I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.
Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.
No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
yeah you’re some child, who’s obsessed with someone getting something that they may have not earned, because you say so.
or you’re an adult who’s blaming their mediocre life on minorities getting opportunities.
Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.
“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth 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.”
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.
Im not American, and I can see the difference between “paying a price for a greater good/convenience” and “Fuck them kids!”.
God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough. Its probably also worth noting the “god given rights” he was talking about was freedom. Hes talking about the people having a means(guns) to protect themselves from a government that would rob them of freedom.
An example of this would be Ukraine making a deal with Russia that they wouldnt have nukes. In exchange, Russia said they would never invade…
You keep calling it “rage bait” to quote him, but I think that’s missing a big aspect of this. The man was very intentionally phrasing these things in ways that he knew would upset people who didn’t agree with him. There’s a whole culture around that on the far right, where you’re supposed to say things that would enrage “the left” because that’s how people know you’re “based” and not “woke.” And obviously he’s not worried about people being offended because anyone who would be offended isn’t his target audience, while people who are his target audience will get a dopamine hit from hearing him offend those other people. It’s win-win for him. So with the thing about the pilots, he knows full well that the standards are the same, but he also knows that his audience are going to be sympathetic to the idea of being uncomfortable around black people, so the facts be damned, he’s gonna pretend that’s a rational argument against DEI.
So I don’t think it’s the clip videos that are the “rage bait” here. I think that’s part and parcel of the whole Charlie Kirk idiom.
Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said “all men are rapists by design!”, Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.
He is literally saying he thinks a few deaths a year are worth it. Not to mention we have a school shooting every 3 weeks in the country. And if he were asked about the one that happened the day he was killed, do you suppose he’d use his platform to demand better gun safety laws? How about the one from 2 weeks ago, and the day before that, and the last 300 months. Just curious which of those he wrote his pal Donny and demanded better gun laws.
Yes, its worth a few deaths to have the ability to defend yourselves against a shit government. What about that isnt fucking clear?
Gun safety laws are why I DONT AGREE WITH HIM!!! Im not arguing his point, I dont agree with him. Im saying that what he said want “Fuck them kids!”, which is what all of you are saying he said.
I know you want the worthless uparrows, but for fucks sake.
“Charlie Kirk said that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns.”
“You brainwashed idiots are making stuff up and falling for outrage bait! What he said, if you look at the full quote, is that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns, AND a certain amount of traffic fatalities is worth it to have cars.”
“How does that additional context in any way change the relevant part that we find horrible?”
“You should just know, and if you can’t figure out why I think it changes it you’re a fucking idiot.”
What a conversation.
I suppose this is the part where you take offense to me summarizing your position instead of using direct quotes, while not explaining how anything you said is actually meaningfully different.
Well, Im not going to take offence, but I will point that you have in fact misrepresented what I said. The question is why?
I mean, you currently have Trump in the white house. He seems to be setting the stage for a tyrannical government that controls freedom of speech. His followers call for violence against those who dont agree. Its at this point you should be asking yourself, are you glad you have weapons to defend yourself if this orange buffoon comes knocking on your door to take away your citizenship and send you to a 3rd world prison for the crime of wrong think?
The question then becomes, was the few deaths every year a price worth paying for that protection? Its up to each of you to answer that question. There is no wrong answer.
The actual more important question is how can you have that protection, while at the same time lowering the amount of gun related deaths every year. But for some weird fucking reason, both sides want an all or nothing solution. No room for compromise, just anger and hate.
Also, lets see you get dogpiled and not just give up and start telling people to fuck off.
And the clip at the end about it being worth it was about school shootings. He thinks school shootings are worth it for gun rights.
This was about 250 clips. Are you telling me every single one of those was perfectly fine in context?
For clarity, I challenge you to quote the full statement with context perhaps with source providing it.
I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.
Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.
This is who he was.
No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
yeah you’re some child, who’s obsessed with someone getting something that they may have not earned, because you say so.
or you’re an adult who’s blaming their mediocre life on minorities getting opportunities.
either way it’s just sad.
Im not doing either of those things, but whatever you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel like youre winning at something…
So brave of you.
Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.
“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth 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.”
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.
As a non American, I don’t understand how this longer quote is any different from what was said by the person you are replying to.
Also “God given right” to have guns? That’s a crazy statement.
Im not American, and I can see the difference between “paying a price for a greater good/convenience” and “Fuck them kids!”.
God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough. Its probably also worth noting the “god given rights” he was talking about was freedom. Hes talking about the people having a means(guns) to protect themselves from a government that would rob them of freedom.
An example of this would be Ukraine making a deal with Russia that they wouldnt have nukes. In exchange, Russia said they would never invade…
You keep calling it “rage bait” to quote him, but I think that’s missing a big aspect of this. The man was very intentionally phrasing these things in ways that he knew would upset people who didn’t agree with him. There’s a whole culture around that on the far right, where you’re supposed to say things that would enrage “the left” because that’s how people know you’re “based” and not “woke.” And obviously he’s not worried about people being offended because anyone who would be offended isn’t his target audience, while people who are his target audience will get a dopamine hit from hearing him offend those other people. It’s win-win for him. So with the thing about the pilots, he knows full well that the standards are the same, but he also knows that his audience are going to be sympathetic to the idea of being uncomfortable around black people, so the facts be damned, he’s gonna pretend that’s a rational argument against DEI.
So I don’t think it’s the clip videos that are the “rage bait” here. I think that’s part and parcel of the whole Charlie Kirk idiom.
Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said “all men are rapists by design!”, Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.
He is literally saying he thinks a few deaths a year are worth it. Not to mention we have a school shooting every 3 weeks in the country. And if he were asked about the one that happened the day he was killed, do you suppose he’d use his platform to demand better gun safety laws? How about the one from 2 weeks ago, and the day before that, and the last 300 months. Just curious which of those he wrote his pal Donny and demanded better gun laws.
Yes, its worth a few deaths to have the ability to defend yourselves against a shit government. What about that isnt fucking clear?
Gun safety laws are why I DONT AGREE WITH HIM!!! Im not arguing his point, I dont agree with him. Im saying that what he said want “Fuck them kids!”, which is what all of you are saying he said.
I know you want the worthless uparrows, but for fucks sake.
deleted by creator
I have heard the entire thing. And I don’t see how what you wrote is any better. It doesn’t change the statement at all.
Then youre a fucking idiot who cant read.
“Charlie Kirk said that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns.”
“You brainwashed idiots are making stuff up and falling for outrage bait! What he said, if you look at the full quote, is that a certain number of kids dying is an acceptable cost of having guns, AND a certain amount of traffic fatalities is worth it to have cars.”
“How does that additional context in any way change the relevant part that we find horrible?”
“You should just know, and if you can’t figure out why I think it changes it you’re a fucking idiot.”
What a conversation.
I suppose this is the part where you take offense to me summarizing your position instead of using direct quotes, while not explaining how anything you said is actually meaningfully different.
Well, Im not going to take offence, but I will point that you have in fact misrepresented what I said. The question is why?
I mean, you currently have Trump in the white house. He seems to be setting the stage for a tyrannical government that controls freedom of speech. His followers call for violence against those who dont agree. Its at this point you should be asking yourself, are you glad you have weapons to defend yourself if this orange buffoon comes knocking on your door to take away your citizenship and send you to a 3rd world prison for the crime of wrong think?
The question then becomes, was the few deaths every year a price worth paying for that protection? Its up to each of you to answer that question. There is no wrong answer.
The actual more important question is how can you have that protection, while at the same time lowering the amount of gun related deaths every year. But for some weird fucking reason, both sides want an all or nothing solution. No room for compromise, just anger and hate.
Also, lets see you get dogpiled and not just give up and start telling people to fuck off.