While I like that quote, i just went to lookup the speach and was sadden to learn you “sanitized” it. Taking out the phrase “vast majority of white people and vast majority of black people”

That too says something about our times. Maybe a few things. From being unable to trust things without verifying, to people’s willingness to alter the truth to make a point, to how people fear discussing race and gender loud even in passing.

▲

notapenny 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It think it says something that you'd be willing to jump to conclusions. You "learned" it was sanitised and make a point about people willing to alter the truth, then you personally attach some meaning to it. You made up your own reality, when the word "[people]" literally indicates that the OP did change the quote. Instead of assuming malice, you could have also just asked why they changed it, or looked up why words would be in brackets, or give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

▲

AbstractH24 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you selectively put words in [brackets] and remove others without adding ellipses you can alter anything to have any meaning.

I for one read this and assumed RFK was just discussing gun control in general, only weeks before he was killed. Adding in the context the speech was regarding MLK gives it a whole different meaning. Still powerful, but different.

Attributing “The only thing we [experience] is fear itself” to FDR suggests he said something a little different. That FDR needs to see a therapist for his anxiety.

▲

sarlalian 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This assumes facts not in evidence. While the posted quote is sanitized, the assumption that the poster did the sanitization vs. copying from a sanitized source isn't necessarily supported.

	▲	notapenny 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough. But no need for the faux-legalese, it isn't clear whether the OP sanitised it or copied it that way. That changes nothing about my comment though, just who sanitised it.

▲

Fluorescence 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And the "those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black" which has always stuck in my mind because of the iconic phrasing.

Frankly I find creating an analogue between the death of MLK and Kirk in bad taste only magnified by scrubbing race from an MLK tribute.

Kirk would have celebrated MLK's death as he did the Pelosi hammer attack. Kirk called MLK "awful" and "not a good person" and the Civil Rights Movement "a huge mistake.".

https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rig...

▲

vkou 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.

Given his comments on the Pelosi attack, it's clear that he didn't believe that people should be safe from violence for their political beliefs. Given his comments on trans people[1], it's clear that he didn't believe that they should be safe from violence for the crime of... Being trans.

He would fail to meet the standards of civility set for this thread, or for this forum.

Politics is a barrier that protects us from political violence. The worst practitioners of it know this, and act to encourage escalation that will obliterate that barrier. So far, they've been rewarded by wealth and power for their efforts.

---

[1] Charlie Kirk has called for "men to handle" trans people "the way they did in the 50s and 60s."

Is this how someone just harmlessly opening up a civil dialogue behaves?

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/this-must-stop-tpusas-cha...

▲

NickC25 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

>It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.

What is sad is that his views were degenerate, reprehensible and abhorrent, yet that seems to get ignored.

Hey all you Kirk fans - LGBTQ+ are humans. Trans are humans. Black people are humans. Palestine exists. Jews are humans. Muslims are humans. Women can do more than make babies, cook, and clean. Democrats aren't anti-america, don't hate the country, and by and large don't call for violence or celebrate those that do. Not everyone is some crazed extremist. Nobody is a second class citizen and nobody deserves to suffer because of what they look like or how they were born or who they pray to or anything. Get over it.

While I don't condone violence at all, if you advocate for gun violence, you reap what you sow.

If you preach extremism, don't be surprised if you're met with extremists.

You can't claim to have given your life to Christ when you openly preach hate. This man was a devout preacher of the gospel of Supply-Side Jesus. Kirk and his ilk are the types that if the actual Jesus of Nazareth appeared in middle America, they'd call him a commie sand n-word and call ICE.

Kirk was the epitome of a bully albeit one who bullied others under the guise of "debate".

I have a ton of sympathy for the children shot at a school yesterday. If I want to really feel bad, I feel for those who were shot with assault weaponry at Sandy Hook and likely died and bled out in the same way Kirk did.

Just because he was a rich white "christian" dude with a blonde wife, doesn't mean he wasn't a reprehensible piece of shit.

▲

serf 4 days ago | parent [-]

there is a time and place to try to heal the damage you believe that he did to society -- but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.

You seem to be nonplussed about his suffering, you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience, and are implying that his beliefs on gun control somehow balanced his death.

Doesn't that help fuel the narratives about his political opposition that he tried to drive while living?

>Not everyone is some crazed extremist.

...maybe so, but the death of this dude sure did pull some out of thin air.

	▲	vkou 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There's nothing in the parent post that celebrates the assassination. It expresses no empathy for him, but lack of empathy is not a celebration. It does outline the various ways in which Kirk worked to make the world a worse place, but an accounting of it is not a celebration of a public killing. "Religious beliefs" is not a weapon or a shield that you can just raise to deflect all criticism of a man's actions. It rings especially hollow for one whose behavior was so highly un-Christ-like.
	▲	ChainnChompp 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I see nothing "celebrating" anything in that comment. Just some facts about someone who's ideologies they found reprehensible - as most should by the sounds of it.
	▲	NickC25 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination. I'm not celebrating anything. I'm pointing out irony. You call for gun violence, thinking you're untouchable (because of your skin color and political ties), but you're not. >you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience Hang on here. Let's unpack this. This is actually pretty humorous. Let's take the story of Jesus of Nazareth. A poor, brown skinned Jewish guy from Israel born out of wedlock who worked as a carpenter and preached love, compassion, and understanding, whose supposed miracles included healing the sick and disfigured. He worked to feed the needy, clothe the naked, advocated for paying taxes, and treating one's enemies with compassion as if they were their own kin. This person was executed by being nailed to a cross and in his final moments, still asked his followers to forgive his executioners. We have a rich white dude, raised in a wealthy first world major city suburb using the above gentleman's message to preach hate, racial superiority, phobia, and outright bigotry, all under the guise of "asking tough questions". This dude would go around and "debate" young adults (and children) half his age and use "gotcha" tactics and quick speaking to overwhelm and gish gallop his opposition into giving up. He would then selectively edit the "debates" and post them online to create a strawman for his political allies to punch. Religious beliefs, eh? Come on.

▲

Yeul 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I had never heard of this guy and thanks to the Streisand effect I learned that he was a piece of shit. And now het gets canonised like MLK?! Tells you a lot about right wing America.

But still: murder is murder.

	▲	fawkesalbus 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

fawkesalbus 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

fawkesalbus 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Removing the black and white people part makes it more relevant to the current times when it is not just black and white people but non negligible numbers of Hispanics, first peoples, Asians, Arabs and other minorities.

▲

dragonwriter 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

There were non-negligible numbers of those people in MLK, Jr’s time, too. That has nothing to do with why he talked about white and black.

EDIT: It’s particularly funny to imagine that First peoples somehow only became a thing in America sometime after Dr. King’s time.

▲

AbstractH24 4 days ago | parent [-]

But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.

The whole idea of intersectionality makes it hard to build coalitions and turns everything into a problem that’s impossibly complex to solve and difficult to build a coalition around.

It’s the basic reason many leaders who the majority of a country dislike rise to power. Because that majority can’t put their differences aside.

▲

alsetmusic 4 days ago | parent [-]

> But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.

He didn't advocate for but against. He advocated against people who weren't his version of correct. He advocated for suppression, not liberation.

I don't think you're saying he advocated for the struggles of any marginalized group, but your comment could be read as such.

Charlie Kirk was a bigot who wanted his political "enemies" to suffer.

▲

fawkesalbus 4 days ago | parent [-]

Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.

He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).

He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.

This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).

	▲	toomanyrichies 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> He never suppressed or oppressed anyone..." Really? "Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." [1] "...he didn’t want anyone to suffer." Really? "We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately." [1] "He had no version of correct..." Really? "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white." [1] 1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...

▲

AbstractH24 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why, shouldn’t we be able to adapt the struggles of one ear to those of another? And understand things with nuance.