Charlie Kirks wife forgives the killer

[strangerandstranger]

To people who said her husband was hateful and what they preached was hateful, she just forgave the killer, as God would. Powerful speech.

The messed up young man who thought shooting man he didn't like was the answer, will go to prison and no longer be with his boyfriend. Erika Kirk no longer has her husband and her children have list their father.

There clearly is a problem with white women (and sometimes men) weaponising their femininity and tears, there are videos documenting this and many have been fired from their jobs.

I don't think that's what's happening here but I also don't think these boys were trying to generate content. One of the boys checks with the other 'is the bike yours?'. In the end, the woman uses a different bike, so why was she so insistent on having one held by the teen?

I don't think there are groups of "groups of black men roaming" setting out to have these confrontations.

The real problem that Charlie Kirk and his ilk have is that black people are now able to document these racist experiences. As Will Smith said, "Racism isn't getting worse, it's getting filmed".

So Charlie Kirk is trying to exploit this incident but it's fake news, because the black teens aren't prowling after white people.

Do you think it’s appropriate to ‘guard’ a bike by docking it prior to 45 minutes, so you can take it out for another 45 minutes, all to avoid charges that everyone else has to pay?

No, YOU are the liar, and you're a homophobe apologist.

Charlie Kirk attacked the YouTuber Ms. Rachel for quoting Leviticus 19: “love your neighbor as yourself.” He said Ms. Rachel should also read the rest of the relevant scripture.

He referenced Leviticus - “if a man lies with another man …” is an abomination and subject to punishment. He paraphrased this as “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.”

He added that the preceding chapter affirms “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

He called homosexuality an “error” in that same context.

You dont want a conversation about any of this because you've nailed your colours to a revolting fundie neo nazi bigot and any criticism of him causes you to constantly deny he said any of it.

He absolutely said it in response to Ms Rachel

Perhaps his view evolved because it certainly contrasts with what he says here:

x.com/elonmusk/status/1967671619108901137

Charlie didn't like it that Ms Rachel said in a video she is Christian and loves everyone, including gay people and that her favourite Bible quote is 'Love thy neighbour:

Charlie responded in a video with his crones making fun of Ms Rachel's views and said:

'[...] is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death, just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.'

clearly is a problem with white women (and sometimes men) weaponising their femininity and tears, there are videos documenting this and many have been fired from their jobs

Are we really still doing ‘white women tears’? In the year of our lord 2025, are we still talking about ‘white women tears’?

A black man slits a white girl’s throat for no reason on a train and she quietly cries as she’s dying.

I don’t want to hear people mentioning white women’s tears ever again. Hateful language intended to scare us into silence. I won’t participate in this any longer.

We don't know what happened. Why did she insist on that bike? She hopped on another bike so why not just grab a different bike in the first place?

Anyway, apparently she's going to sue everyone, so let's see what comes out of her lawsuit.

Are we really still doing ‘white women tears’? In the year of our lord 2025, are we still talking about ‘white women tears’?

Our lord?

It does happen though, see the Amy Cooper Central Park incident.

South Park (increasingly the last bastion of US cable TV satire) nailed his debating style a month before his death.

The predictable response from the free speech crowd

The real problem that Charlie Kirk and his ilk have is that black people are now able to document these racist experiences.

I hope you're not now trying to say that this was a racist incident where the girl was weaponising her whiteness and the poor guys (a group) were on the receiving end of racial hatred rather than arguing about a bike?

That's really rather a stretch if so.

But I'm glad we've agreed that the premise and labelling of that whole video being about CK conducting a vile racist rant is wrong.

So Charlie Kirk is trying to exploit this incident but it's fake news, because the black teens aren't prowling after white people.

He may be exploiting it, or discussing it. But the content of the discussion isn't about the prowling bit - as i said its 0.05% of the whole. It's about whether the balance has shifted so the black voice is now believed more than the white voice. As I said. It was wrong in the 1950s, and it is just as wrong now to believe one person's account because of their colour, or their sex for that matter.

It's not fake news. It happened and there's a video of it. It's an opinion and talking point about the consequences of that snippet of a longer video being aired. You may disagree with that but you shouldn't misrepresent it or dismiss it.

He liked it as well. So they're not even honouring his wishes in death.

And Charlie Kirk did a broadcast about it basically saying "fair play to south park".

It disappoints me that idiots who blame the show can't honour the opinion of someone they regard as a martyr.

He believed in the MAGA God, who appears to have failed to read the New Testament.

I hope you're not now trying to say that this was a racist incident where the girl was weaponising her whiteness and the poor guys (a group) were on the receiving end of racial hatred rather than arguing about a bike?

I did say 'I don't think that's what's happening here'. And the woman wasn't alone, she had a man with her.

But I'm glad we've agreed that the premise and labelling of that whole video being about CK conducting a vile racist rant is wrong.

No, we don't, I haven't seen CK's video, which is as why I asked for an independent link of the incident.

He may be exploiting it, or discussing it. But the content of the discussion isn't about the prowling bit - as i said its 0.05% of the whole. It's about whether the balance has shifted so the black voice is now believed more than the white voice. As I said. It was wrong in the 1950s, and it is just as wrong now to believe one person's account because of their colour, or their sex for that matter.

The black voice is believed more because, as I said, black people are now able to document racist experiences.

It's not fake news. It happened and there's a video of it. It's an opinion and talking point about the consequences of that snippet of a longer video being aired. You may disagree with that but you shouldn't misrepresent it or dismiss it.

You've misunderstood, by fake news I meant that Charlie Kirk lied that this was 'prowling blacks' but it wasn't, it was just a disagreement, with no swearing or violence.

But there is still a big issue with police violence against black people. Remember this case?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

I see that episode has been removed!

Yeah it’s really weird that.Anyone says anything about another religion and they would be falling over themselves to defend it.
Every day I am beginning to think there are bots on here or plants from various political establishments.
There does not appear to be capacity for rational or civilised
discourse just an attempt to try to railroad any conversation.

I haven't seen CK's video, which is as why I asked for an independent link of the incident.
It was embedded in the article of the link i reposted. I hadn't seen it previously so I was curious. If you can't find it I'll see if i can find the direct link - it surprised me how anodyne it was compared to the label.

The black voice is believed more because, as I said, black people are now able to document racist experiences.
Do you mean "more than before" which would be good. Or "more than the white voice" which would be as racist as the 1950s.

I have personal experience of a policeman (lying) being believed over my (true) version at an anti-apartheid demo. So it's a particular beef of mine when preference is automatically given to any group.

You've misunderstood, by fake news I meant that Charlie Kirk lied that this was 'prowling blacks' but it wasn't, it was just a disagreement, with no swearing or violence.
I think, when you've actually watched CKs video, that you'll see that line was pretty much incidental to the discussion in hand.

You may still disagree with the premise of black/white voices (that's fair), or even whether the court of public opinion is inherently dangerous, but I think the only fake part is that quote being used to label the whole discussion.

I know there are a million (edited) clips out there of "CK DESTROYS leftist..." and a fair few of "CK HUMILIATED by...", all for clicks which I hate. But I hate even more when mislabelling is taken as gospel and then used as (erroneous) evidence.

Disney's executives in their meeting did agree with what Kimmel said, but caved to pressure anyway, because the administration can do a lot of damage to broadcasters. Even bloody Ted Cruz has criticised the FCC chair over this blatant censorship.

i thought you might bring her up. She was legitimately being threatened by the guy, he went there with dog treats in his pocket to abuse dog walkers (bird watchers can be crazy like that).

There are people who said this guy got aggressive with other dog walkers with unleashed dogs.

www.thefp.com/p/the-real-story-of-the-central-park?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Doctors who help trans kids should face Nuremberg-style trials like Nazi war criminals.

Except he is talking about 'doctors' who abuse, harm, sterilise and mutilate vulnerable children for money. Those 'doctors' are dangerous scum of the worst order and damn right they should Nuremberg-style trials like Nazi war criminals! Any humane, decent human being would agree on that point.

Eh? She admitted to the police there was no aggression and she apologised to the man!

It kinda depends on what you mean by debate.

There are debates where you try and come to a common understanding and agreement, and debates where different sides put forward arguments and rebut each other in order to sway an audience to the proposition.

I think the campus debates are a short form of this latter category where hes skilled at ahifting the argument onto a topic that he is strong on - either clever or n cheating according to your view.

The Oxford debates (of which I've only watched clips of him "being destroyed") seem to not even reach this level. He wasn't able to change the topic but mostly because people just read stuff at him from their phones and didn't really wait for an answer or listen to it and then rebut it. It's every bit as useless as writing a long post on here (as I do) and then getting a rubbish/fascist/idiot one-word response.

I much prefer long form debates where people get turns but they seem difficult to monetise i guess.

But, all that said, and regardless of the views expressed by any of them I still think it was a better thing to do than just get into a group and wave placards or go to a debate and just chant endlessly so no-one can hear anything.

We would all do better to talk, and listen.

I have fairly settled views these days, but I do change my mind if presented with good thinking or new facts.

She was doxxed, received death threats, lost her job. Of course she groveled in front of the mob.

What would you do if a strange man threatened you with this:

Before recording me, Christian Cooper yelled out: "If you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it

Very, very inappropriate

But there is still a big issue with police violence against black people. Remember this case?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

This was a tragic case and I despise all involved.

From what I've seen there is a good chunk of bad policing in USA and the presence of firearms leads to permanent f*ck-ups.

I also believe there is still a heavy slice of people with some ridiculous prejudices who have managed to convince themselves that they are "right" in all decisions. All I can hope is those attitudes continue to die.

I do wonder whether various charities and groups have a vested interest in retaining problem behaviours. I think I'm probably in Denzel W's camp on this one but he and I do have the luxury of a comfortable existence from which to pontificate.