I’m sure glad he’s dead.
Me too! Fascists deserve bullets!
You’re a piece of shit
Behold: A snowflake.
Nah just not a psychopath like you people who think just because some idiot on the right questions DEI hiring of pilots it means he deserves death for it. Enjoy being a miserable person.
Get fucked loser. I hope all the Nazis die. Go cry to your fuher about it.
I’m Jewish btw you racist fuck. Didn’t think you were allowed to assume things. So funny how the second you disagree with one thing you get labeled a Nazi. So many brain cells in this one.
Jews can be Nazis, too - go ask your dear pal “Bibi.”
Immediately assumes because I’m Jewish I support Netanyahu. Congratulations on being racist.
It’s anti-Semitic. Stephen Miller is a Jewish nazi fuck.
Being Jewish isn’t a shield against being ignorant, ffs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
Criticizing a jewish dude for anything = racist, checks out.
You’re not Jewish.
I’m Jewish.
No need - you’re doing it for them. Wish I could be a fly on the wall at the inevitable moment your hypocritical “perspectives” come back to bite you in the ass something fierce. I’m quite certain it will be about as amusing as when it happened to Kirk.
Death cult.
I’m glad you recognize what you’ve become part of. It’s a step in the Reich direction.
You are absolutely a psychopath for supporting monsters like Kirk.
Says the person who supports murdering people
Cry some more, troll
No one is crying here but you because I disagree with people who think others should be killed for their opinions
Why would you smear Charlie like this? He died protecting our 2nd amendment rights, a noble sacrifice just like he said we need, and by showing any empathy, you’re doing a lot of damage.
I will not celebrate his death, but I can’t muster up any sympathy for the fact he can’t spread this disgusting, hate-filled vitriol anymore.
If you think he was anything but a net negative to society, corrupting young minds and fostering vile ideologies, you can kindly go fuck yourself.
I am not happy he was killed, but I will not mourn a virulent fascist.
Hilarious how the people saying he was a fascist are themselves the fascists. If you don’t think exactly like them, be an automaton, you are excommunicated. No where was he trying to force his beliefs on people. He had opinions and that was it. Albeit many of them stupid, but only opinions at the end of the day.
Okay, let’s talk. Can you define ‘fascist’ for me?
What is fascism?
e: I had asked people not to downvote my interlocutor in order to foster conversation, but nevermind; this isn’t going anywhere.
A fascist to me is someone, like the literal Nazis (and not just the hyperbolic use of the word today), who (by force [very important context]) wanted to enact their beliefs and doctrine. I didn’t see Charlie going around to campuses and forcibly ending people who disagree with him or trying to put people into camps for thinking differently than him.
Okay, thanks.
But a fascist by definition (not our own personal meaning, but the actual meaning) is:
‘a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement’
and that’s how I was using it. By that definition, which is the standard definition, Charlie Kirk was a fascist. He would have agreed with all of those things: he was far-right, authoritarian, and ultra-nationalist. (e: and I can give you examples in his own words where he proudly agreed with those things)
So, I am using the actual definition, where you are using your own personal definition.
Now, can you explain how I am a fascist?
That is one part of the definition and isn’t including the important part that the reason it’s authoritarian is by its use of force to enact its beliefs.
My comment about those throwing around the term fascist being the fascist wasn’t directed at you and was broadly applicable to the people who are (by force) trying to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
He was literally the leader of the new Hitler Juggen. Not every Nazi killed people. They just accepted it and cheered it on. The Nazis didn’t start out slaughtering everyone they put into camps. It was their final solution. and only after massive incompetence on every other front.
If you are Jewish and you do not understand modern Republicans and the Trump administration in particular for what they are. You must be quite the cultural disappointment. That you have no problem defending Trump or his enablers. But don’t agree with Bibi Netanyahu. Is some really fucked up cognitive dissonance that you need to address in yourself.
Please show where I supported Trump or even Charlie for that matter? You people are just making up assumptions left and right. This is hilarious. I merely said someone with different opinions shouldn’t be killed for them. But apparently most everyone here is in a death cult who want anyone who disagrees with them to be silenced. I’m a LibSoc, anarchist btw.
And we all think you’re a piece of shit for not being glad he’s gone.
Which of his views were near and dear to you, comrade?
No. You.
deleted by creator
Using the term “pussy” to denigrate someone is misogynistic btw
Nope, the insult is non-gendered and predates the use of the word as crude anatomical slang; it literally means ‘scaredy-cat’
That’s illogical. That’s like saying the word Gay has no connection to homosexuality, and shouldn’t be connected as such, because it originally meant happy. The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner. And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
The person used the term “pussy” in a misogynistic manner.
Their comment is gone, so maybe they did, maybe they didn’t, I can’t see it, but simply calling someone a pussy as an insult is not misogynistic, because the insult has nothing to do with women.
And no where in history did the term originate as “scaredy-cat”. It simply meant cat.
Fair that I shouldn’t have used the word ‘literally’ there; as an insult it means coward, prior to which it meant (small) cat, thus carrying the same meaning as ‘scardey-cat’; it is an insult against someone’s courage by analogy to a cat’s skittishness
The word ‘pussy’ as a pejorative predates its use as a slang for female genitalia. It actually originates from ‘pussycat’, as comparing a person to a jumpy and easily scared feline. Any misogyny attached to it is extremely recent and performative.
Man, you’re all over this thread not knowing what words mean.
It’s not misogynistic, but this one does have that root:
Stop being a cunt. (And I say that as a woman.)
Stop being a cunt. (And I say that as a woman.)
Might be the best thing Ive ever read on here lol
Who gives a shit? I wouldn’t care even if it was.
Proverbs 11:10:
When the righteous prosper, the city rejoices; when the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy.
Exactly 😆
That’s a circlejerk. Everybody believes that they are on the good side.
Hell yeah
I’m further insulted by the fact this person got such a platform to spout off absolute trash.
So many welcoming arms 😡
The gall for this piece of shit to have called another person unintelligent or sociopathic, holy fuck. No tears will be shed by me.
You can see him distort his face even to make some of his claims. I couldn’t watch past several seconds. That doesn’t strike me as being confident. Though he clearly wanted to say those things. Real piece of trash.
Whatever is in them files has to be world ending levels of shit for them to be doing all this. Like they’re riding this assassination to DEATH and trying so hard to further divide us and distract us.
Yep, Patel is covering for him
I have audio but the video looks like this
Holy God man. I expected it to be bad and it was so much worse.
I do understand saying deliberately wrong things just to get attention, and I think assassinating anybody is a horrifying and wrong thing to do, but out of all the variety, the thing about Clarence Thomas being greater than MLK Jr makes me want to go punch his corpse in the face.
Its also heavily edited to make it look so much worse.
Ive give the first example, the “If I see a black man flying a plane…” one. The context was DEI. He was talking about the resent the cases where DEI initiatives were putting people into positions either in jobs or in colleges based not on their qualifications, but on their skin colour and/or sex/gender. It wasnt just a blanket statement that black people cant do jobs at high levels, it was statement about how shitting employment and enrolment practices are, that we are no long getting the best person for the job.
An example of this in my own country is the RAF. They were caught passing over more qualified straight white men for promotion because they wanted more women and people of colour. The excuse given at the end of the investigation was that it was “positive discrimination”, so therefor it was totally fine to do it. Turns out, it wasnt.
Another example here is George Abaraonye, the president elect of the Oxford Union. His grades didnt meet the requirement to even be considered for a place. But he got a place anyway based on… you guessed it. The fact that hes black. And even though hes made many public statements that call for violence over debate, hes now the president elect of the Oxford Union. A debating society.
So while Kirk is/was still a bellend, he didnt say what the video makes it look like it said most of the time. Why are people doing this? I dont know. Because the shit he actually said was bad enough. It didnt need this fiction that everyone repeats.
Yeah, posting the context of someones words is really weird. Better to just let you all have your circlejerk based on lies and well placed edits… Jesus fucking christ, you people are so fucking weird. Getting angry at being fact checked. You know who does that…
Is this a picture of you??? Cos it who you all sound like, when you get angry at being fact checked.
The DEI pilot clips were also edited alongside his comments about Michelle Obama and a couple of other prominent black women (the “brain processing power” clip) to make it seem like he was saying black pilots are stupid. However, the DEI argument is not an intelligent or nuanced one and you are falling into the trap of giving it more respect than it deserves. It’s an obvious trojan horse for racism and paragraphs of anecdotes from a different country don’t change that.
Im not giving it any respect, Im simply pointing out that his comments are edited. Thats it. Im not saying hes right. Only that we should be pissed off at what he said, not what clickbait told us he said.
That doesn’t explain why you felt the need to give examples from your own life that support Kirk’s argument.
Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?
The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say “yes, but…”. Too much of online discourse is “thats lie!” with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.
The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.
I don’t see how any of that is relevant, unless you are attempting to deflect criticism away from Kirk’s beliefs. It’s enough to say the DEI comments are edited. You don’t need to start explaining why his argument is technically correct in some cases, because all that does is justify its continued use. It’s a bad faith argument based on racial hatred. That’s it, there is no “well ackchyually” with this stuff.
Im not explaining why its correct, Im explaining why he made it. Because the general idea is that he was just straight up racist. Which may very well be true, but if you have the context of why he said it, or at least the context in which he presented the argument, then you can understand it and challenge it. No? If all you think of someone is that they are a racist, then you can easily dismiss them. But that doesnt challenge the point. And if you hate that so many others are listening to the point, then its on you to challenge them with truth, rather than just calling them bigots and getting a pat on the back from like minded internet strangers.
Im advocating for people to arm themselves with information. I dont really see why thats so wrong.
honestly I think he makes himself look plenty bad editing aside. have seen plenty of clips of him talking about women and minorities - there’s no ‘context’ that makes calling people of color DEI at every turn OK.
Frankly I find your fixation on the DEI thing - both in the RAF and otherwise - telling. you’re so busy worrying about what other people accomplished perhaps you should focus on your own fuckin lane.
no one took your opportunities.
Which is my point, he doesnt need to be edited.
As for the rest of what you said, sorry, but thats just not true. People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned. If you want to argue that its not that wide spread, thats fair enough. But it does happen, and I proved it with these two easily variable truths. Im sorry that hurts your feelings, but maybe you need to grow up a little bit, and understand that the heroes and villains of the world dont fit so neatly into the boxes youve prepared for them.
Also, the point about DEI isnt that black people or women or whoever else gets a job. The point is about the companies making these token gestures of representation so they can get a pat on the back from social media. And that its these companies that have created this atmosphere where people are looking at black people in jobs and unsure if they gained that job through merit or because some company wanted to fill a quota.
More to the point, because they create these token placements, we dont address other areas like black people have fewer opportunities to get the education needed to compete on an equal level. Black people arent stupid, but its easy to see that they are limited, especially in the US, to having access to higher education. And even more so prestigious higher education.
The problem, IMO, of DEI is that it addresses the symptoms in a superficial way for social media back slapping purposes, but doesnt address the causes of why these programs need to exist at all. Is this a right wing view? I think black people should have better access to the tools needed to compete, you think they should just be handed things as they need the charity. But you call me the asshole? Hmm…
And the clip at the end about it being worth it was about school shootings. He thinks school shootings are worth it for gun rights.
This was about 250 clips. Are you telling me every single one of those was perfectly fine in context?
Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.
“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … 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.”
“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. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.
As a non American, I don’t understand how this longer quote is any different from what was said by the person you are replying to.
Also “God given right” to have guns? That’s a crazy statement.
Im not American, and I can see the difference between “paying a price for a greater good/convenience” and “Fuck them kids!”.
God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough. Its probably also worth noting the “god given rights” he was talking about was freedom. Hes talking about the people having a means(guns) to protect themselves from a government that would rob them of freedom.
An example of this would be Ukraine making a deal with Russia that they wouldnt have nukes. In exchange, Russia said they would never invade…
He is literally saying he thinks a few deaths a year are worth it. Not to mention we have a school shooting every 3 weeks in the country. And if he were asked about the one that happened the day he was killed, do you suppose he’d use his platform to demand better gun safety laws? How about the one from 2 weeks ago, and the day before that, and the last 300 months. Just curious which of those he wrote his pal Donny and demanded better gun laws.
Yes, its worth a few deaths to have the ability to defend yourselves against a shit government. What about that isnt fucking clear?
Gun safety laws are why I DONT AGREE WITH HIM!!! Im not arguing his point, I dont agree with him. Im saying that what he said want “Fuck them kids!”, which is what all of you are saying he said.
I know you want the worthless uparrows, but for fucks sake.
You keep calling it “rage bait” to quote him, but I think that’s missing a big aspect of this. The man was very intentionally phrasing these things in ways that he knew would upset people who didn’t agree with him. There’s a whole culture around that on the far right, where you’re supposed to say things that would enrage “the left” because that’s how people know you’re “based” and not “woke.” And obviously he’s not worried about people being offended because anyone who would be offended isn’t his target audience, while people who are his target audience will get a dopamine hit from hearing him offend those other people. It’s win-win for him. So with the thing about the pilots, he knows full well that the standards are the same, but he also knows that his audience are going to be sympathetic to the idea of being uncomfortable around black people, so the facts be damned, he’s gonna pretend that’s a rational argument against DEI.
So I don’t think it’s the clip videos that are the “rage bait” here. I think that’s part and parcel of the whole Charlie Kirk idiom.
Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said “all men are rapists by design!”, Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.
I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.
Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.
This is who he was.
No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
yeah you’re some child, who’s obsessed with someone getting something that they may have not earned, because you say so.
or you’re an adult who’s blaming their mediocre life on minorities getting opportunities.
either way it’s just sad.
Im not doing either of those things, but whatever you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel like youre winning at something…
The context was DEI.
I think we knew that.
DEI done correctly doesn’t mean “less qualified”. It means dig deeper in the qualified pool perhaps with measures like mentoring & networking to bring them into the pool. A preponderance of research commonly shows systematic bias in the hiring process against minority names when resumes & jobs applications are otherwise identical. DEI includes accounting for that tendency in the past & counteracting it.
I think we knew that.
You might have, no one else seems to. They all think he was making blanket statements about race, rather than speaking specifically about DEI hires.
You might have, no one else seems to.
They did. Maybe you lack imagination?
The majority did not. You seem to lack being able to tell the truth.
I think we’re done here.
Ok add the context: He was responding to the article that United was going to add more women and people of color to their… TRAINING program. Is there anything wrong with adding DEI to a training program as an opportunity? Both groups are drastically underrepresented, like in the under 10 percent range or so.
The qualifications are the same, they can’t be a pilot without the qualifying. It was not a pass to skip training or auto pass a test.
So either Charlie is lying, stupid, or just plain racist. He does not get a pass on that. He was definitely saying they cant do the job.
Thats fine. Thats a perfectly valid rebuttal to what he said. Because its addressing what he actually said, and not some edited clip to get clickable ragebait.
jesus christ it just keeps going…and going…and going
And that is the tip of the iceberg because Seneca could have put together a series-worth of hate quotes from Kirk. He spent years and years spreading hate, fear, and stochastic terrorism.
It Polish we ask “co mu strzeliło do głowy”* when someone voices stupid ideas and it think its beautiful.
*literally “what has shot into his head”
Well… Neck. Close enough?
In German we ask those people “Hast du Lack gesoffen?”
Literal translation: Did you drink varnish? (Large amounts are somewhat implied)
“co mu strzeliło do głowy”*
I really need to know how to say this properly.
https://translate.google.com/?sl=auto&tl=en&text=co+mu+strzeliło+do+głowy&op=translate
Click the little speaker icon on the polish side and you can hear how it’s pronounced.
Same
Conservative Talking Head “Charlie Kirk had the views of any mainstream Republican”
Clip show of Charlie Kirk saying hateful things
Yeah, he sure did.
Aye, Charlie, you were dealing with MAGATs, vermin, and swine, but enough about your followers.
Way more than mildly infuriating. The celebration of this guy is one of the most upsetting things to have happened in my lifetime.
Like I said before, “Good Riddance!”.
Jokes on them I’m unemployed
Thank you for posting this. I had family that was confused about my repulsion and disgust concerning Kirk. Only encountering him in the limited capacity that he would be talked about in church. Digging on the web or YouTube even just returns a deluge white washing of his character. Even knowing the clips to look for, it was hard to find actual examples of them. Due to all the flood of bullshit coverage. Saved and Shown.
ALL PRAISE BULLET JESUS OR ELSE
