The Charlie Kirk Thread

[Icky Mettle]

All these people are just scum of the earth. I hate that their voices have become so amplified and that they have so many avenues and platforms to reach people with vulnerable minds.

 

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

[TBF, though he clearly articulates “July of 2001” I am sure he meant 2021 — it is a weirdly common type of slip-up after a certain age]

 

[ZenMode]

Violence against people? The right kills five times as many people as the left when it comes to political violence. It’s sad that that isn’t being acknowledged. When it gets painted as a problem equal on both sides, then the main perpetrators don’t get held responsible.
As an example, just look at how the guy at MSNBC (iirc) got immediately canned for saying something merely insensitive, while the guys on Fox News literally call for war and violence and nothing happens to them.

It's not just the violence. It's the rhetoric. Trump gets a ton of shit, rightfully so, for his rhetoric on J6. That same type of rhetoric is very common from Dems.

It doesn't have to be equal on both sides for both sides to be culpable.

Surely you agree that "We kill less than you" isn't exactly taking the high road.

 

[ChileG]

It's not just the violence. It's the rhetoric. Trump gets a ton of shit, rightfully so, for his rhetoric on J6. That same type of rhetoric is very common from Dems.

It doesn't have to be equal on both sides for both sides to be culpable.

Surely you agree that "We kill less than you" isn't exactly taking the high road.

Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.

 

[ZenMode]

Surely you agree that when the violence is so heavily tilted to one side that it should be acknowledged.
And look at the rhetoric coming from the leaders of the democrats compared to the republicans since CK died.
All the calls for violence and retribution are coming from the right. It’s crazy to not acknowledge the vast discrepancy.

Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.

 

[finesse]

Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts

If true, what parts have been proven wrong? If little or none, how does it qualify as rhetoric?

 

[akillesheel]

Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.

rhetorically speaking, you simply can't compare "they should be killed" to "he's a danger to the country," "he's a racist/sexist/fascist."

it's like this new trend where conservatives insist that people simply quoting Charlie Kirk are besmirching his memory or celebrating his death.

 

[dukeman92]

Such a disingenuous sleaze.

Zenmode?

 

[ZenMode]

rhetorically speaking, you simply can't compare "they should be killed" to "he's a danger to the country," "he's a racist/sexist/fascist."

it's like this new trend where conservatives insist that people simply quoting Charlie Kirk are besmirching his memory or celebrating his death.

Again, there doesn't have to be equality to have culpability and, yes, it does matter when the rhetoric (fascist, racist, putting gays in cages, etc) is repeated day after day, week after week, year after year.

If Trump would have said "The 2020 election was stolen" one time, most likely nothing happens. It's repeating the claim over and over and over that eventually has an impact on peoples' behavior. That works both way.

If OAN or Fox News wanted to cover nothing but crimes committed by black people and/or people here illegally, 24 hours a day/7 days a week, they could. They could do it and be 100% accurate in their reporting, right?

Would that have an impact on peoples' views of black people and illegal immigrants over time? Of course it would. The same is true as it relates to Trump. He's the biggest POS ever to hold the Presidency, but the wall to wall coverage and rhetoric absolutely contributes to the violence.

But, hey, what do I know. I'm just a disingenuous sleaze.

 

[ChileG]

Yes, but the violence is the result, not the cause. All across the Dem party, going back to 2016, the rhetoric about Trump has been off the charts.

See, this is why we need to look at data.

You cannot point to a metric that says the left’s rhetoric has been the same, worse, or better than the rhetoric coming from the right. Neither can I. Calla gave some examples but they looked pretty tame compared to what I hear from the right, but I can’t prove that.

So we look at the results. I do, anyway.

 

[finesse]

See, this is why we need to look at data.

You cannot point to a metric that says the left’s rhetoric has been the same, worse, or better than the rhetoric coming from the right. Neither can I. Calla gave some examples but they looked pretty tame compared to what I hear from the right, but I can’t prove that.

So we look at the results. I do, anyway.

Neglecting audience size and how it's received would hopelessly skew any opinion.

 

[akillesheel]

Again, there doesn't have to be equality to have culpability and, yes, it does matter when the rhetoric (fascist, racist, putting gays in cages, etc) is repeated day after day, week after week, year after year.

If Trump would have said "The 2020 election was stolen" one time, most likely nothing happens. It's repeating the claim over and over and over that eventually has an impact on peoples' behavior. That works both way.

If OAN or Fox News wanted to cover nothing but crimes committed by black people and/or people here illegally, 24 hours a day/7 days a week, they could. They could do it and be 100% accurate in their reporting, right?

Would that have an impact on peoples' views of black people and illegal immigrants over time? Of course it would. The same is true as it relates to Trump. He's the biggest POS ever to hold the Presidency, but the wall to wall coverage and rhetoric absolutely contributes to the violence.

But, hey, what do I know. I'm just a disingenuous sleaze.

It's telling that you had to pivot to Trump saying "the 2020 election was stolen" instead of the example I gave, which was a summation of right-wing politicians and other high-profile figures actually inciting violence.

There is a huge difference between rhetoric that is negatively polarizing and rhetoric that is explicitly violent. Politics have been full of the former since they were invented. Only one side does the latter.

 

[ZenMode]

Nancy Mace would have given us video of the full production starting with her trip to Sherwin Williams to buy the paint and roller brush, but still a good effort from Ted.

Uh, maybe some acetone might be a better idea... or a paint color that is similar to the wall being painted?

 

[ZenMode]

why the fuck would flags be lowered for a podcaster?

 

[wmheel1287]

Zenmode?

Eh, I wouldn't say that. If I was forced to guess, his wife is just like most of us around here and he says the things to us that would get him divorced at home. This is his place to vent what he can't say there but desperately wants to. Again, just my guess.

 

[rodoheel]

I'm sure JD plans on making a calm and rational plea to a divided nation to lower the temperature and work harder to see each other as all Americans, not as members of opposing political, ethnic, or religions tribes.

LOL just kidding he's going to spend the whole time calling the left godless evil commies who are brainwashing good young conservative kids into angry psycho killers. Well except for the time he spends extolling Charlie Kirk as the perfect Christian husband, father, and person (which is why, of course, the evil left hates him)

 

[lawtig02]

why the fuck would flags be lowered for a podcaster?

Because the president, whose authoritarianism is apparently not self-evident to many, said so.

 

[ZenMode]

It's telling that you had to pivot to Trump saying "the 2020 election was stolen" instead of the example I gave, which was a summation of right-wing politicians and other high-profile figures actually inciting violence.

There is a huge difference between rhetoric that is negatively polarizing and rhetoric that is explicitly violent. Politics have been full of the former since they were invented. Only one side does the latter.

You're going to claim there is a big difference, but when Trump repeatedly says "They're stealing your country. Your vote doesn't count", etc, even without a single word that can be labeled as violent, it's still going to impact people's behavior over time. The same is true with the non-violent rhetoric from the Left. Van Jones set the tone when he called Trump's win a "white lash" and that same type of mostly non-violent rhetoric continued, unabated, for nearly a decade.

 

[rodoheel]

I'm curious where you are going with this. Are you implying that Vance and Gutfeld have changed their views? Or are you implying that they are both grifting by pretending to have done so?

JD Vance was opposed to Donald Trump when he believed it benefitted his personal ambition to oppose him. He then began supporting Donald Trump when he believed it benefitted her personal ambition to do that.