Charlie Kirk shot dead at Utah university

Exactly people have forgot that two things can be true at the same time and also that you can fundamentally disagree with someone on a particular issue and that doesnt make them a bad person.
It doesn’t, but it can. Knowing the difference is pretty important because it requires that you formulate — and don’t violate — a moral code. Once you accept statements and actions that violate your moral code, and sacrifice it for other gains, you’re cooked.
 
I'm always astonished by the concrete perception people have of others these days. You're either a racist, bigoted Nazi or a woke, liberal leftie.

He may have held views that people disagreed with but he also had a lot of people who loved him, including a family who've lost someone for speaking their mind. It's a cruel way to go.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about him, nor have I watched any of his content, but I've seen people put him in the racist / nazi category. Then I saw this tweet on my feed:



Maybe I'm naive... But I don't see how this boy, and other black people associated with Charlie's organizations, would follow him and give him credit if he was exactly what his opposition say he is.

I guess my point is that people are being pigeon holed and accused of all sorts by people who don't like their argument. The world has gone mad and I've never been more uncertain of where I fit or what cause to believe in.

Nobody, whatever their political viewpoint, deserves death when they haven't committed an act that warrants it.

Yep he was definitely not a racist as he helped a black kid out. He was the worst of the worst. Anyone who even states he was a decent guy needs to have a long look in the mirror.
 
Exactly!

Any decent shot with a “red dot” sight (who isn’t shaking because he’s about to commit murder) could do it!

For the uninitiated, a red dot sight doesn’t mean the laser pointer you see in the movies!
Most professional marksmen use scopes with crosshairs on long guns. The red dot tends to be on shorter, shoulder held assault weapons.
 
That was confirmed on the news. A person attending the event saying there was no security and no searches undertaken for those attending
I've just been reading up on that and some people are saying that is normal for college events like that (note that I'm not sure how true that is myself). I think CNN or someone similar have reported it though

Seems to be accepted that there were 2 other people in the crowd who seemed to act as a distraction for the shooter to get away. Seems that one claimed to be the shooter, but wasn't
 
People still saying he's not a racist because he has a black friend
Yep he was definitely not a racist as he helped a black kid out. He was the worst of the worst. Anyone who even states he was a decent guy needs to have a long look in the mirror.
What examples mate ? Ive never heard of him until last night, yet conflicting reports ?
 
It doesn’t, but it can. Knowing the difference is pretty important because it requires that you formulate — and don’t violate — a moral code. Once you accept statements and actions that violate your moral code, and sacrifice it for other gains, you’re cooked.
But therein lies the distinction, of course it CAN but it DOESNT and people need to make that distinction rather than just assuming that because you dont agree with someone it makes them a bad person and of no value.
 
That was confirmed on the news. A person attending the event saying there was no security and no searches undertaken for those attending
its baffling to think that there would be, he is a private citizen, if security had to be supplied for every lunatic that decided they wanted to speak in public there would be more policeman than spectators, if he wanted security then he would have had to pay for it.
 
The real psychopaths are those that have already decided they know the beliefs of who killed Kirk.

I would be pretty surprised if the killer wasn’t politically opposed to Charlie Kirk, but no one on this side of the pond should engage with people pretending multiple people on the left of American politics have not been attacked and killed in the last 5 years, the left has responded by calls for increased protection and/or gun control for everyone - warning that more violence was coming - and the right (including charlie kirk) have laughed in their faces.

John Hoffman, Melissa Hortman, both of their spouses, Clementa Pickney, Gabby Giffords, ... The right didn't give a shit about them and now wants everyone to pretend they weren't murdered by right wing extremists.

A right wing lunatic broke into Pelosi's house and tried to kill her husband, and Kirk and co. laughed about it for months, and now they want sympathy because the violence they've encouraged has turned on them.
 
Last edited:
Yep he was definitely not a racist as he helped a black kid out. He was the worst of the worst. Anyone who even states he was a decent guy needs to have a long look in the mirror.
Thanks for proving my point. No real counter argument, just a strong opinion to try and shut it down.

Ignore something positive or conflicting with you think or know so it can't be true.
 
What examples mate ? Ive never heard of him until last night, yet conflicting reports ?

DOn't take this the wrong way but why are you making other people tell you about Charlie Kirk when 5 minutes of googling would bring up hundreds of despicable things he's said?

If you wanted to know about the man it's not hard to find out. He made his living stiring up political division on camera, the examples are endless and very easy to find.
 
Which is why we need the leaders of the world to decrease tensions and unite society. Instead we have people stoking the fire, inciting hatred and causing more division.

People have gone mad and there’s no compromise anymore. Every debate/political opinion is all or nothing. Every tragedy used to point score, it’s quite frankly boring.
Fully agree. The hatred which exists is crazy and never have I seen two sides so far apart in their beliefs.
 
Thanks for proving my point. No real counter argument, just a strong opinion to try and shut it down.

Ignore something positive or conflicting with you think or know so it can't be true.

You've never heard of the guy but found one tweet and suddenly think he can't be a racist piece of shit lmao.
 
But therein lies the distinction, of course it CAN but it DOESNT and people need to make that distinction rather than just assuming that because you dont agree with someone it makes them a bad person and of no value.
It doesn’t as a rule, no. But I do think most people tolerate differences of opinion among others and I don’t think most people assume others with different views are definitionally bad or worthless.
 
DOn't take this the wrong way but why are you making other people tell you about Charlie Kirk when 5 minutes of googling would bring up hundreds of despicable things he's said?

If you wanted to know about the man it's not hard to find out. He made his living stiring up political division on camera, the examples are endless and very easy to find.
Because im a lazy **** ;)
 
Politics has become incredibly divisive over the past few years.
Seems there is no moderation and only extreme views and actions are allowed from all sides.
I think the rise of social media and its manipulation by certain groups is a large reason for that.
 
You've never heard of the guy but found one tweet and suddenly think he can't be a racist piece of shit lmao.
I didn't say he wasn't, I said he'd been put into that category.

Then provided evidence to suggest there's a grey area here. Like with every argument in this political landscape and era of social media it's not always as plain as people make it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top