In praise of Kirk, kinda.

[22lcidw]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

It was pure hate from a man, that caused the Prog Socialist Communist woman at the baseball game to shove her face and even put her hands on a man who won the race to a baseball from a homerun to give to his son. You have infiltrated everything we do. Even minor stuff.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

Perhaps you should provide quotes context and content demonstrating how disturbingly provocative he was. Good luck with that, my money says you're like every other liberal who says and repeats shit perfectly free of substance behind it.

 

[berg80]

Perhaps you should provide quotes context and content demonstrating how disturbingly provocative he was. Good luck with that, my money says you're like every other liberal who says and repeats shit perfectly free of substance behind it.

Google Search

www.google.com

 

[80zephyr]

Google Search

www.google.com

Weren't we talking about Kirk?

 

[IDIOCRACY]

Google Search

www.google.com

First one. George Floyd: Kirk called George Floyd a "scumbag" during a 2021 speech, claiming he was undeserving of the public attention his death received. Kirk's remarks were made in Minneapolis, the city where Floyd was murdered by a police officer.

It's blunt but it's the truth.

Second one..... Black pilots: In a January 2024 podcast, Kirk questioned the qualifications of Black pilots, suggesting they were hired based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives rather than merit. He claimed these programs lower standards and contribute to safety risks.

Charlie said the quiet part out loud. When you hire people because of their skin color or gender, then it's easy to conclude you're not hiring because of someone's qualifications or because they're the best choice. Would I have said "when I see a black pilot I have to question their qualifications"? Nope, but in context he made a valid point.

Third: Great Replacement Theory: He promoted the racist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which alleges that demographic changes are a plot to diminish the influence of white people. Kirk insisted this theory was not a conspiracy but "a reality".

He's actually right, the evidence is heavy, including TV and Hollywood who overstate the existence of mixed-race couples and blacks.

 

[Nostra]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things

Such as?

 

[Nostra]

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

Quote his bigoted things, Simp.

 

[berg80]

Weren't we talking about Kirk?

Is the link not working for you? Here's how it begins.

AI Overview

Far-right commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, has been widely accused of promoting bigotry through his rhetoric on issues of race, gender, and sexuality. He was assassinated in September 2025. Critics cite numerous public statements and associations as evidence of his bigoted views.

 

[Nostra]

Stalinberg once again repetes Dimtard talking points he can't back up.

His blood is on your hands, and all the other assholes who call anyone they don't agree with FASCISTS.

This scumbag got his marching orders from your handlers, fuckwit.

 

[Nostra]

Is the link not working for you? Here's how it begins.

AI Overview

Far-right commentator and founder of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk, has been widely accused of promoting bigotry through his rhetoric on issues of race, gender, and sexuality. He was assassinated in September 2025. Critics cite numerous public statements and associations as evidence of his bigoted views.

Bring a quote, fuckface.

Not some cut and past from fake intelligence, moron.

 

[berg80]

First one..... Charlie said the quiet part out loud.

I feel the same way about the guy who got fired from MSNBC for speaking honestly about Kirk's history. It was poor timing, but he wasn't wrong.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

The time to answer for this was in the 60's when the foundation for it was being poured by white liberals who defined it as "necessary to upset the apple cart" and claiming "revolution is a healthy thing"...that white liberalism of the 60's lit the fuse for the coming explosion...pretending it didn't happen that way will be a confession you couldn't care less.

 

[Nostra]

I feel the same way about the guy who got fired from MSNBC for speaking honestly about Kirk's history. It was poor timing, but he wasn't wrong.

Bring quotes, assface.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

I feel the same way about the guy who got fired from MSNBC for speaking honestly about Kirk's history. It was poor timing, but he wasn't wrong.

He wasn't speaking honestly, he's a nasty human being, a liar and up far-left's political ass. Yeah sure, "a MAGA was just firing a gun in celebration". Reminds me of the same guy who claimed a "black guy was white".

 

[berg80]

The time to answer for this was in the 60's when the foundation for it was being poured by white liberals who defined it as "necessary to upset the apple cart" and claiming "revolution is a healthy thing"...that white liberalism of the 60's lit the fuse for the coming explosion...pretending it didn't happen that way will be a confession you couldn't care less.

Jeez, you're going back a very long time to try to pin this on liberals when both sides deserve blame. Any idea who said this?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"

 

[BackAgain]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

Bullshit on that racism claim.

 

[berg80]

He wasn't speaking honestly, he's a nasty human being, a liar and up far-left's political ass.

Apparently you know nothing of him or what he said. He's a religious guy who was the chief strategist for Bush/Cheney in 2004.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Jeez, you're going back a very long time to try to pin this on liberals when both sides deserve blame. Any idea who said this?

If it is the point of origin, then it need be remembered, white liberals were once chest thumping proud of those remarks that they now regret.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants"

heard it many times but no I do not recall the the author, so what? Any idea what this means?

"we didn't start the fire"

Means you've been trumped

 

[MarathonMike]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

Please provide an example of Charlie Kirk's "hateful rhetoric". He was a very devout Christian and as such had very strong beliefs about Gays and Transgenders. I never heard him say anything remotely Racist.

 

[berg80]

If it is the point of origin, then it need be remembered, white liberals were once chest thumping proud of those remarks that they now regret.

heard it many times but no I do not recall the the author, so what? Any idea what this means?

"we didn't start the fire"

Means you've been trumped

It was Jefferson. I believe he thought is was a healthy thing for the citizenry to constantly challenge their elected officials to do the right thing.

The idea that social change dating back to the 60's with the mantra of peace and love is responsible for the politically motivated violence of today is, IMO, ludicrous. You've been overwhelmed by the need to finger point at the Left when there is plenty of blame to go around.