[Nicodimas]

I can't figure out why this guy caught a bullet. I'm going to say this..I don't like the guys argument style. CC drop out. Somewhat unwillingly to change..but was growing.. calm down cowboys!

Sidebar: I 10,000 percent disagree with his concept that women aren't raped on the percentage he thought. He could not process this concept. People. All of us have a tough time sometimes with processing concepts. My belief from women..is it probably is more like eighty! percent of women are. Yes this makes me sad inside. That's awful. I'll leave that there. Culture Is really messed up imo.

Flip side time....

Ok I'll lead in. The concept of this is explain to me why this guy was actually hateful. I'm approaching this logically and relize I'm mainly talking to a bunch of folks who ..think and perceive their realities much different than I do. We as people have a very different experiences, upbringing , and core beliefs that simply differ. I respect each and everyone here. I may disagree, but love the way other people think! I have changed many many concepts over time and grown as a person based off talking. Sometimes I argue a point..simply too see how much I believe in my argument..No that doesn't make a troll. Yes, I have some concepts your simply never going to believe. That's your core ethos. You have a core thought process that's different.Thats lovely!! I don't think reality would be better if everyone thought Nico thoughts.

As adults I really hope we have different thoughts! The concept of freedom is in my very small opinion that.. we dont all think the same. Echo chambers kidna freak me out. I think that's important reality. If this thread draws anger ..don't. please step away..don't let other's steal your peace.

As adults we should always remember that. Your thought process is valued and that's why I think how I think..

However despite my lead in. Explain why kirk was hateful? I would like a video not a clip. As adults a segmented thoughts taken and snipped..isn't intellectually honest. I detest the media for that...burns me up.

https://www.facebook...e/r/1E1uvWQUY9/

Simple start. If a person doesn't believe in race..how are they a bigot? Maybe pure logic without the shared experience of those people that have had it... However how would a white male understand that experience without actually talking to other people ..and dare I say argue..be introduced to new concepts. I just don't get it ..lately..

If this thread devolves into a bunch of hate. Mods close totally cool!. That's never my actual intent. Nico just likes to converse across differences. I think it's fun to challenge your belief structures. However if your the type this angers. Breathe and simply walk away. What we believe in..can trigger strong emotional reactions. Don't let those define you.

Anyhow explain. I kind@ legit don't under the strong opinion people had against him..

Really trying to authentically understand. I'm not going to counter your points , this wont be argument structured, but I may ask follow up thoughts. I'll be polite.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: Today, 03:10 AM

[amphibian]

https://www.vanityfa...tanehisi-coates

When a person whips up a decade plus audience of mostly impressionable bigots who like negative attention and have lots of guns, fills the spectrum with constant rhetoric of how doing violence to people and controlling them is good, and causes the occasional faction falling out over purity tests of bigotry, what do you think happens?

There doesn't have to be a coherent motive or a lead you by the video clip effort. Looking at his quotes and speeches yourself should do the job of showing you how thoroughly bigoted this guy was in words and action. Because he says one or a few times that he didn't see race doesn't mean he actually believes that or acts by that. He made a lucrative living stoking the fires of a white nationalist and fascist crowd while adding enough disclaimers that those who wanted to fig leaf the horrendous things he said could do that.

[Maark Abbott]

You can't figure out why a guy whose entire brand was based around bigotry and racism, whose modus operandi was having students 'debate' him in ways that could easily be set up to make him and his position look favourable but refused to debate professors et al, who stoked massive levels of division and contributed significantly to the rise of modern-day fascism in America was killed by someone within his own ideological camp because the said person did not believe he'd passed the current purity test of the alt-reich?

Really?

[Tsundoku]

Hey Maark, I thought the alleged killer was dating a transgender person?
So to me that sort of implies that while the alleged killer came from a MAGA background, he maybe ... wasn't? Or not completely.

[Tiste Simeon]

 Tsundoku, on 19 September 2025 - 08:41 AM, said:

Hey Maark, I thought the alleged killer was dating a transgender person?
So to me that sort of implies that while the alleged killer came from a MAGA background, he maybe ... wasn't? Or not completely.

Based on who exactly is claiming this I remain sceptical as to it's authenticity.

[Tsundoku]

*shrug* everything is "apparently" or "allegedly" at the moment so I guess we'll all find out as it goes.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

The Guardian has a collection of Charlie Kirk quotes with links to the source---and for those from videos, the links inside the Guardian article include a large continuous chunk of the video for context.

On race (since you asked about that that in particular):

Quote

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

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.

Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that's a fact. It's happening more and more.

If you're a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?

If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy, I hope he's qualified.

If I'm dealing with somebody in customer service who's a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?

If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they're coming out and they're saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.


Charlie Kirk in his own words: 'prowling Blacks' and 'the great replacement strategy' | Charlie Kirk shooting | The Guardian

Kirk also said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake and Martin Luther King was a "bad guy", though there isn't any video of that:

Quote

Kirk did say that it was a "huge mistake" to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the National Archives explains, the law "prohibited discrimination in public places, provided for the integration of schools and other public facilities, and made employment discrimination illegal." [...] In Kirk's view, the story explained, the Civil Rights Act has led to a "permanent DEI-type bureaucracy," [...] that has limited free speech. [...]Those comments are not available in the recordings posted to YouTube of the conference that year. The reporter who wrote the Wired story, however, confirmed to us that while attending the event as a journalist, he had witnessed the remarks, which were made not on the main stage, but in a smaller conference room.

Kirk also did not dispute the statement when he responded to an email from Wired the day before the story was published. Reading from the email, Kirk interjected to say that it was "true" that he had described King as "a bad guy" and "also true" that it was his "self-described very, very radical view that the country made a mistake when it passed the Civil Rights Act."

When the email asked why Kirk believes passing the legislation was a mistake, Kirk said, "Now, again, apparently, they don't listen to the show. Because we do that at least once a week, right? Once a week, we talk about why the Civil Rights Act was a mistake."

Viral Claims About Charlie Kirk's Words - FactCheck.org

I've been meaning to address some of the other issues raised in the comments here over in the USA Politics thread... I think it's a bit more complicated, and it's probably useful to have an accurate understanding.

[Maark Abbott]

Tiste Simeon, on 19 September 2025 - 09:30 AM, said:

Tsundoku, on 19 September 2025 - 08:41 AM, said:

Hey Maark, I thought the alleged killer was dating a transgender person?
So to me that sort of implies that while the alleged killer came from a MAGA background, he maybe ... wasn't? Or not completely.

Based on who exactly is claiming this I remain sceptical as to it's authenticity.

Yeah, this. The facts we DO know are that they are from a very Republican background, but everything else is just rumour at this point.

This notwithstanding, the man in question was a very unpleasant piece of work and honestly I am astounded that people have to ask why he was disliked in any capacity.

[HoosierDaddy]

Maark Abbott, on 19 September 2025 - 11:51 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 19 September 2025 - 09:30 AM, said:

Tsundoku, on 19 September 2025 - 08:41 AM, said:

Hey Maark, I thought the alleged killer was dating a transgender person?
So to me that sort of implies that while the alleged killer came from a MAGA background, he maybe ... wasn't? Or not completely.

Based on who exactly is claiming this I remain sceptical as to it's authenticity.

Yeah, this. The facts we DO know are that they are from a very Republican background, but everything else is just rumour at this point.

This notwithstanding, the man in question was a very unpleasant piece of work and honestly I am astounded that people have to ask why he was disliked in any capacity.

Because people are blinded and biased by their own viewpoint, especially when they are in a bubble. I and everyone in my circle loved Charlie Kirk, therefore, EVERYONE loved Charlie Kirk.

[Tsundoku]

Heh, I've already seen a comment in an article (Australian news website) that said "...we are all Charlie".
Just waiting for some "Je suis Charlie" stuff to come out a la Charlie Hebdo. Because that would be a complete parallel, right.
And I thought "no we fucking aren't". Just because I at least thought Kirk had some stones to go in and debate people, it doesn't necessarily follow I agreed with most of the stuff he said.
Whether you like his style or not, or whether he was "punching down" ... not sure. He started out with that "change my mind" stuff didn't he? Or was that someone else?
Anyhoo, I like I've said elsethread he at least didn't foam at the mouth like Trump, Bannon etc and at least appeared to have some manners. In public anyway.
I didn't previously know though about most of those quotes above. That's some ... serious stuff. I guess he was smart enough to have separate public and private personas.

But he's certainly proved even more useful to the right as the martyr they've been waiting for.

It still makes me chuckle how the biggest free speech advocates for years are (crickets) over all this recent stuff.
Just like the hard Left, it's not about free speech at all, it's about controlling speech and shutting down dissent.
It's free speech when we agree with it, and it's hate speech when we don't.
Honestly, I'd love to be able to lock all of them from both ends of the spectrum in a stadium, give them all baseball bats and say "have at it".

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: Today, 01:30 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Tsundoku, on 19 September 2025 - 01:29 PM, said:

Anyhoo, I like I've said elsethread he at least didn't foam at the mouth like Trump, Bannon etc and at least appeared to have some manners. In public anyway.
I didn't previously know though about most of those quotes above. That's some ... serious stuff. I guess he was smart enough to have separate public and private personas.

But he's certainly proved even more useful to the right as the martyr they've been waiting for.

It still makes me chuckle how the biggest free speech advocates for years are (crickets) over all this recent stuff.
Just like the hard Left, it's not about free speech at all, it's about controlling speech and shutting down dissent.
It's free speech when we agree with it, and it's hate speech when we don't.
Honestly, I'd love to be able to lock all of them from both ends of the spectrum in a stadium, give them all baseball bats and say "have at it".

Most of those quotes are from his podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, or from his public social media... so it's more a matter of him knowing how to strategically present himself to different audiences. Such as:

Quote

A US neo-Nazi fight club is using Charlie Kirk's killing to recruit new members

The same American-born neo-fascist fight clubs surging in numbers across the US and around the world, have capitalized on the assassination of far-right commentator Charlie Kirk, to entice new recruits with promises of vengeance and racist camaraderie.

These so-called "active clubs" are a loose collective of neo-Nazi mixed martial arts groups that gather at local gyms and parks to train, tapping into existing gangs of white nationalists or adjacent organizations. Global authorities view them as perhaps one of the most organized and pernicious domestic terrorism threats, emanating from far-right political ideologies.

"Active clubs are exploiting the assassination of Charlie Kirk for recruitment purposes, specifically urging white men to join the movement,"

A US neo-Nazi fight club is using Charlie Kirk's killing to recruit new members | Far right (US) | The Guardian

[Cause]

Tsundoku, on 19 September 2025 - 01:29 PM, said:

And I thought "no we fucking aren't". Just because I at least thought Kirk had some stones to go in and debate people, it doesn't necessarily follow I agreed with most of the stuff he said.
Whether you like his style or not, or whether he was "punching down" ... not sure. He started out with that "change my mind" stuff didn't he? Or was that someone else?
Anyhoo, I like I've said elsethread he at least didn't foam at the mouth like Trump, Bannon etc and at least appeared to have some manners. In public anyway.
I didn't previously know though about most of those quotes above. That's some ... serious stuff. I guess he was smart enough to have separate public and private personas.

He is infamous for punching down. The very concept of 'change my mind' is a practiced debater (who only gets more practice every time) shows up prepared to debate a topic he has prepared and researched and challenges random passerby's to debate him on abortion for example. We all have opinions but not all of us have informed opinions and certainly are not prepared off the cuff to eruditely defend them. Random passerbys and college students were his meat. College students are more informed them most but also critically are at a stage of their lives (most of them) where they are discovering their own beliefs which may be different to the ones they grew up with all their lives. They may be passionate but they are not necessarily always the best defenders of them.

He was repeatedly challenged by opposing influencers and he often ducked them. I believe Sam Seder and him had a bit of a rivalry or would attack one another indirectly but he refused to face him in a debate. I think Sam seder once effectively ambushed him on some 3rd party podcast and Charlie Kirk abandoned the show rather than continue,

Tsundoku, on 19 September 2025 - 01:29 PM, said:

It still makes me chuckle how the biggest free speech advocates for years are (crickets) over all this recent stuff.

To there credit I have seen some are. However the republican party, the right, Maga, and the far-right which are already at least 4 overlapping but distinct groups I would argue, can also always be divided even further into at least 2x more. Each group has members who have actual values/principles/beliefs and members who only exercise these concepts in furtherance of the goal of power (consciously or unconsciously). Free speech absolutist Elon Musk is a perfect example of someone who thinks he is the former but acts like the later. He bought twitter to fight censorship but he wields his power over X far more overtly and more pettily than anything he might have complained about before. The days of principled philosophers fighting for their beliefs are over if such a time ever truly existed.

For many Free-speech is only a tool to allow their bigotry free reign (White supremacists suffer when hate speech is banned), to defend misinformation as simply an alternate fact to your opinion (Vaccines do save lives, they do not cause harm). Its a tactic to discredit reality itself at times and to make everything simply a disagreement of beliefs which can have no winners, only factions that suceed in converting others or not.