3 ms·

To be fair, Charlie Kirk was probably much higher profile than Hortman. Charlie traveled the nation widely, visited other countries and had online influence ou

by CMay 1y ago

To be fair, Charlie Kirk was probably much higher profile than Hortman. Charlie traveled the nation widely, visited other countries and had online influence outside of his in-person visits. You could say many entertainers and politicians do that too, so what makes him special? I've heard Charlie's efforts changed the outcomes of elections. Despite some views being unpopular, the overall promotion of face to face debate is seen as generally healthy. He probably lost his temper or cool too much, and in that sense there have been more tactful or calm debaters, but at least he tried in very unwelcoming territory. No disrespect to any school shooting victims or the Hortmans, but just objectively, Charlie both seems and is evidenced by the internet reaction to be higher profile and of higher concern for the national conversation in respect to the individual event. That's without even mentioning just how public the footage of the killing was comparatively or that his wife and children watched it happen in person. It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death. It's clear to me that he was an imperfect messenger, but he had the energy and the will which he did not waste.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
> It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death I'm no expert on him, but that doesn't ring true to me. Here's some things that he said that don't seem to agree with your view: > 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... We need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. 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 - Charlie Kirk > Gun control, like vaccines and masks, is focused on making people feel ‘safe’ by taking freedoms away from others. Don’t fall for it - Charlie Kirk I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards. Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump. Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil. (I've noticed that he had anti-gay views which he justified by using parts of the Old Testament, but in my view that is denying the sacrifice of Christ which was to put an end to the old beliefs of a vengeful God and instead usher in an empathic world view of welcoming and providing for the poor and homeless)
- CMay 1y ago
  The quote about the second amendment seems consistent with promoting life, because the second amendment helps protect all the others. It would be fair to argue that this requires nuance, because if someone commits murder with a gun, they are treading on someone else's rights. On the other hand, if the government becomes corrupt and manages to establish some dictatorship, the government could decide to kill tens of millions of people which we have seen in history. Suddenly with that potentiality, taking away everyone's guns isn't promoting life anymore. There have been some very unfortunate outcomes from governments taking guns away from the people. It would be wise to take this seriously and with an open mind if you are a person of character. Examples: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda. Obviously, the founders were drawing on examples that long predated these, so this is not a new phenomena and it repeats through history. People have made arguments about guns being useless against the all powerful government hardware, but if the armed population greatly outnumbers the government they can use many different tactics to impose inefficiencies on them. > I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards. Only watched a few of his things, but I did see him offer multiple times for people to use their phones, ask ChatGPT, look things up. Someone who asks a question doesn't have to be ready for any question the way Charlie did, they only had to be ready for the questions related to the topic they were going to ask about. They had their own time to prepare either long before the event or while standing in line. He also went to Cambridge Union, where people were more practiced at debate and well-read. > Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump. Those sound like they need context to better understand, if there is anything to them. If you have an original source, I would look into it. > Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil. This also seems to lack a lot of context. I don't know if he's sexist or racist, only that I haven't seen anything which should obviously be labeled that. I have seen things which overly sensitive people might consider as sexist or racist, but with objectivity, they didn't appear that way to me. As for the empathy thing, I've seen that claim plastered over the internet, but when I looked it up I think he just said he preferred the word sympathy rather than empathy which makes it clear people are taking it out of context very disingenuously. He does have some unpopular opinions, so there are people motivated to spread lies to push people away so they get turned off by all the claims about him such that they never even attempt to look at what he actually said or that when they DO hear what he said they are primed to interpret it the way they were told to interpret it. I disagree with him about some things, but the disinformation campaigns against him are atrocious all the same and are likely what got him killed.

by CMay 1y ago

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

> It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death I'm no expert on him, but that doesn't ring true to me. Here's some things that he said that don't seem to agree with your view: > 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... We need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. 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 - Charlie Kirk > Gun control, like vaccines and masks, is focused on making people feel ‘safe’ by taking freedoms away from others. Don’t fall for it - Charlie Kirk I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards. Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump. Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil. (I've noticed that he had anti-gay views which he justified by using parts of the Old Testament, but in my view that is denying the sacrifice of Christ which was to put an end to the old beliefs of a vengeful God and instead usher in an empathic world view of welcoming and providing for the poor and homeless)

CMay 1y ago
The quote about the second amendment seems consistent with promoting life, because the second amendment helps protect all the others. It would be fair to argue that this requires nuance, because if someone commits murder with a gun, they are treading on someone else's rights. On the other hand, if the government becomes corrupt and manages to establish some dictatorship, the government could decide to kill tens of millions of people which we have seen in history. Suddenly with that potentiality, taking away everyone's guns isn't promoting life anymore. There have been some very unfortunate outcomes from governments taking guns away from the people. It would be wise to take this seriously and with an open mind if you are a person of character. Examples: Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Guatemala, Uganda. Obviously, the founders were drawing on examples that long predated these, so this is not a new phenomena and it repeats through history. People have made arguments about guns being useless against the all powerful government hardware, but if the armed population greatly outnumbers the government they can use many different tactics to impose inefficiencies on them. > I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards. Only watched a few of his things, but I did see him offer multiple times for people to use their phones, ask ChatGPT, look things up. Someone who asks a question doesn't have to be ready for any question the way Charlie did, they only had to be ready for the questions related to the topic they were going to ask about. They had their own time to prepare either long before the event or while standing in line. He also went to Cambridge Union, where people were more practiced at debate and well-read. > Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump. Those sound like they need context to better understand, if there is anything to them. If you have an original source, I would look into it. > Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil. This also seems to lack a lot of context. I don't know if he's sexist or racist, only that I haven't seen anything which should obviously be labeled that. I have seen things which overly sensitive people might consider as sexist or racist, but with objectivity, they didn't appear that way to me. As for the empathy thing, I've seen that claim plastered over the internet, but when I looked it up I think he just said he preferred the word sympathy rather than empathy which makes it clear people are taking it out of context very disingenuously. He does have some unpopular opinions, so there are people motivated to spread lies to push people away so they get turned off by all the claims about him such that they never even attempt to look at what he actually said or that when they DO hear what he said they are primed to interpret it the way they were told to interpret it. I disagree with him about some things, but the disinformation campaigns against him are atrocious all the same and are likely what got him killed.