Charlie Kirk- and the reality

[Tandora]

So here we are- they have a suspect.
The very little we know about his politics suggests he was likely to be right wing, and came from a family/ culture that supported Trump. He also is said to be an introvert, in to video games , and possibly quite mentally unwell.

So there we have it- fancy that - when you live in a context where people have access to guns and some minority of people are not well, people get shot.

Nothing to do with the evils of the “left”. Nothing to do with trans people or “trans ideology”. Just senseless violence, because people who are not well have access to guns.

So what are we going to take/ learn from this?

AIBU?

To the person upthread who called Charlie a Facist -

Part One -

Are you hearing yourself?! If your boss accused you of sharing pro trans ideology at work in an email, you’d be fine if he was correct on the fact that the email existed, even if he grossly misrepresented the contents? Speculation shouldn’t be presented as facts, and nether should opinions. If they didn’t understand the engravings they shouldn’t have commented on the meaning.

Since when did we get to the point that we will try and justify half truths and lies by news sources? Besides, my point is that we cannot rely on the reports coming from “law enforcement sources” - and your response supports rather than undermines that.

Part two -

Can we just clarify a bit here. There have been several threads surrounding Kirk’s murder and many of the things he has said have been reported out of context.

He did not say he wouldn’t get on a plane with a black pilot. What he said was that if he knew the pilot was black he would wonder whether he was properly qualified or had been part of the controversial Democrat DEI programme under Biden. The programme was accused of advocating for a lesser standard of professional qualification based on skin colour. He clarified that it was not his view that black people were any less qualified than anyone else, but that the policies of the left were forcing people to think that way. He also talked in more depth about DEI and said he thought the notion that people of colour required this lesser standard was inherently racist.

The ‘prowling blacks’ comment was made during a podcast discussing black gang activity in urban areas. As part of that Kirk was describing how black gang members would wait by automated on street bicycle rentals until a white person had paid for their rental. They would then approach them, seize the bike and push it back in, so that they lost their money. He described it as ‘prowling blacks - happening all over America’.

When questioned about how he would handle his ten year old daughter being pregnant as a result of rape he was caught on the hop. His reply was ‘ That’s awfully graphic, but yes, the baby would be born’. He didn’t elaborate further but later talked about protecting his family as a good father, while adhering to their family belief system and being guided by their philosophy and values. I don’t agree with him in this particular instance, but l do think it takes moral strength to actually practice what you preach to others and stick to your principles when faced with a personal dilemma which so significantly challenges them.

As l said, l disagree with pretty much everything he stood for, but snippets of discussions are being taken out of the context of the conversation in which they were said, and are being used all over SM to support different narratives.

I don’t agree with the vast majority of Kirk’s views, but much of what he said was nuanced and context is everything, so l think misquoting just adds fuel to the fire of his supporters by giving them a platform on which to refute.

I suppose it depends on who was commenting.

There were some people who leapt onto social media and were whooping and cheering at his murder. Pretty distasteful I’m sure you would agree.

There were those who posted excepts of his speeches as a kind of ‘karma bit your ass. Lolz’ sort of vibe. Well again it smacked of a sick kind of pleasure being taken when the person had literally just been killed. That’s more of a time and place thing I think.

Then you had the people who expressed condolences and yet admitted they didn’t agree with much of what he said or what he stood for. Absolutely fair enough. Most people would think that was reasonable.

Robinson hasn't been formally charged yet. That's expected early this week.

What do you mean “are you hearing yourself”. The bullets had engravings which someone in law enforcement thought was linked to trans ideology (it hasn’t actually been “proven false” that they aren’t just that there are other interpretations) and they leaked it. I’m not commenting on the ethics of that because obviously it’s wrong but that’s how the media works nowadays. It was not “false” that there were engravings.

This person in law enforcement - is that the local traffic warden?

I haven’t said that the reports about the trans roommate/partner today and yesterday are definitely correct (although they are pretty convincing from what I’ve seen on other sites) but people are claiming that it’s “emerged” that he was right wing when there is only the most tenuous evidence (being generous) suggesting that.

What’s dangerous is that he hid repellent opinions under.a cloak of respectful debate.

100%. It can be helpful as a starting point.

Whatever you read and wherever you read it (news article, social media, AI etc) always look at the original source, whether it’s a statistic or reports about a specific case.

If it’s data, look at who paid for the research, who’s collecting the data, if it’s peer reviewed, what the limitations may be, how it’s been interpreted and the context it’s being used in.

When it’s reports, be aware of the editorial slant of the news outlet and the aims of its owners/investors/advertisers. Look at what professional standards are required of the reporters (use of reliable sources, objectivity and balance, right to reply or pressure to publish numerous stories a day for click bait).

When a crime’s been committed, a reliable source is official statements by law enforcement agencies, the courts or briefed politicians. But be aware they can be subject to political interference or be holding back information so as not to jeopardise a live investigation, a fair trial, public safety or the privacy/safety of family members who had nothing to do with the crime.

I think DEI is wrong in principle and I've directly benefited in my career from DEI.

I loosely followed some American drama about DEI pilots and air traffic controllers (discussion of which tended to get conflated) in 2024.

Many people have the idea that you have, of "all things being equal" appoint a diversity candidate but don't lower standards, etc. So if you hear about someone reacting against that you think it must be because of racism.

But the specific examples that were in the media in 2024, which I can only assume he was thinking of, were more egregious in my opinion.

For example for ATCs:

• They had a test which was very predictive of job performance, which 60% of applicants passed but only 3% of black applicants
• They changed the test to make it easier so that 95% now passed, including more black applicants, but it became less predictive of job performance
• There were still not enough black applicants passing so they replaced the test with a "biographical questionnaire" which asked questions like "What was your worst grade in high school" and if you answered "science" you got MAXIMUM points (https://kaisoapbox.com/projects/faa_biographical_assessment/ you can take a recreation of the test here)
• Then one of the assessors deliberately shared the answers to this very weird test with only the black applicants... I'm not joking

For full context, this all happened something like 2014-2018 and was stopped during Trump's first term, but there was a resurgence of media attention and some FOI requests in 2024 which is why it was topical.

If you had examples of this in your mind you obviously would be extremely against DEI!

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-faas-hiring

Well said. It's crickets as far as these atrocities are concerned.

He didn’t hide them though, they’re all out there. Again, how is this dangerous?

The local traffic warden would probably do a better job that the FBI did, that's for sure.
I suspect a lot of the noise and speculation and rumours are designed to take the focus away from how inept they've become. He was only 'caught' because his family turned him in

Repellent opinions according to you and the people that agree with you.

That’s literally the whole cornerstone of the argument around free speech. The right supports free speech and the right to have an opinion and voice it. The left thinks words are literal violence and wants to silence those with opposing views.

Just because he was eloquently (and that’s the very dangerous part) counter-arguing ideologies and beliefs that young people held without any real understanding or education behind them, he had to be silenced. In this case shot and killed so forever to remain silent.

The problem with so much of these young people’s beliefs is they were not based in fact or truth and were caught up in feelings. No problem with that personally but when you can’t tell anyone what a woman is it’s really hard to claim to be one, and it was those debates that became particularly toxic.

I didn’t say it was false that there were engravings - but it is false that the engravings had pro trans ideology. The fact the bullets were engraved is not a story is it? It’s what was written on them that was the story. And if the link to trans ideology was just a “thought” of a law enforcement officer, it should have been reported as such. You should comment on the ethics of untruthful reporting as it’s dangerous and one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.

None of the engravings have any interpretations linked to pro trans ideology. There are many chronically online experts decoding the engravings and have suggested links to shooter videos games, memes about furries, and pure trolling (I.e. “if you read this you’re gay lmao”). There are also explicitly anti-fascist statements and song lyrics. But I haven’t seen any direct or indirect trans interpretation. Happy to be proved wrong.

I really wouldn’t compare Charlie Kirk to Osama bin Laden 😵‍💫
As for people celebrating Margaret Thatcher’s death, personally I wouldn’t agree with that either.
And yes, even though it might not be surprising that some people would celebrate the death of someone whose political views they disagreed with, I still find it deeply concerning.

You are dragging a whole other political maelstrom into this debate. There are a thousand other threads already discussing Palestine and the frustration in how our government is involved.

Is all of the information regarding the engraved bullet cases out now? What news sources are you using? Link please.

There are various interpretations. People are cherry picking the ones they prefer. Such is life. I’m not sure why you’re so upset with me about what media have reported, or the police leaks. I haven’t claimed they are true, I always have scepticism of media reports, because I’ve seen the media lie about things I do know the truth of many times. Rant all you like about the ethics (which I agree with you on), it’s hardly unusual for the media to report the picture as they have it, it’s how the world works.

You must really take issue with the existence of sharia courts in Britain, then? Wonder how we can eradicate them?

The Guardian’s lies about the WiSpa incident, for example.

I agree, but then I’m generally not in support of capital punishment. It’s definitely nothing to be gleeful about.

instead of being political think about those poor kids!

In the words of Charlie Kirk- we must not let them emotionally hijack this narrative.