Charlie Kirk's beliefs

[MsAmerica]

If You're Wondering What Charlie Kirk Believed In, Here Are 14 Real Quotes
In light of his death, Charlie Kirk's legacy is being remembered through these viral quotes.
BuzzFeed

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexalisitza/viral-charlie-kirk-quotes

I’n very bad at explaining things on paper but ill give it a go —

I think you are being disingenuous. Charlie leads with 4 well known Black women’s names and then says that they stole white women’s spot is going to be remembered as ‘Black women…steal white women’s spots.’ Charlie Kirk, of all people knew that. He’s not insulting 4 black women, he’s insulting all the women who identify with those women. It lands exactly as he means it to land. Best dog whistling ever. Actually the more I hear Charlie Kirk debate I realise how expert a dog whistler he was.

Also DEI does not choose a Black woman over a more qualified white woman. They both qualify. So why shouldn’t the Black woman get the job? It hasn’t been stolen from the white woman. If you say it has, and instead choose the white woman, then the black woman has had her job stolen.

It’s interesting too, because why would it have been a white women’s job in particular, the black woman was stealing? It could have been a white man’s job. Ahh Haa.

Not to forget Charlie Kirk made it clear that he believes all women should be at home and ‘subordinate’ to their husbands. Indeed they should ‘submit’ to their husbands. (Gross) He wanted a future when no woman got the job. A future where all women are pushed out of the workforce. Then A MAN could have the job. Take out all the qualified women, both black and white, and you then start having to promote men that are very likely to be less qualified than the women they are replacing. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

History repeats.

Disclaimer - Charlie Kirk was a bad man. But he did not deserve to be murdered.

Now I’m going to listen to the rest of that video because the bloke (not Charlie) sounds like he’s got interesting stuff to say. Things I could learn.

You express yourself well, don't worry about that.

But it's not about remembering, Kirk is being persistently misquoted, not by accident, but because the edited versions are more inflammatory and make Kirk sound worse than the original. That's not to say everything he says is nice, fair or good. But if we are going to condemn him for his statements, perhaps they should be his actual statements and not tweaked more offensive versions.

The previous poster falsely provided a direct quote, and then continued to insist those precise words were in the video when they clearly weren't. It's gaslighting.

Kirk named those women, not because they were the first four black women he could think of, but because the show followed a supreme court ruling on affirmative action (a policy Kirk is strongly against) and those four high profile women had written or spoken in support of it or how they had benefitted from it that week.

I can say a thing, and mean a slightly different thing and what gets remembered, more often than not, is the thing I mean. But then, because I didn’t use those very words, I can claim ‘that is not what I said.’ It’s deliberate. I think he might just have done that a lot. And It’s disingenuous.

Meanwhile this week The Republicans in the Senate voted not to release the Epstein Files. What are the chances?

I don't trust second and third hand sources like 'buzzfeed'. We know how these sites take quotes out of context. JK Rowling's "quotes" are an example. I prefer to go to the actual FIRST HAND source. You can go to the Turning Point website, or Kirk's (still up) twitter/X account, and also instagram account to find out his beliefs. I would NEVER trust anything from the likes of buzzfeed. Ever. If they said the year was 2025, I'd doubt it and have to check. You are very gullible to believe second and third hand accounts. Very gullible indeed.

Or he might just have meant what he said. In the US in that week, it would have been very clear what the context of those statements were (even clearer watching the show and not a 3 minute excerpt).

But regardless, if you choose to believe he
really meant all black women rather than the 4 women he named, which given the context is beyond far fetched, it's not ok to amend his quote. Someone could decide that something you said "really meant something racist, and spread a fake quote all over the Internet. How would you feel about that?

Kirk’s views were not only racist, but misogynistic and bigoted. There are endless direct quotes which evidence this - you can claim they are taken ‘out of context’ as much as you like, you’re being wilfully blind. The man wanted to take away women’s rights which were hard fought; forcing rape victims (including children) to go through with pregnancies, denying them the right to have autonomy over their bodies and have an abortion, is inhumane and abhorrent. You can cherry pick the odd quote all you like and claim Kirk has been ‘misquoted’ but he loudly and proudly endorsed and promoted terrible things.

Why you want to defend this man is a reflection on your own values and character. It is disingenuous to claim you are doing so to ‘prevent division’. It is like asking me to tell you how to calculate the height of a tree, but you don’t believe in Pythagoras theory.

@plasticTrees
People have said there are loads of direct quotes that prove he was racist. No one has been able to answer the question that if such quotes exist, why do the people who clearly hate him not produce these, instead of the fake or out of context ones?

I don't know if he was racist or not, I don't know enough about the man. I do have experience of supposedly progressive people working very hard to smear those they want to discredit, e.g.J K Rowling. To them the end justifies the means.

The next CK quote I look into might show me he had genuinely racist views. Just so far its all been BS.

I think this discussion has become ‘right versus wrong’ but most of the time, it’s that people simply start from different worldviews or assumptions.

A conservative-minded Christian might use the Bible as their starting point and so to them, (as an example) the concept of mutual submission in marriage makes total sense but to you, who starts from a different place, that’s bigoted or misogynistic.

I get it, I really do but questioning another person’s moral character, instead of offering rebuttal to their worldview, seems like that’s how we got into this mess.

Good, robust debate is how we find a slither of common ground and can then (hopefully) find a tiny degree of tolerance for people we disagree with. But the debate is now so toxic, so angry, that in some cases, it seems to be spilling over into physical violence.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxk1cyYJe-o

Absolutely. Trying to have a rational discussion with someone who won’t accept evidenced facts will never end well. Quite a while ago in this thread it became apparent that many posters weren’t interested in a factual discussion and are determined to declare that the crocodile is a log.

What possible context justifies a man saying he would insist his daughter, 10 years old at the time, gave birth to a child resulting from rape?

People are really bending over backwards to make excuses for the absolutely awful things CK was spouting.

Even my 15-year-old was shocked when she realised the world is mourning like a hero that crazy guy she was seeing on TickTock saying the most awful things.

Exactly what context makes CK saying "abortion is much worse than the Holocaust" and "black women don't have enough brain capacity and have to take white women's spots" (both of which I have actually heard him say in videos of his "debates"). In what context are those statements ok?!

The world has gone mad. 😠

Overall I liked him. I think he had a few extreme views that were daft but I also think he spoke a lot of sense to me.

His statement about 'prowling blacks' was a racist statement. It is a racist phrase, the full context of the quote places it in a scenario he created in order to whip up fear, suspicion and hatred of black people. I am all for discussion, but at some point I guess it can become unproductive because when someone argues that talking about 'prowling blacks' is not a racist statement, I can't believe that they are speaking in good faith. It's such an inversion of reality. Similarly, his words on women's rights are twisted by his supporters - he tells a woman to submit to her husband and people start insisting that he's talking about equality in a marriage.

I think debate and discussion are so fundamental to democracy and a civilised society. That's being undermined by these, frankly bizarre, tactics to claim that a person can say one thing but actually mean something entirely different.

When he said 'prowling blacks' he was being racist. When he said 'submit to your husband', he was being a misogynist. Go into the workplace and say those things; you'll be on a disciplinary.

@XelaM

"black women don't have enough brain capacity and have to take white women's spots"(both of which I have actually heard him say in videos of his "debates")

Please scroll up the thread a page or two. The video is linked along with this claim. You may think you remember him say this, but he categorically did not. Bizarrely multiple people are listening to the same source and swearing blind he said words which simply aren't there. It's like some mass hypnosis.

I guess in the same vein some of the things the Nazis said and did made a lot of sense too 🤷‍♀️

🙄

I've said I dont know if hes racist or not. I might look into the "prowling blacks"comment later. I'm just saying every racist comment I've looked into so far has been BS, and not one person has reflected on that or seems to think it matters.

He's racist because he said X, and pointing out he didn't say X makes me a racist for defending him apparently.

What you, me and CK seem to agree on is debate is important. Surely truth and accuracy are also important, particularly when criticising a murder victim.

So because someone is horribly murdered, their opinions and public statements can no longer be scrutinised?

The phrase 'prowling blacks' is absolutely racist. If my children's headteacher gets up and uses that phrase in assembly, he'll get the sack. If I go into the office and mention 'prowling blacks' to someone over coffee, I'll get hauled in front of HR. It is not an acceptable phrase to use!

Exactly.

Those defending him on the grounds of ‘not knowing’ what he said are baffling. His words are immortalised all over the internet. You cannot claim to be a Kirk supporter and also be a feminist.

Indeed.

But as I said earlier, this poster will argue that black is white. There is no rationalising with such blinkered intransigence. We are hitting our heads against a brick wall.

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023

He denied the existence of systemic racism, called white privilege a “racist idea.” (WHYY)

Crystal Clanton, hired by Kirk as one of the directors of Turning Point (the campaigning organisation founded and run by Kirk) stated in a text message “I hate black people. … End of story.” TPUSA claimed it acted after the texts surfaced, but such views were found to be widespread throughout the organisation (New Yorker).

Kirk’s rhetoric increasingly mirrored white supremacist and authoritarian themes, while campus watchdog groups chronicled repeated incidents racist and homophobic at TPUSA events (Guardian).

United States did not become a democracy until the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the laws that intended to end de jure segregation and racist voter suppression. But Kirk opposed the Civil Rights Act, calling it a “huge mistake”.

On his podcast, he hosted a “slavery apologist” and a man who said that after women “got, you know, the right to vote – after that, it all went downhill”.

He also stated that gay people should be stoned, he was opposed to gun control, abortion, LGBTQ rights, criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Martin Luther King Jr., promoted Christian nationalism and lobbied to enforce compliance with this on the whole of US society, advanced COVID-19 misinformation, made false claims of electoral fraud in 2020, and was a proponent of the racist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.

And that’s aside from his misogynistic views which have already been described in detail on the thread, that women are less intelligent than men, should be subordinate and obey men in all matters, should only go to college to find husbands, should have no independent finances, should have reproductive rights removed and that ten year old rape victims should be forced to go through pregnancy and give birth.

There’s far more but anybody denying he was a racist or misogynist or a deeply unpleasant man who wanted to remove basic rights and freedoms from large parts of the population and was actively campaigning to change the law in order to do so is, frankly, in denial of clearly evidenced reality.

It certainly sounds racist.

But he was someone who a lot of angry people have worked quite hard to defame, and the quotes I have looked into so far have all been false or taken out of context. This is another problem with all the misquotes, it destroys the credibility of anyone with valid criticism.

I know, but there is such a creep right now of rhetoric desperately attempting to normalise the abhorrent that I think it's worth arguing back - not to convince those who seek to push for racist, misogynistic and bigoted discourse to become mainstream, but just to keep a voice heard for the sane and decent people who don't condone it.