4 ms·

He didn't deserve to die; Charlie Kirk was quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man. These are not conflicting ideas.

mkfs 1y ago
Your post validates the classic "Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil" observation. You say Kirk was > quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man based on what? From what I can see, he was devoted to his wife and kids, was law-abiding, and was generally well-liked by his colleagues, many of whom regarded him as a friend. Hasan Piker, Mr. "America deserved 9/11," takes good care of his dogs, and seems to have healthy friendships with other streamers and generally good relations with family (like Cenk). Neither of them are "awful," though both were and are flawed (e.g., Hasan's grossly hypocritical "Champaign socialism" and his occasionally extremist rhetoric).
- twixfel 1y ago
  Based on the things he said and the things he advocated for I consider him to have been a bad, unchristian man. I am not on the left, I am closer to a classical liberal.
- archdang 1y ago
  [flagged]
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Kirk believed that the civil rights act was a mistake. He advocated for people to be deported for their speech. He deliberately deadnamed trans people in public. I'm sure he was devoted to his wife and kids. They are experiencing a trauma I cannot possibly imagine. But Kirk has said some remarkably horrible things as part of his political advocacy, which I don't believe is aligned with a path that follows Christ.
  - CMay 1y ago
    A lot of people make vague claims about this guy and then just let the various assumptions hang there as a form of decontextualized disinformation. What you're doing here is basically perpetuating the same kind of disinformation that got him killed. This is why Stephen King had to take down his tweet, because he was just repeating things which aren't true. He responded about the civil rights act during his Cambridge Union debate here which I only encountered yesterday when searching more about the guy. It's far more nuanced than you presented it: https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 I don't know about your other claims, but if you don't know about them either, you should stop making them in the lazy way you make them. If you do know, then try harder to present more context.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
      It is more nuanced than "segregation good" but it is still ridiculous. Kirk is building off of the idea from people like Hanania that after Griggs v Duke the disparate impact theory took the interpretation of Title 7 off the rails. I'd like you to tell me if you think that Duke Power was doing something acceptable here. Just because Kirk isn't taking the most odious possible stance about the civil rights act does not mean that his opinion is above reproach. What I am saying is not disinformation. I do know about the other claims. He specifically advocated for Ilhan Omar to be deported and deadnamed Lia Thomas in public. Do you want the specific events where he said these things?
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      At this time, the conversation about what he said has been going on for so long (nearly a decade) that nobody is under any obligation to present more context. His position on these topics was pretty clear. I don't think he should have been shot for his beliefs. I do think his beliefs included the idea that it was important for people to be armed independently of the government, and if that means more people get shot than would otherwise, that's an acceptable price to pay. After all, "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" (https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...). In context, it's clear that if his philosophy is consistent, his death should fit his own "with a price" criteria (same as if he'd died in a car accident on the way to the event). ... Incidentally, this is an interesting discourse because he goes on to suggest that the solution to school shootings is armed guards. Kirk had a five-member security detail and the support of six members of the campus police. If this appearance was consistent with past ones, he also had a bullet-proof vest under his shirt. So it appears Kirk was wrong about one hypothesis at least: not even armor and a security detail guarantees the safety of the first person in the crosshairs.

mkfs 1y ago

Your post validates the classic "Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil" observation. You say Kirk was > quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man based on what? From what I can see, he was devoted to his wife and kids, was law-abiding, and was generally well-liked by his colleagues, many of whom regarded him as a friend. Hasan Piker, Mr. "America deserved 9/11," takes good care of his dogs, and seems to have healthy friendships with other streamers and generally good relations with family (like Cenk). Neither of them are "awful," though both were and are flawed (e.g., Hasan's grossly hypocritical "Champaign socialism" and his occasionally extremist rhetoric).

twixfel 1y ago
Based on the things he said and the things he advocated for I consider him to have been a bad, unchristian man. I am not on the left, I am closer to a classical liberal.
archdang 1y ago
[flagged]
UncleMeat 1y ago
Kirk believed that the civil rights act was a mistake. He advocated for people to be deported for their speech. He deliberately deadnamed trans people in public. I'm sure he was devoted to his wife and kids. They are experiencing a trauma I cannot possibly imagine. But Kirk has said some remarkably horrible things as part of his political advocacy, which I don't believe is aligned with a path that follows Christ.
- CMay 1y ago
  A lot of people make vague claims about this guy and then just let the various assumptions hang there as a form of decontextualized disinformation. What you're doing here is basically perpetuating the same kind of disinformation that got him killed. This is why Stephen King had to take down his tweet, because he was just repeating things which aren't true. He responded about the civil rights act during his Cambridge Union debate here which I only encountered yesterday when searching more about the guy. It's far more nuanced than you presented it: https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 I don't know about your other claims, but if you don't know about them either, you should stop making them in the lazy way you make them. If you do know, then try harder to present more context.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    It is more nuanced than "segregation good" but it is still ridiculous. Kirk is building off of the idea from people like Hanania that after Griggs v Duke the disparate impact theory took the interpretation of Title 7 off the rails. I'd like you to tell me if you think that Duke Power was doing something acceptable here. Just because Kirk isn't taking the most odious possible stance about the civil rights act does not mean that his opinion is above reproach. What I am saying is not disinformation. I do know about the other claims. He specifically advocated for Ilhan Omar to be deported and deadnamed Lia Thomas in public. Do you want the specific events where he said these things?
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    At this time, the conversation about what he said has been going on for so long (nearly a decade) that nobody is under any obligation to present more context. His position on these topics was pretty clear. I don't think he should have been shot for his beliefs. I do think his beliefs included the idea that it was important for people to be armed independently of the government, and if that means more people get shot than would otherwise, that's an acceptable price to pay. After all, "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" (https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...). In context, it's clear that if his philosophy is consistent, his death should fit his own "with a price" criteria (same as if he'd died in a car accident on the way to the event). ... Incidentally, this is an interesting discourse because he goes on to suggest that the solution to school shootings is armed guards. Kirk had a five-member security detail and the support of six members of the campus police. If this appearance was consistent with past ones, he also had a bullet-proof vest under his shirt. So it appears Kirk was wrong about one hypothesis at least: not even armor and a security detail guarantees the safety of the first person in the crosshairs.