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 don't know if they are all made up. All of the ones I have looked into, have either been made up, or presented out of context so that the meaning is completely changed. Does this not matter to you at all? If he said 5 racist things in his life, is it OK to present those 5 alongside another 5 fake ones? Doesn't lying like that just increase polarisation and justify right wingers doing the same in return?

No, death threats were not only made to Hilary Clinton 'just once'. And as I mentioned, AOC receives rape and death threats from the right all the time.

Violent rhetoric is not coming exclusively or even mainly from the right. You can look for survey results on violent ideation and threats from the right to the left and you can also look at the data on politically motivated violence which comes overwhelmingly from the right. As you know, because that's been explained to you many times before. And people have painstakingly and patiently pointed out to you that left-wing figures have been murdered and attacked in far greater numbers by right wing attackers than vice versa. You are fully aware of the murder of Melissa Hortman and of the attack on Paul Pelosi (whose attacker Kirk appealed to people to bail out, by the way - a man who attacked an elderly guy with a hammer!) You know these facts to be true, and yet you wheel out a survey that finds more left wing people support the theoretical idea of violence against Trump and Musk than right wing people do as though that proves a greater tendency to violence on the left than right, totally ignoring the REAL ACTUAL VIOLENCE THAT HAS OCCURRED.

Ask that question of the same respondents but make the figure in question AOC and see what answers you get!

Editing to add that the firing squad is legal in some US states, so if you argue that it's legal to call for the hanging of Clinton, isn't it legal to call for the shooting of Trump?

Still struggling with your “context” theory. Many of his clearly expressed racist and misogynistic opinions were completely unacceptable to decent people.

@Underthinker Why are you so focused on race yet continue to ignore all the other problematic things he stood for and endorsed, which have been clearly stated in this thread as clearly as they were stated by Kirk.

He was anti abortion, and did not believe women should have autonomy over their bodies, including in instances such as rape. He said that if his 10 year old daughter got pregnant from rape, she would be forced to continue the pregnancy. Multiple posters have told you this, and you continue to ignore it - why? Are you in agreement?

You are coming on here and defending someone you claim you know nothing about. Surely you should do your own research before defending someone with such gusto, why do you need to be spoon fed information that is freely available online? Your pseudo naivety here is so transparent. If you support his views, just have the balls to own it.

Aaargh I made a typo! Where I wrote:
Violent rhetoric is not coming exclusively or even mainly from the right I obviously meant
Violent rhetoric is not coming exclusively or even mainly from the LEFT

I don't agree with you, and the data doesn't either. It is a quirk of the left that they want to shut people up - as I said before because they tend to believe that Words are Violence.

The cases you mention are actually not straightforward at all, despite what has been reported in (partisan) outlets. Vance Boelter was appointed by Tim Walz at some point onto a committee, and the murder happened after she voted with Republicans against a Bill to give Illegals Benefits. He had "No Kings" flyers in his car which was a planned protest in opposition to Trump. It really isn't clear what his motive was or which side he was actually on.

However, I did not see one person celebrating her death and saying it was to be expected.

I don't know nothing about him. I watched a handful of his videos, agreed with some, disagreed with others. I knew him to be close to Trump, whom I strongly dislike.

Then he was shot, and I said online that I was sad to hear that, and someone replied "chat shit get bangd" and I then I realised we had a societal problem.

That isn’t what he did though, is it? As you well know, and the quotes and clips provided evidence very clearly.

Do you genuinely think that anybody here is going to believe your assertion that he was just “criticising DEI policies” when all of the evidence in the thread demonstrates this is categorically not the case and that his comments were objectively racist and unacceptable regardless of the “cause” which he was allegedly supporting when making them?

”When blacks in America did not have the same rights they had today they were less murderous and there was less [sic] break ins, they were actually better. The data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.”

Either he was a) extremely unintelligent and didn’t even understand the difference between correlation and causation, which my 6 year old can grasp very clearly; or b) he was an extremely unpleasant and disingenuous, misogynistic and racist man who was deliberately trying to mislead others who he knew couldn’t grasp such basic components of logical inference, in order to deliberately stir social up division and manipulate public opinion to achieve his political aim of imposing his nasty views on everyone else through changes to law restricting the rights of others, in which case he was even more unpleasant and dangerous than if he was just a genuinely stupid racist, sexist man himself.

Which do you think it was? I think b) was the case.

You don't agree that more right wing acts of political violence have occurred than left wing acts of political violence?

That's not a matter of opinion, it's provable fact.

I don’t agree with celebrating his murder. No one here is saying that.

But you are again deflecting and not answering my questions.

‘He also stated that gay people should be stoned’ (according to @TheClaaaw)

This tells me immediately that you have done virtually no research on him. Stephen King made this same claim a few days ago and was forced to apologise, as did Alastair Campbell. Both acknowledged that Charlie Kirk did not say that. It’s all over social media.
Take a look.

Will you acknowledge that you are wrong on this?

Prove it, sure

It is a quirk of the left that they want to shut people up

Have you seen the reaction of the right to social media comments on Kirk's death? They're calling for lifetime social media bans and mass firing of anyone 'rationalising, belittling or celebrating Kirk's death'.

If that isn't wanting to shut people up, what is?!

Seriously?

I am a former lefty and my challenge to all the people on here is to go out this week, or today, and say to someone you support Trump.

Just see what comes back at you.

You won't believe what nastiness is out there. I promise you.

And you won't ever have experienced that from the other side as a lefty. I promise you.

See things for yourself.

If it is that clear cut, it shouldn't be a problem?

I haven't seen that at all. I have seen people asking the left media not to call everyone they don't agree with Hitler.

I answered one of your questions, very happy to address the others. Why am I focused on race? Im not really, I dug into the "black women" thing becuae for all the people arguing with me here, not one of them has conceded that it was wrong to insert those words into that quotation.

Yes he was anti abortion. As are many right wing US Christians. Like most Brits, I disagree with him. If people had posted after his death that they didnt like him as he was anti abortion, that's completely reasonable and I wouldn't have argued back or defended him. But if you lie you should expect to get pushback from me or someone else with integrity.

We're in a totally upside down world. You can go and see for yourself the data on politically motivated violence and you're well aware of that it comes largely from the right. You do know this, but the tactic - very much like the argument on Kirk's words - are simply to deny reality.

You can also see very concerted attempts at right-wing censorship of speech happening now in front of us all in response to Kirk's death. These things are not happening in secret. Denying it is absolutely insane.

Why are people so fixated on pigeon holing and labelling people as ‘right’ and ‘left’? It’s just causes further polarisation and division. Yet more excuse for unhelpful tropes and stereotypes.

The amount of people who have lost their jobs, both in the US and the UK, after dancing on the grave of CK on SM has been heart warming.

Nobody is lying, his words are there for all to see and read and hear.

Why are you on this thread defending someone who you acknowledge is against women’s rights? How does that show integrity?

People are free to say anything about CK, as the left like to say, they are not, however, free from the consequences of those words.

@Plastictreees
Not lying?
I think you said the same yesterday after I pointed out someone insisted on hearing words in a CK video that werent there. In that video where the claim was that CK said..

“Black women do not have brain processing power..."

1. Did he say those words or not?
2. Is it a lie or not?

No, not at all. There is just a ridiculousness in claiming 'it's a quirk of the left to want to shut up everyone who disagrees with them' when JD Vance is encouraging mass reporting of people for their comments on social media to their employers and other Republican figures are calling to defund colleges who don't discipline employees for not speaking about Kirk in a way they deem to be correct. I don't think people should celebrate this murder, by the way! But if you complain about the silencing tactics of the left, you should really acknowledge when it happens on such a huge scale on the right as well, otherwise your argument is dishonest.