Charlie Kirk wasn't racist or hateful- prove me wrong

[hecatmoggie]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

 

[Xilnik]

I'll break it down for you:

If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist.

This alone is a little racist. It shows he wanted to say it, but he held back because of appearances.

But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, "I'm only here because of affirmative action."

This shows a complete misunderstanding of how affirmative action worked. Affirmative action did not provide a leg up over white men who were more qualified. It provided a more equitable comparison between people of different races, genders, etc. who had similar/equal qualifications.

Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.

And here he said that Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously." They "had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."

Yes, that means Kirk did not feel they had the merits to reach their positions without help. That's racist.



As for your misunderstanding of DEI hiring:

That's a right-wing spin on it that's inaccurate in most cases. I'm not saying there's no merit to what you're saying because some places did use quotas and similar that I agree are BS, but in most environments, DEI was a means to compare qualifications in an equitable fashion. People who were more likely to be marginalized were included in the hiring/promotion process only if their qualifications were equal to or better than their white/male/heterosexual/etc. counterparts.

NOTE: The above are essentially the same as my arguments in the following posts:

X

Post in thread 'What made Charlie Kirk a great man?'

Sunday at 8:35 PM

I know. Which is why it’s so funny that you keep lying.

By calling you out for lying?

Alright, since you seem to struggle with what he said, I'll break it down for you:

If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist.

This alone is a little racist. It shows he wanted to say it, but he held back because of appearances.

But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, "I'm only...

• Xilnik

• 

X

Post in thread 'What made Charlie Kirk a great man?'

Sunday at 9:40 PM

What is racist is promoting someone based upon their skin color rather than their ability. Thats what DEI does. Pointing that out is not racist. Why he included Michelle Obama in there makes no sense. She got the title of First Lady via marriage, not DEI

No, that's not what DEI does. That's a right-wing spin on it that's inaccurate in most cases. I'm not saying there's no merit to what you're saying because some places did use quotas and similar that I agree are BS, but in most environments, DEI was a means to compare qualifications in an equitable fashion. People who were more...

• Xilnik

Also, I don't hate Charlie Kirk. I didn't even know who he was until recently, but it's unquestionable that he said several things that were racist.

 

[Gozaburo]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I don't think he was cynically hateful, but he was definitely racist insofar as he clearly believed that races of people are going to have unequal outcomes even if they're provided with equal opportunity. He also clearly had some problematic views on sex and gender identity which were informed by his rather vague religious faith. Like I said, I'm willing to be more charitable than most liberals and say that I believe he was sincere and wasn't cynically hateful, but rather his worldview started with an entirely different set of foundational axioms to the contemporary progressive liberal worldview.

 

[americanwoman]

People like to OP just want to justify those remarks to question a person of color’s qualifications while accepting any white person is the most qualified. I don’t agree with that and there is an air of superiority that goes with that kind of thinking.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I'll break it down for you:

and I'll respond, this is the kind of stuff I was asking for

"If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist."

This alone is a little racist. It shows he wanted to say it, but he held back because of appearances.

watch the entire clip



- Jackson actually admitted DEI was the reason she was hired, right ? Sheila Jackson admitted it.
Joy Reid said: "Yes, I am DEI. Yes, I only got in to colleges on affirmative action. I am proud!"
Biden said no men and no whites would be considered and K.Brown was selected - DEI hire.

These are facts - Charlie wasn't wrong and its not racist or hateful stating it

 

[lynnwinslow]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

My issue with Charlie Kirk is that he was a big cog in the right wing angertainment machine. He probably didn't believe half the things he put out there, he just saw the clicks and speaking fees as a money making opportunity. Which is honestly worse, IMO, than being misguided. He was a selfish human but didn't deserve to be murdered because of it.

And this is 100% a racist dog whistle. It's a shame you can't or won't see see it.

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

This is attacking women. Again, it's a shame if you can't or won't see it.

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.

– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

This is divisive and racist. Again, it's a shame if you can't or won't see it.

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

You've clearly already made up your mind so this "prove me wrong" thread is just troll nonsense, IMO.

 

[Xilnik]

and I'll respond, this is the kind of stuff I was asking for

"If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist."





watch the entire clip



- Jackson actually admitted DEI was the reason she was hired, right ? Sheila Jackson admitted it.
Joy Reid said: "Yes, I am DEI. Yes, I only got in to colleges on affirmative action. I am proud!"
Biden said no men and no whites would be considered and K.Brown was selected - DEI hire.

These are facts - Charlie wasn't wrong and its not racist or hateful stating it

Sure, if you gloss over his introductory statements and conclusions, there's nothing wrong with agreeing they said they were in their positions due to affirmative action. It's all his opinions surrounding why they needed affirmative action that make his statements racist. He came right out and said they were inferior intellectually to white people and stole white people's positions. That's racism by its very definition.

 

[Airyaman]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

Lol, this is pretty desperate. Just because a pilot is black you are going to wonder if that person is qualified simply because DEI might have been a factor?

So the white pilot doesn't get scrutinized simply because DEI could not have been involved?

What if the white pilot had connections? How many white pilots have been caught drunk on the job?

Sorry, but your first post is a fail. Yes, it is all about race: black pilot must be DEI otherwise why hire a black pilot?

That you can't see your own bigoted words is not on us.

 

[NatMorton]

This shows a complete misunderstanding of how affirmative action worked.

This is simply not true. AA programs often promote less (sometimes not) qualified candidates in the name of diversity.

If you're looking for proof, Harvard's black enrollment numbers are down after the Students for Fair Admissions case. Were Harvard not handicapping for race, the numbers should have remained the same, or at least similar, unless one believes Harvard's admissions process has suddenly, and coincidentally, become racist.

Here's a second example, though it's a bit dated. A study showed that Black students admitted to Stanford Law school on their AA program were failing the bar exam at a higher rate that black students who attended law school's where they were accepted purely on merit:

https://www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/01/Sander.pdf

If you'd like a third example, consider Vice President Harris, someone chosen because of her race and gender. Had Biden chosen a VP based on competency, Trump might not be President today.

AA programs place a higher value on diversity than they do professional competency, and there's really not much debate about that.

 

[Airyaman]

Here OP, have fun with this one:

 

[Michael Cole]

I don't think he was cynically hateful, but he was definitely racist insofar as he clearly believed that races of people are going to have unequal outcomes even if they're provided with equal opportunity. He also clearly had some problematic views on sex and gender identity which were informed by his rather vague religious faith. Like I said, I'm willing to be more charitable than most liberals and say that I believe he was sincere and wasn't cynically hateful, but rather his worldview started with an entirely different set of foundational axioms to the contemporary progressive liberal worldview.

I agree with this. When I see him as sincere, I see him as naive for some reason. Like an idealistic college kid. Speaking to college kids.

I don't know him either. Some of the things he's said are disqualifying for me, but that doesn't mean he didn't believe in himself. My go-to examination of podcast culture is that it's a grift. And this, admittedly, is uninformed. I don't do podcasts nor the under-30 culture. I'm naive in this respect.

Then again, I know nothing about Kirk. He earned a very tiny fortune of $12m from his work. If he were grifting, I suspect he'd be worth many times that amount. His views did seem to be garden variety right wing views, so his sincerity was influenced by partisan politics.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I'll break it down for you:



This alone is a little racist. It shows he wanted to say it, but he held back because of appearances.



This shows a complete misunderstanding of how affirmative action worked. Affirmative action did not provide a leg up over white men who were more qualified. It provided a more equitable comparison between people of different races, genders, etc. who had similar/equal qualifications.



And here he said that Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously." They "had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."

Yes, that means Kirk did not feel they had the merits to reach their positions without help. That's racist.



As for your misunderstanding of DEI hiring:

That's a right-wing spin on it that's inaccurate in most cases. I'm not saying there's no merit to what you're saying because some places did use quotas and similar that I agree are BS, but in most environments, DEI was a means to compare qualifications in an equitable fashion. People who were more likely to be marginalized were included in the hiring/promotion process only if their qualifications were equal to or better than their white/male/heterosexual/etc. counterparts.

NOTE: The above are essentially the same as my arguments in the following posts:​

​

X

Post in thread 'What made Charlie Kirk a great man?'

Sunday at 8:35 PM

I know. Which is why it’s so funny that you keep lying.

By calling you out for lying?

Alright, since you seem to struggle with what he said, I'll break it down for you:

If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist.

This alone is a little racist. It shows he wanted to say it, but he held back because of appearances.

But now they're coming out and they're saying it for us! They're coming out and they're saying, "I'm only...

• Xilnik

• 

X

Post in thread 'What made Charlie Kirk a great man?'

Sunday at 9:40 PM

What is racist is promoting someone based upon their skin color rather than their ability. Thats what DEI does. Pointing that out is not racist. Why he included Michelle Obama in there makes no sense. She got the title of First Lady via marriage, not DEI

No, that's not what DEI does. That's a right-wing spin on it that's inaccurate in most cases. I'm not saying there's no merit to what you're saying because some places did use quotas and similar that I agree are BS, but in most environments, DEI was a means to compare qualifications in an equitable fashion. People who were more...

• Xilnik

​

Also, I don't hate Charlie Kirk. I didn't even know who he was until recently, but it's unquestionable that he said several things that were racist.

You've done exactly what the OP asked you not to do. You took out carefully selected excerpts to build you point. The problem is that means you took them out of context and your argument is void for that reason. It's like I said about some great men. "These are great men." But how did I phrase that at the moment, how did I emphasize each word means everything to the context. It's easy to understand, say it yourself in a variety of ways, with the emphasis on different words and with a different tone to certain words.

So when you don't show the entire interview, or worse you don't show the entire uncut video, you are deliberately tampering with evidence to prove or disprove a point.

It's easy to see how this is done over and over.

I first saw clips of Charlie Kirk some years back doing what he does. Going to college campuses and setting up his tent with a camera operator and inviting anyone to sit down and debate issues. I spent the last few days watching clips of Charlie Kirk, posted on X, Tic Tok, Facebook and other sources. Some longer, some shorter, some cut at very precise moments and it's very easy to make him sound racist, misogynist, fascist or whatever you like if you want to give only snippets of what he said. When you read a book you read the entire book if you want to know the whole story. You can't start at the end or in the middle or skip pages or chapters and know what the story really is. In today's world of technology it's easy to make cuts, changes, or to completely alter the words, meaning and even the movements of someones body if you know how. So, if you have clips of Charlie doing anything other than debating topics with people who disagree, agree or who are simply ranting and raving on a topic, make sure you give the entire conversation, uncut, unaltered, and give the entire conversation so we all get the truth of what he said, how he said it and what the point he is making actually was. Anything less is worthless.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

So don't bring up his hateful racist stuff. Got it.

 

[Tigerace117]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

He literally went on and on about how awful he thought MLK Jr was and thought the Civil Rights Act was a bad thing.

 

[BabaVoss]

and I'll respond, this is the kind of stuff I was asking for

"If we would have said three weeks ago […] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist."





watch the entire clip



- Jackson actually admitted DEI was the reason she was hired, right ? Sheila Jackson admitted it.
Joy Reid said: "Yes, I am DEI. Yes, I only got in to colleges on affirmative action. I am proud!"
Biden said no men and no whites would be considered and K.Brown was selected - DEI hire.

These are facts - Charlie wasn't wrong and its not racist or hateful stating it

Sorry, but you are so very wrong.

When you hear someone say “I benefitted from affirmative action policies” that means they were provided an opportunity they otherwise would have been denied - because they are a certain color.

Charlie Kirk said that meant they "do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously” and that they stole a white person’s job.

Wildly, deeply racist. If this is typical of his ideas, he was a raging racist asshole.

He didn't deserve to be murdered for it. He had the right to an asshole if he chose, and he did. But this attempt to paint him as some great human being, given his words, is tragic. He was not.

.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I started watching this one ...

Kirk is correct, a pastor doing the right thing at the right time should never be a question. He goes on to say don't be political, be Biblical. The Church can be open and honest and have discussions - Kirk says this. that's an almost 3 hour video too of parts/pieces .... point of specific times maybe?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I don't think he was cynically hateful, but he was definitely racist insofar as he clearly believed that races of people are going to have unequal outcomes even if they're provided with equal opportunity. He also clearly had some problematic views on sex and gender identity which were informed by his rather vague religious faith. Like I said, I'm willing to be more charitable than most liberals and say that I believe he was sincere and wasn't cynically hateful, but rather his worldview started with an entirely different set of foundational axioms to the contemporary progressive liberal worldview.

then you need to point out quotes to prove what you're saying - or admit its just based on what you heard from liberal media

 

[OrphanSlug]

I am predicting really good things for this thread...

 

[Hari Seldon]

You ever wonder how many white employees were good old boy or nepotism picks?

 

[holbritter]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

Who are you? And why should we?

 

[Xilnik]

You've done exactly what the OP asked you not to do. You took out carefully selected excerpts to build you point. The problem is that means you took them out of context and your argument is void for that reason. It's like I said about some great men. "These are great men." But how did I phrase that at the moment, how did I emphasize each word means everything to the context. It's easy to understand, say it yourself in a variety of ways, with the emphasis on different words and with a different tone to certain words.

So when you don't show the entire interview, or worse you don't show the entire uncut video, you are deliberately tampering with evidence to prove or disprove a point.

It's easy to see how this is done over and over.

I first saw clips of Charlie Kirk some years back doing what he does. Going to college campuses and setting up his tent with a camera operator and inviting anyone to sit down and debate issues. I spent the last few days watching clips of Charlie Kirk, posted on X, Tic Tok, Facebook and other sources. Some longer, some shorter, some cut at very precise moments and it's very easy to make him sound racist, misogynist, fascist or whatever you like if you want to give only snippets of what he said. When you read a book you read the entire book if you want to know the whole story. You can't start at the end or in the middle or skip pages or chapters and know what the story really is. In today's world of technology it's easy to make cuts, changes, or to completely alter the words, meaning and even the movements of someones body if you know how. So, if you have clips of Charlie doing anything other than debating topics with people who disagree, agree or who are simply ranting and raving on a topic, make sure you give the entire conversation, uncut, unaltered, and give the entire conversation so we all get the truth of what he said, how he said it and what the point he is making actually was. Anything less is worthless.

Those weren't excerpts. I broke down the full context into individual pieces to explain my argument, but the full context exists as a whole. He was speaking about affirmative action which I admitted had its flaws in how some companies chose to implement it (essentially the same flaws as DEI). As a whole, neither affirmative action nor DEI worked the way many on the right paint them, and assuming someone in a marginalized group is less qualified based solely on their skin pigment, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is prejudiced.

The way affirmative action and DEI were supposed to work, and the way most companies and agencies did implement them, was to provide candidates with similar experience and qualifications the same opportunities regardless of their physical characteristics, views, beliefs, etc. To do as Kirk did or as this administration has done undermines that by marginalizing anyone who is different. That's simply using DEI as an excuse to oppress groups of people who are, in most cases, fully qualified for and good at their positions.

 

[BirdinHand]

Charlie Kirk was a Christian right wing influencer that has trended more towards Christian nationalism over the years (if you find older stuff from his routines, he emphasized a separation of church and state whereas in more recent years encouraged more religious influence)

His view points, statements and “debate” reflected that.

His “debate” was rather surface level “gotchas” and the same thing repeated over and over again. Younger, inexperienced “student” coming to the microphone and Kirk repeating the same rather canned responses over and over.

He would share a stage with Candace Owens, Riley Gaines, members of Trumps family, Dan Crenshaw, etc.

The man was an influencer that made his living sharing right wing Christian (more recently nationalistic) viewpoints on college campuses. No more, no less.

And he became a multimillionaire via this job.

 

[Irredentist]

I want liberals/lefties/Democrats to show me proof of why they hate Charlie Kirk and label him racist and hateful. PROVE why you believe what you do.

I don't want little cut out snippets from a conversation - give me something in context and full text and prove what is being said

I'll debunk one to start - this is NOT an example of Charlie Kirk being racist

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024


In the full context of that discussion Charlie was showing how DEI took us from never questioning people in higher positions (like airplane pilots) to wondering if they were DEI hires and only good pilots vs the best pilots because of hiring practices.

Yes, in recent years, major U.S. airlines like American Airlines and Southwest Airlines engaged in DEI-focused hiring practices and programs, but they have since agreed to discontinue these specific programs and revert to merit-based hiring following legal complaints from organizations like America First Legal (AFL). So what Charlie Kirk said was absolutely true and remember what he said IN the discussion that liberal media won't tell you

Charlie said "It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right?"



So if you're going to respond here - bring something. Discuss something Charlie Kirk said that showed he was racist and hated ....... because I'll listen. Charlie Kirk's assassination is different, its moved this nation unlike anything I've ever seen before. The left hates him - show me why

Charlie Kirk believed that gay sex was an abomination against god, and he regularly said as much. In other words, he was a bigot against gay people. That's pretty hateful.

 

[Airyaman]

From Grok, with sources in the link:

Grok

Grok is a free AI assistant designed by xAI to maximize truth and objectivity. Grok offers real-time search, image generation, trend analysis, and more.

grok.com

No, there is no credible evidence indicating that Black commercial pilots are less qualified than white ones. In fact, multiple sources, including aviation organizations and industry analyses, describe claims suggesting otherwise as unfounded and rooted in stereotypes rather than data. Commercial pilot qualifications in the U.S. are rigorously standardized and regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), with identical certification standards (e.g., knowledge tests, flight hours, and performance evaluations) applied regardless of race. All pilots must meet these benchmarks to obtain and maintain licenses, and there is no documented relaxation of standards for diversity initiatives.

Key Points from Available Data:​

• Representation Disparities: Black pilots make up about 3.9% of U.S. commercial pilots, compared to 93% white, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Similar gaps exist in the U.S. Air Force (a common pipeline to commercial aviation), where only 2.6% of pilots are Black. These disparities are often attributed to barriers like access to training, cost, and historical underrepresentation, not inherent qualifications.
• Training and Attrition Insights: A RAND study on U.S. Air Force undergraduate pilot training (2009–2014 data) found higher attrition rates for Black candidates (19.6% vs. 8.3% for whites) in initial phases, primarily due to flying performance issues. However, 72% of this gap was explained by pre-training factors like lower aptitude test scores (e.g., Test of Basic Aviation Skills), not race itself. The remaining unexplained portion was statistically insignificant, and differences diminished in later training stages. This pertains to military trainees, not licensed commercial pilots, and does not indicate lower qualifications among those who complete certification.
• Performance and Safety Records: No studies or data sources show racial disparities in commercial pilot performance, error rates, or safety records. Publicly available accident data from the FAA or National Transportation Safety Board does not track or report by race, making direct comparisons unavailable. Notably, as diversity in U.S. airline pilots has increased (including more Black and women pilots since the 1970s), airline fatality rates have decreased dramatically—from multiple incidents per year to near-zero in recent decades. This trend contradicts claims of reduced safety due to diversity.
• Bias and Public Perception: Some public figures have expressed concerns about Black pilots' qualifications, often in the context of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs (e.g., a verified quote from Charlie Kirk questioning a Black pilot's qualifications). However, research shows consumer bias favors white male pilots in hypothetical scenarios, rating minority pilots lower despite no evidence of actual differences. Aviation groups like the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals emphasize that DEI efforts focus on expanding access without compromising standards.

In summary, while racial underrepresentation persists in aviation, qualifications are determined by uniform FAA standards, and no evidence supports the notion that Black commercial pilots are less qualified. If anything, the data highlights systemic barriers to entry for minorities rather than performance gaps post-certification.

 

[hecatmoggie]

My issue with Charlie Kirk is that he was a big cog in the right wing angertainment machine. He probably didn't believe half the things he put out there, he just saw the clicks and speaking fees as a money making opportunity. Which is honestly worse, IMO, than being misguided. He was a selfish human but didn't deserve to be murdered because of it.

And this is 100% a racist dog whistle. It's a shame you can't or won't see see it.

If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

not racism - already proved that

This is attacking women. Again, it's a shame if you can't or won't see it.

Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.

– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025

F the Patriarchy isn't a Christian value and Kirk was talking about that. Biblically he's not wrong and its not attacking women to talk about Biblical principles
https://www.mediamatters.org/charli...ift-submit-your-husband-and-have-ton-children

This is divisive and racist. Again, it's a shame if you can't or won't see it.

The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

– The Charlie Kirk Show, 20 March 2024

You've clearly already made up your mind so this "prove me wrong" thread is just troll nonsense, IMO.

show me the full context of the above - I want to see it ALL not just a little cherry picked snippet

if you can't, then you are repeating liberal media print that is 100% intended to lead sheep to think one way or the other. You took that quote from The Guardian didn't ya? Yeah, I know that little hate piece that they published that cherry picks without context.

here, I'll do this one for you - I bolded the cherry picked piece you read from liberal news and repeated without knowing the full context. The entire discussion there was on illegal immigration/abuse of asylum claims.








CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): We should have no asylum claims, period. They have completely manipulated the entire asylum system. Remember we talked about the autoimmune response? They use our alleged generosity and benevolency, and they game that system, millions of them. And the cartels, and the Catholic Charities, and all these NGOs, they give them the script.

The Catholic Charities, by the way, are one of the biggest reasons why we have the open border crisis on the southern border. They subsidize it. They train the sex traffickers how to smuggle the women across the border. Every day, women are coming across as sex slaves, and Catholic Charities say, how can we help? Oh, we're not supposed to judge -- every single day.

...

Donald Trump said, hey, we're gonna put 5 percent tariff, 10 percent tariff. We're gonna get what we want. Mexico could close their border in an afternoon, but we're allowing Mexico and the cartels to overrun the country because, of course, the American Democrat party wants that to happen. The American Democrat Party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white. They love it when America gets overwhelmed, and we keep on saying this. It's Cloward Piven strategy. It's not some sort of abstract theory. It's right there. The Cloward-Piven strategy that was articulated in the 1960s,1970s by these two academics. And even Mexico doesn't want these people. Well, too bad. If Donald Trump wins in November, it'll be the largest deportation force in American history.

Charlie Kirk: "The American Democrat Party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."

www.mediamatters.org

in case you didn't know

The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in a 1966 article by American sociologists and activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The strategy theorized that if poor people were mobilized to claim all the welfare benefits to which they were legally entitled, the system would become overloaded and collapse. This collapse would then create a political and financial crisis that could force a new federal system of guaranteed minimum income.

now, tell me the above isn't EXACTLY what Democrats have pushed for ?