• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

That’s not the case here
That's exactly the case here
Diversity
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
So fulfilling a quota to meet a diversity goal requires discrimination against majority students in this case on the basis of race.

Saying the word "diversity" like it's a magical spell will never absolve the reality of what that really means. Race based prejudice and nothing else.
 
That’s not the case here

Diversity
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
This seems awfully racist. Don't you think black people have the capacity to compete?
 
Most everything that he said.

Why do you run from his words.

I've posted a lot of Kirk videos

He detested using skin color and gender and sexual identity as means of judging people

you know this too if you've watched what I've posted - his words are clear
 
That’s not the case here

Diversity
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
Again, you're avoiding the issue. Diversity is an end state. One can arrive at that end state through legal or illegal means.

For example, let's suppose your company has 100 people, lacking diversity it has only 5 blacks and 95 whites. Firing 8 of the whites because they're white and hiring black replacements will create diversity's requisite 13% black population, but the means by which you have created it are, of course, highly illegal.

It's no different if you were creating that company from scratch and you used racially discriminatory hiring practices to achieve a 13% black population. Any otherwise qualified white applicant denied a job in the from-scratch company are harmed equally with the whites fired from the first company.

In almost every scenario, racial discrimination is both morally and legally wrong.
 
Again, you're avoiding the issue. Diversity is an end state. One can arrive at that end state through legal or illegal means.

For example, let's suppose your company has 100 people, lacking diversity it has only 5 blacks and 95 whites. Firing 8 of the whites because they're white and hiring black replacements will create diversity's requisite 13% black population, but the means by which you have created it are, of course, highly illegal.

It's no different if you were creating that company from scratch and you used racially discriminatory hiring practices to achieve a 13% black population. Any otherwise qualified white applicant denied a job in the from-scratch company are harmed equally with the whites fired from the first company.

In almost every scenario, racial discrimination is both morally and legally wrong.
That is a false comparison. The point here is if you are starting a company. You make sure you have a diverse pool of applicants, not just white males.
 
That is a false comparison. The point here is if you are starting a company. You make sure you have a diverse pool of applicants, not just white males.
You don't need to tell me that. I do a fair amount of hiring, and my group's diversity numbers are much better than my industry's average.

But there is a fundamental difference between making the effort to have a diverse candidate pipeline and letting the law of averages play out vs. making hiring decisions based on race. The former, I do. The latter, I would never do because it is both morally and legally wrong.
 
You don't need to tell me that. I do a fair amount of hiring, and my group's diversity numbers are much better than my industry's average.

But there is a fundamental difference between making the effort to have a diverse candidate pipeline and letting the law of averages play out vs. making hiring decisions based on race. The former, I do. The latter, I would never do because it is both morally and legally wrong.
So in this entire thread, you have totally missed the point of DEI and affirmative action
 
So in this entire thread, you have totally missed the point of DEI and affirmative action
No, I haven't. I have said repeatedly where and when those programs devolve into racial discrimination they become illegal. You keep flipping between two counterarguments. It's either pretending racial discrimination never happens within those programs or that race can be a deciding factor and somehow that isn't racial discrimination. Both positions are untenable.
 
No, I haven't. I have said repeatedly where and when those programs devolve into racial discrimination they become illegal. You keep flipping between two counterarguments. It's either pretending racial discrimination never happens within those programs or that race can be a deciding factor and somehow that isn't racial discrimination. Both positions are untenable.
And neither are my arguments. Those are your arguments. DEI and affirmative action is availing opportunity that would normally not be given. Just because the white male doesn’t always get the job does not mean he is discriminated against
 
Just because the white male doesn’t always get the job does not mean he is discriminated against
Said no one in this thread. Seriously it's hard to believe anyone thinks like this in 2025.
 
So, roughly 12.6% of the population are Black in the U.S. The NBA (National Basketball Association) in the 2023 NBA season shows approximately 70.4% of players were Black.
Black players make up a majority of the NFL, with a 2023 report by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport finding of 53.5% players.
The MLB in 2024 has about 6% black players. And the NHL has roughly 6% black players.
Black players made up approximately 24% of Major League Soccer (MLS) players.

Now, to be equitable ---- there would be quite a few Blacks who'd lose their prestige in order that more "whites" would have an opportunity. But we want the best players and not racial balance -------- is that not so?
 
Last edited:
hmmm

RESEARCH HIM FOR YOURSELF AND SEE.

"What Did Charlie Kirk Really Say?

On Friday, Representative Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez was among a number of Democratic lawmakers to vote against a resolution to honor the late Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on September 10th. After condemning his murder as “a horrific and vile attack,” the Congresswoman associated his work with America’s long “legacy of bigotry.” Likewise, Representative Bennie Thompson said that Kirk’s “rhetoric was divisive, disparaging, and rooted in grievance.”

Their statements mirror a claim that now fills many newsfeeds and talk shows. While qualifying his murder as detestable, many accuse Charlie Kirk of being an outspoken proponent of hate, violence, white supremacy, and other dangerous phobias. Many people believe this accusation. Many others, in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, have spent hours looking through his videos and came to a different conclusion.

Last week, theologian and author Dr. Thaddeus Williams ran an experiment to test this claim. I asked Dr. Williams to share what he found:

Using multiple accounts, multiple IP addresses, and multiple devices to avoid politically charged algorithms, I crowdsourced the worst quotes people could find of Charlie from friends who staunchly disagreed with him. In the end, I analyzed 100 videos.

In 44 of those 100 videos there was no name-calling from either side. That means in 56 videos insults were hurled. Here’s where it gets interesting. In those 56 videos Charlie is called names a total of 59 times by those who disagreed with him. He was called stupid, insane, honorless, classless, weird, freak, loser, pathetic, spineless, cowardly, sick, piece of trash, Nazi, Hitler, and dozens of other unsavory terms I won’t bother to repeat here. In no instance did Charlie Kirk respond by calling the person who insulted him a derogatory name. Not once did he return evil for evil. Quite the contrary, in fact. Often, he hushed the crowd so his opponent could continue to make their case. And often, he thanked his opponents for their courage in publicly engaging with him on hard topics.

How many times did Charlie, in the 100 videos, resort to name calling? The answer is 11. In one video he called someone a “Low I.Q. Individual.” Who was he referring to? A young man who praised Adolph Hitler. In another video, Charlie used the term “idiots.” Who did he use that term to describe? A now defunct group of Neo-Nazis known as Identity Evropa. In a third case, Charlie used the term “losers.” However, he was not addressing a particular individual. Rather, he was telling young men to not live in their parents’ basements on their parents dimes playing video games all day, but to go make something of themselves.

In a fourth instance, he leveled the insult “Stupid Muslims.” In the very same breath, he made it obvious that he is not describing all Muslims, but speaking of that subgroup within Islam that “kills Jews.” In a fifth and sixth instance, he used the terms “tranny” and “freaks” in the context of describing specific individuals who celebrate such terms themselves.

In the seventh instance, he referred to four specific black public figures as lacking “brain-power.” This personal, albeit uncharitable assessment was not of an entire race but of specific individuals. He also made several similar claims about white people he did not think we’re qualified for powerful positions. In the eighth instance, he raised a question about “black pilots,” not making the racist claim that black people are inferior to white people at flying, but rather criticizing DEI hiring policies that prioritize melanin over merit. When asked directly about white supremacy, Charlie said this:

“When I encounter anyone around the ideology of white supremacy I repudiate it and I reject it… TPUSA rejects anyone that has hatred… Would a white supremacist organization host a black leadership summit… host the nation’s largest young latino leadership summit in the country?”

This leaves 3 cases in which Charlie called someone names, and these are the videos that I think are most revealing about who Charlie was, what he believed, and what he stood for.

“I'm a sinner.

I’m selfish.

I’m broken.

And only thanks to Jesus’s perfect sacrifice coming and living a perfect life that I get something I do not earn but has been given to me, this free gift of eternal life.”

In the end, Charlie Kirk’s most vivid case of name calling was aimed at none other than Charlie Kirk. Was he perfect? No. And he knew it. So he looked to the only One who lived a perfect life—Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice. May broken, selfish, sinners like us do the same. "

For Dr. William’s full analysis, see his “Shed and Beam” podcast on YouTube.
 
So, roughly 12.6% of the population are Black in the U.S. The NBA (National Basketball Association) in the 2023 NBA season shows approximately 70.4% of players were Black.
Black players make up a majority of the NFL, with a 2023 report by The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport finding of 53.5% players.
The MLB in 2024 has about 6% black players. And the NHL has roughly 6% black players.
Black players made up approximately 24% of Major League Soccer (MLS) players.

Now, to be equitable ---- there would be quite a few Blacks who'd lose their prestige in order that more "whites" would have an opportunity. But we want the best players and not racial balance -------- is that not so?

that's not so, no

when its best person gets the job and blacks make up 85% of the employee's - that's fair and equal

when 85% of employee's are white? then DEI has to be implemented and hiring based heavily on skin color has to be done in the name or diversity

as we've seen, fair and equal isn't something left/liberals want - they never have
 
that's not so, no

when its best person gets the job and blacks make up 85% of the employee's - that's fair and equal

when 85% of employee's are white? then DEI has to be implemented and hiring based heavily on skin color has to be done in the name or diversity

as we've seen, fair and equal isn't something left/liberals want - they never have
You better rework this, because I have no clue what you're trying to communicate. About 3% of the population of North Dakota is black. So, to be fair only 3% of the employees working in that State can be Black. And there are very likely areas of that state where there are not any Blacks living in town. An employer can't bus Blacks in to fit some unrealistic National quota. Things are what they are, and as long as people are being honest & practical no one can ask for more...
 
In order to prove his hatefulness & racist-ness, there are two things we need to know:
1). Did he oppose leftist dogma?
2). Was he critical of democrats?

If you answered "yes" to either question, then the person is a hyper-hateful super-racist.

**Note: This test is never to be used on leftists! Leftists are to be automatically described as warm, brilliant and never hateful(even when their speech is filled with real, legit hate). This test is only to be used on the left's perceived enemies^.
 
hmmm

RESEARCH HIM FOR YOURSELF AND SEE.

"What Did Charlie Kirk Really Say?

On Friday, Representative Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez was among a number of Democratic lawmakers to vote against a resolution to honor the late Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated on September 10th. After condemning his murder as “a horrific and vile attack,” the Congresswoman associated his work with America’s long “legacy of bigotry.” Likewise, Representative Bennie Thompson said that Kirk’s “rhetoric was divisive, disparaging, and rooted in grievance.”

Their statements mirror a claim that now fills many newsfeeds and talk shows. While qualifying his murder as detestable, many accuse Charlie Kirk of being an outspoken proponent of hate, violence, white supremacy, and other dangerous phobias. Many people believe this accusation. Many others, in the wake of Kirk’s assassination, have spent hours looking through his videos and came to a different conclusion.

Last week, theologian and author Dr. Thaddeus Williams ran an experiment to test this claim. I asked Dr. Williams to share what he found:

Using multiple accounts, multiple IP addresses, and multiple devices to avoid politically charged algorithms, I crowdsourced the worst quotes people could find of Charlie from friends who staunchly disagreed with him. In the end, I analyzed 100 videos.

In 44 of those 100 videos there was no name-calling from either side. That means in 56 videos insults were hurled. Here’s where it gets interesting. In those 56 videos Charlie is called names a total of 59 times by those who disagreed with him. He was called stupid, insane, honorless, classless, weird, freak, loser, pathetic, spineless, cowardly, sick, piece of trash, Nazi, Hitler, and dozens of other unsavory terms I won’t bother to repeat here. In no instance did Charlie Kirk respond by calling the person who insulted him a derogatory name. Not once did he return evil for evil. Quite the contrary, in fact. Often, he hushed the crowd so his opponent could continue to make their case. And often, he thanked his opponents for their courage in publicly engaging with him on hard topics.

How many times did Charlie, in the 100 videos, resort to name calling? The answer is 11. In one video he called someone a “Low I.Q. Individual.” Who was he referring to? A young man who praised Adolph Hitler. In another video, Charlie used the term “idiots.” Who did he use that term to describe? A now defunct group of Neo-Nazis known as Identity Evropa. In a third case, Charlie used the term “losers.” However, he was not addressing a particular individual. Rather, he was telling young men to not live in their parents’ basements on their parents dimes playing video games all day, but to go make something of themselves.

In a fourth instance, he leveled the insult “Stupid Muslims.” In the very same breath, he made it obvious that he is not describing all Muslims, but speaking of that subgroup within Islam that “kills Jews.” In a fifth and sixth instance, he used the terms “tranny” and “freaks” in the context of describing specific individuals who celebrate such terms themselves.

In the seventh instance, he referred to four specific black public figures as lacking “brain-power.” This personal, albeit uncharitable assessment was not of an entire race but of specific individuals. He also made several similar claims about white people he did not think we’re qualified for powerful positions. In the eighth instance, he raised a question about “black pilots,” not making the racist claim that black people are inferior to white people at flying, but rather criticizing DEI hiring policies that prioritize melanin over merit. When asked directly about white supremacy, Charlie said this:

“When I encounter anyone around the ideology of white supremacy I repudiate it and I reject it… TPUSA rejects anyone that has hatred… Would a white supremacist organization host a black leadership summit… host the nation’s largest young latino leadership summit in the country?”

This leaves 3 cases in which Charlie called someone names, and these are the videos that I think are most revealing about who Charlie was, what he believed, and what he stood for.

“I'm a sinner.

I’m selfish.

I’m broken.

And only thanks to Jesus’s perfect sacrifice coming and living a perfect life that I get something I do not earn but has been given to me, this free gift of eternal life.”

In the end, Charlie Kirk’s most vivid case of name calling was aimed at none other than Charlie Kirk. Was he perfect? No. And he knew it. So he looked to the only One who lived a perfect life—Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice. May broken, selfish, sinners like us do the same. "

For Dr. William’s full analysis, see his “Shed and Beam” podcast on YouTube.
Again, your people have to rationalize hate speech
 
Back
Top Bottom