pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 4h \ on: Debunking the Slander on Charlie Kirk: what he *Actually* said on Gun Deaths Politics_And_Law
Its such a picture of what is wrong in our culture that we have access to learn what someone says and the context but people still ignore the context and meaning to push what they want to push. If one is curious and does the work one can largely avoid being led astray.
Even with the context many disagree but what I have seen so far is pathetic excuses trying to make a demon out of a man who held pretty common views. Very common views only 20 years ago. He was making an impact. He was on his way to being a political leader. Maybe President. Therefore he must have been taken out.
There are plenty of extremists. Kirk was not one. There are plenty of hateful speakers. Kirk wasn't one. When people say he was, they demonstrate how small their bubble is.
Therefore he must have been taken out. There are plenty of extremists. Kirk was not one.
This was effectively an act of fanaticism-driven folly. In politics the worst thing you could ever do is to physically attack your opponent, and the absolute worst is to kill him, for you can not but make a martyr of him and thus a much greater and influential figure than he could have ever been while alive. The only true death of a politician is to reduce him to insignificance while alive. And this psychopath took out the one guy that was a dialogist moderate. Kirk will be revered from now own. And the rest of what's coming... is not good...
reply