Charlie Kirk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not good - this will have serious repercussions in the USA and beyond. Hard to know what might follow.
(I note RTE made sure to get the "right-wing activist" bit in right at the start of the report. Even the similarly partisan, left-leaning BBC stuck to describing him as a mere "conservative.")

 
Watched him a good few times on YouTube, an intelligent, reasonable chap and oft times amusing. RIP.
I didn't like him. I thought he was a good example of someone who could win a debate with kids in colleges not by making good points but by being really good at arguing. That said he was fully entitled to his views and didn't deserve to be murdered.
 
I didn't like him. I thought he was a good example of someone who could win a debate with kids in colleges not by making good points but by being really good at arguing. That said he was fully entitled to his views and didn't deserve to be murdered.
Yes He was able to reach out to kids of voting age and get them to engage, I would say he was really good at getting his point of view across ,
More of a Martin Lloyd-Jones than a Politician
 
I didn't like him. I thought he was a good example of someone who could win a debate with kids in colleges not by making good points but by being really good at arguing. That said he was fully entitled to his views and didn't deserve to be murdered.
Yes He was able to reach out to kids of voting age and get them to engage, I would say he was really good at getting his point of view across ,
More of a Martin Lloyd-Jones than a Politician
 
He was able to reach out to kids of voting age and get them to engage, I would say he was really good at getting his point of view across
He was part of that social "media" trend where selective and unrepresentative snippets of long conversations are shown. The host "takes down" the extremist and makes them look foolish. Depending on your browsing history the algorithm will push "Libtards" being "owned" by conservatives or MAGA/Conservative/Religious etc people looking foolish and being "Owned" by the liberal commentator.

It's reductive and destructive and damaging to civilised political debate and reasoned discourse. Charlie Kirk was by no means the worst on either side but was emblematic of the problem.

No political camp is lacking idiots or zealots but neither are the lacking reasonable people who earnestly want what's best for their community or country. Trying to bring the latter group of people to the fore and giving them the oxygen of public exposure would be a far more constructive endeavour.
 
Heard that as well, the implication being he was somehow an extremist. Any conservative leaning in Ireland is now typecast as right wing and deeply unpleasant.
Yes, RTE, and to a lesser extent the Irish Times, have a habit of editorialising the news through a liberal-left wing lens. It's understandable in the case of RTE since they are basically unionised public servants and so will have that group think.
 
Yes, RTE, and to a lesser extent the Irish Times, have a habit of editorialising the news through a liberal-left wing lens.

And they don't even pretend to hide it. The whole "diversity" mantra certainly doesn't apply to political or social opinion within mainstream media.

There are also concerns around the composition of the workforce, particularly the middle-class profile. "Journalists' own experiences and values inevitably shape to some extent what they prioritise and how they cover certain topics, so it is very important that the sector does not reflect only the priorities and interests of a narrow group in the Irish population."
 
Heard that as well, the implication being he was somehow an extremist. Any conservative leaning in Ireland is now typecast as right wing and deeply unpleasant.

Irrespective of the direction, groupthink is always revolting. Of course, if we look at where the majority of the current batch of Irish churnalists have graduated from then it's easy to see the root of the problem!
 
note RTE made sure to get the "right-wing activist"
A ridiculous slur:

Key Views / Statements​


  1. “Great Replacement” & Race, DEI Issues
    • Kirk has claimed the “Great Replacement” is not just a theory, but real. Wikipedia
    • He criticized DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, calling them “anti-White.” Wikipedia+1
    • He has made statements questioning whether Black people are “better” or worse now compared to past decades. Hindustan Times
  2. Transgender and LGBTQ+ Issues
    • He stated “there are only two genders,” calling transgenderism and gender fluidity “lies that hurt people and abuse kids.” Wikipedia
    • He argued to ban trans-affirming care across the U.S., even calling for doctors who provide it to face legal consequences. Wikipedia
  3. Abortion
    • Kirk has said that abortion is “murder” and should be illegal. Wikipedia+1
    • He opposes allowing abortion even in the case of rape (even for very young victims). Wikipedia+1
    • He compared abortion to the Holocaust in at least one of his remarks. Wikipedia+1
  4. Free Speech, Campus Culture, & Political Correctness
    • He often argues that universities and broader liberal culture suppress conservative viewpoints or engage in censorship of those views. BrainyQuote+2Hindustan Times+2
    • He criticizes “political correctness” as a weapon. BrainyQuote+1
  5. Gun Rights vs. Gun Violence Trade-Offs
    • One of his more striking statements: that having an armed citizenry (i.e. strong gun rights) “comes with a price, and that is part of liberty... but I think it’s worth it.” In his view, some gun deaths are an acceptable trade-off for preserving constitutional rights. Hindustan Times+1
  6. Cultural & Religious Values
    • Kirk frequently emphasizes Western civilization’s primacy, seeing it as especially tied to Christian morality. Wikipedia+1
    • He has asserted that the U.S. (and Western culture) should resist progressive social change that he views as undermining traditional gender roles, religious faith, or family values.
 
If that is people's beliefs then they need to be respected.
There's no requirement to respect people's views. There is a requirement to let people express their views.
Many people in this country would support a good deal of his views above but get shouted down if they put their head above the parapet.
I agree. There's a world of a difference between disagreeing with views of Trans people and thinking that the great replacement is a real thing.
There's also a world of a difference between disagreeing with Trans people and thinking that it should be a national election issue or is the defining issue of our age.
I'm not a fan of DEI but it's not anti white.
Unfortunately he got shot instead of shouted down.
It's tragic for many reasons that he was shot. He shouldn't have been shouted down either. Civilised discourse is a cornerstone on a democratic society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top