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’ve set out examples pf some of his vile opinions about women in my previous post.

It’s obvious how he was attempting to force these views onto others. He wasn’t holding these views privately and getting on with his life peacefully in private, was he? He was a political campaigner who had set up organisations specifically to force them into public discourse and try to influence public policy in the US, thereby not just to live by these “values” himself with his wife as a willing participant (presumably) - although one would question the impact on the children being raised with such a father and witnessing such “values” in action in their parents’ relationship - but explicitly trying to force these values on others to curtail their rights through influence over public policy and law.

The 2nd one about empathy doesn’t show the whole quote he said. This is just stoking more arguments. Maybe do some research rather than using a website like that.

Exactly.

It’s a tactic used to keep people quiet.

Not so long ago if you said the Israeli government was committing atrocities people dismissed you as anti-Semitic.

“…and that Black people were better off under Jim Crow laws..”

@TooTooMuchEverythingAgain, please look at the context of what he said. His view (whether you agree with it or not) is that affirmative action or DEI statistically leads to poor outcomes for everyone. He made this comment as part of a wider discussion on meritocracy, his desire for creating a society where everyone can get ahead, based on merit not on a ‘quota’.

His point was that statistically Black people were financially better off under those laws but he clearly pointed out those laws were a bad thing.

To put his money where his mouth was, CK founded the Black Leadership Summit - a movement designed to equip young Black men so they could genuinely succeed.

You also say he was a homophobe. Again, in his videos he repeatedly welcomed gay groups to be part of TPUSA.

Snippets of quotes do no one any favours.

I am not saying I agreed with everything he said but pretty much everything I’m reading about him online is snippets of quotes taken from a much bigger conversation. Again, we might not agree with everything he said but at a bare minimum it’s only right to at least try and engage with the context of what he said.

To be clear, I wasn’t implying people on this thread have stated people should grieve for him. This comment was based on comments in some media and comments by “protesters” like those in London at the weekend many of whom held up placards about him and were trying to hold him up as some sort of martyr to freedom; most of them also probably had no idea who he was until last week, I expect.

I don’t see anybody here being “gleeful” about his death or how he was murdered. I think there is a huge middle ground, however, between condemning his murder and being expected not to critique his disgusting views which he insisted on expressing very publicly and was determined to try to push onto others, simply because he is now dead. We criticise the views and actions of many other people who have died; dying doesn’t mean you are exempt from any scrutiny or criticism of what you did in life.

Why would you not expect a genuine answer?

And yet another thread full of virtue signallers sainting Charlie Kirk now that he’s dead.

Anyone who assumes that pointing out the individual that Charlie Kirk was deserved to be shot is clearly lacking in inteligence and critical thinking skills.

nowhere on MN has anyone said that Charlie Kirk deserved to be shot. So as usual people are making shit up to suit their own agendas.

If Charlie Kirk hadn’t been shot, nobody would have been defending anything he had said. Except perhaps anything which might have been anti trans.

But now that he was murdered the same people who would have rightly criticised him in life are now throwing out the #beKind crap. Not because he was a lovely person, but because he’s dead.

He didn’t deserve to be murdered.

The individual who killed him deserves to be brought to justice.

But none of that changes the person that Charlie Kirk was in life.

If it did, then the likes of Jimmy Saville, Fred West, anyone who ever said or did anything wrong in life should automatically be forgiven those acts/words in death. No? Didn’t think so.

It’s sad for Charlie Kirk’s family.

As for the rest of us, the only reason anyone here cares is because of the views Charlie Kirk was known for having.

How many other people were shot in America last week?

Where are the threads of mass outpourings for those, some of them were children I believe?

FWIW I don’t believe that Charlie Kirk was shot for his views.

Interesting isn’t it that talk of the Epstein files has now gone quiet.

Good day to bury bad news anyone?

He is not ‘spot on there.’
in your opinion. Not mine

I agree.

The violence inherent in making a 10
year old child carry a pregnancy to full term and then give birth to it is sickening.

i highly doubt any 10 year old daughter of Charlie Kirk’s would have been made to give birth. More likely he would have very quietly, and with a great deal of secrecy, sought a termination for the pregnancy.

Because that’s how these men operate. He’s not talking about how he should live. He’s talking about how others should live.

Well said!

Buzzfeed, lol!

this post is with posting twice, at least 👍

This is not a consistent position to take, in my opinion.

Are you genuinely of the view that everybody should be able to do and say whatever they like online or otherwise and other people can just “choose not to interact with it”?

You neglect that what people do impacts everyone else in society. The Overton Window is being expanded deliberately by nefarious and disingenuous public figures and their financial backers. This impacts everyone and our future.

Should we accept paedophile activity online and tell everyone to ignore it as they don’t have to view it? How about rape porn with traffic teenage girls kept as slaves? Nobody’s forced to watch it after all, so does that mean we should just ignore harmful things and avoid them and hope they go away? This is the view you’d have to hold given your premise. It’s untenable if you wish to exist in a civilised society.

Hypocrisy needs to be called out if any freedom is to continue to exist, a fact ironically neglected by Kirk and his ilk. Meanwhile, there have to be limits to free speech - I will refer you again to the prescient comments by Justice Holmes in 1919. For it to exist at all there must be constraints. People like Kirk don’t/ didn’t appear to grasp this (or, if I’m being cynical, pretend they do not grasp it).

I have seen some of these "vile" opinions and when put in context some are certainly still not pleasant but can at least be seen for what they are.

And again no-one has made anyone watch or take part in his campus tours, pod casts or shows.
In the same way that no-one makes anyone take part in the lefts version of CK.
The main difference is that the left is more likely to prevent the rights shows from happening by forcing campus' to refuse to have the right on campus at all.
Ad we have seen this in the UK as well.

His death was absolutely abhorrent.

His views were absolutely abhorrent.

It’s perfectly possible to believe both these things at the same time.

Do you agree with everything your DH says @op? Everything your mother says? Your father? Your children?
Is anyone in your life allowed to have a different opnion on a topic?

Have I missed a post. Who has excused it?

Where’s the evidence that the cost of restricting guns is higher than the benefit? The data from numerous countries over a very long period of time indicates the precise opposite.

Equating Charlie Kirk going to campuses to politely and courteously debate with people with paedophiles and child rapists is a ludicrous position.

Deranged.

How do you suggest we bridge the gaps in opinion if you can't talk to each other like Charlie Kirk was doing (at the cost of his life)?

No one should be murdered for their beliefs but the US is obsessed with its gun culture and protecting the second amendment

Did you listen to what Charlie Kirk said about what should happen to President Biden?

A tiresome response. “Left” this, “right” that. Both terms are almost meaningless now and it’s always been the case that both extremes are just as bad as the other and virtually indistinguishable. Some reading of history books is perhaps required. As I said in my first post, all extremists are equally hypocritical and a danger to our way of life.

Do/did you agree with the #nodebate for the trans lobby?
We are still in the middle of the ramifications of that.
Debate is need at all times, that often means hearing things that we don't like.

Hypocrisy needs to be called out if any freedom is to continue to exist, a fact ironically neglected by Kirk and his ilk. Meanwhile, there have to be limits to free speech - I will refer you again to the prescient comments by Justice Holmes in 1919. For it to exist at all there must be constraints. People like Kirk don’t/ didn’t appear to grasp this (or, if I’m being cynical, pretend they do not grasp it).

I agree with most of this but it needs to be called out when either side do it.
And yes there are constraints, there is a point where what is said is illegal.
But you have linked free speech to illegal activities.

There are points at which the truth will hurt which are not illegal.
For example transwomen are men.
It is not nice (fro trans women) but it is the truth and that truth protects women's rights.
What CK said when talking about Taylor Swift was not actually incorrect, when people get married and have children often their politics change, and they go further to the right, this is documented in the same way that older people are often more right wing.
Did he go to far in saying "submit to your husband", yes he did, but it doesn't mean that everything that he said was wrong, but it was then framed in his evangelical christian faith.

Well this is a really shitty thread to start isn't it OP.

What a pleasant person you must be in real life.

people voicing conservative viewpoints is the same as images of CSA?

Its as tiresome as "Some reading of history books is perhaps required."
An indication that you believe that you are intellectually superior, when in truth its just a veiled insult to try and stop debate.

I use "left" and "right" as that is how this debate has been framed. I would think that someone of your apparent intellect would understand and yes both sides use the same tired tropes to stop the other side, including personal insults.

And what both sides also do is use soundbites and clips out of context so that people no longer use their critical thinking skills to find that actual context in which things where said and put their meanings on them.

I didn’t equate those things. This is the problem with trying to have a discussion about anything online: constantly being attacked with nonsensical responses from people with such poor reading comprehension that they evidence that they don’t understand basic sentences.

I stated that the inevitable logical conclusion of the argument to which my comment you quoted was responding - i.e. that what someone says or does online doesn’t matter because you can just choose not to look at it - would be that these things would also be acceptable: quite clearly, as explicitly stated, these examples were used to demonstrate the extreme of what such a viewpoint would justify as acceptable and why, therefore, the poster’s argument that it was fine for Kirk to say and do whatever he wanted online because people could just choose not to view it is logically incoherent, and such a position fundamentally undermines any attempt to have a decent society where everyone is safe because this can only exist when there are constraints on freedom of speech and behaviour; rights can only exist sustainably within reasonable boundaries so that the very rights that Kirk actively tried to undermine for over 50% of the population can continue to exist for everyone.

I did NOT equate in any way the views that Kirk was supporting - disgusting and internally self-contradictory as his views were - with those of paedophiles. I used this example to show that the argument the poster tried to use to justify Kirk’s behaviour could equally be employed by them to justify theirs. You should consider refraining in future from responding to posts you don’t understand and making false accusations you have fabricated in your imagination about other posters (being charitable about it) or, worse, deliberately trying to misrepresent other people’s comments.