Page 2 | Interview with Kara Dansky and Charlie Kirk

Shortshriftandlethal · 14/09/2025 17:30

deadpan · 14/09/2025 16:37

Our country is one of the smallest in Europe, by the time it got up to speed it would have to start slowing down again. And all for 20 mins, or not even that, off a journey from London to Manchester. Complete waste of money, which should have been spent on upgrading existing networks and reinstating some in the north. We had Ely have any that go west to east and vice versa, most journeys go north south/South North.

Show quote history

As i suggest, it was not primarily about speed, although that was important, but about capacity. I also think that leaving Liverpool off the original route was a mistake, and made it end up looking like it was all just about getting to and from London more quickly.

Liverpool, where I live, has a serious shortage of capacity, and needs new capacity and new lines in order to reconnect it to other cities that it has lost direct connections to over the years. Reform has suggested it doesn't see improved rail pathways in the north as being very important.

As I say, every major country in Europe has a high speed network and a transport system that is far more efficient, cheap and effective than we have here. We don't seem to be able to build infrastructure anymore......which is a sorry tale considering Britain ws the home of the first railways.

My son lives in Barcelona, and whilst Spain already has high speed rail, they are now building a new high speed station in his neighbourhood - which is expected to give it a big economic boost. High speed networks also, if planned properly, have the potential to connect the rest of Britain to the European network.

deadpan · 14/09/2025 17:41

Shortshriftandlethal · 14/09/2025 17:30

As i suggest, it was not primarily about speed, although that was important, but about capacity. I also think that leaving Liverpool off the original route was a mistake, and made it end up looking like it was all just about getting to and from London more quickly.

Liverpool, where I live, has a serious shortage of capacity, and needs new capacity and new lines in order to reconnect it to other cities that it has lost direct connections to over the years. Reform has suggested it doesn't see improved rail pathways in the north as being very important.

As I say, every major country in Europe has a high speed network and a transport system that is far more efficient, cheap and effective than we have here. We don't seem to be able to build infrastructure anymore......which is a sorry tale considering Britain ws the home of the first railways.

My son lives in Barcelona, and whilst Spain already has high speed rail, they are now building a new high speed station in his neighbourhood - which is expected to give it a big economic boost. High speed networks also, if planned properly, have the potential to connect the rest of Britain to the European network.

Edited

Show quote history

It's cheap because no other country has spent as much as we have. The tickets for this waste of time will be too much for ordinary plebs. It was always about getting to London quicker, no government for the last 40+ years has cared about the north. Bringing the railway back into public ownership and increasing routes and carriages would go some way to alleviate the shitshow we currently have.

ScrollingLeaves · 14/09/2025 18:12

Shortshriftandlethal · 14/09/2025 17:30

As i suggest, it was not primarily about speed, although that was important, but about capacity. I also think that leaving Liverpool off the original route was a mistake, and made it end up looking like it was all just about getting to and from London more quickly.

Liverpool, where I live, has a serious shortage of capacity, and needs new capacity and new lines in order to reconnect it to other cities that it has lost direct connections to over the years. Reform has suggested it doesn't see improved rail pathways in the north as being very important.

As I say, every major country in Europe has a high speed network and a transport system that is far more efficient, cheap and effective than we have here. We don't seem to be able to build infrastructure anymore......which is a sorry tale considering Britain ws the home of the first railways.

My son lives in Barcelona, and whilst Spain already has high speed rail, they are now building a new high speed station in his neighbourhood - which is expected to give it a big economic boost. High speed networks also, if planned properly, have the potential to connect the rest of Britain to the European network.

Edited

Show quote history

Getting from Manchester to Newcastle is ridiculous too. A lot of the necessary interconnections within the real North were ignored.

Howseitgoin · 14/09/2025 18:46

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

JanesLittleGirl · 14/09/2025 18:54

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Helleofabore · 14/09/2025 19:30

I think that it is quite inconvenient when you have radical feminists talking with anyone who will listen. That people who cannot conceive of discussion across political party boundaries, they feel they have to put people into tribal boxes. Hence the constant accusations about ‘Nazis’ and fascists’.

TheJoyOfWriting · 14/09/2025 19:53

SinnerBoy · 14/09/2025 07:38

This has parallels with the UK, hasn't it? Julie Bindel writing opinion columns in the Mail, Hadley Freeman at the Times and Suzanne Moore for the Telegraph. The Graun should have been their place, but they decided to shut them up, sacrifices on the altar of trans.

The Times, the Telegraph and even the Mail are not the same level of right wing as Charlie Kirk. Ikwym, tho.

TheJoyOfWriting · 14/09/2025 19:56

SionnachRuadh · 14/09/2025 13:48

I think most Americans are not familiar ( why should they be?) with the nuances of British culture and politics and so they miss the mark quite often.

I think that's a consistent problem. When Eric Idle was trying to sell Monty Python in America, John Cleese thought it would never catch on because there were so many specifically British references that Americans would never understand it. What happened was that Americans loved it, but the bits they didn't understand they just processed as "random".

Lots of Brits think they get American culture and politics because we see so much of it, but most of what we see via British media is a specific NYC and Los Angeles culture, and Brits often have a very cartoonish view of the whole continent in between.

Thanks to extended family, I know quite a few weird details about Utah Mormon culture and history, but that just brings home to me how much I don't know.

A funny example from HP that I like is when Snape I think is 'punting' students across the lake. US readers thought that meant kicking, not giving a boat ride! 🤣

Stefanodad · 14/09/2025 20:47

This is an interesting conversation. Can I ask a question?:

At what point does somebody’s distasteful views - and their willingness to use everything in their power to effect them in law - override their public ‘decency’ or your agreement on a part of their world view?There must be a point at which you say to yourself “this person is a danger to human rights. His/Her success will be devastating to this or that group of people”.

I’m not talking about assassination here, Just not being polite and accommodating to a dangerous person. Where is the line?

SinnerBoy · 14/09/2025 20:51

TheJoyOfWriting · 14/09/2025 19:53

The Times, the Telegraph and even the Mail are not the same level of right wing as Charlie Kirk. Ikwym, tho.

Show quote history

Oh, I agree, but 10 years ago, they wouldn't have entertained anything more than occasional piece with them, if that. I was trying to say that their natural home is on the left, in Guardianland; but they've been hangout to dry.

Like Kara Dansky, they have been left with the choice of obscurity, or working with media which they disagree with on 95% of issues.

JanesLittleGirl · 14/09/2025 21:32

Stefanodad · 14/09/2025 20:47

This is an interesting conversation. Can I ask a question?:

At what point does somebody’s distasteful views - and their willingness to use everything in their power to effect them in law - override their public ‘decency’ or your agreement on a part of their world view?There must be a point at which you say to yourself “this person is a danger to human rights. His/Her success will be devastating to this or that group of people”.

I’m not talking about assassination here, Just not being polite and accommodating to a dangerous person. Where is the line?

There are many people who have views that I find quite disgusting. That happens and I'm sure that I hold views that others find equally disgusting.

For me, the split is "are you willing to honestly discuss this in the open with nobody running interference or do you need top cover?"

JanesLittleGirl · 14/09/2025 22:00

JanesLittleGirl · Today 18:54

What the heck did I get deleted for?

SinnerBoy · 14/09/2025 22:28

Bah! Hung out... Sodding autoconfect.

Howseitgoin · 14/09/2025 22:58

Stefanodad · 14/09/2025 20:47

This is an interesting conversation. Can I ask a question?:

At what point does somebody’s distasteful views - and their willingness to use everything in their power to effect them in law - override their public ‘decency’ or your agreement on a part of their world view?There must be a point at which you say to yourself “this person is a danger to human rights. His/Her success will be devastating to this or that group of people”.

I’m not talking about assassination here, Just not being polite and accommodating to a dangerous person. Where is the line?

There is no line given Kirk was instrumental in Tump's victory that effectively rolled back human rights to women, immigrants, the LGBTQ community as well as the rights to everyday Americans in terms of free speech & due process not to mention facilitating a genocide.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend whatever the cost…

JanesLittleGirl · 15/09/2025 08:27

Howseitgoin · 14/09/2025 22:58

There is no line given Kirk was instrumental in Tump's victory that effectively rolled back human rights to women, immigrants, the LGBTQ community as well as the rights to everyday Americans in terms of free speech & due process not to mention facilitating a genocide.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend whatever the cost…

Edited

Show quote history

There is a word for the use of murder to achieve a political end. That word is terrorism.

Howseitgoin · 15/09/2025 08:36

JanesLittleGirl · 15/09/2025 08:27

There is a word for the use of murder to achieve a political end. That word is terrorism.

Show quote history

No one here is suggesting Kirk's murder was justified because of his very influential inhumane views. The context here is feminists pursuing far right alliance that is not in their interests.

healthyteeth · 15/09/2025 08:53

Appalonia · 14/09/2025 00:44

There's been a lot of pp saying how hateful he was, especially as regards to women, but I think it's useful to know that he was willing to platform someone like Kara Dansky, a self professed left wing feminist, and to know that he actually listened to what she had to say. I hate how polarised politics has become, and I think what we need right now more than ever is to actually listen to pp that we disagree with.

Kara is at just the same risk of being murdered for her views as Charlie was, and he definitely didnt deserve to die for them.

https://open.substack.com/pub/karadansky/p/my-2022-interview-with-charlie-kirk?utmcampaign=post&utmmedium=web

He definitely did not deserve to die for his views.

Just because he was willing to openly debate a ‘feminist’ and they had shared ground when it comes to gender identity, his motives were very different to hers. Her motives for her belief are women’s rights. His motives were primarily because he hates anyone who wasn’t white, straight, male and ‘Christian’. He was a hateful homophobic, racist, misogynistic, transphobic, pro-violence dangerous man.

He had an agenda. Ethnic cleansing of America and to put women back in the home and undo all the rights they’ve gained (abortion for one) in recent decades. Just because he agreed that TWANW doesn’t mean he gave a shiny shit about actual women.

Helleofabore · 15/09/2025 09:10

I notice that women are being lectured as usual as to what is and isn’t in their best interests. Who they should speak to and who they should not.

Merrymouse · 15/09/2025 09:34

Stefanodad · 14/09/2025 20:47

This is an interesting conversation. Can I ask a question?:

At what point does somebody’s distasteful views - and their willingness to use everything in their power to effect them in law - override their public ‘decency’ or your agreement on a part of their world view?There must be a point at which you say to yourself “this person is a danger to human rights. His/Her success will be devastating to this or that group of people”.

I’m not talking about assassination here, Just not being polite and accommodating to a dangerous person. Where is the line?

In a democracy you have the power to express opposing views.

OldCrone · 15/09/2025 10:02

Howseitgoin · 15/09/2025 08:36

No one here is suggesting Kirk's murder was justified because of his very influential inhumane views. The context here is feminists pursuing far right alliance that is not in their interests.

Show quote history

Who is pursuing a 'far right alliance'? That's all in your head.

Howseitgoin · 15/09/2025 10:11

OldCrone · 15/09/2025 10:02

Who is pursuing a 'far right alliance'? That's all in your head.

Show quote history

Tell us you don't know who Charlie Kirk is without telling us…

timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 15/09/2025 10:28

I doubt Charlie Kirk has ever been discussed on here much, if ever, before his murder.

The link is that he could see that TRA was a danger to individuals and society. And that he interviewed at least one feminist.

Thats it.

Why posters are expecting everyone on MN to know his beliefs and motivations, and comment on them, is beyond me.

Why are people wanting to talk about how they disliked his opinions with people who have little to do with him? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to have that discussion with people who knew of him, and maybe before he was murdered?

OldCrone · 15/09/2025 10:31

Howseitgoin · 15/09/2025 10:11

Tell us you don't know who Charlie Kirk is without telling us…

Show quote history

I'd never heard of him until he was shot. What point are you trying to make?

Beowulfa · 15/09/2025 10:46

OldCrone · 15/09/2025 10:31

I'd never heard of him until he was shot. What point are you trying to make?

Show quote history

There is no point. It's just more tedious slurs about women aligning with the Far Right and deifying the wrong type of people because we refuse to obediently chant TWAW. Remember even babies can be fascists now.

I'd never heard of this bloke before either.

I was talking about the Good Friday agreement recently, and thinking how those involved must really have had to grit their teeth in order to enter negotiations with people they seriously despised, knowing they would have to make unpalatable concessions. And yet they did it.

We have lost the ability to calmly debate with people we think are dangerously wrong.

timesublimelysilencesthewhys · 15/09/2025 10:51

Commenting that it was a good interview and that his murder was horrific is exactly the same as saying we agree with everything he said, apparently.

I remember seeing the interview before, but never thought to research Charlie Kirk because I was interested in Kara not him.