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

but again, so says you. Respectfully i couldn’t disagree more with your last paragraph and the fact that someone could try and impose that viewpoint on me as the ‘correct’ one is what I have an issue with. you are welcome to have that view and I’d happily debate it but personally I don’t agree

Indeed. Particularly as he strongly advocated for free speech and other freedoms of 50% of the population to be curtailed, and for them to be subjugated and made to “obey” even within their own homes.

You don’t understand what free speech is.

You’re talking about speech free of consequences. He did not deserve to die for his words, but if you are on the more extreme side with your beliefs, the consequences naturally will be more extreme. For the vast majority of people, those consequences are to be heckled, argued with, pilloried, cancelled etc, and that’s a choice a person makes. You are still free to say what you like. His death hasn’t changed that, any more than the deaths of Melissa Hartman and her husband changed the left’s ability to talk about their beliefs. Nor has the attack on Paul Pelosi, the shooting of Steve Scalise, the arson of Josh Shapiro’s home, the 3 shootings at Kamala Harrises offices, the attempted kidnapping of Gretchen Whitmer…but nobody seems to want to talk about those in this context.

I didn't write that though did i. You did

Im sad at every gun death in the USA

Quite. Not a nice man.

Of course you are welcome to debate that point and put forward your arguments to support his views about how women should be “subordinate” to men and obey them, have no financial freedom/ independence and no say even on what happens within their own homes, and explain to us why you believe this does not constitute him being a deeply unpleasant man.

Nobody’s said you can’t put forward your arguments about why you think him trying to push these views into US policy and law via public campaigning wasn’t a danger to 50% of the US population and their rights, and to explain how somebody with such publicly expressed views could keep a straight face while simultaneously arguing that rights and freedoms were being eroded (unless, of course, your accept that women are inferior beings to men so these rights should never have applied to them in the first place).

I’d be interested to hear any coherent argument for his explicitly stated views and why you disagree with me and in fact we should all consider him a great guy with totally reasonable and logically coherent opinions, and how you think his view of the ideal society being enacted would have benefitted us all. I have never heard such an argument to date so please feel free to go ahead to set it out to us all.

Nobody is suggesting, as far as I’ve seen, that you can’t make those arguments and explain why these views of Kirk are in fact logically coherent and not self-contradictory or hypocritical after all, and how you think that enacting them in law so that his worldview is forced on those who don’t share it (as he wanted - per the purpose of the political organisations he established) would be beneficial for society as a whole. Go ahead and do so if you do have a coherent defence of his position that he never managed to come up with himself while he was alive.

Meanwhile, those of us who disagree with the disgusting things that he said are perfectly entitled to continue to state this fact regardless of the fact that he was killed.

What he said is not more exteme than a lot of people.

I grew up in the republic of ireland . For a long time there, many people were against abortion in every circumstance.

Its what they are taught and it was connected with religion.

He said the same things that i have heard many people say.

I am pro choice with abortion by the way but I accept other peoples opinions. I don't think that everyone should think the exact same as me

No, the words "death of free speech" were definitely in your post at 13:42. It's here - https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5410782-charlie-kirks-beliefs?reply=147158768&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Do you not remember?

I found this article which explains why the author thought CK was actually a liberal (the classical liberal variety). Find this fascinating.
https://www.brettbonecutter.com/post/the-liberal-legacy-of-charlie-kirk?fbclid=IwdGRjcAM07MJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHoTPDDOp3Q1ri4_SPsqSuIKQgBTYr_Sen3VVnCLwVRH7D5-UU2zgiGb1sKFW_aem_3Tk9U-ZkRytuC1YaJpt0GA

"Christian Republican blogger portrays Christian Republican Charlie Kirk as the embodiment of what America is truly about".

Yes of course i remember that i wrote that. Can you try to follow?

You wrote:
Was Charlie Kirk killed for his views about free speech?

And i wrote
'I dont know. I didnt write that.'

And i didnt write that!

"Death to free speech." Is very different from "charlie kirk was killed for his views about free speech'

“Liberal legacy”!?!?

This just gets more and more insane.

This man was the absolute opposite of a liberal in any sense. Orwellian double speak.

Well I’ve seen quite a few of those videos and as far as I can remember that isn’t what he said.

I’d have to trawl through them but I know one here he said that society should be set up that if a women wants to stay at home to raise children that she should be able to and society should be set up to make that possible . He wasn’t saying all women should stay at home to raise their children. It is the context of what he said than the exact line.

but even if you think his views are unpleasant- many people still agreed with him and who are you or anyone else to say that in absolute terms he’s wrong? You can say why you believe him to be wrong and why you believe yourself to be right and you can exchange ideas but I have a massive issue when anyone unilaterally espouses they have the ‘correct’ position and everyone else is wrong.

I'll try again as you seem to be having trouble - do you see all gun deaths in the US as equivalent to the death of free speech, or a selection of them, or only Charlie Kirk's?

I am a frequent user of social media. Trans ideology barely makes to my feed. I couldn’t name a single trans activist, let alone be familiar with who they are. Charlie Kirk was featured in something pretty much every other day, and still is now. If you do actually understand algorithms and how they are used and manipulated you would understand what he did was very different from what is happening with pretty much any other subject.

Twisted? He did say gun deaths were the price of 2A. He did say life was better under Jim Crow. He did say he would force his ten year old daughter to carry a child to term if she were raped. He did say black women don’t have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. He did say women must submit to their husbands. You can “context” it til you are blue in the face. I’ve seen these entire interviews/debates where he has said those things and nothing in the context could lead anyone to think he did not believe those things. The “free speech” crowd cannot have it both ways. He was either saying things which a whole load of people find abhorrent, or he wasn’t. Why the need to paint him as something he wasn’t?

Interesting that of all those many left wing versions of him, you can’t name a single one. Of course there are people who publicly disagreed with him, his views were talked about by left wing journalists, commentators etc, but name one with his reach, his influence on the far left or even the mid left wing?

"Seem to be having trouble" . How patronising!

Gun deaths have many different reasons.

Charlie kirk was shot because of what he spoke about.

Another gun death could be because the shooter was mentally ill/ was bullied at school/ a husband shot his wife.

Not every gun death has the same exact cause as another

We’re still waiting for your explanation.

That's nice, but its already been explained.

The algorithms of SM are IMO a massive danger as eventually you will be in your own echo chamber of views. I would love to see it change but I doubt that it will happen.

I'm not painting him as something people shouldn't find him abhorrent.

I'm saying that before you make the decision you should find out the context in which it was said.

There are far too many people posting soundbites and "quotes" without the context.

It has surprised me that he is supported by so many people of different types, including those that he is supposed to be racist, homophobic, transphobic and misogynistic against. It takes all sorts.
None of this means that I would support him or want him as a friend, But I do believe the more that people talk the fewer deaths there will be.

If he were simply anti abortion, you’d have a point. He was way to the right of that.

I never had any issue with Charlie Kirk holding his beliefs, his right to espouse them, even his use of social media as a megaphone. He absolutely had the right to do all that. My issue is that people now want to paint him as something he wasn’t. They are softening the edges he spent his career sharpening. They seem embarrassed to admit how extreme he was in many of his views, probably because they agreed with his less radical views. They are making out his willingness to “debate” made him somehow open minded. His “debates” were often disingenuous and about speaking to his audience rather than actually engaging in debate. If you follow any of his content about his debates, he would post clips which are simply him re-affirming his views, rather than any type of actual debate. If people want to support him, that’s absolutely fine, but why re-write his history?

The history book comment also struck me. Philosophically, being human is a subjective experience (as I think CK noted in his views on empathy), even your objectivity comes from a subjective assessment which is only highlighted when 'objectivities' differ.

What I saw of CK I found fascinating and enjoyed it when he met a decent protagonist, others seem to have found him dangerous.

I agree with pp that he would have changed with age, (and the challenges of parenthood), but we'll never know.

I wish people would expand on this out of context thing. Not knowing an awful lot about him, I would like to know the context in which he said these things that would in any way, make them anything but abhorrent.

I’m not interested enough to go listen to hours if what be actually said so a summary would be helpful.

The left don’t misquote out of laziness. It’s a well-honed technique. They use it on everyone - especially on Britain’s national heroes. I remember some smug left-wing bully telling me that Churchill supported dropping poisoned gas on “rebellious natives.” What Churchill actually suggested was tear gas, something governments use to this very day. She had got the quote from a history book that set out to demolish Churchill. The author knew what Churchill meant, but deliberately misrepresented him to make him look as bad as possible.

The left have started doing this with great authors as well. They find a quote that makes them look bad, then do the usual fake outrage thing and scream and shout and demand their books be banned in schools or removed from the university syllabus. Rinse and repeat until the canon has been destroyed.

Who did he humiliate? And how did he humiliate them?

What you’re seeing will be for you though. It was easy to not know of CK before his assassination.