School Teachers, Nurses, Government Workers, CELEBRATING Charlie Kirk's murder

[MrMoe]

Charlie Kirk said that gays deserve to be killed,

From ChatGPT:

No — there is no verified evidence that Charlie Kirk has said that gay people “deserve to be killed.” Multiple fact‑checks have looked into this claim and found it to be false or misrepresented.

women should not work outside the home,

A common Christian belief.

the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a mistake,

Charlie was a reader of Shelby Steele, a prominent scholar and author, who had criticisms of the unintended consequence of the act in his book White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.

and that Martin Luther King Jr. was a person of poor character.

Martin Luther King jr had multiple affairs. So his criticism is valid.

Those aren't moderate stances. Those are extreme.

No, they’re pretty moderate.

Charlie Kirk also owned two luxury homes. One worth almost 5 million dollars, the other almost a million. Again, not a normal guy. Most people in his generation don't even own a home. However, it does demonstrate how being a right-wing provocateur and grifter can be lucrative and rewarding financially.

False dichotomy. A rich person can still be considered normal.

Very few serious commentators actually are saying that Charlie Kirk deserved death.

But then there’s the many left wingers on social media celebrating his death. Comments like these are obvious attempts at damage control.

 

[MrMoe]

It's the arena he chose.

Yes, his arena was debate. He didn’t deserve to be killed and have his death celebrated by many for it.

I've got an opinion on the guy and it isn't complimentary. It hasn't changed because he was shot.

As a free speech advocate, Charlie would have no problem you sharing your opinion.

 

[FireDragon76]

From ChatGPT:

No — there is no verified evidence that Charlie Kirk has said that gay people “deserve to be killed.” Multiple fact‑checks have looked into this claim and found it to be false or misrepresented.

Kirk cited the Bible in a podcast in a manner suggestive that it was an appropriate treatment of gay people, even if he didn't explicitly say "We should kill gay people".

A common Christian belief.

Not among any actual Christians I know in real life. Only in American fundamentalist evangelical churches, perhaps, but even then it's hardly the norm.

My aunt and cousin are in the Church of Christ, fairly conservative, even fundamentalist, as far as denominations go, and my aunt always worked outside the home for decades in shoe sales. This "tradwife" stuff is modern socio-political kayfabe. Being a stay at home mom has always been a luxury of the burgeois and upper-middle-class, not working people, for at least the past fifty or sixty years or more.

Among African-Americans, working outside the home has always been normal for women. And before WWII, many Americans lived on farms and both husband and wife did farm work.

Charlie was a reader of Shelby Steele, a prominent scholar and author, who had criticisms of the unintended consequence of the act in his book White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era.

There was no nuance in Kirk's statement, he just said that the civil rights act had been bad for white people, which is untrue. Racial grievance is also not befitting anybody calling themselves Christian, it is a sin or vice that isn't compatible with the Kingdom of God.

Martin Luther King jr had multiple affairs. So his criticism is valid.

That's untrue, it was a rumor started by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI to try to destroy King's reputation, perhaps even to compel him to commit suicide (King ignored the threatening letter attempting to blackmail him).

No, they’re pretty moderate.




False dichotomy. A rich person can still be considered normal.

Rich people are, by mathematics alone, highly abnormal in the US.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Him believing that those people are awful, does not make him it better.

Some ideas are awful, and some ideas are better than others. A civil society are capable of debating those ideas in a public forum for the people to decide. People with awful ideas often feel they were treated awfully when they loose the debate.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Charlie Kirk said that gays deserve to be killed,

Kirk cited the Bible in a podcast in a manner suggestive that it was an appropriate treatment of gay people, even if he didn't explicitly say "We should kill gay people".

So you admit that what you said was not true. Makes me wonder what else you have said is not true about Charlie Kirk.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Martin Luther King jr had multiple affairs. So his criticism is valid.

Since you seem to agree with this point, is DT a person of poor character?

 

[FireDragon76]

So you admit that what you said was not true. Makes me wonder what else you have said is not true about Charlie Kirk.

The point is that he weaponizes the Bible against minorities. In fact, attacking the dignity of minorities and women, in the name of establishing the hierarchies of a largely imagined past, was a large part of his grift.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The point is that he weaponizes the Bible against minorities. In fact, attacking the dignity of minorities and women, in the name of establishing the hierarchies of a largely imagined past, was a large part of his grift.

How so? By telling men they cant be women? By arguing against illegal immigration? By pointing out the actual problems with the black community? I actually dont recall Charlie ever bringing up scripture unless some atheist activists tried to cherry pick scripture out of context to play "gotcha" only for Charlie to use scripture to explain why their argument was wrong under their premise.

 

[Desk trauma]

Leftists show their true colors after Charlie Kirk is shot — and it's absolutely sickening | Blaze Media

When someone shows you who are they are, believe them.

www.theblaze.com

This article doesn't even describe the worst of it.

There are countless social media messages and videos of people laughing, cheering, dancing that Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

This isn't some fringe group hiding in a dark hole in the corner of the internet.

They are school teachers, academics, healthcare workers, government workers, city officials, administrators, members of military, etc.

Hundreds of them, at least, on record proudly expressing their joy over this murder. If you have X you can go watch them now.


The more "moderate" leftists / liberals are running cover for this ghastly reality, as the media desperately tries to churn out reports of "conservatives politicizing the event" "Right-wingers are just as bad!!!"

But we can see the truth.

This is who the Left is - not their fringe but their core. They celebrate violence and death against their political enemies - especially someone like Charlie Kirk, who was just a mainstream moderate conservative guy whose only crime was openly challenging Leftist ideology. To them, that was worse than being a murderer or a rapist, and deserving of death, which they now cheer on.

It has never been clearer that the supposed "moral equivalence between the Right and Left" is an illusion.

The Left / Liberals are going to be working overtime to try and make this reality go away but it's too late - too many people have seen it.

The level of open depravity even shocked me and I had considered myself desensitized to this sort of thing.



We better pray these people never get back into power because they know they've been seen now and will not hold back.

This one getting grandfathered in on the no blanket condemnation thing that was just over the header?

 

[NxNW]

No one is asking these people to revere him, just to show some decency and not mock the husband of a wife who’s children have just lost their father. I thought the left was all about empathy.

Charlie Kirk said empathy is bad.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Charlie Kirk said that gays deserve to be killed

He did not.

Stephen King just publicly apologized for parroting back that same claim
"The Long Walk" author claimed in a now-deleted X post that the 31-year-old political commentator previously advocated for the act of throwing stones to kill gay people. He later retracted the statement and expressed regret for taking a comment Kirk made on his podcast last year out of context.

The context of that clip in question (in which he was critiquing a children's youtuber named 'Ms Rachel'), and he was making a point about how anyone can cherry pick a verse out of context to further a political agenda. (in response to her using the Bible verses to justify the position "this is why it's the Christian thing to do to support pride month"

So his comment was in the theme of:
"So you're quoting that Leviticus 19 verse to use as a justification of why Christians should support Pride...what does the verse right before it say???"

women should not work outside the home

His wife had her own career, she runs a non-profit as well as her own clothing brand. (and also worked as a real estate agent)

What he said:
"I would also tell young ladies, you can always go back to your career later, that there is a window of time where you should primarily focus on your children" "This is not about shaming, this is not about ridiculing, this is not about moralizing. It is about lifting up what is beautiful,"

The notion that "Stay at home mom" (if the option is economically viable) is better than "dropped off in daycare" for the early formative years, isn't a radical opinion.

the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a mistake

His position wasn't that "making sure minorities have certain rights protected is a mistake". His position was that the way the law was crafted created a permanent bureaucracy that runs rival to the constitution in many instances. Also not a unique viewpoint.

and that Martin Luther King Jr. was a person of poor character

I think there is some evidence for that.

I’m an MLK scholar – and I’ll never be able to view King in the same light

King was once thought of as a saint beyond reproach. It eventually emerged that he was a womanizer. But we now have to ask the unthinkable: Did King enable abuse?

theconversation.com

And it should be noted that there was some "spirited debate" within civil rights leadership circles with regards to who should be the "face of the movement", and there were some rather "interesting" (I would call them "superficial, and potentially self-serving") tactics being employed by some civil rights leaders

Are you familiar with Claudette Colvin?

For those who aren't, she was the one who was actually earlier refused to give up her seat on a bus -- months and months before Rosa Parks did it. Fred Gray was ready to take her case to court and begin the fight to end segregated bussing.

Certain preachers in Montgomery (and NAACP) decided to backburner that, and waited until Rosa Parks did it and then rallied around her.

Their reason for that? Claudette got pregnant while being unmarried

NAACP and certain preachers also thought it would be better to have someone who had the "the right hair, and the right look" to be the face of the movement, so Parks (who was a long-time secretary for the NAACP) got to be "the one"

Even the iconic photograph was a pre-planned photo op. The "angry white man" sitting behind her in the picture was actually a journalist who agreed to sit in for the photo.

Iconic photo of Rosa Parks was staged

Iconic photo of Parks was staged

www.denverpost.com

 

[rambot]

Some ideas are awful, and some ideas are better than others. A civil society are capable of debating those ideas in a public forum for the people to decide.

I think it's profoundly strange that anyone would ever think that "awful ideas" DESERVE the right to be debated just because they exist. It's the kind of thing that drags society backward.

They're awful.

People with awful ideas often feel they were treated awfully when they loose the debate.

Actually people with awful ideas actually tend to feel smug and self righteous and communicate in the same way with others.

 

[bèlla]

This "tradwife" stuff is modern socio-political kayfabe. Being a stay at home mom has always been a luxury of the burgeois and upper-middle-class, not working people, for at least the past fifty or sixty years or more.

It’s largely a fallacy and the majority are supporting their homes through social media content and cosplaying the aesthetic. We’re witnessing a reversal within some groups and a lessening of the rhetoric. Many women “retired their husbands” based on overinflated earnings from YouTube primarily during the pandemic. That was a specific period within our history which wasn’t going to last.

They’re not businesses in the traditional sense. The majority don’t have products, a newsletter or a marketing strategy at all. They work for YouTube and get paid a portion of the ad revenue Google receives. That’s the ‘salary’ and you can earn extra through affiliate sales and promotions. And Google determines what the content is worth not the creator.

As you might expect, things changed when the world opened up and we got back to our lives. Views began to drop and payments decreased and continue to do so. Which required them to increase their output to compensate for the loss. This is really prevalent in the homesteading community. Most of the wives on YouTube are the breadwinners but that wasn’t the case before.

The dichotomy is evident to the audience and the allure has run its course. They’re no different from the viewer she’s just doing it from home while calling herself a stay-at-home wife. There’s a quiet revolt underway in response to the falseness. The proliferation of snark sites is a tell-tale sign of the shift. They’re everywhere.

As you noted, managing the household on one income with no contribution from the wife is a luxury. The term did not apply to couples living frugally to make it work or implementing similar reductions in its place. The premise was affordability with no necessity for adjustments. The modern guise is primarily a combination of cost saving methods and work from home opportunities when possible.

~bella

 

[rambot]

So Charlie apparently said a lot of awful things about a lot of people and now a lot of people are saying awful things about him. I’m sure you’re seeing the problem here. They’ve become like Charlie.

Ok. Sure.
Charlie was rhe peoblem.

And while the people Charlie supposedly said awful things to had the opportunity to respond, Charlie doesn’t have that option. Kicking a person when they’re down is what cowards do.

Supposedly?
If you can't even admit it, what's rhe point? You don't believe those awful things he said were awful.
If you're worried about your legacy don't say awful things. History is rife with jerks and we still talk about them as jerks

Stop telling get people to shut up because their bully is gone.

No one is asking these people to revere him, just to show some decency and not mock the husband of a wife who’s children have just lost their father. I thought the left was all about empathy.

So your argument t is that the left is behaving too much like the right? Don't like the own medicine taste.

I heard this great quote today:
"Don't become the hate you claim to fight."

It’s form this video that debunks a lot of the “awful things” Charlie is accusing of saying.

Sane washing ain't my bag thanks. I'm pretty good with rhe English language and hearing what people say.

 

[Danthemailman]

But then there’s the many left wingers on social media celebrating his death.

Just showing their true colors.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Actually people with awful ideas actually tend to feel smug and self righteous and communicate in the same way with others.

And sometimes they just shoot the other person in the neck, or blow the tip of their ear off.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Since you seem to agree with this point, is DT a person of poor character?

I think we all know the answer to that one...

Even conservative pundits have acknowledged as much.

Ben Shapiro said "It'd be very difficult to cheer the moral character of Donald Trump, nor do I feel it's appropriate to do so" not long ago.

That echoes sentiments of Trump supporters who I know in my personal life... they're not a huge fan of his moral character, the thing they like about Trump, for lack of a better way of putting it, is that he's an effective bulwark against you guys.

 

[NxNW]

In wake of Jerry Falwell's death, Christopher Hitchens had some things to say that are relevant to this topic.

 

[Desk trauma]

In wake of Jerry Falwell's death, Christopher Hitchens had some things to say that are relevant to this topic.

Why did you have to smoke Chris…

 

[Chesterton]

In wake of Jerry Falwell's death, Christopher Hitchens had some things to say that are relevant to this topic.

It wasn't necessary, but thank you for reminding us that Hitchens was a scumbag for whom the words "human decency" were an alien concept.