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

Trans women are biological men. This is a scientific fact.

Were Kirk’s views that women are inferior to men and black people were inferior to white people scientific facts, or simply misogynism and racism?

I see. So people are meant to look at what Mr Kirk actually said, then assume that he must have meant something different which he didn’t say because if he had meant what he actually said then as you admit it would show he was stupid and a racist, so therefore he must - allegedly, according to you - have meant something entirely different to what he said, and we should all have inferred some other different meaning instead of the meaning of the words he used and be pretending that he said something else instead.

OK then. Careful not to pull muscles which engaging in these mental contortions, they look painful.

if Charlie Kirk wasn’t a racist why did he say “you had to go steal a white persons slot” rather than “you had to go steal a better qualified persons slot” ?? The veneer is paper thin and I see white supremacy underneath. Interesting to note Michelle Obamas lengthy list of qualifications in contrast to Kirk’s non existent ones. Hypocrisy incarnate

It really doesn't matter to me what you think of Charlie because you are entitled to think and feel however you like. Your opinion on him makes no difference to my life and nor should it.

I'm pretty sure that nobody else has an opinion on what you think of Charlie either. Your thoughts and your opinions are your own to have.

Nobody's life is affected by how you interpret the things Charlie said or did.

Everybody respects the fact that you have the right to like or dislike whoever you want, for whatever reason you have to feel that way.

Which is exactly how it should be because everyone is entitled to their own opinion about anyone.

So how about you offer everyone else the same courtesy and stop caring what they think or feel?

Nothing you say is going to change anyone's opinion on him so just let it go,

You don't like him - fine.
Other people do like him - also fine.

@Circularmadness he said that because the point about DEI was that it was about skin colour rather than qualifications. If it was about qualifications it would be selecting on merit, immaterial of skin colour.

DEI upended this and Kirk’s point was not that DEI hires are necessarily less qualified but that it makes people suspect they might be.

Yeah he didn’t say the best qualified though did he? He said it was a white persons slot. 🙄

He literally said “If I see a black pilot I’m like, boy, I hope they’re qualified”.

As you know because it’s been quoted many times and a video clip of him saying it provided.

Will no-one think of the poor bigots! 😐

Funnily enough, i can quite easily have conversations with people who have conservative values without calling them sexist or racist… unless they say sexist or racist things.

Yes, because he was saying it in response to the fact that DEI had said that people of black skin colour would be hired over other candidates in order to meet a quota. (i.e they would be given jobs ahead of white people).

It wasn't Charlie who first started bringing skin colour into the whole debate about which candidates would be given priority when it came to allocating jobs.

In relation to calling out Michelle Obama as being an DEI, right? She earned her bachelor’s degree from Princeton and then earned her law degree from Harvard.

Charlie Kirk couldn’t even graduate from community college. So it’s strange to hear him mention a person that graduated from not one…. but TWO IVY LEAGUE schools.

Newsflash: There’s no such thing as a DEI degree. You have to pass your classes and get the job done.

The desired outcome of DEI policies with quotas based on skin colour will be that minorities are hired over white people. That's why he talked about white persons slot. If a black pilot was hired over another black pilot, then the affirmative action policy had no effect so was irrelevant to the conversation.

No. All viewpoints aren’t equal. Some are racist, misogynistic, homophobic and involve deliberately inflicting abuse on small children. These are - rightly - challenged due to their deeply unpleasant nature and logical incoherence. When someone makes a career of campaigning to restrict the rights of others to hold different views to them and make different choices then it’s completely appropriate for their views to be challenged, which is precisely what’s happened on this thread. Mr Kirk wasn’t happy to abide by your prescription of everyone being allowed to pursue their own choices in peace in their private life: quite the opposite. He wanted to mandate in law that everyone must be forced to follow his beliefs via his political organisations. This is what made him so dangerous and why people who care about rights and freedoms had to stand up to his abhorrent views.

I have stated repeatedly in this thread why for rights and freedoms to exist at all they must necessarily be constrained to the extent that one person exercising theirs doesn’t cause significant and unacceptable harm to others or restrict the same rights and freedoms of others to exercise the same rights and freedoms that they want for themselves. This is the balance necessary for a free and democratic society to exist otherwise all rights and freedoms vanish when they begin being applied selectively to specific groups or removed arbitrarily to suit one specific group’s preferences or prejudices beyond the necessary boundary of constraint set out above which must be the limit of restrictions; this is the underlying principle upon which all western democracies are based and which has been expressly clarified in US law by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago as well as in other countries. It is a well-understood concept except, apparently, by the likes of Kirk.

Mr Kirk did not respect this boundary of necessary constraint: simultaneously he tried to claim that free speech was undermined because it wasn’t absolute (it never has been) meanwhile he was deliberately attempting to erode and outlaw rights and freedoms for those who didn’t comply with his own personal world view, far beyond the boundary of necessary constraint upon which all laws are based (hence you not being allowed to kill or hit others or discriminate against them based on arbitrary characteristics or demand they observe your religion etc).

The gaslighting involved in trying to claim that the posters criticising Kirk are demanding everyone comply with their preferences when this is precisely what Kirk was doing and why people have objected to his behaviour is quite something. Mr Kirk’s views were objectively incoherent and most people would find them disgusting but had he practiced them solely in his private life with other consenting adults I doubt anybody would have cared. The precise problem was him trying to force them onto everyone else, even the victims of child rape, by trying to get them mandated in law for the whole of society, which would have resulted in a society not dissimilar from what you see in various other countries which are run by other religious extremists inflicting their views on everyone else by force.

Misogyny, bigotry and racism bothers me yes. Should it not bother us all? Would the world not be a better place without such hateful intransigence beliefs?

Are there no other races? It’s not a “white persons slot” it’s surely the best qualified persons slot. He was specifically talking about 3 VERY qualified black women in relation to this quote and suggesting they were DEI. Are you suggesting he sat in on the interviews and saw that more qualified white people were passed over for their roles??!!!

Exactly. It’s not about having a difference of opinion. The faux ignorance and wilful blindness in this thread is quite something!

There’s no such thing as a DEI degree? How did George Abaraonye get into PPE at Oxford with ABB at A level and how many Chinese Indian or Jewish kids got with those results.

Oxford make offers based highest academic potential not necessarily current grades. Same as other universities they take into account factors such as socio-economic disadvantage and school performance. It’s not a black v white student issue.

As I've said before, this is YOUR interpretation of him, which is why you don't like him. Absolutely fine!

Not everyone has the same opinion as you and view him differently - also fine.

@Parker231 the minimum entrance grades for PPE are listed as a relatively modest “AAA” which gives plenty of scope for contextual offers (typically a grade below). They offer 200 places with 1500 applicants, the vast majority of whom will be predicted at least 3 A*s.

Have you read @TheClaaaw ’s latest post?

You seem to not be understanding that this isn’t about tolerating certain opinions. Kirk was attempting to force his extreme misogynist and bigoted beliefs onto others. There is a reason why people are rightfully speaking out against such harmful ideology. It is not about ‘not liking’ the man - it is about hating the extreme beliefs he wanted to enforce, such as forced pregnancies for rape victims including children. Any moderate, reasonable person would find such views problematic at least.

His abhorrent views are objectively racist, misogynist and bigoted. It is not my ‘interpretation’ of them. If you can’t see this I can’t help you, you are wilfully blind.

Did he not pass the same exams as everyone else to pass his degree?

British pupils of Asian descent actually tend to outperform academically compared to white British people and have parents who value education very highly and will, in many cases, scrimp and save to send them to private schools or live in catchments for the very best state schools, so it’s more likely to be predominantly white people from disadvantaged backgrounds who receive contextual offers from Oxford. Never mind, eh?

"His abhorrent views are objectively racist, misogynist and bigoted"

In your opinion. As I keep saying.

It’s not opinion. It’s fact.

How is campaigning for women to not be allowed to have autonomy over their bodies, to have to go through the trauma of a forced pregnancy by rape, not misogynistic? How is not allowing children to have an abortion following rape, and putting them through further trauma of childbirth, not misogynistic? How is demanding women to ‘submit’ to their husbands not misogynistic?

It’s a shame, isn’t it, that Mr Kirk was not a proponent of your “live and let live” philosophy, and was trying to mandate his views in law so that others were forced to comply with his personal beliefs. If you believe that everyone should have the same rights and freedoms to practice their own beliefs/ live by their own values as long as they aren’t harming anybody else then you fundamentally disagree with Mr Kirk and agree with those of us who have criticised Mr Kirk.