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

@TheClaaaw I have no problem with contextual offers whatsoever and think they’re a good thing, as long of course that they are based on circumstance and not skin colour. ABB for PPE at Oxford is unheard of for a contextual offer.

@Plastictreees How was Charlie Kirk attempting to “force” his ideas on anyone?

Exactly. Why even mention the person’s skin colour if the issue is about their qualifications?

Why talk about a “moronic shop assistant” being a black woman, unless he believed her skin colour noteworthy in this context and somehow connected to his belief that she was “moronic”?

Why make a comment about “prowling blacks” if concerned about crime and the demographic profile of violent offenders when it is well established that the characteristic by far most highly correlated with violent crime across history and in all countries for which data exists including the US is being male, not skin colour.

Very strange comments indeed, which so far nobody has been able to provide any rational explanation for other than the person making these comments was in fact, very obviously, racist.

@AzurePanda If you read @TheClaaaw ’s recent post, it is explained very well how Kirk was trying to get his beliefs mandated in law.

@AzurePanda

Oxford has never issued any contextual offers based on skin colour as far as I’m aware. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise?

Actually, I know several people who were given places with grades of ABB and one with BBB due to extenuating circumstances around the A-level exam time. All of those I happen to know who got in with below-par grades are white, but that may be a coincidence. It does, however, somewhat disprove your conjecture that Oxford is basing its entry criteria on skin colour. Did you go to Oxford?

Oh I thought we were still on the pilots, but you are talking about Michelle Obama etc. He said they were DEI admissions because it was a week where they had all come out and made statements and talked about getting unto college via affirmative action. There had been a supreme court ruling against affirmative action in colleges that week, and these women had spoken out against it.

In the week it was filmed in the US it made sense and everyone would have known what he was talking about, in the UK 2 years later it seems like he was randomly picking on intelligent black women.

I'm someone who has had a termination in the past and I still didn't find offence at his views. I understand that some people believe that life starts at conception (no matter how conception occurred) which is why they (and Charlie) don't agree with termination. I accept that's their opinion. Just because I don't agree with Charlie doesn't mean I have to find him a misogynistic and hateful personal.

And I don't remember ever hearing him saying anything about women needing to submit to their husbands. Happy to be corrected if you have a youtube clip that shows him specifically saying these words.

And even if he did say that, I still accept that its just his opinion. I wouldn't agree with it, but again, that doesn't mean I'd automatically find him hateful and misogynistic.

Every single person who campaigns for something is using their personal beliefs to try influence policies in some way or another. That's hardly a new concept.

What Charlie used to express were just his personal opinions and millions of people all over the world probably have the exact same ones.

You have your opinions and they have theirs.

The only difference is that Charlie got killed for having his.

I just can't get my head around the idea that unless you 100% agree with everything that someone says then they should be written off?

There's so much middle ground.

I just don't get it.

@LondonLady1980 You continue to miss the point. If Kirk got what he wanted, you would not have been able to have the termination. He wanted to get his beliefs mandated into law, which has been explained to you several times. It’s not only that his beliefs are misogynistic and racist, but his aim was to force them onto the population.

If you want to read and hear more of Kirk’s racism, misogynistic and bigoted beliefs they are all over the internet for you to see. They are also throughout this thread.

You have also provided no coherent argument as to why those things Kirk wanted - e.g forced pregnancies - are not misogynistic.

Of course I know that.

I have spent years watching CK online - and I'm sorry that I don't feel the same way about him as you do.

There is nothing else to say.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWD7aKjIL9E&pp=ygUjY2hhcmxpZSBraXJrIHN1Ym1pdCB0byB5b3VyIGh1c2JhbmQ%3D

You agree he is a misogynist then, and you’ve spent years listening to his hateful rhetoric. This sounds incredibly damaging. Best of luck to you.

Thank you 👍

It’s strange, isn’t it, how apparently some parts of the Bible are so very important and others can be conveniently ignored, yet such posters have accused others here of “cherry picking things”. Quite amusing.

The fundamental message conveyed by Jesus according to the stories in the Bible was that people should give up their material wealth/ worldly possessions and help the poor. It’s mysterious that so many allegedly dedicated “Christians” choose to hoard wealth instead, Mr Kirk being no exception of course.

Observations of such hypocrisy always remind me of this scene from Borat showing the reactions of the members of the “evangelical Christian” congregation to finding an apparently homeless man on the steps of their church on a Sunday morning: stepping around him like he had the plague, stepping over him as though he was a sub-human and a piece of trash in their way, their looks of pure disgust at his presence. Not one of them asked if he was ok or showed any concern for him.

The version of “religion” adopted by people like this is to go to church and declare their faith performatively once per week, shout loudly about their so-called “values” and then they can pat themselves on the back and go home again to continue living lives which exemplify values that are the complete opposite of “kindness”, “respect for all”, “love they neighbour”, “sell everything you own and give to the poor”, “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves”, “anyone who has two shirts should share with one who has none”, “if anyone with earthly possessions sees a brother in need, but witholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God abide him?” etc. Just like Kirk, it is all about shouting very loudly about their own supposed “virtue” while being a hypocrite of astonishing audacity. It’s always the same with these extremist religious zealots.

Misogyny, bigotry and racism bothers me yes.

Oh the cognitive dissonance! O tempora, o mores!

Only Joy Reid explicitly said she got in via affirmative action!! Kirk's quote twists this by claiming "they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us," but only one (Reid) fits that description precisely. The others were defending the policy in general terms. Yet here you are saying “they all” - they didn’t. Can you find any evidence where Michelle Obama (or Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson) say THEY were DEI???
Kirks baseless assumptions on qualifications are dangerous and racist. He had no evidence that these women were under qualified or "stole" spots. He assumed their success was due to race-based policies without knowing their admissions details

Yes i saw the Reid speech on it. Perhaps I misremembered Obama, I read her article and saw that Brown and Jackson Lee had also written on the topic. I apologise for wrongly stating they all had direct experience of affirmative action, thanks for pointing that out.

But I don't think it changes the overall point. Kirk mentioned those women because they had recently spoken for affirmative action at the time of the episode.

He had no evidence that these women were under qualified or "stole" spots.
It's not about being under qualified, Kirk's view on affirmative action is that if you would have got in anyway, AA was unnecessary and if you wouldn't, then its unfair. Those are the 2 options.

I'm less convinced, I think it's a controversial policy, it aims to fix a specified injustice by creating other (hopefully smaller) ones, but its hard to quantify whether the pros outweigh the cons. In general the kind of AA that is about outreach and encouraging under represented groups to start on the path to a career or course, is better than hard quotas. Kirk, I presume, also thought the same as there are testimonies from young black influencers who Kirk mentored or helped into leadership programmes. I wonder if he saw a contradiction between this and his dislike of DEI?

I wasn't told thay by Kirk. On 1st watch the names he picked seemed random to me, apart from Reid, whose speech was edited into the show (either by Kirk or by whoever made the repackaged version criticising him). Then I saw the others had written or given interviews about affirmative action around the time of the show and the supreme court ruling.

Also its worth pointing out, that not everyone who benefitted from affirmative action will know that they did. This is another of Kirk's arguments against AA, and one made several black conservatives, because it leaves people unsure of what was achieved solely on their own merit.

Ok, but Kirk does falsely accuse them of admitting they were. He repeatedly names them. You also believed they were. He is distorting the truth and manipulating it. It’s propaganda.
He makes the leap to saying that these highly educated and successful women “don’t have the brain processing power” FFS when did this become ok? He’s not just trashing DEI, he’s trashing them.

And further than that, that they are only there because the have “stolen a white persons slot”

In the original version I saw, between the section naming the 4 women, and the brain power insult, there was a clip of Reid saying she got into college through AA, and then it cut back to CK and the insult seemed clearly addressed to her.

In other edits made by Kirk critics, and in the quotes widely circulated in the press, that clip is removed. In the Guardian it is replaced by an ellipsis (...). The meaning is changed by the removal.

Earlier in this thread, and the reason I bothered to get involved in it, the sequence was distorted even further to say "Black women lack brain processing power", and I have seen this misquote appear in various places online. This is the pattern, that I see over and again, Kirk had said something reasonably controversial, the press have quote it stripped of context and making it sound even more controversial and then social media has run with it and twisted it even further and made it sound even worse.

The mental gymnastics. The link I posted above has the full video including the one of Reid but he absolutely states ALL of their names and states that “They” are DEI and “They” don’t have the brain processing”. The fact that you also believed they were all DEI is testimony to the fact this disinformation works. Stop trying to pivot away from what he has done here. Why don’t you acknowledge his twisting of the reality? It truly seems as though it’s blind devotion.

Hardly blind devotion. I've said many times i agreed with some things he said and disagreed with others. I came in here to correct a blatant misquote on that clip, in doing so I tried to make sense of it which was quite hard to do in a different place and time and with multiple differently edited versions floating about.

When you corrected me I thanked you.
When I corrected the original very blatant misquote on this thread, people doubled down and insisted they could hear words in the video thaat werent there. And called me racist for defending Kirk.

Indeed. This poster has been doing this for pages now. Firstly saying they had not read or seen Kirk’s racist statements and views, eventually then changing tack and minimising, deflecting and twisting facts. There is so much racism denial on MN recently and this is another example of this. It’s wilful blindness, impossible to reason with such illogical intransigence.

Firstly saying they had not read or seen Kirk’s racist statements and views, eventually then changing tac

Yes before I had read the thing you were talking about, I hadn't read it. After I read it, I had. How dishonest of me.