White men...u ok?

[Kathleen30]

Well, I'll apologise again for conveying a message to you that was not my intent.

Now, my signature is not the words below my avatar, but three observations below the text of each message, which the forum chooses to call a signature. The relevant observation reads:

If you have not understood what I have posted the fault is probably mine. Ask for clarification. I expect the same courtesy from you.

You can view it by hitting the words Toggle Signature. at the bottom of this post.

As to being a talking ape, scientifically that is beyond dispute. Humans are classified as apes. When you look in a mirror you see an ape. If that offends you I can be of no help in the matter. You would need to take it up with hundreds of thousands of zoologists, anthropologists and the like. If you wish to debate that, best start a new thread, we've derailed this one enough.

Ophiolate. Yes I did now find your signature reading in your profile page. As to the apology we simply put it down to a misunderstanding of one sentence in a heated moment . Of which you explained later with the extra context. As to the ape one and what anthologists say of the ape being our ancestors. Well me not sure. Yes it was once a established fact with the discovery of the Piltdown in 1911-1912 by Charles Dawson which probably gave the theory its established credibility for some 40 years all the way up to 1953 when it was finally discovered to be a forgery. But I guess with the likes of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin the discoverer of the Peking man which actually turned out to be fully human skulls upon closer scrutiny. And with Teilhard lurking around in Sussex also in 1912 . . Some do say that Charles Dawson never acted alone in the deception, and that there may have been others involved in the deception as well.. So I not so sure that the theory is established as scientific fact. So I guess that elusive missing link remains just that. So when I look in the mirror. I continue to look upon the reflection of beautiful mother Eve and not so much think upon Lucy the ape . But yes we be-some off topic I not write any more. Ophiolate I hope you a nice evening for you . Kathleen

 

[rambot]

I have to be a Vanity Fair subscriber to read the whole article. How about a video clip of Charlie Kirk himself actually saying whatever, rather than Ta-Nehisi Coates telling me what he said?

Because you think a black reporter is going to misquote him. Or, he isn't worthy of your trust I guess.

 

[Servus]

Because you think a black reporter is going to misquote him. Or, he isn't worthy of your trust I guess.

Wow you just flat out accused me of being racist. I want to hear what Charlie Kirk said from Charlie Kirk himself, rather than go by hearsay claims of any third party. The idea I'd accept or reject third party hearsay based on race, is highly insulting and absurd.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Wow you just flat out accused me of being racist. I want to hear what Charlie Kirk said from Charlie Kirk himself, rather than go by hearsay claims of any third party. The idea I'd accept or reject third party hearsay based on race, is highly insulting and absurd.

You should, obviously. A black reporter clearly could be there only through DEI. Heck, you could even apply that to your next airline pilot.

 

[Servus]

Incognito Mode was enough to get me around the paywall.

All the same, I'd much rather hear what Charlie Kirk said from Kirk himself. Rather than potentially politically biased hearsay from a third party.

 

[iluvatar5150]

All the same, I'd much rather hear what Charlie Kirk said from Kirk himself. Rather than potentially politically biased hearsay from a third party.

Like I said when I posted the link, it’s a very well-cited article, so you can go watch many of the things he quotes.

 

[Servus]

This is from the article. The links go to the source as requested. They were included in the piece.

Kirk habitually railed against “Black crime,” claiming that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.” He repeated the rape accusations against Yusef Salaam, a member of the exonerated Central Park Five who is now a New York City councilman, calling him a “disgusting pig” who had gotten away with “gang rape.”

Whatever distaste Kirk held for Blacks was multiplied when he turned to those from Haiti. Haiti was, by Kirk’s lights, a country “infested with demonic voodoo,” whose migrants were “raping your women and hunting you down at night.” These Haitians, as well as undocumented immigrants from other countries, were “having a field day,” per Kirk, and “coming for your daughter next.” The only hope was Donald Trump, who had to prevail, lest Haitians “become your masters.”

The point of this so-called mastery was as familiar as it was conspiratorial—“great replacement.” There was an “anti-white agenda,” Kirk howled. One that sought to “make the country more like the Third World.”

~bella

I wish I had the time and inclination to weed through all of what those links contain just to verify someone's post.

But I'll go with the first one taking it for granted the others are similar. What in this one is supposed to be the problem: habitually railed against. The comment about black fathers? I've heard the same from black commentators like Tyrus and Jesse Lee Peterson.

 

[bèlla]

I wish I had the time and inclination to weed through all of what those links contain just to verify someone's post.

But I'll go with the first one taking it for granted the others are similar. What in this one is supposed to be the problem: habitually railed against. The comment about black fathers? I've heard the same from black commentators like Tyrus and Jesse Lee Peterson.

I loaded the pages myself and they’re all featuring him. If you can’t see the problem with his statements in the context of our faith there’s little I can say to tell you otherwise. You’re keenly aware this isn’t the way our Lord spoke and He’s our benchmark. Many of the things he said are contentious or could be considered malicious. Believers will be hard pressed to complain about anyone if he gets a pass.

~bella

 

[Aldebaran]

I loaded the pages myself and they’re all featuring him. If you can’t see the problem with his statements in the context of our faith there’s little I can say to tell you otherwise. You’re keenly aware this isn’t the way our Lord spoke and He’s our benchmark. Many of the things he said are contentious or could be considered malicious. Believers will be hard pressed to complain about anyone if he gets a pass.

~bella

I just watched that video where he said that sentence that ended up being the headline of the video toward the very end of the video. In the context that he said it, I don't see any problem with it. He is correct that there is a lot of black crime in America and that simply reforming the justice system isn't going to stop that crime from happening. Also, it is not racist to point that out. It is a fact. Denying it is simply sweeping the problem under the rug and pretending it's not there.

 

[bèlla]

I just watched that video where he said that sentence that ended up being the headline of the video toward the very end of the video. In the context that he said it, I don't see any problem with it. He is correct that there is a lot of black crime in America and that simply reforming the justice system isn't going to stop that crime from happening. Also, it is not racist to point that out. It is a fact. Denying it is simply sweeping the problem under the rug and pretending it's not there.

I’m not addressing the videos at all. It appears he and I have different ideas of what it means to represent the Lord in the public eye. And whether you agree with his position or not the way you say things makes all the difference. He took liberties with his words that I find distasteful while calling himself a man of God in the next breath. Perhaps that’s of no consequence to some but I have standards.

~bella

 

[Servus]

I loaded the pages myself and they’re all featuring him. If you can’t see the problem with his statements in the context of our faith there’s little I can say to tell you otherwise. You’re keenly aware this isn’t the way our Lord spoke and He’s our benchmark. Many of the things he said are contentious or could be considered malicious. Believers will be hard pressed to complain about anyone if he gets a pass.

~bella

You should listed to some black commentators like the once I suggested. Then you might end up accusing Charlie Kirk of plagiarism.

 

[Servus]

I’m not addressing the videos at all. It appears he and I have different ideas of what it means to represent the Lord in the public eye. And whether you agree with his position or not the way you say things makes all the difference. He took liberties with his words that I find distasteful while calling himself a man of God in the next breath. Perhaps that’s of no consequence to some but I have standards.

~bella

It's not what he said, it's that he wasn't gentle enough?

 

[bèlla]

It's not what he said, it's that he wasn't gentle enough?

My moral compass doesn’t bend according to preference. If something is distasteful or crosses a line it doesn’t cease to be so because the offender is someone I like. This is a fundamental principle of right and wrong. While I may allow some measure of grace for a wayward soul trying to do the right thing. There’s a different application for a christian and those in positions like his. Unlike most, public figures have the ability to impact many for good or ill. A person who makes faith an integral part of their platform will have greater scrutiny then more obscure parties. Which can be wondrous for the kingdom or a train wreck.

When you have a platform it’s not about you. It’s a vehicle for your mission and a beacon you’re entrusted to carry much like we see in the olympics. That’s why the message is important. We can draw others to the light or repel them instead. You don’t have to be gruff or rude to make your point and courtesy is never bad. Especially in that space.

But much of this is a reflection of mindset. I work for the Lord and everything I have and will ever attain is the result of His endowment and favor. He built this not I and I’m His handiwork. That’s the difference between autonomy and a vessel. One has liberties the other doesn’t. I can’t stand before a microphone and do what He did. It will dishonor the Lord, compromise my witness and lead to conversations like these.

~bella

 

[Servus]

My moral compass doesn’t bend according to preference. If something is distasteful or crosses a line it doesn’t cease to be so because the offender is someone I like. This is a fundamental principle of right and wrong. While I may allow some measure of grace for a wayward soul trying to do the right thing. There’s a different application for a christian and those in positions like his. Unlike most, public figures have the ability to impact many for good or ill. A person who makes faith an integral part of their platform will have greater scrutiny then more obscure parties. Which can be wondrous for the kingdom or a train wreck.

When you have a platform it’s not about you. It’s a vehicle for your mission and a beacon you’re entrusted to carry much like we see in the olympics. That’s why the message is important. We can draw others to the light or repel them instead. You don’t have to be gruff or rude to make your point and courtesy is never bad. Especially in that space.

But much of this is a reflection of mindset. I work for the Lord and everything I have and will ever attain is the result of His endowment and favor. He built this not I and I’m His handiwork. That’s the difference between autonomy and a vessel. One has liberties the other doesn’t. I can’t stand before a microphone and do what He did. It will dishonor the Lord, compromise my witness and lead to conversations like these.

~bella

That was a sublimely elegant speech, however it didn't really answer the question. When one reads Paul, one finds out that Paul could be quite blunt and gruff at times. Sometimes bluntness is needed more so than soothing strokes from a velvet glove.

 

[bèlla]

That was a sublimely elegant speech, however it didn't really answer the question. When one reads Paul, one finds out that Paul could be quite blunt and gruff at times.

If that didn’t answer your question then you’re seeking something beyond what was given.

In my experience right and wrong are fairly clear. When we have to go back and forth on an issue it usually happens for two reasons. We’re trying to make the situation fit a narrative or talk ourselves into or out of it.

~bella

 

[Aldebaran]

That was a sublimely elegant speech, however it didn't really answer the question. When one reads Paul, one finds out that Paul could be quite blunt and gruff at times. Sometimes bluntness is needed more so than soothing strokes from a velvet glove.

So could Jesus. "Woe to you, hypocrites", he said to Pharisees and others. And going into the temple with the whip probably didn't sit well with some people there. There are those today who might be turned off by that approach if He was here now doing that.