Comment on Charlie Kirk in his own words.
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 20 hours agoIts also heavily edited to make it look so much worse.
Ive give the first example, the “If I see a black man flying a plane…” one. The context was DEI. He was talking about the resent the cases where DEI initiatives were putting people into positions either in jobs or in colleges based not on their qualifications, but on their skin colour and/or sex/gender. It wasnt just a blanket statement that black people cant do jobs at high levels, it was statement about how shitting employment and enrolment practices are, that we are no long getting the best person for the job.
An example of this in my own country is the RAF. They were caught passing over more qualified straight white men for promotion because they wanted more women and people of colour. The excuse given at the end of the investigation was that it was “positive discrimination”, so therefor it was totally fine to do it. Turns out, it wasnt.
Another example here is George Abaraonye, the president elect of the Oxford Union. His grades didnt meet the requirement to even be considered for a place. But he got a place anyway based on… you guessed it. The fact that hes black. And even though hes made many public statements that call for violence over debate, hes now the president elect of the Oxford Union. A debating society.
So while Kirk is/was still a bellend, he didnt say what the video makes it look like it said most of the time. Why are people doing this? I dont know. Because the shit he actually said was bad enough. It didnt need this fiction that everyone repeats.
honestly I think he makes himself look plenty bad editing aside. have seen plenty of clips of him talking about women and minorities - there’s no ‘context’ that makes calling people of color DEI at every turn OK.
Frankly I find your fixation on the DEI thing - both in the RAF and otherwise telling - you’re so busy worrying about what other people accomplished perhaps you should focus on your own fuckin lane.
no one took your opportunities.
Which is my point, he doesnt need to be edited.
As for the rest of what you said, sorry, but thats just not true. People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned. If you want to argue that its not that wide spread, thats fair enough. But it does happen, and I proved it with these two easily variable truths. Im sorry that hurts your feelings, but maybe you need to grow up a little bit, and understand that the heroes and villains of the world dont fit so neatly into the boxes youve prepared for them.
Also, the point about DEI isnt that black people or women or whoever else gets a job. The point is about the companies making these token gestures of representation so they can get a pat on the back from social media. And that its these companies that have created this atmosphere where people are looking at black people in jobs and unsure if they gained that job through merit or because some company wanted to fill a quota.
More to the point, because they create these token placements, we dont address other areas like black people have fewer opportunities to get the education needed to compete on an equal level. Black people arent stupid, but its easy to see that they are limited, especially in the US, to having access to higher education. And even more so prestigious higher education.
The problem, IMO, of DEI is that it addresses the symptoms in a superficial way for social media back slapping purposes, but doesnt address the causes of why these programs need to exist at all. Is this a right wing view? I think black people should have better access to the tools needed to compete, you think they should just be handed things as they need the charity. But you call me the asshole? Hmm…
People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned.
then start documenting it, if it’s real you should be able to prove a single instance for sure, right?
pft. you’re an unfettered racist. the problem, IMO, is that you only see what you want to see.
I already did. Twice in fact. What a silly goose you are. Just desperate to call people racist, so you can get your little up arrow touched.
And the clip at the end about it being worth it was about school shootings. He thinks school shootings are worth it for gun rights.
I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.
Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.
This is who he was.
No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.
“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.
As a non American, I don’t understand how this longer quote is any different from what was said by the person you are replying to.
Im not American, and I can see the difference between “paying a price for a greater good/convenience” and “Fuck them kids!”.
God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough.
I have heard the entire thing. And I don’t see how what you wrote is any better. It doesn’t change the statement at all.
Well, no. Kirk was still a shit. These conartists will take a sliver of truth and build a racist narratives around it. Anyone who could cut though the bullshit and deliver a good faith discussion on DEI gets drown out by the charlitins because there’s no audience for that. Kirk was both proving a shit produce to his customer base and increasing that customer base because he always had to ratchet up his rhetoric because he’s competing against the other shitspinners.
Another example here is George Abaraonye, the president elect of the Oxford Union. His grades didnt meet the requirement to even be considered for a place. But he got a place anyway based on… you guessed it. The fact that hes black. And even though hes made many public statements that call for violence over debate, hes now the president elect of the Oxford Union. A debating society.
How do you even fucking know that? Why are you worried about a “debating society”? Are you worried that someone unqualified to be a debater has the position now and we’ll all have lower quality debates on the shelves of grocery stores? The only reason you give a shit about that is because someone told you to.
The DEI pilot clips were also edited alongside his comments about Michelle Obama and a couple of other prominent black women (the “brain processing power” clip) to make it seem like he was saying black pilots are stupid. However, the DEI argument is not an intelligent or nuanced one and you are falling into the trap of giving it more respect than it deserves. It’s an obvious trojan horse for racism and paragraphs of anecdotes from a different country don’t change that.
Im not giving it any respect, Im simply pointing out that his comments are edited. Thats it. Im not saying hes right. Only that we should be pissed off at what he said, not what clickbait told us he said.
That doesn’t explain why you felt the need to give examples from your own life that support Kirk’s argument.
Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?
The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say “yes, but…”. Too much of online discourse is “thats lie!” with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.
The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.
DEI initiatives were putting people into positions either in jobs or in colleges based not on their qualifications, but on their skin colour and/or sex/gender
…they just added those to “being good at sports” as far as US colleges go…
MA!
They’re posting weird shit on the internet again!
Yeah, posting the context of someones words is really weird. Better to just let you all have your circlejerk based on lies and well placed edits… Jesus fucking christ, you people are so fucking weird. Getting angry at being fact checked. You know who does that…
Image Is this a picture of you??? Cos it who you all sound like, when you get angry at being fact checked.
Sure. Show me the full context, where before saying that Clarence Thomas was a greater man than MLK Jr he says, “I’m going to list out a few examples of statements which, if you ever hear someone say after a blow to the head, mean they should go to the hospital right away. Number one:”.
I never said everything he said was good. In fact, I said it wasnt.
I dont know about the Clarence Thomas quote, but I know he said the same about Ben Carson… Which is a big yikes, Im sure you’ll agree.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 20 hours ago
Ok add the context: He was responding to the article that United was going to add more women and people of color to their… TRAINING program. Is there anything wrong with adding DEI to a training program as an opportunity? Both groups are drastically underrepresented, like in the under 10 percent range or so.
The qualifications are the same, they can’t be a pilot without the qualifying. So either Charlie is lying, stupid, or just plain racist. He does not get a pass on that. He was definitely saying they cant do the job.
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Thats fine. Thats a perfectly valid rebuttal to what he said. Because its addressing what he actually said, and not some edited clip get clickable ragebait.