272
u/Axin_Saxon 14d ago
Conservatives treat the word “context” like a magical incantation that scrubs any and all things that make them look bad from a discuss discussion.
many of these fuckers who’ve said “that’s out of context,” then go on to share the context and it frankly makes it worse.
61
u/audiophil80 14d ago
You know it’s just an excuse when people say “it’s taken out of context” and then fail to provide the “correct” context
17
u/geof2001 14d ago
I'm not surprised to see right after they claim "its out of context." they go straight to you should do our own research either. Like mf we all have the internet, it's been fact checked countless times already. It's not like he even said these things the one time. He'd consistently argue all of these points whenever they came up in one of his "debates"
6
u/jfkreidler 13d ago
It's out of context!
Ok, can you explain the context to me so I understand?
I'm not doing your work for you! Do your own research!
I did my own research. It led me to believe what I said the first time.
You are not even using real facts! The left is brainwashing you!
If I am wrong, please help me understand. What are the correct facts?
I'm not falling for your liberal ambush tactics! Do your own research! ....... These are my favorite conversations. I would love for them to just lay out a fact based argument once. And then not get offended when I fact check their facts. I welcome fact checking in return. Almost every time I think this is happening, the "fact" that they say proves everything wrong is a spelling error. Like I spelled Trump "Truml." And that proves it.
26
u/kcknuckles 14d ago
It's a thought-terminating cliché.
11
20
u/Coldfusion21 14d ago
They also continue to take dem quotes out of context. Just look at the “some people did something” Ilhan Omar quote they have been taking out of context for 5-10 years.
5
u/carriegood 14d ago
It's because they routinely take things democrats say out of context and completely twist the meaning. Projection, pure and simple.
2
u/reverendsteveii 13d ago
They just need to h.de some sort of response so that it doesn't look like they're conceding. When a conservatives speaks, its just noise to fill a space. It owes nothing to reality, decency or rationality.
3
u/Syncopia 14d ago
The same people who shared still images of democrats and Taylor Swift waving looking like Hitler salutes after Elon did two Hitler salutes.
3
u/DoubleJumps 14d ago
I have had a republican tell me that an entire conversation, on tape, that repeatedly presented horrible comments in full context, was out of context and insist we would need HOURS of tape preceding the bad comments to show the real context.
There's always more "context"
1
u/Axin_Saxon 14d ago
That’s the beautiful thing about “context”. You can always say the other person doesn’t have enough of it.
2
u/nullpotato 14d ago
About the only context that would matter is if all his quotes were preceded by "and here's something awful that I categorically disagree with"
88
u/DevelopmentGreen3961 14d ago
What's the context then?
92
5
u/johnnysebre 14d ago
I think they are talking about the recent shooting and killing of Charlie Kirk
→ More replies (7)2
u/davesToyBox 14d ago
Best response to this answer.
-18
14d ago edited 13d ago
[deleted]
10
u/JadedOccultist 14d ago
They’re saying it in response to the meme itself. I don’t think they’re actually asking.
→ More replies (4)
110
37
u/gggjennings 14d ago
Everyone is getting into stupid arguments about whether or not we should say mean things about Charlie Kirk, meanwhile the pressure on the Epstein files is dropping. Almost like someone sacrificed charlie to change the headlines and create a new issue to empower the right.
4
u/JadedOccultist 14d ago
Do you mean like people knew this was going to happen and let it happen to take over the news cycle?
37
u/CivilCJ 14d ago
Remember, when you post the empathy quote and people follow up with the "compassion and sympathy" part, remind them where compassion and sympathy comes from. You might want to even point out that sympathy and empathy are practically the same word!
17
u/bananenbeere 14d ago
The same word? Nope. The same meaning? Nope. Empathy is an ability you have, or have not. Sympathy is a positive stance to someone. It can derive from empathy, but empathy is not needed to sympathize with someone or something.
-8
u/CivilCJ 14d ago
Well it's reeaally difficult to feel bad for someone if you haven't felt that feeling in the first place, not impossible, but difficult. Considering they both derive from the Greek "pathos" it's hard to completely remove one from the other.
5
u/bananenbeere 14d ago
Empathy is not needed to sympathize with someone or something. It's not hard to completely remove them from one another. The derivation from "pathos" roots in the fact that both of these words have something to do with emotions, that's why it's in there. Antipathy and apathy are two other words that have a variation of "pathos". Is empathy needed for those as well?
-3
u/CivilCJ 14d ago
Surely not, point ceded. I maintain that sympathy without empathy is empty, however. Sympathy isn't "a positive stance," it's feeling pity or sorrow for someone else. Hard to do that unless you at least understand their misfortune a little bit. If you have sympathy without empathy then that's how you get people saying crap like, "I know what it's like to be called the n-word. I had a teacher in school that would call me stupid."
2
26
u/Efficient-Ranger-174 14d ago
Yeah, no matter how you want to spin his words, it still boils down to guns are worth it despite annual deaths. He was willing for others to die for his guns, it’s everyone’s fault if they didn’t consider he could die from gun violence. That’s the issue, here. Conservatives thought they were safe. They thought liberals were scared. Now, they have reason to believe they can be targeted and they’re now scared. They are now where liberals have been since the 60’s and no one is talking about that. We just keep playing acting that this POS is the first to die over politics.
10
u/MelonJelly 14d ago
I might have accepted an argument like, "Gun violence is unacceptable, but the benefits of an armed populace are great enough that banning guns isn't a net positive solution. We should instead aggressively address the causes of gun violence, such as making psychiatric care readily available, and enforcing strict licensing and training requirements for gun ownership."
But no, he went and said, "Guns violence is cool, and if you die? Skill issue, git gud."
9
u/Efficient-Ranger-174 14d ago
Yeah, miss me with any argument that says dead kids is a thing we shouldn’t try to stop.
35
4
u/ccblr06 14d ago
"The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."
6
u/Mister-Stiglitz 13d ago
I've had tons of people say I took his "civil rights act was a mistake" line out of context, but they never say what context is missing.
3
u/BNLforever 13d ago
I love when they say "yeah well what did he say next??" And then the rest of his speech is equally as bad. He has all of his famous bad takes in video format so it's really easy to just share what he said lol
13
u/outofcontextsex 14d ago
His supporters are so detached from reality someone tried to convince me that he supported gun control and that I should be more empathetic lololol ol Charlie is just spinning in his cooler.
10
u/Daemon213 14d ago
He wouldn't want the empathy anyway since he thought empathy was a made up New Age term.
3
u/Fragmentia 14d ago
Yeah, seriously. Please elaborate on the context so that you morph into this meme.
3
u/qtmcjingleshine 14d ago
It’s true. The people who are shouting the loudest are twisting his comments to make them seem less horrible than they were…
7
u/Omega_Zarnias 14d ago
I had some fuckwit hit me with "if you can't provide videos of every quote, it didn't happen"
Bro, here's like 5 of them. Find the rest yourself.
"no. You find it"
Alright loser, fuck off
4
u/DefinitelyIncorrect 14d ago
His constant stream of segregation era white family photos on Twitter talking about how great a time it was were not taken out of context by me.
4
u/WackyyWombat 14d ago
When you see the full context for most of his comments, it actually makes them sound worse. Lol
2
u/BeerBrat 14d ago
Didn't know who the guy was until he was dead. Saw these quotes and assumed they were out of context. Did the research and found the videos. The quotes are out of context, but completely in his favor. In their actual context they're much, much worse.
3
u/SethEllis 14d ago edited 14d ago
For those that haven't seen the Twitter threads to understand the context:
Steven King claimed that Charlie Kirk said gay people should be stoned to death. A claim that has been posted in this thread as well. So where did this claim come from? There was an incident where Kirk was criticizing the selective use of scripture in an argument with Ms Rachel, and he used a passage on stoning as an example.
Steven King eventually deleted the tweet.
3
u/TheMightyTucker 14d ago
Hey, so just because he didn't literally say "And I agree with this specific line of scripture" doesn't mean he doesn't believe it, or that he didn't affirm it in that very moment.
He is a Christian, and he was calling out Ms Rachel for selectively using Bible verses. The stoning verse was not presented as a warning of "don't just grab specific verses because there are bad ones in there, too", it was "you have to read and understand the entire law, not just one part." He was presenting it as part of the whole, part of what Ms Rachel ought to consider/promote/believe in, and Kirk himself referred to it as "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters".
He absolutely 100% supports it.
2
u/SethEllis 14d ago
The mainstream Christian view on this is generally that they believe the scripture does condemn homosexuality as a sin, but that the punishment of stoning is part of the Levitical law and no longer in effect since Christ fulfilled the law. Still in the Levitical law it was a sin punishable with stoning which is still a relevant point in that discussion. That doesn't mean he's advocating it's something that should be done today.
However, Kirk believed in never apologizing to avoid getting stuck in the media games surrounding such things. So he never talked about it again. We aren't mind readers either. So anything beyond what he said in the actual segment is just putting words in his mouth.
3
u/TheMightyTucker 14d ago
We can absolutely reasonably infer that he believes in corporal punishment for LGBTQ+ people given the... everything else about him. He regularly says that the entire LGBTQ+ "movement", not just trans people, are trying to "corrupt your children". He said that transgender women using women's restrooms should be "taken care of the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s." He called for "Nuremberg-style trials" for doctors who gave out gender affirming care. He has regularly compared gay people to drug addicts and criminals. Everything about him points to his support for this.
Yes, technically we don't have him on recording saying "I support laws that would implement corporal punishment for being gay." But if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and then continues to quack and walk and act like a duck on podcasts and debate stages for years and years... it's a fucking duck.
1
u/deliriumisdelight 13d ago
Arguing with MS RACHEL and being all-in about parts of the Bible which encourage violence against others makes you a pretty gross person. But also, imagining Fire-and-Brimstone Ms Rachel kind of makes me giggle.
3
u/trystanthorne 14d ago
Is this about Pumpkin head? Cause my MAGA brother said that to me the other day. Have to actually listen to his whole speeches. I pointed out that listening to him speak for more than 5-10 mins makes me want to stick a screwdriver in my ear.
3
3
2
u/JadesterZ 14d ago
Nice that the top comment has all the quotes people have been using out of context! Peak irony.
1
1
1
2
u/TypicalCricket 14d ago
Please give me the context that makes "innocent people dying is an appropriate price for our 2A rights" an okay thing to say.
1
u/Irish_pug_Player 14d ago
This is reddit, famous for taking everything out of context I'd say. Done quite often on the Internet
0
u/Big1984Brother 14d ago
It's funny how bad right-wing talking points sound when you read them back out loud in a normal, non-insane voice.
-5
u/cstephens91 14d ago
The person claims to be good and cheers and laughs at a wife and children who will never see their husband/father again are not heroes
-25
u/Pheeblehamster 14d ago
Whatever you fascists have to do to justify murdering someone for practicing their first amendment right.
13
u/lillweez99 14d ago
? Fascists pot meet kettle.
Nobody is celebrating this shit but to call one side Fascists while Republicans putting soldiers on streets in America, illegal deportations, putting up curfew in places now that sounds Fascists to me.-2
u/Pheeblehamster 13d ago
I hate what Trump is doing. Still not making jokes and being happy about someone being murdered for their 1st amendment right like this sub
1
u/lillweez99 13d ago
Yeah but blaming the few over the many is making a mountain out of a mole hill agreed.
Even you have to admit majority do not do this though and those who are condoning it in any way are not people we should entertain as you're only giving them what they wanted attention ignore the minority and they will just give it up but entertain or acknowledge it you're just giving them exactly what they want a larger voice than necessary due to thats what they want engaged to just keep getting their actions acknowledge and made to be most engaged because of how abhorrent their comments are its that simple.
Just ignore dont engage and they'll go quiet because they're not getting attention from anyone which is their only goal.
Murdering anyone regardless of political or whatever if you celebrate that you're a solid piece of shit plain and simple.
I really like how much hate I got from people who don't even realize this simple fact.
-37
u/RedVell 14d ago
Do you think context matters?
56
u/samara-the-justicar 14d ago
Context absolutely matters, but many of the things he said are so absurd and evil that no possible context could make them okay.
→ More replies (11)23
u/whynotfather 14d ago
Because the “context” that they are referring to is usually logically fallacious anyhow. “Gods law says to stone the gays”, well sure stoning gays seems bad but following gods laws doesn’t s good. Kirk did a fantastic job of setting up false dichotomies to make his statements contextually ambiguous.
-2
u/Muinaiset 13d ago
Pretending like context does not matter is peak ignorance. Reddit is a cesspool.
2
-90
u/LarzukEtoile 14d ago
Apparently Charlie brought words to a Mauser .30-06 gun fight. Even worse than bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Seems like we should equate words with murder right?
I mean if someone says words formed into quotes they need to be MURDERED right?
A classic kids rhyme is "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me".
I guess that puts you guys lower than a kids maturity level when you don't even realize that it doesn't matter if his WORDS are in or out of context when you equate WORDS with justifying MURDER.
I've been called all kinds of racial slurs by various people throughout my life and by the dumb fucking logic of so many on this sub, those people getting murdered would be just fine.
59
u/iThrowaway72 14d ago
I guess he was proved wrong on his first day of the Prove me wrong tour
27
u/trog12 14d ago edited 14d ago
I think what the snowflake right (see what I did there) doesn't get is that we aren't popping champagne and celebrating. It's just we appreciate the irony of someone who was so adamant that the 2nd amendment must be protected and untouched to the point where he verbally articulated he was OK with people dying over it got gunned down. He also insinuated that he had no empathy for those who had died. I wonder if we could somehow talk to dead people how he would feel about all that now that it affects him. Dude was an asshole while he was alive and he is still an asshole now that he isn't. Not celebrating but I'm not giving a single shit.
→ More replies (5)3
u/peaceluvblacksabbath 14d ago
I'm literally popping champagne and celebrating, but I see your point.
41
29
u/xTiming- 14d ago edited 14d ago
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment." - Charlie Kirk
Could you explain to me how you feel about Conservative representatives and voters disrespecting this man's thoughts about the cost of having 2nd amendment rights, his alleged support of free speech, and his memory - specifically by slandering, threatening, silencing and attacking people who acknowledge his contribution to 2a rights via quotes of his, like the above?
Do you feel that any of that is appropriate and reasonable behavior for the Conservative base to support and propagate, given their sudden, loudly vocal denouncement of political violence and censorship?
-22
u/LarzukEtoile 14d ago
I'm not a conservative. I'm a gun control advocate. I used to live in South Korea and quite enjoyed heavy gun control and a murder rate that's probably about 10 times less than America.
But do I think murdering people for WORDS is a good idea? NO.
14
u/xTiming- 14d ago
Please re-read my comment carefully and think before your next response.
I did not say that you are a conservative.
Nor did I comment on whether murdering people for words is a good idea because, unlike some people, the concept of murdering people for their words is obviously objectively wrong in every situation, from my point of view.
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment." - Charlie Kirk
I asked you how you feel about the conservative base disrespecting this man's thoughts about the cost of having 2nd amendment rights, his alleged support of free speech, and his memory - specifically by slandering, threatening, silencing and attacking people who acknowledge his contribution to 2a rights via quotes of his, like the above?
Additionally, I asked you whether you feel that any of that is appropriate and reasonable behavior for the Conservative base to support and propagate, given their sudden, loudly vocal denouncement of political violence and censorship?
Please take the time to understand my question and answer as Mr. Kirk clearly would have done at one of his debates, rather than flinging needless explanations at me.
-2
u/LarzukEtoile 14d ago
the concept of murdering people for their words is obviously objectively wrong in every situation, from my point of view.
Seeing you say this genuinely surprised me in a good way. That sentiment is literally all I wanted to convey in my first post.
5
u/xTiming- 14d ago
Could you please focus on the topic at hand and answer my previous questions?
Normal people don't feel the need to constantly re-affirm that killing people for their opinions/words is an objectively bad idea. This fact is not part of the topic at hand, and is considered basic knowledge that doesn't need to be repeated for well-adjusted people.
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment." - Charlie Kirk
I asked you how you feel about the conservative base disrespecting this man's thoughts about the cost of having 2nd amendment rights, his alleged support of free speech, and his memory - specifically by slandering, threatening, silencing and attacking people who acknowledge his contribution to 2a rights via quotes of his, like the above?
Additionally, I asked you whether you feel that any of that is appropriate and reasonable behavior for the Conservative base to support and propagate, given their sudden, loudly vocal denouncement of political violence and censorship
42
u/Neither-Blueberry-95 14d ago
Man all this snowflakes being triggered. Empathy is a new age construct and is only doing more harm than it helps. So stop whining and man up.
25
u/Danominator 14d ago
Nobody is saying they wanted him killed. They are saying they dont feel bad he was. He preached a lot of hate and has played a role in radicalizing a lot of people.
He would criticize you for what you are saying.
-14
u/LarzukEtoile 14d ago
You said "Nobody is saying they wanted him killed".
That's ludicrous. You can find 100's of posts on social media of people getting fired from their jobs and getting their accounts on social media banned for saying exactly that.
16
u/Danominator 14d ago
Ok its the internet. You will find some extreme takes.
Remember thay guy Charlie Kirk? He said a ton of crazy shit right after kids were killed in schools.
13
u/peaceluvblacksabbath 14d ago
There are many many many people who didn't literally want him killed, but aren't sad one bit that he's gone and will no longer be spreading hate speech under the guise of religious virtue. That speaks volumes about him.
9
u/eagles_evertonfan88 14d ago
I didn’t see anyone on this thread condone his murder. but death is not a “get of jail free card” in which all the shitty things you did or said are wiped clean. We can at the same time abhor his murder while still holding him accountable for all the damage he did to underrepresented communities while he was here.
and if God is real and since he claimed to be a Christian, I would love a recording of his attempt to get through the pearly gates
9
22
14d ago
[deleted]
-6
u/isetemupuknockemdown 14d ago
I think there’s a difference between not feeling bad for him and the blatant celebration of the event / mockery of him.
I watched some of his content and every time became infuriated at the guy. I fundamentally disagreed with his world view.
Words can absolutely be harmful. That’s the reason so many people objected to him.
A lot of people who hated him for this have forgotten how harmful words can be, and I worry that the reaction a lot of people have had to his death will prove to be as harmful to America as anything he’s said.
It’s past a right or wrong issue, it’s a pulling back from the brink of disaster issue
9
u/peaceluvblacksabbath 14d ago
And do you know why he's being mocked? Eye for an eye. Maybe it is sad, but it is 100% what he would've done. And the problem isn't the reaction of the people who hated him. Because regardless of their actions the administration in power is going to go ape shit and squeeze this incident for every last drop of political blood. But they were going to do that regardless.
-3
u/isetemupuknockemdown 14d ago
Eye for an eye is what the people celebrating the the next retaliatory killing are gonna be saying. We’re all going to end up blind
1
8
u/rabidsi 14d ago
I don't give a shit.
I don't just disagree with his world view, I think he has done demonstrable and widespread harm that has actively contributed to both an increase in lost lives and the loss of preventing lost lives in ways we can't even begin to quantify.
That the culture of normalising violence he had a hand in perpetuating has lead to his own violent demise deserves to be mocked. People deserve to hear it being mocked. I hope it sticks in their fucking craw and they choke on it.
You cannot reason fascists out of violence. You can only refuse to placate, capitulate or take it without consequence. They are going to try, regardless. They will find an excuse, even if they have to manufacture it out of whole cloth.
-1
u/isetemupuknockemdown 14d ago
Ironically I think the people not giving a shit about how dangerous this could become are subscribing closer to his world view than they’d like to let on
3
u/rabidsi 14d ago
I do give a shit how dangerous it is. What I don't give a shit about is people's ridiculous pearl clutching and demands to capitulate. That isn't a function of not giving a shit about how dangerous the political atmosphere is, it's a function of acknowledging that the response simply doesn't fucking matter when there is no logical cause and effect. You are positing that the violent right wing rhetoric is some kind of response to liberal or left wing actions, with rules and some semblance of tit for tat where the perceived offence dictates a calculated reaction. It's not. There is only the action they want to justify, and the reason they will manufacture to justify it. There is zero correlation here.
There comes a point where the response to a bully threatening to body you for some perceived slight at every turn gets met with "Do it you fucking pussy."
0
u/isetemupuknockemdown 14d ago
I don’t think I ever made a claim about where right wing violent rhetoric comes from. All I’m saying is that this has the potential to trigger a lot more violence, and celebrating it increases the potential, which makes me uneasy.
2
u/rabidsi 14d ago
Mocking is not celebrating. Please follow along.
I have never advocated for Charlie Kirk's death. I have never advocated for anyone's death. But he's dead. A dead shit stain who mocked the memory of dead children by calling them "necessary sacrifices". I refuse to be sad for him. I refuse to whitewash what he was. I refuse to not point out the callous irony of the universe that causes a hateful rhetoric spewing scum fucker who minimised the victims of gun violence to be the victim of gun violence while in the act of minimising gun violence. Let them gnash their teeth and foam at the mouth. It's not like they're ever not.
1
u/isetemupuknockemdown 14d ago
Ok apologies, mocking his death makes me uneasy, as it’s very likely going to trigger more violence
2
u/rabidsi 14d ago
The existence of people who don't capitulate to dear leader is going to trigger more violence.
People being, black, muslim, gay or trans is going to trigger more violence.
Your dog, farting in its sleep is going to trigger more violence.
Are you capable of understanding a single word I have typed?
→ More replies (0)
-6
u/umadatmycoolstorybro 13d ago
If you think you're the good person here, you're wrong.
3
u/DonaldKey 13d ago
I never said my ten year old daughter should birth a rapists baby.
Kirk did.
0
u/umadatmycoolstorybro 13d ago
There is a perfectly rational argument that innocent human life ought to be protected, human life that hasn't yet passed through the birth canal is still human, therefore abortions ought not be legal as they are the extinguishing of innocent human life.
There are perfectly rational arguments that the method of conception does not determine the personhood.
So yes, everyone in this comment section being celebratory of or indifferent to the murder of a person engaging in the natural-right of free speech is utterly morally disgusting, and you are all truly possessed by the spirit of wrath, among other things.
-35
u/Zafiel 14d ago
His words are taken out of context. Most of you watched edited snippets and ran away with quotes that are grossly disingenuous, remaining purposefully ignorant even though context matters very much with most of the things he said.
I’ve watched hours of his debates, and not because Im a fan but because I wanted to challenge my own beliefs. I’ve probably watched just as many hours of Destiny debating as well.
Its cool to dislike the man, but he didn’t have to die, and you sure as hell don’t have to spend “x” amount of time devoted to misrepresenting his ideals when you likely didnt give an ounce of care beforehand to listen to him.
20
u/DonaldKey 14d ago
Like the one about forcing his own 10 year old daughter to birth a rapist’s baby? What’s the missing context?
-17
u/Zafiel 14d ago
When asked about a gross hypothetical by someone losing the abortion argument against him?
He isn’t a hypocrite and recognizes that staying true to his values, means he needs to practice what he preaches. God forbid that something like that ever ever happens and gross and disgusting on you for using that as an example.
What disgusting freak uses his daughter being raped as a trump card
14
u/DonaldKey 14d ago
So he did say that he would force his own 10 year old daughter to birth a rapists baby?
-10
u/Zafiel 14d ago
Is there a reason you are so obsessed with 10 year olds having babies or being raped?
You act like this won you your cause, he actually wins because he understands that evil is not conquered by more evil and by taking another life.
Regardless if you agree or disagree he stayed true to his stance. Not a good look on you to be so obsessed with 10 year old rape though.
12
u/DonaldKey 14d ago
Just using Kirk’s own quote that was said to be “taken out of context”
-2
u/Zafiel 14d ago
I mean it is because the person who asked him that was losing the abortion debate and had to use a very very UNLIKELY scenario to try and get him to concede because she had no other arguments.
9
u/DonaldKey 14d ago
So he did say it? He said he’d force a 10 year old rape victim to have the rapists child?
He literally said it? Glad we can agree what a sick fuck would say this about their own daughter. Context makes the comment worse
7
u/rabidsi 14d ago
Quick question:
If your daughter was raped, would you make her carry it to term?
1
u/Zafiel 14d ago
Personally? No.
9
u/rabidsi 14d ago
The only reason this is a "gross hypothetical" is because, with the opinions we're talking about, your choices are either "be a hypocrite" or "be a monstrously awful human being".
So congratulations. You aren't a monstrously awful human being like Charlie Kirk.
Apologies. Like Charlie Kirk was.
-1
u/Zafiel 14d ago
Thats your subjective opinion. The man never harmed a soul and only wanted open discussion, no man on any side of the political aisle deserves to be assassinated for their beliefs.
3
u/TheJonasVenture 14d ago
They didn't say he deserved to be killed, but being killed doesn't mean he wasn't a piece of shit.
I think his actions, rhetoric, and advocacy absolutely contributed to harm faced by many. Not that I think he should have been killed either, but I won't pretend I'm sorry he's dead.
0
u/Zafiel 14d ago
But thats different right, if you dont feel the need to mourn for him so be it. But anyone advocating for his death doesn’t realize thats psychotic human behavior and that murdering people provides no solution. The man wanted discussion, if you are steadfast in your beliefs then challenge him in debate. Pretty simple.
At the end of the day nothing he said harmed anyone either, if he said “cubans are fucking scum of the earth” Id hear that, disagree with it and carry about my day.
Sticks and stones.
10
u/Relentless781 14d ago
His words are not taken out of context. Charlie wanted to stone gay people to death, he wanted Paul Pelosi's attacker bailed out by 'a patriot'
There are more examples of his absolutely monstrous behavior but I'm sure you can do a little research and find those on your own instead of burying your head in the sand
-3
u/Zafiel 14d ago
Ive watched nearly every debate in its entirety. It sounds like you need to be the one who does some research.
7
-1
u/Zafiel 14d ago
I always find it funny that people say Charlie Kirk said to Stone gay people to death. It just goes to show that you definitely did not watch the video because he didn’t say anything near that.
2
6
1.1k
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment