[olalonde]

Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.

> So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive.

I disagree - you're extrapolating from very little. If you take into consideration his whole life and the context of the conversation, it's very clear that he did not believe in violence and did not advocate it.

Does that look like someone who wishes violence against gay or trans people? Be real.

https://x.com/GayRepublicSwag/status/1966219378971889949

https://x.com/LuckyMcGee/status/1966207117767164362

[croes]

>You're both bad guys for spreading misinformation.

>Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.

Interesting change. Don't forget my reach and his. And I never spread the lie about the Great Replacement.

The first clip sounds more like don't tell than real acceptance and it's quite ironic that accoring to this clip he says people aren't defined by their sexuality but every time a homosexual couple is show in a kids movie right wingers whine because now they have to talk about anal sex with their kids. What they don't have, like you don't have to explain hetero sex if a hetero couple is shown. The right is obsessed with the sexuality of gays. And calling it a lifestyle, that's one of the biggest misinformations often used to blame the victims of anti-gay violence for their bad "choice".

Maybe watch this clip where he quotes Leviticus 18

https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306

But of course just saying. We all know you can say anything if you add "just saying" or "no offense".

The second clip frames being trans as a mental disorder packed in clever words.

[olalonde]

Sure he had typical right wing and religious views, but did not advocate violence.

Again that clip you linked was just him pointing out the irony of using Bible verses to support homosexuality while ignoring other very violent verses towards them. He was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals.

FWIW, I disagree with Kirk on probably most topics (e.g. guns, religion, abortion, homosexuality being a bad "lifestyle") so there's no need to debate me.

[croes]

The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.

I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation.

His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on.

I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers.

[zahlman]

> The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.

He does the exact opposite of "completely ignoring the contradiction". He explicitly uses it to make his point.

[croes]

I find it interesting how he tries to dismiss the core message of Christianity with a reference to the old testament.

Seems right wingers know the old testament pretty well but rarely quote the new one and even rarer live by it. It's often that authoritarian god, you know, the one who gave us the rainbow after multiple genocide and who said later on

>Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Let's see those Christian values in action when they catch the shooter.