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.

This killing was gruesome, and his widow and children are grieving.

I am not sure if her words can sway the judiciary in passing sentence on the killer, but if she has not asked for a life sentence instead of the death penalty then I don't believe her words about forgiveness at all.

But maybe she has made a statement asking for removal of the death sentence, and I could have missed it. If so, she is to be admired. If she hasn't, that's a no from me.

Or maybe people have drawn a different conclusion to you after listening to him?

Crazy theory, I know!

People who celebrate the death of others are rare, and wholly objectionable.

As far as Kirk is concerned, I agree with the notion of a defending people's rights to an opinion. But, when those opinions are as divisive and often hate-filled as Kirks, you're like no other liberal I've ever met. After all his views were the very antithesis of 'live and let live'.

It’s pathological at this point. Absolutely bizarre behaviour. It comes down to the fact that you can’t rationalise with such intransigent irrationality and hypocrisy. It’s a waste of energy engaging with people who will insist black is white. Best to just leave them to it, thoughts and prayers 🤣🙏🏻

I disagreed with a decent amount of what he said. I don't think he was motivated by hate though. For every quote that "proves" he hated gay people, women, ethnic minorities etc there is plenty of evidence to suggest he didn't. He certainly had the kind of sexism that a lot of conservative american Christian men have, and he had a stong dislike of many left wing ideas like DEI.

He was probably like a lot of others with his views. Don't hate women, gay people and POC, provided they stay in their lane. Exist largely invisibly in their God given position in the world, well beneath his own, unless required to be of service. If they do this, then he would deign to treat them with kindness (as we saw him do when for reasons of their own, they fawned to him) But should they get above themselves, wanting rights he didn't think they need or deserve, or worse, start posing a threat to his own position, he was furious at their audacity and determined to put them in their place.
In some ways this made him more dangerous than people who do openly hate, as it least you know where you are with them and there's no false and conditional regard to blur the lines.

What's your view of DEI? No need to answer if you haven't the inclination.

I think it's mixed. The aim is noble, the ethics are debatable (there are strong pros as well as cons), the application is sometimes good and sometimes flawed.

In my industry I find DEI initiatives are frequently targeted at a couple of demographics that are already quite well included and established, and ignore others.

Because we have a lot of different demographics in America. African Americans are not actually the poorest group, btw.

What do you mean by 'poorest group'? Group with the highest proportion of people living below the poverty line? Or group who's membership includes the most people living furthest below the poverty line?

So, just a hunch, then. And you wonder why you've been accused of racism in this thread.

The thing that amuses me about right wingers continually decrying DEI is their number one criticism of it: 'it's not based on merit!'

But, the very thing that causes the need for DEI - education - isn't merit based at all, it's financially based (best state schools; higher house prices - or simply private schools). And as soon as you attempt to level that particular playing field to make it 'merit' based, the gnashing of right wing teeth can be heard in Australia. And the irony - nay hypocrisy - of this stance is completely lost on them.

Saying all that, I am not at the business end of DEI where you obviously are. What are your hiring requirements? Certain number of minority races? Women? You say some groups are being ignored. Which groups?

I wouldn't say at the business end, I go along to the odd presentation and have done little bits of mentoring. We don't have quotas or anything like that, but we sometimes reach out to graduates/undergraduaates from particular demographics or backgrounds etc. It's very much the non controversial end of DEI. Even Kirk wouldnt be offended I think, as he was known to reach out to black conservative influencers and try to boost their careers and get them into mentoring programmes etc.

Percentage of said demographic below the poverty line, which would be Native Americans. Non-Hispanic whites would be the largest by raw numbers however

@Underthinker I'm quite confused by your post. There is DEI in your industry, though not officially, and it's a kind of DEI Kirk would get behind? This is pretty funny, given Kirk's stance on DEI.

Does your industry's version of 'DEI' hire straight white males only? 😁

I think DEI is quite a broad term that can cover a lot of attitudes and practices. It can be rigid affirmative action hiring quotas like "50% of our pilot hires must be female or ethnic minorities within 3 years", or it can be saying "not enough people with physical disabilities are applying for roles in our organisation, do we need to adapt hiring practices, reach out to disability groups or publicise key role models in the organisation?" Kirk was very against the former but IMO he seemed to be unconcerned by the latter.

Does your industry's version of 'DEI' hire straight white males only?
I mean you joke but there is a little bit of that. There have been programmes to encourage neuro diverse people, or those with diverse gender identities. These are often straight white males.

How many people with diverse gender identities are straight white males?

A liberal, you say?

All the straight white male ones?

I feel like I'm conversing with an absolute fraud here. You may well be a liberal, but the vast majority of posts I have read of yours scream anything but liberal.

What, do you think trans and ND people can't be straight and white?

Yes thank you

I don't really see that she had an alternative to a public proclamation of forgiveness. Charlie Kirk himself said that a certain number of deaths per year were an acceptable price to pay for second amendment rights. He no doubt never wanted or expected that he would be the one to die, but he believed that deaths such as his are a justifiable sacrifice for the right to bear arms.

His wife wants to continue to perpetuate his views by taking on his former campaign role herself. She risks alienating other gun rights activists if she suggests in any way that the killer shouldn't have been allowed a gun, or that any gun deaths constitute an unacceptable number. She is, of course, mourning the loss of her husband but she also can't suggest that his death should result in any kind of policy change to prevent further gun deaths through limitation of gun rights.

What therefore can she do but try to put the issue to rest with a public proclamation of forgiveness, which requires only that she say a few words, and therefore save herself from any awkward questions about whether her husband's death merits a conversation about gun reform.

Charlie Kirk shouldn't have been shot because nobody should be shot. Regardless of the fact that he personally was hateful, dangerous and cruel, there is no justification for murder. Gun reform should be enacted to save lives. Charlie Kirk didn't hold that view, however, and that has left his widow having to toe a careful line.

I don’t believe either of them have apologised to you or asked for your forgiveness?

It's not how forgiveness works. Did Kirk's killer ask for his wife's forgiveness?

She has a Christian clothing company, she has made her 'christianity' her business and profited from it so it makes sense she has to be seen 'to forgive'. She also supported the ideal that a woman's place is in the home raising a family while contradicting this by also running businesses, podcasts etc (bit like trump and his views on immigration but it's fine that his wife is an immigrant). Maybe she's genuine but the whole memorial looked like a farce. A complete turnaround from what she was saying when it first happened. Maybe she truly does forgive and if that's the case then yes that is a very difficult thing to do and I applaud her however I think it is wise not to take things at face value and to be skeptical considering her political views and her strong affiliation with Trump.