Kirk was not a white nationalist, even though there is overlap in their taking points. The key difference is that white nationalist sources often present a more systematised ideology, often with explicit references to racial superiority, or calls for formal racial separation. Kirk did not publicly as far as sources show explicitly promote white supremacist violence or call for a white ethnostate.
As for burning in hell, thats just silly. There is no hell. No hot place where you go to pay for your sins. There is only the absence of existence. Charlie Kirk is just gone. Nothing of him remains anywhere.
he did not come out and say it that I know of, but he certainly tiptoed around it, expressed lots of overlapping opinions, supported white nationalists & nazis, and helped spread their message
so, his support and promotion of the message is enough to say, in general, that he was a white nationalist. however, people will tear the statement apart because it’s only 90% accurate
No he didnt. People said he did, like in the example I gave. But he never did. Another one would be the civil rights act thing. He said it was bad law, that people were now twisting to use for their own needs today. But it was reported as him saying that he thought blacks should still be segregated, which is specifically said he didnt mean. He was talking about having better laws, that protected everyone, but it was reported as though he hated that it happened at all.
I knew none of this, I never watched Kirk. I just saw everyone else saying he said this and that, and when I looked it up it turns out, not so much. He was of the opinion that DEI was bullshit, and was being abused. When he said he would want to check the credentials of a black pilot, he wasnt saying that black pilots are less than white ones. He was saying that people in positions of hiring are putting appearance before merit. Something that has been proven to be happening. The most direct example would be the RAF that was found to be passing over straight white men in favour of non whites and women for “diversity” reasons. It was illegal as fuck, but the thought at the time was that it was fine because it was positive discrimination. At the Oxford Union, the President Elect, George Abaraonye, some how got into Oxford even though he did not meet the basic criteria for admission. Guess what skin colour he has?
Theres examples of positive discrimination all over the place. Its everywhere. Its special treatment, not because someone might excel in other areas that call for special consideration, but because these institutions want to be seen as diverse for popularity reasons. And you can say thats great, but what about if the pendulum swings back again? What we should have been doing was making sure that we changed the system to better serve everyone, instead of just making random people the posterchildren for various companies and institutions social media presence. For example, improving access to education at younger years for everyone so that no one needs special treatment or consideration. Trump showed how easy it is to over turn shakingly written law with Roe, I shocked that everyone else doesnt see the issues with other laws that might be just as shaky.
But thats where the real problem lies. Theres so little debate going on. Its all buzzwords, with the battlelines already well drawn and no one wants to hear anything that makes them question what they already hold to be true. We are all utterly terrified of being wrong, and will fight to the death to make sure we never are with an endless stream of name calling, characters assassination, and fucking memes.
A guy was murdered because of the things he said while being open to debate. And some people cheered for this, like it was a good thing. Those on the right do it as well, as those same people love to point out as though it justifies their behaviour. If thats not an example of the radicalisation of the culture wars, I dont know what is. Both sides are cheering on real world violence like they are watching football teams scoring touch downs. Its all rather insane.
I agree that I dislike taking his quotes out of context. he said enough bad shit here and there that there’s no need to misrepresent his words even slightly
They why did anyone go to speak to him? Why dont YOU spare me, me the nonsense of making shit up? Theres plenty of reasons to hate him, without just inserting your bullshit.
I think you’re splitting hairs here. He constantly espoused white supremacist talking points and beliefs. But he gave himself plausible deniability by never overtly claiming to be a white nationalist. And you’re continuing his charade even after his death.
No, Im debating you. What Im also doing is taking what he said at face value, and not supplanting what he said with what I think he meant. No more “reading between the lines”. You hold people to account for the things that they say, not what you think they might say behind closed doors. Especially when it comes to someone is as miss quoted as Kirk is/was.
For example, it was pretty funny seeing Stephen King claim that Kirk had said that “gays should be stoned”, and then get noted to fuck because it wasnt true. But theres loads of people who do this all the time that never get noted, or when they do they ignore it in place of what the “feel”. For context, Kirk was commenting on something said by Ms Rachel(a youtuber) that was cherry picking bible verses as some kind of “gotcha”, using Leviticus 19(Love you neighbour as yourself), and Kirk said:
“Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death. Just sayin’”.
This was then widely reported as Kirk advocating for the stoning of gays(if you read between the lines). You begin to see the problem? Media today, both social and main stream, is more interested in getting clicks than it is telling us the truth. And nothing generates clicks quicker than outrage.
I have no doubts the man was a fanny. And when he did talk, he often did the same thing. Saying things to get the reaction that give him a platform. Even his widow just the other day, when speaking after his murder, was performative as fuck. Like she too needs to always be driving engagement, rather than taking the time to actually honour the man she loved, she was rallying support for his message. Grief might make us do weird things, but ugh. Its exhausting listening to these people talk the way they do.
And I dont owe any of you a good attitude. We live in a time where the majority of people get all their opinions from headlines, and its the reason the world is seemingly as fucked as it is. All the muppets lamenting the popularity of Kirk and Trump and Musk and however else, while at the same time doing the very same thing.
My aggression, if you can even call it that, is at the utter state of discourse in social media, and the negative affect is it having on people ability to think for themselves. God forbid anyone puts in some effort, instead of just posting feelings…
And youre still aware that you know how to read, right? If theres a debate, and you want to be part of it, thats fine. But be part of it, dont just drop the same easily clickable comments that everyone else does, and then start moaning when you get called on it.
Why the fuck are you all so terrified of being wrong???
Kirk did not publicly as far as sources show explicitly promote white supremacist violence or call for a white ethnostate.
No, he was very careful to never explicitly express these particular views. But when you read his rhetoric you can see between the lines that he very much viewed white people as superior to all people of color. And in particular he viewed Christianity as superior to any other religion.
Kirk was not a white nationalist, even though there is overlap in their taking points. The key difference is that white nationalist sources often present a more systematised ideology, often with explicit references to racial superiority, or calls for formal racial separation. Kirk did not publicly as far as sources show explicitly promote white supremacist violence or call for a white ethnostate.
As for burning in hell, thats just silly. There is no hell. No hot place where you go to pay for your sins. There is only the absence of existence. Charlie Kirk is just gone. Nothing of him remains anywhere.
he did not come out and say it that I know of, but he certainly tiptoed around it, expressed lots of overlapping opinions, supported white nationalists & nazis, and helped spread their message
so, his support and promotion of the message is enough to say, in general, that he was a white nationalist. however, people will tear the statement apart because it’s only 90% accurate
No he didnt. People said he did, like in the example I gave. But he never did. Another one would be the civil rights act thing. He said it was bad law, that people were now twisting to use for their own needs today. But it was reported as him saying that he thought blacks should still be segregated, which is specifically said he didnt mean. He was talking about having better laws, that protected everyone, but it was reported as though he hated that it happened at all.
I knew none of this, I never watched Kirk. I just saw everyone else saying he said this and that, and when I looked it up it turns out, not so much. He was of the opinion that DEI was bullshit, and was being abused. When he said he would want to check the credentials of a black pilot, he wasnt saying that black pilots are less than white ones. He was saying that people in positions of hiring are putting appearance before merit. Something that has been proven to be happening. The most direct example would be the RAF that was found to be passing over straight white men in favour of non whites and women for “diversity” reasons. It was illegal as fuck, but the thought at the time was that it was fine because it was positive discrimination. At the Oxford Union, the President Elect, George Abaraonye, some how got into Oxford even though he did not meet the basic criteria for admission. Guess what skin colour he has?
Theres examples of positive discrimination all over the place. Its everywhere. Its special treatment, not because someone might excel in other areas that call for special consideration, but because these institutions want to be seen as diverse for popularity reasons. And you can say thats great, but what about if the pendulum swings back again? What we should have been doing was making sure that we changed the system to better serve everyone, instead of just making random people the posterchildren for various companies and institutions social media presence. For example, improving access to education at younger years for everyone so that no one needs special treatment or consideration. Trump showed how easy it is to over turn shakingly written law with Roe, I shocked that everyone else doesnt see the issues with other laws that might be just as shaky.
But thats where the real problem lies. Theres so little debate going on. Its all buzzwords, with the battlelines already well drawn and no one wants to hear anything that makes them question what they already hold to be true. We are all utterly terrified of being wrong, and will fight to the death to make sure we never are with an endless stream of name calling, characters assassination, and fucking memes.
A guy was murdered because of the things he said while being open to debate. And some people cheered for this, like it was a good thing. Those on the right do it as well, as those same people love to point out as though it justifies their behaviour. If thats not an example of the radicalisation of the culture wars, I dont know what is. Both sides are cheering on real world violence like they are watching football teams scoring touch downs. Its all rather insane.
I agree that I dislike taking his quotes out of context. he said enough bad shit here and there that there’s no need to misrepresent his words even slightly
Oh spare us, Kirk never had any interest in good faith debate.
They why did anyone go to speak to him? Why dont YOU spare me, me the nonsense of making shit up? Theres plenty of reasons to hate him, without just inserting your bullshit.
https://racism.org/articles/defining-racism/white-privilege/12835-charlie-kirk-white-supremacist
I think you’re splitting hairs here. He constantly espoused white supremacist talking points and beliefs. But he gave himself plausible deniability by never overtly claiming to be a white nationalist. And you’re continuing his charade even after his death.
No, Im debating you. What Im also doing is taking what he said at face value, and not supplanting what he said with what I think he meant. No more “reading between the lines”. You hold people to account for the things that they say, not what you think they might say behind closed doors. Especially when it comes to someone is as miss quoted as Kirk is/was.
For example, it was pretty funny seeing Stephen King claim that Kirk had said that “gays should be stoned”, and then get noted to fuck because it wasnt true. But theres loads of people who do this all the time that never get noted, or when they do they ignore it in place of what the “feel”. For context, Kirk was commenting on something said by Ms Rachel(a youtuber) that was cherry picking bible verses as some kind of “gotcha”, using Leviticus 19(Love you neighbour as yourself), and Kirk said:
This was then widely reported as Kirk advocating for the stoning of gays(if you read between the lines). You begin to see the problem? Media today, both social and main stream, is more interested in getting clicks than it is telling us the truth. And nothing generates clicks quicker than outrage.
I have no doubts the man was a fanny. And when he did talk, he often did the same thing. Saying things to get the reaction that give him a platform. Even his widow just the other day, when speaking after his murder, was performative as fuck. Like she too needs to always be driving engagement, rather than taking the time to actually honour the man she loved, she was rallying support for his message. Grief might make us do weird things, but ugh. Its exhausting listening to these people talk the way they do.
He’s overtly racist which some mistake for nationalism.
So I type all that for the debate, and you just hand wave it away with a personal belief? Jesus fucking christ.
Im not the guy you replied to.
But you did reply to a “debate”, you know that right?
Do you think the aggression in your replies here makes people more inclined to respond in kind?
Nobody here owes you more than they feel like giving. You cannot expect people to match your energy just because.
And I dont owe any of you a good attitude. We live in a time where the majority of people get all their opinions from headlines, and its the reason the world is seemingly as fucked as it is. All the muppets lamenting the popularity of Kirk and Trump and Musk and however else, while at the same time doing the very same thing.
My aggression, if you can even call it that, is at the utter state of discourse in social media, and the negative affect is it having on people ability to think for themselves. God forbid anyone puts in some effort, instead of just posting feelings…
And you’re on the Internet. There’s at least a dozen of us on here. You know that, right?
And youre still aware that you know how to read, right? If theres a debate, and you want to be part of it, thats fine. But be part of it, dont just drop the same easily clickable comments that everyone else does, and then start moaning when you get called on it.
Why the fuck are you all so terrified of being wrong???
No, he was very careful to never explicitly express these particular views. But when you read his rhetoric you can see between the lines that he very much viewed white people as superior to all people of color. And in particular he viewed Christianity as superior to any other religion.
He’s a supremacist not a nationalist. Kirk didnt want an all white nation.