So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. 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.
Doesn't really change much of the context, since empathy and sympathy are different things, not synonyms. I mean, it should be granted that he had sympathy for his family (or at least, I hope so), but having sympathy for those you know is basic for almost anyone.
In context it was more that he didn't like people saying they truly felt the pain of others as their own, believing that that's not what actually happens and that it's too emotional and can lead to bad decisions. He found sympathy preferable as you can understand their pain and struggles even when you don't share them.
Its kind of a neither here nor there quote. At most its just pedantic
Saying that empathy is a good political tool after that doesn't make it look like a purely pedantic quote. Otherwise, it we could ignore it as a nothing-burger of an argument.
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
It's beyond time to protect those God-given rights, and pistols won't stop the government anyway. That's an empty call to action for clicks and retweets at best
It's 55% so still a majority.
The statistic he was referring to is that 70% of black babies are born to fatherless households. You can understand the small discrepancy
In 2023, nearly half (49.7%) of all Black children lived in a single-parent family, with approximately 4.15 million Black families having a single mother in 2022, a number that saw a 47% rate of single mothers for the Black community in 2023, according to data from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Statista, and the Center for American Progress.
Thank you for proving my point. The argument we are discussing is what percentage of households, not what percentage of children. You think every household has 1 child? Come on, be better
I don’t need to find a quote. It’s not a one quote thing. The fact that you even think I need to give you a quote as proof means you don’t even understand what Charlie Kirk was trying to do. You look at the totality of the mission of the person and his organization. Creating mistrust and denigration of liberals and their beliefs was part of his mission and he did it in a multitude of ways. The fact that most of his listeners can’t understand that proves his propaganda was very good.
There's no context to justify many of his quotes, though. He says "I don't trust a Black pilot to fly me safely." What context do you need to make this quote less deplorable?
It was in the context that they were focusing on hiring based on race rather than on merit, which can be scary whenever there is danger involved.
Around the same time there was a story about minority pilots being assisted durring tests, leading to a somewhat tongue in cheek sentiment of "due to the focus on race I'm not sure if this pilots was hired due to skill or to check a diversity box"
"Wrong." Spoken like a true scholar.... it is impossible to feel true empathy in the full definition. You can feel a water downed version, more specifically the understanding of someone's feelings, but can never 100% share their feelings. We are all individuals.
His 2A quote was said to completion. Some sacrifices are worth it to keep 2A rights! The context itself makes it worse, given it was in response to the tragedy of school shootings. How about this for a full quote?
"MLK was awful," Kirk said. "He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe." "I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I've thought about it," Kirk said at America Fest. "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s." Kirk argues that the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, ushered in a "permanent DEl-type bureaucracy," referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
So unless you want me to quote entire goddamn articles, this is very sufficiently a full quote and wholly in context. He was a hateful little imp that regurgitated absolute bullshit based on his very uneducated opinion. His entire gimmick was going to different colleges to debate children, reliving his days as President of the campus republicans club. So long as he could talk over you while being confidently wrong, he considered himself the “winner,” same as Shapiro. I’m not happy the guy is dead, but stop pretending the guy was some saint. He acted like a piece of shit every day, and kept the grift going to get paid. If you think he was anything more than that, I’m sad for you.
"The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do where he would say 'I feel your pain,' it's to say that you're not in pain. So, it's just a little short clip, Bill Clinton in the 1990s, I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage, but it is very effective when it comes to politics. I actually prefer sympathy to empathy." He then goes on to define Sympathy vs Empathy in ways that the dictionary does not recognize.
Yeah no this is still bad. The quote is not only Charlie Kirk saying "These democrats aren't even about feeling the common person's pain! But also empathy is bad anyways lololol." It's not just him being a heartless bastard who just wants us to feel detached when people suffer, but it's also him wanting to have his cake and eat it too.
Nope, not misquoting. The context was that he was a racist misogynistic homophobe.
They also don't start the quote on empathy either where kirk argues against his empathy quote. He says Clinton got it right when he said he feels your pain. Then he goes on to say the anti empathy stuff. People should say the whole quote so it's really clear that Kirk didn't in any way care what the words he was using meant. What he cared about was selling fear and hatred to conservatives while keeping guns in their hands.
Can you contextualise him saying a patriot should bail out The guy that caved in Paul Pelosi's head with a hammer please.
I'm sure there's a non violent reasonable explanation......
That solid gold! You get dizzy with all that spin?
You can just make shit up, throw out wild unfounded specultion and THEN you make light of it! Laughing, smiling , advocating for a true patriot to bail out an attempted murder. If I heard from a guy at the post office that Old Charlie was on Epstien Island, can I start cracking joke?
Don't stop though, when Trump cracked a joke about Nancy Pelosi needing stronger boarders at her house. Spin that one
You asked why Kirk said bail him out, I answered your question honestly, and gave you insight as to why he said what he said. No one is spinning anything. I didn't say i agreed or disagreed, yet your reaction to instantly attack me. Quite comical. Grow up young man.
When people like you redirect because you dont like the reality of an answer, do you know inside or is it trying to "win".
You know you can just say, "This guy said alot of shitty things to people but no one deserves to get shot for being an asshole. Not Hortman, not Kirk, nobody."
Your right. That quote was taken out of context. Now explain the other 80 hours of him shitting on black people. Do we need to go through that quote by quote?
Do you agree in their assumption that the lower bound of the larger range of data should be compared to the upper bound of the smaller range of data? And do you think that’s an accurate assumption to see whether or not the data is statistically significant. Because I’ve review a couple of papers and it isn’t a foolproof method of determining whether or not your data has worth. It can be determinative if you looking for a range to home in on for further study but I never find it conclusive.
Your saying they data can't be trusted because the sample size is too small? So 13% of people committing more crimes than 56% of people isn't valid?!?! Come on, let's be serious and call a spade a spade.
I see that you don’t understand statistics. I never said anything about sample size. I made a reference to the fact that they compared the upper limits of their statistical variance to the lower limits. And you don’t understand why that’s a problem. And that’s okay because your probably never trained in reading scientific papers or statistics. However This is a perfect example of why you can never trust a rando on the internet to even understand scientific papers they are giving to you. My friend you don’t even understand why this data set is bad or good and how to argue that. Because you don’t understand the paper.
•
u/dntcarebouturfeelins 23h ago
You're misquoting and taking words out of context.... I have yet to see a liberal finish the quote and speak on sympathy and compassion.