[RD] Charlie Kirk assassinated

[Lexicus]

This is a rather disingenuous claim which I'm 100% certain you aren't going to evidence. I just said prioritising certain groups over concerns of competency was bad, you said that's what white supremacy is, and I said yes. Explain how you distort that into defending white supremacy in your mind.

Implying that white supremacy and affirmative action are the same kind of thing amounts to defense of white supremacy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Karen Attiah was accurately paraphrasing him, not "misquoting" him.

She puts it in quotation marks, so she was misquoting him. She could have handled it in a couple of ways. Either given the correct quote, "You," with enough context so the readers could know who he was addressing, or "[Black women] lack the brain power." Or start the quote after Black women.

It is quite obvious to anyone with a working brain that he is talking about black women as such

She paraphrased him with absolute accuracy. That is what the remainder of my post went to spell out.

You just don't put paraphrases in quotation marks.

All of that is moot, though. According to her termination letter, she was not terminated for that post, but for two that used the phrase "white men." The Post says disparagingly (and thus counter to their internal policy). But neither quote disparages white men. Both quotes indicate how our society demands that we treat white men. To point that out is not a disparagement.

 

[Lexicus]

She puts it in quotation marks, so she was misquoting him. She could have handled it in a couple of ways. Either given the correct quote, "You," with enough context so the readers could know who he was addressing, or "[Black women] lack the brain power."

She paraphrased him with absolute accuracy. That is what the remainder of my post went to spell out.

You just don't put paraphrases in quotation marks.

All of that is moot, though. According to her termination letter, she was not terminated for that post, but for two that used the phrase "white men." The Post says disparagingly (and thus counter to their internal policy). But neither quote disparages white men. Both quotes indicate how our society demands that we treat white men. To point that out is not a disparagement.

Going back to Kirk's original remarks, the real issue that proves it's a racist statement is that he says "took a white person's spot" instead of a "more qualified person's spot".

 

[Gori the Grey]

That it is a racist comment is not in question.

 

[Lexicus]

That it is a racist comment is not in question.

Well, not among you and I.

 

[Hygro]

Well, I was asked if I agree with his position and I don't understand it. I can't really think of a reason off the top of my head why the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, so I'd like to hear what he had to say. I do think there's been laws published before that aimed to correct a problem in immediate need of correction but were badly written and caused even bigger issues. Doesn't mean I don't think the original problem they intended to correct didn't need correcting.



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.

We already covered this earlier in the thread. The Leviticus thing was posted, I watched it, someone said “it wasn’t so bad in full” um, yes it was. Completely. So I responded. Gori’s gone pretty deep. And you’re out here repeating “it’s not so bad in full” yes it is. It’s very bad in full. It’s been addressed in this thread before this post of yours.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You all are getting lost in the weeds. Kirk was an evangelical Christian nationalist. To be that one has to accept specific fundamental ideas:

• Biblical inerrancy (and Genesis as true)
• White people are more important and better than non whites
• Non Christians are wrong and irrelevant
• Evangelical views on right and wrong are the true views

Parsing the details of what he said when is just feeding the misinformation presented by his devotees.

 

[Gori the Grey]

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).

I hope I understand properly what you're driving at here.

It is in fact really really difficult to imagine a set of circumstances that would allow a simple reversal of races in this circumstance.

We would have to imagine that some other race than whites (I will say black people) had been predominant in the US; that whites had been discriminated against in education, employment, etc; that a law had been passed to try to counteract that discrimination; that Donald Trump had benefited from that law and got the opportunity to get an education; that Donald Trump had gone on to some high station in society; that some black commentator (X) asserted that he and three other white men were just taking the place of an actually qualified black person.

And then an equivalent of me looking in on that commentary and saying: If Commentator X thinks Donald Trump is not qualified, he likely doesn't think any white man is qualified.

The mind boggles at so many of the stages in that hypothetical that it's difficult for me to think that your statement is as categorically true as a simple swapping of races might make it seem to you.

But there's a distinct possibility that I am not understanding what you are driving at.

 

[JPetroski]

We already covered this earlier in the thread. The Leviticus thing was posted, I watched it, someone said “it wasn’t so bad in full” um, yes it was. Completely. So I responded. Gori’s gone pretty deep. And you’re out here repeating “it’s not so bad in full” yes it is. It’s very bad in full. It’s been addressed in this thread before this post of yours.

There's 47 pages.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I know, but I've like five times begged people to read post 667, specifically. That's not hard to find.

(I actually believe you might have read it.)

By the way, I want to totes retract something that I said early on: that this would fall out of the news in a week.

American society is going to be debating what Charlie Kirk did and didn't say, plus trans, furry groypers, for the foreseeable future. This thing touches so many hot-button issues that it would take the release of the Epstein list to drive it out of the news.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

I know, but I've like five times begged people to read post 667, specifically. That's not hard to find.

(I actually believe you might have read it.)

By the way, I want to totes retract something that I said early on: that this would fall out of the news in a week.

American society is going to be debating what Charlie Kirk did and didn't say, plus trans, furry groypers, for the foreseeable future. This thing touches so many hot-button issues that it would take the release of the Epstein list to drive it out of the news.

[RD] Post in thread 'Charlie Kirk assassinated'

Sep 13, 2025

Why is Stephen King profusely backtracking and apologizing for saying what you just did?

Because Kirk didn't explicitly "call for" the stoning of gay people to death.

King has backed off too far, though, in my view, because Kirk's handling of the conversation does effectively imply that position. It's just that the person interviewing him didn't push him on the point.

Kirk called Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman" (conflated with another passage that calls for the stoning of someone who does so) "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."...

• Gori the Grey

 

[JPetroski]

I know, but I've like five times begged people to read post 667, specifically. That's not hard to find.

(I actually believe you might have read it.)

By the way, I want to totes retract something that I said early on: that this would fall out of the news in a week.

American society is going to be debating what Charlie Kirk did and didn't say, plus trans, furry groypers, for the foreseeable future. This thing touches so many hot-button issues that it would take the release of the Epstein list to drive it out of the news.

I went back and reread it but I think you're taking a black and white approach here. "Just sayin'" in the context seems more like, "Are you sure YOU want to quote the Bible?" than "We should stone you," as you're assuming "God's perfect law" applied to the entire passage. Maybe. But... Pretty wild implications for the entirety of Judaism and Christianity and anyone who believes in the Bible, I'd say.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The fact that he says "just sayin'" is not central to my argument. It's just an amusing thing to observe, because he's using the "just sayin'" technique to keep from being held accountable for one's position.

"Leviticus 18:22 calls for the stoning of gays" (we're assuming for these purposes that it does say that) + "Leviticus 18:22 is 'God's perfect law'" = "I believe gays should be stoned."

Of course he says it in two distinct stages. Because if he puts the two and two together and just flat out says, "I believe gays should be stoned," he'll be dismissed outright.

But the 2 and 2 are right there, and can't be put together in any other way.

It equals 4, by the way.

 

[JollyRoger]

Kash Patel is so crooked even his eyes are watching each other.

 

[danjuno]

Here is Gregg Gutfeld, one of Fox New's more influential people after someone brought up the home invasion and shootings of the democratic legislators in Minnesota.
It happened, uhh, 3 months ago.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1967707267375173954

2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The listed events are a horror movie.

Charlie Kirk was just someone dude in memes for termnally online people, most normal people had probably no more knowledge of him than a state legislator. This just an excuse for the right's double standard on political violence.

The fact that he says "just sayin'" is not central to my argument. It's just an amusing thing to observe, because he's using the "just sayin'" technique to keep from being held accountable for one's position.

"Leviticus 18:22 calls for the stoning of gays" (we're assuming for these purposes that it does say that) + "Leviticus 18:22 is 'God's perfect law'" = "I believe gays should be stoned."

Of course he says it in two distinct stages. Because if he puts the two and two together and just flat out says, "I believe gays should be stoned," he'll be dismissed outright.

But the 2 and 2 are right there, and can't be put together in any other way.

It equals 4, by the way.

Yes, he specifically brings this passage up while criticizing another person for not supporting the bible in it's entirety. I've mentioned this multiple times only for right wingers in thread to accuse me of taking him out of context when that is the context.

 

[JPetroski]

The fact that he says "just sayin'" is not central to my argument. It's just an amusing thing to observe, because he's using the "just sayin'" technique to keep from being held accountable for one's position.

"Leviticus 18:22 calls for the stoning of gays" (we're assuming for these purposes that it does say that) + "Leviticus 18:22 is 'God's perfect law'" = "I believe gays should be stoned."

Of course he says it in two distinct stages. Because if he puts the two and two together and just flat out says, "I believe gays should be stoned," he'll be dismissed outright.

But the 2 and 2 are right there, and can't be put together in any other way.

It equals 4, by the way.

And yet somehow we need to reconcile this with no shortage of videos showing him to be quite kind and supportive to gay persons, including one where he gets pretty fiery with a religious fundamentalist, defending gay Republicans against him.

I think the best you have is "he talked himself into a corner" but your wanting me to take the leap to "he wants gay people to be stoned" isn't going to happen with the other evidence I have. I don't find him to be as awful as a lot of folks here claim. It's actually not that hard to find clips of him seeming like a pretty nice guy. I don't know if I could say the same about every right wing commentator.

 

[Lexicus]

It's actually not that hard to find clips of him seeming like a pretty nice guy.

And they want us to believe this man is a mass murderer

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And they want us to believe this man is a mass murderer
View attachment 742683View attachment 742684

he also loved to paint

 

[JPetroski]

And they want us to believe this man is a mass murderer

I'm not familiar of any clips of Hitler standing up to Goebbels or someone else and defending a Jew's right to exist, or welcoming the Jewish guy to the team.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1966961383129706496

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Implying that white supremacy and affirmative action are the same kind of thing amounts to defense of white supremacy.

If I say that two things are bad, but very similar, then I'm actually saying one of the things (is it an arbitrary choice which one?) is actually good? This is about one step removed from full Kafka trap. But there's no substance in your accusation so never mind.