and you can continue to think everyone who doesn't hate the right people is.

Or just not racist. That would work. 👍🏻

I thought a few had a semblance of coherence but I'll try harder next time. If only we could all be as persuasive as you.

Yes. Obsessed. That’s me.

Or - one’s interpretation of ‘obsession’ might be another’s ‘observation’.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson You seem obsessed with me. Get a life.

Yep. Quote the same things over and over (and over) which are presented as fact, and if all else fails deem that you haven’t presented a ‘single coherent argument’ if such poster doesn’t agree. Whether you have or not is neither here nor there. A common theme over a few threads.

@Underthinker You’re just salty you got called out for blindly defending and supporting Kirk on another thread despite claiming to be pro-choice and ‘left leaning’. Not a single coherent argument was made by you, that’s not my fault I’m afraid.

I was being sardonic, but clearly the tone was lost.

Disagreeing with 99% of Kirk's views isnt enough for PlasticTrees who will not rest till everyone is 100% against everything he's ever said or done.

And you took that from their post?! Crikey.

@beready2025
I didn't think what you were going on about radical leftist violence sounded right tbh. So I looked up the violent acts in the US. Here it is right wing first, left wing second.

RIGHT
2017
Charlottesville car attack (“Unite the Right” rally)
Charlottesville, Virginia
A white supremacist drove a car into counter-protesters, killing Heather Heyer and injuring many. Wikipedia
2018
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
White supremacist attack at Tree of Life synagogue, murdering 11 people. Wikipedia+1
2019
El Paso Walmart shooting
El Paso, Texas
A mass shooting targeting Hispanic people, 23 killed. Wikipedia+2Extremism Terms+2
2019
Poway synagogue shooting
Poway, California
A white supremacist attacker shot worshipers. Wikipedia+1
2020
Boogaloo murders in California
California (Oakland & Santa Cruz)
Anti-police / anti-government motivated attacks by far-right extremists. Wikipedia
2021
Multiple extremist-related murders
U.S. nationwide
ADL reports: 29 killed, 19 separate incidents; most by right-wing extremism. Extremism Terms
2022
Buffalo supermarket shooting
Buffalo, New York
White supremacist killed 10 Black shoppers. Extremism Terms+1
2022
Club Q (nightclub) shooting
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Anti-LGBTQ-motivated mass shooting, 5 people killed. Wikipedia+2Extremism Terms+2
2022
Plot to kill law enforcement & bomb FBI building
Maryville / Knoxville, Tennessee
Two men plotted to kill 37 law enforcement officers and attack FBI office. Extremism Terms

LEFT
2019
Tacoma ICE detention center attack
Tacoma, Washington
Willem van Spronsen, an anarchist/anti-fascist activist, attacked a ICE detention centre with fire bombs and tried to ignite a propane tank; was shot dead by police. Wikipedia
1 death (van Spronsen); no reported injuries to others from attack itself. Wikipedia+1
2020
Killing of Aaron Danielson by Michael Reinoehl

Hth