zlacker

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.

>>Abstra+(OP)
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...

>>Fluore+yt
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.

>>Abstra+(OP)
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.

>>fawkes+xJ
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.

>>Fluore+yt
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...

>>notape+HJ
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.

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

>>dragon+WJ
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.

>>notape+HJ
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.

>>Abstra+O31
> 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.

>>alsetm+c22
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).

>>vkou+FK
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.

>>fawkes+hp2
> 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...

>>Yeul+0B3
If you are concluding that he was a piece of shit based on what people have claimed here I would encourage you to see some of his videos for yourself. Here is an example of his interaction with a transgender male student - https://m.youtube.com/shorts/FhzqKQzueKU

>>vkou+FK
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/charlie-kirks-allies-warn-a...

>>sarlal+my1
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.