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

You continue to avoid and deflect, because you cannot form a coherent argument.

How can you claim integrity, while you are supporting and endorsing an established misogynistic, racist bigot like CK - yet you claim to be a feminist? How does that incongruence work for you?

From reading your posts on other threads it has become clear. You will deny and obfuscate until the cows come home, because Kirk and his cronies are against trans rights and so are you. It’s sad you will throw your values away because these odious men pretend to care about women’s rights, when they don’t give a shiny shit. But they manage to convince you and others enough that you spend your time relentlessly defending them online, even when it makes you look silly.

CK didn't try and impose his views on the wider society - he talked to people face to face and he did that well.

Comparing him to fanatical muslims is actually hilarious.

We live in a society were Charlie could speak face to face to gay people and discuss ideas and thoughs.

Fanatical muslims don't do that because there aren't any gay people in Islam*

*of course there are but their ideology means they must live in fear.

@Plastictreees

Me lie and deflect? Maybe look in the mirror there?

All I've done is point out some things attributed to Kirk were false. You and others have interpreted that to mean I am defending him, and agree with all his statements and beliefs.

Why not just say you hated him, but you regret pushing untruthful statements about him? Have some integrity.

I haven't for one moment agreed with you that CK was a hateful bigot - I don't think he was. If I had heard him advocating for banning homosexuality, I would say.

This is more how I understood his actual position on homosexuality - here he is up against a person who does not accept homosexuality

You are just doing more of the same. There is no point engaging with you.

I think the moment you start thinking for yourself and not just parroting what you have read in some partisan rag, is the moment you start to get angry that you fell for it

CK was not hateful in any stretch of the definition.

The thing is I just can’t get myself worked up about the misogeny argument. When I heard him speak about it and the transcript of the ‘submission’ stuff with his wife, I have to admit all I thought was- ‘well if it works for them…’.

it seemed like they both are consenting, they both articulated how it works for them- would it work for most people? No and I don’t get the impression they thought it would work for everyone. They even acknowledge that when they were talking about it even if they thought in their heads it is very rational.

All I saw was 2 people who have a happy marriage talking about why they have a happy marriage and why that works for them. Absolutely zero chance that would become a policy or a mainstream view but if he had subsequently campaigned on a ticket of paying mothers to stay at home with their children then I can see the correlation of his views and policy. Many people would like that policy!

How can someone be a racist, misogynist bigot and not be ‘hateful’?

I’m sure you would get worked up about it if your young daughter got raped and she was denied an abortion. Kirk didn’t believe that women should have autonomy over their bodies. If you agree then just have the balls to own it.

Have a nice day.

I have already spoken on my views on this earlier in the debate

Honestly, this statement looks very silly. The basic principle of Christianity is that there is an Old Testament (where people had to atone for their sins with death and punishment) and the New Testament which is where Jesus arrives and becomes the ultimate ‘sacrifice’ for people’s sins. So if you believe in Jesus, you no longer have to be ‘stoned’ for whatever misdemeanours you may have committed.

A basic ‘Sunday school’ level of understanding of theology (which I’m not expecting anyone to have) would show Kirk was not advocating for what you say. This is why Stephen King and Alastair Campbell realised they were wrong, had misunderstood and then apologised.

But I guess you know better.

It must be a difficult time for some Liberals to realise that they are not actually the good guys, they're the bad guys.

Not hateful in any stretch of the definition? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. He was the VERY definition of extreme hate! Was.

Gullible doesn’t mean “not what I would vote for”.

It means “easily persuaded to believe something; credulous” (OED).

The type of people who aren’t capable of rational evaluation of the information they are receiving and seeing inconsistencies and contradictions; people susceptible to believing completely implausible (and even factually disproved) narratives; the type of people who are susceptible to extremist views and simplistic three word slogans, people who are easy to fool and “don’t like experts” and can’t be bothered with data and detail or historical similarities and dismiss any rational discussion as “overly intellectual” and “snobbish” (both comments made earlier in this thread).

The very fact that you want to divide people up in this simplistic and fairly meaningless manner and label them as “good guys” and “bad guys” like in some kind of movie designed for small children speaks volumes.

With respect, your assertion is factually wrong. Did you even read the thread before commenting?

He was a political campaigner. He set up political organisations to campaign for the expressed purpose of changing the law to enforce his personal “values” on everyone else. That was the entire purpose of his “career”.

You too are easily persuadable and the politicians you vote for likely use slogans. I’m not sure why you in particular feel immune.

By that definition any lobbying or political campaiging is "trying to impose your views on everybody else".

Yes to this.

Sorry, did you just partially quote one of my posts? Out of “context”? 😧😆

If you’re trying to change the law to remove fundamental rights and freedoms from other people such as their financial freedom, right to divorce or leave abusive relationships, right to protect their children from enforced child abuse, right to choose not to consent to sex, right to have a different sexual orientation, or right to have the same freedoms and rights as someone with a different skin colour, then yes.

As I said, for rights and freedoms to exist at all there have to be constraints, the most fundamental one of which is that you exercising your own must not cause unacceptable levels of harm to other people and constrain their ability to have the same rights and freedoms.

That is the fundamental and necessary principle underlying any democratic society which has to be maintained otherwise all rights and freedoms disappear in short order. Mr Kirk was actively attempting to undermine this well-established concept which was the fundamental purpose of the US constitution. The man was a hypocrite and a dangerous one with nefarious intentions to impose his extremism on others having been expressed so clearly. It really is disturbing how many people are determined to try to defend his views despite his immense hypocrisy and his undeniably disgraceful behaviour being documented for many years for all to see.

What is your proposed solution to this?

What should happen re someone like CK speaking?

A subjective assertion and does not present a factual account of Charlie Kirk's actions or their impact on the U.S. Constitution.

I may have missed this but have you established that he did want to remove such rights?
Clearly abortion is one such case, but that's a longstanding battleground in the US. You think he wanted to remove someone's right to not consent to sex?