don’t give them any ideas.Can Mt Rushmore talk be far behind
Charlie Kirk Part III
- Thread starter Crimson1967
- Start date
- Status
I'm no Nick Fuentes fan, but - DANG.
He's not letting up on Kirk and his widow.
I wonder if Nick will have an unfortunate "accident" in the future.
But believe me, I have popcorn popping at the moment. This is getting good.
(I linked the X/Twitter video, but Nick used the S-word once, so I figured I'd better delete it before the Roomba catches me).
He's not letting up on Kirk and his widow.
I wonder if Nick will have an unfortunate "accident" in the future.
But believe me, I have popcorn popping at the moment. This is getting good.
(I linked the X/Twitter video, but Nick used the S-word once, so I figured I'd better delete it before the Roomba catches me).
I think I can get away with it by linking this article.
Go to the X/Twitter video embedded in this article. He uses an s-word and also says the a- word in reference to a person's behind. I had linked the X/Twitter thing but luckily I deleted it before the censors got me.
Last edited:
Wow, this guy is going off the rails on this. LOL! Honestly, let's say it was an arranged marriage, so what? There are still arranged marriages all over the world, and crazy enough, marital statistics say arranged marriages ultimately work out as successful as traditional marriages, in some cases better. However, unless the guy has more evidence than what he's put out there. I'm going with they met, fell in love and married the traditional western culture way.
Wrt her grieving, people grieve in very different ways and he has no idea what's going on inside Kirk's widow or when she's alone at home in private. My guess is she's probably dealing with a lot of emotional trauma which includes "shock". There are millions of people everyday who are dealing with traumatic situations who go out in public every day and act like nothing is wrong, but on the inside and in the privacy of their home, are a wreck. That piece just comes across as someone who has an ax to grind and is throwing stuff up against the wall hoping something sticks.
Last edited:
I don't have a dog in that hunt, but, believe me, I have popcorn popping. The extreme right wing is cute up until they start affecting policy. That was my feeling about instances in the 1980s when I would encounter the toothless(literally) members of the Ku Kux Klan, collecting money in the intersections in Jackson, MS.
We used to be in a hunting club with a few guys who fall on this part of the political spectrum and they were nut jobs. The way they think is just foreign to me.
My brothers and I have a group text going daily. We live all over the country, so that's the only way to connect.
My younger brother is part of that political specrum that you mention. For him, it's Anger 24/7. Constantly raging about this issue or that. I mean, I have other things in my life that are important to me besides my own political beliefs. I think he needs to get a hobby (besides following nutjobs online).
My brothers and I have a group text going daily. We live all over the country, so that's the only way to connect.
My younger brother is part of that political specrum that you mention. For him, it's Anger 24/7. Constantly raging about this issue or that. I mean, I have other things in my life that are important to me besides my own political beliefs. I think he needs to get a hobby (besides following nutjobs online).
Yeah, I've got a few family members who fall on both the right and the left extremes and they're exhausting to be around. Thank goodness they're not on the same side of the family or I'd have to put up with them together at the same time. LOL!
Agreed on the anger 24/7 for both of them, I just don't have the energy nor the time to get that upset over things that more than likely aren't even real. But they sure stay in a twisted fit over things all day every day.
I have said this here before, but I blame the 24/7 news channels. They thrive on controversy, keeping people upset. And that's how they keep eyes on the tube and advertising dollars follow. That and the constant barrage of social media. My younger brother is always linking to Breitbart - which is basically a propaganda site. A lot of the stuff posted there is eventually proven to be false.
wolf freaking blitzer and james earle jones in 1991 is where it began in earnest
I agree with all of this. 24/7 news and social media has gotten people to get their emotions running high and never have an opportunity for their emotions to die down. They are constantly plugged in so they are constantly plugged into a high emotional state. It's no different than making a decision while you're mad or overly excited. It normally doesn't end well. Society doesn't ever unplug from these things to allow their emotions to level out back to normal. So they walk around in a constant state of "anger" then one day decide to make a decision from that anger.
It's incredibly sad how angry the far right and far left are. I have friends across the political spectrum, including both extremes, and those on the far left and right are ALWAYS mad about something. It's like their entire existence revolves around whether their tribe is winning or losing.
As I said, I find it sad. Such an empty existence to always be mad about something.
As I said, I find it sad. Such an empty existence to always be mad about something.
My brothers and I have a group text going daily. We live all over the country, so that's the only way to connect.
My younger brother is part of that political specrum that you mention. For him, it's Anger 24/7. Constantly raging about this issue or that. I mean, I have other things in my life that are important to me besides my own political beliefs. I think he needs to get a hobby (besides following nutjobs online).
I worry about my own brother in this regard.
He's had some hard things tossed his way the same as everyone else, but he blames others for most of his own problems. We had a good upbringing with plenty of advantages and our parents believed in hard work. But he can't accept that anyone else knows anything, even when he is dead wrong, and wants to blame others for anything that has happened to him when he has dropped the ball educationally and career wise.
I do think the 24/7 outrage news cycle and the endless stream of social media is the problem. I saw that in myself, so I have basically limited myself to here (after my old Bama board closed, long live the CCC!) and a few discords and blogs. I don't do much else on the computer. I'll read a bit of news but mainly read the Economist and The Week and read interesting books.
I am placing this here simply because it pursues some thinking see in the last two videos I posted on thinking better: the "can't learn [stuff]" video on "motivated thinking" and "The Death of Critical Thinking").
This one is about debating in a contentious environment. In a formal (or semi-formal) debate, zero-sum thinking is in effect. Whatever is good for my side is bad for the other side and vice versa. This kind of thinking is not always applicable, especially when reasoning with family members, but this is the politics and religion board, so it fits here.
I commend all three videos.
I commend all three videos.
I have seen, here and elsewhere, ideas attributed to Charlie Kirk that I do not believe he has espoused. I could chalk just this up to partisan thinking: stating your opponent position as disagreeably as possible to make your position look more palatable by comparison. The problem is that a guy got shot to death based on these statements.
Probably the most common one was that Charlie Kirk, believe black people were inferior. The evidence offered, if there is any, is that he said if he sees a black pilot flying his commercial airliner, he is worried whether that guy is competent or not. This is supposed to mean that all black people are incompetent and no black person could be competent to fly an airplane. In reality, what he said was that there are two ways to earn a qualification such as completing commercial airline pilot training: one is to be competent, the other is to be a member of a favored group (race, gender, or other). If you see a member of a not favored group get the qualification then you know that they are there because they met the standard. (Nobody is agitating for more white male airline pilots.) If you see a member of a favored group as a pilot, it could be they got there because they are competent. Or it could be because someone fudged the standard to get the favored group member through the qualification process. I saw this over and over in my time in federal employment.
A famous example was when the Army desperately wanted to get women through Ranger School. Ranger School used to be brutally difficult. I lost 35 pounds in 65 days when I went. The Army had two female candidates make it all the way to Florida Phase (near Panama City, Fla.). Each student must successfully lead a patrol in each phase of the course (and receive a passing grade from the instructor). When the women got graded on their last patrol by a Brigadier General from Fort Benning graded them. Brigadier Generals had never grade a patrol at Camp Rudder. The Brigadier General, by definition, had not led a light infantry patrol in decades, but the one thing a Brigadier General wants more than anything in the world is a second star. Most likely, the Corporate Management told him, “Go down to Camp Rudder and get these women through the course and we’ll see about your second star†(the latter part might have been implied or explicitly stated). On this occasion, because he was a Brigadier General, no one at Camp Rudder was going to challenge his grading of the women (the Commander of Camp Rudder was a Colonel). In this way, members of the favored group “met the standard.†It’s possible they actually did meet the standard, but obviously even if they did not, the Corporation wanted to make sure they passed.
United Airlines has publicly announced that “United Aviate Academy plans to train 5,000 new pilots by 2030 - at least 50% women or people of color.†(https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...o-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html). So, if you are running Aviate Academy and you are not meeting that quota for black or female pilots (which is not called a “quota†because quota would get United in legal trouble, so it is called a “floor†or a “goal†or an “aspirationâ€Â) there will be corporate pressure to bend the standards when members of the favored groups are not passing at the rate of 50% of the class. “Candidate XYZ (who would fill the race/gender quota) did not meet the standard, but he was close, so pass him anyway.†That is what Kirk was talking about.
On the other hand, Kirk had a guy come to a TPUSA talk and tell Kirk that American was for white people only. Kirk lambasted the guy, told him he was not welcome, and finished by telling the guy to “Get out.â€Â
I think the larger lesson learned is that we need to learn to listen more critically, particularly in political matters. When someone is engaging in partisan thinking, either disregard it, or at least acknowledge that the speaker is engaging in partisan thinking. When you read a statement that a public figure said something unbelievable, it is probably best not to believe it. Instead, investigate where this came from, what the context was, what the speaker might have actually meant.
Next, “Kirk hated trans people.â€Â
Next “school shootings were the simply cost of the second amendment.â€Â
People who disagreed with him grabbed a snippet, twisted to argue something heinous and put it out as Kirk’s opinion. This happens all the time in political discourse. In this case, it contributed to a man losing his life.
I just think we ought to do better.
Probably the most common one was that Charlie Kirk, believe black people were inferior. The evidence offered, if there is any, is that he said if he sees a black pilot flying his commercial airliner, he is worried whether that guy is competent or not. This is supposed to mean that all black people are incompetent and no black person could be competent to fly an airplane. In reality, what he said was that there are two ways to earn a qualification such as completing commercial airline pilot training: one is to be competent, the other is to be a member of a favored group (race, gender, or other). If you see a member of a not favored group get the qualification then you know that they are there because they met the standard. (Nobody is agitating for more white male airline pilots.) If you see a member of a favored group as a pilot, it could be they got there because they are competent. Or it could be because someone fudged the standard to get the favored group member through the qualification process. I saw this over and over in my time in federal employment.
A famous example was when the Army desperately wanted to get women through Ranger School. Ranger School used to be brutally difficult. I lost 35 pounds in 65 days when I went. The Army had two female candidates make it all the way to Florida Phase (near Panama City, Fla.). Each student must successfully lead a patrol in each phase of the course (and receive a passing grade from the instructor). When the women got graded on their last patrol by a Brigadier General from Fort Benning graded them. Brigadier Generals had never grade a patrol at Camp Rudder. The Brigadier General, by definition, had not led a light infantry patrol in decades, but the one thing a Brigadier General wants more than anything in the world is a second star. Most likely, the Corporate Management told him, “Go down to Camp Rudder and get these women through the course and we’ll see about your second star†(the latter part might have been implied or explicitly stated). On this occasion, because he was a Brigadier General, no one at Camp Rudder was going to challenge his grading of the women (the Commander of Camp Rudder was a Colonel). In this way, members of the favored group “met the standard.†It’s possible they actually did meet the standard, but obviously even if they did not, the Corporation wanted to make sure they passed.
United Airlines has publicly announced that “United Aviate Academy plans to train 5,000 new pilots by 2030 - at least 50% women or people of color.†(https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...o-be-women-and-people-of-color-301262479.html). So, if you are running Aviate Academy and you are not meeting that quota for black or female pilots (which is not called a “quota†because quota would get United in legal trouble, so it is called a “floor†or a “goal†or an “aspirationâ€Â) there will be corporate pressure to bend the standards when members of the favored groups are not passing at the rate of 50% of the class. “Candidate XYZ (who would fill the race/gender quota) did not meet the standard, but he was close, so pass him anyway.†That is what Kirk was talking about.
On the other hand, Kirk had a guy come to a TPUSA talk and tell Kirk that American was for white people only. Kirk lambasted the guy, told him he was not welcome, and finished by telling the guy to “Get out.â€Â
I think the larger lesson learned is that we need to learn to listen more critically, particularly in political matters. When someone is engaging in partisan thinking, either disregard it, or at least acknowledge that the speaker is engaging in partisan thinking. When you read a statement that a public figure said something unbelievable, it is probably best not to believe it. Instead, investigate where this came from, what the context was, what the speaker might have actually meant.
Next, “Kirk hated trans people.â€Â
Next “school shootings were the simply cost of the second amendment.â€Â
People who disagreed with him grabbed a snippet, twisted to argue something heinous and put it out as Kirk’s opinion. This happens all the time in political discourse. In this case, it contributed to a man losing his life.
I just think we ought to do better.
Those two are undoubtedly egregious. However, he said plenty which was enough to provoke a mind as muddled as his attackers was. He was a professional provocateur. It was how he made his living. Given all that, I think it's a stretch to say that those caused his assassination. He knew he'd made himself a target and had taken adequate security on the ground around him. Since people like him can rarely afford SS-grade perimeter security, I think we'll see far fewer open air-type events like the one where he (and Trump, for that matter) was shot. I don't condone anyone's getting shot for what they say, of course. I just don't see the exaggerations of remarks of persons like Kirk can realistically be controlled...
- Status
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Bobcats put Smith on leave, Hauser named interim- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Kiffin ready to make LSU nation's 'best program'
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Sources: BYU coach Sitake focus of PSU search
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
ESPN: Miami AD: ACC should revisit tiebreaker system
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
