Just now, Yellowtail said:

But it's different when you demonize all Americans that support Trump, yes?

 

Hypocrite, thy name is lefty. 

I don't have any power.

Trump has ALL the power.

I realize many Trump voters were low information SUCKERS who bought into his big lies.

He ran on free speech. Now he's the most anti-free speech president in American history.

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

 

Look at the cabinet picks of his idol Trump.

The majority of them are among the most atrociously unqualified in American history!

The number one criteria for Trump is LOYALTY to Trump.

Did Kirk ever criticize that?

I don't know but I would be very shocked if he did.

And the number one criteria for the left is HATRED of Trump.

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

 

Look at the cabinet picks of his idol Trump.

The majority of them are among the most atrociously unqualified in American history!

The number one criteria for Trump is LOYALTY to Trump.

Did Kirk ever criticize that?

I don't know but I would be very shocked if he did.

And the number one criterion for the left is HATRED of Trump.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

No one denies that Kirk was talking about affirmative action. It's the way he talked about and the fact that he engaged in explicit insults of certain people and claiming that the only reason they succeeded was because of affirmative action. You claim that he didn't insult these people. That his comments were taken out of context. Prove it. And good luck with that.

 

The first minute of the video proves it - if you fail to see that, it is likely your own bias that is clouding your judgment.

 

Kirk’s decision to use Black and Hispanic people as examples when critiquing affirmative action is entirely reasonable. He was unafraid to address the issue directly and did not feel compelled to “dance around” terminology in order to remain politically correct.

 

Using such examples serves to make his argument clear and tangible. This was not racism; it was simply an illustration. Critics who attempt to label it as racist are missing the bigger picture.

 

Had he used women instead, the same argument would hold, yet he would likely be accused of sexism.

 

The essence of the critique remains unchanged, but detractors would still find grounds for levying accusations of bigotry. The reality is that such arguments, by their nature, are bound to ruffle feathers - this does not make them inherently prejudiced, only challenging to the status quo.

Of all the people that downvoted the OP with the video proof, I wonder how many even watched it? I assume most didn't.

No matter what others thought of him, and how sometimes he would come off as harsh and one sided, what he said was for people to respect life itself. That you are what you are at birth and you can't think yourself into being something you're biologically not.

 

Being pro life has others thinking about what they're doing before they do it. That a life begins at conception and not when a baby is actually born. That men are supposed to be with women and only that, which is following God's way, something many turn their backs on for a number of reasons and make excuses to do things that aren't moral or normal.

 

My daughter told me about him years ago, but I didn't pay him any attention while living here, even though I get daily news from the US. I've since been watching his videos and yes, sometimes they are, like richard mentioned, taken out of context or cherry picked, but if you watch enough, you surely get what he's about, and that what he says is truth, even if you don't agree with either his way of speaking sometimes.

 

The only thing I disagree with is his stance on going to college. He's right about the stats where many end up checking out or not getting the pay they thought they would get upon graduating, but there are careers where college is a necessity, and those careers pay very well. 

6 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Why criticise them? 

The argument was made the Kirk was passionate about hiring only being on merit.

When his idol Trump hired only based on loyalty and not merit for most of his picks, IF Kirk was intellectually honest he would have criticized that.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Here's proof.

 

 

And yet the vile dystopian extremist forces of the shambolic Trump (best friend of Epstein) regime and those trying to whitewash how obnoxious and hateful Kirk REALLY was are trying to CANCEL anyone (getting them fired, etc.) who just shows and opines about EXACTLY what Kirk said in his life. Also they're trying (and largely succeeding) in making a person who was extremely far away from being a saint into a kind of magalicious (sic) martyr-saint. The hypocristy is stunning.

That is disgusting and even some right wingers like Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz get that.

 

Your post is nothing but vile hatred for Trump or anyone that agrees with his policies. You grab at desperation trying to vye your hate to others. Even so low as to use this video from The Seneca group. I bet you do not even know what this group is or what it does or believes in. 

Galvanize women, save democracy. The Seneca Project is a bipartisan superPAC dedicated to mobilizing moderate women in support of Kamala Harris' election.

The lost severely in elections and still they try their best to make everything bad that supports or believes in TRUE democracy. Or at least believes in the truth and wants The USA to be better. This is your 2nd post about KIrk and his death. Your last post saying how happy you are that someone took action by killing him says enough about your demeanor and rhetoric. NO shame. You try to make what happened into a good thing and now you are using some HARRIS love group The Seneca group. The vileness comes from you. Others mourn the needless death of Kirk caused by a killer who used his hate to take him out. Others see the violence and hate that is coming from people (like you) as a bad thing. Unbelievable you have swayed others to zoom in on your outlook at premeditated murder as a good thing. 

Just now, Jingthing said:

The argument was made the Kirk was passionate about hiring only being on merit.

When his idol Trump hired only based on loyalty and not merit for most of his picks, IF Kirk was intellectually honest he would have criticized that.

Why? Only piss off Trump.

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't have any power.

Trump has ALL the power.

I realize many Trump voters were low information SUCKERS who bought into his big lies.

He ran on free speech. Now he's the most anti-free speech president in American history.

Your life is the same as 12 months ago.

Just now, Jingthing said:

Of all the people that downvoted the OP with the video proof, I wonder how many even watched it? I assume most didn't.

 

You are assuming that because of an unfavourable response, however, its also possible that those who “down-voted” see the cherry-picked bias presented - which either you agree with, or, are unable to distinguish due to your own biases.

 

If you were to present a video or argument that is more balanced and less heavily edited, you would likely receive a far more favourable response. Fair and contextually accurate presentation of ideas invites genuine discussion, whereas selective editing tends to polarise and provoke criticism.

 

 

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No matter what others thought of him, and how sometimes he would come off as harsh and one sided, what he said was for people to respect life itself. That you are what you are at birth and you can't think yourself into being something you're biologically not.

 

Being pro life has others thinking about what they're doing before they do it. That a life begins at conception and not when a baby is actually born. That men are supposed to be with women and only that, which is following God's way, something many turn their backs on for a number of reasons and make excuses to do things that aren't moral or normal.

 

My daughter told me about him years ago, but I didn't pay him any attention while living here, even though I get daily news from the US. I've since been watching his videos and yes, sometimes they are, like richard mentioned, taken out of context or cherry picked, but if you watch enough, you surely get what he's about, and that what he says is truth, even if you don't agree with either his way of speaking sometimes.

 

The only thing I disagree with is his stance on going to college. He's right about the stats where many end up checking out or not getting the pay they thought they would get upon graduating, but there are careers where college is a necessity, and those careers pay very well. 

His stance on college is only because they have largely become indoctrination mills in the US. 

 

Yes, a lot of jobs that previously required high school, now require college, largely because a HS diploma not is meaningless, and (I think) 60% of the workforce have college degrees. 

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The argument was made the Kirk was passionate about hiring only being on merit.

When his idol Trump hired only based on loyalty and not merit for most of his picks, IF Kirk was intellectually honest he would have criticized that.

 

…and I would consider that a fair criticism. However, it overlooks an important distinction: politics is heavily influenced by loyalty and alliances, whereas professions like surgery or piloting are not. The points are logically juxtaposed to highlight that merit and competence should remain the primary criteria in fields where skill and precision are non-negotiable, unlike in political appointments where other factors often play a larger role.

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The first minute of the video proves it - if you fail to see that, it is likely your own bias that is clouding your judgment.

 

Kirk’s decision to use Black and Hispanic people as examples when critiquing affirmative action is entirely reasonable. He was unafraid to address the issue directly and did not feel compelled to “dance around” terminology in order to remain politically correct.

 

Using such examples serves to make his argument clear and tangible. This was not racism; it was simply an illustration. Critics who attempt to label it as racist are missing the bigger picture.

 

Had he used women instead, the same argument would hold, yet he would likely be accused of sexism.

 

The essence of the critique remains unchanged, but detractors would still find grounds for levying accusations of bigotry. The reality is that such arguments, by their nature, are bound to ruffle feathers - this does not make them inherently prejudiced, only challenging to the status quo.

He didn't use them as possible cases of affirmative action. He outright stated that it was so. That they were too stupid to have legitimately succeeded.  You can wriggle as much as you like. But until you provide evidence that these statements were taken out of context, you're just blowing hot air.

And in the case of the black and hispanic pilots, he uses a hypothetical characterization. As though a rational person would suspect that 2 pilots had zero experience before piloting a plane. Obviously inflammatory.

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You are assuming that because of an unfavourable response, however, its also possible that those who “down-voted” see the cherry-picked bias presented - which either you agree with, or, are unable to distinguish due to your own biases.

 

If you were to present a video or argument that is more balanced and less heavily edited, you would likely receive a far more favourable response. Fair and contextually accurate presentation of ideas invites genuine discussion, whereas selective editing tends to polarise and provoke criticism.

 

 

How about you presenting a video that shows otherwise? You made the claim that the comments were taken out of context. Prove it.

 

7 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Why? Only piss off Trump.

So he's nothing like a saint then.

Which is a big part of my point.

A saint would have spoken truth to power.

Condemn all political violence, including the murder of Kirk, including the murders of Minnesota democrats, including the violent Trump inspired insurrection attempt attack of the capitol, but in no way is honoring the memory of Kirk with sainthood at all justified. In no way should it be used to crush free speech either.

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The argument was made the Kirk was passionate about hiring only being on merit.

When his idol Trump hired only based on loyalty and not merit for most of his picks, IF Kirk was intellectually honest he would have criticized that.

For cabinet positions, surely you have to admit loyalty is of critical importance, yes?  

 

Your job is to push the president's policies forward, not to call the press and stab him in the back. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So he's nothing like a saint then.

Which is a big part of my point.

A saint would have spoken truth to power.

Condemn all political violence, including the murder of Kirk, including the murders of Minnesota democrats, including the Trump inspired insurrection assault of the capitol, but in no way is honoring the memory of Kirk with sainhood justified. In no way should it be used to crush free speech either.

I'm sick of hearing about him. Nobody is perfect. We all poo in the toilet.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

So he's nothing like a saint then.

Which is a big part of my point.

A saint would have spoken truth to power.

Condemn all political violence, including the murder of Kirk, including the murders of Minnesota democrats, including the Trump inspired insurrection assault of the capitol, but in no way is honoring the memory of Kirk with sainhood justified. In no way should it be used to crush free speech either.

He was not trying to be a saint. He was trying to use facts so people like you (blinded by hate for trump) would see he was correct. Which, i might add. Was quite successful with the younger generation who were only previously shown biased reports that permitted things to get even worse. 

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

He didn't use them as possible cases of affirmative action. He outright stated that it was so. That they were too stupid to have legitimately succeeded.  You can wriggle as much as you like. But until you provide evidence that these statements were taken out of context, you're just blowing hot air.

And in the case of the black and hispanic pilots, he uses a hypothetical characterization. As though a rational person would suspect that 2 pilots had zero experience before piloting a plane. Obviously inflammatory.

 

No, he didn’t, and he has never used the term “stupid” - any suggestion otherwise is a misrepresentation of his words - gaslighting.

 

I agree that Kirk employed a hypothetical scenario, but that was entirely necessary to illustrate his critique of affirmative action. There is no evidence that he intended anything beyond a logical, hypothetical point. As you’ve acknowledged yourself, it was precisely that - a hypothetical.

 

In reality, we board a plane without seeing the pilot; Kirk understands that as well as anyone. Yet his hypothetical carries sound logic.

 

It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that such examples provoke outrage from shrinking violets and virtue signallers. When discussing sensitive topics, discomfort is unavoidable - but it does not diminish the validity of the underlying argument.

Just now, Harrisfan said:

I'm sick of hearing about him. Nobody is perfect. We all poo in the toilet.

I wouldn't be surprised if the white nationalist maga fascists don't try and succeed in giving Kirk a national holiday. Like the anti-MLK day. You heard it here first.

2 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

He didn't use them as possible cases of affirmative action. He outright stated that it was so. That they were too stupid to have legitimately succeeded.  You can wriggle as much as you like. But until you provide evidence that these statements were taken out of context, you're just blowing hot air.

And in the case of the black and hispanic pilots, he uses a hypothetical characterization. As though a rational person would suspect that 2 pilots had zero experience before piloting a plane. Obviously inflammatory.

You are a liar. 

 

What he said was, that affirmative action assumes minorities were too stupid to have legitimately succeeded.

 

Do you believe that KBJ would be a Supreme Court Justise if she were not a black woman?

 

The FACT is, KBJ would NOT be a Supreme Court Justise if she were not a black woman. 

 

This pretty much makes Kirk's case. 

 

 

1 minute ago, thesetat said:

He was not trying to be a saint. He was trying to use facts so people like you (blinded by hate for trump) would see he was correct. Which, i might add. Was quite successful with the younger generation who were only previously shown biased reports that permitted things to get even worse. 

I agree. He wasn't trying.

But now he's dead and the maga fascist movement is trying to do exactly that.

They certainly don't want people to actually see videos like in the OP which show what a NASTY hate and bigotry filled piece of work he really was.

He was basically a nice guy who didn't deserve to be killed, but two things can be true at the same time in that the world may also be better off now depending on one's perception of what is "too" harmful to society.

 

By all accounts, Hitler was a very nice guy too, to most folks.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the white nationalist maga fascists don't try and succeed in giving Kirk a national holiday. Like the anti-MLK day. You heard it here first.

So, half the country are "white nationalist maga fascists". 

 

JT doing his part to start the healing. 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You are assuming that because of an unfavourable response, however, its also possible that those who “down-voted” see the cherry-picked bias presented - which either you agree with, or, are unable to distinguish due to your own biases.

 

If you were to present a video or argument that is more balanced and less heavily edited, you would likely receive a far more favourable response. Fair and contextually accurate presentation of ideas invites genuine discussion, whereas selective editing tends to polarise and provoke criticism.

 

 

When I first started listening to his videos, I saw him speaking rather harshly to the kids at a school, looking like he only wanted to hear himself and not them. I didn't listen with an open mind but went on what some had already said about him.

 

Then I started listening to many videos, every day, and saw what he really stood for, and that some were very wrong about him, because they were totally on the other side in their thinking. Some of course will not like him because of his support for Trump, but being in the middle I listen attentively to both side's arguments, then decide which makes more sense or would be the better idea.

 

We need more like him, to teach teenagers things they may not have been  taught in their own households, which could be prejudiced or biased, and listen with an open mind, making up their own minds using their own thinking instead of being  swayed by those earlier lessons. A lot of this is being , like he said, responsible for your own orgasms, and actually thinking about the consequences of your actions with sex.

 

I'm not really concerned with his political views, as I again stay in the middle, but as far as his speaking of responsibilities, that a person is what they are when they're born, and no amount of thinking can change that, and that crime is always the responsibility of those who break the laws and has nothing to do with living in poverty but of individual actions, that's where I agree with him.

 

 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No, he didn’t, and he has never used the term “stupid” - any suggestion otherwise is a misrepresentation of his words - gaslighting.

 

I agree that Kirk employed a hypothetical scenario, but that was entirely necessary to illustrate his critique of affirmative action. There is no evidence that he intended anything beyond a logical, hypothetical point. As you’ve acknowledged yourself, it was precisely that - a hypothetical.

 

In reality, we board a plane without seeing the pilot; Kirk understands that as well as anyone. Yet his hypothetical carries sound logic.

 

It is unfortunate, but inevitable, that such examples provoke outrage from shrinking violets and virtue signallers. When discussing sensitive topics, discomfort is unavoidable - but it does not diminish the validity of the underlying argument.

You're correct. He didn't say stupid. This is what he said of Ketanji Jackson Brown and 3 other black women:

"Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fact-check-charlie-kirk-quote-082017036.html

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

How about you presenting a video that shows otherwise? You made the claim that the comments were taken out of context. Prove it.

 

The demand to “provide a link” is a fundamentally flawed debating tactic. It assumes that a single clip can encapsulate the full context of an argument, which is rarely the case - especially when there are hundreds of videos covering the topic. This approach encourages selective quoting, cherry-picking soundbites, and misrepresenting nuanced points to suit an agenda.

 

It also shifts the burden unfairly. The responsibility of understanding an argument in context lies with both parties, yet this tactic shifts the onus. In short, “provide a link / video” is less about seeking clarity and more about creating a convenient excuse to dismiss an argument without engaging with it.

 

You can find plenty of video's yourself - if you are capable of remaining impartial and intellectually honest while watching them.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I agree. He wasn't trying.

But now he's dead and the maga fascist movement is trying to do exactly that.

They certainly don't want people to actually see videos like in the OP which show what a NASTY hate and bigotry filled piece of work he really was.

When they see videos put together like what you posted, it just shows them what the left is. 

37 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Whats wrong?

 

exactly !    well,  what is WrONG  is .... as R Smith points out :

 

"The problem arises when statement such as this are cherry-picked and presented out of context, as the video does. Doing so is misleading and intellectually dishonest, because it distorts the intended argument and portrays it as something it is not.

 

True critique should engage with the full context, rather than manipulating isolated remarks to create a false narrative."

 

of course.... these "discussions"  are basically useless as far as getting one side to comprehend ,  or heaven forbid alter their view .    Bias is set like hardened cement in the minds of the masses .

 

since Rattlesnake is my chosen member to take on the Minister of Optimism role (with views i don't always share) ...

I guess maybe R. Smith might fill another role as a fill in for Charlie .    Takes some grit to get into the 

trenches of debate .