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

Trogdor the Burninator said:

Nothing for hundreds of children murdered by psychotic gunmen in schools mind you - but we already knew that a lot of Republicans don't care about school shootings.

After all, "it’s worth it 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"

Click to expand...

It might be good to view that statement in actual context, because there was actually a lot of context.

For those too lazy to click on the link to see it, though, fuller context of that statement is:

Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. 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.

So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

As the post linked to comments on the above:

"Now, Kirk’s view of the Second Amendment may be right. It may be wrong. What I don’t think can be said is that he is callous. He is not willing to let a bunch of kids die and then just wave it off as the cost of doing business. He wants to reduce killings, and he has proposals on how to bring it about. (His proposals may be right, they may be wrong, but they seem to be in earnest.) I don’t think you can condemn him for this passage without also condemning everyone who drives a car."

essentialsaltes said:

'You want a fight?' Nancy Mace demands schools be defunded over reactions to Kirk's death​

"We are urging Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to take decisive action to cut off federal funding from any elementary, secondary, and post-secondary educational institution refusing to hold teachers or administrators accountable for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk," Mace wrote on X, sharing a signed letter to United States Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.

Thoughtcrime cancellation metastasis.

Click to expand...

If someone thinks someone should be shot for their opinions, they shouldn't be upset if they get fired because of theirs.

ThatRobGuy said:

Not in the era I was referring to.

And it's not an attempt to excuse, them, it's an attempt to highlight that they're being held to a lopsided standard to begin with.

Click to expand...

Repeating your error just confirms your mistake. The quotes from past politicians and the absurd and frankly desperate rhetoric generally employed by Kirk are so far apart that you just sound foolish in trying to compare them.

And yes, it sounds exactly like you're excusing what he said and how he said it by trying to equate it to what others have said. 'They said something SO...he's not allowed?'

It's a tactic that he used constantly. Watch enough of his 'debates' and he reverts to it constantly. He'll say something patently offensive, intended to appeal to those who support him and if he's asked about it then he'll ask a fatuous question in return to imply that the person accusing him of being, for example, homophobic, is the one that has the problem.

Homophobic? 'So...I have to ignore what the Bible tells us?'

Racist? 'So...I can't question affirmative action?'

Misogynist? 'So...women aren't meant to be mothers?'

Opposing gun control? 'So...you want the government to take your guns?'

JSRG said:

It might be good to view that statement in actual context, because there was actually a lot of context.

Click to expand...

A context which is frankly absurd. He's proposing an armed rebellion by people armed with a Saturday night special or a couple of hunting rifles and a few boxes of ammo against the best equipped army on the planet.

Who is going to organise this? Where are the HQs going to be? How are you going to communicate? How does someone who spends a few hours at the range every now and then going to go up against a bunch of highly trained killers with unlimited weaponry, armed cars, tanks, helicopters, drones, night sights, rocket launchers, smart bombs and heaven know what else? This is not a few guys with flintlocks and a horn full of powder casting their own lead bullets, which the founding fathers had in mind.

It's an absurd, bat crazy American macho fantasy. And a few dozen children being gunned down on a regular basis is the price some people want to pay to live out this fantasy.

Kirk had 2 kids. Would he have agreed to pay the price of their lives to prevent some basic rules and regulations on owning a weapon being agreed to? Give me a break. He accepted someone else's children being sacrificed for his adolescent posturing. He accepted other parents' children having their bodies being blow apart to keep the fantasy alive.

Now his wife can add his tragic death to the total being paid.

God help you all..

Oompa Loompa said:

The same way people were able to do it before "fact checkers" like snopes. By being informed. Liberal universities dont inform, they indoctrinate. For many of these students, they have never heard any point of view outside of their safe spaces. Therefore, they are completely unprepared to argue against it.

Click to expand...

So under trump 1 was there 100,000s of coal related jobs created in Appalachia? Seems unlikely when the whole industry employs less then 100k since 1995. That's not arguing, it's nonsense. He should just have been stopped, and had to explain himself.

Bradskii said:

A context which is frankly absurd. He's proposing an armed rebellion by people armed with a Saturday night special or a couple of hunting rifles and a few boxes of ammo against the best equipped army on the planet.

Who is going to organise this? Where are the HQs going to be? How are you going to communicate? How does someone who spends a few hours at the range every now and then going to go up against a bunch of highly trained killers with unlimited weaponry, armed cars, tanks, helicopters, drones, night sights, rocket launchers, smart bombs and heaven know what else? This is not a few guys with flintlocks and a horn full of powder casting their own lead bullets, which the founding fathers had in mind.

It's an absurd, bat crazy American macho fantasy. And a few dozen children being gunned down on a regular basis is the price some people want to pay to live out this fantasy.

Kirk had 2 kids. Would he have agreed to pay the price of their lives to prevent some basic rules and regulations on owning a weapon being agreed to? Give me a break. He accepted someone else's children being sacrificed for his adolescent posturing. He accepted other parents' children having their bodies being blow apart to keep the fantasy alive.

Click to expand...

I'm not a gun rights guy (I'd be totally fine if they were to remove the Second Amendment, it's a mess judicially anyway), so I'm not even all that much in agreement with his argument. Nevertheless, I feel much of what you wrote could be used to argue that cars all need to be banned (they kill about as many people per year in the US as guns) and that people who don't think cars should be banned are just accepting other people's kids getting run over, and not their own. Plus, no cars means a lot less pollution! The counterargument, of course, is that cars have a lot more positives than guns (I am inclined to agree with this counterargument). Still, he did offer what he viewed as ways to lower the gun deaths at schools. As the article I linked to notes, he might be wrong in his arguments, but the amount of callousness people make him out to have in this area is unwarranted, unless one wishes to claim that people think cars should be legal are similarly callous.

In regards to the possibility of resisting "the best equipped army on the planet", a lot depends on exactly how this hypothetical tyrannical attempt by the government plays out. Remember that the best equipped army on the planet, with all of its technological superiority, still ultimately lost to far weaker forces in Vietnam and Afghanistan; to win, you don't necessarily have to actually defeat the US military, just resist long and hard enough that they decide it's not worth it and quit (someone might say it was because the US was democratic that it gave up, as voters got tired and a tyranny could keep going on, but decidedly non-democratic countries have had to give up when facing much weaker enemies like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan). If the federal government and all the state governments decide to impose absolute tyranny and the military has no objections, then probably an armed citizenry wouldn't be able to do all that much if the government is absolutely determined to go through it all no matter what. However, more plausibly we'd see at least some of the military defect and some states resist, and in that case having resistance people with guns who know how to use them could be a major problem for a tyrannical government. I do think he overestimates how much power an armed citizenry could have in this, but I think you underestimate it.

Bradskii said:

Now his wife can add his tragic death to the total being paid.

God help you all..

Click to expand...

Well, as noted at the link, it appears the gun that was used to kill him would have still been obtainable even if the gun control laws he disliked had been passed, so to say him dying was a total being paid seems erroneous. Emphasis mine, footnote included:

Even if Kirk never specifically blew off gun deaths, though, he did fight against many proposed gun regulations, from the attempt to revive the federal Assault Weapons Ban to federal registration. Then he was killed by a gun! Regardless of his rhetoric, his actions in the legislative arena created the conditions for his own death!

…Right?

No. Charlie Kirk was killed by a single shot from a old-style Mauser .30-06 caliber hunting rifle.

This was not an assault rifle. It was not a sniper rifle. It wasn't even a semi-automatic. It wasn't a handgun. It wasn't a ghost gun. It had a bolt action. It was not a "weapon of war," unless you mean World War I. Here’s an ode to the “indestructible” .30-06 from 1962, singing its praises as a big-game rifle.

This is a hunting rifle. Charlie Kirk believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed Americans access to weapons of war to resist tyrannical government. His critics insisted that he was wrong, and that the only people who need guns are hunters and sportsmen. But this was a hunting gun.

If you repealed the Second Amendment and immediately imposed Canada's gun laws in the United States, Charlie Kirk still could have been shot and killed by this rifle.4 The only way to prevent this would have been to ban every gun in existence, then somehow enforce that ban. Not one of our peer nations has even attempted this, much less succeeded at it.

Once we know more about the shooter, we may find that there were interventions we could have done on the shooter himself (rather than the gun). That's a healthy conversation to have, once we have all the facts. (I don’t know about Charlie Kirk, but I’m pro-red flag laws, and I’ll be interested to know whether a red flag law might have been useful here.) As of today, though, there’s no justification for saying (or thinking) that Kirk’s successful advocacy for gun rights contributed in any way to his own murder. Even if Kirk had been firmly anti-Second Amendment and successfully gotten it repealed and most guns banned, this gun still would have been available to most anyone who wanted him dead. There’s no poetic justice here. Just blood and a child’s tears.

4 Hunting rifles like this must be licensed and registered in Canada, through a PAL or POL license. However, anyone can obtain the license, except people with records of crime or involuntary commitment to a mental hospital. (The U.S. has similar restrictions on criminals and the mentally ill owning guns.) Canadian sportsmen have to jump through more hoops than Americans do to get a gun, like a gun safety course and a 28-day waiting period for a first-time licensee, but none impose substantive obstacles for someone who has already decided to use a gun to commit murder.

Now maybe its description of Canada's gun laws is incorrect, but some quick research seems to back it up.

Oompa Loompa said:

All of a sudden, calls for violence ... and terrroristic threats are now protected free speech to liberals. Because that is what got those people fired.

Click to expand...

We would have to see the evidence of this for all of these cases.

JSRG said:

I'm not a gun rights guy (I'd be totally fine if they were to remove the Second Amendment, it's a mess judicially anyway), so I'm not even all that much in agreement with his argument. Nevertheless, I feel much of what you wrote could be used to argue that cars all need to be banned...

Click to expand...

Excuse me if this comes across as shouting, but...I'M NOT ARGUING THAT GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED!

Or cars for that matter, even thought they kill a lot of people. But they are dangerous (although not designed to kill other people) so I want you to think about all the rules and regulations and laws with which you have to comply with even to take one out of your drive. Do you see people complaining about those rules and licenses and tests and checks and paperwork that's involved in just being able to drive? And you'd be limited to the size and power of the vehicle as well.

That said, do you think it's entirely unreasonable to have at least some equivalent licensing and checks completed if you want to buy something that is literally designed to kill?

And I am also not arguing that registering weapons and having laws as to who can buy one would have prevented Kirk's death. But he said he was prepared to have children shot just to prevent guns even being registered. You've got so many guns in circulation and such a bat crazy nonsensical national attitude to guns that it will take generations to make any significant changes. But...and I'm going to shout again I'm afraid...YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.

ThatRobGuy said:

I noted his position on abortion was pretty far right in the previous post, which is what I said "apart from that issue"

What were the mainstream democratic party stances on the various issues back around the time period I mentioned? (Gay marriage, immigration, Islam)

I recall Obama running on "marriage is between a man and woman" back then.

Biden (2004): “The greatest threat we face is from Islamic extremists who are intent on killing Americans and undermining our way of life.”
Pelosi (2006): "Islamic terrorism remains the greatest threat to our nation."


Want to venture a guess at which politician said this?:
"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants."

Or which one said?:
“We all agree on the need to better secure the border… and punish employers who hire undocumented workers.”

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

roll_call_vote.xml

www.senate.gov

My point wasn't that people are claiming his views are abhorrent "just because he's conservative", my point was about how fast the overton window is moving... where things that would've been perfectly acceptable for a democrat to say 10-15 years ago, are now labelled as "abhorrent far-right" positions.

Click to expand...

Which democrat could have said this in 2010 or 2015?

On race​

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

Click to expand...

If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

Click to expand...

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023

Click to expand...

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024

Click to expand...

If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023

Click to expand...

or

On gender, feminism and reproductive rights​

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

Click to expand...

The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024,

Click to expand...

Collated by the Guardian (there are more)

Charlie Kirk in his own words: ‘prowling Blacks’ and ‘the great replacement strategy’

FireDragon76 said:

Charlie Kirk said that gays deserve to be killed,

Click to expand...

Thats patently false. What a terrible smear. Bearing false witness.

FireDragon76 said:

women should not work outside the home,

Click to expand...

Another false claim. More false witness.

FireDragon76 said:

1964 Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and that Martin Luther King Jr. was a person of poor character.

Click to expand...

Yup he said that.

The only thing that might be considered extreme is his stance on rhe civil rights bill.

He didn't say two of the things you claim.

None of what you wrote makes him deserving of people on the left cheering and rejoicing in his assassination.

Tropical Wilds said:

Two facts can exist at the same time:

Click to expand...

I Never claimed they couldn’t.

Tropical Wilds said:

My criticism for him as a person isn't how he died or about his murder... I criticize the shooter for that. It's how he lived.

Click to expand...

The problem is that this thread topic isn’t about how Charlie Kirk lived, it’s about those celebrating his death. By continuing to make post about him instead of what the thread topic is actually about you are going off topic and break this sites rules.

You are free to start a new thread where you can shake your fist at this man’s corpse to your heart’s content.

Tropical Wilds said:

I think it's admirable how completely and totally you misunderstand that quote, which is about his frustration in the marginalization of black people even behind other minorities.

Click to expand...

He was making a simple observation. Dave is a comedian who was doing stand up and was there to tell jokes, not to make layered social political statements. You’re trying to make his comment deeper than it really is.

Tropical Wilds said:

He wasn't observing that black persons are coddled and infantilized,

Click to expand...

That was my observation, not his. And I specifically said minorities not just black people.

Tropical Wilds said:

he was complaining that in the year of our Lord 2021, a black life is not worth as much as any other life.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he was pointing out that the killer’s homophobic comments is what made people outraged rather than him killing another black man.

Tropical Wilds said:

A mood and attitude that Charlie Kirk actively contributed to and advocated for, I might add.

Click to expand...

You must mean like when he defended Rob Smith, a gay black man, back in 2019.


Charlie really helped minorities, including black people, to get out of the victimhood mentality that the left likes to instill in them.

Larniavc said:

Also from Chat GP

• On a June 2024 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show Kirk criticized YouTuber Ms. Rachel’s “love your neighbor” remark and said, referring to Leviticus, “thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death” while calling that scripture part of “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

Click to expand...

See post #51

essentialsaltes said:

Pete Hegseth tells Pentagon staff to hunt for negative Charlie Kirk posts by service members​

Several people have already been relieved of their jobs because of their posts on social media, defense officials told NBC News.

Several service members have been relieved from their jobs because of such posts, the officials said, adding that Hegseth’s directive also pertains to others associated with the Defense Department. It’s unclear exactly how many people have been disciplined.

One U.S. military officer said troops know they are not allowed to condone political violence, but being fired for criticizing a person, particularly a civilian who has no ties to the military, is extremely rare.

“We can’t criticize the commander in chief, but I can’t remember anyone ever telling me we can’t say anything critical about a civilian like this. He was not in our chain of command or anything,” the officer said.

Click to expand...

That's all I have been doing lately instead of planning the destruction of drug boats loaded up with drugs and terrorists, I have been snitching on disloyal and un American sailors speech and social media posts.

essentialsaltes said:

Unsportsmanlike: Insufficient celebration, 15 yards

Six NFL teams don’t pay tribute to Charlie Kirk​

Seven home teams around the NFL held moments of silence for Charlie Kirk on Sunday, but the Bengals, Lions, Colts, Vikings, Steelers and Ravens did not.

(two more games tonight, including the undefeated Raiders playing at home)

Click to expand...

Remind me what happened to players who refused to take a knee for George Floyd?

Stopped_lurking said:

So under trump 1 was there 100,000s of coal related jobs created in Appalachia? Seems unlikely when the whole industry employs less then 100k since 1995. That's not arguing, it's nonsense. He should just have been stopped, and had to explain himself.View attachment 370098

Click to expand...

I dont understand what Coal related jobs has to do with my point. My point being that people should actually take the time to research topics that are important to them so they can have an informed opinion, rather than just blindly following the biased opinions of people who call themselves "fact checkers." Too often on these forums, so called "fact checkers" have been used as a lazy attempt to play gotcha only to discover months later that the so called "experts" were either completely wrong or were deliberately obscuring the truth with biased technicalities.

Remember back when all the "fact checkers" said that the Hunter Biden laptop was a hoax? Remember when they said the Wuhan lab leak theory was a hoax?

Now, it seems like AI is the latest and greatest lazy way to say, "You are wrong because this guy says so."

essentialsaltes said:

We would have to see the evidence of this for all of these cases.

Click to expand...

You dont want to see evidence. Otherwise you would just watch one of the hundreds of video montages of leftists celebrating kirk's death followed by them crying in their cars because they just found out they go fired because of it. Some of them are actually found in this thread if you take the few minutes to actually watch them.

Oompa Loompa said:

I dont understand what Coal related jobs has to do with my point. My point being that people should actually take the time to research topics that are important to them so they can have an informed opinion, rather than just blindly following the biased opinions of people who call themselves "fact checkers." Too often on these forums, so called "fact checkers" have been used as a lazy attempt to play gotcha only to discover months later that the so called "experts" were either completely wrong or were deliberately obscuring the truth with biased technicalities.

Remember back when all the "fact checkers" said that the Hunter Biden laptop was a hoax? Remember when they said the Wuhan lab leak theory was a hoax?

Now, it seems like AI is the latest and greatest lazy way to say, "You are wrong because this guy says so."

Click to expand...

Kirk was very wrong about the jobs created in the coal industry, in that specific debate. So wrong that not stopping him and letting him go on made further debate farcical. It's the role of moderators and fact checkers (subject matter experts) to stop obviously erroneus statements, and make him either correct himself or better describe what he means. Basically, holding the parties responsible for not making outlandish claims. I'm not talking about any special group called fact checkers, I was not aware that it had some other meaning than the obvious one.

No I don't remember anything about laptops or lab leaks and fact checkers.

Stopped_lurking said:

No I don't remember anything about laptops or lab leaks and fact checkers.

Click to expand...

And down the memory hole it went. You brought up the importance of moderators in a formal debate. I agree. However, if you cannot even recall anything about laptops and lab leaks in the past 5 years, much less how during the Trump v Biden presidential debate, so called "moderators" quoted so called "fact checkers" to tell Trump that the Hunter Biden lap top was "Russian disinformation" and that covid 19 came from bats, not a Wuhan virus lab, then there is not much more to say. We are just living in completely different realities. Today's moderators dont stop erroneous information. They obscure the truth by pushing leftist misinformation.

Oompa Loompa said:

And down the memory hole it went. You brought up the importance of moderators in a formal debate. I agree. However, if you cannot even recall anything about laptops and lab leaks in the past 5 years, much less how during the Trump v Biden presidential debate, so called "moderators" quoted so called "fact checkers" to tell Trump that the Hunter Biden lap top was "Russian disinformation" and that covid 19 came from bats, not a Wuhan virus lab, then there is not much more to say. We are just living in completely different realities. Today's moderators dont stop erroneous information. They obscure the truth by pushing leftist misinformation.

Click to expand...

So what do you remember about Tobleroneaffären? Or the "öppna era hjärtan"-speech?

Someone tried to use that debate to show that Kirk was good at debating, but he seemingly spouted nonsense. The moderator should just have stopped it until he explained or corrected himself, either way not being wellversed in ones own arguments is not a characteristic of a good debater.

MrMoe said:

I Never claimed they couldn’t.

The problem is that this thread topic isn’t about how Charlie Kirk lived, it’s about those celebrating his death. By continuing to make post about him instead of what the thread topic is actually about you are going off topic and break this sites rules.

You are free to start a new thread where you can shake your fist at this man’s corpse to your heart’s content.

Click to expand...

In the 20 years I have been a member of this forum I have learned that when people start saying “this is off topic,” 8 out of 10 times it’s because they can’t refute what the other person is saying, so they want them to take their points to another thread where they can ignore it.

The fact is when we are talking about people who are alleged to be celebrating his death, we have to see what they’re saying. What they’re saying is they have problems with how he spent his life, what he said, and the deification of a person with problematic person. That means you can’t have an honest discussion about what people are saying in his death without examining his life. I get that examination is rough for those who are mourning his death because he said some indisputably awful things. The choice is either to refute it or say “yup, he was a flawed person who I still respect and admire because…” and move on with your life.

For a figure as public as he was, ignoring his words is not something people who value intellectual honesty will accept.

MrMoe said:

He was making a simple observation. Dave is a comedian who was doing stand up and was there to tell jokes, not to make layered social political statements. You’re trying to make his comment deeper than it really is.

Click to expand...

I know what jokes are and how they work, thanks. I’m also not the one who introduced the comment to the discussion to make a point, so I’m not sure why my understanding the context of the comment introduced by another person as a counterpoint to racism means I’m making the comment deeper than what it is.

MrMoe said:

That was my observation, not his. And I specifically said minorities not just black people.

Click to expand...

So not only is your sentiment wrong, the quote you cited to support your wrong sentiment was nonsensical.

MrMoe said:

Yeah, he was pointing out that the killer’s homophobic comments is what made people outraged rather than him killing another black man.

Click to expand...

Exactly as I explained to you, so, correct.

MrMoe said:

You must mean like when he defended Rob Smith, a gay black man, back in 2019.

Click to expand...

Marginal support for one guy when he spends significant effort rallying support to demean minorities as a whole. The modern day “I can’t be racist I have a black friend.” Whoopdie doo.

MrMoe said:

Charlie really helped minorities, including black people, to get out of the victimhood mentality that the left likes to instill in them.

Click to expand...

More like he really helped white men, Christians and other majorities by infantizing them and telling them embrace false victimhood.