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.

Or just not racist. That would work. 👍🏻

Well I'll continue to not be racist and you can continue to think everyone who doesn't hate the right people is.

What are the views of CK that you feel people who are anti racism and anti sexism should be able to agree on, out of interest?
Because all I see on these threads are his words, which sound racist and sexist to me, followed by a bunch of people twisting those words seven ways till Sunday, and calling it 'context' to tell us he was not in fact either. That we have misunderstood. For a man supposedly skilled in making his point, he certainly seems to need a lot of people to explain for him to prevent him being misjudged.
It would be interesting to here some of his moderate and sensible views that we could understand by ourselves from his words, and maybe agree on.

What are the views of CK that you feel people who are anti racism and anti sexism should be able to agree on, out of interest?

Well everyone has their own views, but as someone anti racist and anti sexist, the things I agreed with him on were...

That people should be judged on merit not skin colour.
That what gay people do in their private lives is of no concern of anyone else.
That humans can't change sex, and "gender affirming surgery" on children is wrong.
That dialogue is better than violence.

There was also much I disagreed on. No two people agree on everything.

Thanks so much for the information. Mine is only from reading various people praising him for being open and courteous - but then again, maybe that's only in comparison with Trump, who is neither. The one brief exchange I saw with a student-follower gave me the impression that he was manipulating the conversation in a rather creepy way.

He's not particularly educated, which may account for his inability to argue well.

He was debated by some of the finest young minds of the UK, with a strong understanding and knowledge of their subjects. It would be unrealistic to expect unsubstantiated opinion based on belief to ever prevail when his usual advantages of control of the arena and the ability to intimidate were absent.
However, if he were the man he is purported to be I'd have expected an openess to learn from those with greater knowledge than he. The Christian virtues of humility and of generosity in acknowledging the knowledge of others.
Instead he showed anger and contempt and later avenged himself with insults to the UK.
CK did not want to talk. He only wanted to be listened to.

A young black guy turned up at one of CK's campus chats and said he had been racially abused by a bunch of white students in a car.

Kirk then aggressively told him he was lying as he didn't have proof. As others have pointed out, Kirk didn't want to listen. He wanted to preach. Awful man.

I havent seen the full thing, but from the segments I've seen it seemed pretty even, and it all ended amicably.

I'd say it's confirmation bias. To me, the Cambridge students tied him in knots at times, but then that's exactly what I had hoped would happen. Kirk had an odd debating style, though, littered with random gotcha questions. It definitely seemed to end amicably, I agree.

To judge whether a debate was even would require a vote at the end to identify how many were convinced by the respective arguments. As this didn't happen we have no objective measure. People can watch the debate and decide for themselves who was more convincing.
I personally thought it ended very awkwardly. Kirk said that the students had been 'too easy' to debate (so he would debate the professor) and it was unclear from his tone whether he meant this or was joking. It fell flat regardless. At the end he left looking pretty annoyed I thought. Then, as we know, slated the UK as soon as he returned home.

@5128gap I'm fairly certain Kirk was joking but such was his lack of humility, no-one could say was sure.

The way a lot of conservatives piled into the students' social media afterwards. The misogyny directed towards the blonde girl was all rather unedifying.

I can imagine. It was interesting the way kirk chastised her for looking at her phone. She was clearly looking at notes for the debate, and all the male students had used notes also. Mask slipped.

Donald Trump has no intention of "doing both". He cancelled the funding so even in 20 years this will continue to be a problem.

By the way, crime in DC in early 2025 (so before he started deploying troops) was significantly down compared with 2023.

To judge whether a debate was even would require a vote at the end to identify how many were convinced by the respective arguments.
I dont think it matters whether he objectively won or lost, but the question was whether he conducted himself respectfully, and i think he did.

But yesterday you asked what views someone like you might share with Kirk, I made a couple of suggestions. Did you disagree with any of those points or do you indeed share some common ground?

Yes, my apologies, I did read your post and have been thinking about it.
I think my response would be that your second two points are pretty standard. I don't think many people truly believe people can change sex. I think even fewer think violence is preferable to discussion.
With regards to the first two, I'd refer to your summary as CKs 'headlines' rather than a reflection of his actual views on racism and same sex relationships. He's doing the 'I'm not racist but...' thing. I think we need to dig deeper into what comes after the headline before we decide whether we agree.
Because yes, I can agree that people should be judged on merit not skin colour, but I don't want to sweep aside important questions like, who decides what merit looks like? How does an individual reach the position where they are the most meritous? Are we confident that every person has an equal opportunity for their merit to be recognised, nurtured and utilised? If not, what might be the factors predisposing some groups to consistently be seen as having the greatest merit?
CK hides these important considerations behind a blanket statement that few people are going to argue against, so garners an agreement with a principle, while much remains contentious when we move beyond the superficial.

@5128gap I just rewatched the whole Cambridge debate as I didn’t recognise it from your description. The first female questioner in the hijab was bizarre, she asked and he fully answered her random question three times. It was about a you tuber who Kirk was allegedly avoiding (he’d debated him twice and he had a date to come on to his podcast) and she gave no reaction, just yet again repeated her question. Kirk showed her no contempt but he was clearly puzzled as would anyone have been.

There’s no point throughout the whole debate where he doesn’t listen to the questions nor where he is unnecessarily rude. The overall tenor of the debate is mild compared to many.

We can only each watch and form our own opinion. I didn't say CK failed to answer the first woman's question. I said his response to her question, the first time she asked was to sneer at her and say "I've come all this way to be asked that..?" was belittling and rude.

I don’t think federal funding should be used for these programs. They should be funded through individual donations or through private charitable foundations.

and I just don’t think Dems are serious about controlling crime. I hope they prove me wrong (murder rates still haven’t come down from Covid highs)

I'd like to hear a definition of 'merit'.

If you read one book this month, let it be The Tyranny of Merit by Michael Sandel. He exposes 'merit' for what it is. In my view, anyway.

Do you think Democrats prefer higher crime rates? Why do you think this is?

@5128gap as you say, we all have our own opinions. I thought her question was a truly bizarre choice, she has the honour of the opening question on the floor of the Cambridge Union to ask absolutely anything of one of the most controversial conservatives in the world and rather than ask a knotty spiritual, political or theological question she asks why he won’t debate a random YouTuber, who in fact he has debated and has a full debate scheduled.

I’m sure she would expect to be treated in the same way as any other adult who puts themselves forward to debate at the Union.

CK had the honour of debating against some of the greatest young minds in the UK. Yet he lowered himself to sneer and belittle. Seeing his discomfort as he floundered through the knotty questions, he should probably have been grateful for the soft start.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting about the woman expecting to be treated equally? Is there any suggestion she did not?

I’ll continue to not defend and support racist misogynists like Kirk, unlike you. 👍🏻 As we have established in the last thread, you have nothing of substance to add and just keep bleating on despite the evidence presented to you, so continue being wilfully blind as I’m not wasting my time engaging with anyone so painfully intransigent.

@5128gap you implied she did not by suggesting she was belittled. Charlie Kirk’s debating style is a lot softer and less aggressive than many who appear on the floor of either Union. She was treated lightly for someone asking a weak question.

@Plastictreees I don't think anyone would expect you to support or defend people you disagree with but if people could learn not to hate those with different views we might end up in a better place.

@AzurePanda you have called Kirk "one of the most controversial conservatives in the world". If I assume you're a conservative and may know, was he controversial among conservatives? If so, why was that?