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

[hecatmoggie]

Historical systemic racism resulting in social, political and economic inequalities. What about those words are confusing you people?

so it was racism to hire based on skin color back then

but its not racism to do it now ?

Yes, to combat systemic racial inequalities.

gotcha - you approve of racism ... again, at least you admit you're racist

Even Martin Luther King Jr, who you claim Kirk was a fan of, supported those measures through his support of Operation Breadbasket.

when did I claim that? He mentioned him is all I've said

You didnt. You made a claim. You just said I was wrong. You didnt even try to explain yourself what Charlie was really saying.

no, I've proven it, over and over and again you're being dishonest by not admitting it

 

[Master Debator]

so it was racism to hire based on skin color back then

but its not racism to do it now ?

It was racist to exploit black people and deny them opportunity through slavery, jim crow, red lining, segregation and racist housing policies and it continues to be racist to want to deny Black Americans justice for that injustice. The atrocities were committed along racial lines so of course justice would distributed similarly. You people confuse racial with racism. Policies that seek to combat the effects of segregation are going to be inherently racial because segregation was inherently racial.

gotcha - you approve of racism ... again, at least you admit you're racist

I'm not the one who thinks there are jobs that belong to people of a certain race. That was Charlie. He said so.

when did I claim that? He mentioned him is all I've said

You claimed he was more in line with his ideals. Why are you pretending?

no, I've proven it, over and over and again you're being dishonest by not admitting it

So you claim. Your claims are all over the place. First its Charlie isn't racist for questioning black pilots because he explains it with DEI and then its Charlie never said black pilots had different qualifications. If so then remind me again why Charlie was questioning the qualifications of Black pilots? What good reason did he have? Spell it out instead of being meek and coy about it.

 

[hecatmoggie]

It was racist to exploit black people and deny them opportunity through slavery, jim crow, red lining, segregation and racist housing policies

150-200 years ago

and it continues to be racist to want to deny Black Americans justice for that injustice.

they wasn't alive 150-200 years ago

The atrocities were committed along racial lines so of course justice would distributed similarly. You people confuse racial with racism. Policies that seek to combat the effects of segregation are going to be inherently racial because segregation was inherently racial.

racism is racism - don't use a different word to cover it up

I'm not the one who thinks there are jobs that belong to people of a certain race. That was Charlie. He said so.

that's a lie I think - unless you can prove where Charlie said that. He didn't - I've shown you specifically where he's said the opposite

You claimed he was more in line with his ideals. Why are you pretending?

So you claim. Your claims are all over the place. First its Charlie isn't racist for questioning black pilots

he isn't and its been explained

because he explains it with DEI and then its Charlie never said black pilots had different qualifications.

Charlie never did to my knowledge say that - show me where he did

If so then remind me again why Charlie was questioning the qualifications of Black pilots? What good reason did he have? Spell it out instead of being meek and coy about it.

I've posted it over and over


you simply ignore and choose to believe what you want to

 

[AZRWinger]

I didn't lie. Right when he starts his defense on why he was worried about the qualifications of Black people he says something about white people having different standards and then goes into some spiel about Yale and Harvard but again, no airlines had different standards for black and white people. White and black people had the same standards. He talks about how one group had a leg up in hiring and black people did because they wanted to hire more black people but that doesnt equate to different or lower standards between the two in terms of passing pilot qualifications and courses.

Really? So, would you be OK with capping white new pilot hires at 50%? Why? Qualified applicants will be turned away to meet the racial quota. Yeah.

Do.you think flight schools would be immune the pressure of meeting racial quotas? How do you suppose they would meet the quotas?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Charlie again proving he's not racist

 

[Master Debator]

150-200 years ago


they wasn't alive 150-200 years ago

No. Racial segregation ended 65 years ago. You keep trying to make the excuse that it didn't happen to anyone alive today but it did. WW 2 ended in the 40s two decades before segregation and Germany is still paying reparations to Jews.

racism is racism - don't use a different word to cover it up

Yes racism is racism and it's racist to pretend like you don't understand black victims of American injustice and their direct descendants are alive today and it's racist to stand in it way of their justice.

that's a lie I think - unless you can prove where Charlie said that. He didn't - I've shown you specifically where he's said the opposite

Its not a lie. It's on video. This will be the third time I've posted this video to you that you've been too frail to acknowledge is real but it is.

he isn't and its been explained


Charlie never did to my knowledge say that - show me where he did



I've posted it over and over


you simply ignore and choose to believe what you want to

If Charlie never said black pilots had different standards then how does DEI as an explanation get you to questioning the qualifications of Black pilots?

 

[Master Debator]

Really? So, would you be OK with capping white new pilot hires at 50%? Why? Qualified applicants will be turned away to meet the racial quota. Yeah.

Because of historical racial inequalities caused by purposeful discrimination and disenfranchisement. As Charlie points out in one of his videos, black people are 15% of the population but make up only about 3.5% of pilots. If you want to combat racial inequalities caused by injustices like segregation then you're going to have to hire more black people than white people in some instances or those inequalities will persist. Also its the airlines themselves who made the point that because of lack of historical representation there's just not a lot of black people who look at pilot as a career choice because they don't know anyone in the field. Most of the applicants are white and they felt there were a lot of untapped potential from other demographics. Hiring fewer white people doesnt equate to them hiring less qualified people.

Do.you think flight schools would be immune the pressure of meeting racial quotas? How do you suppose they would meet the quotas?

By hiring more minorities. How do you think they meet them?

 

[CLAX1911]

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

Now that it's proven that it was a leftist that was involved and possibly a group of leftists (I found a pretty interesting little rabbit hole about this one). They have to try and justify the violence he had it coming. He was daring to go out in public and engage with people and listen to them while they made their case and not change his mind and agree and lock step with the leftists.

Do you know why they call everyone fascist all the time accuse your opponent of what you're doing.

 

[CLAX1911]

150-200 years ago


they wasn't alive 150-200 years ago

Also I don't think Charlie Kirk said slavery was good.

racism is racism - don't use a different word to cover it up

That's how you justify your kind of racism just say it's dei or affirmative action or anti-racism.

It's kind of like when the government called the spy on you act the Patriot act.

that's a lie I think - unless you can prove where Charlie said that. He didn't - I've shown you specifically where he's said the opposite

They only watched clips of him that cut off mid sentence

he isn't and its been explained

But not really trying to say that he was a bad person they're trying to justify him being murdered.

Charlie never did to my knowledge say that - show me where he did



I've posted it over and over


you simply ignore and choose to believe what you want to

The news media does their thinking for them and really where they get most of what they believe is places like Reddit.

 

[Irredentist]

Now that it's proven that it was a leftist that was involved and possibly a group of leftists (I found a pretty interesting little rabbit hole about this one). They have to try and justify the violence he had it coming. He was daring to go out in public and engage with people and listen to them while they made their case and not change his mind and agree and lock step with the leftists.

Do you know why they call everyone fascist all the time accuse your opponent of what you're doing.

The part that I've found most interesting is how everyone is so desperate to use this murder against their political opponents. People on the right want to blame the left, people on the left want to blame the right. No one seems to care about holding the shooter responsible for his own actions. Instead he's been reduced to some kind of brainwashed pawn in the minds of political partisans across the country. Frankly, it's pathetic. Tyler Robinson committed murder for his own selfish reasons. Let it end there.

 

[CLAX1911]

The part that I've found most interesting is how everyone is so desperate to use this murder against their political opponents.

Well if people would quit calling each other Nazis they'd probably quit radicalizing people like this.

People on the right want to blame the left, people on the left want to blame the right.

But people on the left did the violence and support it and try and justify it by assassinating Charlie's character.

No one seems to care about holding the shooter responsible for his own actions.

Did the shooter act alone if so how do you know how many more people should be held accountable for these actions if there was a group of people involved shouldn't they all be held accountable at least for their role in it?

Instead he's been reduced to some kind of brainwashed pawn in the minds of political partisans across the country. Frankly, it's pathetic. Tyler Robinson committed murder for his own selfish reasons. Let it end there.

See you're doing it you need Tyler Robinson to be a lone gunman for your political partisan viewpoints.

We don't know that he committed the murder on his own in fact they're looking into several people.

You are guilty of what you claim everyone else is doing.

 

[Irredentist]

Well if people would quit calling each other Nazis they'd probably quit radicalizing people like this.

I don't think that's even close to being true. We would still have plenty of radicals either way.

But people on the left did the violence and support it and try and justify it by assassinating Charlie's character.

People's actions in life aren't determined by their political affiliation.

Did the shooter act alone if so how do you know how many more people should be held accountable for these actions if there was a group of people involved shouldn't they all be held accountable at least for their role in it?

We have no evidence that anyone else was involved in the shooting. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation.

See you're doing it you need Tyler Robinson to be a lone gunman for your political partisan viewpoints.

We don't know that he committed the murder on his own in fact they're looking into several people.

You are guilty of what you claim everyone else is doing.

I don't need him to be anything. If evidence comes forth that Tyler Robinson was some kind of trans radical Marxist revolutionary, then I will happily recant everything I've said here. But so far there's diddly squat.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't think that's even close to being true.

How is Mars this time of year?

We would still have plenty of radicals either way.

What do you think radicalizes them?

People's actions in life aren't determined by their political affiliation.

Depends on the action.

We have no evidence that anyone else was involved in the shooting.

But it's speak investigated. Investigation is to determine evidence.

To suggest otherwise is pure speculation.

No it's not.

I don't need him to be anything.

Then why are you lying?

If evidence comes forth that Tyler Robinson was some kind of trans radical Marxist revolutionary, then I will happily recant everything I've said here. But so far there's diddly squat.

It's being investigated you said it was pure speculation. No either you don't know where the investigation is or you're lying. There is suspicion. Because of the acts of a few people that involved with this person. That's not pure speculation it's suspicion.

 

[Irredentist]

How is Mars this time of year?

What do you think radicalizes them?

Depends on the action.

But it's speak investigated. Investigation is to determine evidence.

No it's not.

Then why are you lying?

It's being investigated you said it was pure speculation. No either you don't know where the investigation is or you're lying. There is suspicion. Because of the acts of a few people that involved with this person. That's not pure speculation it's suspicion.

That's true, I don't know where the investigation currently is. But I've seen exactly zero evidence presented that Tyler Robinson had any accomplices for the murder he committed. If you've seen something I haven't, by all means show it to me.

 

[CLAX1911]

That's true, I don't know where the investigation currently is.

So I'm going to explain to you. They have reasonable suspicion that other people were involved they are currently investigating there's no evidence yet that I know of that's what the investigation is for.

But I've seen exactly zero evidence presented that Tyler Robinson had any accomplices

You only see what you want to see.

for the murder he committed. If you've seen something I haven't, by all means show it to me.

You have access to Google be curious instead of desperate to convince yourself whatever crap you want to believe.

I don't provide anything for anyone who's incurious you are incurious.

Find it for yourself or make up whatever trash you want to believe.

 

[Irredentist]

So I'm going to explain to you. They have reasonable suspicion that other people were involved they are currently investigating there's no evidence yet that I know of that's what the investigation is for.

You only see what you want to see.

You have access to Google be curious instead of desperate to convince yourself whatever crap you want to believe.

I don't provide anything for anyone who's incurious you are incurious.

Find it for yourself or make up whatever trash you want to believe.

Then as tempting as it is to fill the gaps in our knowledge with wild theories, I think I'll wait until there's some actual evidence.

 

[CLAX1911]

Then as tempting as it is to fill the gaps in our knowledge with wild theories, I think I'll wait until there's some actual evidence.

No you don't. You want to believe the shooter acted alone not because of any evidence but because that is an emotional need that's why I said you're a incurious. If you are curious you would know what I know I'm not some magical person privy to arcane knowledge.

Either you're desperately locked inside of an echo chamber or you choose to be in a bubble. Either way it's hard to rescue you I charge by the hour.

 

[Irredentist]

No you don't. You want to believe the shooter acted alone not because of any evidence but because that is an emotional need that's why I said you're a incurious. If you are curious you would know what I know I got some magical person for me to arcane knowledge.

Either you're desperately locked inside of an echo chamber or you choose to be in a bubble. Either way it's hard to rescue you I charge by the hour.

You must be projecting; the only one that's emotionally invested in a narrative is you. You clearly WANT this guy to be a radical leftist. That NEEDS to be the case for your narrative to make any sense. You're starting with the conclusion first and then looking for ways to justify it, because you NEED to make the argument that this was caused by leftist propaganda. You NEED to blame this on your political opponents. I don't.

 

[CLAX1911]

You must be projecting;

Make whatever excuse you need.

the only one that's emotionally invested in a narrative is you.

You're the only one sing anything definitive about it.

You clearly WANT this guy to be a radical leftist.

What I want is irrelevant he is. That's fact.

That NEEDS to be the case for your narrative to make any sense.

It's the case I'm just not in denial about it

You're starting with the conclusion first

No you're the one that said he acted alone and every other bit of the investigation is just speculation.

and then looking for ways to justify it,

No I've got the investigator and I've got the one that's talking about looking into the people around him. I just know a little more than you.

Don't feel bad just expand your ability to collect knowledge.

because you NEED to make the argument that this was caused by leftist propaganda.

I didn't make an argument.

You NEED to blame this on your political opponents. I don't.

You can't.

 

[hecatmoggie]

No. Racial segregation ended 65 years ago. You keep trying to make the excuse that it didn't happen to anyone alive today but it did. WW 2 ended in the 40s two decades before segregation and Germany is still paying reparations to Jews.

today, in 2025 ... what can a white person do that a black person can't do ?

simple question - can you answer it ?

Yes racism is racism and it's racist to pretend like you don't understand black victims of American injustice and their direct descendants are alive today and it's racist to stand in it way of their justice.

you are responsible for your life - that's it, period. Nobody is promised/guaranteed anything from previous generations. See, growing up in generational poverty that's something you learn. Blame everyone else but yourself if you want, but in the end? You're responsible for your own life. People growing up privileged don't understand that.

today, in 2025 ... what can a white person do that a black person can't do ?

Its not a lie. It's on video. This will be the third time I've posted this video to you that you've been too frail to acknowledge is real but it is.

its a commentary about part of what Kirk said yes - and Sheila Jackson Lee says it right in the video she was DEI'd / affirmative action'd. Charlie was right, she got in over someone more qualified because of her skin color. True?

8:32 of that video and about 45 seconds was Kirk. This was NOT the full video - you've been media lied to and led and sheep'd

we know Catanji Brown Jackson was a DEI pick - Biden excluded all men and whites from that SC position

Jasmine Crockett - "hire me because I'm black" but zero experience right?

Now go back and combined all the Charlie Kirk video's I've posted - not just a snippet and a commentary, actually listen to Kirk and all that he said. NO WAY can ANYBODY say he's racist. Can't do it, not if you listen to all Charlie said.

If you listen to only what liberal media say? then yes, you could think Charlie Kirk was racist.

If Charlie never said black pilots had different standards

he didn't, you've not shown one instance of him saying that

then how does DEI as an explanation get you to questioning the qualifications of Black pilots?

because skin color is being used to hire people over other people. What job did you have in life (or have) ? in general ... mine is technology. I work for a huge company, thousands. I am not the best. I'm nowhere NEAR the best. You wasn't either I imagine. Now, if my company elevated me on my skin color over those people better than me? I mean I still have the certifications, college hours .... its not like I'm not qualified but I'm in no way the best for a promotion especially over my peers. Most of us are like that - only a few are elite/top of their fields.

elevating on skin color is racism

remember I asked what a white can do today a black can't ?

how about what a black can do a white can't? do you know how many black only groups and organizations there are? all black frats/sororities? all white ones? scholarships for blacks only? how about for whites only?

and I can go on and on .... things blacks have privileged to that whites don't right? NOT fair, NOT equal ... racist and discriminatory

That's what Charlie was pointing out, he was right, and its not racist to say it

 

[hecatmoggie]

Also I don't think Charlie Kirk said slavery was good.

I don't think he did either

That's how you justify your kind of racism just say it's dei or affirmative action or anti-racism.
It's kind of like when the government called the spy on you act the Patriot act.
They only watched clips of him that cut off mid sentence
But not really trying to say that he was a bad person they're trying to justify him being murdered.
The news media does their thinking for them and really where they get most of what they believe is places like Reddit.

which is why I started this thread - discussion

 

[Master Debator]

today, in 2025 ... what can a white person do that a black person can't do ?

simple question - can you answer it ?

Of course I can answer, unlike you, I'm not too frail to address whatever you want to bring up. The answer to your question is nothing. But this is a strawman. My argument has nothing to do with who can do what today but about the fact that all Black Americans older than 65 and their direct descendants are living victims of racial discrimination and economic disenfranchisement. You just want to pretend it was so far in the past that it has nothing to do with today but that's just pretend.

you are responsible for your life - that's it, period. Nobody is promised/guaranteed anything from previous generations. See, growing up in generational poverty that's something you learn. Blame everyone else but yourself if you want, but in the end? You're responsible for your own life. People growing up privileged don't understand that.

Holding this country responsible for its racist discrimination and economic exploitation and disenfranchisement of Black Americans is exactly what I'm advocating for and what you're advocating for is America dodging responsibility for their acts of injustice.

today, in 2025 ... what can a white person do that a black person can't do ?

Repeating your strawman isn't really an explanation why you don't want to Black victims of American injustice to receive justice.

its a commentary about part of what Kirk said yes - and Sheila Jackson Lee says it right in the video she was DEI'd / affirmative action'd. Charlie was right, she got in over someone more qualified because of her skin color. True?

That's not what Sheila Jackson Lee said. She did not say she got into college over someone more qualified because of her skin color. Do you understand segregation kept black people out of these spaces and Affirmative Action made these formerly white supremacist and racist institutions take black people. That doesn't equate to them taking unqualified black people unless you're just assuming all black people are unqualified or less qualified than every white person.

8:32 of that video and about 45 seconds was Kirk. This was NOT the full video - you've been media lied to and led and sheep'd

In what way did the media lie to me? Did Kirk not say they took spots that belonged to white people? That they didn't have any brain power? You haven't really addressed those comments have you? But you're free to present your evidence of this lie. You seem to keep forgetting that evidence is supposed to follow your claim.

we know Catanji Brown Jackson was a DEI pick - Biden excluded all men and whites from that SC position

Again, DEI doesnt mean unqualified. It doesn't mean lacking in brain power. The D in DEI stands for diversity and Joe did want to bring diversity to the court but what makes you think Ketanji is unqualified to be there?

Jasmine Crockett - "hire me because I'm black" but zero experience right?

Jasmine Crockett has two separate degrees one in business administration and the other in law, she was a public defender and now a congresswoman and she's all of 41 years old. Can you find me the quote where she said "hire me because I'm black" since we're discussing lies?

Now go back and combined all the Charlie Kirk video's I've posted - not just a snippet and a commentary, actually listen to Kirk and all that he said. NO WAY can ANYBODY say he's racist. Can't do it, not if you listen to all Charlie said.

Why not? I've watched the videos. Make an argument for what Im missing about a racist who said accomplished black women didnt have any brain power and took spots that belonged to white people just because they spoke about how Affirmative Action brought some small measure of justice and equality to a racist, white supremacist society that had been previously denying them opportunity.

 

[Master Debator]

If you listen to only what liberal media say? then yes, you could think Charlie Kirk was racist.

I listen to everything. I've listened to you go on and on. I'm not afraid to listen to whatever you want me to, you just have to be prepared to handle my critique of it and make a counter argument that doesn't dodge the fact that Charlie Kirk said women who graduated Havard and Yale and lawschool, while he was a college drop out, lacked brain power and took spots that belonged to white people.

he didn't, you've not shown one instance of him saying that

Ok...... So lets say I accept your argument that Charlie Kirk never said black pilots had different qualifications..... then what the hell is the excuse for him singling out Black pilots and questioning their qualifications? Because we keep going round and round and to you using DEI as an excuse but then you fail to argue how DEI = unqualified. If you cant do that then how is DEI an excuse for Charlie questioning the qualifications of Black pilots? Your argument doesnt make any sense.

because skin color is being used to hire people over other people.

And? Does their skin color make them unqualified?

What job did you have in life (or have) ? in general ... mine is technology. I work for a huge company, thousands. I am not the best. I'm nowhere NEAR the best. You wasn't either I imagine. Now, if my company elevated me on my skin color over those people better than me? I mean I still have the certifications, college hours .... its not like I'm not qualified but I'm in no way the best for a promotion especially over my peers. Most of us are like that - only a few are elite/top of their fields.

If companies were looking to elevate people of certain skin colors why wouldnt they elevate the people of that skin color who were more qualified than you? Your argument seems to think the two arent mutually exclusive, meaning your argument assumes that to elevate black people means to elevate people who are less qualified than you. Is that what you're trying to argue?

elevating on skin color is racism

Nope. Its racial. Racism is when you hold people of a certain skin color back because you assume they are less qualified than you. White people arent being held back just because you lost out on a promotion. White men are still being promoted and at higher percentages per capita then any other demographic. White men are overrepresented in management and leadership positions in comparison to their population numbers suggesting if anything, the opposite is true.

remember I asked what a white can do today a black can't ?

No, I haven't forgotten your strawman. It amuses me every time you imagine it a rational argument.

how about what a black can do a white can't? do you know how many black only groups and organizations there are? all black frats/sororities? all white ones? scholarships for blacks only? how about for whites only?

What does that have to do with economic exploitation and disenfranchisement done by the government and the law?

and I can go on and on .... things blacks have privileged to that whites don't right? NOT fair, NOT equal ... racist and discriminatory

That's what Charlie was pointing out, he was right, and its not racist to say it

I'm happy to watch you cry about these things in soft white ignorance of the difference between private organizations and government policy of racial segregation and disenfranchisement.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Charlie again hating racism

 

[AZRWinger]

Because of historical racial inequalities caused by purposeful discrimination and disenfranchisement. As Charlie points out in one of his videos, black people are 15% of the population but make up only about 3.5% of pilots. If you want to combat racial inequalities caused by injustices like segregation then you're going to have to hire more black people than white people in some instances or those inequalities will persist.

There it is, the racism inherent in DEI, racism dressed up as combating historic racism. So-called diversity is segregation by racial identity. Then, following the Marxist paradigm some groups are designated victims by virtue of under representation versus their percentage of the population and political posturing.

Merit has nothing to do with getting a job or being admitted to a school or training program, it's all about your perceived racial identity. Charlie Kirk rejected this regression to the octoroon standard in favor of merit.

Also its the airlines themselves who made the point that because of lack of historical representation there's just not a lot of black people who look at pilot as a career choice because they don't know anyone in the field. Most of the applicants are white and they felt there were a lot of untapped potential from other demographics. Hiring fewer white people doesnt equate to them hiring less qualified people.

Airlines under pressure from government DEI zealots instituting racial quotas for pilots is anything but voluntary. Airlines are heavily dependent on government permitting and subsidies. But airlines have completely independently prioritized DEI racism over safely landing the plane. Absurd.

Racial stereotypes suggesting black people require someone who looks like me to pursue a job as pilots is blatant patronizing by Democrats.

By hiring more minorities. How do you think they meet them?

The issue is hiring or admitting to training the best qualified candidates regardless of race. Inserting DEI quotas into the process raises questions about the competence of the pilot engaging in the nontrivial process of landing the plane.