The murder of Charlie Kirk

by Bill Haywood m

Brutal take-down of

https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/candace-owens-and-the-decay-of-the-american-brain

currentaffairs

Candace Owens and the Decay of the American Brain

' lunatic theories about Kirk's murder.

Pretty clear Kirk was murdered by a guy who didn’t like the stuff Kirk said.

The sanctifying of Kirk or whatever the **** newsmaxverse insists on remains the strangest ****ing thing human beings have agreed to

The fact that you remain completely unallowed to judge Kirk’s words while alive without judgement by the party of free speech absolutists, and you can’t say publicly anything negative about his contribution to discourse without being cancelled by the party or ‘cancel culture has run amuck’ sums it all up

Most people don't like what others say politically.

We have forums down the street from here that consists of posters with very similar ideological views. They actually made their own forums in part to get away from those they didn't like. They now fight more ferociously with each other than we do here.

I'm sure Tame Deuces knows the proper word and can explain it better, but some people prefer like minded positive reinforced environments. But when people split into those groups, their shared beliefs get reinforced and often becomes more unforgiving to views outside that group, causing each group to double down and intensify disagreements despite the similarities.

It can be entertaining to watch but that cycle snowballs and escalates conflicts that weren't well thought out.

Telling people that God’s perfect law on human sexuality calls for homosexuals to be stoned to death is not a political statement, but rather a religious one. And such a statement could be viewed as a threat, much more so than a statement like “God says you’re going to burn in hell.”

Telling me the god you believe in thinks I’m going to go to hell because of who and how I love is not a threat to me. Telling me the god you believe in allows you to throw rocks at me until I’m dead because of who and how I love is a threat to me.

Actually, it was because Mason threatened to shut down this forum because it was too woke.

I wont disagree that there is a threat there. But Charlie Kirk was essentially your average American white male and the beliefs you stated are agreed upon by a large percentage of the entire world - not just in America.

You're going to have to assassinate about a billion to remove that threat.

This isn't really an honest summary of Charlie Kirk's body of work. He had views were far to the right of the American mainstream and were often just objectively wrong on the facts.

The majority of white men support trump. If you want to argue that Kirk wouldn't get the majority of white males if he ran, or that he was in some different category than Trump then there may be a sliver of truth to that. Maybe. I also grant you that voting with two options is different than aligning with someone's views.

But I don't think a lot of people are fully aware of the political leanings of a lot of people, and those people tend to keep getting flabbergasted by election results. And it seems that those people, more often than not, are the ones who generally shield themselves for those kind of people - which to me, seems to exacerbate the divide. I'm not arguing that Kirk should have been accepted, but it makes things worse when you shift the Overton window to put Kirk in the same category as fuentez. Now they are more aligned against their enemy.

You think that a billion people on this planet worship a god that says homosexuals should be killed because of who and how they love? Really? OK I guess. I grew up surrounded by Christians and have never heard one advocate for the killing of homosexuals.

I don’t. I think many ******* Trump supporters obviously do, but they’re a far cry from a billion strong.

More proof that centrists are ultimately the reason why Neonazis are on the rise. At this point, a centrist like Formula72 and a violent Neonazi should be treated the same.

If you'd grown up in one of a number of African countries, or in certain circles in Jamaica, you probably would have heard that. It's unChristian (since the Jesus of the Gospels, Whose whole mission after all is to bring a 'new covenant' and to revise the understanding of the old books, explicitly disdains the Old Testament penalty of stoning for adultery, does not appear obsessively hung up on the whole business of sexual sin anyway -- the main targets of his anger being the letter-of-the-law 'observant' hypocrites he calls Pharisees -- and never troubles to mention homosexuality at all), but it's apparently popular in certain dioceses.

There are probably more than a billion people who have quoted scripture to someone at some time when asked about people they don't agree with in this world - which is what Kirk did. Do you want to murder all of them? That's a lot of people.

I'm not religious and I don't understand Kirk's takes on the subject, but I'm not going to be the one who went from "we got him!" to "why are so many people coming to his defense?" Simply put, we don't agree.

From page 1 of the centrist bible:

Thou shalt generalise as much as you can so your beloved Nazipigs will look less evil!

I agree.

First of all, I never stayed that I wanted to murder anyone. If you think I did, please provide evidence.

Second, I never said anything about people quoting any scripture. I’m sure lots of scripture is innocuous. I specifically pointed to Kirk stating that his god says homosexuals should be stoned to death, and how such a proclamation can reasonably be viewed as a threat by those who are homosexual. That’s it. Don’t take the ball and run with it places to I clearly never intended it to go.

Maybe, but I'm not sure that killing centrists is the most +ev play either.

Id also be agaisnt normalizing the killing the millions of people around the world who read scripture and do kill people, but we've lowered the bar a bit from there.

I dont disagree that Kirk was a pos. I'm arguing against somwthing different. The rest I'll allpologize for.

I never said Kirk was a pos, and am not trying to make the case that he was.

All I'm saying is that if you travel the country telling a group of people that your god says that who and how they love makes them worthy of being brutally killed, you might want to scan the rooftops before you start your little Q & A. Because rhetoric like that is 100% to light some fuses.

Aww, poor guy, did not realise that you had severe head trauma lately. I mean how else could these horrible, stupid strawmen be explained?!

Protip: Just because you have a brain it doesn't mean anyone wants to read extremely shitty political analyses from you.

partisan Dem supporters of the status quo going after people for being "centrist" is quite amusing

Kirk’s religious awakening was pretty performative and needed for culture war grifting.

This is correct.

But UP ultimately evolved into a de facto support group for disgruntled liberals.

This argument also applies to the pro-murder rhetoric you have yourself just used.

How do you know it was performative and not genuine?