- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Did Charlie Kirk actually engage in hate speech?
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:16 pm to selfgen
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:16 pm to selfgen
quote:
What do they consider “hate speech”?
When you talk about the mental illness part of transgenderism and all of the other genders; they consider that hate speech
When you don't support gay marriage, they consider that hate speech
When you point to statistics when discussing violent crime, they consider that hate speech
When you think people should be hired on merit and merit alone, they consider that hate speech
There are a few that come to mind, but I am sure there are many more
0
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:18 pm to selfgen
For the most part, "hate speech" is bullshite and is used as a smear (like racist or whatever istophobe of the month) to silence folks.
Having said that, Kirk did not engage in speech that could reasonably be considered hateful. Was he provocative? Sure. Was he controversial? Absolutely. Hateful? I didn't see anything like that.
Having said that, Kirk did not engage in speech that could reasonably be considered hateful. Was he provocative? Sure. Was he controversial? Absolutely. Hateful? I didn't see anything like that.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:19 pm to selfgen
I had a conversation with someone yesterday who said - "It is a tragedy that he was killed, but, he is reaping what he sowed".
Flabbergasted, I asked what it was that he sowed - and of course they said hate.
I asked for examples and the two I got were that CK said:
"Trans people are not human".
and
"Jews are the source of most of the problems in the world".
I cannot find any evidence of him saying either of these things.
Also - context and exact phrasing matters.
A paraphrase out of context almost always paints a picture to fit a specific narrative. I doubt he said it without clarification.
The conversation I had was with someone I care about and it hurt my heart to hear what they said.
I pressed and my friend said "What I meant was he shouldn't be surprised someone tried to take him out"
I am not sure what to feel about that statement.
One one hand - yes, we should be surprised (and saddened) that free speech results in violence.
One another hand - I am not surprised that someone is that unhinged by hearing well articulated views contrary theirs.
Finally - anyone who has a "but" when mentioning that the death was tragic is suspect in their thinking. That "but" implies in some small way that the killing wasn't all bad.
Flabbergasted, I asked what it was that he sowed - and of course they said hate.
I asked for examples and the two I got were that CK said:
"Trans people are not human".
and
"Jews are the source of most of the problems in the world".
I cannot find any evidence of him saying either of these things.
Also - context and exact phrasing matters.
A paraphrase out of context almost always paints a picture to fit a specific narrative. I doubt he said it without clarification.
The conversation I had was with someone I care about and it hurt my heart to hear what they said.
I pressed and my friend said "What I meant was he shouldn't be surprised someone tried to take him out"
I am not sure what to feel about that statement.
One one hand - yes, we should be surprised (and saddened) that free speech results in violence.
One another hand - I am not surprised that someone is that unhinged by hearing well articulated views contrary theirs.
Finally - anyone who has a "but" when mentioning that the death was tragic is suspect in their thinking. That "but" implies in some small way that the killing wasn't all bad.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:20 pm to selfgen
Of course he didn’t engage in hate speech. He was respectful, even when they weren’t. He was inviting and always allowed opposing viewpoints. He was peaceful and calm and always had facts to backup his statements. The problem with progressives are that in the absence of God, truth can be misconstrued as hate. All they have is hate at anything that doesn’t fit in their narrow viewpoint. They silence opposition while Charlie welcomed it. Sad
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:21 pm to selfgen
The only hate was from the left because he defeated their lies and programming with honest facts. They hated to have their ideological delusions exposed.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:22 pm to selfgen
The Left defines “ hate speech” speech as anything they hate.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:28 pm to I20goon
quote:
what they REALLY hated that it was effective and was changing the electorate.
Bingo. They didn't fear Charlie's message as much as they feared the number of people (especially young people) who were being won over by his message.
The degenerates celebrating Charlie's death cannot defeat his supporters with ideas, so they have to accuse him of "hate speech" and "fascism" to justify themselves.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 12:39 pm to selfgen
I loathe the term "hate speech". It's grossly overused and misused. Someone saying something you don't like or perhaps expresses an opinion you do not share does not constitute hate speech.
The term is used to mask the intolerant with a veneer of righteousness. And armed with the will of "god", the self-righteous justify their own acts of hatred and in this case, violence.
Charlie Kirk was a conservative Christian with traditional views on family, gender roles, and the like. The notion that espousing such views constitutes "hate speech" is laughably absurd. And the people making such accusations reveal their own level of ignorance and intolerance of over a thousand of years of Western culture and ideals.
The term is used to mask the intolerant with a veneer of righteousness. And armed with the will of "god", the self-righteous justify their own acts of hatred and in this case, violence.
Charlie Kirk was a conservative Christian with traditional views on family, gender roles, and the like. The notion that espousing such views constitutes "hate speech" is laughably absurd. And the people making such accusations reveal their own level of ignorance and intolerance of over a thousand of years of Western culture and ideals.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 1:02 pm to selfgen
Most of the left are only parrots, just copying lies that some have stated instead of actually doing their own research. Much like the "fine people on both sides", threat to democracy, Jan 6th was worst that pearl harbor, etc.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 1:10 pm to selfgen
I didn't follow him very closely, but I never heard him espouse any "hate speech." OTOH, one of my co-workers said Kirk was supportive of the guy who beat up Nancy Pelosi's husband w/ a hammer. I don't know if he actually said any of that or not.
Posted on 9/12/25 at 1:11 pm to selfgen
"hate speech" is just as imaginary as "trans kids."
Posted on 9/12/25 at 1:19 pm to Padme
quote:
They said the same about Rush it’s hard to believe people could listen to either of those two and come away with the idea of hateful rhetoric.
I certainly wouldn't accuse Rush of hate speech but he was definitely belligerent and at times needlessly mean-spirited. I agreed with him on most issues but I see how people could think he was an a-hole. Kirk was always respectful and polite. He stayed respectful and polite even when dealing with raging scumbag morons. He was as far from an a-hole as a man can be.
FWIW, I'm fully aware that I'm an a-hole so no judgement intended.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News