Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Charlie Kirk's beliefs

1000 replies

MsAmerica · 15/09/2025 02:29

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
hamstersarse · 17/09/2025 19:46

CantCallItLove · 17/09/2025 19:35

He said it in his workplace (a studio) and not as a suggestion. It was an instruction. Not 'you should try submitting to your husband' (which yeah, would get you a disciplinary!) but 'submit to your husband'.

But I brought the workplace in just as an example of how these views are not widely expressed. You don't hear colleagues say this. You wouldn't hear it in a school assembly. If someone said it in the playground at drop-off, everyone would give the weirdo a wide berth.

It is not a normal, mainstream opinion. Telling women to submit to their husbands is not acceptable. You do know this, and so does everyone else.

The fact you are taking this stupid remark about Taylor Swift, the ultimate singleton, so seriously and extrapolating to = v.bad man is so dumb.

Many women do submit to their husband, maybe you do and that is why it is hitting such a nerve. As pointed out pages and pages ago, TS is a domineering woman, and yes, to have a good marriage she may need to SUBMIT from her almighty girl power position and actually have a partnership with her husband.

weearrows · 17/09/2025 19:55

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 17:58

If discussion is held in good faith (not the kind of faith he was in favour of), rational and evidence-based then I think that consensus on most things can be reached. It is extremists who are the danger to this because their aim is to try to prevent such reasonable public discourse.

I believe far more unites people than divides us and that currently there are numerous bad actors deliberately trying to polarise public opinion in democratic countries for their own purposes which will be immensely negative for the huge majority of people.

The problem with anybody trying to “debate” Kirk when he was alive was that it was very transparent that he was not engaging in any real debate at all. This was a performative act and actually an attempt to ridicule and shut down anybody who opposed him with carefully stage managed questions and responses. It was not a genuine “debate” or respectful discussion, it was deliberately divisive and hostile with no intention to actually consider other opinions or wish to have a rational discussion, reach consensus, discuss outcomes or evidence-based policy, hence his repeated attempts to resort to “well it’s what the Bible says!’ whenever it became clear that he had no logical defence for his position and it was self-contradictory.

He deliberately created a hostile and adversarial style of so-called “debate” which was designed to do the precise opposite of objectively examining issues and finding solutions that would be acceptable to all involved. The hallmark of somebody reasonable and objective is being prepared to change their views on things in light of new evidence: the precise opposite of the stance of an extremist religious fanatic who by definition is impervious to data, empirical evidence or logic and - as he declared - in his personal case also any capacity for empathy.

So while I think that in a genuine debate with him, privately, if he’d ever had any inclination to engage in one with me (unlikely) we’d have been able to find common ground, I think that would have been impossible for anybody reasonable to do during his publicly staged pseudo-debates which were designed to serve completely the opposite purpose and in which he expressed extremist, outrageous and appalling views deliberately to cause social division. His disingenuousness in pretending he wanted a conversation/ debate about his views was quite shocking in its brazenness given how obviously false this was.

I think what we need to do is reestablish genuine public debate between people who disagree but are actually reasonable, rational, decent human beings, debate aimed at reaching compromises, establishing a reasonable and sensible consensus that is acceptable to the vast majority of people (while accepting that it won’t perfectly fit anyone’s world view, as the prevailing system never will if you live in a democracy - that’s the price of freedom). I think the vast majority of people are decent people who don’t wish the kinds of harms on society that Mr Kirk did, but feel very insecure at the moment and this manifests as polarisation and extremism and draws them to people like him who are the opposite of the solution.

I think civilised society will disintegrate completely unless this happens and I find it very depressing that there seems to be no sign of this happening. But yes, fundamentally I believe that the interests of the vast majority of society are aligned in most respects and that common ground could be found with a little less anger and a little more listening and willingness to have a rational discussion focused on practical solutions and compromises that would be acceptable to all based on evidence rather than people’s personal anecdotes, refusal to concede on any preference and determination to “other” people and reduce their rights in the hope it will improve their own circumstances: it won’t.

It’s much easier to have such discussions in individual conversations with (reasonable) people than on a societal level, unfortunately, so I hold out little hope that democracy will survive the storm of the second industrial revolution which is headed its way at a much faster pace than many are anticipating, which will manifest in more and more of this extreme rhetoric and more people being sucked in by it even though ultimately its results will make their lives far worse than they would otherwise have been, and accelerate and magnify the problems. But sadly there’s no reasoning with many, as the thread shows.
^^

I agree there’s more that unites us than divides us but while I (obviously) disagree with your starting premise on who Charlie Kirk actually was, I’d like to hope that if I were to ever meet you in person that we’d be able to have a reasonable discussion.

CantCallItLove · 17/09/2025 19:56

hamstersarse · 17/09/2025 19:46

The fact you are taking this stupid remark about Taylor Swift, the ultimate singleton, so seriously and extrapolating to = v.bad man is so dumb.

Many women do submit to their husband, maybe you do and that is why it is hitting such a nerve. As pointed out pages and pages ago, TS is a domineering woman, and yes, to have a good marriage she may need to SUBMIT from her almighty girl power position and actually have a partnership with her husband.

Well, I've spotted a misogynist AND a non-Swiftie here.

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 21:12

CantCallItLove · 17/09/2025 19:56

Well, I've spotted a misogynist AND a non-Swiftie here.

Perhaps someone should write a new book and declare the contents a “religion”, and if it happens to say that people who don’t like Taylor Swift should be stoned to death, then bad luck I guess? It wouldn’t be anyone’s fault, or any reflection on those supporting the book or on anybody trying to get the book made into law that everyone will be forced to comply with whether they like the book or not or have even read it, THE BOOK IS THE LAW and it’s nobody’s fault, apparently…

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 21:19

BananaPeels · 17/09/2025 18:28

Where specifically has he tried to enact putting submission to your husband into law. Link me to the legislation. That’s what I’m asking

How would there be legislation when he wasn’t successful in doing so? How can people “link you” to legislation that doesn’t exist?

These posts from your are beyond laughable now.

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 21:29

weearrows · 17/09/2025 19:55

I agree there’s more that unites us than divides us but while I (obviously) disagree with your starting premise on who Charlie Kirk actually was, I’d like to hope that if I were to ever meet you in person that we’d be able to have a reasonable discussion.

I don’t have a “premise” about “who he was”. I am only interested in what he did and said in life - the facts of the matter.

I would hope, also, that we’d be able to have a sensible conversation in person. I think we would. Most of your posts seem genuine and you sound like a person looking for common ground despite differing views rather than relishing in division and anger and launching unwarranted personal attacks on other posters and asserting wild and fabricated things about what they have said (the irony of it!!), unlike many of the seemingly deranged posters here have been doing, naming no names!

It is sensible, rational, normal people who may have differing personal but not extremist values and are prepared to discuss these in a reasonable and factual manner who I believe still just about constitute the majority of the population and need to speak up far more in order for us all to be saved from the nutters on both extremes and to have a hope of sustaining a viable society that doesn’t descend into a nightmarish dystopia over the coming years. I’m not hopeful, but I still hope.

healthyteeth · 17/09/2025 21:32

To be crystal clear, I think Kirk’s death was abhorrent. No one deserves to have their life extinguished so brutally for their views. It’s a tragedy. Like all murders.

That said, Kirk epitomised the ‘unchristian Christian’. Unless you were a white, middle class, “Christian”, straight male he believed you were a second class citizen with less rights. His ‘debating’ was not true debate. He didn’t listen or attempt to hear another’s opinion. He used his platform to spread his hate.

BoredZelda · 17/09/2025 21:32

ColdSalads · 17/09/2025 11:21

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/

Thats the truth of it all, however, it was not "all black women" which is what your insinuating.

He was talking specifically about television presenter Joy Reid.

And Michelle Obama. And Sheila Jackson Lee. And Ketanji Brown Jackson. He also suggested that if a pilot was Black he’d want to check he was qualified.

So many people claiming he has been taken out of context but not really understanding what that means. For something to actually be out of context, it means when you play/read it back with the contextualising information, it significantly changes the meaning of what was said. None of those quotes attributed to him have been significantly changed with context added. Nothing has been “debunked”. All that’s happened is, some words are added to give the dog whistle plausible deniability, which is necessary in today’s litigious society.

I’ll say this again. If you are such a supporter of Kirk, and think he was a wonderful human, why is it so vital to re-write his history? He knew who he was and what he thought and he didn’t give a crap if people thought he was awful for it. He was proud to hold the opinions he did, he didn’t shy away from the controversy. He never tried to pretend he was something he wasn’t. Why is it necessary for people who claim they agree with him and thought he was great, to pretend he wasn’t who he actually was.

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 21:50

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 16:53

Fantasist

What?

I said that I don’t think that the viable solutions to these problems will be implemented, particularly with people like Kirk deliberately polarising things further to make this impossible because it requires consensus and cooperation, and in response you’ve for some reason launched yet another personal attack on me and called me a “fantasist” for stating that I don’t believe society’s problems will be addressed especially in the face of the technological changes which are advancing exponentially and will cause even more disruption and unrest.

So presumably you do think, then, that simple solutions exist and will be possible to implement in democratic societies in a consensual manner without the unrest I predict, given I’m allegedly a “fantasist” for believing the opposite. Please do regale us all with your vision of how it will play out.

I expect, as usual, you’ll have no explanation whatsoever to offer. You probably didn’t even read the post you were responding to properly, not for the first time on this thread. It’s easy to throw random personal insults at people but I don’t see you providing any coherent explanation of your alternative view, or how you feel that people like Kirk hold the answer to these problems and what that kind of society would look like.

CantCallItLove · 17/09/2025 21:53

BoredZelda · 17/09/2025 21:32

And Michelle Obama. And Sheila Jackson Lee. And Ketanji Brown Jackson. He also suggested that if a pilot was Black he’d want to check he was qualified.

So many people claiming he has been taken out of context but not really understanding what that means. For something to actually be out of context, it means when you play/read it back with the contextualising information, it significantly changes the meaning of what was said. None of those quotes attributed to him have been significantly changed with context added. Nothing has been “debunked”. All that’s happened is, some words are added to give the dog whistle plausible deniability, which is necessary in today’s litigious society.

I’ll say this again. If you are such a supporter of Kirk, and think he was a wonderful human, why is it so vital to re-write his history? He knew who he was and what he thought and he didn’t give a crap if people thought he was awful for it. He was proud to hold the opinions he did, he didn’t shy away from the controversy. He never tried to pretend he was something he wasn’t. Why is it necessary for people who claim they agree with him and thought he was great, to pretend he wasn’t who he actually was.

I actually don't think it's about Kirk. I think it's about trying to convince people that racist, misogynistic statements are normal and reflect commonly held views. There's a very concerted push to normalise extremist discourse, and pretending Kirk was some kind of ordinary man of the people just saying what people think is part of that. It's ridiculous, of course, and everyone - even the posters swearing black is white - knows that if you repeat Kirk's words out in public, people will be disgusted.

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 22:06

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 21:50

What?

I said that I don’t think that the viable solutions to these problems will be implemented, particularly with people like Kirk deliberately polarising things further to make this impossible because it requires consensus and cooperation, and in response you’ve for some reason launched yet another personal attack on me and called me a “fantasist” for stating that I don’t believe society’s problems will be addressed especially in the face of the technological changes which are advancing exponentially and will cause even more disruption and unrest.

So presumably you do think, then, that simple solutions exist and will be possible to implement in democratic societies in a consensual manner without the unrest I predict, given I’m allegedly a “fantasist” for believing the opposite. Please do regale us all with your vision of how it will play out.

I expect, as usual, you’ll have no explanation whatsoever to offer. You probably didn’t even read the post you were responding to properly, not for the first time on this thread. It’s easy to throw random personal insults at people but I don’t see you providing any coherent explanation of your alternative view, or how you feel that people like Kirk hold the answer to these problems and what that kind of society would look like.

No I don't think simple solutions exist that's the point. You think you could spend a morning writing a policy proposal that if followed would fix the country's problems for 15 years. Nothing is that easy.

And you talk about Kirk polarising things, but I find your posts incredibly polarising. Your views regarding this thread seem to be that there are the good people who show the proper level of hatred for Kirk, and then there are the people who dont dislike him enough who are to be treated with hostility and suspicion.

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 22:34

EasternStandard · 17/09/2025 17:05

What policies would fix living standards?

That’s a whole different thread but it needs a huge redirection of public spending towards areas that will generate growth: education, infrastructure etc. A viable and coordinated industrial strategy and trade policy. Financial support for businesses in key sectors where the UK has an established knowledge base and expertise and competitive advantage (many have been squandered but a few remain). Coherent plans for food and energy security which will also generate jobs and growth and investment in technology. Education is completely broken and should be the number one national priority to fix above all else, with far fewer people going to university and far more choice of schools, far more technical education and apprenticeships leading to viable careers and specialised jobs by linking businesses much more closely with proper technical colleges as they’ve done for decades in places like Germany.

The “moron premium” being applied to the interest rate on UK debt (resulting in us paying c.£100bn per year in debt interest - far more than comparable countries with similar levels of debt in monetary terms) would go down if a viable industrial strategy and economic plan was in place, but those with any financial knowledge can clearly see that it is not, so the “moron premium” continues to be applied.

A huge redirection of public spending from the old to the young is required. Means-testing the state pension to a level where no pensioner without a very comfortable standard of living available from independent income/ assets would save the UK around £80bn per annum. Compare that to the £5bn the Government was trying to cut from disability benefits for those of working age, and this would cause no genuine financial hardship to anybody, just a lot of shouting. Not making these completely unnecessary and unaffordable welfare payments to pensioners and instead implementing a system similar to that in Australia, which the UK should have done decades ago, would mean that the above investment in productive areas of the economy that will generate growth and improved productivity is viable while ALSO simultaneously cutting taxes significantly to generate growth and business investment, and meanwhile also make it possible to remove the opt-out from individual pension saving (a similar mandatory scheme for any self-employed people who couldn’t demonstrate an independent income should be implemented alongside). The NHS model obviously needs to be abandoned. It’s totally unsustainable and has appalling outcomes for the money spent on it both in absolute terms and proportionally to GDP: there’s a very good reason that no other country is copying it. Better health outcomes can be achieved for a comparable percentage of GDP as many other countries’ healthcare systems demonstrate to be the case.

The tax system itself in the UK is a huge drag on growth which the Government can change, but chooses not to. It’s completely irrational and independent economic research (e.g. that commissioned by Hunt to establish why UK productivity is so low (!) amoungst many other similar pieces of large scale data driven research) has shown that the nonsensical tax system in the UK is an immense drag on growth and productivity and results in lower tax revenues per unit of GDP that the tax systems in many other countries despite having higher rates of tax and - much to many people’s distaste - this also result in higher requirements for immigration because it disincentives work at multiple different levels of earnings where nonsensical disincentives kick in.

Ultimately our tax system, healthcare model, pension model, education model, economic model in terms of priorities for Government spending, our lack of support for small and medium-sized businesses which make up over 50% of our productive economy, our barriers to trade deterring investment, our ongoing lack of infrastructure investment - pretty much every aspect of our economy really - are all completely unviable for the future yet are perfectly possible to reform sensibly by looking at widely available data from the systems implemented in other countries - the evidence of what works and what does not work is available, this isn’t a mystery and we don’t have to reinvent the wheel here - and emulating it. But this won’t happen because people would rather believe in unicorns and sky fairies and shout about how “it’s not fair” if anything is changed, so it is strongly predicted that living standards will continue to decline and the UK will continue to shoot itself in the foot in this manner, and the “moron premium” will continue to be applied and probably be increased further.

None of what I’ve said would, of course, fix everything, or negate the incoming impact of the technological changes which will be hugely problematic on a societal level in terms of economics for almost every country on a scale never seen before, but fixing the fundamental basics of the economy so that it is at least viable at present by taking these obvious steps would be a start.

It won’t happen though due to the short-sightedness and pandering to particularly voter groups who shout loudly, as noted earlier in our discussion. Far easier for politicians to promise the moon on a stick and then shrug and move on when they obviously can’t deliver it because they had no intention to do so in the first place. Then the bottom feeders like Kirk attract the disaffected from the broken promises and polarise things further, and things will continue to get a whole lot worse.

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 22:37

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 22:06

No I don't think simple solutions exist that's the point. You think you could spend a morning writing a policy proposal that if followed would fix the country's problems for 15 years. Nothing is that easy.

And you talk about Kirk polarising things, but I find your posts incredibly polarising. Your views regarding this thread seem to be that there are the good people who show the proper level of hatred for Kirk, and then there are the people who dont dislike him enough who are to be treated with hostility and suspicion.

Edited

That isn’t what I said though, is it?

A PP was right. There really is no point in speaking to people who wilfully misrepresent pretty much every post someone else writes. Extremely ironic given the topic of this thread. Perhaps you’re just someone very juvenile trying to wind people up and having a good laugh that anybody’s continued responding to these plainly ridiculous posts for this long, who knows.

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 22:41

CantCallItLove · 17/09/2025 21:53

I actually don't think it's about Kirk. I think it's about trying to convince people that racist, misogynistic statements are normal and reflect commonly held views. There's a very concerted push to normalise extremist discourse, and pretending Kirk was some kind of ordinary man of the people just saying what people think is part of that. It's ridiculous, of course, and everyone - even the posters swearing black is white - knows that if you repeat Kirk's words out in public, people will be disgusted.

Absolutely. If you were to go back just a decade or two an extremist nutter like Kirk would - rightly - have been ridiculed and then ignored. He was reminiscent of the kind of people you used to see in town centres wearing sandwich boards or standing on boxes, attempting to preach their “values” very loudly at unfortunate people passing by.

It is absurd that so many people are even taking what he said and did seriously as a viable position to try to defend and it would be laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. The attempts to normalise such obvious extremism and hypocrisy are really quite shocking but clearly very deliberate given the coordinated attempts to do a similar thing in so many countries in recent years.

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 22:55

TheClaaaw · 17/09/2025 22:37

That isn’t what I said though, is it?

A PP was right. There really is no point in speaking to people who wilfully misrepresent pretty much every post someone else writes. Extremely ironic given the topic of this thread. Perhaps you’re just someone very juvenile trying to wind people up and having a good laugh that anybody’s continued responding to these plainly ridiculous posts for this long, who knows.

I think that is what you said and I'm not trying to misrepresent you. If spending a morning coming up with policies that would fix the country was that easy, why not at least try it, even if you think no one would follow it? I am kind of curious whether your plan would mirror an existing party or be something radically different.

Edit : have just seen you reply to someone else detailing that.

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 23:10

@BoredZelda

So many people claiming he has been taken out of context but not really understanding what that means. For something to actually be out of context, it means when you play/read it back with the contextualising information, it significantly changes the meaning of what was said. None of those quotes attributed to him have been significantly changed with context added.

I think many of them are drastically different when context is provided.

The stoning gays quote, he was making a point about not relying on literal interpretation of scripture, not that he thought stoning gays was a good idea.

The black pilots quote - incredibly racist with no context, but in the context of a story on an airlines DEI policy, it becomes a valid debate about inclusion vs merit.

I believe the quote about not having empathy, omits that he goes on to prefer the term sympathy.

The quote about Michele Obama et al, is presented as if he is just going after 4 successful balck women, but was actually in the wake of a court ruling on affirmartive action in colleges and a response to those specific women's comments on AA.

The even more manipulated version of that quote replaces the names of 4 specific black women with the general "black women" - drastically changing the meaning.

I think if a left wing figure died and their words were stripped of context, and in some cases altered completely. I think the anti kirk posters here would be annoyed.

TooTooMuchEverything · 18/09/2025 02:05

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 23:10

@BoredZelda

So many people claiming he has been taken out of context but not really understanding what that means. For something to actually be out of context, it means when you play/read it back with the contextualising information, it significantly changes the meaning of what was said. None of those quotes attributed to him have been significantly changed with context added.

I think many of them are drastically different when context is provided.

The stoning gays quote, he was making a point about not relying on literal interpretation of scripture, not that he thought stoning gays was a good idea.

The black pilots quote - incredibly racist with no context, but in the context of a story on an airlines DEI policy, it becomes a valid debate about inclusion vs merit.

I believe the quote about not having empathy, omits that he goes on to prefer the term sympathy.

The quote about Michele Obama et al, is presented as if he is just going after 4 successful balck women, but was actually in the wake of a court ruling on affirmartive action in colleges and a response to those specific women's comments on AA.

The even more manipulated version of that quote replaces the names of 4 specific black women with the general "black women" - drastically changing the meaning.

I think if a left wing figure died and their words were stripped of context, and in some cases altered completely. I think the anti kirk posters here would be annoyed.

He had a lot of negative things to say about people lifestyles - gay people, trans people, black people, women, abortion, education etc You can continue to be pedantic about it but his messages, the meanings of his words, were clear.

He really was the cleverest dog whistler I’ve ever heard speak.

CantCallItLove · 18/09/2025 02:35

Underthinker · 17/09/2025 23:10

@BoredZelda

So many people claiming he has been taken out of context but not really understanding what that means. For something to actually be out of context, it means when you play/read it back with the contextualising information, it significantly changes the meaning of what was said. None of those quotes attributed to him have been significantly changed with context added.

I think many of them are drastically different when context is provided.

The stoning gays quote, he was making a point about not relying on literal interpretation of scripture, not that he thought stoning gays was a good idea.

The black pilots quote - incredibly racist with no context, but in the context of a story on an airlines DEI policy, it becomes a valid debate about inclusion vs merit.

I believe the quote about not having empathy, omits that he goes on to prefer the term sympathy.

The quote about Michele Obama et al, is presented as if he is just going after 4 successful balck women, but was actually in the wake of a court ruling on affirmartive action in colleges and a response to those specific women's comments on AA.

The even more manipulated version of that quote replaces the names of 4 specific black women with the general "black women" - drastically changing the meaning.

I think if a left wing figure died and their words were stripped of context, and in some cases altered completely. I think the anti kirk posters here would be annoyed.

To your final paragraph: you wouldn't find such a litany of deeply offensive quotes from most people that sound so bigoted and apparently require an incredible amount of context and information. Most people don't say so many racist and abhorrent things in the first place.

Then, your context and information doesn't change the meaning anyway. All it does is offer a flimsy veil, as @BoredZelda has eloquently argued already, it's dog whistling.

I note you still can't defend 'prowling blacks' or 'submit to your husband' - two moments when Kirk really let the veil slip.

So, go into work and repeat Kirk's words. Bring up his talking points the same way he did, using that phrasing, in the school playground or in the changing room at the gym or at the next family gathering. When you've lost your job and everyone crosses the road to avoid you and no one invites you anywhere, bleat as much as you like about 'context' and 'valid debate'. You'll see that normal people are appalled by the things that Kirk said and the way he said them.

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 06:18

CantCallItLove · 18/09/2025 02:35

To your final paragraph: you wouldn't find such a litany of deeply offensive quotes from most people that sound so bigoted and apparently require an incredible amount of context and information. Most people don't say so many racist and abhorrent things in the first place.

Then, your context and information doesn't change the meaning anyway. All it does is offer a flimsy veil, as @BoredZelda has eloquently argued already, it's dog whistling.

I note you still can't defend 'prowling blacks' or 'submit to your husband' - two moments when Kirk really let the veil slip.

So, go into work and repeat Kirk's words. Bring up his talking points the same way he did, using that phrasing, in the school playground or in the changing room at the gym or at the next family gathering. When you've lost your job and everyone crosses the road to avoid you and no one invites you anywhere, bleat as much as you like about 'context' and 'valid debate'. You'll see that normal people are appalled by the things that Kirk said and the way he said them.

Most people wouldnt have such a list of quotes no. But most people aren't you tubers whose careers are based on discussing political issues.

So, go into work and repeat Kirk's words. Bring up his talking points the same way he did.

No because my job isn't to discuss controversial political hot topics. Just as I wouldn't repeat Kirk's talking points on American politics, I wouldn't go to work and repeat Owen Jones' remarks on Israeli genicide or James O Brian's rants about Farage.

If the temperature of political debate online were limited to what is acceptable in the average office environment, that would be quite oppressive.

I note you still can't defend 'prowling blacks' or 'submit to your husband' - two moments when Kirk really let the veil slip.

I've talked about the Kirk remarks I knew to be false or twisted. I haven't watched hours of footage to hear them all in context.

The key point here is that it is the moral responsibility of people defaming a murder victim to ensure everything they say is accurate, not the responsibility of those defending him to show nothing they said is accurate.

CantCallItLove · 18/09/2025 07:41

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 06:18

Most people wouldnt have such a list of quotes no. But most people aren't you tubers whose careers are based on discussing political issues.

So, go into work and repeat Kirk's words. Bring up his talking points the same way he did.

No because my job isn't to discuss controversial political hot topics. Just as I wouldn't repeat Kirk's talking points on American politics, I wouldn't go to work and repeat Owen Jones' remarks on Israeli genicide or James O Brian's rants about Farage.

If the temperature of political debate online were limited to what is acceptable in the average office environment, that would be quite oppressive.

I note you still can't defend 'prowling blacks' or 'submit to your husband' - two moments when Kirk really let the veil slip.

I've talked about the Kirk remarks I knew to be false or twisted. I haven't watched hours of footage to hear them all in context.

The key point here is that it is the moral responsibility of people defaming a murder victim to ensure everything they say is accurate, not the responsibility of those defending him to show nothing they said is accurate.

If you need to watch hours of footage to figure out how to argue that a phrase isn't racist or misogynist, then maybe that phrase shouldn't have been used at all. Because what will thousands of people hear? They'll hear that 'prowling blacks' are hunting white people for sport, they'll hear the message that black people are to be feared and hated, that they pose a threat, that they're animalistic and less civilised than white people. Most people are revolted by his words, but they bolster up racists and the further they're pushed and louder they're amplified, the more they can be presented as valid talking points because it starts to feel like racist ideas are more mainstream than they are.

When people hear 'submit to your husband', do they need to go and subject themselves to literal hours of Charlie Kirk to try and parse whether or not he's a misogynist? No, because someone who was not a misogynist would not hear that a woman is getting married and reply with 'submit to your husband'. All the context in the world does not twist those words into anything other than a worldview in which women are inferior to men and need to be under their command.

My point about the office environment is to underline that Kirk's views are not moderate and not mainstream. Owen Jones isn't moderate or mainstream either and I wouldn't be trying to argue that he's just a middle of the road centre left kind of guy the way posters on here are trying to portray Kirk as a totally normal mildly right-wing centrist chap talking absolutely normal common sense. I'm pointing out that his views are extreme. Owen Jones is pretty far to the left; Kirk was very far-right.

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 08:21

CantCallItLove · 18/09/2025 07:41

If you need to watch hours of footage to figure out how to argue that a phrase isn't racist or misogynist, then maybe that phrase shouldn't have been used at all. Because what will thousands of people hear? They'll hear that 'prowling blacks' are hunting white people for sport, they'll hear the message that black people are to be feared and hated, that they pose a threat, that they're animalistic and less civilised than white people. Most people are revolted by his words, but they bolster up racists and the further they're pushed and louder they're amplified, the more they can be presented as valid talking points because it starts to feel like racist ideas are more mainstream than they are.

When people hear 'submit to your husband', do they need to go and subject themselves to literal hours of Charlie Kirk to try and parse whether or not he's a misogynist? No, because someone who was not a misogynist would not hear that a woman is getting married and reply with 'submit to your husband'. All the context in the world does not twist those words into anything other than a worldview in which women are inferior to men and need to be under their command.

My point about the office environment is to underline that Kirk's views are not moderate and not mainstream. Owen Jones isn't moderate or mainstream either and I wouldn't be trying to argue that he's just a middle of the road centre left kind of guy the way posters on here are trying to portray Kirk as a totally normal mildly right-wing centrist chap talking absolutely normal common sense. I'm pointing out that his views are extreme. Owen Jones is pretty far to the left; Kirk was very far-right.

I would need to trawl hours of footage to find the exact quotes mentioned, and see what the context is. There are dozens of them and each will have 5 or 10 minutes of relevant footage around it.

My point about the office environment is to underline that Kirk's views are not moderate... Owen Jones isn't moderate or mainstream either

I dont think Kirk or OJ are moderate centrists. Kirk is right wing and Jones is left. But many of the things Kirk said that are opinions held by large bumbers of reasonable people, but are exaggerated and presented as shocking. My opinion on Kirk is and always has been that he has some deeply old fashioned and sexist views, (not that anyone seems to care what i actually think). If I point out he didn't say X that apparently means to some very angry people here that I agree with him about Y and Z.

The other difference here is if Jones died and right wing papers ran hit pieces taking his views obviously out of context, I would defend him too. (I actually used to quite like reading him back in my guardian days, but i think hes an arse now).

CantCallItLove · 18/09/2025 08:34

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 08:21

I would need to trawl hours of footage to find the exact quotes mentioned, and see what the context is. There are dozens of them and each will have 5 or 10 minutes of relevant footage around it.

My point about the office environment is to underline that Kirk's views are not moderate... Owen Jones isn't moderate or mainstream either

I dont think Kirk or OJ are moderate centrists. Kirk is right wing and Jones is left. But many of the things Kirk said that are opinions held by large bumbers of reasonable people, but are exaggerated and presented as shocking. My opinion on Kirk is and always has been that he has some deeply old fashioned and sexist views, (not that anyone seems to care what i actually think). If I point out he didn't say X that apparently means to some very angry people here that I agree with him about Y and Z.

The other difference here is if Jones died and right wing papers ran hit pieces taking his views obviously out of context, I would defend him too. (I actually used to quite like reading him back in my guardian days, but i think hes an arse now).

Agree with you on Jones for the most part, he can be extremely annoying.

I do not accept that 'prowling blacks' and 'submit to your husband' can ever be put into a context that makes them anything other than racist and misogynistic.

I also disagree with you on your defence and contextualisation' of the quotes where you apparently have watched hours of footage for. What you have discovered in your context is a paper thin defence of racist, bigoted statements that Kirk and his followers would hide behind. His insertion of a phrase like 'moronic black woman' is entirely deliberate. Yes yes, argue that oh its fine actually because he's talking about a SPECIFIC moronic black woman. He's invented her to prop up his racist talking point about DEI. He's using a phrase that racists will absolutely delight in hearing in the mainstream in order to support a wider racist argument about the need to dismantle protections against racial discrimination in the workplace. And I know how he loved to invert reality and argue that it's DEI that's racist and actually if you don't like the phrase 'moronic black woman' then aren't you the racist really? I know these arguments; I've trawled through a sickening number of them in the wake of Kirk's death. I know how racists construct their anti-DEI rhetoric and it's absolute bullshit that I'm sick of wading through on Mumsnet this past week.

This is a man who was trying to normalise that language and push through his bigoted ideas into the widest arena he could find. Your defence of him is flimsy, absurd and absolutely exhausting. The 'context' you put forwards does not change the meaning, and it's not the critics of Kirk who are misrepresenting him.

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 09:14

@CantCallItLove

I do not accept that 'prowling blacks' and 'submit to your husband' can ever be put into a context that makes them anything other than racist and misogynistic.

I didn't say they did. As for "prowling blacks" I said I hadnt looked into it, because I only have limited time, and it takes time to go through all these accusations & respond to them. And in some of the given examples, it hasn't been a question of context, it has been that someone anti Kirk literally changing the words and presenting it as a quote.

As for submitting to your husband, it is sexist in my view. Presumably its linked into the growing "tradwife" movement which is sexist and conservative in nature. But I will still correct misinformation about a murder victim with sexist views.

CantCallItLove · 18/09/2025 09:21

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 09:14

@CantCallItLove

I do not accept that 'prowling blacks' and 'submit to your husband' can ever be put into a context that makes them anything other than racist and misogynistic.

I didn't say they did. As for "prowling blacks" I said I hadnt looked into it, because I only have limited time, and it takes time to go through all these accusations & respond to them. And in some of the given examples, it hasn't been a question of context, it has been that someone anti Kirk literally changing the words and presenting it as a quote.

As for submitting to your husband, it is sexist in my view. Presumably its linked into the growing "tradwife" movement which is sexist and conservative in nature. But I will still correct misinformation about a murder victim with sexist views.

Edited

You haven't corrected misinformation; you have tried to soft soap racism and twist it into something else with very flimsy context.

You are very wrong about this: But many of the things Kirk said that are opinions held by large bumbers of reasonable people, but are exaggerated and presented as shocking. It IS shocking to say the things he said, and large numbers of reasonable people don't agree - as I keep saying, go and say that stuff out in public to normal people and see what happens.

Underthinker · 18/09/2025 09:40

@CantCallItLove
"You haven't corrected misinformation"

I have though. I'm not sure why you can't see that. I think you hate him so much you are slightly blinded to it.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread