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 must have seen the "empathy" quote abused 100 times this weekend. People really have been radicalised.

He said all of the things I said in my post.

You can try to find other things he said that you agree with to attempt to paint him as a nice and reasonable man, if you wish. How ironic that the OP was accused of cherry picking quotes but you’re attempting to defend a man based on cherry picked things he said you agree with and ignoring a large amount of other things that he said repeatedly in public and elaborated upon in detail.

I and other posters have set out despicable things that he did unequivocally argue for - not as private views he should be able to hold himself, but as matters that he believed should be public policy/ law and thereby should be enforced on everyone else in the US hence his political campaigning and the lobbying organisations that he set up for this specific purpose - so if you want to defend the man’s political views then put forward a coherent argument that defends them in total, not the selective parts you’ve chosen, and then we can all respond to it. He never managed to do so while alive, but perhaps you can.

I won’t be in my own echo chamber as I seek out views which differ from my own. I have watched a lot of Kirk’s content one way or another.

The phenomenon of him being supported by people whose rights he would like to remove is not unique to him. Trump also has similar, but this is where people hold on to one part of his ideology they support, ignoring another part they just don’t believe he actually means. The Latino vote was huge for him mainly because he has “Christian” views and traditionally Latino countries are very conservative. They just didn’t believe he was going to come in to power and release ICE into the streets to hang about schools in certain areas on the first day back to pick up Latina parents dropping off their children. School teachers in the Deep South who just didn’t believe he was going to remove federal funding from their low income schools.

It’s a bit like people I hear saying they will no longer support Labour because of where they stand on the trans issue. They might go to Conservatives or Reform instead, even though doing so would be a massive self own. Like the people who voted for Brexit to “take control of our borders” when statistically they were always going to be financially way worse off in the short to medium term in a way that makes life really hard for them.

You are missing the point though. I don’t agree with all his views . But again, he’s allowed to have them and espouse them to be public policy. He shouldn’t have to keep them in his head and not say them just because other people have determined that they are no ‘acceptable’ views.

if he put forward those views as public policy and the public votes for them then they are the prevailing views. Now this would be unlikely as in general, society converges to the centre as the majority of people have, on average, a centre view. But if people like CK want to promote an extreme left of right wing position they can.

I found most stuff Jeremy Corbyn espouses absolute rubbish. I do agree with him on allotments but not a lot else. We couldn’t be more unaligned. I think if a society was based on his views it would be horrendous. But he absolutely is right to have those views, promote them, gather support of them and influence government policy based on them. I personally think he’s wrong but I see him as a comparator to CK. no one is suggesting Jeremy Corbyn should keep his views in his head.

I agree people can’t say don’t speak. From whichever place people are coming from.

So you have no explanation. You can’t name a single sentence that allegedly fits your pretend description of “word salad” and is not understandable to anybody with a basic grasp of English, or a single word that apparently, according to the other weird poster, is something one would expect to see in an astrophysics dissertation. Understood: just a random attack on someone who didn’t agree with you then, like your earlier tiresome attempts to try to divide the discussion into “left” and “right”. 🥱

My parents in their late 70s are only vaguely aware of US politics. They aren’t massive users of social media, just a bit of facebooking. They knew who Charlie Kirk was. I was surprised, but somehow he made it to their far flung corner of rural North East Scotland. I’m going to assume it was their Daily Mail habit but who knows. I wouldn’t quite say you’d have had to be living under a rock, but you’d definitely have been rock adjacent.

What is crazy is going to google to find the "Empathy" quote in it's full context and it's almost impossible to find.

To paraphrase:

I don't like the word empathy, it's a new age word that does a lot of damage, I prefer the word sympathy.

Where does anyone say he shouldn’t have been able to say the things he did?

I’m not that age and use mn and IG and didn’t know of him at all until his death.

The difference is, when Melissa Hortman died, there wasn't a sizeable minority of the American and British public who were pleased or who thought it was to some extent justified. We weren't arguing about the context of the things she'd said to figure out whether the assassin had a bit of a point.

Kirk changes things because too many ordinary people are showing they are happy about it. An even larger number of people will make a token nod to say his death was wrong, but then will share misinformation to do their best to make you hate him as much as they did.

They are happy to say Kirk died becaue he was a fascist. They are also happy to call anyone who disagrees a fascist. Which puts a lot of people in the potential firing line.

Did you read the blog? He is talking about classical liberalism and provides a chart explaining the difference between that and neo liberalism. In short, classical liberalism is about maximising individual freedom while minimising coercive power of the state.

The article explains this. I shared it because some people wish to paint CK as a fascist when everything he espoused is classical liberalism.

@TheClaaaw
You mentioned that all the Kirk quotes provided were true and you seem to believe context is irrelevant. Can I ask you about your statement from earlier today?

"women should be “subordinate” to men, defer to men, men should control all finances and women should have no financial freedom."
The Claaaw 15/09/25

I find your views frankly disappointing.

Again, I’ve already answered every point you are making and in fact stated in my earliest posts on this thread that all extremists of all persuasions of alleged justifications are dangerous to our way of life. I’ve said repeatedly, someone at least needs to manage to espouse a viewpoint that isn’t inherently self-contradictory if they wish to push it to be public policy otherwise it will not work and will collapse. All extremists are guilty of this.

Your point about society converging on the centre is precisely what these extremists are attempting to manipulate by convincing others that won’t notice the logical incoherence of the extreme views they are espousing to move further towards extremes and expand the Overton Window, as I said earlier. This is what is dangerous and what they have done in every country where they’ve taken over via elections, gradually, like boiling a frog. This is also why the mantra of “lots of people agree” is dangerous because, as history evidences so clearly, lots of people are gullible and easily led and don’t realise the ramifications until it’s too late and a fait accompli.

We ignore the lessons of history at our peril. All extremists are a huge danger to society and if you start to measure what is reasonable or “centrist” with reference to these extremists’ views then it becomes a nonsense. What is reasonable is what is rational and logically coherent and not self-contradictory or ideological or motivated by unnecessarily controlling other people who are doing no harm to anybody else.

He said a lot of things! It was literally the point of him.
Someone upthread said he humiliated people. Obviously one clip doesn’t prove anything but I think this is a lovely interchange. Respectful and genuine.
m.youtube.com/shorts/FhzqKQzueKU

I’ve provided a bit of context a few times in this thread but ok, here’s one to help.

There’s a CK quote circulating that ‘Black people were better off under Jim Crow/segregation/slavery laws’.

This was part of a discussion in 2018 which began with CK denouncing that period of history as evil. What followed was a debate about affirmative action or I guess what we would call DEI. CK’s argument was that according to FBI/historical records, living and welfare rights for Black Americans actually decreased after affirmative action was brought in.

He argued that a heavy welfare state led to increased crime, incarceration and overall worse outcomes. He argued that affirmative action was making things worse to the point that statistically, Black Americans were apparently ‘better off’ under segregation. He wasn’t arguing for a return to those evil days instead he was arguing for a meritocracy where roles are awarded on merit, not on race.

Now you can easily pick that argument apart if you come from a different worldview. CK believed in ‘the American dream’ where hard work provides reward, regardless of your race, background etc. If however you believe the world is structurally racist and means that no person of colour can ever succeed (because the odds are stacked so highly against them), then you can argue the opposite.

I don’t know enough about the discussion to comment either way but the point is, out of context it’s like he was saying ‘let’s go back to Jim Crow’ days but in context, it’s a much better discussion about how to best better the lives of people who are trapped in poverty.

CK was the founder of the Black Leadership Summit to help young Black leaders to do this. So it’s very hard to argue he wanted to return to the evils of slavery.

😂

Ok well have to agree to disagree - I don’t have a problem with people having views that sit further along the left/right spectrum espousing their views.

many people who criticise CK views as being abhorrent would happily agree with Jeremy Corbyn’s views which I think are on the far left. People tend to critique the views further on the right being ‘dangerous’ to society, but wouldn’t say the same for those on the left.

“A lot of people” having an opinion doesn’t make it rationally or morally acceptable or logically consistent or justifiable to the extent that they should expect anybody else to listen to it let alone have to adhere to it.

Neither does them using religion as an excuse for abhorrent and ridiculously self-contradictory beliefs, or that this is “what they were taught”. Presumably they have brains and are capable of questioning this?

I think we can find him a despicable bigot monstrous person, and not “be glad” he was shot in front of his family - and not care that he’s dead and gone.
after all he didn’t believe in empathy.

Oh god this old overused bollocks again.

Again, you are trying to misrepresent things.

At no point have I said people shouldn’t hold whatever irrational and ridiculous views they wish, no matter how illogical or involving sky fairies or whatever else.

The issue arises when they try to impose these beliefs on wider society. If Kirk had held his incoherent beliefs in private and practised them in private life with only willing participants (old enough to consent to be involved) then that’s his business, provided he broke no laws. Nobody would have said a word about it, if that is what he had done.

When he started political organisations to try to campaign for laws and public policy to be changed to fit with his personal irrational beliefs and insist that everyone else should adhere to them it became a problem for society and people absolutely do have the right - indeed the obligation, really - to call this out and challenge it because such insidious and destructive attempts to control everyone else and force them to comply with his worldview were - and still are even though he is now dead - unacceptable.

The man is dead. What is the point of attacking him now by misrepresenting him?
He was murdered for holding beliefs some didn't like. That is the important issue that should be discussed.

Wow. There are some insane people on this thread.

So you think someone like Jeremy Corbyn should also be called out for his views or is he allowable as they are views in which you align yourself?

(i’m using as an example as I can think of right now anyone else who is on the very left wing of politics. I do know there are others and his views are shared by many!)