3 ms·

The original quote I was responding to here was > How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to b

The original quote I was responding to here was > How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? The point I was trying to make is: this is not what’s happening. It’s not “anyone with a different belief”. But some people, Kirk included, literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people. That’s not a reasonable position we can just compromise on. That’s reprehensible dehumanization.

roenxi 1y ago
I'm not inclined to believe Kirk actually advocated that. Where and when did he say that? I want to check what the context was. A quick search only turned up people apologising for spreading false stories about him.
- the_gastropod 1y ago
  Here he is citing the bible quote about stoning gay people, referring to it as "God's perfect law". I guess some people are bending over backwards to interpret this in a non-horrific way. That's fine, I guess. We've got plenty of other reprehensible things he's said. https://xcancel.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306 https://xcancel.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306 Here he is using innuendo to suggest we should have "took care of" trans folks like we did in the 1950s and 1960s. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-sanitize https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-... Here he is saying abortion is worse than the holocaust. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-abortion-worse-than-holocaust-charlie-kirks-controversial-views-re-surface-daughter-rape-baby-delivered-after-trump-ally-assassinated/articleshow/123831808.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/glob... Here he is saying "Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people -- that’s a fact" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-unhinged-racist-rant-prowling-blacks-go-around-fun-go-target-white https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-... Of Jasmine Crockett, he said she was "attempt[ing] to eliminate the white population in this country" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accuses-rep-jasmine-crockett-being-part-attempt-eliminate-white https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accus... Of Dreamers, he said "Those are the men that will go into your communities and break into your homes and rape your women, take your children" https://www.mediaite.com/media/radio/charlie-kirk-wants-to-start-a-border-militia-to-protect-white-demographics-in-america/ https://www.mediaite.com/media/radio/charlie-kirk-wants-to-s... Of the man who brutally assaulted Paul Pelosi with a hammer in 2022, he said: "If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out" https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-dan-cox-chadwick-moore-the-charlie-kirk-sh.html https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-...
  - roenxi 1y ago
    He's not advocating stoning the gays in that clip. If anything he seems to be pointing out that quoting Leviticus as the final interpretation of God's law is a mistake. it is hard to tell what he's actually saying because the clip cuts off half way through whatever point he is making. If you're going to start complaining about "beliefs that ... spread lies" like you were a bit earlier, you might want to not make things up trying to smear a bloke who just got assassinated. It isn't even scoring political points because you just look like a hypocrite if people ask for sources. I'm not going to check your random list, if you're making things up about your primary claim I'm just going to assume it is the usual internet dross.
    - the_gastropod 1y ago
      Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing”. You’re insisting his literal words mean something other than the plain reading. Again, that’s fine, and your prerogative. As is choosing to avoid virtually anything this guy ever spoke or wrote, while continuing to insist he just, like, had slightly different opinions, man. He was a hateful, ignorant man. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
      - roenxi 1y ago
        > Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing” A literal quote involves, at some point, quoting what he said literally. Something you haven't and can't do to support your claim. Lying harder isn't going to get you out of that one - you tried your best and are unable to find a literal quote. You now know you can't. It appears he did not, in fact, "literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people". I don't know why you think doubling down on baseless smears is helping you, but a tip on politics - when you look foolish because your claims are that easy to disprove, just to stop and slink away. And maybe as a more general rule don't try to smear the dead with things they didn't say, they aren't around to defend themselves. You'd be able to get away with it before videos existed but these days it just looks like you're being slimy.
        1y ago

roenxi 1y ago

I'm not inclined to believe Kirk actually advocated that. Where and when did he say that? I want to check what the context was. A quick search only turned up people apologising for spreading false stories about him.

the_gastropod 1y ago
Here he is citing the bible quote about stoning gay people, referring to it as "God's perfect law". I guess some people are bending over backwards to interpret this in a non-horrific way. That's fine, I guess. We've got plenty of other reprehensible things he's said. https://xcancel.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306 https://xcancel.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306 Here he is using innuendo to suggest we should have "took care of" trans folks like we did in the 1950s and 1960s. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-sanitize https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-... Here he is saying abortion is worse than the holocaust. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-abortion-worse-than-holocaust-charlie-kirks-controversial-views-re-surface-daughter-rape-baby-delivered-after-trump-ally-assassinated/articleshow/123831808.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/glob... Here he is saying "Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people -- that’s a fact" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-unhinged-racist-rant-prowling-blacks-go-around-fun-go-target-white https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-... Of Jasmine Crockett, he said she was "attempt[ing] to eliminate the white population in this country" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accuses-rep-jasmine-crockett-being-part-attempt-eliminate-white https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accus... Of Dreamers, he said "Those are the men that will go into your communities and break into your homes and rape your women, take your children" https://www.mediaite.com/media/radio/charlie-kirk-wants-to-start-a-border-militia-to-protect-white-demographics-in-america/ https://www.mediaite.com/media/radio/charlie-kirk-wants-to-s... Of the man who brutally assaulted Paul Pelosi with a hammer in 2022, he said: "If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out" https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-dan-cox-chadwick-moore-the-charlie-kirk-sh.html https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-...
- roenxi 1y ago
  He's not advocating stoning the gays in that clip. If anything he seems to be pointing out that quoting Leviticus as the final interpretation of God's law is a mistake. it is hard to tell what he's actually saying because the clip cuts off half way through whatever point he is making. If you're going to start complaining about "beliefs that ... spread lies" like you were a bit earlier, you might want to not make things up trying to smear a bloke who just got assassinated. It isn't even scoring political points because you just look like a hypocrite if people ask for sources. I'm not going to check your random list, if you're making things up about your primary claim I'm just going to assume it is the usual internet dross.
  - the_gastropod 1y ago
    Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing”. You’re insisting his literal words mean something other than the plain reading. Again, that’s fine, and your prerogative. As is choosing to avoid virtually anything this guy ever spoke or wrote, while continuing to insist he just, like, had slightly different opinions, man. He was a hateful, ignorant man. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
    - roenxi 1y ago
      > Not sure quoting the guy’s literal words is “smearing” A literal quote involves, at some point, quoting what he said literally. Something you haven't and can't do to support your claim. Lying harder isn't going to get you out of that one - you tried your best and are unable to find a literal quote. You now know you can't. It appears he did not, in fact, "literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people". I don't know why you think doubling down on baseless smears is helping you, but a tip on politics - when you look foolish because your claims are that easy to disprove, just to stop and slink away. And maybe as a more general rule don't try to smear the dead with things they didn't say, they aren't around to defend themselves. You'd be able to get away with it before videos existed but these days it just looks like you're being slimy.
      - 1y ago