Different take on Charlie Kirk

[Solvedit]

Arlington Heights, C.K.'s childhood home, is just NW of Chicago.

In Chicago and suburbs, there is a strong component of communist/rock & roll culture.  

While I'll never mention any names, I've seen a lot of famous faces there.  The offspring of rock stars like, for example, Morrisey, just to be hypothetical. 

The culture is one of dissatisfaction with one's self and the expectation of the ultimate degree of sharing.  As some of you know, I suspect it's the inspiration for Rush's "Priests of the Temple of Syrinx."  A syrinx is a parrot's voice box.  Rush may have been grousing about a culture, a church, and an education system being subverted in some areas to teach the "in families' " children to mimic smart things to say.  

Some individuals may have decided to appear to break the mold by borrowing the souls of beleagurered conservatives who don't understand that rock & roll culture is about sharing souls and intelligence. 

Or, the conservatives' prayer lives may have been subverted by bad instructions, like the insistence that any form of prayer which resembles Metta must be a watering down of their faith, despite what the Lord said was the most important commandment, and despite the fact that the Buddha most likely had been educated in other spiritualities than the Nepalese royal family's since he was royal. 

Or things like being taught to deliberately offend God by being too personal even though the OT is full of warnings not to gaze upon the face of God.  "Have a personal relationship with Christ," they'll say.  "You have a friend in Jesus," they'll say.  

They'll ask that you pray "with the Church" which can mean "for their intentions" and their intentions may not be holy. 

Could someone like C.K. have been running on a cultural decision to subvert salvation for personal gain, and thus offending God?   Then, when the day of the Lord came like a thief in the night, it all went wrong.

It is, of course, definitely not out of the question that he simply broke the mold and became an actual conservative and a faithful, saved Christian, and all this is wrong.

[quintessentone]

RIP Charlie Kirk and condolences to his family and friends.

I advocate for all open-minded open debate on all important issues, and if Charlie Kirk actually did that or strived to do that, then I commend his activism attempts.

I have not listened to his debate style, but I do wonder if it really was debate, or just memorized retorts to dismiss or shutdown younger, and perhaps less knowledgeable or life and/or politically experienced college-aged people. I've seen this tactic from much more experienced and older so-called debaters.

As for what he stood for, well it seems he could change his mind on some issues, and it appears he was closed-minded on other issues. I take issue with what he said about gun deaths being worth it.
 "Gun controlA couple of years ago, Kirk made a comment about some gun deaths in the U.S. being "worth it" to ensure the continued existence of the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, which is the right to keep and bear arms. 
 
"It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights," he said during an April 5, 2023, appearance at the Salt Lake City campus of Awaken Church. "That is a prudent deal."

Some of Charlie Kirk's most controversial takes | CBC News

He believed in the Seven Mountain Mandate:

"The movement’s theology is based on biblical passages like Revelation 17:9 and Isaiah 2:2, promoting the idea that Christians should actively take control of the seven societal “mountains” to establish God’s kingdom on Earth. Adherents use spiritual warfare tactics, prophecy, and intercession to attempt to influence these spheres. Organizations such as 7M Films and Ziklag operate under its principles, and prominent political figures, including Michele Bachmann and Lauren Boebert are followers. Critics argue that 7MM mirrors ideological state apparatuses described by Marxist theorists."

Seven Mountain Mandate - Wikipedia


-----------

So, Solvedit, I think any political activist should expect negative and perhaps a violent backlash in the U.S.'s current climate of increased gun violence and always make sure to keep oneself safe and secure during any public event.

One witness at that event expressed their surprise that there was no security there, at all. Or at least that they could not see in plain view.

[FlyersFan]

Could someone like C.K. have been running on a cultural decision to subvert salvation for personal gain, and thus offending God?   

No.

[Kwaka]

For a different take, As a noob on the other side of the world that does not know what they are talking about. I don't know who Charlie Kirk is, have not kept up with the main thread, but can see this is a big deal with the way the media is going. Has that MLK vibe.

For someone to say they are Christian while supporting the actions in Gaza? Israel thinking the best way to negotiate is with a cruise missile in Qatar?

[David64]

I have not listened to his debate style, but I do wonder if it really was debate, or just memorized retorts to dismiss or shutdown younger, and perhaps less knowledgeable or life and/or politically experienced college-aged people.

If you're going to debate a subject, shouldn't you be knowledgeable about it ? 

It seems you're saying he beat them with facts and logic and that was somehow unfair. Those younger people who debated him had open access to the facts and could have researched the subject, but only brought their feelz.

Knowledge and facts beats feelz every time.

[TruTexan]

For someone to say they are Christian while supporting the actions in Gaza? Israel thinking the best way to negotiate is with a cruise missile in Qatar?

Maybe you missed the October 7th attack on Israel on the other side of the world too. Look that up while you research Charlie Kirk’s greatness.

[AnAlternateOpinion]

Violence is not the answer, this was a horrible and senseless act, I am sorry that this man died and condemn the actions of the shooter but this article sums up a lot of my thoughts on the matter.

No, I won’t be shedding any tears for Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk believed that gay people should be stoned to death, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a “huge mistake,” that we should legally be allowed to whip foreigners in the U.S., that Muslims only move here to destroy the country, that American Jews encourage anti-whiteness, that men should physically attack transgender people, that all women should submit to their husbands, and that Black professionals “steal” their jobs from more qualified white people.

Charlie Kirk has long argued that the epidemic of gun violence in America is the regrettable, but acceptable, price of liberty. In his words, the trade-off is a “prudent deal,” a “rational” sacrifice to preserve the Second Amendment and protect what he calls “God-given rights. A necessary toll paid at freedom’s gate

Kind of ironic, eh? I guess adding one more to all those lost in school and church shootings is a rational trade-off? Thanks for not being a hypocrite, Charlie.

“When a public figure dies, you are not obligated to manufacture sorrow for someone who did not live in a way that earned your compassion,” wrote psychotherapist Dr. Dionne Mahaffey-Muhammad yesterday in a public Facebook post that I’ve begun sharing online. “There is a difference between refusing to speak ill of the dead and forcing yourself to honor a life that may have caused harm.”

“Choosing not to mourn someone who caused harm is not out of alignment with your spiritual beliefs,” she continued. “Grief is not a performance, and empathy is not an endless well. You are allowed to acknowledge limits. That doesn’t make you coldhearted, and it doesn’t mean you are wishing harm on anyone. It simply means you are being honest about your boundaries.⁣”

[Kwaka]

Maybe you missed the October 7th attack on Israel on the other side of the world too. 

Maybe you missed where Israel was at the end of WW2, where it is now and how it got there.

[quintessentone]

If you're going to debate a subject, shouldn't you be knowledgeable about it ? 

It seems you're saying he beat them with facts and logic and that was somehow unfair. Those younger people who debated him had open access to the facts and could have researched the subject, but only brought their feelz.

Knowledge and facts beats feelz every time.

All I have to go on are his last words to the college student trying to debate him on the number of transgender shooters, where he didn't really reply with facts, but rather with replying with the retort 'too many' which to me is a deflection and doesn't offer facts from the other side, nor an opening or opportunity to further debate a subject. Using this tactic to shutdown someone even once is not debating, IMO.

[David64]

All I have to go on are his last words to the college student trying to debate him on the number of transgender shooters, where he didn't really reply with facts, but rather with replying with the retort 'too many' which to me is a deflection and doesn't offer facts from the other side, nor an opening or opportunity to further debate a subject. Using this tactic to shutdown someone even once is not debating, IMO.

Then go research his debate style. There are plenty of videos on Youtube and in them he gave everyone a chance to bring forth facts and logic. They failed almost every time.

Confirmation bias is easy, but when the facts are free to to find, ignorance is a choice.