Charlie Kirk.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123808986#Comment_123808986

His strategy was making as much money as he could by whatever means possible.

Social Media Influencing 101.

If he could fleece more out of an another cohort of dangerously stupid by selling a different brand of smoke in a bottle he would have.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809063#Comment_123809063

I think you'll find feminism on the left and would be totally against this. If it's the woman's choice, fine. Being forced is different and wouldn't be tolerated by the left despite what Charlie Kirk type mouthpieces might have you believe.

Be right back

No-one deserves to die for expressing their opinion. Disagree all you want with him but he didn't deserve this.

ancapailldorcha

I do not support murder of any kind, from political assassinations to the death penalty.

It's pathetic to see conservative Americans' avarice and contempt for the lives of children being compared to cars which are a necessity for a huge amount of people. I'd love to live in a world without cars but it's not remotely viable. In fact, the concept as things are right now is ludicrous.

Guns, by contrast, are not a necessity for the overwhelming majority of people. They just aren't. If Americans think that their right to cosplay with an AR-15 trumps a child's right to not get massacred then that's their choice. It's their country after all.

I don't really get the maxim of refraining from criticising dead people either. Are we supposed to pretend that everyone who is dead was a saint? Why?

Kirk was a deeply hateful and vile person. He promoted white supremacy and fascism. I'm extremely pro-free speech and I support the rights of people like Kirk to air their views. By the same logic, I have the right to criticise people and their views if I want to. It works both ways but modern conservatism is only really concerned with rights for itself and nobody else. Well, that and hate.

As the adage goes, "There's no hate like Christian love". Kirk proved that perfectly.

Billy Mays

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809055#Comment_123809055

Whether he was being racist or not it was a f*cking stupid thing to say anyway and showed Kirk up to be the edgelord he was. All pilots are qualified no matter what colour their skin or what sex they are.

Every one of them has to go through the same training process, has to pass a stringent medical, get flying hours under their belt etc. before they get their pilot's licence.

An airline isn't going to just ask Leroy the baggage handler if he wants to fly the plane today

kingtiger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809039#Comment_123809039

Context matters

Kirk was critiquing DEI policies in aviation that push quotas for women or minorities in pilot training, arguing they prioritize diversity over merit and could allow unqualified pilots. He insisted this concern stemmed from anti-merit rules, not bias.

It's valid to debate if DEI risks sidelining qualifications in safety-critical jobs, but zeroing in on Black pilots (without similar doubts for whites) veers into racially charged territory and invites bigotry accusations. But I think calling Kirk a white supremacist is a bit of a reach

Ozymandius2011

Kirk had started to criticise Israel over the war in Gaza. Could Mossad have done this?

scottser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809063#Comment_123809063

Spot on about the left's views on religion but you'd want to be careful with the idea that Islam 'forces' anything on women. They have agency and they buy into the the idea of surrender to Allah. However, it's obviously naive to assume that adherents to Islam aren't being manipulated into doing the most hateful and counter-intuitive things to their fellow man. Same can obviously be said about Judaism and Christianity too; we all know those guys love a good genocide.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809088#Comment_123809088

If it's the woman's choice, fine.

It isn't, it never is. There have been many protests across the middle east about womens clothing in islamic republics

The HorsesMouth

I think most people fall within the he didn't deserve to die for expressing his views but also believe that some of those views were hateful, misogynistic, fanatical etc. You can believe both things and I'd say that's where most people stand.

kingtiger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809045#Comment_123809045

ah come on, I am only debating and having some fun. I never stated my beliefs in any response to be fair

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809093#Comment_123809093

It's very rare that anyone deserves to be killed for any reason. There is exceptions obviously.

Has anyone on here said he deserved to be killed?

I don't want a jpeg from social media.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809121#Comment_123809121

True on every point. Of course Kirk wouldn't accept this point because muslim = different-coloured-skin and that's bad for him

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809118#Comment_123809118

That particular post doesn't suggest he was criticising Israel, only that he invited an Israeli critic to debate with him. Which is something Kirk regularly did.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809122#Comment_123809122

You'll find in real life that there's a distribution curve on these things and there will be people that do it by choice. And yes there will be people that say they do it by choice but are coerced into meaning it. Doesn't change that fact that it's wrong to tell people what they should where if it's their choice.

I think you are following the right wing narrative by conflating Islam with extremist Islam. I'd an aethiest myself but I also know that Islam isnt the Taliban, there's a spectrum but the right wing will have you believe all people of Islam are extremists. Which suits the rights narrative because they basically fostered that and turned the middle east into a basket case and keep it that way. There's extremism in all religion, aontu and the iona institute in Ireland I would classify as dangerous extremist Christian groups. They'd be far right just like all religions extremists.

You'll find Islamic extremism isn't far off the fundamental Christian extremism and their far right ideology that is currently destroying America.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809164#Comment_123809164

Not sure anybody has specifically said he deserves to be murdered

Imprisoned, excommunicated, sure, but not murdered.

To look at it from another point of view, his murder is going to sway public opinion to be more sympathetic to the MAGA movement. Assuming the objective was to silence the movement it's actually failed miserably. Everybody is talking about him and how he didn't deserve to die instead of opposing the views he held

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809186#Comment_123809186

I knew Muslims growing up, still maintain contact with many of them, none of whom were forced to wear any particular garments by their religion, at least not while in this country. I wouldn't for a moment try to conflate a religion with an extremist version of said religion but likewise you are fooling yourself if you think women dress that way by choice

You are correct on religious extremism destroying the US mind. You will notice that no Christian, Jewish or Muslim religious leaders are overly critical of what's going on there from the POV of women's rights and that doesn't make any of them extreme

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809111#Comment_123809111

Is there a shred of evidence to show that a woman or a black person did not go though the same pilot training or did not have their qualifications before being allowed to fly?

The idea that DEI means forgoing standards and increasing risk is preposterous, and rooted in racism.

DEI simply ensures that minorities have the opportunity to train rather than be overlooked based on inherent bias.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809192#Comment_123809192

And that's the thing; we don't currently know why this person decided to do this, which side of the debate they're on, maybe they agreed with Kirk on most things but one point they disagreed on this guy simply couldn't accept, maybe they're specifically affected by one particular thing Kirk rails against a lot. We don't know.

All we do know is that whatever that issue was which tipped this person over the edge, they've done more damage to their own cause by resorting to this, because regardless of what that issue was Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die for voicing his opinion on it. And if anything more people are likely to take up his position now.

But that also doesn't mean people can't say they think Kirk was wrong about his opinions, that they disliked him in general, and they don't really care that he's dead.

To put it another way; if Kirk had died in a car crash which was accidental and with no blame to ascribe to anyone, people could still say they don't really care that he's dead. Not that he deserved to die, but simply that they don't care he died. It's possible to separate the opinions about the person and the view on how he died. He did not deserve to be murdered like that. He was also a hateful c*nt. Both things can be held as true and aren't mutually exclusive.

scottser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809093#Comment_123809093

It begs the question then, 'What did he deserve?'

No commenter on here finds joy in Kirk's murder. Nobody is celebrating his death. The vast majority of opinion simply sees the irony in a gun advocate getting killed by a gunshot, and that a person who refused to show empathy to others in life is now being shown the exact same consideration in death.

You should be very wary of thinking that 'he died for expressing his opinion'. Nothing could be further from the truth. He spewed hate speech and advocated violence and suppression toward anyone who did not think like him. What did he deserve? Everything he wished on others.

Straight Talker

I don't agree with a lot of what he said but did he deserve to be murdered just because he had a different opinion to you? The far left really are just as evil and dangerous a group of people and just as much of a scourge on the planet as the far right.

ixoy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809253#Comment_123809253

Who is saying this on here? I'm struggling to find people saying he deserved it.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809271#Comment_123809271

It's easier to make up your own argument and beat that (or take a collection of posts by randoms on social media and ascribe that to the entire "left") than actually try to respond to the points raised.

Red Silurian

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809229#Comment_123809229

According to some news reports this morning he was a transgender student at the college and had an unimpressive debate with Kirk in the past. I'd take that with a pinch of salt for the moment until more news outlets confirm it though

The first I heard of Kirk was when he got shot but I don't believe I would have liked him if I knew of him when he was alive. My preference would have been if he had retired from his outrageous hate speaking because nobody was listening to him, alive.

I used to mull over how satisfying it would be to see a gun supporter get shot and killed in the same manner as what happens to innocents in school shootings, turns out it's not very satisfying at all

One good thing is that we might see republicans see the error in their wayt and drop their support for overly-liberal gun controls but I wouldn't hold out much hope

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809271#Comment_123809271

Nobody did.

Normally when someone dies, it's customary to reflect on their life, their qualities, their interests and their achievements. Kirk spent his trying to promote hate and fascism. The right know this and it's reflected on social media. They don't want the man being criticised so they do the both sides thing and pretend that "the left" are celebrating his murder which of course they aren't. They do this because its what they would do, as show by the attack on Paul Pelosi and the 6th January 2021 insurrection.

MrStuffins

Predictably, the discourse around something like this has devolved into a sh*t slinging match with people saying "the left" and "the right". This isn't about the team you're on, and it's not as simple as to say that people either have to be crying about Kirk and singing his posthumous praises or dancing in the streets at his demise.

A large swaithe of people have been pointing out that gun laws in the States are too loose and that this has directly contributed to many many preventable gun-deaths and mass shootings there. Kirk himself was not only a defender of these laws being loose, but he went on record as saying that he is ok with innocent people being gunned down on an annual basis if it means that his right to bear arms is protected.

So when he then becomes one of those people that he was so valiantly willing to sacrifice, the irony is self-evident.

It's just like if an entire community was against drink-driving except for one man who rallied for his and other's rights to get behind the wheel hammered. He's willing to make absolutely everyone else less safe so that he can get his own way.

If that man then got killed by one of the drink drivers he wanted on the road, then it's not hard to see that the community would still be against the practice and would still want it banned, but could also recognise the fact that the deceased gentleman succumbed to a world that he successfully strived to create.

Kirk didn't deserve to die. Nobody should be killed just going about their normal lives. But Charlie Kirk was happy for people to be killed by gunshot to protect the 2nd amendment. He is now one of those people he was willing to sacrifice.

Deregos.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809118#Comment_123809118

Not saying it absolutely wasn't, but that theory could be a bit of a stretch. Likewise, you could say those who think it was down to the Russians in their attempt to divide and conquer the west is also a bit of a stretch, yet its just another theory with possibilities.

noel50

NO thoughts and prayers from me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faCp-xugb3c

MrStuffins

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809253#Comment_123809253

Looks to me like you are inventing a scenario where people are saying he deserved to die so you can pin it on "the far left".

Unless you can point me to someone who says he deserved to die?

scottser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809253#Comment_123809253

Nonsense. For a start, what MAGA call 'The Far Left' is simply any normal joe soap who criticises the insanity that passes for Trump's regime. That term is a smear and nothing more. It doesn't define a movement, a party or an identity and is kept deliberately vague to vilify anybody Trump decides to target next.

Shall we dig a little deeper? Ok, one of the blindingly obvious left-wing tropes criticised by capitalists is that 'government should never interfere with the free market'. So what are tariffs then? What about the billions in tax breaks for the already super wealthy in Trumps BBB? They are government directly interfering in the free market.

What about free speech, which was always a rallying call of Socialists world wide? Free speech is tempered by its responsible use and codified in law to protect everyone from lies, defamation and slander. MAGA do not want anyone to be able to criticise them but they want to be able to say whatever they please without being held to account for it. That's why they are attacking independent universities, libraries, museums and other institutions of learning, news outlets and publishing houses to directly limit the rights to free speech, under the name of liberty and freedom.

MAGA and the right wing court idiots. They can only get away with their schemes if the population is stupid enough to believe what they say and they are working hard to achieve that. Don't believe me? Google the rate of literacy decline in the US - you'll be genuinely shocked.

Jack Daw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123809228#Comment_123809228

If there is a push to get certain people into a field then they obviously can't have these people failing as it will be embarrassing.

Therefore there is the potential that standards have to be lowered to make sure these people don't fail exams etc.

Encouraging people to try a field is fine and should be done, but demanding a certain percentage in courses or jobs must come from a certain portion of the population is wrong and leads to lowering of standards as factors other than ability are taken into consideration.