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 think you may have understood my point as I 100% agree with your argument.

Skin colour should not be a selection criteria when it comes to job applications.

Jobs should go to the best candidate regardless of what colour their skin is.

A normal person would not care about the skin colour of the person at the controls but about their competence, as you say.

Mr Kirk expressed the opposite view that he’d be concerned about a pilot having black skin because in his opinion this would indicate they are not competent or qualified to fly the plane.

Yet all pilots have to achieve the same objectively tested level of competence in order to gain a flying licence and the same amount of flying experience and achieve the same levels of competence in ongoing safety testing in order to fly passenger jets.

Mr Kirk provided no evidence to support his assertion that pilots with black skin had not achieved the required standards in their pilot training or had worse safety records therefore there was no objective justification for his comments and they were racist.

If you have evidence that black pilots do different training and are held to different standards when assessed for their flying licences or when they do the ongoing objective assessments for safety and competence then please share it with us. Or any data indicating that pilots’ skin colour affects their competence to fly a plane safely and correlates to a higher incidence of safety incidents for pilots with some skin colours than for others.

Where is the evidence? Posters supporting Kirk’s views won’t even accept videos of him saying the things he did as evidence and demand ever more evidence so it’s reasonable to expect you to provide evidence for his assertions that you continue to defend. Where is it?

We all know why you haven’t provided it: it doesn’t exist because his “views” were unconnected to objective reality and simple racism.

I have not provided any data because black pilots aren't subject to lower safety standards or objective tests of competence or have inferior safety records.

Charlie Kirk never said that and I certainly haven't said it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/14/mississippi-abortion-ban-girl-raped-gives-birth

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ohio_child-rape_and_Indiana_abortion_case

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/florida-planned-parenthood-abortion-incest-b2202498.html

So, since all trainee pilots are indeed held to the exact same objective standards in order to qualify and, later, further objective tests they must pass to maintain their qualifications which are identical for all pilots regardless of their skin colour, why was Mr Kirk concerned about black pilots not being qualified to fly their planes competently? Unless, of course, he was a racist.

Again that's factually incorrect.

Charlie Kirk stated that if he got on a United Airlines flight then because of their 2021 DEI policy of 50% of new pilots being of colour or female then he would worried whether the pilots were not solely selected on merit but also on skin colour/ sex.

By comparison American Airlines had no such policy so it would be fair to say that their pilots were selected purely on merit and therefore their skin colour or sex was (and should be) irrelevant.

But the basic question is " do you believe that skin colour or sex has any impact on a pilot's ability to fly a passenger jet".

If no then why have it as a selection criteria. If yes then please explain why other than racism or sexism.

Because by having a selection criteria of 50% being people of colour or female then you reduce the size of the available talent pool.

Whilst I recognise that all pilots of a particular airline have to pass a minimum standard of qualification , do you believe that makes them all of the same standard or that there might some newly qualified pilots that are better than others?

Because, as I have said lots of times already, just because somebody (of any colour) meets the required minimum standard to achieve their pilots licence, that doesn't mean they are on par with every other newly qualified pilot when it comes to their skills, knowledge, comprehension, experiences etc etc .

Every pilot will have achieved the minimum required standard in terms of practical skills and required hours but that's just the baseline.

All pilots will have achieved that but they may not have done so well in the academic aspect of obtaining their course.

There will also be pilots who as well as achieving the required practical elements of the course to obtain their licence, they will also excelled at the academic aspect.

And between the worst and the best pilots in terms of academic results there will be 100's of other pilots sitting in the middle of them.

The point that Charlie was making was that a pilot who has achieved the minimum practical requirement to get their licence but didn't too well at other the aspects of the training, shouldn't be prioritised over a more well rounded-pilot (for want of a better word), just because of his skin colour.

He was saying that there was no guarantee that the pilot was given the job based on merit, i.e that out of the pool of applicants there's no guarantee that he was necessarily the best person for the job.

Of course the pilot knows how to fly the plane, that doesn't mean he was the best applicant during the interview process .

Charlie's wording was really bad as of course he knows the pilot knows how to fly the plane!!

He was just trying to make a point that if people are given jobs on criteria that isn't based on the person the best applicant, then it opens up room for doubt in people's minds about the employees abilities.

I’ve watched the clip. It seems clear to me he can’t bear the thought of “killing an innocent baby” just because it’s a child of rape and that’s where he was coming from.

It doesn’t line up with my opinion, but I can follow the conversation and see how it ends up there. Same with the car deaths vs gun deaths.

This is all very “So what you’re saying is..” rather than what he actually said.

Like Lineham said “Leftists don't make arguments; they memorise them, and apparently, stupid, ugly things are easy to remember. They "win" these arguments because civilised people don't know how to engage on such a maliciously obtuse level.”

I’m centre-left so I know it’s not everyone, but blimey.

As I said, I’ve made no comment about the merit of recruitment policies or contextual offers.

The fact remains that- which you state that you accept - that anybody recruited to the pilot training programme who turned out not to be capable of meeting the objective standards set would be fired and not qualify, and objective standards for ongoing safety training are also applied rigorously to all and not varied by the skin colour of the candidate.

Therefore, all pilots have qualified and are competent to fly meeting the same objective standards regardless of their skin colour.

Can you explain why Mr Kirk’s stated concerns about the qualification level of a pilot were valid given you accept that all pilots are subject to precisely the same tests? Do you have any data indicating that black pilots are less qualified than white ones as Mr Kirk asserted, in the absence of which his comments were quite obviously racist?

Why on earth do you keep repeating the same question when I, and others have answered you?

If you're going to keep doing it then I'm just going to keep copy and pasting my answers. It will be a lot easier for both of us.

Nobody’s said anything about “killing an innocent baby”. Neither has anybody shown any interest, I’m afraid, in the attempts of posters like you to try to reframe the discussion in terms of “left” and “right” nonsense and try to paint those challenging Kirk’s objectively misogynist, racist and homophobic “opinions” as some kind of battle with another group of people who are extremists like you and want to respresent forced pregnancy of ten year old rape victims as acceptable. We aren’t anything like you; the posters challenging these vile views that Kirk tried to enforce on the whole of society due to his religious extremism are normal people who have made reasoned and rational challenge which, of course, those supporting Kirk have no response to other than these tiresome attempts; to change the topic with whataboutery; or to attack specific posters personally; or to deny what’s already been evidenced many times in the thread; or to ignore the evidence to which they have no answer and say they’re “too busy to look at the evidence” provided while posting another 19 further comments full of nonsense over the next 24 hours, etc.

Now it’s accusations of “murdering babies”. Totally absurd and I’m afraid there’s still sufficient sanity in the UK that you won’t get away with such nonsense here.

@TheClaaaw if you are going to keep asking the same question without reading the answers then there really is no point in responding.

However your belief that skin colour or sex is a valid criteria in the selection of the best pilots is clear racism and sexism.

Because you haven’t answered the question.

Everyone can see why: it’s because you can’t, and there is no rationally coherent explanation for Kirk’s comments on this that isn’t that he was, in fact, being racist.

If you do have such an explanation then feel free to provide it, but your pathetic burbling about DEI recruitment policies is irrelevant because it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that all qualified pilots have passed the same objective tests, and that the comment of Mr Kirk’s which is in question is where he stated that he was worried that black pilots had not passed the objective tests to be qualified to do so.

Are you going to provide any evidence to support this explicitly stated view of Mr Kirk that unqualified black pilots fly planes, which you have continually attempted to defend?

I didn’t say any such thing. I specifically stated that I am making no comment at all in the merit of contextual offers in recruitment policies.

Such recruitment issues are, however, irrelevant to the discussion of the particular racist comment from Mr Kirk which is under discussion, which was an explicit statement that he was concerned that black pilots who have not passed the relevant training to fly planes safely were piloting planes.

“If I see a black pilot I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified”

Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024.

Exactly.

All of these “hypothetical” girls. 😔

Okay.

You’re clearly just banging away at your keyboard in a stream of consciousness and not actually thinking about anything at all. I’m out, enjoy yourself.

No. You just can’t formulate a coherent rebuttal.

👋🏻

Context, for what its worth...

KIRK: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."

KOLVET: But you wouldn't have done that before!

KIRK: That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.

NEFF: It is the reality the left has created.

KIRK: I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."

KOLVET: Such a good point. That's so fair.

KIRK: It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?

Budget airlines employ less experienced pilots. That’s a genuine safety concern, for sure.

Are all Ryanair pilots black? No. Do even Ryanair let any unqualified pilots of any skin colour fly their planes? No.

More whataboutery.

All pilots of all commercial jets have to pass the same objective tests to gain a licence and have to pass the same safety checks on an ongoing basis.

What factual basis did Mr Kirk have to justify his assertion that a pilot who happens to have black skin may not be “qualified” and that the fact the pilot had black skin was an indicator that this was the case? Which airline is letting pilots who have not qualified with the appropriate flying licences fly passenger jets? And only, according to Mr Kirk, letting them do so if their skin is black?

And?

Where’s the evidence for his comment about being concerned that black pilots who aren’t qualified to fly are flying planes?

It’s a very simple question, which presumably since you’ve been so keen on demanding evidence from others you’ll be able to answer with the data showing the black pilots who aren’t qualified with the relevant flying licences are flying passenger jets. Where is it?

Have you “had time” yet to look at the clip with his comment about “prowling blacks”, which you stated at 9am on 17th that you’d “look into”, and then made excuses at 9am on 18th for not having done so because you were so busy, and yet here we are a 5:30pm on 19th - around 60 hours later - and mysteriously you still don’t have an explanation for this comment that shows it is anything other than what everyone else can see it is: obviously racist.

Where’s the evidence for his comment about being concerned that black pilots who aren’t qualified to fly are flying planes?
I don't know he doesnt say that here. It must be in a separate clip. (Or another made up quote).

It’s a very simple question, which presumably since you’ve been so keen on demanding evidence from others you’ll be able to answer with the data showing the black pilots who aren’t qualified with the relevant flying licences are flying passenger jets. Where is it?
I don't remember "demanding" evidence? People have just made accusations and a couple of times I've asked which videos or transcripts they got them from.

Have you “had time” yet to look at the clip with his comment about “prowling blacks”, which you stated at 9am on 17th that you’d “look into”, and then made excuses at 9am on 18th for not having done so because you were so busy, and yet here we are a 5:30pm on 19th - around 60 hours later - and mysteriously you still don’t have an explanation for this comment
Yes I watched it yesterday & posted my thoughts on it here. Then you moaned at me earlier today about it, and I replied and told you I'd posted yesterday about it. Now I'm telling you again, I posted yesterday about it.
Let me know if I have any more homework due in, I'd hate to miss a deadline.