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

[DaisyDay]

That'd be like Matt Walsh criticizing conservatives saying "Whoa, guys, you're going a little nuts with the Anti-trans stuff"

Which he has not ever done.

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.

AI sometimes lies.

12K views · 1.2K reactions | Charlie Kirk: “god’s perfect law says gay people should be stoned to death” | Steve Peña

Charlie Kirk: “god’s perfect law says gay people should be stoned to death”.

www.facebook.com

 

[NxNW]

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

Both apparently by right-wingers.

 

[NxNW]

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.

Hitchens was correct in this case.

 

[MrMoe]

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".

“manner suggestive”. Meaning it’s not conclusive if that’s what he believed. Your previous comment gives the false impression that’s what he definitely said.

Not among any actual Christians I know in real life.

So, anecdotal evidence.

Only in American fundamentalist evangelical churches, perhaps, but even then it's hardly the norm.

Yet it exists among them. Hardly extreme.

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.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that racial grievance is a sin or a vice. The bible does condemn adding to God’s word.

No nuance ≠ extreme.

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).

According to ai there is evidence:

Yes, there is evidence Martin Luther King Jr. had extramarital affairs, including recorded conversations and FBI documents, which have been documented in biographies and journalistic accounts. These documents detail instances of King's infidelity, although his personal conduct was a topic of controversy and debate, even among those in the civil rights movement.

Evidence and Accounts

• FBI surveillance:
  The FBI secretly wiretapped King's hotel rooms and telephones, gathering recordings and documents that included evidence of his sexual encounters with other women.
  
  
• Coretta Scott King's Knowledge:
  King's wife, Coretta Scott King, was reportedly aware of his affairs and, in some cases, even tried to help him manage the situations.
  
  
• Biographical Accounts:
  Authors and historians who have examined the FBI's files and other sources, such as David Garrow in his book Bearing the Cross, have detailed King's infidelity.
  
  
• Controversy and Debate:
  The extent of his affairs and their impact on his public persona and the broader civil rights movement remains a subject of discussion.
  

What makes Charlie thinking MLK was a poor person of character extreme? Is it not okay to have a bad opinion of a person of color?

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

Actor Adam Sandler is a millionaire and has often been called “a normal guy”

Seems like you conflating bank balance with the way a person behaves, which what people are referring to when calling Charlie Kirk a normal guy.

 

[MrMoe]

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

Yes, I’ve said this before. I think he and Biden are lukewarm Christians. Maybe he’s changed now, but his past shows he wasn’t a very good Christian.

 

[MrMoe]

Charlie Kirk said empathy is bad.

Actually he said he didn’t like the term. He said he preferred sympathy.

“I prefer sympathy over empathy." - Charlie Kirk

 

[Bradskii]

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

Nobody does. But whether one loses sleep over it is another matter. Especially as he told you that deaths like this are worth it to protect your second amendment rights.

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

It's not my opinions that would concern anyone.

 

[hedrick]

This story talks about the origin of the claim that he said gay people should be stoned.

https://ew.com/stephen-king-apologizes-charlie-kirk-advocated-stoning-gays-11808874

 

[Bradskii]

Actually he said he didn’t like the term.

'"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage." Fact Check: Charlie Kirk once said empathy was 'made-up, new age term'

 

[MrMoe]

Ok. Sure.
Charlie was rhe peoblem.

No, it the person that murdered him and the people who celebrated it that are the problem.

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

What’s considered “awful” is subjective. To one person a Christian telling a non Christian that they a going to hell if they don’t accept Jesus Christ, could be seen as awful. To the Christian it is an act of love.

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

I believe the Pharisee and merchants selling in God’s temple would have considered Jesus Christ a bully too. That doesn’t mean he was one.

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

Whatever happened to “when they go low, we go high”? Or is that only when the left win elections?

Sane washing ain't my bag thanks.

Sane washing? That’s a new term I’ve never heard.

I'm pretty good with rhe English language and hearing what people say.

You’ve misspelled ‘the’ more than once.

 

[MrMoe]

Which he has not ever done.

AI sometimes lies.

12K views · 1.2K reactions | Charlie Kirk: “god’s perfect law says gay people should be stoned to death” | Steve Peña

Charlie Kirk: “god’s perfect law says gay people should be stoned to death”.

www.facebook.com

A seconds long out of context social media clip isn’t the best source.

Charlie was pointing out to YouTube creator Rachel Anne Accurso that it isn’t a good idea to cherry-pick scripture because if you do you can cherry-pick verse like the verse about stoning people.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Both apparently by right-wingers.

That is not true and you know it.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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.

I just wanted to come back to this because I overlooked it. But I don't think you understand the gravity of what you just said. Do you really and truly think that the intellectual freedom to present one's ideas in a public forum in which opponents have the opportunity to challenge those ideas through civil discourse "drags society backwards?" I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

 

[Palmfever]

His death provides a convenient distraction from the GOP's refusal to release the Epstein files. Kirk wanted them released, after all.

If there was a ‘smoking gun’ on Epstein, why didn’t the Dems, who controlled the ‘files’ for four years, and had [former Attorney General Merrick] Garland and [ex-prosecutor Maureen] Comey in charge, use it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Good question

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If there was a ‘smoking gun’ on Epstein, why didn’t the Dems, who controlled the ‘files’ for four years, and had [former Attorney General Merrick] Garland and [ex-prosecutor Maureen] Comey in charge, use it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Good question

Because that would be weaponizing the justice system.

 

[NxNW]

If there was a ‘smoking gun’ on Epstein, why didn’t the Dems, who controlled the ‘files’ for four years, and had [former Attorney General Merrick] Garland and [ex-prosecutor Maureen] Comey in charge, use it,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Why did the Trump Administration claim that Trump is in the files? If Trump is innocent, why not release them? Any of the GOP voting to conceal them? What are they hiding?

 

[rambot]

I just wanted to come back to this because I overlooked it. But I don't think you understand the gravity of what you just said. Do you really and truly think that the intellectual freedom to present one's ideas in a public forum in which opponents have the opportunity to challenge those ideas through civil discourse "drags society backwards?" I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

[Gestures arms out as broadly as the internet can go]
How do you like them apples?


There are pockets of useful discourse that do great things. It's not a blanket sentiment.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This story talks about the origin of the claim that he said gay people should be stoned.

https://ew.com/stephen-king-apologizes-charlie-kirk-advocated-stoning-gays-11808874

Yes, King clearly missed the context given the nature of what Kirk was replying to.

In terms of how Charlie actually interacted with gay people.

People will cling to certain reasons that they feel will give them a "public justification" for hating someone... but let's be honest, the real reason they hated him was because of this:

They couldn't beat him in a debate even in a 25 vs. 1 handicap match.

And in a subculture where "credentialism" is elevated, people who like others to think "since I went to college, my opinions should be considered more valuable by default", they don't react well when someone they perceive as "representing a viewpoint that's dumber than mine" bests them in front of other people.

...and as an additional note, I highly recommend all of the episodes of the show "Surrounded", they do it in both directions, they have episodes where 1 progressive person will take on 25 conservatives as well.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

[Gestures arms out as broadly as the internet can go]
How do you like them apples?


There are pockets of useful discourse that do great things. It's not a blanket sentiment.

So tell me, if I were to hypothetically tell you that I thought your ideas were awful and that debating it would be a setback to society. Not saying I am, just a hypothetical question. How would you respond?

 

[Palmfever]

I would say we are at about verse 32 of the cycle...

Romans 1:18-32 KJV
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson lived with transgender partner: source

Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson was living with a transgender partner who was in the process of transitioning from male to female.

nypost.com