9 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.

 

If you only watch a few of his videos you won't know the full reality of what he stood for. It took me a couple before I opened my mind and really listened.

3 minutes ago, Sandboxer said:

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.

Hitler was a hero until pre 1939

5 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.

His hypothetical isn't inflammatory? A rational person would assume that upon seeing a black or hispanic pilot that they had never flown a plane before? You'd have to be a stone cold deranged racist to suspect that.

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

BUT he was a horrible person 

This is a big problem with our society today.

 

The Woke, Lefties and LGBTQ are united, their behavior at times extremely hostile, nasty and aggressive, most seem to be haters. 

 

These aggressive types are the horrible people. 

 

1 minute ago, Harrisfan said:

Hitler was a hero until pre 1939

Actually, for some members here, and for an increasing number of right wingers, he is becoming one.

For example, recently Hunter Carlson supported the notion that the US should have backed Hitler against Stalin. That the US was on the wrong side in WW2.

 

Just now, Alan Zweibel said:

Actually, for some members here, and for an increasing number of right wingers, he is becoming one.

For example, recently Hunter Carlson supported the notion that the US should have backed Hitler against Stalin. That the US was on the wrong side in WW2.

 

Who is Hunter Carlson?

5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

If you only watch a few of his videos you won't know the full reality of what he stood for. It took me a couple before I opened my mind and really listened.

You've shared the contents of your mind elsewhere in this forum. Your endorsement just confirms my opinion of him.

4 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

 

 

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

 

The link you post also presents quotes  Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee...

 

"I rise today as a clear recipient of affirmative action, particularly in higher education. I may have been admitted on affirmative action, both in terms of being a woman and a woman of color, but I can declare that I did not graduate on affirmative action."

 

 

The evidence you yourself present strengthens Kirk's point rather than weakens it.

 

 

2 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

This is a big problem with our society today.

 

The Woke, Lefties and LGBTQ are united, their behavior seems to be the most hostile, nasty and aggressive. 

 

These are the horrible people. 

 

You obviously haven't been looking at the statistics with regard to murders/killings in the USA, because Republicans top the list by far..........these are the horrible people and Kirk was one of them.

7 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

His hypothetical isn't inflammatory? A rational person would assume that upon seeing a black or hispanic pilot that they had never flown a plane before? You'd have to be a stone cold deranged racist to suspect that.

Kirk said that when he saw a black in in the cockpit that he assumed they has never flown a plane before? 

 

You lose credibility when you lie incessantly. 

5 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

His hypothetical isn't inflammatory? A rational person would assume that upon seeing a black or hispanic pilot that they had never flown a plane before? You'd have to be a stone cold deranged racist to suspect that.

 

You’d have to be extraordinarily daft to take a hypothetical illustration so literally. Refusing to see the bigger picture isn’t an oversight - it’s a symptom of unhinged bias.

 

I have no personal opinion on Kirk, nor am I politically motivated for or against him; US politics simply don’t move me strongly either way. But I can recognise blatant bias when I see it, and both you and the video cited in the OP are presenting an argument that is anything but balanced or impartial.

 

3 minutes ago, xylophone said:

You obviously haven't been looking at the statistics with regard to murders/killings in the USA, because Republicans top the list by far..........these are the horrible people and Kirk was one of them.

You lose credibility when you lie incessantly. 

 

If you can provide data that supports that, I'll let you raw-dog my daughter. 

Many people put 2+2 together and made 4 when Boeing went woke and prioritized DEI hires over hiring most skilled and suitable, which started the era of Boeing planes falling out of the sky. An incredible coincidence if your a wokie Im sure🤣

52 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Just taking, for example, Charlie Kirk’s stance on affirmative action. The video circulated by JT selectively cherry-picks “sound bites” that, on first viewing, may appear racist or bigoted. Yet, upon closer examination of his full arguments, there is substantive reasoning behind his position.

 

Kirk’s central point revolves around the principle of meritocracy. In fields where competence can be a matter of life and death- such as piloting an aircraft or performing surgery - positions should be earned solely on skill, experience, and ability.

 

Suggesting that companies or institutions fill a set number of positions based on demographic criteria - whether race, gender, or ethnicity - risks undermining meritocracy. This approach can result in highly qualified individuals being overlooked in favour of meeting quotas, which may compromise performance in critical roles.

 

Ultimately, when we entrust our lives to professionals, we want confidence that they are chosen for their capabilities and expertise, not because they benefited from preferential treatment. Affirmative action, while aiming to correct historical inequities, raises difficult questions about balancing diversity goals with ensuring the most qualified individuals occupy roles where precision and competence are non-negotiable.

 

 

Holding opinions like these does not make Charlie Kirk a nasty or malicious person. What is troubling - and intellectually dishonest - is the selective use of his comments: taking remarks out of context and presenting isolated sound-bites designed to manipulate the optics of his statements.

 

This approach distorts the substance of his arguments and paints a misleading picture of his character. True critique engages with ideas in their full context; misrepresentation is simply nastiness masquerading as analysis.

 

 

Your complete lack of knowledge regarding DEI initiatives is truly telling and I would guess, influenced by the likes of Kirk to feed into your already pre-determined view of what this is/was. DEI was never about putting unqualified people into jobs - they all still had to pass the same rigorous tests that everyone else did (pilots, lawyers, doctors etc). The inference from you (and definitely Kirk) was they were somehow allowed an easy ride into the job PURELY because of their skin colour. This is demonstratively wrong and more importantly, Kirk absolutely knew this (you get a pass because you don’t seem to). Therefore Kirk saying “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" Is of course VERY racist and a clear dog whistle to other racists because THAT black pilot would absolutely be qualified. There’s no choice otherwise. He was tested exactly the same as white pilots. 

From AI - “The original purpose of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives was to create fairer, more representative workplaces and institutions by actively addressing historical discrimination and systemic barriers.  The core goal was to ensure that people from historically marginalized groups could have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed.”

There is no obligation for society to allow abhorrent views just for the sake of free speech. We don’t allow peodophiles, necrophiliacs, ISIS, scammers and other extremists a platform to preach from, but we are to allow a racist like Kirk to not only openly debate his views but to disseminate them to a far too eager following. And now he’s being touted as a free preach martyr by the likes of you. 
Freedom of speach does not mean freedom from consequences and this insistence that he was “just a lovely chap who was trying to get his view across” is simply dishonest at best, a whitewash at worst. 

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You've shared the contents of your mind elsewhere in this forum. Your endorsement just confirms my opinion of him.

Which means you neither understand me nor him. And it also shows the contents of your mind. Opinions mean nothing, especially unsound ones with little basis of fact.

10 minutes ago, xylophone said:

You obviously haven't been looking at the statistics with regard to murders/killings in the USA, because Republicans top the list by far..........these are the horrible people and Kirk was one of them.

Blacks kill the most per capita. Michael Jordan is one of them.

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.

 

1984 in action. Trump taking his cue from China, Russia and NK.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Charlie Kirk has participated in hundreds of debates, consistently inviting polite discussion - even from those who are openly rude to him. On numerous occasions, he has gone out of his way to protect opposing participants from verbal attacks by the audience, emphasising that everyone has the right to voice and defend their viewpoints.

 

His guiding principle has always been the promotion of discussion. Without open dialogue, understanding is impossible. The very essence of debate is to confront differing perspectives respectfully, not to vilify those who hold them.

 

It is, therefore, fundamentally flawed to label someone as a “horrible person” simply because others disagree with them.

 

...On the contrary, there is ample evidence that he engages with sensitive topics politely. His arguments may be controversial or disagreeable to some, but they do not demonstrate personal nastiness that would justify such extreme characterisation.

 

Being divisive or holding unpopular opinions does not equate to being horrible - it simply reflects the reality that not everyone will agree with one’s perspective. ...

 

 

"If I get on a plane and see a black pilot..."

4 minutes ago, Peabody said:

"If I get on a plane and see a black pilot..."

 

If i go to a basketball game and see a white player starting  " he must be the coaches son".     

 

if i walk in a black neighborhood i hear " whatchu doing here whitie" 

 

have you warriors ever walked in the hood at night alone ?   

 

most murders in the cities are black on black ..... 

Typical cherry picking comments without giving any context. 

1 minute ago, rumak said:

 

If i go to a basketball game and see a white player starting  " he must be the coaches son".

Good One!!

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Charlie Kirk has participated in hundreds of debates, consistently inviting polite discussion - even from those who are openly rude to him. On numerous occasions, he has gone out of his way to protect opposing participants from verbal attacks by the audience, emphasising that everyone has the right to voice and defend their viewpoints.

 

His guiding principle has always been the promotion of discussion. Without open dialogue, understanding is impossible. The very essence of debate is to confront differing perspectives respectfully, not to vilify those who hold them.

 

It is, therefore, fundamentally flawed to label someone as a “horrible person” simply because others disagree with them.

 

There is no credible evidence to suggest that Charlie Kirk is inherently cruel or malicious. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that he engages with sensitive topics politely. His arguments may be controversial or disagreeable to some, but they do not demonstrate personal nastiness that would justify such extreme characterisation.

 

Being divisive or holding unpopular opinions does not equate to being horrible - it simply reflects the reality that not everyone will agree with one’s perspective. Debate is not about personal animosity; it is about the exchange of ideas.

 

 

He did not debate. 

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Your complete lack of knowledge regarding DEI initiatives is truly telling and I would guess, influenced by the likes of Kirk to feed into your already pre-determined view of what this is/was. DEI was never about putting unqualified people into jobs - they all still had to pass the same rigorous tests that everyone else did (pilots, lawyers, doctors etc). The inference from you (and definitely Kirk) was they were somehow allowed an easy ride into the job PURELY because of their skin colour. This is demonstratively wrong and more importantly, Kirk absolutely knew this (you get a pass because you don’t seem to). Therefore Kirk saying “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" Is of course VERY racist and a clear dog whistle to other racists because THAT black pilot would absolutely be qualified. There’s no choice otherwise. He was tested exactly the same as white pilots. 

From AI - “The original purpose of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives was to create fairer, more representative workplaces and institutions by actively addressing historical discrimination and systemic barriers.  The core goal was to ensure that people from historically marginalized groups could have an equal opportunity to participate and succeed.”

There is no obligation for society to allow abhorrent views just for the sake of free speech. We don’t allow peodophiles, necrophiliacs, ISIS, scammers and other extremists a platform to preach from, but we are to allow a racist like Kirk to not only openly debate his views but to disseminate them to a far too eager following. And now he’s being touted as a free preach martyr by the likes of you. 
Freedom of speach does not mean freedom from consequences and this insistence that he was “just a lovely chap who was trying to get his view across” is simply dishonest at best, a whitewash at worst. 

 

 

You’re taking an absurdly literal view of a clearly hypothetical illustration. To do so is not just naive - it’s indicative of an unhinged bias that refuses to see the bigger picture. Kirk’s “Black pilot” example wasn’t a statement about qualifications; it was a logical, hypothetical device to explore assumptions and perceptions. Insisting that this makes him “very racist” or a “dog whistle” is a complete misreading.

 

Your comparison to pedophiles, terrorists, and other extremists is equally ridiculous. Hypothetical debate about policy or societal perceptions is not morally equivalent to advocating criminal acts. To suggest otherwise is a transparent attempt to inflame rather than engage.

 

Moreover, the idea that supporting DEI initiatives automatically immunises someone from critique is flawed. No one here is denying that DEI candidates must meet standards, though there is already 'admission' that they might not (see  Rep. Shirley Jackson Lee Quote below). The discussion is about how hypotheticals expose implicit biases and societal assumptions - not about undermining merit. To claim otherwise is deliberately blind to the point being made that affirmative action is unfair.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

No, he wasn't a horrible person just because his politics differ from yours. 

 

Its entirely possible for people to have different beliefs without making them 'horrible'... to state such a thing implies the person making such a statement themself is somewhat distasteful themself.

 

Additionally, only the dim-witted are inclined to make such a sweeping statement of a person who has debated many topics, surely we, you, others, don't disagree with everything Charlie Kirk debated - many of his opinions were sound, others wholly objectionable. 

 

This idea that you are either 'with him' or 'against him' and that makes him 'good' or 'bad' (horrible) is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest.

 

 

Many of his opinions where sound you say? Wll tells a lot about you.

2 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Many of his opinions where sound you say? Wll tells a lot about you.

and vice versa ......     so ???

 

as Charlie might say , ( what opinion would you like to discuss ?  give me yours and the reasons for it ) 

 

if you can .............

4 minutes ago, Peabody said:

"If I get on a plane and see a black pilot..."

He didn't say that!

I will put his actual words and put into context.

 

The panel discussing DEI reacted to a recirculated 2021 Axios interview with United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, where he announced a goal for 50% of new pilots to be women or people of color through the Aviate Academy training program. This resurfaced after a December 2022 United flight (UA1722) incident—a sudden altitude drop due to crew miscommunication on flap settings (per NTSB investigation.

 

Kirk said the quote while expressing "regret" over DEI's impact: "I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.' ... That's not who I am, that's not what I believe, but that's the reality the left has created."

He extended it to a "Black, lesbian surgeon," blaming policies for eroding trust in professionals based on race/gender.

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

He did not debate. 

 

Not in the formal, traditional sense - that is, a debate with standard rules, structured arguments, timed rebuttals, and an impartial moderator ensuring equal speaking opportunities.

 

However, informally, it functioned as a debate in the broader sense: dialogue, argument, audience interaction, and public discussion.

 

There’s no point getting bogged down in semantics. Kirk took questions and engaged with arguments from members of the public, discussing them in the form of an informal debate.

 

 

Another aspect of the post assasination period that I find cringe.

Taking sympathy for his wife which is legit of the course to the point of thinking she's needy and people should give her money.

Kirk's organization was very successful and indeed his wife has now taken over as CEO.

Ironic because one of the big themes of Kirk's disgusting ideology was that women couldn't be happy having careers and raising kids at the same time.

I guess it turns out she wasn't completely on board with obeying her husband trad wife style after all.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Because of affirmative action, companies can sometimes feel pressured to prioritise demographics over qualifications. For instance, if an airline does not employ a Black pilot, a female pilot, or an LGBTQ+ pilot, it may face accusations of bias or exclusion.

 

As a result, organisations are often encouraged to actively recruit from these groups - not necessarily to address competence or skill gaps, but to improve their appearance on the scales of political correctness and avoid criticism.

 

This highlights a broader concern: when policies emphasise representation over merit, the principle of equal opportunity can become distorted.

 

Affirmative action, in this sense, risks prioritising optics and social signalling over competence. True equality of opportunity should be grounded in merit alone, ensuring that positions - especially those where skill and precision are critical - are filled by the most capable individuals, regardless of background.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, you just killed the discussion with this post.

 

Of course Airlines will use Black, LGBT, not White males just to please the equal opportunities brigade, you're having a laugh.

I would put good money on the fact that the said minorities are better trained and tested to get employed in those positions.

 

As the OP said Kirk didn't deserve to be assassinated but then again I wouldn't have pee'd on him if he was on fire, same goes for all religious nuts, zionists and racists.

This assassination has certainly been revealing.   You can literally put people into boxes on this based on their statements.

 

Antifa/far left/woke left:  Charlie Kirk deserved to be killed.  Celebrates his murder.    

Leftist:  Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be killed, but <insert out of context leftist media sourced quote here> to justify why it's okay he was murdered.  Have never watched his content and rely on leftist media to be told what opinion they should have of him. 

Liberal:  Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be killed.

Conservative: Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to be killed.

 

Liberals and conservatives can disagree on just about everything and are capable of civilized debate, but the other 2 groups are incapable of reasonable debate and are an unhinged lost cause who will continue to call people nazi's and fascists despite not really understanding what Nazi's and fascists are or did, and despite the evidence that calling people these names will put a target on the backs of people that they label that other unhinged leftists will use as justification of murdering people to cancel them permanently.