pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @79c9095526 OP 26s \ parent \ on: Rules for thee, not for me lol
You're changing the subject to remove focus from the point of this post. You want to make this about something else to avoid the difficult reality of his change in stance when it no longer is beneficial to him.
The post is about a man saying no one should ever get fired for sending out a controversial tweet. But that seemingly only applies to people on "his team" that send out controversial tweets. It does not apply to 'others' who send out controversial tweets that he dislikes.
He specifically says you should ALWAYS oppose someone getting fired over a controversial speech.
It couldn't be any more clear how he is contradicting himself.
Take away your feelings about the situation, it isn't about that. It is about firing someone over a tweet, which he clearly disagreed with ALWAYS (meaning, without exception), but now he would like people to be fired over a tweet.
This isn't that complicated ;)
What???
He isn't a gay, black, anti-gun, antifa, trans, far left radical communist democrat?
This is not what I expected. /s
Message from a personal long time friend of Charlie Kirk. Before everyone jumps to conclusions about knowing exactly why this happened, although it seems we may be too late for that:
Reread your first sentence, it doesn't make sense. Perhaps you just mistyped a word or two?
You're right, its hard to believe "official narratives" after the FBI yesterday leaked that the shooter has a trans ideology based on writings on the bullets. Now what was their 'proof' of this? The following images. When the decision was clearly made ahead of time to blame this on a particular group to fit the narrative the people in power prefer, you have to take all of this with a fuck-ton of salt.
"The fact Charlie was murdered by someone solely because that someone didn't like what he said should be enough of a reason to trigger outrage on anyone in the US, regardless of their personal political views."
How do you know this is a fact? Is this a fact because Trump/govt told you it is (prior to even pointing to a killer)?
For a group of don't trust, verify bitcoiners, there are an awful lot of people who believe the company line quite quickly without konwing a SINGLE fact except that Charlie was murdered.
Your question was "How did Charlie Kirk spread hate?"
I answered the question with my opinion and some ways where I found his speech 'hateful'.
You then say you don't want to talk about Charlie Kirk.
That's cool.
In terms of unkind and uncharitable. These are the ways we excuse things imo. We've done that for years with Trump, who brought this type of divisive language to the forefront about a decade ago starting with Obama is not an american but a somali or whatever and John McCain isn't a hero (pretty sure he had the flags that were flying half mast raised because he hated McCain). The examples are too many to count.
This type of language and the hatred it inspires and the subsequent violence it inspires is no accident. Words do matter. I am not saying there aren't people all across the political spectrum who say bad or hateful things. But I wasn't playing whataboutism, I was talking about a specific example in response to your question.
I like to use common sense to interpret the words, not relying on 'authorities' to tell me what they really meant.
I think it is quite clear what those words in the hocus pocus book you think is the word of a magical god in the sky mean, at least to me.
No, its not necessarily wrong to be divisive. I personally think its wrong that some people actively divide in order to personally profit from it (monetarily or for political gain). See Trump (political gain) or Elon/Zuck (monetary gain for the divisive algo/content they push).
Also, you can reach this conclusion without quoting your magical fairy book (see, that is being divisive!). Because here are a few more examples of things in your favorite text:
-
Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (Old Testament) – Command to Destroy Canaanite Cities
Text: “In the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.” Why It’s Controversial: This passage appears to endorse genocide, instructing the Israelites to exterminate entire populations, including men, women, and children, to secure the Promised Land. Critics argue it promotes ethnic cleansing and extreme violence, incompatible with modern ethics. Defenders often note the historical context of ancient warfare and the theological view of divine judgment on idolatrous nations, but the command’s brutality remains jarring. -
Leviticus 20:13 (Old Testament) – Death Penalty for Homosexuality
Text: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Why It’s Controversial: This verse prescribes the death penalty for homosexual acts, fueling debates about homophobia in religious texts. It has been used historically to justify discrimination and violence against LGBTQ individuals. Apologists argue it reflects the cultural norms of ancient Israel, meant to maintain ritual purity, and some modern interpretations downplay its applicability today, but its harshness is widely criticized. -
Psalm 137:9 (Old Testament) – Violence Against Children
Text: “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Why It’s Controversial: This verse, part of a lament about Babylonian captivity, expresses vengeful joy at the thought of killing Babylonian children. Its graphic imagery shocks modern readers, and critics see it as endorsing cruelty. Scholars contextualize it as an emotional outcry from oppressed Israelites, not a literal command, but the violent sentiment is deeply unsettling. -
1 Timothy 2:12 (New Testament) – Restriction on Women’s Authority
Text: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” Why It’s Controversial: Attributed to Paul, this verse has been used to justify gender inequality in religious and social settings, promoting the subordination of women. Critics view it as misogynistic, clashing with modern values of equality. Some theologians argue it addressed specific cultural issues in the early church, like disruptive behavior, but its restrictive tone remains divisive. -
Exodus 21:20-21 (Old Testament) – Treatment of Slaves
Text: “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.” Why It’s Controversial: This passage appears to condone slavery and physical abuse, as long as the slave survives. It treats slaves as property, which critics find morally abhorrent and supportive of systemic oppression. Defenders note that the laws aimed to regulate, not endorse, slavery in a context where it was a societal norm, but the acceptance of such violence remains troubling.
Here are a few examples for you. You may not agree with all of them, perhaps one resonates with you:
On Black Women and Affirmative Action: Kirk made derogatory remarks about Black women leaders, stating, “You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously” without affirmative action, targeting figures like Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee. He added, “You had to steal a white person’s slot,” which critics labeled as deeply racist and demeaning.
On the Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr.: At a December 2023 Turning Point USA event, Kirk called Martin Luther King Jr. “awful” and “not a good person,” while also criticizing the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. He stated, “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s,” a view condemned for undermining civil rights progress.
On Islam and 9/11: Commenting on Zohran Mamdani’s win in a New York City Democratic primary, Kirk said, “Twenty-four years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11…Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.” This statement was widely condemned as Islamophobic for linking an individual’s faith to a terrorist attack and stoking fear.
On Gun Violence and the Second Amendment: Following a school shooting, Kirk stated at a Turning Point USA event in April 2023, “You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death… I think it’s worth… some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” This was criticized as callous for seemingly dismissing the value of human lives lost to gun violence.
We're talking in circles now. You're arguing something different than my original point.
I'll disengage now :)
If you are a buyer that lives in 99.9999% of the world: every. single. one. of. your. purchases. is. in. fiat.
That is the unit of account you must adhere to in order to complete the purchase. You must convert whatever other stores of value you use into the unit of account if you'd like to complete a transaction. If you'd like to eat, you better adhere to the local unit of account.
This is not difficult?
Its not only the vendor's standard unit of account. You (the buyer) also has to adhere to that standard unit of account by converting whatever asset you want into the standard unit of account in order to complete the transaction.
Every bitcoiner (except a couple in el zonte or bitcoin jungle?) conforms to the fiat currency standard of account for their geography when they want to make a purchase.
Think we've reached the stage of "well that depends on what your definition of 'is' is".
If we can't find agreement that in your example of the $50k car, USD is clearly the standard unit of account (vs. bitcoin) then I think we're just spinning our wheels.
The price is listed in USD. There is 0 calculation involved. That is called the unit of account. A gallon of milk is $2.99. The $ (USD) is the unit of account here.
Now, you can choose to do a calculation on top of that. You can say, well I'd like to wait until that $50k USD car becomes 5 ounces of gold before I buy it. Or perhaps 0.1 btc or whatever you'd like. But those are just secondary calculations you are doing.
Perhaps the issue is we aren't aligned on definition of the term "unit of account":
A unit of account is the standardized measure for stating the value of goods, services, and financial obligations, serving as a common standard for pricing and economic comparison. It allows for consistent valuation, making it easier to track assets and liabilities in financial statements, understand the value of different products, and facilitate economic planning.
I also think that 1 bitcoin will be worth more than $111k in the future. This is why I hold bitcoin and very little USD.
That does not make it my unit of account. If today bitcoin's USD value was cut in half, the purchasing power I saved up over my life would also be cut in half. It doesn't matter that I have the same number of sats. Personally I believe the value would recover and have held through two 70%+ drawdowns. That doesn't change the fact that my actual wealth (the groceries, cars, homes) I could purchase DID in fact decline 70% at that time.