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?

Tandora I am not sure you got all the facts rights.

I was about to say something very similar to this

.

Which went awry with the public perception that people of colour were allowed to enter professions with lesser qualifications based on skin colour. You really do need to educate yourself on this because you’re basing your position on one liners taken out of context. Several people have pointed this out to you but still you continue. Kirk wasn’t supporting the view but calling it out - he said it was a racist policy based on the notion that people of colour needed a lesser standard.

I disagree entirely with all of this take for reasons set out above . What you are doing is minimising racism while rejecting/ criticising policies that are working to in some small way reduce the ongoing significant inequalities that exist as a result of structural racism,

It wasn’t designed to exclude them, it was originally designed to enhance the hiring of people of colour to various professions. But the public perception became that of allowing people of colour a ‘free pass’ into professions by way of allowing lesser qualifications based on skin colour. That was what Kirk was calling out as racist - the notion that anyone of colour would need a lesser qualification. He actually said that he didn’t believe it, but that this was what the left was forcing people to consider - hence the airline pilot misquote. He wasn’t saying black airline pilots were lesser qualified, he was saying that because of their DEI policy the left was forcing people to consider that that was the case.

If you insist on believing this, then there’s nothing more I can say. I don’t agree with the vast majority of what Kirk said, but in this case the evidence is out there that he was calling it out as the racist policy it is. You only have to read the quote in the context of the conversation of which it was part, to realise that. His stance was actually backed up by black people. A black airline pilot actually supported Kirk - he said that in most rooms he was the most qualified, but because of DEI he had to prove it simply because of his skin colour. But do carry on - don’t let mere facts get in the way of your ignorance.

But it’s not an uncommon opinion!

Here is Josh Williams describing DEI, I’d suggest watching 9:10 to 10:10 particularly, it explains to counter argument to yours.

Yep, the video I just posted, 9:10-10:10 describes the exact same sentiment

I'm bringing this back up because feel it's critically important to be clear on what is meant by "DEI initiatives" and why there is criticism of them.

Can someone please defend this?

If you can't, can you acknowledge that if someone knew about this scandal, and they later heard that another aviation industry player was planning an initiative to increase female/POC representation "but don't worry, we will only accept people who pass the test", you would be on guard?

My son is as bright as a button. All A’s and A stars for his GCSEs and A levels.
He wrote an absolutely beautiful application to work at a large American corporation next summer on a Cultural exchange programme.

He talked about his own family experience of this corporation throughout the years, and how he’d use his skills to ensure other families had the opportunity to make the same wonderful memories that he did. It was extremely thoughtful, well written and I genuinely thought ‘he’s got this in the bag’.

Anyway, DH and I are on vacation, ironically in the location where DS would like to have worked, when I get the disappointed call that he didn’t make the cut. Not even invited for interview. I look around and all I can think is ‘he should have said he was trans’.

Bend over , put your head up your ass & smell the roses.

Good.

I assume you refuse to ride in one as well. Anything else would be hypocritical. After all, the car you’re a passenger in could easily hit and kill a child. And then you’d be complicit.

It’s a pity you have only cherry-picked parts of various interactions with Charlie Kirk. If you’d bothered to read more than just the sound bites, you’d have seen that the car comparison is one that Charlie Kirk made in the same speech. Only in the US, where the car is king, the figure for fatal RTAs is around 50,000 people a year. That’s 1.25 million preventable deaths since the year 2000. Crazy they haven’t been banned, isn’t it?

I don’t agree with gun ownership, I think it’s dangerous and ridiculous. But I can see what Charlie Kirk was saying - and it wasn’t that the lives of children are expendable.

Every day we make a value judgment based on risk - we drive, ride, cross the road, drink alcohol, eat fish (yes, death by fish bones really does happen), walk next to old walls, beneath trees, eat peanuts in public, drink milk etc. etc. Any one of those things could result in a death. It may be my death, your death, or the death of a child. But no one clamours to ban cars, fish or walls.

Society weighs up the likelihood of the usefulness of the potential killing implement and decides whether the balance is in favour of keeping the thing, or banning it. We choose to keep cars and alcohol, despite knowing these can kill. We choose not to keep guns.

The US has a population of roughly 350 million, the UK roughly 70 million. Our 1400 annual deaths by car is equivalent to 7,000 scaled up to US population size. The highest annual death toll for school shootings recently has been around 50, with an additional 100 people injured. UK car deaths occur at a rate some 140 times greater than gun murders of children in schools in the US.

No, that doesn’t make the deaths of children in shootings acceptable, but it does add a little context to the claim that the price of having the right to bear arms is that some children will die by gun violence. Our country certainly has no problem believing that the deaths of 70 children each year is an acceptable price to pay to ensure that the middle-classes have the right to drive to Sainsbury’s.

Context, as always, is king.

His stance was actually backed up by black people.

I mean… did you just say this?

Removed. I thought I was replying to OP.

This is the latest off CNN btw

Gov. Spencer Cox said Sunday. Investigators are looking into whether that was a factor in last week’s assassination.
“Yes. I can confirm that. I know that has been reported, and that the FBI has confirmed that as well – that the roommate was a romantic partner, a male transitioning to female,” Cox said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”
The roommate, Cox added, “has been incredibly cooperative, had no idea that this was happening, and is working with investigators right now.”
Asked by Bash whether the roommate’s status was relevant to the investigation and a potential motive, Cox said it was “easy to draw conclusions” but declined to speculate.
“I know everybody wants to know exactly why, and point the finger. And I totally get that. I do too, and so I just want to be careful, as I haven’t read all of the interview transcripts, and so we’ll have to wait and see what comes out,” he said.
Cox was asked about previous comments that Robinson had been indoctrinated with “leftist ideology.” He said that information “comes from the people around him, from his family members and his friends.”
Official charges, Cox said, will be filed on Tuesday.

It’s a bit my way or the highway though. If women speak up they’re just riding roughshod over that.

That can be returned too.

I don’t agree with gun ownership, I think it’s dangerous and ridiculous.

then why are you justifying and minimising thr harm of CK’s views, and pretending his comparison to cars is in any way reasonable?

But I can see what Charlie Kirk was saying - and it wasn’t that the lives of children are expendable.

He said that some children being murdered in school was “worth it” to protect his right to own a deadly weapon.

That was what he said. Whatever long winded rationalisation/ drivel you couch it in - that was the bottom line. So nail your mast to the wall. Do you think that some children being murdered in school is “worth it” to protect CK’s right to own a deadly weapon?

@Tandora
Do you every get fed up of being wrong?

And that is your bigoted opinion.

Pmsl

I feel very sorry for the roommate/boyfriend. Not only has he discovered his partner is a murderer, but there is also the possibility that the partner killed due to some twisted ‘defence’ of his relationship. Something which he clearly finds abhorrent.

I hope the boyfriend has a good support network around him.

Laughable

Do you think the deaths of 70 children a year in the UK is “worth it” to protect people’s right to own a car?

No I don’t: but i also don’t think it’s a remotely reasonable comparison.

So do you - like Charlie Kirk did- believe that some children being murdered at school is worth it to protect CK’s right to own a deadly weapon, that has no function other than to kill something or someone. Do you think that this is an acceptable thing to advocate for/ argue?