2 ms·

I don't hate him, I just don't respect him and I find it sad that people fell for his words that spread hate and violence. Would you call >a Mao-like cultural

by croes 1y ago

I don't hate him, I just don't respect him and I find it sad that people fell for his words that spread hate and violence. Would you call >a Mao-like cultural movement intent on rule, and corrupting America, “the trans Mafia”. friendly worsds? And all the context can't sugarcoat this >A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. You hear that, William Thomas? You’re an abomination to God. So not only does he call all woman wearing a man’s garment an abomination, he also misses the point. From Lia Catherine Thomas' point of view she isn't a man wearing women's cloth but a women wearing women's cloth. What brings us to the main point the right always doesn't get: What is a woman? If body and mind have the same gender it's easy but what if body and mind have a different gender? Seems to me the concept that the mind doesn't need to align with the body seems impossible to them. > What first went from, “Well, we have to tolerate, okay.” Then, “You must accept, okay.” Then, “You must celebrate” I don’t know if I’m comfortable with that. And then, “You must participate.” And if you can’t participate, your kids must participate. That part is also quite interesting. Reminds of the latest iutcry about Snoop Dogs comments about a same-sex couple in Lightyear. Somehow people have the urge to explain same-sex intercourse whenever a same-sex couple is shown. I don't know where that come from. Do they think they need to explain hetero intercourse when a hetero couple is shown? Maybe they should thinl more of the love you mentioned in the beginning and which is a large part of New Testament, the foundation of Christanity, which I can't see in Kirk's speeches. But I can see that he called trans women in sport an idelogy of pure evil https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1819017846850306299 https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1819017846850306299 And that is only based on rumors and Imane Khelif's looks. And somehow he and others ignore that she has lost 9 fights what should be impossible according to Kirk's and other's claims. We also know what the result is of preparing such a culture war battleground https://people.com/department-of-justice-quietly-deletes-study-after-charlie-kirk-death-that-says-right-wing-extremists-engage-in-far-more-political-violence-11811580 https://people.com/department-of-justice-quietly-deletes-stu... At least we could before they removed it. We also see that hate speech all of a sudden is a thing while free speech isn't anymore. Kirk was the more eloquent addition to Trump, different words, same idiology.

bobalob 1y ago
> What brings us to the main point the right always doesn't get: What is a woman? If body and mind have the same gender it's easy but what if body and mind have a different gender? Seems to me the concept that the mind doesn't need to align with the body seems impossible to them. It's not just the right who are skeptical of this idea. Like what does "body and mind have a different gender" even mean when you look at the detail of it? > And that is only based on rumors and Imane Khelif's looks. This is inaccurate. A lab report showing that Khelif has an XY karotype, and extracts from Khelif's medical file describing a male-only disorder of sex development (5-ARD), were leaked to journalists. Kirk talked about this from a conservative perspective but it's more a women's rights and competitive fairness issue than anything else.
- croes 1y ago
  Thanks for the info, didn't know that. But doesn't change the fact that Kirk's post, done August 2024, was done based on rumors and looks not evidence.
  - bobalob 1y ago
    No problem. Regarding Kirk's tweet, at that point (early August) it was already well established that the IBA had disqualified Khelif (and another boxer, Lin) from their women's tournaments for ineligibility due to failing a sex test. They hadn't released specifics due to medical confidentiality but it wasn't a rumour and even though Khelif appears male it wasn't about looks.
zahlman 1y ago
> I don't hate him, I just don't respect him and I find it sad that people fell for his words that spread hate and violence. Nobody fell for anything. People who agreed with Kirk's takes on transgender people already agreed with those takes. Devout Christians like Kirk who say things like Kirk did genuinely believe that they are expressing kindness rather than hatred by doing so. Don't take my word for it; ask some for yourself. The only words that "spread violence" are those which meet the SCOTUS test of "incitement to imminent lawless action". When a sitting President addresses a room of government officials, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur... logic may apply. When a political activist addresses a crowd at a rally, it clearly does not. > We also know what the result is of preparing such a culture war battleground You are the one seeking evidence to make your political outgroup look bad, and hinting at conspiracy to hide such evidence. That is culture warring. Others here are trying to talk you down from that.

by croes 1y ago

bobalob 1y ago

> What brings us to the main point the right always doesn't get: What is a woman? If body and mind have the same gender it's easy but what if body and mind have a different gender? Seems to me the concept that the mind doesn't need to align with the body seems impossible to them. It's not just the right who are skeptical of this idea. Like what does "body and mind have a different gender" even mean when you look at the detail of it? > And that is only based on rumors and Imane Khelif's looks. This is inaccurate. A lab report showing that Khelif has an XY karotype, and extracts from Khelif's medical file describing a male-only disorder of sex development (5-ARD), were leaked to journalists. Kirk talked about this from a conservative perspective but it's more a women's rights and competitive fairness issue than anything else.

croes 1y ago
Thanks for the info, didn't know that. But doesn't change the fact that Kirk's post, done August 2024, was done based on rumors and looks not evidence.
- bobalob 1y ago
  No problem. Regarding Kirk's tweet, at that point (early August) it was already well established that the IBA had disqualified Khelif (and another boxer, Lin) from their women's tournaments for ineligibility due to failing a sex test. They hadn't released specifics due to medical confidentiality but it wasn't a rumour and even though Khelif appears male it wasn't about looks.

zahlman 1y ago

> I don't hate him, I just don't respect him and I find it sad that people fell for his words that spread hate and violence. Nobody fell for anything. People who agreed with Kirk's takes on transgender people already agreed with those takes. Devout Christians like Kirk who say things like Kirk did genuinely believe that they are expressing kindness rather than hatred by doing so. Don't take my word for it; ask some for yourself. The only words that "spread violence" are those which meet the SCOTUS test of "incitement to imminent lawless action". When a sitting President addresses a room of government officials, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur... logic may apply. When a political activist addresses a crowd at a rally, it clearly does not. > We also know what the result is of preparing such a culture war battleground You are the one seeking evidence to make your political outgroup look bad, and hinting at conspiracy to hide such evidence. That is culture warring. Others here are trying to talk you down from that.