Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

[SpaceCoastVol]

lol

I'll chalk it up to fear.

 

[NCFisher]

“Booker was charged with battery, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. She was also cited for assault, the Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office confirmed to the Daily Mail. She was released on a $200 bond the following day.”

Also cited for bad hair extensions.

 

[Smokey123]

I'll chalk it up to fear.

Hhm. Petrified. Thanks for providing absolutely nothing to the topic

 

[luthervol]

And I distinctly said that you played the "maybe racist card", which you then denied, and now admit.

Man you can't debate a point.
I never denied saying "maybe racist". You're making **** up once again.
But my point from the beginning was specifically about this.....
Yah. We know. You (these four women that I just specifically named, as opposed to generalizing) do not have the brain power to otherwise be taken seriously."

I highlighted, bolded, and colored it for you. CK offering this conclusion (which I know he does not believe to be true) as a way of diminishing the value of DEI speaks volumes......and to many, it's not a stretch to find his motives/methods to be a tad bit racists.

 

[GVF]

I didn't call him racist either.
I distinctly said "maybe racist". As in, "it's not hard to see why some would interpret it as racist in the absence of a better defense of his (CK's) intentionally inflammatory and divisive conclusion."

Not even possibly racist if you have reading or verbal comprehension of what he said. His comment(s) were spefically directed at 4 specific people he called by name because of admissions they made. He never once referenced an entire demographic of women in that video.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Man you can't debate a point.
I never denied saying "maybe racist". You're making **** up once again.
But my point from the beginning was specifically about this.....
Yah. We know. You (these four women that I just specifically named, as opposed to generalizing) do not have the brain power to otherwise be taken seriously."

I highlighted, bolded, and colored it for you. CK offering this conclusion (which I know he does not believe to be true) as a way of diminishing the value of DEI speaks volumes......and to many, it's not a stretch to find his motives/methods to be a tad bit racists.

I'm debating the point. Again.. Your refusal to consider the context that informed that conclusion (and informs what follows it) is your problem. Not mine.

 

[GVF]

Why would I advise my 18 year old to do something that risks their mental and physical health? Let’s ship you off to the Middle East because we miss handled things, and when you have PTSD it’s ok because we’ll give you some crappy healthcare

Now if they want to become a pilot I’d recommend the military though

My dad was military, I have quite a few friends that were also in or still in and grew up with some of my dad’s friends. Almost all of them have physical or mental problems

I'd argue there are more just as many mental issues in that age group today that are not military. I would not recommend endless gaming and SM purveying as healthy alternatives to the military either.

 

[luthervol]

I know, and that's your problem.

I'm repeatedly talking about context, which you seem incapable or unwilling to consider. Again... The color-coded CONTEXT informs the part you guys want to hammer on OUT OF CONTEXT.

The fact that you refuse to consider that context explains why you would think someone may be a racist to read that CONETXT and summarize it well.






Even in your brainwashed state, you seriously can't see the correlations between the quote and the summary? Sadly, I can't actually use crayons for you in this medium, so I'll leave you to your denials.

Good evening.

Of course I see the correlation and the context. And it in no way justifies that "conclusion".
But the reasons he offered that "conclusion" are certainly debatable.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not even possibly racist if you have reading or verbal comprehension of what he said. His comment(s) were spefically directed at 4 specific people he called by name because of admissions they made. He never once referenced an entire demographic of women in that video.

Isn't it absurd?

And if one were to listen to what FOLLOWED the out-of-context sentence, he quadrupled down on making it explicitly about those four women and the unbelievable fact that they bragged about only being where they are because of DEI.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Of course I see the correlation and the context. And it in no way justifies that "conclusion".
But the reasons he offered that "conclusion" are certainly debatable.

What "conclusion" are you talking about? I want to make sure that we aren't talking past one another.

My conclusion/summary that means I may be racist because I interpreted the point he was trying to make? Or Charlie's point, that he doesn't consider those four women to be smart enough to respect?

 

[GVF]

Man you can't debate a point.
I never denied saying "maybe racist". You're making **** up once again.
But my point from the beginning was specifically about this.....
Yah. We know. You (these four women that I just specifically named, as opposed to generalizing) do not have the brain power to otherwise be taken seriously."

I highlighted, bolded, and colored it for you. CK offering this conclusion (which I know he does not believe to be true) as a way of diminishing the value of DEI speaks volumes......and to many, it's not a stretch to find his motives/methods to be a tad bit racists.

What vaule of DEI. Is there any? Any person of color that got a DEI position should be pissed they weren't considered worthy otherwise except for their color. And who hired them for a DEI position in the first place? White women make up over 70% of the people in the position to make hires. And what's the percentage of blacks that have receives a DEI position? 2%. DEI hiring is inherently racist because it positions blacks to be pawns in a prgressive party of lies. DEI has not benefitted blacks in the least bit. It belittles them It tells them that's the only way they can get a decent job.

 

[luthervol]

I'm debating the point. Again.. Your refusal to consider the context that informed that conclusion (and informs what follows it) is your problem. Not mine.

There is no context that justifies that conclusion.

It's a little like saying that because the Brooklyn Dodgers wanted to be the first to integrate baseball, Jackie Robinson wasn't actually good enough to win a position over white players in a segregated league.

CK's "logical conclusion" was intentionally twisted and non-sensical......but he knew it would play with his audience.
Maybe racist????

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't know who y'all are, but my people are my fellow Americans. You can take that broad brush and shove it up your ass

"Y'all" was the voices here trying to get us to ignore his context and assure us what he meant. I would have thought that pretty clear.

Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about, nor why you would want things in my rectum. Please pick someone else for your weird games. Thanks in advance.

 

[n_huffhines]

He says that we peaked by limiting immigration, and he's talking about the year 1970. Literally, he's only making the argument that we peaked in 1970 so that he can say limiting immigration was good.

Nobody would ever, ever say that is our peak. We were at war. Cold war. Domestic tensions were high. That was the year of the Kent St massacre. The FBI recorded thousands of bombings/attempts. We couldn't catch serial killers. We were on the verge of stagflation. Crime was high. How was this our peak?

 

[Orange_Crush]

There is no context that justifies that conclusion.

It's a little like saying that because the Brooklyn Dodgers wanted to be the first to integrate baseball, Jackie Robinson wasn't actually good enough to win a position over white players in a segregated league.

CK's "logical conclusion" was intentionally twisted and non-sensical......but he knew it would play with his audience.
Maybe racist????

Your point would stand if Jackie Robinson admitted to only being there because of DEI, and then couldn't hit a baseball. That was the entire point of his quote. It was four very public women who claimed to only be where they are because of DEI. Four women that Charlie Kirk repeatedly called dumb. PUBLIC women that Charlie had repeatedly said that he observed and found to be intellectually lacking.

You are having to perform mental gymnastics to twist it into anything else.


But the interesting thing is that you are changing the argument, which is why I just asked for clarification. Here's your opening salvo, which I was color coding to defend against:

You think the logic is "Oh, so by your own admission you didn't have the brain power to get the the job on merit"?

It takes a pretty screwed up mind (maybe even racist) to think that is the logical conclusion.

No. It only takes an ability and willingness to consider his statements in context to think that that was his logic. And reading comprehension in no way indicates even a possibility of racism. Hell, maybe we should argue that the belief that reading comprehension is a racist advantage would be a racist comment.

 

[luthervol]

What "conclusion" are you talking about? I want to make sure that we aren't talking past one another.

My conclusion/summary that means I may be racist because I interpreted the point he was trying to make? Or Charlie's point, that he doesn't consider those four women to be smart enough to respect?

Charlie's point......

 

[Orangeburst]

I see these character attacks on CK as some sort of justification or deflection for his murder.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I see these character attacks on CK as some sort of justification or deflection for his murder.

And you are well within your right to choose to see it that way.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Charlie's point......

See above. That's not what you said.

You think the logic is "Oh, so by your own admission you didn't have the brain power to get the the job on merit"?

It takes a pretty screwed up mind (maybe even racist) to think that is the logical conclusion.

In response to my summary, you called it out and asked if I thought that (summary logic) was Charlie's logic. You then claimed that to think "that" summary logic is logical would be pretty screwed up and possibly racist.

 

[OrangeTsar]

That's not what he said. You are either being wilfully ignorant or you don't have the brain capacity to understand it.

 

[Vol8188]

I still can't find one MF right-winger on Volnation who will say anything negative about Elon Musk advocating for the removal of non-white immigrants as "the only way."

Because you blocked all of us and then made up things he didn’t say.

If he actually says that, unblock me and I’ll gladly condemn it.

 

[OrangeTsar]

I know they were. Doesn't mean they weren't qualified to have the job. You get that, right?

You think Kamala was qualified to be VP?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Hhm. Petrified. Thanks for providing absolutely nothing to the topic

I can't open your eyes if you've closed your mind.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Can you admit Joe Biden made a racist comment when he said you aren’t black if you don’t vote for me

See what he said about schools being a racial jungle. Or about Indians working at 7-11z

 

[Hoosier_Vol]