Charlie Kirk dead

[Booneymil]

The last thread was taken down because of personal insults towards the man.

We should be able to have a thread about this news topic.

Report any insulting posts. Mumsnet can you please just delete the offending posts, instead of deleting the whole thread?

Thank you.

Charlie Kirk has died today. He was shot at a public talk that he was giving.

As far as I can see, nobody is saying Kirk deserved to die for his opinions. And if they are, I unequivocally condemn them. It is notable, however, that there are plenty of posts accusing people of saying that-a useful deflection from any discussion what Kirk actually said. Is anyone prepared to say they agree with his statements on collateral damage? I suspect not. The right are adept at dissociating themselves from the unpalatable extremes of their ideology.

This is a transparently thin accusation. It's the same one that Sturgeon recently fired off against her GC critics and Dr. Upton use to try and keep the court proceedings of his case out of public view. It's really not one that I particularly care to debate about Kirk on the eve of his death.

"You're simply proving his point that when people decide that words aren't enough to force their views on others, that then you get violence." This doesn't make sense at all. How is @TheJoyOfWriting proving Kirk's point? She, like many of us, whilst not agreeing with his stance on almost everything, absolutely deplores his murder. It's inexcusable to murder anyone for any reason, not least because they hold different opinions (political or otherwise) to your own. Can you really not grasp that we can disagree with his views whilst not wishing him dead? Is that really too much of a stretch for you?

Well, what about the time (posted on the last page) he celebrated a politician's husband being subjected to an attack with a hammer, urging someone to be a "hero" and post the attackers bail? That one qualify for you?

My comment was that Kirk was an important voice against the new style of social media based censorship that emerged with Trump 1.0 - that he called attention to the phenomena, fought it, and also provided a platform for other voices who were silenced by by it including GC voices, and did so at a pivotal moment. I responded to your initial reply because I wanted to emphasize that my comment was considered.

I also think that the good he accomplished far out-weighted the negatives of some of the beliefs he had that I disagreed with, so much so that they are of different orders. But that's a more subjective argument. Clearly you feel otherwise and I don't think this thread would be a conducive or edifying context to debate those different assessments..

I haven’t anything to add beyond my condolences to his family and his children.

His message was that governments tend to become tyrannical over time.

With an armed government and an unarmed citizenry every country has the potential to become North Korea where its people are sent to fight and die in Russia to provide the government and its rulers with funds.

His message was that gun ownership was an unfortunate necessity with some unavoidable consequences, himself now being one.

I don’t know anything about guns but that was a pretty good shot, right? One shot to the neck apparently from a rooftop. I don’t think just any crazy with a gun could do that. It takes some training.

Agreed, what with the timing of the shot as well, given that he was answering a question about trans-identified mass shooters.

It is not possible to be a nice person and support trump. He is a billionaire mysogynist deliberately dismantling any healthcare help the USA Ever offered to the poor while treating anyone with anything beyond a mild tan like cattle who can be shipped out to wherever on his whim. Anyone who can support him is not a nice person and I'll stand by that

I do have some sympathy for this argument. Any person in the UK though CAN have a gun, they just need to be properly trained & licensed.

I do think there are some holes in it, but will unpick that tomorrow.

How many Gazans were murdered yesterday? Can you name them individually? How many children killed in other war zones? Can you name them individually? Are their individual deaths also tragedies? Why is this guy, who practiced hate speech and had pro gun views more worthy of note on an individual level?

I’ve never seen so many attempts to justify murder as on this thread. Seems the left doesn’t like it when one of their own turns out to be an unhinged cold blooded killer.

I don’t understand to people objecting to him on what he said/thought. Thats what tolerance is, he’s allowed to speak even though I strongly oppose his views on abortion and guns. What you do is argue back, he’s allowed to try to influence the direction of his country, his opponents must have a stronger argument. We saw this with womens rights in the UK over trans issues. Women used well hones arguments TRA’s used violence, intimidation and harassment.

A PP said that you are free to say what you like but not free from consequences. The consequences for going around debating people who disagree with you is execution is it? So I assume that goes for everyone?

You see this is what I mean.

They haven’t found the shooter and they don’t know why they shot him.

All this does is try to make divisions where there isn’t any.

Is this good he accomplished primarily to do with platforming different beliefs? Agree that was very good.

I can see what you mean about actions outweighing the disgusting things he said that weren't tied to real world actions.
Obvs how we weigh up stuff like 'raped preteens should not be allowed an abortion' and 'being gay is like being an alcoholic or drug addict' is subjective.

As I've said, I strongly disliked many of his views. But I do rate real-world action v highly. His work for GC & free speech in general was of great merit.

Is this good he accomplished primarily to do with platforming different beliefs? Agree that was very good.

I can see what you mean about actions outweighing the disgusting things he said that weren't tied to real world actions.
Obvs how we weigh up stuff like 'raped preteens should not be allowed an abortion' and 'being gay is like being an alcoholic or drug addict' is subjective.

As I've said, I strongly disliked many of his views. But I do rate real-world action v highly. His work for GC & free speech in general was of great merit.

You're entirely wrong since your prediction was that someone would "compare him (Kirk) to Hitler by page 6" but this isn't what has been done at all and your post is a deliberate misrepresentation of what we're all capable of reading for ourselves. In response to OP's assertion that "all deaths are a tragedy" @elprup responded to her "So you think Hitler’s death was a tragedy?" This is merely challenging OP's assertion about all deaths being a tragedy - there is no comparison made between Kirk and Hitler whatsoever and your post is outrageously disingenuous. Shame on you.

How about all the many people saying that his death was unequivocally unjustifiable? Why are you bypassing them? Because they don’t fit your prepared narrative?

"good faith debate". Beautifully put

Just a correction - he wasn’t a politician. He was a paid political commentator and activist, a member of the Trump team from years back. Whatever Trump said, he parroted, because he was paid to. That doesn’t warrant his death, though.

Speaking for myself, I've never said that he didn't have a right to express himself. Criticising his opinions isn't the same as saying he shouldn't be allowed to speak.

Nor have I said that his opinions mean he deserved to die.

You're describing a lot of sincerely religious people, millions in fact.

Yep, her 82 year old husband. He also spread lies that the attacker was a male prostitute and the victim was secretly gay.

Weird how everyone hates on Kirk because he thinks abortion is wrong.

They seem to hate him more than the illegal immigrant pedophile that raped the ten-year-old; they seem to hate him more than her shitty mom, who wanted to quietly get her child an abortion to protect her scumbag illegal boyfriend.

Kirk is the one you are angry with? People are unbelievable sometimes.

I say this as someone very pro-choice.

Big difference between me and someone like Charlie Kirk is he thinks all children are a blessing, he would have you believe that a ten-year-old rape victim can raise that child to be a functioning member of society, he was actually a very positive person in this way.

A right-winger like myself knows the chances of this are very small and that any potential child would have been very likely to have had a negative impact on society.

Its often said, but if you hate the Christian right, you’ll really, really not like the post-Christian right.

RIP he really seemed like a good, decent person who believed dialogue was possible.