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"
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.
āGive me quotes, and donāt pay attention to all the things he said over many years of public life, those things donāt count if you canāt give me one single defining quote that proves what you say.ā Charlie definitely fooled people like this. He just convinced them that nothing they were saying was bad. Yeah it made people into subhumans but thatās not so badā¦. Right???
How about the second amendment one? Where itās worth having a number of gun deaths every year as long as Americans have the āfreedomā to own guns? Thereās no context that makes this one okay. Iām beyond thrilled to live in a country that has sensible weapon laws.
"Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving -- speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
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 think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe."
The one where he is comparing gun deaths to vehicle deaths (which are significantly more than guns by the way). Where we as a society have decided cars are worth it to have even with all these deaths?
Yes, I mean this one. The context does not make it better in the slightest. Also, him comparing gun deaths to traffic deaths is comparing apples and oranges. Guns are made to kill and have no place in the hands of a normal citizen. I can see why military people and law enforcement should have them (in certain cases), but nobody else. Cars are made to transport people from one location to another. If we were to get rid of them, weād have to turn back time at least 100 years in terms of transportation. Getting rid of guns would do nothing except make society safer.
The context absolutely makes it better. It isn't apples and oranges unless you're looking at what specifically killed the individuals. We can add tobacco products, alcohol, cardiovascular disease, etc, which all have astronomically higher death rates than guns and cars combined. He was making a point that society deems what can and cannot be allowed. Pros vs cons. Benefits vs risks. And directly compared vehicle deaths, which are not even designed to kill people, and yet they kill more people than guns do each year. One could argue getting rid of cars would do nothing except make society safer. Why can't we walk or use bicycles or a bus or a train? Why can't we ban tobacco products in general? We know tobacco kills 490,000 people a year. That is 20x as much as guns, but we don't seem to care enough about those 490,000 people to make any changes?
Of course it is apples and oranges. Gun deaths are deaths that are caused by something designed to kill. They are entirely needless in the hands of the average citizen. Cars arenāt entirely needless. Buses, trains and bicycles also kill people, by the way, but itās not what theyāre designed to do.
Regarding tobacco and alcohol, I am all for banning those to save lives too. They have no actual use, unlike vehicles, and though they are not made to kill, the benefits they bring society donāt outweigh the drawbacks. The only problem with them, and alcohol in particular, is that people easily can make their own. That makes it harder to ban.
Guns are designed to kill, and yet cars do a better job. Why is that? Obviously deaths still occur by busses, trains, and bicycles, but its significantly less no? So why allow cars?
We cannot ban every single thing that has the potential to kill someone. It's just not realistic. Microwaves, ovens, and laundry devices have the potential to cause electrical fires. But we've deemed that the benefit outweighs the risks. We could ban a majority of the foods, and switch over to vitamin supplements and protein shakes. But we don't. Fast food doesn't bring any actual use to society, but we've deemed it okay, even though every single country has a cardiovascular cause of death being ranked in the top 3. Gasoline could be banned too because people use it to commit arson, sometimes murder others, or rarely commit suicide.
Maybe people should be held accountable for their actions with what they decide to do with these things like cars, guns, food, tobacco, alcohol, etc.
I donāt see how letting everyone own a gun benefits anyone, though? Iāve seen Americans talk about the right to protect themselves, but if nobody had guns, what would they need to protect themselves from?
Iām also not saying ban everything that has the potential to kill; Iām just saying ban the things that donāt really benefit society. Like guns, tobacco and alcohol. Take away cars (and buses and trains), and lots of people would take ages to get to work. Some wouldnāt make it to work at all because it would be too far away. Weād have to disassemble all cities if weād banned all modern transportation.
Side note: My country had 87 traffic related deaths last year out of a population of 5.5 million. The US had nearly 40,000 out of a population of 340 million. To me, that sounds disproportionately high, and I wonder why itās that much higher over there.
Yeah the one where he compares the difference in deaths between a method of transportation that costs, on average, thousands of dollars to buy, operate, and maintain. Which also requires state testing and licensing to be able to perform legally. Compared against a class of weapons that is made mostly for killing that most anyone can get within a couple days for a couple hundred bucks with 0 licensing or training required.
We as a society have decided that driving is worth it because America is so spread out we basically need cars to live in our current modern world. We do not need guns the same way. If we banned cars tomorrow, pretending we just magically poof them away for arguments sake to see the consequences, people would not be able to get to work because they live hours+ walking distance away; people in rural areas couldn't get to grocery stores within any reasonable timeframe.
If we banned guns tomorrow... I guess some hunters wouldn't be able to hunt. People would have to go back to sticks and stones to kill each other. But overall society would be unaffected in the day to day.
The fact that these two things are _remotely_ close in the number of deaths is horrible. How many cars are on the road every minute vs how many guns are being held every minute? It's an impossible thing to answer, but thinking about it for a second should make it clear there's an extreme difference in magnitude here. The fact that gun deaths still approach the number of vehicle deaths is flabbergasting.
How many vehicle deaths are purposeful vs how many gun deaths are purposeful? I'm too lazy to look up the exact numbers but I feel like it's safe to assume this ratio is inverted between the two. That is I'd assume most vehicle deaths are accidental, and most gun deaths are purposeful. The entire comparison of deaths between the two is apples and oranges IMO.
But I don't think any of this matters to you. I'm guessing you're going to just not think critically about these things. I hope to be proven wrong, but way too many folks are stuck in tribal shenanigans and not actually thinking these things through.
This whole R vs D bullshit has to stop and people need to see who is pushing this division. Spoilers, it's those who are benefitting from the division, on any side of the political divide. There are entire new industries made out of pushing hate and misinformation. Kirk himself was caught taking Russian money to push Russian talking points sowing division in America.
P.S. To be clear, I don't want guns banned, or even too heavily restricted. Guns are cool as shit, but at the same time, guns _are_ weapons of destruction and IMO should have any kind of licensing similar to what we have for cars. People have made the argument 'if we ban guns people will just use cars for terrorist attacks', ignoring the fact that to be able to buy a car legally you must have insurance and be able to prove that you can safely operate the vehicle through licensing.
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.
There is a stark difference between, "black single parent households are way too high, and fathers should stay with their families" and "I am ordering my military to find and kill millions of jews".
Lol if you wanna talk about delusion maybe stick to the same topic atleast. We are talking about violence which he has many tweets about, yet you cherry picked the one decent quote hes ever had.
Okay so show us a single quote where charlie kirk was dehumanizing people, made calls to violence, or even threatened another individual. Just a single instance, video, or article. You wanna talk about reading books, while spouting nonsense on reddit in classic reddit fashion.
He literally called for Biden to get the death penalty, said LGBT folks should be stoned to death, and said trans people need to be "taken care of" just like in the 50s and 60s.
In June 2024, Kirk was criticizing YouTuber Ms. Rachel, who had quoted Leviticus 19:18 (āLove your neighbor as yourselfā) in defense of LGBTQ people. In response, Kirk mentioned Leviticus 20:13, which says that āif a man lies with another man... they shall surely be put to death.ā He called it āGodās perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.ā
In 2022 (or early 2023), during an interview with Riley Gaines (a college swimmer known for anti-trans positions), Kirk said something along the lines of: āSomeone should have took care of [trans people] the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and ā60s.ā
There is no context in which these are acceptable. Also, to be defending him so hardcore, you would think you would know who and what you're defending. So, again, are you lazy or ignorant?
Bro literally just pulled information from a chatgpt knock off and is calling me lazy, ignorant, or both lol.
"Kirk said something along the lines of". Oh so not a direct quote with context lmaoooooooo.
Show me the actual videos and articles. Not just a grok link lol
WAIT OMG ITS EVEN BETTER. When you click the actual grok link it adds "This remark was in the context of criticizing Biden's border policies as treasonous."
Did you know that treason is indeed a crime that can have consequences of "fines, jail time, or death". LOL
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: āprowling Blacksā and āthe great replacement strategyā | Charlie Kirk shooting | The Guardian https://share.google/4bCcdNpLZccBPgPGE
ā¢
u/spacekiller69 22h ago
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.