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

The other side?

Yeah, people who aren’t bigots do in fact tend to think bigotry is evil, funnily enough.

Or are you meaning political leaning - because if so you’re basically saying that anyone with right wing views is a bigot tbh.

Bear in mind, we’re not discussing a politician here, just an influencer. His views were his, not party policy.

How can any woman be ok with our daughters being told this by Kirk. It’s grooming, patronising and sexist. I will never support the dumbing down of a population despite what the right pushes. Please encourage your girls to become educated and then they will have the freedoms to choose the right relationships. Submitting to men is a dangerous rhetoric even when it seems convincing when delivered by the silken spoken Kirk 🤢 www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/charlie-kirk-girl-college-mrs-degree-video-b2773303.html

Or are you meaning political leaning -
Yes. But it applies to any ideological divide.

because if so you’re basically saying that anyone with right wing views is a bigot tbh.
No I'm not basically saying that.

But you are.

Or there’s no divide.

You might need to explain your point further.

@Plastictreees You said you cannot claim to value women’s rights and defend someone like Kirk - well a lot of people would say that you cannot claim to value women’s rights if you believe a trans woman is a woman. Where do you stand on this?

I dislike polarisation and divides, I’m also not a fan of labelling people into ‘left’ and ‘right’ and using lazy stereotypes.

Again you aren’t answering the question. Why are you supporting and defending Kirk, whose views are damaging to humanity as a whole? Someone who promotes forced abortions, and believes women should submit to men. I do not endorse misogyny, bigotry or racism of any kind - regardless of who says it, or what ‘side’ they are. I hate these views as I believe society would be a more peaceful place without them. You seem to be focused on trying to ‘win’ an argument over the internet rather than actually thinking about what you’re saying. As what you’re saying makes little sense.

People dislike Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric because it’s full of racism and misogyny - not because he was right wing. He wasn’t a politician, just a podcast bro and professional grifter.

So the actual divide is bigotry and people who are against bigotry.

Any other divide you think exists means you’re classing whatever side it is you think you’re defending as bigots.

You are fixated on going around different threads and de-railing them by centering the trans debate. I’m not giving you a platform I’m afraid and won’t be engaging with you further.

Exactly this.

Bingo! The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is real.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Can you stop saying I don't answer questions when I have answered every single one directed at me? It's a bit hypocritical when you got asked one short question on trans issues and refused to engage.

I think this post neatly sums up the polarisation of current politics which is sadly creating political violence.

Your view is that the debate is between those who are against bigots and those who are bigots or between good and bad or good and evil.

Naturally you see yourself as on the good side. Except you aren't willing to comprehend that those on the other side view your views as the bigots or the bad guys.

For your own good instead of dismissing and trying to shout down opposing views as racist or sexist or Nazis or fascists on social media try to discuss your views calmly and rationally face to face with real people.

You still haven’t answered why you are defending bigoted views? Yet claim to be pro choice and a leftist?

You simply don’t have an argument. You are just being contrarian and argumentative for the sake of it. You have not formed any logical coherent response as to why you are defending someone who promoted bigoted, misogynistic and racist views.

Quite.

There seems to be this simple idea from either side....

One side thinks that if you do hate Charlie Kirk you're a bad person.
The other side thinks if you don't hate Charlie Kirk you're a bad person.

Ergo everyone on the plant is bad?

Why does everyone have to 100% feel one way or the other about him?

Why do both sides think they are the only ones who are right and feel such vitriol towards people who don't agree with them?

It really isn't that black and white.

Why aren't people allowed to agree with some aspects of what he says but disagree with other things that he says? Since when do people have to either agree with 100% of everything that someone says or 100% disagree with them?

I imagine that when it comes to us electing our Prime Minister not many people agree 100% people with everything the person they vote for stands for.

No amount of arguing on this thread is going to change anyone's opinion on Charlie Kirk, and that's ok.

It's fine to like him and it's fine not to like him.

Surely that's all that needs to be said?

Exactly.

No one here has stated they hate Kirk. We hate the rhetoric he promoted and the bigoted, racist and misogynistic things he stood for. Including the removal of women’s rights and forced abortions for rape victims including children. There seems to be an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance in claiming to be a feminist, whilst defending someone who stood for the removal of womens rights and body autonomy.

If someone agrees with Kirk’s views, they should have the balls to own it rather than obfuscate and claim he’s been ‘misquoted’ and ‘misunderstood’.

I don't think I have defended bigoted views. I've defended a person whose views you think are bigoted. I think he has some sexist conservative attitudes rooted in his upbringing and religion, but then so do a large percentage of people on the planet, and it seems a bit hard work to hate them all.

I haven't bothered reading the quotes as they are no doubt part of a longer debate that have been selected to fit a particular narrative. I am going to do a bit of research of my own but from what I have been told he always encouraged an active debate. Inviting people to put their side across he would challenge their views while inviting people to challenge his. Like I say though I will do my own research but one thing I will say, celebrating the death of a man who was assassinated in front of his children is just about as low as you can get

This is what I did and I found some things that made me like him less and some things that made me like him more. But like you say you need to make up your own mind.

Why hate anyone at all? I prefer to hate harmful bigoted rhetoric, personally. Especially when it is being spread over a large platform. You are being wilfully blind and will continue to deny that Kirk’s well documented views are exactly what they are - racist, misogynistic and bigoted.

@Plastictreees I am pro choice but I’m happy to hear Charlie Kirk’s views on this and a lot of other issues I disagreed with him on. I found him personable and admired his willingness to have an open debate.

Like it or not you likely live near and work with people who have all sorts of different views from yours, from abortion to the roles of men and women, homosexuality and a lot of other issues. Many of these views will likely be inspired by religious teachings. This doesn’t bother me in the slightest. It seems to bother you.

I think if you and others on this thread really just hated the "harmful" rhetoric and not the person, you would let it die with him. Instead you scour 15 years of his videos for statements that can be packaged and taken out of context to sound as inflammatory as possible, hold them up, broadcast them, maximising the supposed "harm". Then lecture people on what a horrible bigot he was and we shouldn't be sad that he's dead.

With this conduct I find it impossible to believe you are against polarisation and division. You can't see a middle ground where CK was flawed like anyone else, had some good qualities and some bad, some useful insights and some blindspots. He is an evil bigot and anyone who even points out a misquote is supporting evil and bigotry.

You interpret his views as being bigoted, racist and misogynistic, and therefore you dislike him - and that's fine.

Other people don't view him like that and that's fine too.

Why does it matter what other people think?

Why can't you just feel the way you feel about him and let other people feel how they feel?

Why does everyone HAVE to feel the same way that you do?

Why does it anger you this much that not everyone agrees with you?

I just don't get it.