zlacker

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+(OP)
I agree wholeheartedly.

>>collin+(OP)
He absolutely shouldn't have been murdered and the rise of political violence is terrifying for the country's future.

However, he has directly stated that empathy is bad and that shooting victims are an acceptable price to pay to avoid gun control.

I refuse to feel sympathy for someone who vigorously argued against doing anything to prevent what happened to him and who vigorously argued against caring about the people it happened to.

>>collin+(OP)
As one of the people against whom his hate was routinely monged, I agree wholeheartedly. I won't mourn him personally because he was proud to tell us all how thrilled he would be if me and my partner got what he got, but I'm also not gonna engage in the gloating and performative grossness that the more hideously online seem to enjoy whether they're left or right. The people I love aren't safer because of this. In fact, we've already been tried and found guilty.

>>collin+(OP)
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).

>>TheCoe+It1
His argument was that we shouldn't disarm just because evil exists and guns can be mis-used. Using that as a way to suggest his death is justified or whatever people are implying is just gross and disgusting. Dude was 31 years old and had 2 young kids and simply went and talked to people. He was assassinated in front of his family for nothing more than talking. Nothing that he ever did was even close to deserving violence. If people can't take someone politely debating their ideas, then they're a whiny entitled baby and they're the problem.

>>diogen+jp2
> 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.

>>TheCoe+It1
He never once stated that “empathy is bad”. He had plenty of bad takes, but no need to misrepresent.

He was simply saying that the term empathy is overused vs sympathy

>>TheCoe+It1
People that don't like Charlie don't need to have sympathy for him, but not having sympathy and being douche bags in mass is something totally different.

"I can't stand the word empathy, actually," he continued. "I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

>>daveid+fz3
The terms mean different things, and he is very clear that one is good and the other is bad in his eyes, and that’t the reason for his opposition to the use of the one term.

>>soupbo+mM3
How can you not be a douche bag to someone who wants to kill you? How are homosexuals supposed to feel about this guy?

>>Yeul+Se4
Ah yes... he wanted all homosexuals murdered[citation needed]. Good thing the good guys killed him eh?