[flagged]
An idea being "harmful" isn't a very high bar, we have lots of those and by and large people are expected to put up with them. Society is so good at overlooking them it is easy to lose track of just how many terrible beliefs are on the move at any moment. Someone being a threat to democracy isn't actually all that close to the top of the list, although moving away from democracy is generally pretty stupid and a harbinger of really big problems.
> How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times?
The point I was trying to make is: this is not what’s happening. It’s not “anyone with a different belief”. But some people, Kirk included, literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people. That’s not a reasonable position we can just compromise on. That’s reprehensible dehumanization.
A quick search only turned up people apologising for spreading false stories about him.
Here he is using innuendo to suggest we should have "took care of" trans folks like we did in the 1950s and 1960s. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-...
Here he is saying abortion is worse than the holocaust. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/glob...
Here he is saying "Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people -- that’s a fact" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-...
Of Jasmine Crockett, he said she was "attempt[ing] to eliminate the white population in this country" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accus...
Of Dreamers, he said "Those are the men that will go into your communities and break into your homes and rape your women, take your children" https://www.mediaite.com/media/radio/charlie-kirk-wants-to-s...
Of the man who brutally assaulted Paul Pelosi with a hammer in 2022, he said: "If some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out" https://rumble.com/v1qs7n2-a-naked-smear-of-maga-don-buldoc-...
If you're going to start complaining about "beliefs that ... spread lies" like you were a bit earlier, you might want to not make things up trying to smear a bloke who just got assassinated. It isn't even scoring political points because you just look like a hypocrite if people ask for sources.
I'm not going to check your random list, if you're making things up about your primary claim I'm just going to assume it is the usual internet dross.
He was a hateful, ignorant man. And it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
A literal quote involves, at some point, quoting what he said literally. Something you haven't and can't do to support your claim. Lying harder isn't going to get you out of that one - you tried your best and are unable to find a literal quote. You now know you can't. It appears he did not, in fact, "literally advocated for, e.g., stoning gay people".
I don't know why you think doubling down on baseless smears is helping you, but a tip on politics - when you look foolish because your claims are that easy to disprove, just to stop and slink away. And maybe as a more general rule don't try to smear the dead with things they didn't say, they aren't around to defend themselves. You'd be able to get away with it before videos existed but these days it just looks like you're being slimy.
I also think you seem to be unfamiliar with his work, and are giving him the benefit of the doubt in this isolated example you’ve familiarized yourself with. Please. Familiarize yourself with more. You’ll uncover a pattern of unserious and hateful nonsense.
Since this has devolved into accusations that I’m lying, being slimy, and calling my very-obviously-not baseless claims “baseless smears”, I think it’s time I pull the plug on this little exchange. Take care.
Well I'm glad we're ending this on common ground, but I note that you can make anyone say nearly anything when you start taking literal quotes at the start and end of their speech and ignore what they're actually saying. Phrases are only meaningful quotes when taken in context.
You claimed Kirk advocated stoning gays. You were (are) lying, he didn't. You're best follow up is quoting him "literally" saying something different, out of context and doubling down despite the fact you've been called out. Which is a pretty sure tell that you know you aren't actually representing what he meant. Particularly since the clip is long enough to make it clear that he wasn't advocating stoning anyone. He was making a logical point.
The dude just got assassinated. Don't baselessly smear the man while the dust is settling.