Charlie Kirk Shot

[2233boys]

He was talking about DEI and racial quotas. Basically saying that they may have lowered standards to achieve said quotas.

He was saying that if a black man was flying his plane he would question his qualifications, that is racist full stop.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Yeah, Biden didn't say Maga Republicans were a threat to our very republic in that creepy red-lighted speech.

I guess that was AI.

 

[Cotton]

I know. I want it posted here so we can dissect it.

Here is one of many times he has debated DEI. And his message always stayed consistent.

 

[Smitty]

Of course you didn't mention the Pelosi or the law makers murder and shooting in your response because that goes against your agenda.

No, it doesn't.

You think the left is more violent than right generally?

In the instant political climate? Yes.

Really, that doesn't make a ton of sense, and likely can't be substantiated by anything other than your opinion.

Politically Motivated Violence Is Rare in the United States | Cato at Liberty Blog
Since 9/11 3599 people have been killed as a result of political violence.
3122 of those on 9/11.
8 by foreign nationals
65 from people on the left
391 from people on the right
4 from separatists
9 unknow affiliations

Your position in your original post and this response is saying the left is so violent, but you suggested violence from the start. You act like people on the right are some juggernaut for violence that we all should be afraid of?

Why? DO you think you are the only military trained and armed citizens?

I hope it doesn't come to that, but decrying violence then advocating for it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The right has not begun to tap into their capacity for violence. The right has the majority of the gun owners, the majority of the people who would understand how to actually conduct an insurrection, the majority of the people who would know how to effectively target their opposition, etc. My point in saying that they are gonna "fuck around and find out," isn't an advocacy of violence.

It's saying they better be careful where they step.

As for your numbers, I don't accept them. We know that people like biker gangs or the KKK are listed as "right wing groups."

They are fringe and not part of what I'm talking about any more than if we counted the Bloods and Crips murders as left wing (which they clearly are not).

That is fair but should be just as newsworthy considering the attack a week or so ago that lead to children dying when they were praying. We don't hear the right say much more than thoughts and prayers and this is a mental health issue. I think all murder is a mental health issue you can't be right in the head if you think that is an appropriate response. Some say it is a gun access but we never do anything about that, others say it is a mental health issue, but we don't do anything to fix that problem either. Its a vicious cycle every time something happens.

If you'd like to talk solutions, I'm here for that. Let's begin:

(1) All leftist rhetoric must cease attacking the right as fascist or racist for opposing DEI, government bureaucracy, trans mental illness, etc. This is simply not on par with calling actual self avowed socialists, "socialists" or "communists." It is a perjorative of a different degree and you know it.

Racists are the KKK. Not people who oppose DEI. Fascists, definitionally, are people who want more government control, not less.

This is a problem that predates my birth and probably yours. The imbecile hippies of the 1960s were ACTUAL, self-described social and economic marxists and they REALLY BELIEVE that Capitalist-ideas and equal treatment under the law are racist, bigoted or otherwise intolerably unfair, because they've produced unequal outcomes. They are wrong.

(2) We aren't getting rid of guns. Period. The sooner the left acknowledges that, the sooner we can have a productive discussion that might go beyond "thoughts and prayers." Any conversation that starts with bans, registries, buy-backs or turn-ins, is a disingenuous conversation from inception. Access to commonly owned firearms used in a lawful manner is enshrined in the Constitution, you might as well have a conversation about taking away the right to vote from anyone who doesn't own real estate. Amendments are in place that will ensure it never happens. Move on.

A real solution would be securing schools. More armed guards. Maybe teachers should be trained.

The rebuttal is always "waaah, we don't want to do that. It's expensive!"

Well, figure it the fuck out or you're the unserious side. Perhaps come to the table and offer up some of the entitlement spending that the left is so fond of?

But guns aren't being outlawed. Especially handguns, which are the type of guns used to commit 99% of gun violence.

Let's hear the next solution.

Are you kidding me? Have you listened to the President? He demonizes and dehumanizes democrats every time he talks. He isn't the only one. I don't consider him a representative of conservative ideology either, but saying the left if worse or doing it more is just fucking inaccurate.

It's not.

He's one guy and half of his stuff is taken out of context.

I did literally say earlier in this thread that I do not like how he has no ability to take the temperature of the room.

But the vast amount of vitriol found among the media outlets far outweighs the soundbytes produced on occasion by Trump.

He was and that was his whole schtick

He's not, and you have no defensible evidence of it.

 

[Smitty]

Here's what I'm talking about perfectly defined.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-50-years-foreign-born-terrorism-us-soil-1975-2024#counting-terrorists-their-victims

The author of the study 2233 posted breaks his definitions of "right-violence," versus "'left-violence," into these categorizations:

• Right (involuntarily celibate ideology, anti-abortion, white supremacist, etc.),
• Left (communism, animal rights, environmentalism, anti-white, etc.),

Incel and White Supremacy are not tent pole advocacies of the right.

Communism is absolutely a stated objective of some elected card carrying members of the left at this point in time (mere socialism and anti-capitalism even more so), as is anti-whiteness, environmentalism, etc.

The author has created a bias in his categorization of violent incidents.

Worth repeating: The left is far more violent in both action and rhetoric than the modern right.

 

[Smitty]

That is it.

Post the full exchange.

That is racist you can try to spin but saying that isn't what he meant all you want.

How would I have any idea if it was or wasn't?

You haven't posted what was said.

 

[Smitty]

He was saying that if a black man was flying his plane he would question his qualifications, that is racist full stop.

It's not anything "full stop."

How do we know he wasn't making a joke? How do we know he wasn't referring to something else?

You have no context for the quote.

Here's the thing...

You know when you post it, it's gonna be obvious that he's criticizing DEI, not black people and their qualifications.

... which is why you are dodging it.

 

[Cotton]

Post the full exchange.

I posted it for him, and Charlie is 100% correct.

 

[Smitty]

Kirk: "Here's what I said. United Airlines is saying they want 40% of all their pilots to be people of color or women. We have learned that we have relaxed standards any time we try to reach racial quotas. Any time we reach for racial quotas, we relax the standards. Standards for air traffic controls, professors, or college admissions. Therefore when it comes to pilots or surgeons, if I see someone who is black... I'm going to hope that that person is qualified."

He's talking about the relaxed standards that historically accompany quotas, which, by the way, the Supreme Court has decided that quotas are in fact illegal discrimination and thus criticizing quotas are fair-game, non-racist political speech, definitionally.

Conclusion: 2233 is doing exactly what liberals do, they cherry pick lines without context, they determine that they disagree with the political conclusion (2233 apparently WANTS to have illegal racially discriminatory quotas), and ascribes any opposition to said quotas to a motive of racism or bigotry.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The left does this all the time. Unendingly. It's their only go-to move, frankly, because they lose on ideas at every turn and their only remaining playbook is to name-call. No one can successfully defend quotas like the one Kirk was critiquing. The only rebuttal to Kirk's point they have is to say the reason Kirk doesn't want quotas is because he's racist.

This is why it is the truth to say, the left is promoting violence and the right is not. The right wins debates. The left slanders with unfounded accusations of bigotry.

 

[Cotton]

I guess the video wasn't enough.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I feel like Cotton saying, "Good luck Chapo."

But good job, Smitty.

 

[Smitty]

I posted it for him, and Charlie is 100% correct.

Of course he is.

Let's see 2233 come out and say he wants quotas. That's all Kirk is saying.

He's saying having quotas will result in having unqualified people in those positions. That's not racist, it's historical fact.

 

[Cotton]

Absolutely true.

 

[2233boys]

Yeah, Biden didn't say Maga Republicans were a threat to our very republic in that creepy red-lighted speech.

I guess that was AI.

It is the same as trump vilifying Democrats it doesn't do anything to move the country forward. Although considering the collective group think here?

Kirk: "Here's what I said. United Airlines is saying they want 40% of all their pilots to be people of color or women. We have learned that we have relaxed standards any time we try to reach racial quotas. Any time we reach for racial quotas, we relax the standards. Standards for air traffic controls, professors, or college admissions. Therefore when it comes to pilots or surgeons, if I see someone who is black... I'm going to hope that that person is qualified."

He's talking about the relaxed standards that historically accompany quotas, which, by the way, the Supreme Court has decided that quotas are in fact illegal discrimination and thus criticizing quotas are fair-game, non-racist political speech, definitionally.

Conclusion: 2233 is doing exactly what liberals do, they cherry pick lines without context, they determine that they disagree with the political conclusion (2233 apparently WANTS to have illegal racially discriminatory quotas), and ascribes any opposition to said quotas to a motive of racism or bigotry.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The left does this all the time. Unendingly. It's their only go-to move, frankly, because they lose on ideas at every turn and their only remaining playbook is to name-call. No one can successfully defend quotas like the one Kirk was critiquing. The only rebuttal to Kirk's point they have is to say the reason Kirk doesn't want quotas is because he's racist.

This is why it is the truth to say, the left is promoting violence and the right is not. The right wins debates. The left slanders with unfounded accusations of bigotry.

If I am seeing a black pilot i hope that person is qualified is racist. If he was so concerned about them being DEI, why didn't he mention, Hispanic, women, etc. He was a racist. You don't think he was the things I said you are flat out demonstrably wrong, and likely think the same way

 

[Rev]

Old Stephen has gone down the TDS slip and slide for awhile now. I expected this kind of a reaction from him. Fuck him and his work.

 

[Smitty]

If I am seeing a black pilot i hope that person is qualified is racist.

It is not. It is, at worst, inarticulate as to his real meaning, which, let's be honest, he's conducting a debate on the fly.

He's saying that establishing a quota will lead to unqualified quota fillees. It is not racist to say that. That is a legitimate concern as historically quotas lead to this outcome.

It's not saying there are not qualified black pilots. It's saying that when you are struggling to fill a quota, you don't let the openings fill up naturally. You're reaching simply to satisfy the quota.

If he was so concerned about them being DEI, why didn't he mention, Hispanic, women, etc. He was a racist.

If he had mentioned any other group, you'd be on here saying he's bigoted against all those groups.

It was just an example he made to demonstrate his opposition to the quotas. Not to black people being pilots. There was no need to state other groups who were the targets of the quotas.

I gotta tell you, this argument you are attempting to make is alarmingly and dangerously untruthful and you know it.

You should approach this debate with honesty. You can have an opinion that Kirk is wrong about his conclusion on quotas but if I were running this board I would say the things you are posting are demonstrably slanderous, are outright lies, and intolerable.

You would essentially be accusing all of us on here of racism and I don't see that going well for you. We aren't racists and I doubt you are gonna find a refuge here lying about us being that.

 

[Cotton]

He's saying that establishing a quota will lead to unqualified quota fillees.

Underqualified*

He has said that many times to illustrate the distinction.

 

[Cotton]

 

[NoDak]

I didn't like Charlie Kirk, I thought he was a racist, Fascist, Misogynist, bigot, dirtbag, hate spewer that made millions spewing and antagonizing dangerous ideas but didn't want to see him murdered.

I'd be interested in examples of why you think this for each of those accusations. I know you're smart enough to form these opinions yourself, so I'd assume you have a reason to. And not just be regurgitating talking points. Thanks.

 

[2233boys]

It's not anything "full stop."

How do we know he wasn't making a joke? How do we know he wasn't referring to something else?

You have no context for the quote.

Here's the thing...

You know when you post it, it's gonna be obvious that he's criticizing DEI, not black people and their qualifications.

... which is why you are dodging it.

It is