he was a racist piece of shit who made a fortune spreading hate and who ultimately got killed by the guns he was an advocate for. a beautiful case of poetic justice.
you calling him amazing speaks volumes about you.
USA Political Discussion Thread 2025
- Thread starter LLLurkJ2
- Start date
you calling him amazing speaks volumes about you.
The dumbest thing we have going on for us is this tribalism attachment we have to left or right.
The shooter was a young man who had heavy emotions and grew up with conservative values and was taught how to shoot a gun from an early age. Tougher gun laws probably would have kept him from having that gun that he chose to kill with. But maybe not. His dad was a cop. Who knows what he felt in that moment. Who knows why he did what he did. At this moment only Tyler knows.
Charles Kirk was also a young man who preached a lot of stuff that I definitely don’t agree with. But he was a young passionate man with a wife and children and a future. He definitely did not deserve to be gunned down.
It’s created a lot more divide in an already divided country. It’s a tragedy.
Trump is an idiot and making the division worse. But that’s the plan. Distract and divide so the 1% rules over everybody else. We’re all just pawns in the biggest hustle in the history of mankind.
The shooter was a young man who had heavy emotions and grew up with conservative values and was taught how to shoot a gun from an early age. Tougher gun laws probably would have kept him from having that gun that he chose to kill with. But maybe not. His dad was a cop. Who knows what he felt in that moment. Who knows why he did what he did. At this moment only Tyler knows.
Charles Kirk was also a young man who preached a lot of stuff that I definitely don’t agree with. But he was a young passionate man with a wife and children and a future. He definitely did not deserve to be gunned down.
It’s created a lot more divide in an already divided country. It’s a tragedy.
Trump is an idiot and making the division worse. But that’s the plan. Distract and divide so the 1% rules over everybody else. We’re all just pawns in the biggest hustle in the history of mankind.
The more I am reading about this CK guy and the fact that Stephen Miller is going all commando defending him, speaks volumes about who this guy was and a racist piece of shit starts the description of him. Then I saw a clip of his wife spewing all kinds of warnings etc and if he was a fraction of what she sounds like, he was the perfect MAGA mouthpiece. No wonder the felon and his followers idolized him.
Just when I think the US is as fucked up as it can get, more shit like this comes up and moves the bar even lower.
this is not a case of both sides do it... he was murdered by a fellow right winger groyper. all the leaders and commentators on the left immediately condemned all political violence while the reaction on the right has been to scream for bloody vengeance and look for ways to pin this on the transgender people as they were not able to present him as a leftist activist
charlie was a passionate bigot who did real harm normalizing the most vile rhetoric to target minorities with cruelty. tens of thousands of people who have had their life ruined because of bigots like charlie who dictate the policy of the trump government
charlie was a passionate bigot who did real harm normalizing the most vile rhetoric to target minorities with cruelty. tens of thousands of people who have had their life ruined because of bigots like charlie who dictate the policy of the trump government
I have my doubts that this will be read or even momentarily considered.
"Recognizing that the other person is as convinced as you are that they are right is a crucial step toward constructive dialogue and mutual understanding. This awareness reflects cognitive empathy—the ability to understand another’s perspective, even when you disagree with it. Both parties in a disagreement often hold their beliefs with equal conviction, shaped by their unique experiences, values, and information sources.
This phenomenon is rooted in cognitive biases such as belief perseverance (the tendency to cling to one’s beliefs despite contrary evidence) and confirmation bias (favoring information that supports existing views). As a result, two rational people can interpret the same facts differently and remain firmly convinced of their own correctness.
Acknowledging this shared conviction helps de-escalate conflict. It shifts the focus from "winning" the argument to understanding the reasoning behind each perspective. This doesn’t require changing your own view, but it opens the door to respectful conversation, reduces defensiveness, and creates space for common ground.
As psychologist Carl Rogers noted, truly hearing someone—without judgment or intent to reply—can be transformative. When people feel understood, they are more likely to listen in return. So, recognizing that the other person feels just as right as you do is not a sign of weakness or doubt, but a mark of intellectual humility and emotional maturity. It’s the foundation of empathy, dialogue, and ultimately, resolution."
"Recognizing that the other person is as convinced as you are that they are right is a crucial step toward constructive dialogue and mutual understanding. This awareness reflects cognitive empathy—the ability to understand another’s perspective, even when you disagree with it. Both parties in a disagreement often hold their beliefs with equal conviction, shaped by their unique experiences, values, and information sources.
This phenomenon is rooted in cognitive biases such as belief perseverance (the tendency to cling to one’s beliefs despite contrary evidence) and confirmation bias (favoring information that supports existing views). As a result, two rational people can interpret the same facts differently and remain firmly convinced of their own correctness.
Acknowledging this shared conviction helps de-escalate conflict. It shifts the focus from "winning" the argument to understanding the reasoning behind each perspective. This doesn’t require changing your own view, but it opens the door to respectful conversation, reduces defensiveness, and creates space for common ground.
As psychologist Carl Rogers noted, truly hearing someone—without judgment or intent to reply—can be transformative. When people feel understood, they are more likely to listen in return. So, recognizing that the other person feels just as right as you do is not a sign of weakness or doubt, but a mark of intellectual humility and emotional maturity. It’s the foundation of empathy, dialogue, and ultimately, resolution."
It's well considered and is for all intents and purposes, the basis for mediation.
I would hate to have our world dismiss what is morally correct though, and not vigorously dissent when rhetoric such as what we all hear now permeating the media, the politics and is getting embedded in everyday life. And on the topic of morally correct, if that gets challenged by those saying that is due to your upbringing, I question how they were brought up!
It is fascism, blatant fascism and the magat's whether they know it or not are embracing its ugly ideals.
To me it is sickening seeing images of this bigot being put up as an example of a hero. Mind you the whole sickening bar is being moved almost daily by the gross criminality and injustice in what is happening in the US and how they are supporting equally as criminal regimes such as present day Israel.
Just gonna set this up a bit.
Kirk once said, "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously."
Candace Owens is a Black MAGA woman.
Kirk once said, "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously."
Candace Owens is a Black MAGA woman.
which is pretty much the kind of dialog happening these days, but that one is funny stripping out the bigoty, racism and misogamy ...
@Larry's Torch
Thank you for that post. It was exceptionally well-written and is the most insightful comment in this entire thread. Your explanation of cognitive empathy and the need to understand that the other person is just as convinced they are right is the absolute foundation for any productive dialogue. It’s a principle I wish more of us, on all sides, would take to heart.
You’ve perfectly articulated the challenge we face. For an honest discussion to even begin, we have to start from a shared set of facts, not smears. The central tragedy here, which should concern everyone regardless of their politics, is the replacement of words with bullets. It's the ultimate rejection of democracy.
A perfect example of the problem is the fake quote that @Crookedmember posted. He claimed Charlie said, "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously." This is a complete fabrication, and it's important to correct the record.
Here is what Charlie actually said, and the context: He was criticizing affirmative action. He was specifically referencing a clip of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee admitting she benefited from it, and he then named Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all individuals who have publicly stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. His argument was that by accepting these policies, they were, in his words, making a "confession" they couldn't have achieved their positions on merit alone.
He never said "Black women" as a group. He named specific, powerful individuals in the context of a specific policy debate. You can disagree fiercely with his argument about affirmative action, but you cannot honestly twist it into the racist smear being presented here. Using a fake, generalized quote to paint him as a racist is a textbook example of the disinformation that fuels the hate we're seeing. It also cruelly ignores that Candace Owens, a Black woman he deeply respected and worked with, is heartbroken by his murder.
I defended Charlie, and I will continue to defend his memory, because he embodied the alternative to the violence that took his life. He chose the stage, not the shadows. He used a microphone, not a rifle. He stood and debated his opponents face-to-face.
The fundamental question Larry’s post leaves us with is this: can we find common ground in universally condemning the murder of someone for their speech? And can we commit to debating each other with actual facts, instead of justifying hatred with lies? If we can't, then the hope for "constructive dialogue and mutual understanding" is already lost.
Thank you for that post. It was exceptionally well-written and is the most insightful comment in this entire thread. Your explanation of cognitive empathy and the need to understand that the other person is just as convinced they are right is the absolute foundation for any productive dialogue. It’s a principle I wish more of us, on all sides, would take to heart.
You’ve perfectly articulated the challenge we face. For an honest discussion to even begin, we have to start from a shared set of facts, not smears. The central tragedy here, which should concern everyone regardless of their politics, is the replacement of words with bullets. It's the ultimate rejection of democracy.
A perfect example of the problem is the fake quote that @Crookedmember posted. He claimed Charlie said, "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously." This is a complete fabrication, and it's important to correct the record.
Here is what Charlie actually said, and the context: He was criticizing affirmative action. He was specifically referencing a clip of Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee admitting she benefited from it, and he then named Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all individuals who have publicly stated they were beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. His argument was that by accepting these policies, they were, in his words, making a "confession" they couldn't have achieved their positions on merit alone.
He never said "Black women" as a group. He named specific, powerful individuals in the context of a specific policy debate. You can disagree fiercely with his argument about affirmative action, but you cannot honestly twist it into the racist smear being presented here. Using a fake, generalized quote to paint him as a racist is a textbook example of the disinformation that fuels the hate we're seeing. It also cruelly ignores that Candace Owens, a Black woman he deeply respected and worked with, is heartbroken by his murder.
I defended Charlie, and I will continue to defend his memory, because he embodied the alternative to the violence that took his life. He chose the stage, not the shadows. He used a microphone, not a rifle. He stood and debated his opponents face-to-face.
The fundamental question Larry’s post leaves us with is this: can we find common ground in universally condemning the murder of someone for their speech? And can we commit to debating each other with actual facts, instead of justifying hatred with lies? If we can't, then the hope for "constructive dialogue and mutual understanding" is already lost.
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/
and also this, so y'all can decide for yourselves what the racist asshole's intent was. (Also note how fast JD's MAGA talking points make the rounds.)
View attachment jdkirk.mp4
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-black-women/
and also this, so y'all can decide for yourselves what the racist asshole's intent was. (Also note how fast JD's MAGA talking points make the rounds.)
View attachment jdkirk.mp4
My god. Do you right wing folks watch american history X and actually side with the nazis? This is literally the same rhetoric their dad was spewing at the dinner table.
I dont mind stomping out the hatred before they grow buds.
@Crookedmember
Thank you. I sincerely appreciate you posting that Snopes link and the video. They are very helpful because they confirm exactly what I said and demonstrate how Kirk's words are being dishonestly twisted.
As the Snopes article itself concludes, and as anyone can hear by watching the full clip you posted:
The more important question is, what is the intent of someone who has to remove all context and lie about what was said to justify their hatred for a murder victim?
This highlights the real issue. Instead of having an honest debate about the things Charlie Kirk actually said and believed, people are spreading disinformation about him to rationalize their vitriol. It's a way to avoid confronting the horror of his murder and the dangerous ideology of the man who killed him.
Thank you. I sincerely appreciate you posting that Snopes link and the video. They are very helpful because they confirm exactly what I said and demonstrate how Kirk's words are being dishonestly twisted.
As the Snopes article itself concludes, and as anyone can hear by watching the full clip you posted:
- He did not say "Black women." He was making a specific, and yes, very controversial, argument against the policy of affirmative action.
- He named specific individuals (Joy Reid, Ketanji Brown Jackson, etc.) who he was referencing in the context of that specific policy debate.
- The entire point was about policy, not race. You can think his argument against affirmative action is completely wrong, but to deliberately strip all of that context away to make it sound like a broad, racist smear is fundamentally dishonest.
The more important question is, what is the intent of someone who has to remove all context and lie about what was said to justify their hatred for a murder victim?
This highlights the real issue. Instead of having an honest debate about the things Charlie Kirk actually said and believed, people are spreading disinformation about him to rationalize their vitriol. It's a way to avoid confronting the horror of his murder and the dangerous ideology of the man who killed him.
Why does no one in this thread want to share their thoughts or feelings about Hasan Piker?
He's the biggest left-wing influencer. In a way, he's a good comparable to someone like Charlie Kirk, but on the left.
Hasan has made several hateful remarks and has incited violence on multiple occasions.
So why is it that none of you want to comment on him, defend him, or condemn him?
If you don't know who Hasan Piker is, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on Charlie Kirk, because it’s clear you don’t have a solid understanding of this space or internet influencers.
Also, why is no one calling out the people posting AI generated clips, edited clips, and fake quotes in this thread? It’s pretty ironic to call the other side "dumb" when you can't even tell if a clip is altered or AI made.
I think most people on this forum understand what kind of evil asshole Kirk was.
He called for the public execution of Joe Biden and wanted children to see it.
Plot twist--the asshole himself suffered a public execution by (likely) one of his own.
Most of us are not worshiping Charlie Kirk. Most of us understand what he was saying about black women. Most of us are not unhappy he's gone.
View attachment kirkbiden2.mp4
View attachment kirkbiden.mp4
He called for the public execution of Joe Biden and wanted children to see it.
Plot twist--the asshole himself suffered a public execution by (likely) one of his own.
Most of us are not worshiping Charlie Kirk. Most of us understand what he was saying about black women. Most of us are not unhappy he's gone.
View attachment kirkbiden2.mp4
View attachment kirkbiden.mp4
maybe its because no one here gives a shit. The other hate monger made the 'news' so sure there's comment.
Feel free to fill up the thread with your thoughts and feelings about this guy.
"made the news" that tells me everything I need to know about the news/propaganda you watch 😂
So, I take it you’d prefer to live in a fantasy world where only one side of the political spectrum is guilty of racism, bigotry, and promoting violence, when in reality, both sides are responsible for it?
Personally, I believe extremism on both ends of the political spectrum should be condemned, but maybe that’s not a popular take here. I suppose there’s a reason people choose to argue politics on an escort review forum instead of places where they’d actually be called out for their nonsense.
Also, the demographics on this site seem to lean towards people who post fake AI generated videos, and are tricked by them, thinking they are real. It’s starting to make Reddit look like a right wing platform by comparison.
Charlie isn't even in the ground yet, and already his grieving widow is grifting for bucks.
Milking suckers and gullibles is the only thing these assholes know.
Milking suckers and gullibles is the only thing these assholes know.
I read that she was going to try and sue Stephen King for defaming Charlie. A number of people pointed out once someone is dead they can’t be defamed. I found it odd when she posted a video saying she was going to carry on his work etc that she made no mention of the proliferation of guns in the US considering how he died.
