[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

[Hygro]

Oh, just the vigil. I thought the full-fledged memorial. Then it's less funny.

Still.

By the way, it's hard to find the full context for a lot of Kirk's statements. I went and looked at the empathy one. There are some corrective videos that add the bit about "I prefer sympathy." He says "that's for another time." So we never will get the chance to know why he favors sympathy to empathy. But even the corrective videos cut it off right after that. He's making a point about Democratic messaging changing from when Clinton said "I feel your pain." I'd like to hear what he thinks is the new Democratic messaging, but even the corrective videos cut off before he gets to that point.

On the stoning one, though, please read post 667. The sum of what he says there is that stoning gays is God's perfect law. It kind of feels lame to say "see, he didn't advocate for it." Ok, Mr. Technically Correct.

Moreover, I will amplify something that I said in post 667. In his scriptural battle with Ms Rachel, he adds the stoning part to the passage that he cites. In Lev 20, it says two men who have sex should be put to death, but it doesn't specify by stoning, and 18 just says its an abomination. If all he wanted to do was tell Ms Rachel: you know that beautiful sentiment you cited from Lev. 19? Well, one chapter before there is a passage outlawing homosexuality." then that is all he would have needed to say to challenge her "cherry-picking." For soooooome reason, he amped up the Levitican quotation beyond what he needs for purposes of his argument and beyond what the Bible actually says.

Oh, by the way, one more thing. His version of the quote actually begins "Thou shalt lie with a man." I don't know if you believe in Freudian slips, but if so, this would be one.

I mean, mostly it's because he wants to get himself into Olde Biblical Language sound. But still it's kind of funny.

You know that’s a good point, having just read it it crossed my mind it doesn’t specify the “how” but I let it go for the main point, but actually I agree the added specification is part of his poison, and the fatigue he causes in you not challenging him in his proclaimed justification (Bible) is part of his power.

 

[JPetroski]

All I can say is that in the past week or so I’ve heard a lot about the guy, and some of the snippets folks have brought up with a “See? SEE!?” Post don’t seem half as bad once you dig into them so I think it’s appropriate to do the digging. I appreciate the folks who have had some good posts above helping to do just that.

It’s also interesting to me seeing how well-received he was by many folks in minority groups considering the general consensus in this forum seems to be he was terrible to them.

He was probably a more complicated person than many would readily admit.

 

[Verbose]

It's not really right or left anymore – not even in the increasingly weird US takes on the political spectrum – it's a bunch of internet memes and brain rot.

It's what actual nihilism looks like, current US style, but everywhere social media and the English language goes these days, it is bound to follow.

We'll see if anything becomes clearer from what the shooter might say, but I won't bet on it. So far he looks increasingly like the less successful guy who managed too nick Trump's ear – dudes who are looking for a latter day version of herostratic fame by killing someone famous..

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yeah, like the person who shot John Lennon.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

All I can say is that in the past week or so I’ve heard a lot about the guy, and some of the snippets folks have brought up with a “See? SEE!?” Post don’t seem half as bad once you dig into them

You'll find (if you haven't already) that this is a pretty regular occurrence. Actively mocking the concept of seeking the full context of quotes is a new one on me though.

 

[Gori the Grey]

As I understand it, the whole exchange was a reflection by him that if he were to claim they only got into college because of affirmative action, folks would say he’s racist, yet they were out there basically crediting their accomplishments in large part to affirmative action, or at least expressing gratitude for it with the implication it was needed.

Right, but for a black woman to say, "In the pre civil rights era a person of my ability would have met obstacles to developing and using her abilities that the Civil Rights Act has removed for me" is not to say "I'm taking the spot of an actually qualified white person."

2:20

the fatigue he causes in you not challenging him in his proclaimed justification (Bible) is part of his power.

I can do this all day.

And will. This is how this guy's lousy ideas should be countered. Every single one of them brought into the light. (It has been noted that the celebrations of him have not quoted anything he said that people find praiseworthy.) If you want context, fine, but full context. Every distortion, every misrepresentation of someone else's statement carefully delineated. What he stood for are reprehensible ideas. He speaks in a calm voice and superficially sounds like he knows what he's talking about. But he's not a person whose ideas are worth celebrating.

Edit: Sorry, I can't let the Bible thing go. The misquotation gives the lie to his supposed belief that this represents "God's perfect law." Anyone who truly believed that about Scripture, that it represents God's perfect law, would bother citing it properly, would take pains to memorize it verbatim, not offer some off-the-cuff, half-remembered, misremembered version of that "perfect law."

Edit 2: Sorry, I just have to say one more thing. The "logic" of his response to Ms Rachel is also very telling. "Ms Rachel, you have cited a noble, high-minded sentiment from Leviticus, that we should love our neighbor. Well, guess what, I know the book well enough to know that there's also in it a hateful, execution-warranting verse. So, see, Scripture also underwrites anyone who wants to hate his neighbor instead."

 

[Lexicus]

As I understand it, the whole exchange was a reflection by him that if he were to claim they only got into college because of affirmative action, folks would say he’s racist, yet they were out there basically crediting their accomplishments in large part to affirmative action, or at least expressing gratitude for it with the implication it was needed.

It’s not exactly a flex to claim that’s why you got into school or landed a job.

It's not supposed to be a "flex." Ironically, Kirk's words shows why affirmative action is still needed: no matter how accomplished a black person is, the default assumption of many white people will be: you stole that spot from a white person. With the obvious implication that only white people are really qualified to be Supreme Court Justices or law professors or whatever else.

 

[danjuno]

Maybe, but, you know, the empathy thing and the stoning gay people thing are two sound bites being paraded about that aren't exactly as portrayed when you review the whole quote. If folks can't get those correct and keep doubling down on them, hard to fault someone for not trusting them with others and wanting to read the whole thing.

I saw the whole video. He said that the person he was responding to was wrong for not following the bible in it's entirety and dropped the leviticus quote.

It’s also interesting to me seeing how well-received he was by many folks in minority groups considering the general consensus in this forum seems to be he was terrible to them.

That's rather vague.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

An 11 year veteran at the Washington Post was fired a few days over Charlie Kirk.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967755385021808729

The Washington Post Fired Me — But My Voice Will Not Be Silenced.

I spoke out against hatred and violence in America — and it cost me my job.

karenattiah.substack.com

Karen Attiah

Karen Attiah - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'd maybe have a bit of sympathy for journalists being fired for a difference of opinion from management, but in Karen Attiah's case, she misquoted a quote from Kirk about black women having no brain power. The incident was from his show where he once stated certain named black women had no brain power. So she'd a double-idiot for not respecting the source material as would be her paid responsibility.

Which is not the same thing as someone being let go because they, say, hold a view which actually has next to no impact on his job performance.
In case anyone is worried about the true implications of "cancel culture"...

edit: this is what I found about what Kirk said, including a short video clip: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-chec...atJthbVUhSrUMGz1Gzl6KpQPtWFK11hsxvUX4g28q_Pn4

 

[danjuno]

I'd maybe have a bit of sympathy for journalists being fired for a difference of opinion from management, but in Karen Attiah's case, she misquoted a quote from Kirk about black women having no brain power. The incident was from his show where he once stated certain named black women had no brain power. So she'd a double-idiot for not respecting the source material as would be her paid responsibility.

Which is not the same thing as someone being let go because they, say, hold a view which actually has next to no impact on his job performance.
In case anyone is worried about the true implications of "cancel culture"...

edit: this is what I found, including a video clip: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-chec...atJthbVUhSrUMGz1Gzl6KpQPtWFK11hsxvUX4g28q_Pn4

How exactly did she misquote him?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But if you say this about people facing homelessness and mental illness:
“Involuntary lethal injection or something,” Kilmeade responded to Jones. “Just kill ’em.”

That's fine. Kilmeade remained employed by Fox News

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

How exactly did she misquote him?

https://bsky.app/profile/donmoyn.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3lyuthypndk2t

if I can ever get this to post right: bsky.app/profile/donmoyn.bsky.social/post/3lyuthypndk2t
Anyway I cannot be certain this was pivotal in Attiah's firing from management's perspective, but this is not at all what Kirk said. Unless these were just some sneer quotes of hers and she was intentionally being sarcastic. Which I don't see as being any better for a journalist who I'm assuming went to school for this sort of thing. You can compare this to the video in the link I posted previously.

 

[Gori the Grey]

but in Karen Attiah's case, she misquoted a quote from Kirk about black women having no brain power.

No, she was fired for two quotes (right there in the letter of termination) that the Post said were disparaging of white men.

But neither quote is disparaging of white men.

She was sloppy with her quotation of Kirk. He said "You" (in an imagined conversation with four named black women) have no brain power. The quote changes it to "Black women" have no brain power, and that suggests that Kirk said Black women in general lack brainpower. But if Kirk thinks black women who have attained some of the highest positions in our society lack brainpower, it's a pretty sure bet that he thinks Black women in general lack brainpower.

 

[Lexicus]

She was sloppy with her quotation of Kirk. He said "You" (in an imagined conversation with four named black women) have no brain power. The quote changes it to "Black women" have no brain power.

It is quite obvious to anyone with a working brain that he is talking about black women as such despite naming four names. Karen Attiah was accurately paraphrasing him, not "misquoting" him. I won't claim that all the right-wingers know this, because many of them are just depressingly dull and slow, but a lot of them know perfectly well that Attiah was not misrepresenting Kirk.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Oh now who's being disparaging.

Did Kirk say the words Attiah quoted? Yes or no. I don't care what you think Kirk was really saying.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ironically, Kirk's words shows why affirmative action is still needed: no matter how accomplished a black person is, the default assumption of many white people will be: you stole that spot from a white person.

I think your default assumption that it is the "default assumption" is the incorrect one. It's the very existence of affirmative action that sows these seeds of doubt.

For a wonderfully circular example of why this is, look no further than one of the people caught up in the furore of "Kirk Death Celebration Mania", the president elect (or possibly president now) of the Oxford Union, who turns out to have been admitted to Oxford with qualifications which do not meet the stated requirements, and is seemingly unable to differentiate between the words "less" and "more" in a public statement. Maybe there's an explanation for this other than "given a pass because of ethnicity", but I'm not aware of it. But when you keep bumping up against examples like this then surely this is what begins to shape that so-called "default assumption".

The policy of affirmative action can have no other consequence. The very concept of prioritising certain groups over concerns of competence can do nothing but plant the seeds of doubt about the competence of anyone from those groups. How could it be otherwise?

 

[JPetroski]

It's not supposed to be a "flex." Ironically, Kirk's words shows why affirmative action is still needed: no matter how accomplished a black person is, the default assumption of many white people will be: you stole that spot from a white person. With the obvious implication that only white people are really qualified to be Supreme Court Justices or law professors or whatever else.

This is hardly true at all. They probably stole it from an Asian.

This is a joke, btw, though I do find it amusing white folks are always the devil here when there's another minority also affected. It's just never convenient to frame it that way.

 

[Lexicus]

This is hardly true at all. They probably stole it from an Asian.

This is a joke, btw, though I do find it amusing white folks are always the devil here when there's another minority also affected. It's just never convenient to frame it that way.

Remind me again, was it Asians who imported black people here to work as slaves for c.250 years or was it white people? And then was it Asians who created a system of racial segregation enforced by brutal violence to keep all the wealth and opportunity in their own hands or was it white people?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But if Kirk thinks black women who have attained some of the highest positions in our society lack brainpower, it's a pretty sure bet that he thinks Black women in general lack brainpower.

Imagine someone had specifically criticised Trump, personally, for lacking in brain power and then making this argument in relation to the "white men" category. Complete logical fallacy (or at least poor betting advice).

 

[GeneralZift]

But if you say this about people facing homelessness and mental illness:
“Involuntary lethal injection or something,” Kilmeade responded to Jones. “Just kill ’em.”

That's fine. Kilmeade remained employed by Fox News

Oh this is crazy I did watch this on video the other day and I had to do a double take. Like what?

Although to be fair the context was "IF they don't go to Prison... OR accept our government Aid.... THEN lethal injection".