The murder of Charlie Kirk

I understand that your primary measure for intelligence is relative to yourself and your immediate environment, and will take your comment in that stride

And I didn’t ban you so I’m not sure why you’re taking this out on me 😃

All those highly competitive pros were in high school once. It's super intense at the top. Kind of like the kids we were talking about with the Ivies and affirmative action.

I don’t see that as essentially any different from the weight divisions we had in wrestling. Six pounds could mean the difference between winning a tournament and “thanks for trying,” depending on how the competition stacked up. I used to go through hell cutting weight. It’s just the drugs with this issue.

Everyone else is stuck with whatever nature gave them, competing in whatever sport they had an edge in against their own biological gender. So a hypothetical JV player on the boys’ volleyball team jumping to star on the girls’ varsity team and getting a scholarship isn’t an option for anyone else. It’s unfair in the same way a male in high school looking to major in CS could check “female” and get into a better school because of a quota to accept more women.

I agree there’s a pathological culture around winning in the U.S., but that’s not really sports. From day one it was always “do your best,” which is why we developed youth sports in the first place. As monetary value gets attached, that's when the win shows up.

You’ve violated a forum rule by responding to gay- tinged posts seriously twice in a row. I would expect a quick and lengthy ban.

First, I am well aware of how competitive sports are. As stated in my previous posts i played high school sports. In college I was casually friends with a football player who became an nfl star. Looking past the fact that I say gay stuff sometims I am actually very competitive.

I think the idea of dividing people by hormone levels comes from a good place, and as far as I know it might be the right way to go. But My natural instincts is that we don’t need guard rails like that for the same reason we dont need special guardrails for gays and lesbians. I think the idea that trans men and women need a bunch of regulation to compete in high schoolsports is ridiculous.

I, like most high school athletes played high school sports and never thought about going pro.
most serious players dont go pro, and that’s not limited to big 4 physical sports.

There’s tons of people who played league of legends very seriously and some received esports scholarships to college. But the vast majority of people who played league for ten hours a day never received a dime. So, let’s say your son played league for ten hours a day, made gold but never made platinum and wasted another couple years after that, they are nowhere even close to being truly recognized or getting a scholarship, and so after a couple years they realize they wasted all that time and quit? What you hope is they had fun and perhaps made connections with other gamers, and you also probably hope they get a gf.

“Serious” sports are the same way. Sure inside the bubble theyre incredibly important but most people have to leave that bubble and when they do what every good person hopes isnt that they worked harder, it’s that they had fun and made some friendships. Theres old guys in their 50’s-60’s who know of nothing except football because they stay in that bubble at their own expense.

If... it's been nice. Have a nice life. In fact if I'm not banned you should be perma banned for threatening me.

Thank you. I didn’t make that rule.

What it means is: if Mr Rogers held right-leaning views and made them public, his words and phrases would've been cut up so he looked bad. He would've been called nazi/fascist, probably a danger to children if he didn't follow the strict transgender catechism, and the right would have to say, "No that's not true. He's a nice guy, so stop calling him literally triggering words" You know, like a gun trigger.

Hmm, that seems way too complicated. I'm pretty sure that whoever said that meant that Fred Rogers never said anything that would sound terrible even when taken out of context.

If you really to think that everything CK said is just fine when put on context, you're absolutely wrong.
Or if it's all fine with you, I'm sure you're just as bad as him.

I've never agreed with everything a person said ever. That would be insane.

Charlie Kirk has said things I find cringeworthy. His comments on Sheila Jackson Lee & Ketanji Brown Jackson were bad imo. I'm sure I could search and find others fairly quickly. But I actually think this gets to an important point: Is a person "bad" if they've made some offensive comments, but the person never committed violence towards anyone else and was a good family man?

If those comments he made are too far out that you won't ever feel a pang of remorse for his murder, should that guideline be used for all media? If something similar happened to Joy Reid for example, will her distasteful comments on white conservatives overshadow a 30-year career in journalism while raising her own family? I think we know how it would be treated by mainstream media, or in these hallowed halls of 2+2 politics.

That’s not a right-leaning view even if everyone on the right held the same view on sexual orientation. We're not a theocracy. So they can’t justify entirely secular civics with religious beliefs. They can’t say that because the Bible forbids same-sex marriage the government should too. That marriage is sacred in their religion is irrelevant to the issue. They have to justify why we ought not allow gay marriage on purely secular grounds and there simply aren’t any.

Same applies to Kirk. All I know about him is from some videos I’ve seen over the last few weeks. But from what I’ve seen, every objectionable stand he takes on this issue is rooted in his religious beliefs rather than any secular reasoning. He’s just smuggling his religion into politics and expecting everyone to accept it. I mean I've only seen a handful of his videos and it's of no surprise so many people hate him for what he's saying. And it's not surprising that hate is so intense: he's not some lone religious nut out there with a sign. And I'm using religion loosely. By his deeds I wouldn't describe him as a Christian, ditto his ardent followers.

Official FBI stance is that the entirety of the left is responsible and will now be held accountable with extreme prejudice. Let freedom ring.

In reality, who knows what the **** they are doing. It’s frustrating how we can’t even trust the word of these agencies anymore.

Conservatives are talking about creating a national holiday for him, putting him on currency and he had basically a state funeral that cost taxpayers 10s of millions. All for a guy that was born in the 90s and was against the Civil Rights Movement. The excuse for people with views like him used to be that they were products of their time, but the culture has degraded so far that uneducated people that choose views like his based on hate are celebrated.

I think this issue goes beyond just academics and politics because there is a genuine crisis in low education white males. They are one of the few populations in the developed world with decreasing life expectancy, largely due to despair causes like obesity, alcoholism and suicide. Now you're adding in medical quackery as well. This is all while life expectancy for white college grads is increasing. But people like Kirk, with a largely non college white following, don't ever talk about the things actually making life bad for low education whites and instead scapegoat immigrants, black people and the trans community. It has nothing to do with the fact that hw was offensive, qnd everything to do with the fact that he is wrong and not helping his audience get better.

He wasd part of a terror network that includes 100 million Americans according to Kash Patel.

Story arc:
Grieving widow pleads for mercy to spare her husband’s killer’s life.
Killer repents and is saved, then goes on to preach against the dangers of the Left path.
RFK Jr. declares war on Big Antacid for price gouging; declares bbq a food group.

While giving everyone equal education opportunities sounds great and is to some degree, at the end of the day it's like opening up NFL tryouts to the public.... So the Dems really need to get off the 'college for all' as their main answer to how to get ahead in America today.
[QUOTE=ChatGTP]Here’s a compact breakdown by employment quadrant with racial composition and party split:

Cognitive / Non-Repetitive (professionals, managers, tech, academia)
Race: White ~70%, Black ~7%, Latino ~9%, Asian ~12%
Party: D 55–60%, R 35–40%, I 5–10%

Physical / Non-Repetitive (skilled trades, construction, police, mechanics)
Race: White ~75%, Black ~6%, Latino ~16%, Asian ~2%
Party: D 40–45%, R 50–55%, I 5–10%

Cognitive / Repetitive (clerical, office admin, call centers)
Race: White ~60%, Black ~15%, Latino ~18%, Asian ~6%
Party: D 60–65%, R 30–35%, I 5–10%

Physical / Repetitive (factory, warehouse, farm labor, food service)
Race: White ~50%, Black ~13%, Latino ~30%, Asian ~6%
Party: D 50–55%, R 40–45%, I 5–10%[/QUOTE]

With some overlap, that's how income basically stacks up as well. My general thought is that the Republicans probably wouldn't have won many elections over the last 50 years were it not for a decline in unions. Not exactly news.

I don't think everyone needs to go to college. I do think everyone needs to stop listening to people like Kirk, Trump and Vance especially there audience who is doing worse because of right wing populism and culture.

Well maybe we can take one day from Pride month and dedicate it to Charlie Kirk ?

Better yet they can take a day out of pride month on their own and volunteer to help their communities with the myriad of problems that are lowering life expectancy and quality of life that Trump, Kirk and Vance completely ignore because there's more money in scapegoating others than doing the difficult work of actually helping rurals live better lives,

It’s so easy of course I do not believe Charlie Kirk deserves a holiday . Though I admire the man and you lefties keep believing the lies about him that we keep proving are lies

He was against the civil; rights act and the fact that people like you admire him is a reason why your culture has decreasing life expectancy primarily through deaths of despair; Change my mind.

From the little I’ve seen of him, I don’t think Kirk is a racist in the strict sense of believing blacks are inherently inferior to whites. Instead, he attacks “Black” culture. I get that you don’t see it but flipped around that translates exactly to “the problem of whiteness” all those conservative fans of critical race theory love.

You mean like when chillrob said that he called transgender people an "abomination" and "a throbbing middle finger to God", you doubted it, and then you completely ignored it when I posted a clip of him saying exactly that? Those "lies"?

I don’t agree with everything he says I admire engaging our youth in debate . I’m not sure when he made the comment on the trans folks but I do know he considers it a mental health issue which would get him banned here

My point in this case wasn't about what he said, it's about what you said. You claim that things are out of context but you never actually post the context to prove things are lies, you just say it's out of context with no proof. Yet when you doubt something someone has claimed and there is a literal clip of it posted in this thread you never even acknowledged it. Just like when I said you misgendered Lia Thomas, you denied it, and then you completely ignored it when I posted the proof. You saying that you are providing proof and others are ignoring it is the definition of irony.