ChaoticMusings

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

RE: Charlie Kiirk Shot.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Barksdale wrote:
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.

If it was why were so many people unhappy with his views, even in.America? But I concur it may well be the extreme right rhetoric that MAGA insists on spouting where MD lives.

I agree with BIB and have addressed it on several threads. The extreme right, just as with any extremes, cause isolation and division. I fear for the future and don't understand how people think Farage cares about the working class. But that's going off topic.

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Fluffy wrote:

If it was why were so many people unhappy with his views, even in.America?

Social media echo chambers aren't really a reliable gauge of public sentiment.

We can forget in the UK that the US is more religious and more conservative than we are generally, Lots of Americans really liked Charlie Kirk and thought what we said was true and he gave them a voice when no one else did.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Maddog wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
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.
He had honest conversations about race and culture.
People who didn't like that honesty, called him a racist.

It's a.cheap tactic, which has basically made the word meaningless..

He had opinions about race and culture as does everyone. His opinions were not facts.

I've addressed more views of his in a post that are perceived as bigoted in this way by far more people than I. The idea that you have "debunked " any notion with such a small sample in agreement is just daft.

Then I hope we can agree to disagree rather than going round in circles. We are both entitled to our opinion. I don't want to fall out with anyone personally just because we don't agree on certain issues.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Barksdale wrote:
Fluffy wrote:
If it was why were so many people unhappy with his views, even in.America?
Social media echo chambers aren't really a reliable gauge of public sentiment.
We can forget in the UK that the US is more religious and more conservative than we are generally, Lots of Americans really liked Charlie Kirk and thought what we said was true and he gave them a voice when no one else did.

I'm not on any social media apart from here and YouTube but yes, it's easy to forget how different and frankly old fashioned America must be, if they are embracing his beliefs about women.

He claimed it is good for women's mental health to stay at home and have children rather than pursue academia and secure financial independence in a world as chaotic as ours. I feel there is too much generalising and stereotyping all round. Some women will want to stay at home whilst their husband works (if his income permits it!) and others will want to embrace the world of work. It's up to the individual. Why was he concerning himself with what women choose to do? 🤷

Some of his rhetoric was straight out of the Manosphere textbook and highly unoriginal and inaccurate.when in fact men are far more depressed when single than young women.

I think Kirk sought to create division and I can't sit on.the fence about that. Madders would say he sought to create debate and that's fine.

Red Okktober · Getting Gobby

Barksdale wrote:

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.

A bigger historical context is that the St Georges Cross has been a national emblem since the 13th century - as worn by knights in the Crusades. That groups like the National Front or EDL adopted it, shouldn't detract from it's original purpose.

Nothing wrong with English people flying the English flag, considering that they are English! What flag should English people fly instead? What flag, other than the national flag, would unify, and show solidarity, amongst a country's population? Especially at a time when that country is under threat, as we are now with immigration.

Tough luck to anyone (in general, not you) who doesn't like it, and who claims it to be racist.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Barksdale wrote:
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.

QFT . It's sad that the cross has been tainted historically and I understand why POC may feel a shiver seeing it daubed on pavements everywhere as if to make a very pertinent point.

I will say no more as you explained the connotations of the flag perfectly.

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Red Okktober wrote:
Barksdale wrote:

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.
A bigger historical context is that the St Georges Cross has been a national emblem since the 13th century - as worn by knights in the Crusades. That groups like the National Front or EDL adopted it, shouldn't detract from it's original purpose.
Nothing wrong with English people flying the English flag, considering that they are English! What flag should English people fly instead? What flag, other than the national flag, would unify, and show solidarity, amongst a country's population? Especially at a time when that country is under threat, as we are now with immigration.
Tough luck to anyone (in general, not you) who doesn't like it, and who claims it to be racist.

I suppose you don't remember the history of self confessed racist skinheads who took to verbally abusing foreign shopkeepers just trying to make a living, These skinhead gangs were the cause of a lot of fear amongst communities of different ethnicities who just wanted to live peacefully as they attacked poc both verbally and physically.

Of course I don't think the flag is racist nor it's origins but sadly racists used it whilst committing evil crimes and that has unfortunately tainted its reputation in the minds of many. That's just the reality.

When White people start parading it about en masse, daubing it on any available wall and pavement whilst chanting "Get foreigners Out!" I can understand some poc feeling a little intimidated, even if they are British born and bred. Because people won't know that and some don't bother to ask such questions before they act.

The BIB is the underlying problem. If people just tried to understand the point of view of others, not necessarily having to agree, but just attempt to feel empathy for people who have reason to see things differently then tensions wouldn't be running as high as they are in the UK right now.

Maddog · Go Outside

Barksdale wrote:
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.

The problem isn't Charlie's words. The problem is people that overreact to them..

And the problem with the UK is in part, your governments over reaction to words and under reaction to evil deeds..

Maddog · Go Outside

Barksdale wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Barksdale wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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”
Good lord, not the "some of my best friends are black" argument.
There are lots of POC who think that Charlie Kirk was a bigot or racist. Should we dismiss their opinion or perhaps we could do something else like consider his words objectively to see if they fall under those categories.
And lots that didn’t…should their opinions be dismissed?
No, hence my suggestion that given the differing opinion we may want to settle the dispute using another measure, such as assessing his rhetoric objectively.

How do you objectively measure rhetoric?

Who gets to define "rhetoric"?

Maddog · Go Outside

Barksdale wrote:
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.

I understand the context.

I also think anyone who thinks that flag is racist is the fucking problem..

Maddog · Go Outside

I did find something Kirk said that could be racist..

“unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

Date: Sep 23 2:45 AM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
I did find something Kirk said that could be racist..

“unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

Put some Scottish with some English and there’s bound to be differences, good and bad

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Maddog wrote:
I did find something Kirk said that could be racist..

“unlike the African American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community with incredibly different attitudes about different things.”

Er, no..I'm glad you are engaging more with Avon on this but why are you ignoring the quotes that offended people. and going for mild mannered quotes like that? Oh, I've just given the reason why.

Why don't you try and objectively explain why the quote below isn't racist?

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

Fluffy · Getting Gobby

Fluffy wrote:
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.

--

Bump for Maddog before he asks for a source to the quote.

But this article from Vanity Fair discusses MAGA attempting to sanitize Kirk's bigoted narrative and is full of his viewpoints to ponder for objective discourse.

Kirk habitually railed against “Black crime,” claiming that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.” He repeated the rape accusations against Yusef Salaam, a member of the exonerated Central Park Five who is now a New York City councilman, calling him a “disgusting pig” who had gotten away with “gang rape.” Whatever distaste Kirk held for Blacks was multiplied when he turned to those from Haiti. Haiti was, by Kirk’s lights, a country “infested with demonic voodoo,” whose migrants were “raping your women and hunting you down at night.” These Haitians, as well as undocumented immigrants from other countries, were “having a field day,” per Kirk, and “coming for your daughter next.”

Kirk’s bigotry was not personal, but extended to the institution he founded, Turning Point USA. Crystal Clanton, the group’s former national field director, once texted a fellow Turning Point employee, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” One of the group’s advisers, Rip McIntosh, once published a newsletter featuring an essay from a pseudonymous writer that said Blacks had “become socially incompatible with other races” and that Black culture was an “un-fixable and crime-ridden mess.” In 2022, after three Black football players were killed at another college, Meg Miller, president of Turning Point’s chapter at the University of Missouri, joked (“joked”) in a social media message, “

I believe it you click the words in red they will lead to the articles pertaining to that quote. I feel these are other more appropriate quotes from Kirk, called bigoted by many respected publications ,than the mild one Madders offered.

Source-

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-ezra-klein-tanehisi-coates

Date: Sep 23 9:16 AM, 2025

Maddog wrote:

I understand the context.

I also think anyone who thinks that flag is racist is the fucking problem..

That's a strange choice of words. Nobody in their right mind would claim that an inanimate piece of cloth can be racist. It's the motive behind its use that's the issue.

Digger · Admin

Fluffy wrote:

--
Bump for Maddog before he asks for a source to the quote.
But this article from Vanity Fair discusses MAGA attempting to sanitize Kirk's bigoted narrative and is full of his viewpoints to ponder for objective discourse.
Kirk habitually railed against “Black crime,” claiming that “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people.” He repeated the rape accusations against Yusef Salaam, a member of the exonerated Central Park Five who is now a New York City councilman, calling him a “disgusting pig” who had gotten away with “gang rape.” Whatever distaste Kirk held for Blacks was multiplied when he turned to those from Haiti. Haiti was, by Kirk’s lights, a country “infested with demonic voodoo,” whose migrants were “raping your women and hunting you down at night.” These Haitians, as well as undocumented immigrants from other countries, were “having a field day,” per Kirk, and “coming for your daughter next.”
Kirk’s bigotry was not personal, but extended to the institution he founded, Turning Point USA. Crystal Clanton, the group’s former national field director, once texted a fellow Turning Point employee, “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE. Like fuck them all … I hate blacks. End of story.” One of the group’s advisers, Rip McIntosh, once published a newsletter featuring an essay from a pseudonymous writer that said Blacks had “become socially incompatible with other races” and that Black culture was an “un-fixable and crime-ridden mess.” In 2022, after three Black football players were killed at another college, Meg Miller, president of Turning Point’s chapter at the University of Missouri, joked (“joked”) in a social media message, “
I believe it you click the words in red they will lead to the articles pertaining to that quote. I feel these are other more appropriate quotes from Kirk, called bigoted by many respected publications ,than the mild one Madders offered.
Source-
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-ezra-klein-tanehisi-coates

Haiti is the most impoverished nation in the Latin American and Caribbean region with severe economic challenges. Nearly half of the Haitian population (5.7 million people) is affected by acute hunger, with over 2 million facing emergency levels of hunger. The gangs run it. Murder is rife.

Haiti is a no go zone. The US Department of State advises....

Do not travel to Haiti for any reason. Kidnapping is widespread. U.S. citizens have been victims and have been hurt or killed.

Why is Haiti in such a state? Because of crippling poverty.

After gaining independence, Haiti was forced to pay France reparations for the former slaveholders, a debt that heavily impacted its economy for over a century. Also, there's a long history of chronic political instability, dictatorships, and corruption. The gangs now rule it.

So, there's a point to be had that certain people from countries where rape is common and goes unpunished would bring that mindset with them. We've certainly seen it happen here in the UK. That's not to say every migrant is a rapist or murderer, but even one is too many in my book.

I don't agree with every single thing CK says. I certainly don't agree with his abortion opinions. But within what he pinpoints, there's often a grain of truth. It might be an unpalatable truth, but it's there.

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Maddog wrote:

How do you objectively measure rhetoric?
Who gets to define "rhetoric"?

Lol, wut? I know that you know that I know that you know the answer to this question.

UK and US societies have settled on methods to sort the quality of arguments which are subjective by using critical reasoning and logic.

So, the argument "boats should be banned as the Earth is flat so you can sail right off the edge of it" may sound subjectively fabulous and make sense to the person making the statement. However, even though the conclusion is logically consistent (you could sail off the edge of the Earth if it was flat) the argument is flawed as the premise is false (that the Earth is flat.) In addition the proposed solution is also unreasonable (banning boats) as it is disproportionate which further undermines its quality. Social issues are more difficult to asses as there are more grey areas than say matters involving the physical world so the ability to handle nuance is necessary.

Who gets to define what rhetoric we listen to and are convinced by? The citizens of a society by means of public debates, politics and judicial processes mainly. We decided to resolve our disputes in this way as it was better than one group killing another due to a difference of beliefs. Sounds like the right approach to me.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I understand the context.

I also think anyone who thinks that flag is racist is the fucking problem..
That's a strange choice of words. Nobody in their right mind would claim that an inanimate piece of cloth can be racist. It's the motive behind its use that's the issue.

It was/is, used as a racist symbol for a minority.

I think the fact that it's seen more now is that people are claiming it back to identify their patriotism for England. Go to Wales and you will see the Welsh flag greeting you as you drive in, and the red dragon flying proudly all over the place.

We have the St George flag hoisted in my road, and we live peacefully amongst Indians, Pakistanis and various others.

Barksdale · Getting Gobby

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I understand the context.

I also think anyone who thinks that flag is racist is the fucking problem..
That's a strange choice of words. Nobody in their right mind would claim that an inanimate piece of cloth can be racist. It's the motive behind its use that's the issue.

Right, it's the association which has arisen and persisted over the course of recent times which is the issue.

I think most people would like the English flag to be reclaimed and be a symbol of national unity. I don't think we are there yet as a society.