> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."

Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any.

▲

UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

When Kirk was on camera talking to a college student he typically used soft words and spoke calmly. The output of his life went far beyond these camera-ready moments.

Saying "we should handle things like we did in the 1950s" when speaking about trans people using the bathroom of their choice is not my idea of kindness.

▲

theonething 5 days ago | parent [-]

You still haven't supplied any evidence or proof of your claim:

> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."

His main purpose on his college tours was to promote the debate and discussion of different viewpoints. Very often the viewpoints of his listeners were very different from his, but he invited open expression and dialogue regardless.

▲

UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-]

Kirk deliberately deadnamed Lia Thomas in public. Is that healthy debate and disagreement? Kirk said of transwomen using the bathroom that "someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s." You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike?

▲

theonething 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, Kirk had strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. And in his public tours, he always had an open mic to give anyone an opportunity to express opposing views.

The context of Kirk's words you are quoting are actually about a trans person winning an athletic event. More significantly, you misinterpret his words to fit your framing of him. He did not advocate for violence against LGBT people.

The Sacramento Bee also initially misinterpreted his words in the same slant you are and after careful reexamination, realized their mistake, retracted their accusation against him and apologized.

> An earlier version of this column included a statement that Charlie Kirk had “called for the lynching of trans people.” The basis for this accusation is a video clip in which Kirk was upset that a trans woman had won an NCAA swimming championship. In the clip, Kirk said that instead of letting the woman compete, “Someone should have took (sic) care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” Some trans advocates on social media extrapolated from Kirk’s comments that he called for trans people to be lynched - an accusation The Bee repeated. But a review of the video shows that Kirk never advocated for trans people to be lynched. In fact, he strongly denies the accusation. These notes have been added to the column. The Bee regrets its comments and we apologize for any misunderstanding this earlier version may have caused.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article273103235.html

▲

UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-]

I said that his words were not "healthy debate and disagreement" and I absolutely stand by the claim that deadnaming trans people is not "healthy debate and disagreement," even if that trans person did well in a sporting event.

▲

theonething 5 days ago | parent [-]

> You know, when LGBT people were famously regular victims of violence from citizens and cops alike?

What point were you trying to make here?

Requoting your earlier claim:

> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."

This seems to be a general characterization of Kirk, that he generally did not advocate for healthy debate and disagreement. By watching his many videos where he frequently listened to opposing viewpoints and also by the fact that he always had an open mic during speaking events, it's pretty easy to disprove your claim.

Cherrypicking one or two incidents where you interpret his words as against healthy debate doesn't support your claim.

▲

UncleMeat 5 days ago | parent [-]

Maybe you can help me understand how precisely he'd like to deal with trans women using the bathroom. And perhaps we can understand this within the context of the legal policies he advocates for regarding trans people.

I also still insist that deadnaming people is the polar opposite of healthy debate. It is an action done to demonstrate a total lack of respect for another person.

	▲	Whoppertime 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well I haven't heard stories about transgender people being lynched in bathrooms during the 1950s or 1960s. I haven't heard stories about Transgender athletes during that time breaking records either. It's a euphemism, people can read into it what they like. I would expect at some level he meant shaming and bullying
	▲	nailer 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

nailer 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

ryan_lane 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

tomhow 5 days ago | parent [-]

> your deliberate lie to claim otherwise is grist for the hate mill that led to his death

Please don't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment. This kind of accusation is highly inflammatory and unfounded, and clearly against the guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-]

It isn't against the guidelines at all.

It is false to claim that Charlie Kirk "call[ed] for the deaths of specific groups, but . . . indirectly"

People need to be reminded that they "cannot, month in, month out and year in, year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault . . . and not expect that brutal, violent natures . . . will be unaffected by it." (Theodore Roosevelt)

▲

tomhow 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's fine to refute a claim with opposing facts or opinions. We agree it was a bad comment, and we would have had no problem with a response that kept within the guidelines.

But the guidelines are very clear about making swipes and posting in an inflammatory style. These are the guidelines are relevant here:

Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

▲

torstenvl 5 days ago | parent [-]

Literally none of those are relevant to what I posted. I didn't swipe or sneer at anyone. I said:

- he never called for the death of anyone

- claiming otherwise (despite apparently being familiar with his work) is a deliberate lie

- falsely claiming that someone is a mortal threat is "grist for the mill" for people with violent tendencies

None of the three components of what I said come anywhere close to violating the guidelines.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the idiom? "Grist for the mill" just means that something is useful for a particular motive, it doesn't suggest being in cahoots or any intent whatsoever. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grist%20for%20one...

▲

tomhow 5 days ago | parent [-]

It's clearly against the guidelines to accuse someone of telling a "deliberate lie". None of us can know what they knew or sincerely believed when they wrote that comment.

As I've kept saying I agree that theirs was a bad comment and agree that it should be flagged and killed, but we need you to try harder to avoid personal attacks and escalatory rhetoric like this. You've been here a long time, we value your contributions and tolerate some boundary-pushing from you because we want a broad spectrum of views to be represented, but sometimes we have to say "enough". Please just do your part to make things better here not worse.

	▲	torstenvl 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]