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.

In your opinion

You understand I’m allowed a different opinion?

My actual view is the reality is that women sometimes need access to abortion, but, I also think the conversation is far too casual about it. It is not nothing,

No, it doesn't. Similarly, it didnt justify his dehumanizing of previous victims of gun violence as being acceptable collateral for his right to bear arms.

By his own worldview, he ought now be "just a statistic", but he'll be elevated.

To me, his death is roughly as unacceptable as each of the other ~7,500 gun deaths in the US this year. For many, its only at death #7,501 where they seem to suddenly be angry (and many at the whole of "The Left", it seems).

But your view restricts the right of women to choose. It’s their body, their choice. Your opinion is one that is based upon misogyny and punishing women for their choices.

It’s like saying that because I dislike tattoos they should be illegal.

Having robust debates isn’t stirring up hate. That’s the point. I liked the fact he sat there and gave his views and the fact that so many people turned up to listen and want to oppose him. If people felt his point was wrong they were allowed to step up and argue and they did.

the idea that there is one world view that we all must adopt is frightening. I don’t know a single person who has the exact views as me on every topic. I agree with CK on some things and it on others. I would have liked to have debated him myself. But I never thought he was stirring up division and hate just but debating. This is the sort of rhetoric that honestly is getting me depressed at the moment. I think it is the schools now that are the problem that are encouraging a one world view and not doing debating classes and encouraging rigorous discourse.

The fact of it is is his shooting was the 46th school shooting in America this year. There’s now been another, so there have been 47 school shootings this year.

Only one is drawing national mourning and reactions from the right.

I don't really know who Charlie Kirk is although the name rings a bell so I may have seen it in a few news articles. Regardless of what he believed etc, violence is not the answer.

Thanks for this- I agree.

I'm not right wing, I probably disagree with Kirk on more than I agreed on. I think in the immediate aftermath of what could be a poltically motivated assassination, we shouldn't be jumping on the opportunity to pick apart his views. It can come across as justification, whether intended or not.
If an outspoken left wing public fugure had been shot in this way, I think many here would object to a thread being filled up with people airing their criticism of the person's poltical views.

Assassination at an open public event is different from a murder behind closed doors or for personal motives. All those attending were put in fear of their lives and many will have witnessed a violent death at close quarters.

Shooting somebody because you disagree with what they say is an act of barbarism designed to showcase disrespect for ideas and discussion as ways to decide on what society wants.

It is designed to discourage free speech and freedom of thought and belief.

My only fear is that his supporters will now go after ethnic minorities, especially Muslims, because they are thick enough to blame this on anyone they dislike.

He chose the far right views he had and the career he had. He chose to travel around and show case his opinions and support causes, knowing and not caring, that they injure and cost lives.
Did he deserve to die: no. But innocent people die all the time because of gun policy and he showed flagrant disregard for that and other tragedies.

He chose to enter this risk. So why this outcry for him now?

Why doesn’t Trump order a half-mast when groups of police belt into a house and shout a black ambulance woman?

Whereas stating that you don't care (or more accurately "for all I care") about a hypothetical arson of a hotel containing illegal migrants will get you a 31 month prison sentence.

You can already see people on here who have decided it’s a far left person, despite the FBI having no idea who did it.

He was very well prepared and did a lot of research, from what I know of them his ideas were all self consistent which is important. But I think his style was more fact bombing and finding inconsistencies and knowledge gaps in others' arguments and a bit bull in a china shop. So I do think when given those sorts of questions he might not have been as deliberative before answering. If in a debate someone asks a question which requires one to imagine their daughter being raped, the correct rhetorical response is to call it out as offensive and refuse to answer, then to answer an imaginary question of your own choice.

However whether or not he chose to answer such questions bullishly for the sake of being bullish and branding or he was outfoxed does not matter to my point. What I am saying is that these types of questions are designed to increase hostility and are therefore not conducive to good faith debate.

It's rightist misogyny that likes to use the dehumanising "females" (also "femoids" etc) to refer to women but to then blame the left for their choices. As usual.

If it really were about trans issues and not misogyny they'd use "males" to refer to men too. Bit they don't.

Personally l’m all for religious freedom of whatever faith people may be. As long as the views held are not forced on others, and as long as those views aren’t used to cause harm - politically or otherwise. Unfortunately the nature of religion makes those two things nigh on impossible.

When is the right time? This is a genuine question.

charlie kirk dead to what he preached.

oh the irony.

I am sure they are being comforted by friends and family and those that love them and loved him. Their father was controversial. people who strongly opposed him aren’t going to go all fuzzy and gushy because he has been killed. Hopefully the children are being kept away from the inevitable criticisms.

Yet there are plenty of people on here who support Palestine. A country where abortion is illegal unless medically necessary to save a woman’s (or girls) life with the agreement of religious leaders. A country where 17,400 14-19 year ild girls are married where a significant number of girls are married before the age of 15. Should people who support this regime be on a parenting website?

But on this thread you have falsely claimed that Kirk advocated for life - that a 'pro life' stance is 'supporting life' - when neither of those things are true. Kirk advocated for people (other people!) to die. Women who die as a result of the abortion bans he was actively seeking to enforce, and victims of gun violence. He both explicitly and implicitly endorsed death, presumably imagining that he and the people he cares about would never be the collateral damage.

When it comes to abortion and gun control, like many things, there is no black and white or good vs evil. These are very complex and very important discussions to have, and it's the attempts to reduce it down and hide behind 'oh it's a Christian belief' or 'everyone is entitled to an opinion' in an attempt to block out the nuances and evade difficult questions that pose a danger. Yes, we can all have an opinion and a faith but the cost of enforcing that on others can mean that people die. Kirk accepted that. He said it, crystal clear. He just didn't expect it to be him.

He dehumanised himself.

But I’m not dictating my view on anyone?

I don’t happen to believe the mantra of my body, my choice. Because it literally isn’t just your body, there is another body involved. That’s the burden of being a woman.

its not misogyny to point that out.

i liked listening to people like Charlie Kirk on this topic, he challenged you to really think about why you think what you do, I understand his view, he believed that life begins at conception, that’s all. Thats not dangerous, it’s the opposite, it’s believing in the sanctity of life. I am more pragmatic and believe in the reality for women, but I only believe that under the force of real situations for women that men won’t ever truly understand,

When I hear people like lily allen saying she can’t remember how many abortioms she’s had, I think it’s clear there need to be challenging base voices like CK to balance things out

Pardon my French, but quite what the fuck does Palestine have to do with this? You can believe that the ideology of the Palestinian leadership is wrong, while also not believing they deserve to die? Is that not what this entire thread is based on?

I wouldn’t describe him as far right at all. He was simply an American conservative. This is honestly what worries me about the state of politics. He absolutely had the right to be conservative and his views (or a lot of them) aligned with a huge amount (probably the majority) of US voters.