I am sad he was killed. I didn’t watch him regularly, but on a hit-or-miss basis, I did see some of his YouTube videos. He did give people space to say what they wanted and challenged them respectfully. I believe as a culture the idea of disagreement is now thought of as hate speech, so here he was disagreeing, and that is all it took for someone to consider him hateful, not because he was directly saying anything hateful. He did not affirm things about them that they used to identify themselves by, and that is all it takes to be called hateful today.
The tragic thing about this is that those who are celebrating his murder as a good thing really do hold others in such contempt that they could do that. All the while, they wrapped themselves in virtue, claiming he hated so he was no different from some of the worst that have ever lived.
Each life is a tragic loss; not all of them get the same attention, which is sad. If we valued life more across the board, maybe they would. Now, only some matter to these, and only those matter to those.
I'd never heard of the guy, and nobody wants anyone to get shot, but I don't get what he was doing. I presume he didn't belong to any kind of governmental organization, so what was he, some kind of self - appointed roving evangelist, telling everyone about his particular political opinions and trying to build some sort of a cult following, presumably to no end but his own self - interest? Like anyone should care about his particular political opinions? Have I got this wrong, or what?
@Indonesia-Phil saidHe would be an easy figure to research, as he was a conservative who went to college campuses to set up a tent with the intention of sparking conversation, telling those who came to his tent, “Prove me wrong.” He allowed people to speak their minds and tried to have civil conversations; they posted it all on YouTube. It could get heated, but I don’t think he was there to put anyone down. Others may have different ideas. I know some here hated him, justified or not, they will have to give their own reasons.
I'd never heard of the guy, and nobody wants anyone to get shot, but I don't get what he was doing. I presume he didn't belong to any kind of governmental organization, so what was he, some kind of self - appointed roving evangelist, telling everyone about his particular political opinions and trying to build some sort of a cult following, presumably to no end but his ...[text shortened]... st? Like anyone should care about his particular political opinions? Have I got this wrong, or what?
1 edit
@KellyJay saidNo one celebrated his murder.
I am sad he was killed. I didn’t watch him regularly, but on a hit-or-miss basis, I did see some of his YouTube videos. He did give people space to say what they wanted and challenged them respectfully. I believe as a culture the idea of disagreement is now thought of as hate speech, so here he was disagreeing, and that is all it took for someone to consider him hateful, not ...[text shortened]... across the board, maybe they would. Now, only some matter to these, and only those matter to those.
What is a good example of one Charlie kirk YouTube video you liked?
2 edits
@KellyJay said100% BS! Those kids shot and killed in school shootings did not do a damn thing wrong; unlike your worthless Charlie Kirk the pos.
He would be an easy figure to research, as he was a conservative who went to college campuses to set up a tent with the intention of sparking conversation, telling those who came to his tent, “Prove me wrong.” He allowed people to speak their minds and tried to have civil conversations; they posted it all on YouTube. It could get heated, but I don’t think he was there to pu ...[text shortened]... rent ideas. I know some here hated him, justified or not, they will have to give their own reasons.
Those dem political leaders in Minnesota that were murdered by a supposed Christian MAGA Republican freak didn't do a damn thing wrong either you worthless fool.
Get a grip on reality. Charlie Kirk is gone and the world is a much better place because of that. Thank you Lord Jesus. 🙂 God is Good ALL the Time! eh? 🙂
@no1marauder saidIt was an insensitive thing for him to say, and I don't like that he said it. If a guy talks on podcasts and in public for hours a day, in fora that rewards people for saying shocking things (like social media), sooner or later, you're going to say some insensitive things.
That's because you're a racist.
Black pilots receive the exact same training and have to fulfill the same requirements of those of any other "race".
That Kirk was either ignorant of this or chose to ignore it makes me think he isn't that great of a role model for sh76's 16 year old son.
Still, the underlying point is that quotas and set-asides, by definition, decrease the over-all talent in the force that ends up getting jobs. If you're going to skip over candidates for other candidates based on specified criteria, such as race, by definition, you have to take some people with lower levels of qualifications over some people with higher levels of qualifications. That's just basic math. Quotas and set-asides, or even preferences, cannot co-exist with a pure meritocracy.
Now, I have no idea what qualifications they compromise on to accomplish DEI objectives. Test scores? Coordination skills? Vision? I have no idea. But they have to compromise on something, or the preference would be irrelevant. That's the point he was making, though he phrased it insensitively.
@sh76 saidDEI programs might get someone in the door, but airlines don't allow people to fly passenger planes without rigorous training and the fulfillment of numerous requirements. If he wasn't aware of that he was ignorant; if he was, he was pandering to racist sentiments.
It was an insensitive thing for him to say, and I don't like that he said it. If a guy talks on podcasts and in public for hours a day, in fora that rewards people for saying shocking things (like social media), sooner or later, you're going to say some insensitive things.
Still, the underlying point is that quotas and set-asides, by definition, decrease the over-all talent ...[text shortened]... preference would be irrelevant. That's the point he was making, though he phrased it insensitively.
1 edit
@wildgrass saidHere, WG, read this.
They were NOT selectively censoring conservative viewpoints. That was known from before musk bought Twitter, and was proven definitely after he had access to the entire dataset.
What you describe are anecdotes, not censorship for the sake of silencing conservative viewpoints in general. If anything, conservatives were amplified overall.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-the-assassination-of-charlie-kirk
And not just read in order to poke holes or look for excuses for ad hominem attacks.
Just read.
Alex Berenson was a mainstream journalist, a NY Times reporter for over a decade. He was never considered especially "conservative."
But he was de-platformed and shut down because his opinions didn't fit the mainstream Orthodoxy.
Look, there's no question that Berenson made claims and predictions that turned out to be false. But so did Eric Feigle Ding and even Anthony Fauci. But only one side of the political spectrum was targeted by Twitter and Facebook. The "amplification" you're referring to is merely a function of the fact that people were sick of the one-sidedness of the mainstream media and so took to social media as an alternative channel. That's still going on X, by the way. X is shifting right very precipitously... not because Elon Musk is putting his finger on the scale, but because the right is sick and tired of not having a voice in the establishment media (aside from Fox, of course).
@no1marauder saidUsing race as a factor to decide who gets "in the door" is systemic racism, obviously, and a lot more insensitive than anything Charlie Kirk said.
DEI programs might get someone in the door, but airlines don't allow people to fly passenger planes without rigorous training and the fulfillment of numerous requirements. If he wasn't aware of that he was ignorant; if he was, he was pandering to racist sentiments.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidNo, it's a recognization of the reality that societal racism affects the achievement of so-called qualifications used to exclude minority applicants. That these applicants wind up being competent to do the job is, of course, ignored by right wingers.
Using race as a factor to decide who gets "in the door" is systemic racism, obviously, and a lot more insensitive than anything Charlie Kirk said.
And racism is a belief that one race is inferior to another which obviously DEI programs reject.
EDIT: Race should always assumed to be in " " in my posts since it doesn't really exist in humans.
@no1marauder saidIt's the age old question: Do you want the doctor who only got into medical school due to a set-aside (or legacy... I really don't want to make this just about race) to operate on you?
DEI programs might get someone in the door, but airlines don't allow people to fly passenger planes without rigorous training and the fulfillment of numerous requirements. If he wasn't aware of that he was ignorant; if he was, he was pandering to racist sentiments.
Even though the doctor went through medical school, and the internship, etc., I don't think I want to be operated on by the doctor who wasn't talented enough to get into medical school without some sort of arbitrary advantage that had nothing to do with talent.
I don't know how it is with the airline training programs, but in medical school (from what I've heard) and law school, for that matter (from what I've seen with my own eyes), once you're in, they do whatever they can to push you through. You have to be pretty lazy or dumb to flunk out of these programs.
For such important jobs as doctor, lawyer and pilot, I'd like to see gatekeeping at every step to ensure that only the truly meritorious get through.
Look, we both went to law schools that aren't exactly NYU or Columbia. I had classmates that had no business being lawyers, and I imagine you did as well. Yet most of them graduated. I have no idea how they ended up in law school, but these training programs alone can't be relied on to weed out the incompetent.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidUsing race as a factor to decide who gets "in the door" is systemic racism,
Using race as a factor to decide who gets "in the door" is systemic racism, obviously, and a lot more insensitive than anything Charlie Kirk said.
Exactly; that's why the LAW in the USA says one must hire minorities that apply for a job equal to their population in the USA. White supposed Christian liars cannot just hire Racist MAGA Republican white people. Ain't that equally great? 🙂 God is Good ALL the time. 🙂
1 edit
@sh76 saidI read it but I'm still fundamentally befuddled by your insistence that the left "hated" this guy while they were willfully engaging with him. He told a gay guy to his face to read the section of the bible that talks about stoning gay people to death, and they kept coming back for more.
Here, WG, read this.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-the-assassination-of-charlie-kirk
And not just read in order to poke holes or look for excuses for ad hominem attacks.
Just read.
Alex Berenson was a mainstream journalist, a NY Times reporter for over a decade. He was never considered especially "conservative."
But he was de-platformed and shut down be ...[text shortened]... ight is sick and tired of not having a voice in the establishment media (aside from Fox, of course).
Again, the nation as a whole (which is about 50/50 left/right politically) is 99% against political violence. In this light it seems dumb to say they all hate him. From what I've seen and read in the past few days, the left didn't hate him. They were just pointing out his hatred for others.
@KingDavid403 said===the LAW in the USA says one must hire minorities that apply for a job equal to their population in the USA===
Using race as a factor to decide who gets "in the door" is systemic racism,
Exactly; that's why the LAW in the USA says one must hire minorities that apply for a job equal to their population in the USA. White supposed Christian liars cannot just hire Racist MAGA Republican white people. Ain't that equally great? 🙂 God is Good ALL the time. 🙂
This is a false statement. I mean objectively false... not gray area.
The law in the US says no such thing. Ask No1 if you don't believe me.
@no1marauder said“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
No, it's a recognization of the reality that societal racism affects the achievement of so-called qualifications used to exclude minority applicants. That these applicants wind up being competent to do the job is, of course, ignored by right wingers.
And racism is a belief that one race is inferior to another which obviously DEI programs reject.
EDIT: Race should always assumed to be in " " in my posts since it doesn't really exist in humans.
Roberts got it right. You got it wrong.