6 ms·

I was only vaguely aware of Kirk before this, and I could easily see most "normies" being even less aware, but according to reddit, he was practically Goebbels[

by mkfs 1y ago

I was only vaguely aware of Kirk before this, and I could easily see most "normies" being even less aware, but according to reddit, he was practically Goebbels[1] or Himmler, and we collectively dodged a bullet by him taking one. Leftists would really do well here to just shut up. Normal people aren't going to be convinced by your quote mining that Kirk deserved what happened to him, especially in the presence of his wife and kids, and when he was offering dialog. Hasan Piker, for example, said America deserved 9/11--do you think he deserves to die for that? To put it bluntly, the average terminally online reddit/bluesky leftist should realize that they're not normal, and that to a normal person, Kirk will come off as a decent, rightwing (but not overly so) Christian family man, even a bit boring. Meanwhile transgendered people (elated at his death) are generally perceived as "weird" and "gross"--a perception their grave-dancing isn't helping. The optics are really bad. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nfv81d/coldplay_fans_disappointed_after_chris_martin/ndztjzu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/1nfv81d/coldplay_fan...

twixfel 1y ago
He didn't deserve to die; Charlie Kirk was quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man. These are not conflicting ideas.
- mkfs 1y ago
  Your post validates the classic "Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil" observation. You say Kirk was > quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man based on what? From what I can see, he was devoted to his wife and kids, was law-abiding, and was generally well-liked by his colleagues, many of whom regarded him as a friend. Hasan Piker, Mr. "America deserved 9/11," takes good care of his dogs, and seems to have healthy friendships with other streamers and generally good relations with family (like Cenk). Neither of them are "awful," though both were and are flawed (e.g., Hasan's grossly hypocritical "Champaign socialism" and his occasionally extremist rhetoric).
  - archdang 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - UncleMeat 1y ago
    Kirk believed that the civil rights act was a mistake. He advocated for people to be deported for their speech. He deliberately deadnamed trans people in public. I'm sure he was devoted to his wife and kids. They are experiencing a trauma I cannot possibly imagine. But Kirk has said some remarkably horrible things as part of his political advocacy, which I don't believe is aligned with a path that follows Christ.
    - CMay 1y ago
      A lot of people make vague claims about this guy and then just let the various assumptions hang there as a form of decontextualized disinformation. What you're doing here is basically perpetuating the same kind of disinformation that got him killed. This is why Stephen King had to take down his tweet, because he was just repeating things which aren't true. He responded about the civil rights act during his Cambridge Union debate here which I only encountered yesterday when searching more about the guy. It's far more nuanced than you presented it: https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 I don't know about your other claims, but if you don't know about them either, you should stop making them in the lazy way you make them. If you do know, then try harder to present more context.
      - shadowgovt 1y ago
        At this time, the conversation about what he said has been going on for so long (nearly a decade) that nobody is under any obligation to present more context. His position on these topics was pretty clear. I don't think he should have been shot for his beliefs. I do think his beliefs included the idea that it was important for people to be armed independently of the government, and if that means more people get shot than would otherwise, that's an acceptable price to pay. After all, "Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities" (https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...). In context, it's clear that if his philosophy is consistent, his death should fit his own "with a price" criteria (same as if he'd died in a car accident on the way to the event). ... Incidentally, this is an interesting discourse because he goes on to suggest that the solution to school shootings is armed guards. Kirk had a five-member security detail and the support of six members of the campus police. If this appearance was consistent with past ones, he also had a bullet-proof vest under his shirt. So it appears Kirk was wrong about one hypothesis at least: not even armor and a security detail guarantees the safety of the first person in the crosshairs.
zahlman 1y ago
What I still can't understand, after all this time, is how views that extreme became so established on a site as large as Reddit.
- mkfs 1y ago
  Remarkably, they're still doubling down: https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1ngl3qo/to_feel_shocked_that_charlie_kirk_got_shot/ne4v3lk/ https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1ngl3qo/...

by mkfs 1y ago

twixfel 1y ago

He didn't deserve to die; Charlie Kirk was quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man. These are not conflicting ideas.

mkfs 1y ago
Your post validates the classic "Conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil" observation. You say Kirk was > quite an awful, abnormal, un-christian man based on what? From what I can see, he was devoted to his wife and kids, was law-abiding, and was generally well-liked by his colleagues, many of whom regarded him as a friend. Hasan Piker, Mr. "America deserved 9/11," takes good care of his dogs, and seems to have healthy friendships with other streamers and generally good relations with family (like Cenk). Neither of them are "awful," though both were and are flawed (e.g., Hasan's grossly hypocritical "Champaign socialism" and his occasionally extremist rhetoric).
- archdang 1y ago
  [flagged]
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Kirk believed that the civil rights act was a mistake. He advocated for people to be deported for their speech. He deliberately deadnamed trans people in public. I'm sure he was devoted to his wife and kids. They are experiencing a trauma I cannot possibly imagine. But Kirk has said some remarkably horrible things as part of his political advocacy, which I don't believe is aligned with a path that follows Christ.
  - CMay 1y ago
    A lot of people make vague claims about this guy and then just let the various assumptions hang there as a form of decontextualized disinformation. What you're doing here is basically perpetuating the same kind of disinformation that got him killed. This is why Stephen King had to take down his tweet, because he was just repeating things which aren't true. He responded about the civil rights act during his Cambridge Union debate here which I only encountered yesterday when searching more about the guy. It's far more nuanced than you presented it: https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 https://youtu.be/dkiM-z0Mzyg?t=1053 I don't know about your other claims, but if you don't know about them either, you should stop making them in the lazy way you make them. If you do know, then try harder to present more context.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      At this time, the conversation about what he said has been going on for so long (nearly a decade) that nobody is under any obligation to present more context. His position on these topics was pretty clear. I don't think he should have been shot for his beliefs. I do think his beliefs included the idea that it was important for people to be armed independently of the government, and if that means more people get shot than would otherwise, that's an acceptable price to pay. After all, "Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities" (https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-worth-have-cost-unfortunately-some-gun-deaths-every-single-year-so-we https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-its-w...). In context, it's clear that if his philosophy is consistent, his death should fit his own "with a price" criteria (same as if he'd died in a car accident on the way to the event). ... Incidentally, this is an interesting discourse because he goes on to suggest that the solution to school shootings is armed guards. Kirk had a five-member security detail and the support of six members of the campus police. If this appearance was consistent with past ones, he also had a bullet-proof vest under his shirt. So it appears Kirk was wrong about one hypothesis at least: not even armor and a security detail guarantees the safety of the first person in the crosshairs.

zahlman 1y ago

What I still can't understand, after all this time, is how views that extreme became so established on a site as large as Reddit.

mkfs 1y ago
Remarkably, they're still doubling down: https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1ngl3qo/to_feel_shocked_that_charlie_kirk_got_shot/ne4v3lk/ https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1ngl3qo/...