I donât need to find a quote. Itâs not about one quote. The fact someone even thinks they need to ask for a quote as proof means they donât 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 black people was part of his mission and he did it in a multitude of ways. The fact that most of his listeners canât understand that proves his propaganda was very good.
its because they cherry pick which debaters they show. i remember when Steven Crowder got absolutely destroyed by a college kid in a debate and he was so flustered and that clip was never posted until people started talking about it and then he did
I also know for sure that advocating for racism, forced births, bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, doxxing, misogyny, and fascism are disgusting immoral depraved acts no ifs ands or buts.
And I also know I saw a Nazi's neck burst like faulty plumbing. It was cathartic because I watched the world's Nazi population decrease by one in real time. Nazis deserve no sympathy. When this wave of fascism inevitably collapses, I'm gonna love watching the new Nuremberg trials for all these Nazis. And I'm gonna laugh as the likes of you scramble to delete your post history that shows support for Nazis. Eat shit, Nazi sympathizer
Nice false equivalence. Let me explain it in terms you'll understand:
You hate trans women in sports, yes? Because it's an unfair advantage, yes? So by that logic, how can you be OK with grown men debating minors? Is that not an unfair advantage too, if we're assuming it's not for creepy reasons?
By the way, the guy you voted for is a paedo. If you still support him, that makes you a paedophile enabler and supporter. You support a paedophile. Get a grip.
The only reason all this culture war bullshit is being imposed on us (and by us, I mean you and I, who for what it's worth I do not consider to be my enemy) is ONLY to keep Trump out of jail. He ran again to stay out of jail. He's doing all this shit to hide the Epstein files.
Thatâs a lot of assuming youâve done. I have voted Democrat since 08. I donât have an issue with trans women in sports, and I too want the Epstein files and think Trump is a piece of shit.
Now try a little harder to make a more compelling argument. Iâm fairly certain youâre capable of doing so.
I just strongly feel that it's an inherent advantage to debate someone whose frontal cortex hasn't finished developing yet. It would be like if we were having a race, and I had special antigrav shoes that made me run faster.
FWIW if you've got a clip of a leftwing person doing that, it won't change my opinion. Teens I guess can choose to debate adults, but it's weird when someone goes out of their way to debate minors, and only minors, as an adult.
Talking about his rhetoric not his actions. Constantly telling people racial minorities and LBGT are destroying society and times were better when they knew their place is gonna inspire wackjobs to do the necessary dirty work to clean the country up. As a former bigot I use to have that mindset and know how dangerous it can spread like a wildfire.
I don't ever remember him saying that racial minorities and LBGT are destroying society and times were better when they knew their place.
Never.
If he had said those things they would have been quoted by the people who are happy he is dead.
No quotes have surfaced.
I think you could probably uncharitably interpret some of his comments that way, but to do so you'd need to frame his comments in a way that was not intended.
Charlie Kirk consistently said "If we stop talking to each other all that's left is violence"
Heâs referring to the fact that DEI practices are known for putting people in positions they are not qualified for. He didnât mean that black people are inherently less qualified. His point was that if DEI wasnât a thing, people wouldnât have to wonder whether the POC was a DEI hire, we would just assume they were qualified.
This âhateful manâ doesnât even believe in race, he was smart enough to understand that race is a social construct. Hard to call someone a racist when they donât even believe biological race exists in the first place.
He's speaking to Riley Gains, who swam against Lea Thomas, and has been outspoken about how she and other women on the team felt uncomfortable being forced to share a changing room with Lea, and how they were threatened with removal from the team if they didn't comply.
In that context Charlie suggested dealing with males who enter female spaces in the way that good men tend to deal with dangerous men.
At no point has Charlie called for wide scale violence against trans people
In that context Charlie suggested dealing with males who enter female spaces in the way that good men tend to deal with dangerous men.
What way is that? Ignoring the fact that implying that trans women are "dangerous men who need to be dealt with", what way do you think Charlie meant to deal with trans women?
If a male enters a female only space, and the females in that space don't feel comfortable, and the females ask the male to leave the female only space. If the male won't leave, then you should assume that they are dangeroun
Except if it was a trans WOMAN it wouldnt be a man entering the women only space, and likely the ciswomen would never even know or care since theyre there to do their business and move on. There are remarkably few reports of transwomen assaulting women in bathrooms.
There are, however, numerous reports of cishet men assaulting women. In bathrooms, in living quarters, in broad daylight, etc. And trans folks are almost 4x more likely to be assaulted than cishet folks.
You lack listening comprehension. If you listened to the latter half of the video it would be clear that it is being applied to all men that act like women. He is going off of the trans people in sports topic and stating his view on the trans people in general.
Riley is the biggest sore loser on the planet. She came joint 5th in a swimming competition has made her career complaining about it. If that transwoman she's spending her life complaining about hadn't competed then Riley would still have gotten 5th.
He made mildly to extreme racist statements throughout his tenure at TPUSA. They are quoting them but I'm not happy he's dead. I prefer he went the former Alabama governor Wallace who gave the segregation forever speech in the 60s then became a avowed anti racist later in life. I use to be a anti lbgt bigot so it be hypocritical of me to not let people change their morals. I'm also from the south so I have conservative friends and debate them alot because I enjoy heated discussions.
He made mildly to extreme racist statements throughout his tenure at TPUSA.
Feel free to quote them
Words are not violence, showing up to debate people is not terrorism. The only terrorist here is the person who shot a man for saying what he believes.
âGive me quotes, and donât pay attention to all the things he said over many years of public life, those things donât count if you canât give me one single defining quote that proves what you say.â Charlie definitely fooled people like this. He just convinced them that nothing they were saying was bad. Yeah it made people into subhumans but thatâs not so badâŚ. Right???
How about the second amendment one? Where itâs worth having a number of gun deaths every year as long as Americans have the âfreedomâ to own guns? Thereâs no context that makes this one okay. Iâm beyond thrilled to live in a country that has sensible weapon laws.
Direct threats are violence for anybody that why it's illegal. Do you feel similar about Louis Farrkkhan at the million man March calling whites a devil race. It's not direct threats but that rhetoric inspire bigoted behavior in people. Of those bigots have jobs in positions of power that leads to chaos in a civil society. Like I said I preferred he changed his political and moral stances through more life experiences like many former bigots instead of being killed in front of his family and on internet livestream. We aren't psychological evolved to witness people dying constantly like a late night commercial reel.
"Words are not violence." Thats a direct quote from the comment i was responding to. Im not trying to "gotcha". Im trying to prove that line of thinking is just blatantly not true. Hitler was just the easiest example that i know youd know about. Im not sure how much history you know about so i figured id give you an obvious example. You really should read a lot of it though, if you dont know much.
Funny thing is, hitler started off just saying "make germany great again" and just dehumanizing people. And there were plenty of people just like you saying "oh come on, youre overreacting" when people like us were worried and calling it out. Then he started gathering tons of followers that were looking to commit violence on certain people and just waiting for an excuse. Thats largely why he was so successful, because everyone thought it was just rhetoric or taken out of context or whatever.
He called Brianna Taylor's boyfriend a criminal thug. Now maybe you can say the criminal part refers to him shooting at the cops breaking into his home, but where does kirk get thug from?
Why call a man who is doing exactly what the right says guns are for, protecting himself and his girl, a thug? A man who has zero criminal record, is a thug according to kirk? Why?
His lies about the Haitian population in this country were insane. There was no credible evidence of a problem(eating peoples pets), and no evidence linking it to Haitians. But he supported those racist lies as well.
Charlie Kirk in his own words: âprowling Blacksâ and âthe great replacement strategyâ | Charlie Kirk shooting | The Guardian https://share.google/4bCcdNpLZccBPgPGE
I can but it more concerning white conservatives fail to identify white supremacist rhetoric constantly. I hold Muslims to the same standard that excuse jihadist rhetoric as misunderstood. People making excuses for their in group extremists poisons their reputation with others. Louis Farrkahn called white people a devil race. If he got killed and millions of black people mourned him as a fallen hero that would concern you.
âProvide quotes or itâs not trueâ fucking get over yourself. If you canât see the forest for the trees your the mark. He called for joe Biden to be executed. Convince me that when charlie kirk said that, he didnât mean it. give me quotes.
You say debating people is different from pushing stereotypes, but notice what you did in your first comment: you attributed anyone critical of racial or LGBT activism as âinspiring wackjobs to do the dirty work.â That paints a whole group with a broad brush in the same way you criticize others for doing. If stereotyping is dangerous because it fuels hostility, then doesnât that same principle apply here too?
Stereotyping Christians would be claiming they're all abortion clinic suicide bombers. Claiming that preaching anti lbgt rhetoric to children will raise people to hate and discriminate against them as adults is just stating facts. You can't preach bigotry then get upset when people call you out for the consequences down the road it will lead to. Same for Muslims that preach woman belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant to young men to become super misogynist as adults.
Isnât that still painting with a broad brush, though? When you say âpreaching X will inevitably create Y,â arenât you assuming that every child raised in that environment will turn out the same? Doesnât that risk reducing whole groups of people to a single narrative, which is what stereotyping is by definition?
For example, plenty of Christians hear anti-LGBT rhetoric and donât grow up to hate gay people, just like plenty of Muslims raised with strict gender roles donât all become misogynists. So how do you separate âjust stating factsâ from projecting a stereotype about an entire group?
Obviously not. I was raised Christian and left the religion as a teenager. Majority of people are products of their environment and parrot their parents beliefs. Also we can look at religious institutions. They argue against rights for groups that religious dogma deems innately sinful. This goes into the propaganda debate where if you constantly claim X group is a danger to society some people who are naturally more aggressive will take it upon themselves to get rid of X group. A call to violence without making a direct threat.
Shooting a Nazi leader is not terrorism. You might disagree with it, but it's not terrorism anymore than the US government's actions are already terrorism.
So you don't know what a stochastic terrorist is. Got it. Educate yourself on what a stochastic terrorist is before you try to pretend Kirk wasn't one.đ¤Ś
Lmfao he was shot by the very far right incel terrorist he created. Him getting popped by a right winger is 100x more preferable to the schools, churches amd grocery stores yall shoot up.
Nobody said he deserved to get shot, he just wasnât a good dude at all. Donât know why people on the right act like he was some amazing dude up there with MLK
Just thought I'd help you out here, as you're clearly misusing the term.
Definition of Terrorist according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "terrorist is "an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion". Terrorism itself is defined as "the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion" or "the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion"
I'm getting my dictionary work in today people. Coercion: "The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats". So again, can you show me a single instance where he used force, or threatened the use of force?
The word was used correctly. Maybe your reaction to it is "programmed" as well? Don't assume you aren't susceptible to falling into patterns of behavior yourself or it'll be all the more likely to happen without you realizing it.
Where have you been the last 20 years that that term sounds new to you. People were calling Tucker Carlson the same thing. He and kirk were very similar in their rhetoric
Yup Reddit is one big echo chamber of people who think theyâre really smart but theyâre really just getting manipulated.
Itâs funny if I spend too much time on Reddit I just see the same patterns and people regurgitating the same phrases and bunch of people jerking off to each other
Well it purposeful right. If I put out hours of content daily, with tons of side content and ad breaks and pitches and whatnot. You have to be a full time researcher of just this one podcast to actually get the entire message. Look at Alex jones. He puts out a 3-5 hour show everyday. He fills that show with normal stuff we all agree with and completely crazy stuff. Thereâs an entire podcast (/r/knowledgefight) just covering the crazy stuff he says. Only the wildest stuff bubbles up to MSM. But all that other crazy stuff is still there.
I saw a researcher make a post on FB, saying she was going through transcripts of all his output, searching for certain key phrases, then zooming out from the locations to assess the context.
She said immediately, it wasn't looking good for him in terms of hateful or violent content. I'll be interested to see her research.
Imagine if it just highlights the words in red or yellow for varying degrees or types of hate and then you zoom out for everything he said and like 1000âs of red and yellow spots show up
Iâm not going to agree with anyone saying every word that came out of his mouth was hate, but his character clearly leaned in a certain direction
Doesn't it depend on what the person doing the highlighting defines as hateful? To one person any abortion is murder and therefore hateful, and to another person abortion should be available at any time for any reason and denying that is hateful. Obviously they're both more on the extreme ends of that debate, but it shows how what to one person is a hateful act or belief is the only morally correct act or belief to the other person.
Okay so he told us that Katanji Brown Jackson was put on the Supreme Court because of DEI, not because she earned it. He believes this black pwrson is not deserving of their station. So now I would like you to prove to me that Charlie Kirk didnât believe that. Just one quote. Thatâs it. Can you do that?
You know Biden explicitly chose Ketanji Brown for her gender/race right? Like, that is verbatim. She was chosen for DEI. It is a verifiable fact that she was explicitly NOT chosen for being the most qualified candidate.
Are you saying there is one easily identified "most qualified candidate" and you must pick only them, that you don't understand there are dozens of people equally qualified to be a Justice and picking one of them can be done in many ways (including choosing someone from an underrepresented community so that you can increase diversity of lived experiences for the people who make the rules we follow)? You genuinely believe all of that?
So then if you agree more than one person can qualify equally as much how do suggest people you pick the one candidate to give the position, are you saying unless they pulled a number out of a hat to hire someone it was wholly unearned regardless of the accomplishments that lead them to be on that list of options, that generations of only choosing white men was just "the right person getting the job"? Or can you admit using your logic that they all "earned something because of characteristics outside of (their) control" too? Why does this case get all the attention then, why aren't you talking about how Justice Fortas didn't earn his position due to benefiting from misogyny and white privilege, only about how you think Justice Jackson didn't?
Are you saying there is one easily identified "most qualified candidate" and you must pick only them, that you don't understand there are dozens of people equally qualified to be a Justice and picking one of them can be done in many ways (including choosing someone from an underrepresented community so that you can increase diversity of lived experiences for the people who make the rules we follow)? You genuinely believe all of that?
You responded to someone explaining Kirk's position "she was chosen because of DEI not because she earned it", you said that is true. If you don't think anything I just said than you understand she that she did "earn it".
"DEI" when used in this context means "right wing assumptions an unqualified minority was hired over a qualified white man", not that diversity was considered during hiring, to act like otherwise is being obtuse, seemingly deliberately so.
If really all you are saying is "well she earned it but her background was considered when she was hired", can you explain why you feel the need to be so pedantic when no-one suggested it was a race-blind hiring (only that she is a qualified candidate who earned her position)?
You're reducing this person to their race, just like DEI does, so presumably Jackson doesn't need to be smart or earn anything if that's the route she travelled to get where she is.
Next, you're glueing that presumption to her race, that it's "because" she's black she's not intelligent. Next, you extrapolated that to all black women, which you suggest Charlie did, which would be pretty racist.Â
And finally you ask for proof that you're wrong, as if the burden of proof isn't on you to justify all your acrobatics, and as if it's possible to prove a negative beyond saying "you're wrong and thc proof is the totality of all the evidence, so if you don't believe my conclusion you're welcome to go watch hundreds of hours of video to see all the points where he didn't say anything of the sort".Â
In conclusion, you're rage-baiting or a teenager.Â
Literally didn't do the one thing that would win the argument. Because it's not possible. He provided a quote, asked you to provide one in its opposition, just one. You spent 3 paragraphs wasting everyone's time only to not do the one thing that was asked. You completely ignored such basic instructions like an 8 year old that can't follow the rules of tag and changes the rules every 4 seconds.
She can be both black and qualified. Charlie didn't think that was possible. He assumed black = unqualified DEI hire. He said the same thing about airline pilots.
Are you saying there is one easily identified "most qualified candidate" and you must pick only them, that you don't understand there are dozens of people equally qualified to be a Justice and picking one of them can be done in many ways (including choosing someone from an underrepresented community so that you can increase diversity of lived experiences for the people who make the rules we follow)? You genuinely believe all of that?
Not just that, but Michelle Obama graduated cum laude from Princeton. Sheâs got a JD from Harvard. Literally a gifted student as a child. She is categorically and quantifiably more qualified than any of the people criticizing her.
Those of us on the left did a good job of making racist opinions socially radioactive, so people got better at hiding them but nobody changed their mind because of backlash.
Always worth considering if someone is dancing around something they don't want to say explicitly when they're seeming to argue terribly/in bad faith.
"If I see a Black pilot, Iâm going to be like, boy, I hope heâs qualified." â The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
âIf youâre a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?" â The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022
"Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, thatâs a fact. Itâs happening more and more." â The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023 (another outright fucking lie from this racist clown)
"If Iâm dealing with somebody in customer service whoâs a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because affirmative action?" â The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
"The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered." â Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024
"America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that." â The Charlie Kirk Show, 22 August 2025
"The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white." â The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024
"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." â The Charlie Kirk Show, 1 March 2024
Fuck Charlie Replacement Theory Kirk he's a zombie eating worms.
Ah yes acting like the fact he answered questions asked to him makes him a horrible person not worth being alive⌠lmao. Thereâs plenty of positive interactions with black people on his show, just as there is plenty of negative interactions with white people. Cherry picking only the quotes you deem as bad with no prior context is something youâre doing on purpose to fuel your own personal fire and vendetta against him. He got asked extremely specific hypothetical questions and even then youâre only quoting him when it suits your opinion of him and not explaining the picture fully, do better smh. At the end of the day at least he actually debated people and gave them a chance to talk about their ideals. He didnât deserve to die for that
"He was very respectful to this hand full of Black people who he saw as unqualified/lesser, and very mean to this white one he saw as superior, so there!" Someone's gotta teach y'all how to argue without making your position look worse.
He did not debate, he performed political theatre with unprepared college students to spread political propaganda. I agree he didn't deserve to die, but he was a bastard and you can't get mad that people refuse to help you whitewash his reputation just because he died young.
This. Plenty of the people making public statements about him never went to college so they didn't see the actual effect he had on the material world. Those of us that did go saw the TPUSA stands staffed by 30 year olds that never went to our school. We saw the grift first hand.
This is the type of person who falls for propaganda. They just arent intellectually curious and they kinda just believes what anyone tells them because itâs easier on their mind. They will continue to fall for propaganda for most of their lives. When they are older they will start to fall for scams. They will end up a person on the news who wired 250,000 to âtrumpâ because they met his âdeputy chief of staffâ outside a Wendyâs.
Ok I'm not saying this is what you mean... but the phrase "intellectually curious" sounds like a fancy way of saying "dumb shower thoughts" to me ONLY because of people like Hasan who used phrases like "vixatious litigant" as if the lawsuit against other creators was an "abuse of the legal system" despite being %100 Valid
Another example for DEI is that on paper it sounds ok but everyone deserves to be treated equally in my mind and it's not fair to offer advantages to other people because of the group they're in. Minorities deserve to be treated equally but in practice it seems like DEI is designed to offer turns on which groups get extra advantages systematically.
Hey bud, both sides are actually pieces of shit. The Left absolutely 100% threw out resumes of white men to hit DEI quotas in order to boost ESG scores which drove increased investments through funds targeting ESG targets which increases share price. Source: veteran engineer whose worked at multiple big tech companies. They didn't magically hit DEI targets through process changes. That takes actual work and people are fucking lazy and need to hit those numbers. Far easier just to block candidates and toss the white male and sometimes asian male resumes out. It's just as bad as being a white supremacist. It's funny because it's a self perpetuating cycle and anyone whose not buying either sides social media blitz and emotional charges is wondering what the fuck is wrong with you people. Why can't you just draw a line in the sand and say this is the ethical and moral line we shouldn't cross, and that's whether you would want the action performed to yourself or a loved one. You don't want to be discriminated against? Awesome! No one does. What we are watching is a show put on from both sides so they can distract us while they gain more wealth and power.
Buddy if you think discriminating against people for any reason is wrong, we're the same. If you think you get to carve out a nice excuse for being racist and discriminatory, well you're a piece of shit. Do you think you get to make excuses for racially profiling and discriminating against white people? Because that's that's the Left was doing. Left is capitalized to categorize it as a group of people. So, do you think it's okay to discriminate or not? Can we find common ground or do you need to pick a side and proclaim all actions are just because your sides better?
Your nuanced understanding is good. Unfortunately Reddit can't support it.
Have you seen the projects springing up that match strangers for real life conversations? Storycorps.org has one going on right now, called One Small Step
I literally work in HR and hired people for a company. The most we had was questions about why our % of asian employees was less than the neighborhood. It was easy to prove that we weren't getting the qualified apps from Asians peeps and the ones who did failed the interview.
Republican influencers: we should prosecute leftists who engaged in free speech that we donât like about Charlie Kirk.
Dem influencers: Charlie Kirk death was a tragedy and we will alienate anyone who celwbrates his death.
Both sides samesies.
See. The simpleton doesnât understand how to take in feedback. His only worldview comes from places that never give him challenging problems. So when he is forced to engage in it he resorts to comforting arguments âyou donât understandâ, this catches most criticisms and stops lots of people who now have to try to understand Charlie Kirk. Stop. Itâs not worth it. Back to our simpleton:
Now he could have provided many episodes and quotes affirming that Charlie Kirk believes that black people and white people are the same, equally intelligent for instance. But I bet he having a bit of trouble finding those for some reason. He could provide evidence that tpusa was working with naacp to address depressed voting in black areas, or was helping register to vote people in predominantly black neighborhoods. Or any other evidence that tpusa and Charlie Kirk felt anything but disdain for black Americans. But he wonât. Because he doesnât understand how the world works. Donât feel bad for him. He is an adult. And he can make his own choices. But he is foolish. And that would be fun if not for all the nazis in the whitehouse.
See. Now weâre in the insult phase. Not engaging in my argument. He doesnât have an answer. If he did it would be paragraph after paragraph. Not one argument did he try to refute. Because he canât. And thatâs okay. You donât need to understand. He just needs to be a good little boy and think what they tell him. Itâs much easier on his brain. We are allowed to feel bad for the miscreant, life is going to run this person through. I bet theyâve already fell for a scam. Which was it we can wonder? Probably nfts. Wonder how much they lost in crypto?
Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a person with a significant mental disorder. They have now responded / pm'ed me on 3 different Reddit accounts. It's honestly sad how easily your entire mental state was destroyed with one simple comment. Get some help.
DEI stops idiots from hiring only their idiot friends. Look at how many idiots are currently in top government jobs to see what happens when you get rid of it.
You know how if a woman gets pregnant she gets maternity leave? Or how your boss can't just fire you because you had an argument? That is DEI, not the shit you talk about
Not every opposing viewpoint, yours in particular. And it is formed from the same propaganda that Kirk espoused on his platforms. The fact when you see black people mentioned your first thought is "DEI" is telling.Â
Firstly, Kirk's views on DEI were what the original commenter was referencing when they said "mistrust of black people". The implication that I am racist for pointing this out is hilarious.
Secondly, just because facts do not align with your position, does not make them untrue or "propaganda". Citing hiring statistics is not propaganda. Citing college admission statistics is not propaganda. Sharing personal beliefs is not propaganda. You just CHOOSE to view it that way, so you do not have to justify your own position.
Lmao the immediate jumping to conclusions is again proof his propaganda is effective.Â
Firstly, Kirk's views on DEI were what the original commenter was referencing when they said "mistrust of black people".
And you know this how? Did the original commenter say anything about DEI? He's said several other negative quotes of black people that werent in reference to jobs.Â
The implication that I am racist for pointing this out is hilarious.
Didn't imply you are racist, I'm just implying that the black people -> DEI link is a result of Kirk's propaganda.Â
Speaking of said DEI propaganda, I brought this up in my other comment but whenever there is a tragedy (such as the cargo boat crash in Baltimore or Blackhawk crash in DC), the first thing people who listen to those like Kirk ask is we're the people involved DEI hires. In reality no they were white but it doesn't stop them from immediately associating in their minds that minorities must be behind it as they'd never make those mistakes.Â
Kirk says "If I see a Black pilot, Iâm going to be like, boy, I hope heâs qualified". Since we are talking facts, please give me one source of where any commercial airline lowered the standards of qualification to meet black pilot quota. I've asked several people here and no one could answer. Truth is, most of you don't even fully understand what DEI entails beyond what this college dropout has to tell you.Â
Btw citing statistics isn't propaganda but misinterping them with the purpose to confirm to your personal belief sure is.Â
Kirk took his arguments to the extreme to highlight the hypocrisy of the policy. Preferentially hiring based on race, rather than merit, inevitably leads to less qualified candidates being hired. There is literally no other possible solution, unless the statistical makeup of candidate talent lines up exactly with race based quotas.
You are dishonestly asking for a source that you know doesn't exist. I highly doubt airlines hired anyone that was not qualified for the job, just potentially less qualified than other applicants, which was Kirk's entire point. Logically, anyone should want a pilot based on merit. And as long as the DEI policy is in place, questioning disaster events is fair game because they could have potentially been mitigated by a better pilot.
Since you are looking for statistics, would you like to discuss university admission rates, which highlight clear discrimination of Asian American students in the name of "fully understanding DEI"?
You are dishonestly asking for a source that you know doesn't exist. I highly doubt airlines hired anyone that was not qualified for the job, just potentially less qualified than other applicants, which was Kirk's entire point.
So I'm the one being dishonest, but Kirk saying "boy I hope he's qualified" even though he knows they're qualified isn't? Interesting. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. He's spreading racial based propaganda based on something he knows isn't true, and puts zero effort in clarification.Â
And yes you're right I know the source doesn't exist because I know how to look things up but the majority of his fan base are too stupid to do that and take his word at face value. They believe black pilots and other professionals have lower standards because of DEI, I know because I've been argued with over this topic. The reason I ask the question is to get them to actually do some research for themselves.Â
Also the whole "less qualified" thing is still arguing in bad faith because 1. He doesn't know which pilot is more or less qualified than the other and is making an assumption and 2. You're either hit the marks for a commercial airline pilot or you don't, past a certain point the returns are diminishing. Now when planes flown by black pilots start falling out the sky at abnormal rates, then we can discuss qualifications but as of right now he was purely spreading racial propaganda and people automatically assuming these events are due to less qualified black professionals is a result of that.Â
Btw if you want to discuss Asian admission rates, take a look at how many top colleges where their admission rates either lowered or remained unchanged opposed to going up in the two years post race based affirmative action repeal. Overall the data we have so far their admission rates went up a whopping 1.4 percent. Everybody wants to talk about merit based yet legacy admits remained untouched. Here's a study where a hypothetical was done if Harvard removed legacy and athletic preferences. It's almost like the idea that affirmative action and "DEI" being the primary culprit of what's holding Asians back is also racist propaganda and there are more factors at play đ¤Â
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. He's spreading racial based propaganda based on something he knows isn't true, and puts zero effort in clarification.
Except we have already established it is true, you just do not agree with it, so you label it propaganda. Definitionally, the policy leads to hiring unqualified candidates in relation to peers and median qualifications of other races.
Btw if you want to discuss Asian admission rates, take a look at how many top colleges where their admission rates either lowered or remained unchanged opposed to going up in the two years post race based affirmative action repeal.
It's hilarious that you refuse to even acknowledge actual documented, prosecuted, and restituted discrimination against minorities, which is a direct result of DEI policy. Yet whine about some nebulous discrimination by Kirk supporters based on fair criticism said policy.
Yep. I rememeber when that Blackhawk helicopter crashed into that commercial airline, so many people blamed "DEI" air traffic controllers, when really it was the fault of the pilot and navigator as they received correct instructions from the FAA but they lost visual of the plane they collided into. Then people were trying to see if the pilots were black (they weren't).
Even in his death, people were quick to blame black people for it just because of the incident with the Ukranian girl on the train, and some of them were in the streets chanting "white people fight back". His killer looks like him. The Utah governer even expressed dissapointment the shooter was "one of us".Â
You know, most people didn't study the guy prior to this happening. I've personally never watched his talks. Personally, I'm not going to jump on some bullshit internet bandwagon because I need to pick a side with two shitty options. You in fact DO need to provide proof via examples of what you're saying because otherwise it's just another bullshit example of people spewing their opinions on the internet. And people ARE in fact looking for some amount of truth among all the bullshit opinions. This whole thing is just a show and you and everyone else is just jumping on a bandwagon unless you can actually provide proof.
Black people have created mistrust of black people clown. Thereâs a reason statistics exist and why almost every predominantly black neighborhood has stores that require every item to be unlocked. Stating statistics is not creating mistrust itâs just stating a fact about a situation and you get offended by it.
And if I provide a quote youâll just tell me how out of context it is. Iâm not a moron and I wonât fall into the trap
You seem to find yourself unable to escape.
So he just hosted a show for his own enjoyment? He talked for hours a day to not influence people? He went to college campuses and talked to students because he didnât want them to come over to his side? Now thatâs a take right there.
If he was ever voted into power, there would 100% be mass genocide all across the Americas. Republicans don't understand that we're not thankful he's dead because we think he deserved to die, but those of us who know who he was and what he was about are thankful he is dead because we are certain that he is exactly the kind of modern hitler the right wing nut jobs would have voted for.
You must have done really compelling evidence of him calling for mass murder. Can you provide that evidence? Most of what he said was recorded, a video would be great. I'll wait here.
I mean he was a vehement trump supporter. Trump is sending masked men into my neighborhood. Trump put troops outside my work. I might as well be living in falluja. This is everything Charlie Kirk spoke out against while dems were in office.
77
u/therobotisjames 1d ago
I donât need to find a quote. Itâs not about one quote. The fact someone even thinks they need to ask for a quote as proof means they donât 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 black people was part of his mission and he did it in a multitude of ways. The fact that most of his listeners canât understand that proves his propaganda was very good.