Charlie Kirk shot during a debate about trans people

[feministmom4ever]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086277/Charlie-Kirks-final-words-assassinated-Utah-dead.html

I didn’t agree with many of his political views, but I liked how he interacted with college students who couldn’t answer the question “what is a woman?”.

Yes, Trump & co are stoking the fires of hatred at a time when they should be calm.

He wasn't a politician, he was just a social media influencer, he was shot for holding different opinions than the attacker.
He said:

'I go around universities and have challenging conversations because that's what is so important to our country, is to find our disagreements respectfully, because when people stop talking that's when violence happens.
People like me are facing violence and assaults..from the Left...from Antifa..I've been stormed out of buildings..multiple death threats..

..when people stop talking that's when you get violence..that's when civil war happens because you start to think that the other side is evil and they lose their humanity.

Charlie Kirk short

Do you not think men who make rape and death threats to women (like JKR and many women here) are revolting and abhorrent?

I didn't say she was wrong. I said that others across the pond might disagree.

This for example

In a country where you can purchase a gun in a supermarket, it’s sadly no surprise that political figures are being targeted for promoting the very views that have caused such hardship.

This presumes that the views caused the hardship. Not all will agree with that.

Which is why debate is crucial.

I don’t need thread policing. Pointing out the complete silence on his racism isn’t the same as endorsing violence, and it’s relevant in a feminism forum.

No more extreme than the comments and views of the left today, who have reached a new low. Many on the left today have been justifying his murder, which to me is putting far more people in danger than the comments of the people you’ve listed.

Yes, I’m pretty sure we are all aware of that, what’s the relevance vis a vis what the poster was talking about exactly?

Err yes, and that it why I have always been clear that murder for political views is always unacceptable.

Yesterday it was a right-wing person murdered, tomorrow it could be a left-wing person.

And the post, which has gone over both of your heads is that what is defined as left and right wing is constantly changing. Your left wing views may be considered right-wing tomorrow.

I don’t consider that is what the thread about, so I’m not going to derail it with what you personally would rather discuss. For me it’s about the murder and the general worrying tendency in society to justify violence based on opinions.

He was completely entitled to hold and express all those opinions, and people were free to disagree with him.

There is no excusing the violent execution used against a young father.

Ermm...he was labelled a bigot because he said bigoted things. He was called a racist because he said racist things. Unless you think people who claim to be Christian should be exempt from being criticised for their words and actions? Unless you think the views set out below are not bigoted, or are respectful and loving?

Charlie Kirk on gay people: "“Groomers can’t reproduce, so instead they recruit. They go serve on school boards....and all this other sort of disgusting, nauseating stuff"

"[Gay people] are not happy just having marriage, they now want to corrupt your children"

Charlie Kirk on black people: "[Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee] are only here because of affirmative action…[Black women] do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. [They] have to go steal a white person's slot to be taken somewhat seriously."

"“I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified,”

Charlie Kirk on single women: "The biggest thing is this: more younger women need to get married at a younger age and start having kids. The single woman issue is one of the biggest issues facing a civilization. We have more single women in their early 30’s that are the most depressed, suicidal, anxious, and lonely in America’s history because there’s a biological clock that’s going off and they realize that they’re not going to be able to have kids, that they’re not as desirable in the dating market or in the dating pool and so they start to lash out on the rest of society by voting democrat.”

Charlie Kirk's on keeping a woman on life support to give birth despite her being declared brain dead at just 8 weeks pregnant: "A woman in Georgia is being kept on life support so that the child she is carrying can come to term and be born.

I was asked about this case while in Britain. Apparently, people thousands of miles away are scandalized this is happening. I'll admit that I am completely baffled as to what the controversy is here.

Literally none of the arguments typically offered by pro-abortion advocates apply here. There is no threat to the mother's life or health — the mother, Adrianna Smith, is tragically already brain dead. There is no threat to her personal autonomy. There is no threat to her of any kind. It is literally impossible to harm her in any way. The only person facing any kind of potential harm is her unborn child.

In one situation, two people definitely die. In the other situation, a child may be able to live.

Saving lives is a good thing. This is only controversial if you actually view killing unborn children as a good thing, and want more dead children for its own sake."

This. This is what has happened to a great number of feminists. We stand up for women’s rights to single sex spaces and we find that due to a misogynist lobby group, we are suddenly considered to be the worst of the worst by unthinking people who fall for manipulative sob stories.

But does a person deserve public summary execution for holding or expressing those views? They are views held by, for example, many adherents to Abrahamic religions across the world. Regardless of whether one agrees with them or not, should people not be allowed to hold these views? And surely the way to challenge and change their views is through exactly the kind of open discussion that Charlie Kirk was advocating?

I’m a bisexual radical feminist. I don’t need or expect everyone on earth to support or agree with my views, actions or moral compass, and I will defend to the death the right of others to offend me.

And we know that many of these resentful men reify violence, and live a largely online life where they don’t have to deal with hard reality very often. It’s a shock when they encounter it.

How did you feel about Nancy Pelosi's husband or the Democrat couple both murdered? No lowered flags then and guess all 3 favoured gun control. This is being spun for political advantage

I agree - everyone should have their opinion. Political violence is never OK. But if Republicans continue to marginalise the vulnerable, spew hatred, and mock their suffering then violence will continue to rise.

When enough people in society feel hopeless, broken and voiceless that's a dangerous state of political affairs. Revolutions have started for less.

Which Democrat politicians or activists have said anything violent like Trump & Musk & co?

The politicians on the left have strongly condemned the killing and expressed grief over the loss.

• President Joe Biden called the killing “despicable” and said there is no place in our country for this kind of violence, urging for it to end.
• Vice President Kamala Harris stated she was deeply disturbed and emphasized that political violence has no place in America.
• Former President Barack Obama said the violence has no place in our democracy and offered prayers for Kirk’s family.

The violence will be on both sides and people will get caught up in it. It’s fine to bluster on about how righteous your shining cause is, but they feel righteous too.

Yes, because calling the left 'revolting' and 'abhorrent' is really balanced

So why doesn't everyone else take note and follow the lead of Biden, Harris and Obama, instead of "murder is bad, but..."?

Again, I was replying to a question asking for examples of how he was a bigot.
Yes, of course we are all entitled to our opinion even bigoted opinions.

I just looked in on FB and weirdly (to
me, anyway) one of my US southern red state leftwing friends (a very good session/touring musician, so well travelled and cosmopolitan compared to most from his rural state) is positing the idea that CK may have been assassinated by Team Trump (pretending to be left wing as a ruse) to prevent CK becoming a more popular replacement. Seems a bit wild when CK wouldn’t even be old enough to run for president in 2028 but I suppose it’s not entirely impossible.

This comes from someone who I admire in many ways but perhaps has a touch of Trump Derangement Syndrome - has anyone else seen similar conspiracy stuff coming from Left (or Right)? I wonder if it’s almost a psychological protective mechanism, not wanting to believe that the killer could be from the ‘right side of history’?

For the record I am not personally speculating on the motivation of the killer (although I tend to go with Occam’s razor in these sorts of scenarios) just wondering if this is now a repeated narrative on SM (like the false deflection of ‘3 dead kids in Colorado’ that was copy pasted everywhere about 12 hours ago but has since turned out to be one dead perp and two injured teens who will hopefully both survive their injuries).

His reproductive status is entirely irrelevant.

Did they also say “well, you can kind of understand it, and it was a bit ironic right, bet he didn’t ever think he’d get hoist by his own petard! Of course I’m not justifying violence, perish the thought!”?

if not, can you perhaps understand why not?