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

Those supporting his ideology - who have spent their time attacking other posters - should instead put forward a coherent defence of it and how it is completely rational and not hypocritical and self-contradictory to hold the clearly expressed and elaborated upon beliefs that he held. He was unable to do so and resolve these inherent internal contradictions in what he espoused. If others wish to support his “moral” position then perhaps rather than making personal attacks on other posters they could regale us with a logically consistent defence of his expressed views in totality, which he was unable to provide, at which point they might have a legitimate position in defending it.

Given that they have been unable or unwilling to do so, have preferred to make unwarranted personal attacks on other posters, cherry picked things Kirk said that they agree with out of context (while criticising the OP for cherry picking things the OP disagreed with), accused others of supporting murder for disagreeing with his views, deliberately misrepresented things other posters have stated very clearly in an attempt to try to paint them as unreasonable, and yet they still have been unable to defend Kirk’s views in any coherent manner and instead resorted to repeatedly insulting posters they disagree with instead, I am inclined to think they need to do a little more thinking before they engage in further debates on such topics; it makes for rather embarrassing reading.

I see what you mean! Just had a look. There are some crazy folks about.

I don’t know if anyone supported his ideology on this thread. Most people have said they agree with something and disagree on others. I have that view about pretty much anyone politically.

most simply just think he had the right to say them and campaign on his views. If he subsequently wanted to enter politics on these views then I would 100% supported that that was his right. Would I have voted for him if he ran on all his views - no.

The ballot box is the ultimate decider of his views are the ones that society wish to have represented.

It's not hypocrisy, I think misquoting is wrong and was quite obviously doing it ironically.

I believe you do misrepresent Kirks views. You say he has extreme views and wants women to be subordinate to men and would legislate to do so. This is what he said 2 days before his death. When asked what advice he would give to young women.

"I always get in trouble no matter how I answer this question. Having children is more important than having a good career.

My kids matter way more than how many social media followers that I have.

And I would also tell young ladies, you can always go back to your career later, that there is a window where you primarily should pursue marriage and having children, and that is a beautiful thing.

This is not about shaming, this is not about ridiculing, this is not about moralizing. It is about lifting up what is beautiful".

I see his views as conservative and old fashioned, but not extreme.

Clearly this is just one short interview, and he may have outlined his plans to make women legally subordinate elsewhere. But the pattern I've found in the last few days, is for every claim about Kirk's extreme views, when you look at the actual evidence, the claim evaporates. So I would guess that will be be the case here. Prove me wrong.

@TheClaaawI’ve not attacked or insulted you and throughout this thread I’ve tried to show what I believe CK’s worldview was and how his views were consistent with that. That doesn’t meet your threshold for coherent, logical argument, fair enough. I believe in the free exchange of ideas but good debate can really only happen if both sides agree to not make it personal. If you feel I’ve personally insulted you in some way, then I’ll happily retract the comment and apologise.

As I keep saying, I see the world differently but that does not mean I’m uneducated, not well read or a bigot/fascist/nazi whatever. Not that you referred to me in such terms but others might well do. For me, the world is becoming increasingly toxic not because of differing viewpoints but because of the way people no longer really engage with each other. It’s no longer a free exchange of ideas. It’s become a free exchange of missiles.

Yes they all say the same things and have the same underhand debate ‘tactics’ already described. It would be funny if it wasn’t so disturbing.

Just stepping back from other posters and back to CK I do think he could argue publicly and debate, and that others could respond by challenging him.

Would you say you agree that was ok to do?

I mostly agree with your logic here, but if the other presidential candidate thinks you are evil for being Christian, I do not know what else you can do. Not vote I guess, which is what I would do.

Nobody has said they “liked it”, as far as I can see.

However, your disingenuousness and dishonesty, and amusement at deliberate attempts to mislead people, was noted.

It would generally be considered rather an odd reaction to a stranger’s posts online, particularly when they have clearly been trying to engage in rational discussion, to respond in such a juvenile manner and celebrate misleading people and falsely quoting someone (and to attempt to justify this by pretending that it was ok for you to falsely quote someone else who hadn’t falsely quoted anybody else out of context, Kirk or any other poster here).

This evidences quite a lot about your level of dishonesty and your “values” and precisely why there’s no point in anybody trying to engage with you on such a topic.

I think some people are missing the point somewhat. There are certainly people out there who are making unnecessary jokes about his death or saying that the world is a better place without Charlie. I know at least three in real life on top of my head, but if I was at uni, that number would jump to around 15 at least.

Most people are sane enough to agree to disagree with Charlie’s views, but it’s problematic that an increasing amount of people have an all or nothing approach to politics. You have no idea how many people I hear calling all right wing people fascists.

To me, this is what his assassination is showing. The default answer should be to be disappointed that somebody took his life, whether you agree with him or not.

Of course it’s always ok for anybody to debate their views in public within the limits of free speech which has to be constrained within reasonable boundaries as I alluded to in earlier posts, with reference (in a US context) to judgements going back to Justice Holmes’ observations in Shenck v United States in 1919: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre and causing a panic”.

Kirk’s refusal to accept that the limits of free speech are lawful and necessary in order for it to continue to exist at all were ridiculous. I don’t believe, personally, that he didn’t understand this; he was trying to use this as a lever that was simplistic enough to arouse anger from people who won’t/ can’t understand nuance (reference this thread) in an attempt to achieve his wider agenda, which involved many abhorrent things including subjugating half of the population (women) and removing many of our rights to financial freedom, abortion, divorce, sexual consent. He was very careful not to breach these necessary and legal limits of free speech himself of course, but encouraged others to do so through his rhetoric, as do Trump, Musk, Farage because they care not for the consequences for those who become obsessed with their rhetoric and may do what they will not, but many people doing what they wish them to do but clearly never directly told them explicitly to do (they’re not that stupid) will aid their cause.

This is why it’s important to pay attention to what he actually DID say, repeatedly. Not just the clips your particular flavour of social media algorithm may have served you, but the totality of it and what he expressly stated, repeatedly, that he was trying to achieve. I don’t think this would be a world many women would want to live in, or want their children to grow up in, but for some inexplicable reason some people are determined to try to portray this man as some kind of upstanding citizen when he intentions were not even hidden, they were in plain sight and expressly stated. Handmaid’s Tale doesn’t look like a fun sort of place to be to me, and this fawning over him now is sickening, however sad it is for his children that he was killed (and I do feel sad for them, of course, as any reasonable person would, but this doesn’t negate what an horrendous person he was).

Kirk’s “debate” was often staged and managed and the videos many people see of him at either extreme of the political spectrum are edited to fit their narrative and extremely selective and not representative of his whole programme which he was attempting to impose on US society - not just how he chose to live within his own family.

This whole thread is extremely depressing. The partisan nonsense, random attacks on people, entrenched views, determination to try to attack others as an enemy or divide people into “sides” and other them, and the refusal to discuss anything in a rational manner: it exemplifies everything that has gone wrong in our society over the last decade and what will lead to ever-increasing decline in living standards unless people start to behave like actual humans again and use their brains.

@TheClaaaw
Your last paragraph on othering and polarising society rings true. But genuinely this is how I feel about the people villainising Kirk. I apologise for misquoting you ealier to make a point, if I'm honest I got you mixed up with another poster who had used out of context quotes from Kirk, there is a lot of that about, but it wasn't you so I'm sorry.

@TheClaaawI’m reading your post which is interesting and you might mean a general ‘you’ at the algorithm part but I managed to have SM without knowing who he was until this last week. The entry point hasn’t been his clips but other people on SM where I’ve found some of the lack of decency and celebration difficult. Not aimed at anyone here but just generally that was my sinking feeling.

Reading your post the question that I have first is should he have been allowed to debate and set up as he did and I think with any faults and challenges people might bring, which could be valid, I think yes to that.

Happy to hear other views

I note the OP chucked in a hand grenade and never came back. 😂

Yes it seems she has form for this.

@TheClaaaw

I think you underestimate us, and show us all a lack of respect.

Many posters here, loved watching him debate. Man he was quick, quick witted, so incredibly bright. And very very well read. Read 50 - 100 books a year.

and many of his debates he argued so well without resorting to snide nasty personal comments to the person themselves. he did it so cleverly and he tied them up in knots, often / largely without saying anything really personal.

I mean, half the people he was arguing with they were such dimwits. It made me cringe. Some of the things said to him. It was just completely embarrassing. I felt like saying what sort of idiot / moron are you?

however you underestimate us, no I didn't like everything he said. I certainly was very interested in his trans reasoning because I do believe you know you simply can't change sex. It's just ridiculous and like J. K. Rowling says, you can't make me believe that you are a woman just because you're putting on dresses. just ridiculous and it's insulting to my intelligence to try and make me believe that you are something that I know you're not.

But some of his other views are simply didn't agree with. I don't agree with his abortion rules. I am both pro-life, but I'm also pro choice. and all this : if my daughter was raped age 10 we'd encourage her to not do evil , after evil , but do good after evil , and let her have the child . I mean most women want the choice and can decide to have an abortion. if they choose to. So I didn't agree with him on that.

Certain of his beliefs and antics and some of the things you read cast aspersions on what sort of beliefs and whole set up he had.

But that still doesn't change the fact I actually like watching him debate and found him, and I mean generally I find incredibly intelligent People incredible to watch, and highly attractive.

debaters about the March last week, re Starmer or khan. Re Ben Shapiro, who I also love watching but don't agree with many of his views. I loved watching the post office scandal and the amazing skill of KC Jason Beer.

You insult me by suggesting that we all aren't bright enough to be able to enjoy something or one aspect one person's personality , eg the high intelligence and skill at debating, without being able to differentiate that you don't agree with everything they say.

He also got caught out occasionally, eg the Cambridge students. And I enjoyed watching that!

but I knew he loved his wife. And her him. And him being murdered, assassinated. The actual gun shot video and him collapsing I saw. Has hit me hard. What a waste , a Shame. Only 31. An utter tragedy of a life being lost. 😢

and I'll never get to see him debate again. 😢

@Oblomov25I really like this! (Didn’t want to quote the whole post).

I noticed that on X, Ben Shapiro said he’d carry on Charlie’s work but I disagree with a lot of what Shapiro says and he talks so quickly, it’s hard to digest what he’s really saying. I also think comes across as really angry.

I noticed that Erika Kirk said the college tour will continue this year so I’m intrigued to see who will replace CK. He’s had guests before including Candace Owens…but she seems to have fallen down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theory and I spend more time rolling my eyes than listening.

Sorry, total segue but wanted to say I agreed with your post.

Thanks @weearrows.
how funny re you hate how fast BS talks. It's one of the most attractive things about him for me, is how fast he talks.
I've been studying recently and I watch most topic videos at speed of 1.75 or x2, because I can't bare slow!

Same here, mostly because I'm trying to cram. I either ramp it up slowly or start at double speed then take it down to 1.75 and then it sounds normal. I do the same with audio books.

My son wanted to explain a maths solution to me and I asked for an explanation in 10 words or less. He said, "Impossible", and I said "perfect."😁

Much appreciated, thank you for this.

As I said the description has been posted in the thread.

If you truly believe in debate as you claim you would stop with the personal attacks and actually engage fully with people that have a different view to you. Which you are incapable of doing without belittling them.

But you continue to martyr yourself, anyone with a basic grasp of English can see what you are doing.

Oh man…that stresses me out. 😂

That’s the thing though, the other candidates don’t. And the one they are supporting says they are evil for lots of other things, and will actively hurt their life with his policies. I totally understand being torn between candidates, but people voting against their own self interests is bizzare. Very common occurrence though.

What about where he said girls only go to college to find a husband?