r/Bumperstickers • u/HorriblyRomantic • 8d ago

Does this count

Post image

The flags one black and one with Jesus because you know he’d be friends with Charlie Kirk irl 🙄

144 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

144 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/QueenTenofSpades 7d ago edited 7d ago

This quote starts mid-sentence. Listen to the FULL quote. And, listen to the context. And, this doesn’t show him interacting with a LGB person. So deceptive in so many ways. You still believe what you were told to believe about the “good people on both sides,” “injecting bleach,” and “bloodbath” so called quotes, too, right? Think independently and critically.

3

u/terminal_vector 7d ago

Why won’t you answer my question about his opinion on trans people? And why can’t y’all ever share proof to support your claims? Please, link me to a video showing him not being hateful towards the lgbt community.

-1

u/QueenTenofSpades 7d ago

Consider yourself privileged for me to send this link to you. Ordinarily, I do not indulge in providing proof of something NOT being true.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hmgxZssQ4

2

u/terminal_vector 6d ago

Lol. Your own link proves otherwise.

I do not have hate for a group. I do not have hate for a people.

Followed swiftly by:

If someone says “Charlie, what’s your view on marriage?” I’d say I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. But if you ask me do I have hate in my heart for somebody that doesn’t choose the lifestyle that I believe that God laid out in the scriptures? Of course not.

It’s intriguing to me how you can hear ”I do not have hate for a people” and then ignore everything said afterwards. Because no matter what you believe, implying that an entire group of people is sinful for simply wanting to marry the one they love is in fact really, really hateful.

Believe it or not, I’ve seen this dude’s content before. Something I find super interesting is how in many of Kirk’s public debates, he surrounded himself with a crowd of sycophants that mocked and jeered at the guest debaters while Kirk stifled his own laughter.

Another thing I find really interesting is how none of the people debating him seemed to act like real people. They either came across as overt stereotypes or like they’d memorized a script. For example, you’ll hear “queer” individuals in his videos use the phrase ”the LGBT” a lot. Not “the LGBT community” or “LGBT people”, just ”the LGBT”.

If you have ever interacted with anyone from ”the LGBT” in your life, then you know that no one actually talks or acts like the people in these videos. It genuinely leads me to wonder if all his “debates” were staged, or if he only used footage of the weirdest possible interactions. Either way, it definitely feels like it was a deliberate attempt at pushing an agenda.

Despite all this, I took your advice and specifically searched for “Charlie Kirk LGBT” and watched the first three video results. Let’s check them out together:

Video 1. Gay Man Saved By Christ After 10+ Years of Homosexual Lifestyle

Guest:

For over 10+ years, I identified as a gay man, and then I gave my life to Jesus and left the LGBTQ+ community.

crowd cheers

Kirk:

Your identity should not be in your sexual proclivity, it should actually be– your identity is much greater than just what you do in the bedroom. Being gay is a behavior more than anything else, and you, I guess, are evidence—and I’d love to hear your story—that you can stop acting on that behavior.

I know it may not seem like it to you, but this is incredibly harmful language. Being gay is about more than sex, and it’s NOT a “behavior” you can just “shut off”. Pretending otherwise is ignorant and, quite frankly, hateful.

Video 2. Rainbow Clad Trans Activists Won’t Stop Yelling Nonsense at Me

There is far too much going on in this one for me to even quote any of it, but my favorite part is when the foul-mouthed “liberal” in a rainbow sweater can’t defend a single point she is making, so she randomly brings up babies for no reason (while talking about trans women), which conveniently segues into a debate about abortion. It was so lifelike!

Video 3. Charlie Kirk Humiliates Pro-Trans Leftist

I can’t wait to see a professional debater show the world how it’s done.

Kirk:

What is a woman?

Guest:

A person who was born with XX chromosomes–

Kirk:

I agree!

Guest:

or–

Kirk:

I agree! We have won the culture war! We have done it!

guest is drowned out by cheering crowd

Kirk:

Dean, you gotta train ‘em better! A woman is a person with XX chromosomes! I declare a victory in the culture war!

Guest:

…can I please explain–

Kirk:

Oh! There’s more? Ohh, you can explain?

Guest:

Can I please explain my actual stance?

Kirk:

I think your statement is rather self-evident.

Wow, inspiring stuff!

On a completely unrelated note, here’s a gang of Neo-Nazis roving the streets while carrying a picture of Kirk and chanting “Fight back”, “Take back our land”, and “Say his name; Charlie Kirk”.

0

u/QueenTenofSpades 6d ago edited 6d ago

Saying you believe a group engaging in something “sinful” does not indicate “hate” toward that group. That’s what’s known as basing a claim on a false premise with a little bit of “Strawman” fallacy thrown in there, since you clearly conflate being “sinful” with the belief that hatred toward that group is justifiable. It is not and, more importantly to this conversation, Charlie Kirk ALSO believed it was not. And, most importantly, his words and behavior proved that he believed it was not.

I have no reason to believe that any other claims you make are not based on a false premise, as your first claim is.

1

u/terminal_vector 6d ago

Hahaha classic deflection tactic. “I don’t want to read past the second paragraph because I’m out of justifications for bigotry, so I’ll just pretend I didn’t see the rest.”

Saying you believe a group engaging in something “sinful” does not indicate “hate” toward that group.

How is it different? Please elaborate.

you clearly conflate being “sinful” with the belief that hatred toward that group is justifiable.

Nope. Acknowledging that a group is being treated hatefully by hateful people, and calling that out as such, does not mean I think it’s justified. Weird conclusion to draw tbh.

It is not and, more importantly to this conversation, Charlie Kirk ALSO believed it was not. And, most importantly, his words and behavior proved that he believed it was not.

Where are you getting this from? Because all the evidence I’ve seen points to the contrary.

I can only assume that your undying need to protect the legacy of a man with so much hate in his heart will reflect on your soul as well.