4 ms·

There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ https://w

There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?

IAmBroom 1y ago
Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?
- lucyjojo 1y ago
  logical consistency?
- muddi900 1y ago
  In any given conflict, there would be doubt. And one side will have the advantage due to it. Like in sports tv umpiring. Whenever the image is not clear as to what the decision should be, the rules have a carve out on which side whould get the benefit of benefit of that doubt. Otherwise the game will be stuck. In life, where certainty is much more rare, it is a good rule of thumb to handle doubts this way. By OP's own admission, they can't watch every hour and minute of Charlie Kirk's speeches, interviews, and TV appearances. But he has a clear pattern of making remarks such as this. Why would you believe that he did not make that statement? Objectivity does not require anyone be neutral for no reason. It is reasonable to assume that the author is correct.
  - orionsbelt 1y ago
    It’s a misquote - in quotation marks! - for which the full video is available and shows it is a misquote.
    - muddi900 1y ago
      But has the meaning changed?
orionsbelt 1y ago
His point is not that black people are less capable but that DEI policies causing looser standards causes people to question whether a particular black person they encounter in a role is sufficiently qualified given those well known looser standards, and that this is bad for everyone, black people included. You can argue he’s still wrong, but it’s quite clear from the various clips that this is what he is arguing. In another clip, for example, he cited United’s goal of having 50% of pilots being of color or women, as compared to 13% of the population being black and women having less of an interest in careers like being a pilot; ie he has no prejudice against black peoples capabilities but has an issue with lowering hiring standards for any group of people.
- muddi900 1y ago
  Except none of these are based on fact. All of this has been addressed elsewhere. DEI is Critical Race Theory is Affirmative Action. It is yet another in a long line of politically correct terms used by the American Right to counch their racism. Charlie Kirk's commentary is no different than Rish Limbaugh.
  - orionsbelt 1y ago
    I am not going to argue that many members of the "American Right" are not racist. Many of them are openly and disgustingly so. But we are talking about half the country, and a group that has as many in-group differences as the left. I am not an expert in Charlie Kirk (I barely knew anything about him a week ago), but from the many many clips I have seen of him since, he seems to me to genuinely not be racist. It's not worth debating whether DEI and affirmative action are problematic are not. We probably disagree, and this is a waste of both of our time. But in terms of this story, the simple fact is a journalist should not be misquoting someone. If one thinks he's racist by subtext, one can try to argue that, but at least be honest about what he's literally saying.
    - dudefeliciano 1y ago
      this "half the country" statistic needs to stop being thrown around, of the eligible voters only 64% actually voted, of those about 50% voted republican. Not even a a third of the country.

IAmBroom 1y ago

Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?

lucyjojo 1y ago
logical consistency?
muddi900 1y ago
In any given conflict, there would be doubt. And one side will have the advantage due to it. Like in sports tv umpiring. Whenever the image is not clear as to what the decision should be, the rules have a carve out on which side whould get the benefit of benefit of that doubt. Otherwise the game will be stuck. In life, where certainty is much more rare, it is a good rule of thumb to handle doubts this way. By OP's own admission, they can't watch every hour and minute of Charlie Kirk's speeches, interviews, and TV appearances. But he has a clear pattern of making remarks such as this. Why would you believe that he did not make that statement? Objectivity does not require anyone be neutral for no reason. It is reasonable to assume that the author is correct.
- orionsbelt 1y ago
  It’s a misquote - in quotation marks! - for which the full video is available and shows it is a misquote.
  - muddi900 1y ago
    But has the meaning changed?

orionsbelt 1y ago

His point is not that black people are less capable but that DEI policies causing looser standards causes people to question whether a particular black person they encounter in a role is sufficiently qualified given those well known looser standards, and that this is bad for everyone, black people included. You can argue he’s still wrong, but it’s quite clear from the various clips that this is what he is arguing. In another clip, for example, he cited United’s goal of having 50% of pilots being of color or women, as compared to 13% of the population being black and women having less of an interest in careers like being a pilot; ie he has no prejudice against black peoples capabilities but has an issue with lowering hiring standards for any group of people.

muddi900 1y ago
Except none of these are based on fact. All of this has been addressed elsewhere. DEI is Critical Race Theory is Affirmative Action. It is yet another in a long line of politically correct terms used by the American Right to counch their racism. Charlie Kirk's commentary is no different than Rish Limbaugh.
- orionsbelt 1y ago
  I am not going to argue that many members of the "American Right" are not racist. Many of them are openly and disgustingly so. But we are talking about half the country, and a group that has as many in-group differences as the left. I am not an expert in Charlie Kirk (I barely knew anything about him a week ago), but from the many many clips I have seen of him since, he seems to me to genuinely not be racist. It's not worth debating whether DEI and affirmative action are problematic are not. We probably disagree, and this is a waste of both of our time. But in terms of this story, the simple fact is a journalist should not be misquoting someone. If one thinks he's racist by subtext, one can try to argue that, but at least be honest about what he's literally saying.
  - dudefeliciano 1y ago
    this "half the country" statistic needs to stop being thrown around, of the eligible voters only 64% actually voted, of those about 50% voted republican. Not even a a third of the country.