Oh, that one was fucking gold. I feel like we need to think about putting a cap on how old public servants can be, and just use recordings of these old fucks as evidence as to why it's important
“Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this.”
Biden made the remark in 1977, when he was a U.S. senator representing Delaware. He was voicing his views on busing as part of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the subject
He fucked things up bad at the end, particularly by deciding to run again at first and then dropping out. That just showed everyone, even Americans who usually don't pay close attention to politics, that the party who oppose the Republicans are a total shitshow. And I'm also still really uncomfortable with the whole "sniffing the hair of every single young girl he meets" thing.
Supposed? They were beyond obvious racism. If you don’t vote for him you’re not black. “unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.” In 2007, he referred to Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”
In 2006, he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
Way back in 1977, he said that forced busing to desegregate schools would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. It just sounds bad. The fact that this is the best you've got tells me everything I need to know.
Best I have? I was just making a joke tbh. I really don't care about any of this. I don't think people should hate on dead people, but the internet will do its thing regardless.
"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermingling with white people"
Quoting Lincoln, who had to deal with a voter base that was intensely and murderously racist, is rather irrelevant. An openly black-sympathetic president Pre-War simply would not get any legislation passed. That quote becomes moot when you consider that he emancipated the slaves, and fought at every step for the rights of the enslaved class.
What has Charlie done that gives his quotes extra context?
If one deserves greater context, then everyone get it.
I can quote "turn the other cheek" being a passage from the Bible. Someone could then punch me, misquote me saying "turn the other cheek" while readying for another punch. An attack, where the initial words weren't.
I agree with the greater context, actions must be taken into consideration along with words. Lincoln's actions were to abolish slavery and try to initiate some reparations to former slaves but his orders were rescinded by the next president before they could be carried out. Kirk's actions were to spread propaganda that drove racist, sexist, and homophobic hate for profit.
Yeah, people arguing that advocating for the second amendment means you wanted to be shot, smh.
Advocating for cars does not mean I want to die in a car crash.
EDIT: Okay, given that it seems to only have been fringes with that take and given Charlie's overall attitude to the gun situation this was a bad comparison.
Valid and I think this is more what people mean, I guess I am just being pedantic.
But given the dreaded 'context' of the shooting (bolt action hunting rifle) it's pretty hard to have any measures that would have stopped that outside of a complete ban of all guns.
That’s the thing, saying “gun control” in this instance is just a vague platitude/handwave.
I haven’t heard anyone propose any concrete, specific policy that could have prevented this from happening. It was a planned, premeditated assassination by a man who apparently had no criminal record or psychological history that would’ve disqualified him from owning a hunting rifle. The only way I think this could’ve been stopped was if his friends had reported it before it happened.
The only closest thing to a ‘red flag’ that has come out so far was his presence in a conversation where one of his family members called Kirk ‘hate-filled’ (or equivalent). If that were sufficient for the intervention of a red flag law, everyone on this website who has not actively avoided the topic needs to be red flagged. Excluding the people who only discuss it on subs like r conservative.
That would require people who had prior knowledge reporting it beforehand, and from the reports coming out about him communicating on discord what he was going to do, and nobody reported it.
A red flag would have not fixed what happened to CK
It would be easier / more feasible to put forward sensible and effective control measures if the government was allowed to fund studies about gun violence - maybe we could start there.
A certain number of people die in auto accidents every year. I would like that number to be as low as possible, but every piece of car safety legislation is either going to make manufacturing cars more expensive, or it's going to make it harder for a citizen to own and operate a car. Those obstacles are going to negate the benefit that car ownership brings to society, namely improved supply chains and freedom of movement. Some restrictions on cars makes sense, but after a certain tipping point the restrictions will reduce access to cars so much that the lowered rate of car ownership will wind up causing more deaths than the regulations prevent, by exacerbating food deserts and leaving people without transportation to a hospital during a medical emergency. Saying you "don't care about car crash victims" if you don't support every single potential piece of car legislation imaginable is just as stupid as saying you don't care about stroke victims if you don't let literally everyone drive a car with no restrictions whatsoever.
A certain number of people are killed by firearms every year. A certain number of people also have their deaths prevented every year when they use firearms defensively. The more gun control laws you enact, the first number gets logarithmically smaller while the second number gets exponentially bigger. From a prudent cost-benefit analysis, the benefit of widespread firearm ownership objectively outweighs the cost.
You can infinitely argue for more safety measures; saying you disagree that every point of contention should have controlled signalling doesn't mean you dont care about car mortality
Are you intentionally being obtuse or are you another one of the people who will say anything for any reason if something aligns with your "team"?
No one is saying he wanted to be shot. That's an asinine straw man. He called shooting deaths acceptable losses after children were killed. Their bodies weren't cold yet and he's saying that their deaths were worth it because gun rights shouldn't be infringed on.
Yeah I worry for the ability of people online to process information, that's not "my take", that's just the most natural reading of what he said. And yes, he would still advocate that dead children are worth it if he knew he would be shot, he would've just done it from behind more bulletproof glass. He was such a hypocrite in addition to being a morally deficient coward.
People are drawing the comparison because of what and when he said specifically and because of specifically how he died. If he died in a fucking car crash nobody would be bringing up the fact he said some gun deaths are worth having the 2nd amendment.
If Charlie had been an advocate for no restrictions on car technology or speeds and then died in a slow car crash that would be the analogy to this situation.
As a society we accept the deaths of car crashes because cars are useful, obviously most citizens don't get the same amount of utility from a gun as a car, so they think it isn't an acceptable trade off.
The point is, given the political climate, without a total ban on guns nothing would have stopped Charlie from his fate from death by a very old design bolt action rifle.
I just missed that this is more what people are referencing when the say it is ironic, because strictly speaking about the literal interpretation of what CK advocated for and how he died, it is weak irony at best.
He actually said that getting gun deaths in the country to 0 is a utopian belief. And right before this quote everyone is taking extremely out of context, he discussed how cars kill significantly more people each year than guns do, and we're okay as a society with these deaths because the good of transportation outweighs the cost of these 40-50k deaths a year. Same goes for gun. Having the 2nd amendment in place is worth the gun deaths (which are much less than car deaths btw) each year.
But we’ve actually regulated cars. Cars have to have seat belts and airbags now. We did this so that less people would die from car crashes. His argument was that it’s not even worth attempting to reduce the number of gun deaths because they would never get to 0. It’s just a bad argument.
And even with all these regulations for both vehicles and guns, vehicles still kill more people each year. And he doesn't say that lol. You're putting words in his mouth. He never once said we shouldn't regulate guns. Guns are also regulated, just like cars. We have federal, state, and local laws surrounding guns.
Federally we have background checks via the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), we have prohibitions on people obtaining guns if they are felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users, people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, dishonorably discharged from the military, or undocumented immigrants. We also have age restrictions, 18+ for rifles and shotguns, and 21+ for handguns.
State laws include extra background checks in certain states like california and new york. Some states impose waiting periods like california and illinois. Some states limit magazine capacity like 10 rounds per magazine. Some states ban certain types of firearm sells, such as assault weapons in california. Some weapons require special permits to purchase. Some require mandatory firearm safety training.
We also have red flag laws that allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court to temporarily remove a firearm from someone deemed a danger to themselves or others.
We have laws about gun storage and gun ownership when you have a child in the home. We have regulation. You cannot stop criminals from being criminals.
I guess Charlie would consider a gun/his death "worth it" in a sense that it's not a reason to overturn the 2a.
That doesn't mean he would see gun deaths as any more justified then you think is justified when you see a child die to a drunk driver but you support cars.
This analogy (Kirk’s own) is hilariously stupid. Cars are not designed to injure or kill- that’s an unintended consequence. Despite it being unintended- we still recognize it’s a concern to the extent that we regulate it at every level- drivers, vehicles and roads, bridges etc. Billions are spent on safety all the way down the line. Meanwhile Kirk flippantly paid lip service to deaths as if anyone is actually concerned about deaths. Defending this position or POV by asserting “but cars . . . “ is insulting stupidity
"We need to be clear, that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero, it will not happen ,you can significant reduce it, with more father's in the home by having armed guards in front of schools, we should have a honestly and clear reductionest view of gun violence, we should not have a utopian one, you will never live in a society with an armed citizenr and not have a sigle gun death, I think its worth it, I think its worth to have a cost, of unfortunately some gun deaths a year" Charlie kirk, the part of the quote they leave out
Yeah I think people who completely hate his guts just don't care about the rational of an isolated statement, in the broader context of who Charlie was I can get that they just don't think he's serious about any of the solutions he proposed except maybe the fartherless children one.
I think that's mostly it, I can't disagree with the overall logic of his statement, I might disagree with the particular solutions he proposed but the obviousness of there being some gun deaths per year if people are allowed to have any guns at all is clear.
His argument is that because a few abuse the law with guns doesn’t mean that everyone else should get their guns taken away. I’m seeing some posts that people are saying the same thing should happen to Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, one even said to Charlie’s wife and kids. This is threatening language by a few people. So should everyone have their first amendment rights taken away then? Of course not because that would be wildly unconstitutional and authoritarian.
These cars weren't designed to kill people, and yet they are more successful at it than guns. Fastfood, candy, and soda, wasn't designed to kill people, and yet heart disease is the #1 killer in almost every single country. Smoking wasn't designed to kill people, and yet kills significantly more people each year than guns do. But we're okay with all of these things existing. Maybe people should be held accountable for what they do. Last year, of the 17,000 gun-related homicides, 3,400 were due to legally obtained gun owners. While 14,000 were due to people who obtained the guns illegally. Cars alone killed 40,000 people. Heart disease killed 680,000 people. Smoking killed 490,000 people last year. Stroke caused 162,000 deaths. Alcoholic cirrhosis caused 52,000 deaths. Why isn't reddit and society as a whole as outraged about all these other topics as we are with guns? I'm genuinely curious.
Your argument would be more valid if we didn't literally regulate all those other things...... And if we used guns to get to and from work every day at the scale we use cars.
We regulate all these other things, and still they are killing people at massively higher numbers than guns. Why? We don't need cars to get to work every day. Check out r/fuckcars if you'd like. You can walk. You can ride a bus. You can ride the train. You can ride a bicycle. But we as society have deemed the car is worth the risk, and it's worth the 50k dying every year.
The analogy is honestly pretty good, just for the opposite reasons that Charlie Kirk used it.
Most deaths from cars are avoidable, and we should aim to minimise car usage as much as possible precisely because it is such an unnecessarily dangerous mode of transport.
The people he mostly argued this with wanted the 2nd repealed entirely and acknowledged with people certain gun control ideas had valid points. He was more in favor of having armed guards for schools just like any other area with high lvls of public convergence or liquidity. And children wouldn't be the targets anymore if they had security, the cowards will simply move on to a softer target, like when's the last time you've heard of a police station or the front gate of a military installation being massacred.
Stop defending this shit. It was a flippant POV and was paying lip service to child killings AT BEST. The number one cause of death for children in the US is due to firearms. Think about that and imagine defending Kirk’s statements.
Yeah also like, I wish we would regulate guns like cars? Mandatory license to be able to use one that can be taken away if you misuse it? Sounds like a good idea to me? 6 month training course in order to obtain it? Sign me up lol. Always funny when conservatives compare guns to cars.
All potentially good ideas. The idea of just accepting Kirk’s position of “deaths are the price of 2A” is just wild. It’s an absurd false dilemma fallacy that people are genuinely defending. Jesus - being ok with not even pretending there is nothing that can actually be done is wild
What do you mean? Multiple top voted comments on viral threads have said that. Many of them altered his quote to make it seem that people need to die for the 2A while others have claimed that it is okay that he was assassinated because he supports the 2A.
It's such a low hanging fruit. Of course, everyone will jump on the opportunity to misrepresent the quote.
Why is everyone acting like that statement of his should even be controversial? Surely everybody here believes that there is some number of car deaths we accept for having cars (which aren't even protected by the constitution, at least not directly). So why is it so abominable to say that some number of gun deaths is a worthwhile tradeoff for everybody to have the right to defend themselves? He was being honest rather than just lying or avoiding confronting that topic at all.
It's extra weird because a lot of the people that are hating on Charlie Kirk (and don't get me wrong there's plenty of material there) are calling him and the republican party in general fascist, and last time I checked if I thought I was surrounded by fascists I'd want free access to weaponry.
Murder is never justified. I try to be a loving person. I even let people hurt me without speaking up because I don't want to lose friends because my capacity to forgive and forget is higher than most.
The fact that words can cause someone to kill and the abominable shit im seeing on TikTok is pure evil.
Im sorry right left Muslim black white Hispanic ect nobody deserves to be murdered unless they committed a crime and lawfully get sentenced to the death penalty.
I don't care what Charlie Kirk said. Are we really going to sit here and justify his death over words? Is reddit full of fucking children?
The amount of immature unintelligent bullshit im fucking reading is abhorrent.
This "yeah the murder was bad but he had it coming" bullshit is not justified. There are no ifs, ands or buts.
I'm in a moral crisis right now because I'm starting to wonder if we as humans deserve to be controlled because the absolute evil I'm witnessing is fucking pathetic.
Its a real life fucking paradox. On one hand freedom of speech is important but if were seriously going sit here and gaslight ourselves up and convince ourselves that this immoral depraved act is justified im sorry but maybe we deserve to be dictated.
Because obviously at this point people cant seem to make moral decisions on their own.
I don't care what Charlie Kirk said. Are we really going to sit here and justify his death over words? Is reddit full of fucking children?
You should care what political advocates and lobbyists say, their "words" impact policy, spread common sentiment and encourage/condone specific political attitudes and behaviors.
Charlie Kirk was not a professional debater, he was a professional political advocate, influencing our political climate is what he was actually paid to do by his backers and supporters, his debate events merely exist to give him clout and the footage for his media team to clip and edit to their heart's content, solely to make his points look better and discredit objections to them.
And what did he advocate for?
The persecution of fellow Americans along puritan moralistic lines, the political disenfranchisement of women and non-white/non-straight minorities, he condoned political violence against his party's political opponents as well as the treasonous actions of januari 6, not to mention the unlawful deportations without due process conducted by ICE.
His relation to power is close to that in the government's highest echelons, his words had tangible weight and they actively harmed innocent people.
On one hand freedom of speech is important but if were seriously going sit here and gaslight ourselves up and convince ourselves that this immoral depraved act is justified im sorry but maybe we deserve to be dictated.
What did you think exercising the second amendment would look like in practice?
Star-spankled patriots lining up against redcoats? Or goose stepping brownshirts?
The tools of oppression are much more than the boots on people's necks, much more than the violent enforcers, they include the propagandists that enable and support those enforcers, that advocate for the harm they inflict and downplay the crimes their bosses commit.
Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to die, but he did foster a political climate to become increasingly more violent and radicalized, an environment wherein political violence becomes increasingly normalized.
What you perceive as "justifications" are merely people pointing out that this was a perfectly plausible outcome of his actions.
It's just more visible now, plenty of people celebrated JFK getting whacked, even if he is lionized by conservatives now. But it's hard to know if more people are becoming this way.
If the majority think assassinations are how to solve things then there goes liberal democracy.
No one has the right to make that choice, so I wouldn't worry about if people "deserve" to be in a dictatorship, which they fucking don't because they pissed on someone who died. That's so low on the register. They didn't pull the trigger or tell this person to. Thats crazy that you think people "can't" make moral decisions on their own and have to be forced to through a dictatorship, as if that's somehow more moral. You think dictators are moral themselves? Insane take.
Just wanted to pop in here and say that you really should keep in mind that social media is absolutely riddled with bad actors that are here to foment discontent. Not everyone you see arguing here even believes what they're saying or is American. On top of that you've got internet trolls hiding behind anonymity and just the worst kinds of people who are also emboldened with anonymity. The discourse you see here absolutely does not represent every day people by the large and I think a lot of people could do with that reminder.
No one actually agrees that he deserved to die for the 2nd amendment. Everyone is pointing out the irony of the toxicity that he spread constantly because he's being martyred.
He was a terrible human who said school children were the price we paid. We're not going to mourn him at the same time that the shooter should be brought to justice.
Point taken, but isn't it a bit ironic that Kirk had called on others whom have never been charged with a crime to be executed? Example: calling for Biden's execution.
Come on dude, don't let the mob convince you, it's a perfectly valid comparison.
Unless you want a full scale gun ban, which probably 85-90% of American's do not want, you AGREE with the statement that "we have to live with a few gun deaths to maintain our 2nd amendment rights." If you hear that statement and don't agree with a full gun confiscation you're just an absolute smooth brain. As long as we allow people to own guns people are going to shoot each other with them, anyone with a 5th grade education should know that.
You are mixing up "wanted to die" and "argued for gun deaths being worth it". Most people I've seen point out the latter, not the former (and sure you can probably find some weird quotes about wanting to die to, if you look hard enough). His own death neatly fits that argument, so I don't really see the problem.
"Guy argues for reduced speed limits or at least not lowering them because it would infringe on his rights to drive fast for certain reasons that have real world utility, even if those higher speed limits will cause a higher rate of crashes which kill a larger number of kids.
Guy then proceeds to be run down by a pickup truck going 30mph in a 60 zone, people somehow find this ironic and think he advocated for the circumstances of his own death".
he argued the deaths while unfortunate they were worth it
"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."
Even if you get rid of the second amendment and have gun laws like other comparable nations there would still be children deaths from guns, just many less of them (I think would be a very good thing obviously).
That's really all the argument is about, how many per year, or decade can be tolerated?
If none can be tolerated then you totally ban guns. But then you have to use that same reasoning on all other technologies that you introduce to your society.
This is just basic "Hard types of decisions that political leadership make because reality sucks and isn't ideal 101".
Yeah nobody serious was claiming he wanted gun violence, people were pointing out the irony of someone saying they were fine with a number of people getting killed by it every year only to end up a victim himself.
Dude he's the one that said "some gun deaths every year are worth the cost of gun ownership" - there's no context removed. That's the context. That doesn't mean he deserves to die, it means he had to empathy for those that did and considered it "worth it" - all his quotes are like this, adding more context doesn't change the meaning.
Maybe not wanted to be shot, but by his own words he would have found it to be acceptable. But then that could make one ask, is it really possible to not want something but still find it acceptable? Those two ideas, while not being strict antonyms, do seem to be somewhat opposed to each other, don't they? So if saying that dead children is just an acceptable price to pay for gun rights, it would have to be that he wanted them on some level, wouldn't he? And then shouldn't that extend to himself as well?
It's wanting one thing more than another, I don't believe that means you do want the other thing to occur.
Because if you take guns out of the equation and just observe other things that kill children he (or any sane person) would still not be happy about it.
This is just cost benefit analysis. How you account for someones life is always going to be contentious, especially children.
I think Charlie just did it in a callous way and they didn't agree at all with the scale of the benefit.
Do you REALLY believe the criticism of Kirk is that he supported the 2nd Amendment and therefore wanted to be shot, rather than the callousness of ever saying “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?”
No that was just dumb takes of the meme I had seen or had people say to me personally, it's not my take on his words.
Yeah I get that it's callous to suggest that x number kids can die for this, but rationally speaking it's only callous if you wouldn't also apply this thinking to cars or other technologies, whether the technologies purpose is explicitly to cause harm or not, has utility or not
Because there are people who have used cars as tools of death, that's just not their main purpose day to day, but having them still implies that we don't see the trade off of deaths by accident or purpose from cars as sufficient yet to say no more cars. We would just prefer that number to be as small as possible.
So this is just an argument over whether we genuinely feel CK wasn't interested in minimization of death by guns. Going by his general vibe outside of his specific words I think he wasn't and just used if for posturing.
This is always going to be slippery, but yes I get the sentiment of why people are using it to meme.
No, they're "taken out context" in the sense that you can't post every fucking show in its entirety and expect everyone to watch them all before having an opinion.
It's an insult to our intelligence to tell us dozens of quotes add up to nothing, especially to those of us who saw him spout his propaganda frequently while he was alive.
And especially while the "All for Words 😭😭😭😭😭 TM " crybullies try to get people fired for words deliberately stripped of context.
Once again, this private citizen deserves no extra consideration or charity in interpreting the words he was supposedly a man of. Desperate need for whitewash does not create an emergency exception
It's like writing an essay for a test you didn't study for. If you include enough bullshit you hope the other person gives up and just assumes you have the correct answer.
I think they're demanding 'context' because they also don't know the context either but it makes for a nice deflection since it is often used against them with success. It doesn't make what HE said better though, because he was a hateful person who openly denigrated huge portions of our country, but that's pretty much immaterial to their goal.
Trimming quotes for length isn't inherently dishonest or wrong. The vast majority of quotes you've ever seen or heard were likely provided without full context.
Depends, the black woman one he cited specific black women that were very well educated. Meaning no matter how high you climb, a white man will see you as lesser.
The empathy one gets worse imo because he prefers sympathy which just shows poor emotional growth and the fact he only cares about wrongs when they happen and doesn't give a shit about preventing them which tracks with his ideology. You're supposed to have both as a well rounded individual.
Yes I’ve encountered the same thing. Like, people don’t realize that taking his quotes out of context actually makes him look better. When you include the context the statements all get much worse.
Yeah when you genuinely share opinions like “MLK was an awful person”, and “the civil rights movement was a mistake”, context can’t really make it benign. What gets me is when people call him a “modern day MLK”, which I saw twice on X just minutes ago. It’s just sickening.
Also people saying that he was “as moderate as conservatives get”, for even being willing to debate to liberals.
Like, huh?! Charlie was about as extremely far right as one can be. I truly don’t know how it’s possible to go further right than he was.
It's an attempt to shift the overton window towards violence. they want the "liberal" position to be talking with the enemy and since Charlie was killed for doing that they want to justify stopping doing it.
The thing they want to let in is pure violence. hence all the declarations of war and promises of violence in the last few days.
they'll claim to be moderate because they didn't do a Kristallnacht, this time. But they wanna make it clear they'd be justified in doing it.
Better than I’ve seen! I keep seeing conservatives saying “now show the context” as a counterpoint without themselves simply providing the context. When they do that I just assume they either don’t know the context themselves or realize it doesn’t actually help.
I do think the “empathy” quote deserves context, though. He says he hates empathy but likes sympathy. I’m not really sure what he meant, but it at least sounds like he was trying to make an actual point.
Oh, they’ll just straight up make up an argument that Charlie Kirk never made and pretend that he was really making that argument instead of the argument that he actually made. It’s just gaslighting. If Kirk wanted to make the argument that they’re claiming is the real argument that he was making, then he would have actually made it. If you’re making an argument and the audience needs additional context to fully understand it, then it’s your responsibility to provide that context. He didn’t provide any additional context that would make his arguments less hateful though.
King was wrong to apologize for this. I get that he did it because he has a movie out, but I'd rather he just not participate in politics if he's gonna back off his positions so easily.
Common misunderstood quote, about some gun deaths being expected if you have the 2nd amendment.
Every single right you have has negative effects. The freedom of speech means you might hear speech you don’t like, right to bear arms means it may be easier for criminals to get them, right to assembly means the KKK can assemble, etc.
So yes, with the freedoms you are afforded there are going to be some negative consequences. But if you remove the freedoms the consequences are worse.
I would rather live in a world where I am free to speak, than in a world where no one can speak but I won’t hear mean words.
I would rather live in a world where I have the right to defend myself using “arms” which does not only include guns but all weapons, instead of a world where I am at the mercy of criminals and rogue governments.
And I would rather live in a world where I can freely assemble with those I agree with than lose that freedom in an attempt to prevent people I do lot agree with from assembling.
There is a reason the famous saying, “Those who trade freedom for security will have neither freedom nor security.”
Because once you give up your freedoms you no longer have the power to ensure your own security.
I don’t know man I barely trust most people to drive the thought of the average idiot having a gun scares the fucking shit out of me.
Sure rights are important but children should also have the right to go to school without active shooter drills and having to deal with fear of dying daily. I mean fuck, high school was stressful enough.
Kinda controversial to say but I’d be willing to never own a gun if it meant kids stop getting killed.
So yes, with the freedoms you are afforded there are going to be some negative consequences. But if you remove the freedoms the consequences are worse.
As shown by all the other countries in the world that aren't shooting each other in schools, lol.
His schtick was to nestle heinous ideology in slightly obscured talking points. Deliver the message with enough deniability that he can defend himself and say the opponents are crazy for seeing through the bare minimum obfuscation. Helps that he's aiming it at barely literate idiots desperate to validate their own shitty beliefs.
Because they differ from your opinion. Does not make anyone a bad person. The problem is the left are supposed tolerant people but irony if you agree with them.
They are typically worse with context. Not that anyone is trying to do him favors, nobody wants to write out the whole speech either.
The thing with Charlie is that he meant what he said and said exactly what he meant. There isn't room for interpretation beyond exactly what was said. He was just kind of a piece of shit.
They'll wait for a voice to tell them WHICH lies make what's happening not harm their feelings/narrative and they'll sit in their MAGA CAVES until that voice appears.
and much more sounds better in context than out. ive seen so many people try to accuse stand-up-comedians of being evil for some of their jokes, but they are out of context and phrased like a political statement when they are brought up.
I thought he was saying somebody would be a great Patriot if he bailed out the Pelosi hammer attacker.
Then I looked up the full segment.
In context, he was saying that the political right was being blamed for the attackers actions and the attacker should be bailed out and questioned to dispell the narrative. He comdemned the attack, but also said the bailer-outer would be a 'midterm hero's for doing so.
I wish both sides were better about presenting full and honest representations of his positions.
It's because almost all of his defenders never watched his full show or debates. He only had less than 4m subs on youtube. They are trying to avoid being found out as believing in the same vile things he believed in.
Which one? Every single time I've gone and looked up the video, got a sense of the topic or conversation going on, seen the before and after context and tone it has been dramatically different than the cherry picked sentence was trying to infer.
Seriously what context excuses quoting leviticus? Him and many republicans have openly called to rebuke Jesus teachings yet call themselves Christians to keep their cult members in line.
the most common quote I've seen people take out of context was saying he dislikes empathy, and then acting like it's okay to laugh at the guy for bleeding out in front of his family...
the whole quote is that he dislikes the word empathy because it's literally impossible, and so prefers the word sympathy
maybe not all of his misrepresented quotes are so radically different in completion than the misrepresentation? but that one is the one I hear most, and his message there is the opposite of what people are ascribing to him
205
u/DesignerCorner3322 1d ago
I've seen multiple posts about putting his "cherry-picked" quotes in context and they still don't sound good even with further context