Charlie Kirk shot and killed at Utah rally.

Callatoroy said:
Maybe you and I see the definition of "racist" differently. I think the term is most frequently misused. I generally apply the literal definition of the word to its meaning and don't label people as racist for making a comment that happens to include race in it. Not in all cases, but that term is more defined by a person's actions than rhetoric. Most of what the left views as racist I view as bigotry.
Click to expand...
Judge for yourself.

 
Ramrouser said:
I’ll take the L if and when it’s an L. Has anyone here taken the L for asserting the Minn school shooter was MAGA when (again) the shooter turned out to be trans?

If the shooter actually assassinated Charlie because he believed he was not right enough then that would be one of the more improbable events in recent history. It’s so improbable that I’m not buying it. It was reported by a family member that at a recent dinner Robinson stated that Kirk was coming to town and that he hated Kirk “for spreading so much hate”. Does that sound like a neo nazi right winger?
Click to expand...
I'll save you the suspense: The shooter was not of any specific political affiliation, even though his family was MAGA. He may have become left-leaning due to listening to all the cultist idiots like his family (and yours) who worship at the shrine of Trump.

He was obviously mentally ill. And he also most likely believed Charlie Kirk was a messenger of hate. On this point, he was 100% correct. Which is why I've been stating over the last few days that Charlie's own hate speech led to his eventual demise. Please note that that isn't the same thing as saying he deserved to die, because he didn't.

Maybe he decided Charlie Kirk being removed from existence would remove his words, and it's a shame that he took this route. All he did was turn Charlie Kirk into a martyr for the MAGA inbreds when eventually he could have been ostracized from society for his beliefs and drifted off into obscurity.

Charlie Kirk was not a good person. Tyler Robinson's actions have a large number of right-wingers now believing he was. He never deserved this type of adulation.
 
heel79 said:
I was not referring to anything you said or anything recent on here. Instead someone mentioned he said he did not believe in empathy. He did say that. But he meant he thought it was impossible to see something through another's eyes. Instead he preferred the word sympathy. And yes, a person's own words can be edited to remove context. All I said here is there is an abundance of Kirk on video to look at to make your own conclusions. That was my point.
Click to expand...
Your interpretation is strained at best. Here was the full quote:

"So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

He wasn't saying that he preferred sympathy. He brought up sympathy as an afterthought. Saying that empathy is "made up, new age" is a really weird take. It's less made-up or new age than, say, television but he ain't questioning that.

But to your point: saying "it does a lot of damage," is not "it's impossible."
 
CHAMTRAIN said:
Claiming that high achieving women of color do not have the brain processing power to achieve those positions on their own is about as racist as it gets, from any perspective. The fact that he might open the door for one of those women in person doesn't make it not racist.
Click to expand...
My interpretation of that and the pilot comment was that he was saying seemingly incompetent (moronic - his word) women that have risen to positions that require higher levels of competence to perform those jobs well solely based on race.
 
superrific said:
Your interpretation is strained at best. Here was the full quote:

"So the new communications strategy for Democrats, now that their polling advantage is collapsing in every single state… collapsing in Ohio. It's collapsing even in Arizona. It is now a race where Blake Masters is in striking distance. Kari Lake is doing very, very well. The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, "I feel your pain." Instead, it is to say, "You're actually not in pain." So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

He wasn't saying that he preferred sympathy. He brought up sympathy as an afterthought. Saying that empathy is "made up, new age" is a really weird take. It's less made-up or new age than, say, television but he ain't questioning that.

But to your point: saying "it does a lot of damage," is not "it's impossible."
Click to expand...
He literally said he prefers sympathy. But no need to derail thread. I heard Kirk say many things I disagreed including his take on empathy. I also agreed with him some. Kind of like you.
 
I realize this was several pages ago but man listening to Kashyap Patel talk about or do anything gives me severe secondhand embarrassment. Saying you’ll see a devout Christian in Valhalla- the pagan afterlife? Jesus H.
 
heel79 said:
He literally said he prefers sympathy. But no need to derail thread. I heard Kirk say many things I disagreed including his take on empathy. I also agreed with him some. Kind of like you.
Click to expand...
I prefer sympathy to poison ivy. That doesn't mean I think poison ivy is fine.

He "preferred" sympathy because sympathy is ultimately about condescension. It's about feeling pity and sorrow for others. Empathy is an equalizing concept. That's why it is is commonly associated with Jesus Christ.
 
wmheel1287 said:
This is one of the most disconnected things I've ever seen you post. The rest of us who grew up in the South could name 30 people from our families who were racist to the core but could be kind or generous on occasion with people of another race.
Click to expand...
Yep, the “good ‘uns”.
 
sringwal said:
Someone who is a bigot towards people of other genders is sexist. Someone who is a bigot towards people with different sexual preferences is homophobic. Someone who is a bigot towards people in other nations is xenophobic. And, yes, someone who is a bigot towards people of other races is, indeed, racist.

You may not like that term being used in that way, but that is what those terms mean.
Click to expand...
We just see it differently I guess. To me (again in general) there has to be action behind the words.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
I'll save you the suspense: The shooter was not of any specific political affiliation, even though his family was MAGA. He may have become left-leaning due to listening to all the cultist idiots like his family (and yours) who worship at the shrine of Trump.

He was obviously mentally ill. And he also most likely believed Charlie Kirk was a messenger of hate. On this point, he was 100% correct. Which is why I've been stating over the last few days that Charlie's own hate speech led to his eventual demise. Please note that that isn't the same thing as saying he deserved to die, because he didn't.

Maybe he decided Charlie Kirk being removed from existence would remove his words, and it's a shame that he took this route. All he did was turn Charlie Kirk into a martyr for the MAGA inbreds when eventually he could have been ostracized from society for his beliefs and drifted off into obscurity.

Charlie Kirk was not a good person. Tyler Robinson's actions have a large number of right-wingers now believing he was. He never deserved this type of adulation.
Click to expand...
So you basically agree with me and aren’t buying the crazy theory being floated here that Robinson assassinated Charlie because he was a squishy MAGA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top