Social Charlie Kirk Shot and Killed

[Stoic1]

Whatever you say, dude. Charlie Kirk was a bigot and a Christian nationalist.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. The man was repugnant and did tremendous harm to American society.

There are lots of racist people in TPUSA who did lots of racist stuff. Probably just a coincidence.

You're wrong.

 

[Ares Black]

You're wrong.

Spoiler Alert: He was lying

 

[Stoic1]

Spoiler Alert: He was lying

I've got something for you

...right here...




No.


No.


No.



Wait.

See you in hell.

 

[Ares Black]

I've got something for you

...right here...




No.


No.


No.



Wait.

See you in hell.

I don't believe in hell


And you shouldn't believe everything everyone tells you, especially professional grifters like Charlie Kirk.

 

[Stoic1]

I don't believe in hell


And you shouldn't believe everything everyone tells you, especially professional grifters like Charlie Kirk.

Your beliefs won't matter. Judgement comes for us all.

 

[Ares Black]

Your beliefs won't matter.

I agree

Judgement comes for us all.

I disagree

 

[EndlessCritic]

You're wrong.

lol at objecting to christian nationalism not on the basis that it's anti-american, but rather that it's contrary to the values of the early church.

say what you will about charlie kirk, but his passion for the biblical texts is undeniable. Whether that passion ultimately translated into something good or evil is a separate question.

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

lol at objecting to christian nationalism not on the basis that it's anti-american, but rather that it's contrary to the values of the early church.

say what you will about charlie kirk, but his passion for the biblical texts is undeniable. Whether that passion ultimately translated into something good or evil is a separate question.

Charlie Kirk engaged with those who disagreed with him. I didn't agree with a lot of what he said or believed but always applauded his efforts to have a conversation with the political opposition.

This was truly "liberal" of him. and seeing people celebrate his death, or justifying it is appalling.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Charlie Kirk engaged with those who disagreed with him. I didn't agree with a lot of what he said or believed but always applauded his efforts to have a conversation with the political opposition.

This was truly "liberal" of him. and seeing people celebrate his death, or justifying it is appalling.

Maybe people feel that his one liberal quality is greatly outweighed by the rest of his authoritarian, bigoted, retrograde views.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Maybe people feel that his one liberal quality is greatly outweighed by the rest of his authoritarian, bigoted, retrograde views.

He was an agitator and a propagandist, exactly the kind of political operative these guys insist is so common on the left but ultimately are more influential on the right.

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

Maybe people feel that his one liberal quality is greatly outweighed by the rest of his authoritarian, bigoted, retrograde views.

Conversation with the opposition is much healthier than ostracizing and shutting out those we disagree with.

This is how we get to where we are now. Demonizing, labeling, the "other side" as a norm.

There are many pundits, political figureheads I don't agree with, I would never advocate, applaud their murder for the crime of having an opinion differing from mine.

This should not be a radical idea.

 

[Ares Black]

Conversation with the opposition is much healthier than ostracizing and shutting out those we disagree with.

It wasn't really conversation though.

This is how we get to where we are now. Demonizing, labeling, the "other side" as a norm.

Demonizing the "other side" is absolutely what Charlie Kirk was doing. He just did it to their faces. He was not debating in good faith.

There are many pundits, political figureheads I don't agree with, I would never advocate, applaud their murder for the crime of having an opinion differing from mine.

This should not be a radical idea.

It isn't.

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

It wasn't really conversation though.

Demonizing the "other side" is absolutely what Charlie Kirk was doing. He just did it to their faces. He was not debating in good faith.

It isn't.

they were debates, and I've seen my fair share. He gave the opposition opportunity to present their arguments and he did the same. he didn't cut them off, or mute their mics.

 

[Ares Black]

they were debates, and I've seen my fair share. He gave the opposition opportunity to present their arguments and he did the same. he didn't cut them off, or mute their mics.

He was engaging with college kids and asking loaded questions. It was not in good faith. It was clip farming.

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

He was engaging with college kids and asking loaded questions. It was not in good faith. It was clip farming.

all of his debates are available in their entirety. He never clipped farm like that Rubin dude, or looking for sound bites, or "gotcha questions."

He simply asked what is your position, why do you believe it? ok, this is where I disagree, or here's a counter argument.


again, conversations like this are important.

 

[Ares Black]

all of his debates are available in their entirety. He never clipped farm like that Rubin dude, or looking for sound bites, or "gotcha questions."

He simply asked what is your position, why do you believe it? ok, this is where I disagree, or here's a counter argument.


again, conversations like this are important.

How Charlie Kirk mastered the illusion of stump debates – Baptist News Global

What Kirk staged on campuses looked like a debate but actually was a rigged performance, Edmond Davis says.

baptistnews.com

 

[JoeBobbaLou2]

View attachment 1134641

How Charlie Kirk mastered the illusion of stump debates – Baptist News Global

What Kirk staged on campuses looked like a debate but actually was a rigged performance, Edmond Davis says.

baptistnews.com

I'm not interested in cut n pastes. I'm more interested in what you think.

College kids are the "future" of this country. It's important to engage them and their ideologies. Yes, these debates were often one sided, but I thought they were healthy convos and often illuminating.

 

[Ares Black]

I'm not interested in cut n pastes. I'm more interested in what you think.

That article perfectly explains what I think.

College kids are the "future" of this country. It's important to engage them and their ideologies.

Except that is not what Charlie Kirk was doing. Not really.

Yes, these debates were often one sided, but I thought they were healthy convos

They were not

and often illuminating.

I fully agree that healthy debate is crucial and I would support someone doing what you claim Kirk was doing.

But that's not what he was doing. He was a propagandist, and pseudodebates were his way of doing it.

He was not arguing in good faith.

 

[Hog-train]

Racist people have always labelled non-whites who don't follow the "correct" script as tokens.

As a minority myself, a soon as you express an opinion that goes against a libtard's views, they won't hesitate to immediately get racist with you.

 

[Ares Black]

As a minority myself, a soon as you express an opinion that goes against a libtard's views, they won't hesitate to immediately get racist with you.

Whatever you say, Rape Joke