American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It's implied when they've skirted around all of his bigoted commentary and just attacked CP for being too left, too woke, despicable etc.

These posters should be able to articulate more substance & thought on the person they are defending.

As i said, it's very telling they choose not to engage with substance.

Nope, disagree - being unable to separate "If you're not outraged that someone was killed because of views they espouse you're a bad person" from "I support the views this person espoused" is just as much a failure of bandwidth as saying that people who are happy he's dead are in favour of political violence. Two things can be true at once on both sides of the coin. Which isn't to say that at least some of those posters may have been big Charlie Kirk fans; I'm just saying that the former statement doesn't entail the latter. You can't have your cake and eat it too here - the same logic works in both directions.

Originally Posted by Drak

Charlie Kirk believed:

-Gay people should be stoned to death
-Civil rights should never have happened
-Americans should be allowed to legally whip foreigners
-Men should be allowed to physically attack trans people
- That black people steal white people’s jobs and are too stupid to fly planes
- That American Jews give whites a bad name
-Muslims come to America to destroy it
- Children dying in mass shootings is collateral damage for his right to bear arms
- That Canada should be invaded


MAGAts in the comments pretend are whining and crying that lots of folks here have zero sympathy for him is all we need to know about these folks.

Thing is I don't think he actually believed a bunch of that stuff, much of it was just shock jock BS to get attention and thereby make money. Decide for yourself if that is better or worse, I guess.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I’m genuinely curious, what makes someone a Nazi in 2025?

I like to use the term loosely to describe people who support fascist ideology and white supremacy. I believe Charlie previously supported Elon’s Nazi salute. He’s a mysoginistic and racist piece of ####. He’d also fall firmly into Christofascist territory.

He also seems very much like a guy who puts on an SS uniform at home and it probably turns him on. I’m sure he’s started many sentences with “you know Hitler did a lot of good things for Germany like…”

But it’s not like Nazis are an active political party in the USA. That’s what the Republican Party is for.

So when someone says Charlie Kirk was a pos Nazi, I think we need to think about what it means when we say that. It’s not like it’s completely without merit. Just because the guy didn’t fly a Nazi flag from his flag pole doesn’t mean he didn’t have a lot of creepy similarities with classic nazis and modern neo Nazi movements.

Arguing over whether he was a Nazi in a technical sense feels a bit pointless.

[Ped]

Anyone saying he's not a Nazi because he doesn't wear a Nazi uniform is absolutely not arguing in good faith.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Just so we are clear, most of what Charlie Kirk believed in, got famous for, and made money off of, aren't what reasonable people should consider "Political views".

He made/believed outright racist statements.
He advocated for the removal of rights from LGBTQ individuals.
He said he agreed with the parts of the bible that said gay people should be put to death.
He denied the existence of Trans people.
He advocated for the acceptance of mass shootings as a consequence of unfettered access to guns.

These aren't political views. This is hate speech.
Political views DO NOT include opinions or policy where the outcome is harm for harms sake.
They do not include hurting people simply because you disagree with them, or don't think they have the right to exist.
They do not include striping people of rights, simply because they are different.

It's likely Charlie Kirk was killed because of the things he believed.
But let's be truthful here, he wasn't killed because of a difference of opinion on tax rates, or the Government's role in building critical infrastructure.

He was not killed because of his "Political Views".

He was killed because he espoused hate.
He is dead because he preached there were segments of society that deserved the same.

Understanding why this happened, and not being surprised, does not mean I'm celebrating his death.

At the same time, this is a man who believed it was acceptable people would die so that others could own guns, and that empathy was made up, and detrimental.

So with that in mind, I will take no joy in his death, but I will feel exactly as much empathy for Charlie Kirk as he would want me to.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If we're being fair - and we're probably not because this is a political thread on calgarypuck - no one has said they think he was a good person or that anything he's ever said was defensible.

Dunno about that. This seems like an endorsement

Originally Posted by Gordon Bombay

Long live his legend. He was able to talk some common sense into alot of you brainwashed morons. Enough to keep the libs out of office anyway, that's pretty damn incredible.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nope, disagree - being unable to separate "If you're not outraged that someone was killed because of views they espouse you're a bad person" from "I support the views this person espoused" is just as much a failure of bandwidth as saying that people who are happy he's dead are in favour of political violence. Two things can be true at once on both sides of the coin. Which isn't to say that at least some of those posters may have been big Charlie Kirk fans; I'm just saying that the former statement doesn't entail the latter. You can't have your cake and eat it too here - the same logic works in both directions.

Thing is I don't think he actually believed a bunch of that stuff, much of it was just shock jock BS to get attention and thereby make money. Decide for yourself if that is better or worse, I guess.

I am curious how you came to the conclusion that he didn't actually believe this stuff. Can't we just trust his many published own words?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Thing is I don't think he actually believed a bunch of that stuff, much of it was just shock jock BS to get attention and thereby make money. Decide for yourself if that is better or worse, I guess.

Right. He didn’t actually believe the hate he preached that radicalized millions of people. He just did it for money. That’s quite the take. None of which absolve him for being an absolutely terrible human.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Arguing over whether he was a Nazi in a technical sense feels a bit pointless.

I don't really think it is. It's entirely possible to be as bad as a Nazi without actually being one in terms of what you're in favour of, and being specific about what bad things people are in favour of is important if you want to oppose those bad things for rational reasons, it seems to me.

There are also actual, honest to goodness Nazis who have actual followings in the USA and specifying those people as their own group, without lumping them in with other bad actors, is important to ensuring those followings shrink to as much as possible.

It's totally reasonable to not want to put in the effort at this point in separating the distinguishable types of #######s who fall under the MAGA umbrella though. I'm certainly not going to dig into Kirk's ramblings to decide whether I think he's really a nazi or whatever and I wouldn't expect anyone else to engage in that depressing an exercise.

Originally Posted by Drak

Dunno about that. This seems like an endorsement

Yeah that dude is clearly a fan of the content of his speech, not just defending his right to say horrible ####. Good point.

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I am curious how you came to the conclusion that he didn't actually believe this stuff. Can't we just trust his many published own words?

There is a class of grifter who are sort of psychopathic in the sense that they don't really have any earnest ideology, but are willing to pretend to either because they want money or because they get a thrill from being controversial and pissing people off. I haven't watched much of Kirk but my sense is that he was part true believer (on some topics and to some degree), but mostly an opportunist and one of those pricks who really enjoys triggering people. There are a lot of people who really enjoy making other people mad. It's hard to figure out where someone like that is espousing the most extreme version of their actual beliefs, or whether those are their actual beliefs, and as I said above I don't really think it's worth the time to try to figure out which is which because regardless of their motivation they're still an awful human being of one type or another.

[scotty2hotty]

Stolen from Facebook …

I don’t support what happened to Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk supported what happened to Charlie Kirk.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Dude literally said the civil rights act was a mistake and women should submit to their husbands.

AGAIN, ALSO DEFENDED A ####ING GENOCIDE AND A ####ING PEDOPHILE.

Better shoot him then

Guessing the shooters don’t realize that the shoot people with differing opinions eventually will work both ways.

Might want to rethink the strategy. Guessing they are not the only ones with guns.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Better shoot him then

Guessing the shooters don’t realize that the shoot people with differing opinions eventually will work both ways.

Might want to rethink the strategy. Guessing they are not the only ones with guns.

No, but it's just hard to think we should feel bad or sorry he's dead. Especially since it's entirely possible the pedophile he was defending might have taken him out to keep focus off his pedophilia.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Nope, disagree - being unable to separate "If you're not outraged that someone was killed because of views they espouse you're a bad person" from "I support the views this person espoused" is just as much a failure of bandwidth as saying that people who are happy he's dead are in favour of political violence. Two things can be true at once on both sides of the coin. Which isn't to say that at least some of those posters may have been big Charlie Kirk fans; I'm just saying that the former statement doesn't entail the latter. You can't have your cake and eat it too here - the same logic works in both directions.

But not one person has articulated that position.

I actually agree with you that both positions can be held; but the posters who have defended Kirk haven't demonstrated that. Why not?
Why are you having to do it for them?
Why are they choosing to not address any of his hateful commentary?

I guess we're both speculating for them, but seems like an obvious omission from their posts to me.

[Minnie]

Are you missing grey matter, goriders? I'm serious. Because what you described (shoot people with differing opinions) has happened already, has been happening for fecking ever. Are you completely unaware of history?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Better shoot him then

Guessing the shooters don’t realize that the shoot people with differing opinions eventually will work both ways.

Might want to rethink the strategy. Guessing they are not the only ones with guns.

lol, "eventually"

[Blaster86]

Charlie Kirk's death is a prudent trade for the United State's constitutional 2nd amendment.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Better shoot him then

Guessing the shooters don’t realize that the shoot people with differing opinions eventually will work both ways.

Might want to rethink the strategy. Guessing they are not the only ones with guns.

Once again, no one has been advocating for his death. The fact someone was killed (which is out of everyone’s control except rubecube and his timely absence) through political violence sucks, but I have no empathy for someone who showed none himself.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Better shoot him then

Guessing the shooters don’t realize that the shoot people with differing opinions eventually will work both ways.

Might want to rethink the strategy. Guessing they are not the only ones with guns.

Say the line, Bart.

[ResAlien]

I like that the right wingers finger wagging already have the motive locked down. No suspect or person is in custody yet they know for a fact that Charlie Kirk was shot by a liberal who disagreed with his views. Is it possible? Sure but they've already cracked the case wide open. Quite astonishing detective work really

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I am curious how you came to the conclusion that he didn't actually believe this stuff. Can't we just trust his many published own words?

Opinion | Right-wing pundits continue to prove that they don’t believe what they say

https://www.newsrecord.org/opinion/o...444eb0bae.html

You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by nik-

lol, "eventually"

Do you not pay attention? Every right wing political attack has been a Soros false flag. Get educated nik.