Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Charlie Kirk's beliefs

1000 replies

MsAmerica · 15/09/2025 02:29

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
Plastictreees · 15/09/2025 15:50

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 14:48

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”. 🥱

This is all this poster seems capable of doing. They do it on every thread.

pinksheetss · 15/09/2025 15:51

I actually feel sorry for all of the people misrepresenting anything he has said in this thread.

solely because I can’t imagine how it feels to believe everything you are told and not have an ounce of free will to go look something up and find out if it’s true? We have so much information at our hands, it’s not hard to do a quick search but people love a headline and to jump on that!

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 15:52

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 15:46

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.

Edited

Of course people can set up political organisations. Even if not everyone agrees with them.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 15:55

SammyScrounge · 15/09/2025 15:46

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.

Nobody is attacking him. People are continuing to criticise his abhorrent and logically inconsistent views that he was trying to push onto the rest of US society, just as they were criticising these abhorrent views before he died. How ironic that people supposedly supporting this man’s position, who allegedly was in favour of debate and free speech (LOL) are now trying to shut it down and using his death as an excuse to do so. I’d hazard a large bet most of the posters supporting his views had no idea who he was a week ago. Quite amusing, if a man hadn’t died in the process and people weren’t so oblivious that they seem incapable of separating his death from his opinions.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 15:55

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 15:52

Of course people can set up political organisations. Even if not everyone agrees with them.

Who said people can’t set up political organisations?

The fantasy responses from posters on this thread are really quite something to behold.

Nothankyov · 15/09/2025 15:57

I completely disagree with everything he said/believed in. Nonetheless he didn’t deserve to be shot.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 15:57

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 15:55

Who said people can’t set up political organisations?

The fantasy responses from posters on this thread are really quite something to behold.

Your posts veer from he should only say stuff in private to stop responding to my posts.

You just posted he should only do stuff in private. Why?

Apart from the assassination of course, your posts keep going back to don’t share beliefs.

Underthinker · 15/09/2025 16:00

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 15:49

Wow. There are some insane people on this thread.

Just making a point about context. Glad you liked it.

weearrows · 15/09/2025 16:02

pinksheetss · 15/09/2025 15:51

I actually feel sorry for all of the people misrepresenting anything he has said in this thread.

solely because I can’t imagine how it feels to believe everything you are told and not have an ounce of free will to go look something up and find out if it’s true? We have so much information at our hands, it’s not hard to do a quick search but people love a headline and to jump on that!

I agree. I am genuinely curious as to how other people think and love understanding how different people see the world. When the media told me that Andrew Tate was a racist misogynist, I went on a bit of a dive of his stuff because I wanted to come to my own conclusion. Turns out that he is in fact a racist misogynist but I wanted to know for myself, not because other people told me he was.

So many people have decided CK is X, Y or Z and this thread demonstrates it’s because they read that somewhere, not because they explored it for themselves.

whattheysay · 15/09/2025 16:05

AnotherNaCha · 15/09/2025 08:17

Just to point out those two things are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum and that’s an absolutely ludicrous comparison. One done to ridicule and make fun of a race they considered beneath them, the other done as they identify with that gender.

Crikey I despair!

Yes you’re so right, people don’t paint their faces black because they identify with being black and want to change how they look! It’s totally different to a trans woman.
I wonder if anyone actually pointed that out to him

PurpleChrayn · 15/09/2025 16:13

His views on homosexuality and women’s rights align pretty closely with the majority of Palestinians’ beliefs, and everyone seems to love them.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:25

Underthinker · 15/09/2025 15:23

@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.

Truly pathetic and a straw man attack.

I did not support his views being quoted out of context. I have written about what he actually did say, in detail, repeatedly. I’ve asked posters who are defending his political opinions - which he was campaigning to have enacted as law that everyone should be forced to follow and set up political campaigning and lobbying organisations to try to achieve, not espousing as merely personal views he wished to follow privately - to provide a coherent defence of them in total, not the cherry picked parts they liked. And their response has been silence or - in your case - to deliberately misquote me and think it amusing when I’ve not done this to anybody: Kirk or any poster here.

Yet you have attempted to misrepresent my comments deliberately and think this funny. Utter hypocrisy, again, just like Kirk: your post exemplifies precisely the hypocrisy and disingenuousness I’ve been writing about in my posts which is characteristic of people who are incapable of decent, polite, genuine, rational discussion.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:29

weearrows · 15/09/2025 16:02

I agree. I am genuinely curious as to how other people think and love understanding how different people see the world. When the media told me that Andrew Tate was a racist misogynist, I went on a bit of a dive of his stuff because I wanted to come to my own conclusion. Turns out that he is in fact a racist misogynist but I wanted to know for myself, not because other people told me he was.

So many people have decided CK is X, Y or Z and this thread demonstrates it’s because they read that somewhere, not because they explored it for themselves.

Perhaps you should go on the same discovery exercise about Kirk and, if you do a thorough job of it, you’ll come to the same conclusion that you did about Tate and unearth that he did in fact say everything that posters here who knew who he was more than a week ago have been telling you about.

BananaPeels · 15/09/2025 16:30

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:25

Truly pathetic and a straw man attack.

I did not support his views being quoted out of context. I have written about what he actually did say, in detail, repeatedly. I’ve asked posters who are defending his political opinions - which he was campaigning to have enacted as law that everyone should be forced to follow and set up political campaigning and lobbying organisations to try to achieve, not espousing as merely personal views he wished to follow privately - to provide a coherent defence of them in total, not the cherry picked parts they liked. And their response has been silence or - in your case - to deliberately misquote me and think it amusing when I’ve not done this to anybody: Kirk or any poster here.

Yet you have attempted to misrepresent my comments deliberately and think this funny. Utter hypocrisy, again, just like Kirk: your post exemplifies precisely the hypocrisy and disingenuousness I’ve been writing about in my posts which is characteristic of people who are incapable of decent, polite, genuine, rational discussion.

Edited

But again, what is wrong with him campaigning to have his personal views made into public policy? All politicians do that wherever they sit on the spectrum of views - that is the point of politics. You don’t like his views - absolutely fine. But what is wrong with his campaigning to have his views represented? They were legal. A minority would agree with him and so I don’t personally think he would have been able to sell them to the majority but he was perfectly within his rights, just as people on the equally left of politics to campaign for their personal views to be counted.

your argument seems to be, because he was a Christian conservative, he should be allowed to have the views privately but he shouldn’t be allowed to use them in politics. I don’t agree with that view and from what I can see others don’t either.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 16:31

@TheClaaawhe did debate his views, and people did challenge them. If you say he can set up an organisation I’m not sure what happened that shouldn’t? Apart from the assassination of course.

If he was here he’d be inviting people to debate still.

Plastictreees · 15/09/2025 16:34

@TheClaaaw I admire the tenacity of posters such as yourself who continue to provide logical, eloquent and well thought out posts in response to straw man arguments, hyperbole, misquoting and personal insults. It becomes impossible to debate when faced with such tactics. Essentially what this shows is a lack of ability to form a coherent rebuttal to your points.

From having spent the past few days on threads like this one, it is like banging your head against a brick wall. You cannot rationalise with irrationality. I am assuming Hanlon’s razor at this point.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 16:34

Plastictreees · 15/09/2025 16:34

@TheClaaaw I admire the tenacity of posters such as yourself who continue to provide logical, eloquent and well thought out posts in response to straw man arguments, hyperbole, misquoting and personal insults. It becomes impossible to debate when faced with such tactics. Essentially what this shows is a lack of ability to form a coherent rebuttal to your points.

From having spent the past few days on threads like this one, it is like banging your head against a brick wall. You cannot rationalise with irrationality. I am assuming Hanlon’s razor at this point.

@Plastictreeeshmm at this given some posts.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:39

BananaPeels · 15/09/2025 15:50

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!)

Jeremy Corbyn? He’s also a completely irrational extremist with ridiculous and incoherent views, and has been involved in some very dubious meetings with terrorists and other similar extremists who are just as bad as Trump, Musk, Kirk etc.

What’s your obsession with “left” and “right” about? Why do you view the world in this false dichotomy and believe everyone believes in one of these ideological extremes? Just because you believe in one doesn’t make everyone who disagrees with you a proponent of the other.

Most people are not. Most people do not want either of the extremes. Most people are normal human beings who just want to be left to get on with their lives in peace without any of these extremist nutters wrecking everything as they’ve done so many times throughout history and trying to take away their rights to live their own lives in quiet peace and make their own choices, and aren’t interested in your false attempts to try to categorise them into one of your extremes where only the bonkers reside and which would lead to immense suffering and eventual societal collapse as these extremes always do.

Theunamedcat · 15/09/2025 16:39

CasualDayHasGoneTooFar · 15/09/2025 09:40

How can you say "a few gun deaths is ok so long as we can keep our right to bear arms" (paraphrasing)
and "if my 10 year old daughter was pregnant I would not allow her to terminate" out of context?

Because the point was to change his mind

I wouldn't have backed Hitler being shot like a dog either but I believe any violent premature death is wrong no matter what

I would rather bad people stay alive to suffer rather than be granted the blessing of eternal rest

I don't agree or disagree with Charlie kirk

like most people I agreed on some things disagree on others would never support or call for his demise I enjoyed some if his debates scrolled away from others as is my right to do so

weearrows · 15/09/2025 16:44

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:29

Perhaps you should go on the same discovery exercise about Kirk and, if you do a thorough job of it, you’ll come to the same conclusion that you did about Tate and unearth that he did in fact say everything that posters here who knew who he was more than a week ago have been telling you about.

When I first heard about him, maybe 4 or 5 years ago, I looked into what he stood for. As I said earlier, my politics are centre right/libertarian and I like to critically look at everything I ‘consume’ when it comes to media. I don’t agree with everything he said but I would say for me personally, he was more right than wrong.

I’ve done the work but I have arrived at a different conclusion to you. Whatever you see in CK is not what I see. I see the world differently to you and that’s ok.

I would not want to live in a world where everyone thought the same.

pinksheetss · 15/09/2025 16:49

@TheClaaaw you are still posting about misinformed quotes he has said or taken out of context though and for that it makes it impossible to take in anything else you are actually saying

the world is a crazy, scary place. There are some things he said I agree with and some I absolutely don’t agree with. He always challenged people to change his mind and opened up these debates and gave that space for people to discuss.

what I don’t agree with is painting him out to be a person he isn’t off the back of some media headlines.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:52

Plastictreees · 15/09/2025 16:34

@TheClaaaw I admire the tenacity of posters such as yourself who continue to provide logical, eloquent and well thought out posts in response to straw man arguments, hyperbole, misquoting and personal insults. It becomes impossible to debate when faced with such tactics. Essentially what this shows is a lack of ability to form a coherent rebuttal to your points.

From having spent the past few days on threads like this one, it is like banging your head against a brick wall. You cannot rationalise with irrationality. I am assuming Hanlon’s razor at this point.

Thank you. You are absolutely right: your post is a very apt description of the “debate”! I think I will have to bow out because it is exhausting and trying to reason with people who are so entrenched in their chosen arbitrary ideology that they are impervious to any reason or discussion and clearly had no intention of any discussion in the first place is pointless, as you say.

Attempts at rational discussion are met with endless and bizarre personal attacks, deliberate misrepresentation of comments, ignoring inconvenient facts that don’t fit their chosen narrative, whataboutery, pointless denial of reality, and refusal to respond to anything with any rational argument to support their position even when asked in good faith to set out a coherent argument for their position: It’s clear there was never an intention to have anything resembling a rational or factual debate.

It’s a huge indictment of how low society has sunk already and doesn’t bode well as, as such, is extremely depressing but as you have said there’s only so much you can do and then it just becomes a case of bashing your head on a wall, which is not how I wish to spend my evening!

quantumbutterfly · 15/09/2025 16:52

weearrows · 15/09/2025 16:44

When I first heard about him, maybe 4 or 5 years ago, I looked into what he stood for. As I said earlier, my politics are centre right/libertarian and I like to critically look at everything I ‘consume’ when it comes to media. I don’t agree with everything he said but I would say for me personally, he was more right than wrong.

I’ve done the work but I have arrived at a different conclusion to you. Whatever you see in CK is not what I see. I see the world differently to you and that’s ok.

I would not want to live in a world where everyone thought the same.

Depends what they're thinking. If they're all thinking peace and love and goodwill to fellow men that would be nice.

If they're not all thinking that of course, we'll have to make them, even if we have to do it at gunpoint, it's for their own good.

(I did the 'where are you on the political spectrum' test on one of these CK threads and apparently I'm a leftist libertarian. I think the test might be broken.)

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:56

pinksheetss · 15/09/2025 16:49

@TheClaaaw you are still posting about misinformed quotes he has said or taken out of context though and for that it makes it impossible to take in anything else you are actually saying

the world is a crazy, scary place. There are some things he said I agree with and some I absolutely don’t agree with. He always challenged people to change his mind and opened up these debates and gave that space for people to discuss.

what I don’t agree with is painting him out to be a person he isn’t off the back of some media headlines.

I have not posted any “misinformed quotes” or anything “taken out of context”. Please provide evidence for your false assertions disparaging me or withdraw them: I am sick of these false accusations that I’ve had to contend with from multiple delusional/ deliberately misleading posters on this thread all day who’ve tried to misrepresent my comments or invent things I have not said. Either provide evidence for your assertions or stop making things up.

EasternStandard · 15/09/2025 16:57

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 16:52

Thank you. You are absolutely right: your post is a very apt description of the “debate”! I think I will have to bow out because it is exhausting and trying to reason with people who are so entrenched in their chosen arbitrary ideology that they are impervious to any reason or discussion and clearly had no intention of any discussion in the first place is pointless, as you say.

Attempts at rational discussion are met with endless and bizarre personal attacks, deliberate misrepresentation of comments, ignoring inconvenient facts that don’t fit their chosen narrative, whataboutery, pointless denial of reality, and refusal to respond to anything with any rational argument to support their position even when asked in good faith to set out a coherent argument for their position: It’s clear there was never an intention to have anything resembling a rational or factual debate.

It’s a huge indictment of how low society has sunk already and doesn’t bode well as, as such, is extremely depressing but as you have said there’s only so much you can do and then it just becomes a case of bashing your head on a wall, which is not how I wish to spend my evening!

Ok but I still don’t get what you were wanting to happen that didn’t.

He put out views, as you said this was fine, and people did challenge them.

So your posts matched the reality of what was happening. Nothing to change, apart from the assassination of course.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.