pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 11 Sep \ parent \ on: It is OK to not feel empathy for Charlie Kirk dying news
I notice that your examples do not link primary sources, likely take words out of context, and even use "..." to extract only the words that make your point. For example, when he talked about brain processing power, it sounds like he was attacking a specific individual and not attacking a racial group as a whole.
However, at face value, I do agree that some of these words are unkind and uncharitable and unbecoming of a public figure. That being said, you'd be able to find unkind words in the corpus of anyone who does as much public speaking as he does.
To be honest, I don't really want to talk to you anymore about Charlie Kirk. You can have your point of view and I'll have mine.
If you want to debate the issues directly, gun control, affirmative action, etc, I'm happy to do so in a new thread.
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.
reply