President Donald Trump's United States of America

[Northern Light]

I looked into this and that is an egregious misrepresentation of what Charlie said, clearly done in bad faith to score political points. If you want to see the video that everyone is pointing to, you can check it out here. In the video, he is responding to a religious question about the meaning of loving your neighbour and where it appears in the Old Testament. He quotes the passage about stoning gay people, not to make a point about public policy, but to refute the person's argument about the meaning of love.

I disagree completely. I watched the video, in full, twice, to carefully consider the context in which the words are said.

I don't find any ambiguity or room for misinterpretation in his closing.
Referring to Leviticus the book containing the reference to gay sex being an abomination.......... Kirk clearly says

" “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

I am honestly so sickened by how low the bar is for journalism and for what passes as "news". If lies like this were spread about the man, I am not surprised that someone teetering on the edge would go out and kill him.

I don't condone his assassination in anyway, shape or form.

However, the man himself was detestable. That's simply insufficient to merit his assassination.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You are why democracy is going to die this century.

Well, he didn't storm the Capitol.

AoD

 

[Mrgeosim]

I disagree completely. I watched the video, in full, twice, to carefully consider the context in which the words are said.

I don't find any ambiguity or room for misinterpretation in his closing.
Referring to Leviticus the book containing the reference to gay sex being an abomination.......... Kirk clearly says

" “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”



I don't condone his assassination in anyway, shape or form.

However, the man himself was detestable. That's simply insufficient to merit his assassination.

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a religious conversation. He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada. This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

 

[goreckm]

Hate speech is not and should not be protected. I have a pretty high tolerance for what I accept. But hate crosses that line.

While I agree in theory, it gives a tool for someone who may have a completely different interpretation of what hate is. Look at the Republicans redefining what refugees are worthy (white south africans) of entrance. Imagine this being extended to hate speech, where the government can say talking about domestic abuse is hate speech toward men, or talking about how divorce is actually violence against the family unit. They don't have to believe it, just want to use the power of the state to silence others. I would rather things like that be handled by society and public opinion.

 

[picard102]

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a religious conversation. He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada. This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

Weird then that you missed him saying at a Trump rally in Georgia last fall that Democrats “stand for everything God hates” and “This is a Christian state. I’d like to see it stay that way.”

I wonder how you will twist "this is a christian state" to not mean he's advocating for policies based on warped christian ideology.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

While I agree in theory, it gives a tool for someone who may have a completely different interpretation of what hate is. Look at the Republicans redefining what refugees are worthy (white south africans) of entrance. Imagine this being extended to hate speech, where the government can say talking about domestic abuse is hate speech toward men, or talking about how divorce is actually violence against the family unit. They don't have to believe it, just want to use the power of the state to silence others. I would rather things like that be handled by society and public opinion.

You aren't wrong, but the very fact that freedom of speech -hard-baked into the US Constitution to a far higher degree, with less reservations than in Canada still didn't prevent what's happening in the US is plenty telling. What is more important is institutional resilience and moderation in leadership, not absolutes printed on a piece of paper that meant nothing the moment it became convenient.

AoD

 

[Mrgeosim]

Weird then that you missed him saying at a Trump rally in Georgia last fall that Democrats “stand for everything God hates” and “This is a Christian state. I’d like to see it stay that way.”

I wonder how you will twist "this is a christian state" to not mean he's advocating for policies based on warped christian ideology.

Considering that pretty much every Christian denomination believes that the Old Testament civil laws aren't binding today, I have an idea of what Charlie would believe, but we'll never know now because we live in the era where people get gunned down for beliefs they don't bother to actually investigate.

 

[Northern Light]

That is his belief as a Christian, coming from his holy text, believed by billions of people, being referenced in a public religious conversation.

I'm not sure I believe Mr. Kirk was sincerely a Christian, but that is neither here nor there.

This was a public statement. Not private.

He also chose not to separate out the penalty portion. Advocating for the death of millions which endorsing that text necessarily requires; that it is hate speech, you can't say you believe the statement is right, unambiguously, in public, and then say 'but he only meant it as '................ as what? The statement calls for what it calls for. And his description was to suggest it was 'perfect'.

I find you are trying to misrepresent Mr.Kirk's views here, to what end I am not sure.

But I don't think he was in anyway equivocal. For context, the woman he was answering to was suggesting that Christ advocated a message of love, and implied that same was the highest commandment, and brooked no exception that there were any unworthy of love.

This was Kirk answering that in which he basically said.......... the bible clearly says there ARE people unworthy of love. That was him repudiating her.

Now.....enough religion please I'm not religious and have no desire to delve into theological scholarship. Though I assure you my knowledge is strong enough for it. But this is not that thread.........and the subject doesn't interest me in any event.

Kirk was a hater. Not just of gays, but of many groups. The quotes are endless. While you might pick a hole in one or two (not this one) .....there are too many to count.

He did not use it as a basis for public policy, and it is his right to believe that both in America and in Canada.

Yes it is, and its my right to describe his belief as hateful and revilible and that it speaks poorly of him as a human being.

I've been respectful to this point. But I will tell you, your defense of him is not a good look.

This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement about his religious beliefs regarding sexuality. He was not calling for the execution of gay people but news outlets picked it up, disseminated it, and now people are all over social media saying that he deserved to die because of a lie that was spun by unscrupulous news outlets.

The text he referenced does call for the death penalty for gays and he did call that text perfect. It is you who seem confused on this point.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Considering that pretty much every Christian denomination believes that the Old Testament civil laws aren't binding today, I have an idea of what Charlie would believe, but we'll never know now because we live in the era where people get gunned down for beliefs they don't bother to actually investigate.

Wait a second here - we don't know why he was gunned down for at all, considering we don't even know the individual committing the act, much less their motivation.

AoD

 

[Mrgeosim]

I'm not sure I believe Mr. Kirk was sincerely a Christian, but that is neither here nor there.

This was a public statement. Not private.

He also chose not to separate out the penalty portion. Advocating for the death of millions which endorsing that text necessarily requires is hate speech, you can't say you believe the statement is right, unambiguously, in public, and then say 'but he only meant is as '................ as what? The statement calls for what it calls for. And his description was to suggest it was 'perfect'.

I find you are trying to misrepresent Mr.Kirk's views here, to what end I am not sure.

But I don't think he was in anyway equivocal. For context, the woman he was answering to was suggesting that Christ advocated a message of love, and implied that same was the highest commandment, and brooked no exception that there were any unworthy of love.

This was Kirk answering that in which basically said.......... the bible clearly says there ARE people unworthy of love. That was him repudiating her.

Now.....enough religion please I'm not religious and have no desire to delve into theological scholarship. Though I assure you my knowledge is strong enough for it. But this is not that thread.........and the subject doesn't interest me in any event.

Kirk was a hater. Not just of gays, but of many groups. The quotes are endless. While you might pick a whole in one or two (not this one) .....there are too many to count.




Yes it is, and its my right to describe his belief as hateful and revilible and that is speaks poorly of him as a human being.

I've been respectful to this point. But I will tell you, your defense of him is not a good look.



The text he referenced does call for the death penalty for gays and he did call that text perfect. It is you who seem confused on this point.

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look. He didn't call for the execution of gay people and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

Just for context, I am not a follower of Charlie Kirk. I never watched his content, but I knew who he was. I am a passionate defender of good faith dialogue. I was the president of a debate club during my time at the University of Toronto, and I hate to see people being murdered for arguing their case. This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there. The aftermath of this assassination will make America (and possibly Canada) worse off. Of that, I am sure.

 

[Mihairokov]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade.

If we're calling spades spades then Charlie was a racist white supremacist fuck who thought black people should still be slaves, who thought his daughter if raped should bring the child to birth, who thought Palestinians were imaginary, and who thought everyone should have a gun at all times and ended up on the end of that rhetoric. I won't stand for anyone trying to defend his bullshit. Nothing in his life was ever close to good faith dialogue.

This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there.

Pretty sure it died when the GOP let January 6th happen, and if not then then when the Minnesota lawmakers were assassinated and Republicans were laughing about it.

 

[Northern Light]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie,

Yes....

but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look.

I have not defended a lie. I looked right at the video you provided, twice, and I am accurately representing the words he offered. I have not mis-stated or mis-attributed anything, not one word.

He didn't call for the execution of gay people

He explicitly endorsed text that did just that. It is what it is.

and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

I'm not sure anyone was charging him with anything, but if the court were simply asked to rule, did Mr. Kirk endorse this text; and does this text call for the execution of gays, the answer would be 'yes' in both cases.

Just for context, I am not a follower of Charlie Kirk. I never watched his content, but I knew who he was. I am a passionate defender of good faith dialogue.

I'm not sure I accept that. I have corrected you, with evidence provided by you, which unequivocally supports my take. A good faith dialogue requires you to admit the obvious and concede the point. Obstinance in the face of being proven wrong is not truth or good faith or dialogue. Its disingenuous, bad faith arguing.

But lets move on, shall we?

I was the president of a debate club during my time at the University of Toronto

My alma mater.

A fine school; but that's not a blanket endorsement of every professor or student.

and I hate to see people being murdered for arguing their case.

I agree. But you would do more to prevent its repetition by simply admitting Mr.Kirk was despised and fairly so. Then we can have an honest discussion around the fact that people being despicable is insufficient reason to assassinate them (on which we agree); then move on to what one can realistically do then to make that less likely in the future. Hint, defending Mr. Kirk will not lower the temperature any.........

This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there. The aftermath of this assassination will make America (and possibly Canada) worse off. Of that, I am sure.

Quite possible. There is much that has gone wrong in democracies of the west the last several decades. Its not a terrible story of endless woe, and indeed there have been many bright spots.

But there certainly has been an increase in militancy/extremism and a coarsening of public debate.

There are a host of reasons for that, and this thread simply isn't the right spot. But certainly, I will concur that this assassination is unlikely to prove helpful in anyway (which wouldn't excuse it any event) and may well contribute to a worsening of the situation, particularly in the country to our south.

 

[Northern Light]

If we're calling spades spades then Charlie was a racist white supremacist fuck who thought black people should still be slaves, who thought his daughter if raped should bring the child to birth, who thought Palestinians were imaginary, and who thought everyone should have a gun at all times and ended up on the end of that rhetoric. I won't stand for anyone trying to defend his bullshit. Nothing in his life was ever close to good faith dialogue.

Pretty sure it died when the GOP let January 6th happen, and if not then then when the Minnesota lawmakers were assassinated and Republicans were laughing about it.

I think the erosion of public discourse long precedes those events, which were new low points in each case.

Its worth saying, that the general trendline towards more extremism in political discourse is not unique to the U.S.. Hateful speech has been the hallmark of AFD in Germany, and far right movements in France, the U.K. and Italy amongst others.

But the extent, and extremeness in the U.S. context is more acute, no denying that. It took decades to get to where we are..........one could pick so many points.......

 

[Full Metal Junkie]

This is how democracy dies and we are well on the way there.

Just to echo the sentiment of a lot of people in this thread: the only reason the democracy is under threat is because of people like Kirk - people spreading vile, hateful and divisive rhetoric that leads to politically divided and polarized society. He is the reason we can no longer have any "good faith dialogue" because people like him leave no space for that in the message they preach. The "us vs. them" mentality is not conducive to dialogue, but it is conducive to tribe mentality and only promotes political violence. The irony is that Kirk met his demise at the pointy end of the hateful political discourse he himself has cultivated.

And I would add that people like you, people that elevate Kirk into martyrdom for their supposed sacrifice at the altar of free speech, such people are a much bigger threat to democracy.

 

[zang]

You absolutely have every right to believe whatever you want about Charlie, but I am going to call a spade a spade. Lies were said about the man and you defending the lie is not a good look. He didn't call for the execution of gay people and any court would exonerate him of the charge.

Kirk in his own words, advocating violence against trans people:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1626747081275715585