[flagged]

akimbostrawman 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I think 1 is too many. How is that in anyway "strocking violence"? I somehow have the feeling you would agree if instead of trans it was white men...

	▲	aredox 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I won't "debate" with someone with so much bad faith he would say with a straight face "1 mass shooting is too many" when there are hundreds every year. Why don't you say the actual number? Why didn't Kirk say the actual number? Because it would make their argument -that trans people are such a menace to society they must be barred from their right to bear arms (for starters, because his hate of trans people was deeper than that)- ridiculous. It was a smear. Point. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
	▲	aredox 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death,” Kirk said a week after three children and three adults were killed at the Christian Covenant School in Nashville in 2023. “That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth (it) 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. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”

▲

brigandish 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I fail to see how the response you’ve quoted would stoke violence against transgender Americans, but let’s say it could, what would that make the rhetoric Kirk received, given he was the victim of actual violence?

▲

aredox 5 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

▲

bigmealbigmeal 5 days ago | parent [-]

I do personally believe that Charlie Kirk has done some damage to societal perceptions of transgender people.

With that said, the person asked how Charlie's quote could stoke violence, and then you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say) as an answer for why it stoked violence.

This is not a response that will convince people of your position. I'm not sure on the best way to do that, but I believe it starts by staying clear about what was actually said.

▲

aredox 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>some damage to societal perceptions of transgender people

Weird, how do we call people who do "some damage to societal perceptions" of black people? Of Jewish people?

Why are you reaching for such a tortured expression, "some damage to societal perceptions of [some] people"? Isn't there already some other word for that?

	▲	bigmealbigmeal 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, there isn't some word for that. "Transphobia" is not the same as "damaging societal perceptions of transgender people". My colleague is transphobic. He hasn't damaged societal perceptions of transgender people, because he doesn't have a massive platform. Charlie Kirk, who I agree is transphobic, went one step further and actually impacted large groups of people's beliefs. Your assumption that I was minimizing the damage he did with my wording is the opposite of correct; I was using that wording to express that the damage he did was worse than simply being transphobic. Please do not assume the worst of me.

▲

aredox 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say)

https://youtu.be/KivCRqfFcqY?si=hLN0akbswSlPm8pE

But if we take 5 minutes to search, we can see Charlie Kirk has said publicly (and I quote):

"There's a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue. You say, Charlie, come on. They couldn't be further apart. No, they're exactly the same. They're the same in this aspect—when you believe that men can become women, why wouldn't you also believe that you could print wealth?"

(You are poor? Blame the trans)

"The transgender movement actually matters even more than biomedical fascism"

"the transgender movement is an introductory phase to get you to strip yourself of your humanity to mesh with machines"

"if you stop being a man, then maybe you can stop being a human being"

(Transhumanist scare you? Blame the trans - those non-human beings)

Maybe you think I exaggerate? Luckily, he has made his personal opinion clear:

"I blame the decline of American men. This never should've been -- someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s"

Tell me, how did things were taken "care of" in the 50s and 60s? What could that be a reference to? (Wink wink)

Not convincing enough? Last direct quote from him:

“The one issue that I think is so against our senses, so against the natural law, and dare I say, a throbbing middle finger to god, is the transgender thing happening in America right now”

Really, who could think that when he said there are too many (how many? Doesn't matter, just believe it) mass shootings caused by trans people, he is inviting fear and hatred against them? Really, it would be dishonest to suggest such a thing, right?

He was also openly racist and homophobic, but hey, how could I or anyone suggest he was stroking violence and stirring hate?