| > Charlie Kirk thought conversation was the only way we were going to heal America. He believed we had to learn to talk to each other without vitriol, without poison, without anger. We had to be able to listen, and say what we mean, without being mean. And to talk to each other across divides. These are exactly the kind of things good discussion here exemplifies. And just so we're clear on what some of those surely great conversations were, to say what he meant, without him being mean, to talk across divides, here's some of the guy's ideals: "If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?" "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more." "Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge."
– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement "We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately." "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white." "The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." "America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America." "Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America." "There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists." Choice quotes from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk... Can't lionize a guy for promoting what he believed in without saying what he believed in. And since we need a disclaimer in all these threads: I don't care about the guy before or after his death, I don't agree with him at all, and I think his views were pretty bad, pretty bad. |
Right now it feels like you've dropped us in the middle of an argument without any context regarding 1) who you're talking to 2) what you're responding to.
You've quoted the OP, but your response seems directed to something else. I don't think the OP lionized anyone, or at the very least, they didn't discourage discussing Charlie Kirk's views. I'm not sure what prompted this response.
Are you saying you don't agree with civil discourse? That you don't believe we should learn to talk to each other without vitriol, poison, and anger? That we shouldn't be able to listen, and say what we mean, without being mean?