Donald I, emperor of the world.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

CXRAndy

Squire
 

Beebo

Guru
Like a lot of people, the first I heard of Charlie Kirk was when he was gone. Not wanting to get trapped in a bubble, I have tried to watch as many videos and read as many articles tearing into him as lauding him. So far I am more an admirer than not, despite that I generally find bible thumpers tedious. "Prove me wrong," he famously said, and after watching the Cambridge University debate I think a few of them, including Tilly Middlehurst (who went viral afterwards, though I missed all that), did. It doesn't matter. What matters is he put himself out there, again and again and again, making converts to debate.

From the BBC article linked above: "One of the most surprising experiences from my encounter with Kirk was the magnanimity and generosity of his many supporters, who were willing to talk to me, listen to me and acknowledge peaceful disagreement, even changing our preconceptions about each other."

I admire his ability to connect with others.
The problem I have is that when he was proved wrong he didn’t change his opinion or views.
He just agreed to disagree, which is pretty pointless when asking to be proven wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

CXRAndy

Squire
I admire his ability to connect with others.
The problem I have is that when he was proved wrong he didn’t change his opinion or views.
He just agreed to disagree, which is pretty pointless when asking to be proven wrong.

If he's living by a doctrine of Christianity. He believes what he follows. Those are his standards, morals, beliefs by which he lived and others continue do so today

If he agrees to disagree, perfectly fine, far far better than killing someone you dont agree with.


Don't you agree?
 

Shortfall

Regular
I admire his ability to connect with others.
The problem I have is that when he was proved wrong he didn’t change his opinion or views.
He just agreed to disagree, which is pretty pointless when asking to be proven wrong.

Unlike everybody on this forum who are always ready to change their minds and reflect on their entrenched positions and opinions? He was usually arguing with people who were incredibly hostile towards him so in a combative environment like that it's unlikely that he's gonna turn round and say "Ah yes you're right. I give in". The guy was only 32. I was pretty sure I was right about everything then too. Wisdom comes with age. Changing your mind is difficult and comes after much reflection, life experience and wrestling with opponents in debate. The point is surely that he was having the debate but that his ideas were twisted and taken out of context by algorithms and his enemies and used to turn him into a hateful monster who a lot of people seem to think that even if he didn't deserve that bullet then he sort of had it coming.
 
Last edited:

Pinno718

Über Member
Robinson was from a Mormon* family, registered Republicans, gun toting bible bashers (sooo 'christian') and I do not think there is any doubt Robinson was a fascist. Even if he had turned out to be in a different mould and was a leftie loon, the fact remains that he was indoctrinated into a culture of gun ownership - by his own REPUBLICAN father under the umbrella of the 2nd amendment and within some warped interpretation of the bible. Robinson is a nut job no matter what his motives, no matter what his political bent is (and there is wholly insufficient regulation to curb gun ownership). Kirk was a bible bashing nut job, demonising people who were black or gay or 'liberal. He espoused the virtues of submissive women' and promoted the anti-abortion rhetoric where, abortion no matter what the circumstances, is wrong. Those two things are inextricably linked.
The bible bashers have been quietly saying vile stuff for years amongst themselves but now it has become acceptable to publicly state these opinions within the culture that Trump has enabled, legitimised. Kirk was complicit; an architect of a rhetoric that is loathsome, riddled with hypocrisy and mixed in with biblical justification. So he delivered this bile calmly? So what? It's still nut job level hate.
Here's a Guardian article listing some of the most controversial things Kirk actually said. He was an abhorrent individual, make no mistake.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

*Less than 1% of Mormons are black. That's telling.
 

Pblakeney

Über Member
Robinson was from a Mormon* family, registered Republicans, gun toting bible bashers (sooo 'christian') and I do not think there is any doubt Robinson was a fascist. Even if he had turned out to be in a different mould and was a leftie loon, the fact remains that he was indoctrinated into a culture of gun ownership - by his own REPUBLICAN father under the umbrella of the 2nd amendment and within some warped interpretation of the bible. Robinson is a nut job no matter what his motives, no matter what his political bent is (and there is wholly insufficient regulation to curb gun ownership). Kirk was a bible bashing nut job, demonising people who were black or gay or 'liberal. He espoused the virtues of submissive women' and promoted the anti-abortion rhetoric where, abortion no matter what the circumstances, is wrong. Those two things are inextricably linked.
The bible bashers have been quietly saying vile stuff for years amongst themselves but now it has become acceptable to publicly state these opinions within the culture that Trump has enabled, legitimised. Kirk was complicit; an architect of a rhetoric that is loathsome, riddled with hypocrisy and mixed in with biblical justification. So he delivered this bile calmly? So what? It's still nut job level hate.
Here's a Guardian article listing some of the most controversial things Kirk actually said. He was an abhorrent individual, make no mistake.
.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

*Less than 1% of Mormons are black. That's telling.

Much more eloquently put than I'd have managed.
 

CXRAndy

Squire
All I've read so far he was involved in a group called groypers, was having a relationship with a TiM and on a discord chat group.

I read groypers are anti Christian, extreme right, Holocaust deniers.

I understand many of Charlie kirk rallys were often heckled by these 'groypers'

Charlie Kirk was certainly not in the same section of the right, he was classed as a conservative
 
demonising people who were black or gay or 'liberal

I want to move away from his murder for a moment. I have made my own thoughts clear that there is no justification for this ever, and I take no pleasure in any person being murdered.

I do think it is important to talk about Kirk's rhetoric and the wider issue. I agree, he was quite clearly regularly making statements that demonised whole groups of people that were 'other' to him. The major challenge to democracy across the world is that these racist/sexist/homophobic notions are once again becoming mainstream and normalised, and have been slowly creeping upon us for a number of years. Individuals and institutions are quite overtly pushing these notions on a daily basis and dressing them up as 'free speech' or 'legitimate concerns'. People say the 'left' overreact to this stuff, but this is how fascism starts, the slow creep of demonising people until it becomes acceptable to the majority.

I agree that revelling in Kirk's murder is abhorrent, but taking on his arguments and highlighting how Kirk and many others have been sowing division and hate for some time is not only important but necessary.
 
Top Bottom