Charlie Kirk

[Swanjaxs]

Or did the right thing......

Looks like his old man weighed him in

 

[MrSwerve]

The question to ask there is, why would anyone waste their time?

By all accounts, Hitler had a soft spot for dogs. Loved them, apparently. Loved having them around, loved making a fuss of them. Big old softy on that front.

So, that being the other side of the coin, should we have made more of an effort to try and understand him and paint more of a rounder picture? Personally, I think not. I'd suggest on balance, he was definitely still a cunt and I'm comfortable history still has that one right.

What do you reckon?

Hitler was kind of lobsided on the 'cunt' side, don't you reckon, compared to Kirk, for example?

Trying to 'understand' something doesn't mean that you're trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, or come to some agreement on how they got to those thoughts. I'd love to sit someone like Hitler down and ask him, how the ruddy f*ck did you come to those feelings and want to kill Jews and all of the other atrocities you committed? That doesn't mean that I agree with a single thing that he espoused and he's one of the most evil people who have ever lived. Hitler is the extreme end of the scale though, as I mentioned before, Godwin's law.

Maybe I'm being too inquisitive and naïve, I dunno.

 

[Smurph]

Looks like his old man weighed him in

Only thing he could do.

 

[Wing_Stand_Wood]

Only thing he could do.

Yes indeed, especially if it was his fathers rifle that was used, or the father bought it for him as a present.

 

[Wing_Stand_Wood]

Charlie Kirk killer identified as Tyler Robinson

The suspect in Charlie Kirk's assassination has been identified as Tyler Robinson.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[rockinj]

You’re happy to be critical about both sides of the argument, which isn’t welcome here without being labelled as being either left or right wing. As NJ’s post perfectly demonstrates.

It’s tedious isn’t it.

And that's up to you to use those words, I just think it brings heat into these debates (word used loosely) that is unnecessary, which reflects what is happening in the world quite well.

Also please don't say that I am being dishonest, just because I don't think that every single view of his opinions are/were warranted. I disagree with a lot of what he says, probably more what I agreed with him on - and this is coming from someone who has watched his debates for, I dunno, at least 7 or 8 years...you admitted yourself that you'd never heard of him and I'm sure there are plenty of people jumping on the bandwagon to be critical of him that have never watched any of his debates before (and very likely vice-versa, in fairness). Some of his most notorious right-wing views are a handful amongst plenty of other sensible (IMO) views that he had. This was part of his modus operandi, he was someone who also wanted to stoke things for views as well as put his point across, which I have always been critical of him for. It doesn't help the political heat either.

Some of his views were abhorrent, some of them were sensible, I don't see why we can't have a debate about both sides of the coin. I watched his debates and found it interesting to hear why he had certain views, despite being vehemently against them. I like to understand why people come to certain conclusions rather than just deriding them for it. Some people have a mixture of left and right wing views and that is absolutely fine, but people on either ends of the political spectrum are very quick to zone in on the elements that they disagree with and use that to label them. I am simply not like that and I abhor the way political discourse is in the modern world, particularly with social media and the internet - and Charlie Kirk also fed into that. Some would say in a positive way (i.e. I've seen a lot of people saying he brought political debate to young people), some would say in a negative way (i.e. people saying his views were racist, sexist and homophobic). Both can be true if we look at it objectively.

My word

This is so refreshing to read. Finally someone gets it.

My positions have shifted on issues through reading, listening and absorbing more information.

Like yourself I happen to hold viewpoints that are probably more to the right of public opinion and others that are more to the left.

My right leaning views are always used a stick to pigeon hole me on here as a right winger like you point out. It’s interesting that a poster even said why not include “remoaner” while you’re at it. Which is comical as I’m a full blown eu supporter. I’d join the euro and sign up to Schengen which is pretty out of step but where does that place me?

I would suggest that makes me an economic liberal with liberal views on free movement of labour. Now in the past that might have been considered more centrist or even right wing now that puts me as someone on the left with the rise of more nationalist right wing politics.

Going back to your brilliant post. I hold both hardline views on justice and very liberal views on justice dependent on the scenario. I’m even open minded to the death penalty for the most extreme cases but I also think we lock way too many people up. So you could call me both a right winger and wet liberal dependent on how you want to spin it.

Your post has made me realise there are people who get this and that’s reassuring. There’s a mentality to be in a tribe on here. I mentioned cliques back on ja.net back in the day.

What is also interesting is many of the ones who dish it out are the first to bang on about mental health and how we need to be nicer. Amazing.

 

[rockinj]

Let me tell you a story. I worked with someone called James. 3 years ago we were informed the they were called Jaimie. Every time I saw them my first instinct was to say "Hello James". I managed to say the right thing each time until I learned to just say hello. What I didnt like was the inference that if I called him James I was being hateful rather thasn forgetful. I have been moved right not by my actions but by every one elses. Thats th eonly point I was making withj that picture. Iregretted posting it immediately but went to work and couldnt take it down.In summary, I havent changed but my place in the world has.

Yes. Societal change has always taken place.

The pace of change however in recent decades has been far far greater than at any other time.

60s,70s,80s,90s society constantly evolving but in last 15/20 years it’s off the charts.

 

[rockinj]

I kind of get where you are coming from but I don't think it will work. Most of the people who support these movements operate entirely on vibes and don't really care about people's actual positions. Keir Starmer is the least ideological and pragmatic PM we have had for some time, but to the right wing rags and Facebook nutjobs he may as well be Marx himself. The only counter is to stop creating these types of people and the only way to stop that is to reverse the continuing decrease in standard of living. Fringe leftist ideas or people being somewhat uncharitable to their opponents view is little more than a trigger imo, the root cause is the economy.

The problem with the Starmers of the world is that they don’t have the authenticity to fight for what they know to be right and it becomes managerial. He knows joining customs union would overnight benefit us but he won’t take on the likes of Farage.

No 1: lacks the communication skills
No 2: won’t take risks

The lack of risk taking is their undoing and it has let the shysters off the hook

 

[rockinj]

Hitler was kind of lobsided on the 'cunt' side, don't you reckon, compared to Kirk, for example?

Trying to 'understand' something doesn't mean that you're trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, or come to some agreement on how they got to those thoughts. I'd love to sit someone like Hitler down and ask him, how the ruddy f*ck did you come to those feelings and want to kill Jews and all of the other atrocities you committed? That doesn't mean that I agree with a single thing that he espoused and he's one of the most evil people who have ever lived. Hitler is the extreme end of the scale though, as I mentioned before, Godwin's law.

Maybe I'm being too inquisitive and naïve, I dunno.

No mate. You get it.

You don’t learn anything from history with the mentality of some posters on here.

History lesson from planetswans clique:

Hitler cunt. End of.

‘xcuse me sir how did the enabling act come to pass?

what caused….


Get this cunt out of my class. We have a nazi in the class. Out!!!!

 

[Captain_Sham]

So it appears that the shooter didnt like that Kirk spread hate. In order to show the world this, he spread more hate. Irony but ultimately just sadness.

 

[Darran]

So it appears that the shooter didnt like that Kirk spread hate. In order to show the world this, he spread more hate. Irony but ultimately just sadness.

Brilliant.

 

[J_B]

So it appears that the shooter didnt like that Kirk spread hate. In order to show the world this, he spread more hate. Irony but ultimately just sadness.

Indeed. Spreading hate results in more hate.
We're fucked.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

So it appears that the shooter didnt like that Kirk spread hate. In order to show the world this, he spread more hate. Irony but ultimately just sadness.

And in the process makes the existing hate immeasurably worse. Incredibly depressing.

 

[Longlostjack]

To digress a bit, it’s interesting to see that JD Vance seems to be getting more and more exposure. I wonder how much longer Trump has got?

 

[Darran]

To digress a bit, it’s interesting to see that JD Vance seems to be getting more and more exposure. I wonder how much longer Trump has got?

Another 7 years.