zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor.

I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.

That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?

>>loughn+Bg1
I read an account of the "debate" immediately preceding his murder, it was quips and dodges. If that's at all representative of his conduct, he actively hurt the national dialogue by convincing people that that's what a debate looks like.

>>cosmic+np1
how would you steelman his position?

>>dnissl+rs1
A position like his doesn't really take well to steelmanning… It's not really the kind of viewpoint that's meant to be spelled out explicitly. You're supposed to shroud it in euphemisms.

I guess the steelmanned version of his beliefs would be something like, "racial and sexual minorities are an enemy to the white Americans who own this country; they threaten things we value about our culture and society, and we have no obligation to tolerate or accommodate them if we don't want to."

He spoke out against the Civil Rights act. He said the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory (that immigration is a deliberate attempt to dilute and ultimately replace the white race) is "not a theory, it's a reality." He said the Levitican prescription to stone gay men is "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Social_policy)

Coverage of Kirk's killing has largely skirted around his views, because to describe them at all feels like speaking ill of the dead. If you bring up the fact that Kirk was a loathsome hatemonger, it somewhat tempers your message that political violence is never acceptable

>>bccdee+By1
I'm comfortable saying both that charlie kirk was a loathsome hatemonger and that he also shouldn't have been murdered. This hurts everyone.

>>collin+0A1
He wasn't even a hate monger though? Just because he was a republican means he's a hate monger and racist? I don't get it. I haven't seen one person accusing him of this stuff actually cite a quote that seemed like hate speech or racism? They just don't like facts being used in a debate that hurt their feeling. It's ridiculous. People need to grow up. There is a complete lack of maturity on the part of his critics. They want to live in a censored thought bubble and don't value the first amendment (or seem to understand it).

>>diogen+jZ3
> I haven't seen one person accusing him of this stuff actually cite a quote that seemed like hate speech or racism?

You can peruse the "political views" section on his Wikipedia page if you want something comprehensive, but here's an example for you to chew on:

In one podcast interview, Kirk cited Leviticus 20:18 (he paraphrases as "if thou liest with another man, thou shalt be stoned") and called it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." That's a pretty explicit endorsement of the death penalty for sodomy. If that isn't hate speech, what is?

> They [...] don't value the first amendment (or seem to understand it).

I think you're the one misunderstanding it. The first amendment protects people from government censorship, not infamy and disgrace.