Erika Kirk Delivers Powerful National Address, Says Movement Will Not Die

[Vambram]

Please, enlighten me.

You would need to watch or listen to Kirk's long form videos and podcasts to get good understanding of what he said. Taking snippets out of context is never a good idea.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You would need to watch or listen to Kirk's long form videos and podcasts to get good understanding of what he said. Taking snippets out of context is never a good idea.

I've watched enough of the content related to each clip to feel like I've got a pretty good grasp of the context. So, again, please enlighten me. If you think I've misunderstood, please explain the context that clarifies those quotes.

 

[Pommer]

That's dehumanizing rhetoric meant to be dismissive. It's also an anti-intellectual move.

There isn't one universal ideal of reason- Aristotilian syllogistic reasoning is just one logical system of many. And rejection of essentialist metaphysics, which is common in actual leftist discourse, isn't unheard of in traditional, non-western cultures, either. So really what you are talking about as defining "rationality" is hardly universal in scope, it's tied to a particular time and place.

I'm sorry, but that is incorrect.

Effectively saying “nah-ah” to a considered and reasoned post isn’t debate.
Explain to us (all) why it is “incorrect”.
Thanks.

 

[Bradskii]

Your opinion and beliefs about what you think Charlie Kirk said are based upon taking some words, phrases, and sentences of his out of context, big time.

Yeah, someone just tried this in another thread regarding his comment about accepting gun deaths as the price to pay to maintain your right to keep a couple of dozen weapons at home.

The comment on its own comes over as being utterly thoughtless and frankly horrific. But hey, you gotta check the context, dude!

So we all did and now we find that it's still utterly thoughtless and horrific but we can also see the completely fatuous reasoning he used to make it.

 

[Vambram]

Effectively saying “nah-ah” to a considered and reasoned post isn’t debate.
Explain to us (all) why it is “incorrect”.
Thanks.

According to the Lord God, there is one rational ideology. Radical progressive left wing liberals routinely reject what God says in the Bible.

 

[Vambram]

Yeah, someone just tried this in another thread regarding his comment about accepting gun deaths as the price to pay to maintain your right to keep a couple of dozen weapons at home.

The comment on its own comes over as being utterly thoughtless and frankly horrific. But hey, you gotta check the context, dude!

So we all did and now we find that it's still utterly thoughtless and horrific but we can also see the completely fatuous reasoning he used to make it.

And in reference to context, you might find that his own YouTube channel frequently posts short, edited clips from his debates to show him in the best possible light, cutting out the parts showing him agitated, angry, confused, insulting and being proved factually incorrect.

Don't watch the short clips. Listen to his long form radio show and podcasts to get a better record of what Charlie Kirk said.

 

[Bradskii]

Don't watch the short clips. Listen to his long form radio show and podcasts to get a better record of what Charlie Kirk said.

The explanation of why he said what he did about the price he was prepared to pay in lives to have the second amendment was fully contextualised. It was almost an adolescent fantasy about standing up to the government. And he literally meant an armed defence of the people against the best equipped army on the planet to prevent them taking your guns.

Notwithstanding that hardly anyone at all argues against the second. What they argue about are having reasonable checks on who can buy weapons and how they are registered etc. He was saying that he doesn't even want guns registered because....well, 'they' may come and knock on your door and ask you to hand them over.

It's not possible for me to explain to you how absolutely crazy that is.

Now I don't know if you've seen video of his shooting. Almost all media have paused the actual moment or have pixilated it. Why? Because watching someone in close up getting shot in the neck is very confronting. Yeah, we see all sots of detailed fictional horror on the big screen and on TV. But I've seen the unexpurgated version. And when you know it's for real and you see how much blood a body can expel in a couple of seconds then it's very distressing. Now instead of a well built grown man consider it happening to a five year old girl. You would have to be less than human not to demand changes to gun laws if you were to see it.

So we have the reality of the horror versus this American macho posturing when the only way they'll take your gun is from your cold dead hands. What some channel needs the cojones to do is to show somebody spouting that puerile adolescent rhetoric and then pan left to watch a young kid taking the same shot as Kirk did. Slow fade to a question: 'Is this the price you want to pay?'

 

[Vambram]

The explanation of why he said what he did about the price he was prepared to pay in lives to have the second amendment was fully contextualised. It was almost an adolescent fantasy about standing up to the government. And he literally meant an armed defence of the people against the best equipped army on the planet to prevent them taking your guns.

Notwithstanding that hardly anyone at all argues against the second. What they argue about are having reasonable checks on who can buy weapons and how they are registered etc. He was saying that he doesn't even want guns registered because....well, 'they' may come and knock on your door and ask you to hand them over.

It's not possible for me to explain to you how absolutely crazy that is.

Now I don't know if you've seen video of his shooting. Almost all media have paused the actual moment or have pixilated it. Why? Because watching someone in close up getting shot in the neck is very confronting. Yeah, we see all sots of detailed fictional horror on the big screen and on TV. But I've seen the unexpurgated version. And when you know it's for real and you see how much blood a body can expel in a couple of seconds then it's very distressing. Now instead of a well built grown man consider it happening to a five year old girl. You would have to be less than human not to demand changes to gun laws if you were to see it.

So we have the reality of the horror versus this American macho posturing when the only way they'll take your gun is from your cold dead hands. What some channel needs the cojones to do is to show somebody spouting that puerile adolescent rhetoric and then pan left to watch a young kid taking the same shot as Kirk did. Slow fade to a question: 'Is this the price you want to pay?'

Your negative criticism about what Charlie Kirk’s beliefs are concerning the 2nd Amendment don't coincide with what he really said and believed.

 

[Bradskii]

Your negative criticism about what Charlie Kirk’s beliefs are concerning the 2nd Amendment don't coincide with what he really said and believed.

This wasn't based on someone's opinion of what he might have believed. Not some Youtube warrior assuming that it's what he meant. It's based on exactly what he said.

Is Charlie Kirk At Fault In His Own Murder?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines and speaking ill of the dead

decivitate.jamesjheaney.com

"So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."

 

[Pommer]

According to the Lord God, there is one rational ideology. Radical progressive left wing liberals routinely reject what God says in the Bible.

“Good” sez I, what of it?

 

[Bradskii]

According to the Lord God, there is one rational ideology.

No there isn't. Jesus was pretty much on point about how we should live. But His Father? You are kidding me. The only people who believe that the sum total of His word represents one rational, undeniable, coherent and unchanging moral handbook are a small minority of Christians. You see people in this forum arguing theological points constantly.

And Christ didn't design things so that half of all life needs to eat the other half to live. He didn't drown the whole planet, including the elderly, babes in arms, babes in the womb for heaven's sake, order the killing of entire nations including the children (but hey, keep the women). You'll have Christians from all points of the compass arguing with you that none of that, and a lot more beside, is a rational ideology. That it represents a fundamentalist view of God.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Don't watch the short clips. Listen to his long form radio show and podcasts to get a better record of what Charlie Kirk said.

If I have to listen to hours of content in order to "properly" contextualize a few sentences (rather than simply the full conversation in which those sentences were said), then the speaker must not be very good at expressing himself. And that's not an accusation that I'd level against Charlie Kirk.

 

[Vambram]

If I have to listen to hours of content in order to "properly" contextualize a few sentences (rather than simply the full conversation in which those sentences were said), then the speaker must not be very good at expressing himself. And that's not an accusation that I'd level against Charlie Kirk.

Snippets taken out of context can be used to say anything. But, I am sure that nothing a conservative says will change your mind.

 

[Bradskii]

But, I am sure that nothing a conservative says will change your mind.

In my case, generally not. My views have been developed over decades so it's not likely that someone with a different opinion is going to change my mind during any given discussion, however long it lasts. I've argued my positions over very many years indeed and I've heard all the usual arguments against them.

That said, there are those on the right who are adept at putting their views forward (some in this forum). And the discussions are interesting for that reason. I have no problem is saying that any given person has excellent, coherent and well thought out and well presented arguments. Kirk was not one of those people.

I've just watched him in a talk with Bill Maher. Yeah, he's not exactly a Titan in the area of debates. In my opinion, not completely hopeless, but I wouldn't pick him for my team. But it was over an hour and Kirk should have been able to put his views forward and get Maher on the back foot. Politically and theologically. Any decent debater could have run rings around him. But he was honestly hopeless. I swear that I could have played the Devil's Advocate and done a better job on both subjects without any prep whatsoever.

The more I watch of him, the more I read about him, the more I watch him talk, the more puzzled I am that he had any substantial following at all.

 

[Hazelelponi]

And therein lies the problem.

The context of being hired because of the color of your skin instead of your education level, talent and abilities is helpful to know. With DEI hiring practices it leaves the customer who depends on said education, actual talent and ability of the pilot in question , who is being depended upon for your life and safety, wondering whether one might need to be a customer elsewhere that cares about safety more than virtue signalling might truly enter any customers mind, as Kirk was pointing out. People don't care about the color of someone's skin, just whether they might arrive at their destination alive.

But that's okay because context shouldn't matter when there's narrative instead of truth.

 

[Bradskii]

The context of being hired because of the color of your skin instead of your education level, talent and abilities is helpful to know.

Well, of course. All airlines are awarding people their wings simply because they're a minority. Ol' Jimmy nearly flew into the control tower on his last flight. His aced his last landing, but it was at the wrong airport. Buy hey, he's a black guy so we gotta do what we gotta do I guess.

Maybe somebody should take some time to explain to you what DEI means. Maybe they should explain that it grants equal opportunity to groups of people that otherwise might not have that opportunity. Absorb this:

Senator Warnock's newly-passed legislation tackles diversity and employment gaps in the aviation industry

Senator Warnock secures $240 million for aviation workforce development, addressing diversity and pilot shortage in the aviation industry.

theatlantavoice.com

Only 3.4% of U.S. airline pilots are Black, 2.2% are of Asian descent, and 0.5% are Hispanic or Latino. Women make up just 4.6%.

Now, do you think that us white guys are just natural born flyers and that's why we are so overrepresented? Or do you think that there might, just might be another reason. Me, I'm going Option 2. Because there's a boatload of reasons why minorities don't get the opportunity even to be given the chance. And one of them is people like Kirk making monstrously stupid comments like 'Whoa, there's a black dude at the pointy end. Are we going to get to Atlanta safely?'

So DEI gives more people the opportunity. If you don't know your flaps from your ailerons after a few lessons then you're out. Whatever colour or gender or minority you are. But if you get through an extremely demanding and lengthy course (not to mention the expense - see Option 2 again) then you get your stripes. Whatever colour or gender or minority you are. It is plainly idiotic for anyone to suggest otherwise.

If Kirk had had any sense then what he should have said is ' Hey, look. The pilot's a black woman. Getting your stripes is a tough gig, but to do it from her position really shows that she's got the right stuff!' But then, he wasn't the type of person that would think that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

All airlines are awarding people their wings simply because they're a minority

I believe he was speaking about United specifically as opposed to all airlines, but I would have to listen to the exchange again. It was near all those bolt failures (loose bolts found on a large number of planes which led to United grounding a large number of planes for a while) by United Airlines anyway and it stuck in my mind it was more of a dig on United; their DEI policies being blamed for the failures in safety.

But that's just my memory here and I could be mis-remembering whether United was specifically named but I was thinking he did.

People just want good service and actual safety when they are placing their safety in your hands.

When you're out on PR tours patting yourself on the back for discrimination against the more qualified job candidates in your hiring practices and then you have to ground all the planes over safety concerns people start not trusting even the more skilled positions, because you would think they might hire someone that could tighten a bolt, regardless of skin color.

But I digress. Most normal Americans want a merit based hiring system in this country. It used to be something black and white people both agreed on. Now we only agree if we are on the same side of the aisle.

But my side of the aisle doesn't care if the pilot is purple so long as he's the most qualified person to be flying the plane. None of us really want to die, or take our safety concerns about as serious as a crapshoot. Merit, it's the better way.

It carries with it the added benefit of actual equality too. It's a win win.

 

[Bradskii]

But my side of the aisle doesn't care if the pilot is purple so long as he's the most qualified person to be flying the plane.

Exactly. And no-one is going to qualify if they're not up to the job. Whether they are white, black, Asian...it doesn't matter. If you see someone in a uniform with stripes on their arm then they are qualified. Giving minorities equal opportunity to try to get to that position doesn't change that fact. In fact it improves the situation by having a larger pool from which to select the creme de la creme.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The context of being hired because of the color of your skin instead of your education level, talent and abilities is helpful to know. With DEI hiring practices it leaves the customer who depends on said education, actual talent and ability of the pilot in question , who is being depended upon for your life and safety, wondering whether one might need to be a customer elsewhere that cares about safety more than virtue signalling might truly enter any customers mind, as Kirk was pointing out. People don't care about the color of someone's skin, just whether they might arrive at their destination alive.

Everyone flying a commercial airliner in the US has been trained to the same federal standards, passed the same tests, received the same psychological and medical evaluations, and is subject to the same strict rules on crew rest. There is no reason that anyone flying on an accredited airline should think that their pilot might not be capable of doing his or her job. There is no "DEI" component to earning a pilot's license.

 

[Vambram]

Everyone flying a commercial airliner in the US has been trained to the same federal standards, passed the same tests, received the same psychological and medical evaluations, and is subject to the same strict rules on crew rest. There is no reason that anyone flying on an accredited airline should think that their pilot might not be capable of doing his or her job. There is no "DEI" component to earning a pilot's license.

Unfortunately, there was a DEI component to earning a pilots license.