Charlie Kirk shot at Utah Valley University

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


If you had an 18 year old boy he would have heard of him. My college freshman said the killing was all his team talked about at practice yesterday. The team is a mix of conservative and liberal kids and opinions on Kirk ranged from adoration to disgust. He said they had a respectful discussion, which gave me great hope.


I'm struggling with adoration of hate and why people who were the targets of Kirk's hate need to be respectful.


What people or individuals were targeted of “Kirk’s hate”? When did he said he hated person XYZ or a group of people abc?

Or did he said he hates crime? Or murderers? Or hates the lack of morals out there?

What did he say he hated exactly? A thing? A concept? A proper noun person? A group of benign people? A country?


He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with a Black pilot, no? Kind of hate adjacent.


Let’s put this in context….
Kirk’s comments were part of a broader critique of DEI. He was pointing out that when the emphasis on hiring is all about skin color and gender, then merit takes a back seat. Example: United Airlines goal to have 40% of its pilots be women or people of color which would relax the standards of hiring.
This is certainly a legitimate point about the potential effect of diversity initiatives on hiring standards.
When the focus is on skin color and gender, how can the public be certain that qualifications for pilots have not been compromised?




The context in which he said it matters. He went on that rant after an air accident in which none of the pilots were black and the plane pilots were not responsible and had no way of avoiding the collision. So using an airline tragedy that had nothing to do with the hiring of airline pilots to attack black airline pilots is in fact really racist.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


My college teens had never heard of him, when he was shot, they were told by friends that “he promotes gun violence and says horrific things”
So I guess it depends on who/where you are


My high school teen asked me about him last week so I explained scamming via 990s and explained that he's basically a con artist with rizz.

Face it, MOST “internet influencer” or “podcasters” never get traction and are drop out scam artists. Pushing cosmetics, pushing their personal option, pushing their Huak Tuan viral event for five mins.

Then there are the talented people who use them for civil discourse (Kirk) or broadening others horizons (Kelsey bros).

If you can’t tell the difference you’re not listening


I work in the Influencer and podcasting world, and have worked with people like Kirk.

There’s nothing talented about them. What they do is 100% understand the game, which is to be as controversial as possible to get views and virality. When we train new clients, we train them how to speak in ways that are triggering and leave no nuance/room for actual discourse. We also know to pick out debate opponents who will also be triggering in some way - dumb, LGBTQ+, something that will cause the internet to gang up on them and side with the Influencer.

It’s very hard for me to empathize with Kirk because when you get into that world, and over time you become more and more extreme to get more and more views, you know exactly what you’re signing up for. Everyone I’ve worked with has received death threats, had their homes broken into, etc. The women I know who do Only Fans basically live in fortresses because there are so many attempts to harm them.

I’m not gonna celebrate his death, but I’m not going to pretend he was out there doing God’s work. He had extensive training in how to go viral, and that was the motivation behind his content. If cuddling puppies would have made him money, believe me, he would have been doing that instead.

And if you don’t believe me, pick your favorite podcaster/influencer and scroll back on their timeline 10+ years. You’ll see that most start as fairly balanced and nuanced, and over time become more and more extreme because that’s what they need to do to get views. That one chick, Pearl whatever - she started with giving financial advice, nobody watched it, so she started with the whole weird anti-feminism thing (despite her not even following her own advice).


Best post I have read on here in a long time. Trump used the same playbook to propel himself to the presidency. For many years he was close with the Democratic Party. He wanted to run for office, even mentioned it to the Clintons, but the Dems all thought of him as a clown. He seized on some conspiratorial stuff, like Obama's citizenship, and realized that he could ride right wing discontent to the White House. His only goal in the WH is to enrich himself. He cares nothing for our country and the American people. He's a textbook narcissist and constantly craves attention and adoration. As time goes on, he makes more and more outrageous statements and gets away with it. He's the most dangerous political figure in our nation's history.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


If you had an 18 year old boy he would have heard of him. My college freshman said the killing was all his team talked about at practice yesterday. The team is a mix of conservative and liberal kids and opinions on Kirk ranged from adoration to disgust. He said they had a respectful discussion, which gave me great hope.


I'm struggling with adoration of hate and why people who were the targets of Kirk's hate need to be respectful.


What people or individuals were targeted of “Kirk’s hate”? When did he said he hated person XYZ or a group of people abc?

Or did he said he hates crime? Or murderers? Or hates the lack of morals out there?

What did he say he hated exactly? A thing? A concept? A proper noun person? A group of benign people? A country?


He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with a Black pilot, no? Kind of hate adjacent.


Let’s put this in context….
Kirk’s comments were part of a broader critique of DEI. He was pointing out that when the emphasis on hiring is all about skin color and gender, then merit takes a back seat. Example: United Airlines goal to have 40% of its pilots be women or people of color which would relax the standards of hiring.
This is certainly a legitimate point about the potential effect of diversity initiatives on hiring standards.
When the focus is on skin color and gender, how can the public be certain that qualifications for pilots have not been compromised?




What is the context for his comments about the attack on Paul Pelosi?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Over and over again, the motive points to Israel



He stepped out of line with Israel.


Bigot much?
I can't see how jumping to "maybe the jews did it" this early with such little information is anything but bigoted.


He himself said he feared Israel might kill him. So this isn't about me or "bigotry." Try to keep up and pay better attention.
Most of the world is against Israel right now. This guy's single voice isn't worth a mossad operation. The Epstein angle on the other hand....


I really don’t understand the Epstein angle. It makes you guys sound crazy.
Then your being willfully ignorant that the most powerful man in the entire world is under threat of being canceled due to his friendship with a known pedophile.

But Charlie Kirk wouldn’t be the one to kill. Who was he? I don’t even know. That is how influential Charlie Kirk was. Sorry but he wasn’t important enough to assassinate.
Yes he is because he was the one who brought up the topic, when he called for the release of all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

But who was listening to him other than radical right wing white young white males? Who else knew of his existence really?


I was aware of Kirk and his hate machine, but I didn't follow him on SM, etc. I think there are a number of Dems who were similar to me - knew about Kirk, TPUSA, etc, but didn't track him on a daily basis unless that was part of their work brief.

This describes me, too. I don’t think I heard his name until he paid for so many buses to send people to the Capitol riot. I watched the South Park episode about him but I didn’t realize it was him until my daughter told me.


I'd love to know where all the money came from for those buses and for paying Charlie and paying for his podcast production. Someone paid his fake-o organization the big bucks to spread hate.



+1

Spreading hate in order to divide and conquer the American people has been the strategy of our awful two major political parties for a while now. Their strategy has been effective.


Interesting. What are the top 3 examples of this from both parties?
Anonymous
Where did this 22 professional Mossad assassin (as “experts” claimed get his training?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


If you had an 18 year old boy he would have heard of him. My college freshman said the killing was all his team talked about at practice yesterday. The team is a mix of conservative and liberal kids and opinions on Kirk ranged from adoration to disgust. He said they had a respectful discussion, which gave me great hope.


I'm struggling with adoration of hate and why people who were the targets of Kirk's hate need to be respectful.


What people or individuals were targeted of “Kirk’s hate”? When did he said he hated person XYZ or a group of people abc?

Or did he said he hates crime? Or murderers? Or hates the lack of morals out there?

What did he say he hated exactly? A thing? A concept? A proper noun person? A group of benign people? A country?


He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with a Black pilot, no? Kind of hate adjacent.


Let’s put this in context….
Kirk’s comments were part of a broader critique of DEI. He was pointing out that when the emphasis on hiring is all about skin color and gender, then merit takes a back seat. Example: United Airlines goal to have 40% of its pilots be women or people of color which would relax the standards of hiring.
This is certainly a legitimate point about the potential effect of diversity initiatives on hiring standards.
When the focus is on skin color and gender, how can the public be certain that qualifications for pilots have not been compromised?




The context in which he said it matters. He went on that rant after an air accident in which none of the pilots were black and the plane pilots were not responsible and had no way of avoiding the collision. So using an airline tragedy that had nothing to do with the hiring of airline pilots to attack black airline pilots is in fact really racist.


And his comments were in response to a question. He is absolutely right about the danger of DEI lowering standards.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow, a handsome really smart clean-cut kid.



Look how fast they pivoted from trans to autistic. These RWNJs are something else.

Could his defense use autism as a mitigating factor against the death penalty?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think many of you leftists have no idea why Kirk's assassination has turned into such a big deal.

Kirk was doing it "the right way" according to the left. Disagree politely, listen, give the other side space.

And he was killed because leftists didn't like what he had to say (as this thread amply shows) and they didn't want him to keep saying it.

Lots and lots of the "Democrat base" are celebrating and cheering the deliberate murder of someone who had the guts to publicly disagree with the left. "Debate this!" I see the signs being posted on college campuses, with a drawing of Kirk bleeding out from his neck.

So.

What value is there is "peace" and "restraint" when leftists murdered the most prominent guy on the right who was all about peace and restraint? And celebrate his death?

If you leftists are so glad to see Kirk killed... well, there's no possibility of peace, is there. He WAS the "peaceful solution". And leftists murdered him for it. Or at least are very happy about it.

If Kirk is not acceptable to the left.... we all know you guys would GLADLY kill the rest of us, too.

Kirk was a sort of "ambassador" to the left... and he was murdered because of it. What happens when an ambassador is killed? That's a casus belli and has been since Ghengis Khan, at the very least.


I don’t appreciate the broad generalization happening here. First off, this person probably worked alone, 75 million people and or anyone official is involved here. I have no control over what others say or do. And I think “lots” is an exaggeration. The celebrators are a minority amongst a large group of people.


It's been less than 24 hours since he was killed, and I've already seen coworkers, people just out in public - and certainly a lot of people on this very board, openly cheering that he was killed.

I think you're wrong in thinking that this is a 'small' segment of people on the left. I wasn't even looking, and saw dozens of examples of it, less than a day after he was killed.

I didn't agree with much of anything Charlie Kirk said. But first and foremost, he was a human being, with a wife and two young kids that will now grow up without a father. I'm deeply disappointed and kind of shocked by my own political party at the moment. There's some sickening stuff being said on reddit/bluesky/twitter, and it's not even been a day.


If you have receipts, then post them.

The party of free speech has assembled a website doxxing people online who have criticized Kirk calling it “Charlie’s Murderers.” Real normal behavior there.


Are you saying that site is officially sponsored by the Republican Party? If so, can you please provide proof of this?

Also, while the name of the site is hyperbolic (obviously to get clicks), it would appear to be a collection of postings that is no different than any other site (regardless of political alignment) that assembles outrageous statements to amplify and call attention to them. Isn't this what politicians and political activists do every day? That would seem to be "normal" behavior (aside from the site name itself). The disgusting postings it collects seem to be abnormal behavior.

By the way, "Free Speech" only relates to the right of the government to restrict your speech. Even in that context, while you are free to say what you want, you are not free from the consequences of such speech by the broader society in general.


Ok, can we finally stop the whining about identifying ICE agents for the purposes of accountability?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Over and over again, the motive points to Israel



He stepped out of line with Israel.


Bigot much?
I can't see how jumping to "maybe the jews did it" this early with such little information is anything but bigoted.


He himself said he feared Israel might kill him. So this isn't about me or "bigotry." Try to keep up and pay better attention.
Most of the world is against Israel right now. This guy's single voice isn't worth a mossad operation. The Epstein angle on the other hand....


I really don’t understand the Epstein angle. It makes you guys sound crazy.
Then your being willfully ignorant that the most powerful man in the entire world is under threat of being canceled due to his friendship with a known pedophile.

But Charlie Kirk wouldn’t be the one to kill. Who was he? I don’t even know. That is how influential Charlie Kirk was. Sorry but he wasn’t important enough to assassinate.
Yes he is because he was the one who brought up the topic, when he called for the release of all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

But who was listening to him other than radical right wing white young white males? Who else knew of his existence really?


I was aware of Kirk and his hate machine, but I didn't follow him on SM, etc. I think there are a number of Dems who were similar to me - knew about Kirk, TPUSA, etc, but didn't track him on a daily basis unless that was part of their work brief.

This describes me, too. I don’t think I heard his name until he paid for so many buses to send people to the Capitol riot. I watched the South Park episode about him but I didn’t realize it was him until my daughter told me.


I'd love to know where all the money came from for those buses and for paying Charlie and paying for his podcast production. Someone paid his fake-o organization the big bucks to spread hate.



+1

Spreading hate in order to divide and conquer the American people has been the strategy of our awful two major political parties for a while now. Their strategy has been effective.


And they get to secure themselves behind gates and private security after the violent fall out from this division. The rest of us don’t get that privilege
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think many of you leftists have no idea why Kirk's assassination has turned into such a big deal.

Kirk was doing it "the right way" according to the left. Disagree politely, listen, give the other side space.

And he was killed because leftists didn't like what he had to say (as this thread amply shows) and they didn't want him to keep saying it.

Lots and lots of the "Democrat base" are celebrating and cheering the deliberate murder of someone who had the guts to publicly disagree with the left. "Debate this!" I see the signs being posted on college campuses, with a drawing of Kirk bleeding out from his neck.

So.

What value is there is "peace" and "restraint" when leftists murdered the most prominent guy on the right who was all about peace and restraint? And celebrate his death?

If you leftists are so glad to see Kirk killed... well, there's no possibility of peace, is there. He WAS the "peaceful solution". And leftists murdered him for it. Or at least are very happy about it.

If Kirk is not acceptable to the left.... we all know you guys would GLADLY kill the rest of us, too.

Kirk was a sort of "ambassador" to the left... and he was murdered because of it. What happens when an ambassador is killed? That's a casus belli and has been since Ghengis Khan, at the very least.


I don’t appreciate the broad generalization happening here. First off, this person probably worked alone, 75 million people and or anyone official is involved here. I have no control over what others say or do. And I think “lots” is an exaggeration. The celebrators are a minority amongst a large group of people.


It's been less than 24 hours since he was killed, and I've already seen coworkers, people just out in public - and certainly a lot of people on this very board, openly cheering that he was killed.

I think you're wrong in thinking that this is a 'small' segment of people on the left. I wasn't even looking, and saw dozens of examples of it, less than a day after he was killed.

I didn't agree with much of anything Charlie Kirk said. But first and foremost, he was a human being, with a wife and two young kids that will now grow up without a father. I'm deeply disappointed and kind of shocked by my own political party at the moment. There's some sickening stuff being said on reddit/bluesky/twitter, and it's not even been a day.


If you have receipts, then post them.

The party of free speech has assembled a website doxxing people online who have criticized Kirk calling it “Charlie’s Murderers.” Real normal behavior there.


Are you saying that site is officially sponsored by the Republican Party? If so, can you please provide proof of this?

Also, while the name of the site is hyperbolic (obviously to get clicks), it would appear to be a collection of postings that is no different than any other site (regardless of political alignment) that assembles outrageous statements to amplify and call attention to them. Isn't this what politicians and political activists do every day? That would seem to be "normal" behavior (aside from the site name itself). The disgusting postings it collects seem to be abnormal behavior.

By the way, "Free Speech" only relates to the right of the government to restrict your speech. Even in that context, while you are free to say what you want, you are not free from the consequences of such speech by the broader society in general.


I think that the wider point is that a great deal of his audience seems to be comprised of violent hypocritical lunatics.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


If you had an 18 year old boy he would have heard of him. My college freshman said the killing was all his team talked about at practice yesterday. The team is a mix of conservative and liberal kids and opinions on Kirk ranged from adoration to disgust. He said they had a respectful discussion, which gave me great hope.


I'm struggling with adoration of hate and why people who were the targets of Kirk's hate need to be respectful.


What people or individuals were targeted of “Kirk’s hate”? When did he said he hated person XYZ or a group of people abc?

Or did he said he hates crime? Or murderers? Or hates the lack of morals out there?

What did he say he hated exactly? A thing? A concept? A proper noun person? A group of benign people? A country?


He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with a Black pilot, no? Kind of hate adjacent.


Let’s put this in context….
Kirk’s comments were part of a broader critique of DEI. He was pointing out that when the emphasis on hiring is all about skin color and gender, then merit takes a back seat. Example: United Airlines goal to have 40% of its pilots be women or people of color which would relax the standards of hiring.
This is certainly a legitimate point about the potential effect of diversity initiatives on hiring standards.
When the focus is on skin color and gender, how can the public be certain that qualifications for pilots have not been compromised?




What is the context for his comments about the attack on Paul Pelosi?



DP here - also the assertion that POC and women pilots get jobs as pilots with lower standards is a lie. A complete and total lie. They take the same tests. They are required to complete the same number of hours. They must achieve the same credentials. All that DEI initiatives do is ensure they aren’t overlooked because of their color / sex. Often they’re as good if not BETTER[u] than their white, male peers.

This is the kind of junk that Kirk promoted. Junk and lies. Don’t wish him dead and appalled by political violence. It has no place anywhere. But Kirk did real harm to people by promoting this type of bigoted nonsense.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


If you had an 18 year old boy he would have heard of him. My college freshman said the killing was all his team talked about at practice yesterday. The team is a mix of conservative and liberal kids and opinions on Kirk ranged from adoration to disgust. He said they had a respectful discussion, which gave me great hope.


I'm struggling with adoration of hate and why people who were the targets of Kirk's hate need to be respectful.


What people or individuals were targeted of “Kirk’s hate”? When did he said he hated person XYZ or a group of people abc?

Or did he said he hates crime? Or murderers? Or hates the lack of morals out there?

What did he say he hated exactly? A thing? A concept? A proper noun person? A group of benign people? A country?


He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable with a Black pilot, no? Kind of hate adjacent.


Let’s put this in context….
Kirk’s comments were part of a broader critique of DEI. He was pointing out that when the emphasis on hiring is all about skin color and gender, then merit takes a back seat. Example: United Airlines goal to have 40% of its pilots be women or people of color which would relax the standards of hiring.
This is certainly a legitimate point about the potential effect of diversity initiatives on hiring standards.
When the focus is on skin color and gender, how can the public be certain that qualifications for pilots have not been compromised?




Hmmm... I guess I can kind of relate in that when I see Trump's Cabinet, chosen for the color of their skin and their proponesity to say "Yes Sir!" and to flatter, I admit I worry about how the relaxed standards of hiring will affect our nation's future.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:[img]
Anonymous wrote:To all the people who say that no one knew this guy and that their well-informed kids didn't know him... sorry, but your kids are not well-informed.

I am 50-year-old mom and I get that, if you don't ever look at social media you may not have heard of him, but if you have teens you absolutely should have.

Charlie Kirk was uber famous. There are memes about the memes about him.

I am looking forward to when the 48-hours expire and we can discuss some of his views here. I wholeheartedly respect DCUM's rules and I condemn in the strongest possible terms what happened to Charlie Kirk. No one asks or deserves to me murdered. Political violence is horrible for all of us. But Charlie Kirk was a very famous public figure and there is no contradiction between denouncing the assassination and critiquing his views.

I’ve never heard of him nor have my tweens. We aren’t big into SM though. Is Kirk kinda like Mr. Beast? I have heard of Mr. Beast? Is that his name? He had his own brand of lunchables.


If you had an 18 year old boy he would have heard of him. My college freshman said the killing was all his team talked about at practice yesterday. The team is a mix of conservative and liberal kids and opinions on Kirk ranged from adoration to disgust. He said they had a respectful discussion, which gave me great hope.


I'm struggling with adoration of hate and why people who were the targets of Kirk's hate need to be respectful.


What people or individuals were targeted of “Kirk’s hate”? When did he said he hated person XYZ or a group of people abc?

Or did he said he hates crime? Or murderers? Or hates the lack of morals out there?

What did he say he hated exactly? A thing? A concept? A proper noun person? A group of benign people? A country?


I’m going to keep saying this until one of you Kirk fans actually addresses it, because you keep conveniently ignoring it. His organization maintained a “Professor Watch List” website to publicly doxx professors he didn’t agree with. What is that if not targeting? Professors on that list have been subjected to death threats and in some cases have needed security to do their jobs. Stop glossing over this just because it doesn’t fit what you want to say about the guy.


+1 Here’s what Howard professor Stacey Patton had to say about this:

“I am on Charlie Kirk’s hit list. His so-called ‘Professor Watchlist,’ run under the umbrella of Turning Point USA, is nothing more than a digital hit list for academics who dare to speak truth to power. I landed there in 2024 after writing commentary that inflamed the MAGA faithful. And once my name went up, the harassment machine roared to life.

For weeks my inbox and voicemail were deluged. Mostly white men spat venom through the phone: ‘b****,’ ‘c***,’ ‘n****r.’ They threatened all manner of violence.

They overwhelmed the university’s PR lines and the president’s office with calls demanding that I be fired. The flood was so relentless that the head of campus security reached out to offer me an escort, because they feared one of these keyboard soldiers might step out of his basement and come do me harm.

And I am not unique. Kirk’s Watchlist has terrorized legions of professors across this country. Women, Black faculty, queer scholars, basically anyone who challenged white supremacy, gun culture, or Christian nationalism suddenly found themselves targets of coordinated abuse. Some received death threats. Some had their jobs threatened. Some left academia entirely. Kirk sent the loud message to us: speak the truth and we will unleash the mob!

That is the culture of violence Charlie Kirk built. He normalized violence. He curated it, monetized it, and sicced it on anyone who dared to puncture his movement’s lies.

And now, in the wake of his shooting, there’s all this national outpouring of mourning, moments of silence, yellow prayer hands, and tributes painting him as a civil debater. But the truth is that Kirk and his foot soldiers spent years terrorizing educators, trying to silence us with harassment and fear!

And now the same violence he unleashed on others has come full circle.

But what i find especially jarring is the dissonance in public mourning for a smug white man whose life work was actively hostile to certain groups,. Kirk spent years demonizing LGBTQ people, mocking gun survivors, spewing racism about Black folks, and pushing policies that literally shorten lives.

It is so revolting to watch a bipartisan wave of grief sweep over this hateful racist as if he was a neutral community servant.”
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Charlie K. was taking a salery from at least three nonprofits so making about a million a year
Turning Point US
Turning Point Action and the
Turning Point PAC.

Here's one of the three 990s which lists his salery. "other benifits" could be 401K, 457f and other deferred compensation. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/800835023


He was making much, much more. Impossible to know his real income and net worth because there are many ways to pad your pockets in that 501(c)(3) orbit plus he had access to private investment opportunities, crypto, etc. People would see him and other right wing influencers flying private jets and always staying at 5-star hotels. The Con. Inc. Zionist grift machine pays well.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow, a handsome really smart clean-cut kid.

Alleged shooter


He confessed. Does that make him alleged still?
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: