Social Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed

[Islam Imamate]

"As a whole"? I can only go by what's available. Do you have more statements from her that add additonal context?

So how is that not the same thing you accused Seyfried of doing?

 

[Bob Gray]

So how is that not the same thing you accused Seyfried of doing?

How IS it? Do you have further comments from her to add additional context or not? Because the rebuttal to the quote mining of Kirk was always that theres additional context or even that the quotes themselves were dishonest.

Are the quotes from Seyfried dishonest or can you provide any additional context? Or not?

 

[Islam Imamate]

How IS it? Do you have further comments from her to add additional context or not? Because the rebuttal to the quote mining of Kirk was always that theres additional context or even that the quotes themselves were dishonest.

Are the quotes from Seyfried dishonest or can you provide any additional context? Or not?

The quotes from Seyfried are definitely not dishonest even just based on what I posted, Kirk was an asshole and more context of his career only reinforces that point.

 

[Bob Gray]

The quotes from Seyfried are definitely not dishonest even just based on what I posted, Kirk was an asshole and more context of his career only reinforces that point.

So, then no? You do not have further quotes to add more context, and the quotes themselves are genuine and honest?

 

[Islam Imamate]

So, then no. You do not have further quotes to add more context, and the quotes themselves are genuine and honest?

Oh I thought you were saying she was being dishonest in those statements. There is more context if you're actually curious, the quotes from The Guardian article are from this interview:

Of course, try as she might, Seyfried does occasionally end up in the fray. That was the case this past September, when she commented on an Instagram post about Charlie Kirk's death calling him "hateful." For a brief moment after leaving the comment, she wondered if she should delete it but decided against it. Then the backlash began. Seyfried was flooded with texts from concerned friends and lost sleep worrying that she and her family were in an unsafe position because of one Instagram comment. She woke up the next day feeling resolved about her position and took to her own Instagram to clarify her comment rather than backing down.

"I'm not fucking apologizing for that. I mean, for fuck's sake, I commented on one thing. I said something that was based on actual reality and actual footage and actual quotes. What I said was pretty damn factual, and I'm free to have an opinion, of course," she says firmly. "Thank God for Instagram. I was able to give some clarity, and it was about getting my voice back because I felt like it had been stolen and recontextualized—which is what people do, of course."

Her original statements were covered here:

Amanda Seyfried is speaking out after she found herself in the middle of social media backlash for calling Charlie Kirk “hateful” in an Instagram comment she posted after his shooting death. The Oscar nominee clarified her remark in a new post, which included the caption: “I don’t want to add fuel to a fire. I just want to be able to give clarity to something so irresponsibly (but understandably) taken out of context. Spirited discourse – isn’t that what we should be having?”

“We’re forgetting the nuance of humanity,” Seyfried wrote in her statement. “I can get angry about misogyny and racist rhetoric and ALSO very much agree that Charlie Kirk’s murder was absolutely disturbing and deplorable in every way imaginable. No one should have to experience this level of violence. This country is grieving too many senseless and violent deaths and shootings. Can we agree on that at least?”

Seyfried originally commented on Kirk’s death by writing: “He was hateful.” The statement ignited accusations from some conservatives online that Seyfried was implying Kirk’s death was justified. Quite the contrary, as her new statement explained.

So yeah there was more context and so I guess you did just so what you accused Seyfried of doing.

 

[Bob Gray]

Oh I thought you were saying she was being dishonest in those statements. There is more context if you're actually curious, the quotes from The Guardian article are from this interview:

Her original statements were covered here:



So yeah there was more context and so I guess you did just so what you accused Seyfried of doing.

Are you mental? Thats literally what I replied to. What context do you think I didn't take into account?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Are you mental? Thats literally what I replied to. What context do you think I didn't take into account?

Wasn't sure if you saw all the relevant quotes which is why I linked to the interview itself as well as the earlier statements.

What exactly did she say that you think was wrong or didn't take enough context into account?

 

[Bob Gray]

Wasn't sure if you saw all the relevant quotes which is why I linked to the interview itself as well as the earlier statements.

What exactly did she say that you think was wrong or didn't take enough context into account?

Dude, what context do YOU think I didnt take into account? Be specific, please.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Dude, what context do YOU think I didnt take into account? Be specific, please.

I wasn't sure if you read through the entire article from The Guardian so I thought you might not have read all her relevant statements, particularly the ones from September where she clarifies she condemned the murder. I also thought it might be helpful to link the original interview as well as quoting the relevant section.

What context do you think she didn't take into account when calling Kirk hateful?

 

[Bob Gray]

I wasn't sure if you read through the entire article from The Guardian so I thought you might not have read all her relevant statements, particularly the ones from September where she clarifies she condemned the murder. I also thought it might be helpful to link the original interview as well as quoting the relevant section.

What context do you think she didn't take into account when calling Kirk hateful?

Dude, answer my question. You said "So yeah there was more context and so I guess you did just so what you accused Seyfried of doing."

What context do you think I didn't take into account and why? Please be specific. Did you think i thought she didnt condemn the murderer or something? What are you even talking about?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Dude, answer my question. You said "So yeah there was more context and so I guess you did just so what you accused Seyfried of doing."

What context do you think I didn't take into account and why? Please be specific. Did you think i thought she didnt condemn the murderer or something? What are you even talking about?

I just told you, her statement in September condemning the murder.

 

[Bob Gray]

I just told you, her statement in September condemning the murder.

Why? What does that change about my statement?

 

[Confucamus]

I knew he faked his death!

 

[Islam Imamate]

Why?

Because I only quoted her recent statements and most WR posters don't even read the articles they cite much less the ones others cite. Good on you if you did.

What does that change about my statement?

I think her condemning the murder after her first statement calling him hateful shows that she reflected on the initial statement and whether she should retract it before deciding not to because she stood by it. Idk that it changes your statement but I also think the "context" argument for Kirk doesn't really work and that Seyfried said nothing wrong because the added context you guys harp on doesn't really change the impression that Kirk was hateful by most people who got that initial impression of him.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Reminds me of Jake Shields.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Consider the implications.

 

[Confucamus]

Reminds me of Jake Shields.

 

[Bob Gray]

Because I only quoted her recent statements and most WR posters don't even read the articles they cite much less the ones others cite. Good on you if you did.

So you dont even know how it applies to what I said? This is exactly what I mean when I criticize how you hold conversations. You sperge into these wild contrarian interpretations that have nothing to do with anything. First you say I left out context, then when I push you on it you dont know if I read it or not (which I did because it was in the damn article), and then back track to "Good on you if you did", but only after stating that I left out this important context and "did the same thing you accused her of". On top of which, even if i didnt read this added "context", it doesnt change anything I said because I never mentioned anything about what she thought of the murderer. Just....what? You're just throwing out randomness everywhere.

I think her condemning the murder after her first statement calling him hateful shows that she reflected on the initial statement and whether she should retract it before deciding not to because she stood by it. Idk that it changes your statement but I also think the "context" argument for Kirk doesn't really work and that Seyfried said nothing wrong because the added context you guys harp on doesn't really change the impression that Kirk was hateful by most people who got that initial impression of him.

Again, you're still sperging into a bunch of other crap. Whatever she says about the murderer is completely irrelevant to my point, but you argued for a couple pages that it was context that I avoided and you could never explain how. And now you're bringing up Charlie Kirk being an asshole, because that matters in regards to what I said about Amanda Seyfried? If you ever come up witha response to what I actually said, feel free to let me know.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So you dont even know how it applies to what I said? This is exactly what I mean when I criticize how you hold conversations. You sperge into these wild contrarian interpretations that have nothing to do with anything. First you say I left out context, then when I push you on it you dont know if I read it or not (which I did because it was in the damn article), and then back track to "Good on you if you did", but only after stating that I left out this important context and "did the same thing you accused her of". On top of which, even if i didnt read this added "context", it doesnt change anything I said because I never mentioned anything about what she thought of the murderer. Just....what? You're just throwing out randomness everywhere.

If you want to clarify anything in regards to your position or refocus the conversation on a specific point then feel free to

Again, you're still sperging into a bunch of other crap. Whatever she says about the murderer is completely irrelevant to my point, but you argued for a couple pages that it was context that I avoided and you could never explain how. And now you're bringing up Charlie Kirk being an asshole, because that matters in regards to what I said about Amanda Seyfried? If you ever come up witha response to what I actually said, feel free to let me know.

Kirk being an "asshole" is relevant because you seemed to object to Seyfried's characterization of him as hateful and that there's all this nuance and context that betrays her statement. I don't think there is and Seyfried's impression is basically correct.

 

[Bob Gray]

If you want to clarify anything in regards to your position or refocus the conversation on a specific point then feel free to

It's your conversation. You started it with me, and I've already explained why your position is incoherent.

Kirk being an "asshole" is relevant because you seemed to object to Seyfried's characterization of him as hateful and that there's all this nuance and context that betrays her statement. I don't think there is and Seyfried's impression is basically correct.

Fine, You're free to think whatever you want, but this has nothing to do with your original position that you backtracked from once I pointed out you made no sense at all and were basing it on an assumption that wasn't even accurate.

Im done, though. I know you need to have the last word, so go ahead.