ChaoticMusings

Anonymous wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

 Right here is where the bullshit started on this thread.

 

You misrepresented his views and labeled him a racist..

---

Agreed. 

A fact that has been debunked by many, many PoC as has been pointed out in this very thread.

A ‘racist’ who has many dark faces at his memorial I might add, that’s some “racist” 

---

 I guess it's down to how you define racism. In Kirk's case there was a pattern of behaviour where he regularly spoke about black people in a negative or disparaging way. It became a theme of his. He would argue that he was just 'stating facts' but it's understandable that in some people's eyes his repetitive conduct when taken as a whole had an underlying racist motive.

It  reminds me of a parallel in British law, unconnected with racism, but also to do with a pattern of behaviour, when a series of incidents targeting an individual, none of which by itself is a crime, when taken as a whole amount to the offence of harassment.

---

 Exactly this, Anon. British commentators said he was known for having a myriad of extreme views, including the Great Replacement Theory yet Madders considers it run of the mill rhetoric. Maybe It is in America but it certainly isn't here.

The posts he has decided to copy omitted me saying before I gave my view that I thought it wasn't necessarily appropriate to discuss his  controversial beliefs (in light of how he had passed)

As you say, Kirk often spoke about race in a troubling way knowing it could stir up tensions and this was well known. The former President Obama addressed all this in his speech in the clip I posted. People are allowed to disagree with Kirk's opinions, as I do. But everyone on the thread concurred that of course he didn't deserve to die for his views, nobody does, especially in such a horrific way.

It seems Charlie Kirk’s parents and sister didn’t attend the memorial… 🤔

Vam wrote:

---

It seems Charlie Kirk’s parents and sister didn’t attend the memorial… 🤔

---

 To be honest, had I been his parent, I wouldn't have wanted to go either.

Trump and his clingons turned it into a rally to further promote him and his party, from what I saw, it had litle dignity.

Syl wrote:

---

Vam wrote:

---

It seems Charlie Kirk’s parents and sister didn’t attend the memorial… 🤔

---

 To be honest, had I been his parent, I wouldn't have wanted to go either.

Trump and his clingons turned it into a rally to further promote him and his party, from what I saw, it had litle dignity.

 

---

 It was more of a memorial/rally. I tried watching it, but I only lasted about 2 minutes. I did see the clip of his wife forgiving the shooter..

I imagine there was an actual private service for a handful of people.

I might also add that I'm not sure there are mega (not maga) churches in the UK. We have them here and the services there are quite the production.  That's the vibe this service gave off..

Maddog wrote:

---

And as for "British commentators" some of them say waving the Union Jack or St Edward's flag is racist..

Fuck that nonsense..

---

 I agree.

People are so annoyed about the way the St George's flag is seen as a racist flag now by some....they are painting them on road markings and roundabouts.

I knew what you meant....maybe we have been posting together for too long. 

Anonymous wrote:

---

Anonymous wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

 Right here is where the bullshit started on this thread.

 

You misrepresented his views and labeled him a racist..

---

Agreed. 

A fact that has been debunked by many, many PoC as has been pointed out in this very thread.

A ‘racist’ who has many dark faces at his memorial I might add, that’s some “racist” 

---

 

---

 Do you exist in a sentient universe? Just because a handful of poc had no problem with Kirk's extreme rhetoric doesn't mean they speak for all people of colour! That's not logical Anon.

Kirk believed in a conspiracy theory called the Great Replacement as which he explains as thus-

The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, March 1st, 2024

"If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, December 8th, 2022

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

– The Charlie Kirk Show, May 19th, 2023

To say the term "prowling blacks" is offensive enough But to accuse a race of " targeting " white people without any proof is just going to deliberately cause further tension. He is attempting to influence people to think less of people of colour and constantly accuses them of deviance.

Why, if he has no problem with other races?? As the Anon says this shows a pattern where he is disparaging and offensive towards poc consistently. This is the essence of prejudice.

The far-right commentator and ally of Donald Trump, was killed on Wednesday doing what he was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and sometimes racist and sexist comments to large audiences.

https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-in-his-own-words-prowling-blacks-and-the-great-replacement-strategy/

Many commentators and publications openly stated Kirk held   racist viewpoints  and they used that exact word. People are entitled to their own opinion of course and others are welcome to disagree. But Kirk's narrative was certainly NOT everyday run of the mill Christian commentary as Maddog claims. That is blatantly not true.

Trying to personally insult people for their views or silence them with shame tactics goes beyond civil debate. I am perfectly content to agree to disagree but won't have someone attempt to shut me up by shaming me for a view held by frankly, many commentators and everyday people in Britain outside The Whine.

-- Edited by Fluffy on Monday 22nd of September 2025 09:23:32 PM

Maddog wrote:

---

And as for "British commentators" some of them say waving the Union Jack or St Edward's flag is racist..

Fuck that nonsense..

---

 It's not really the Union flag which is the problem. If you remember the London Olympics you could see people merrily waving the Union flag. Same deal with Last Night at the Proms. Hell, in the building I work in there is a huge Union flag flying on the roof and no body bats an eyelid.

It's the flag of St George (the English flag) which tends to cause the issue, That's because in the 1970s and 80s it got co-opted by various racist entities like the National Front and used as a symbol of anti-immigrant sentiment and violence against them. We haven't quite managed to remove that reputation as a country but it would be good to do so.

It's not surprising that some people feel unsettled by seeing lots of St George's flags being flown because it reminds them of a time when it accompanied a POC being punched in the face or racially abused. The majority of the population probably don't have that experience so may find it bewildering why there is so much pushback against it but that's the historical context. 

Fluffy wrote:

 But Kirk's narrative was certainly NOT everyday run of the mill Christian commentary as Maddog claims. That is blatantly not true.

 

---

 I think Maddog is right that in America at least Charlie Kirk's rhetoric is run of the mill.

And that's exactly the problem in my opinion. America will be what it will be. However, it's beginning to increasingly poison opinion in the UK as well.