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.

Blimey. So despite the fact that they have listed examples of how he preached hate, including ones definitely about guns you are interpreting it differently because s/he used a comma not a semi colon?

This is a thread on the internet not a fucking secondary school english lesson.

This is a stupid argument anyway. A poster has subsequently confirmed they believe it is hate.

As have many other people all over the internet, there was quite a lot of glee over the irony as I recall at the time he was shot.

When did the poster I quoted clarify they did not class his views on gun ownership as hate?

Here.

Why are you obsessing over the word “hateful”? Why do you think it’s such a game-changer?

Because where opinions are hate and words are literal violence this is used to justify physical violence.

It is impossible to have a sensible debate on those terms.

Meanwhile, the left were planning to turn up at his memorial and threaten people

"The left"? Who exactly are "the left"?

Are you saying it’s impossible to have a hateful opinion?

Yes, it’s bizarre.

Kirk was a racist, misogynist bigot. That is pretty hateful!

You really need that clarified for you?
The left are any people who claim they are left, anyone can be left 😉

An amorphous mass who all think the same, who speak for - and represent - each other AT ALL TIMES.

Everyone on 'the left' is to blame for Charlie Kirk's murder.

No.

I do think there is a tendency for people to say that anything they don't agree with is hate even when it is an widely held opinion of others.

I didn't agree with a lot of things Charlie Kirk said but I wouldn't call it hate speech, he was entitled to his opinion and his 'gig' was to defend his opinion, he put himself forward to be challenged.

Do you think it's helpful to label widely held views as hate or violent speech?

Can you see no connection with labelling views and people feeling justified in violence against views that they consider hateful?

It's not wrong to call out hateful speech, regardless of how many people hold that view. I gave examples earlier.

Here's some proof:

https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/26973-far-left-versus-far-right-fatal-violence-an-empirical-assessment-of-the-prevalence-of-ideologically-motivated-homicides-in-the-united-states

Apologies I missed that.

So @HaveItOffTilICough doesn't find Charlie Kirks views on gun ownership hateful.

But another poster on here has clarified that they do.

Do you think it's helpful to label widely held views as hate or violent speech?

A hateful view is still a hateful view even if it’s widely held.

And we have such a problem with tank violence!

🙄

You know why you don't have a problem with tank violence in your country?

Because there isn't 400m tanks in your country.

True story.

Almost all cities are Democrat-controlled so this proves nothing. Cities tend to have more crime than cornfields, given that you need two humans (an offender and a victim) to commit most crimes. The states with the highest homicide rates are (with the sole exception of New Mexico) all in the Bible Belt.

@MeTooOverHereI see what you’re saying, I’ve seen a few of those and with the added context you can argue either way - I’d probably see them different to you based on many factors. To take the first example - The pilot one was referring to positive discrimination and hiring for quotas. He said just after - “that’s not who I am. That’s not what I believe”. I think it’s difficult to take snippets like that out of context, but it’s more fruitful to actual explore the full idea and context.

I also understand your point about Jesus and what he would do, who he would stand with? I always used to say exactly the same as you. But then I thought, if Jesus came to the West and saw what opportunities and freedoms we have, would he be angry? Would he tell us to do better? There are many instances of rage and anger in the New Testament, and plenty more in the old. I don’t think our context today is the same as it was 2000 years ago - I think it might warrant a different response. Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

Im agnostic btw if it makes any difference.

I would question the viability of having a 'meaningful debate' about something that is a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact anyway. You are asking me to provide you with evidence of something that cannot be proven, because whether a person is judged as courteous by another person is subjective, based on their own standards of manners. In that debate, CK failed to meet my standards. He may well have met yours. We have different standards, and that's OK.
(Though I assume we could agree that calling a country in which you have been a guest a 'totalitarian third world hell hole' not worthy of making fun of, depressing, chilling, and stating you wanted to kiss the ground on returning home from there, isn't behaviour one would typically associate with a courteous man?)
I don't believe saying a person is not courteous is 'a very strong feeling' at all. It was a casual observation that I considered the man arrogant and rude.

This is only until 2020 so is going to leave out a lot of BLM violence and some of the trans school shootings.

Didn't Kirk talk about trans shootings? What is the relevance of them?

That’s because they have the highest concentration of black people in the US.

It’s a very ugly truth, but don’t hide from it. You actually have to confront if you’ve any hope to stop it.

@5128gapi think I agree he was arrogant, I thought your original post was about him being hateful which I might have confused with someone else- Personally, I think he was honest and blunt and expressed (and backed up) his opinions. I hear people (particularly on the left) talk about the UK in a disparaging way all the time.

You need to address socio economic divide first. That's the biggest factor.

(Just look it up, if you don't believe me).