189
Hasan Piker was set to debate Charlie Kirk. Now he's warning of a "Reichstag fire moment."
(www.motherjones.com)
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
No memes.
Post news related to the United States.
Kirk was not a white nationalist, even though there is overlap in their taking points. The key difference is that white nationalist sources often present a more systematised ideology, often with explicit references to racial superiority, or calls for formal racial separation. Kirk did not publicly as far as sources show explicitly promote white supremacist violence or call for a white ethnostate.
As for burning in hell, thats just silly. There is no hell. No hot place where you go to pay for your sins. There is only the absence of existence. Charlie Kirk is just gone. Nothing of him remains anywhere.
he did not come out and say it that I know of, but he certainly tiptoed around it, expressed lots of overlapping opinions, supported white nationalists & nazis, and helped spread their message
so, his support and promotion of the message is enough to say, in general, that he was a white nationalist. however, people will tear the statement apart because it's only 90% accurate
No he didnt. People said he did, like in the example I gave. But he never did. Another one would be the civil rights act thing. He said it was bad law, that people were now twisting to use for their own needs today. But it was reported as him saying that he thought blacks should still be segregated, which is specifically said he didnt mean. He was talking about having better laws, that protected everyone, but it was reported as though he hated that it happened at all.
I knew none of this, I never watched Kirk. I just saw everyone else saying he said this and that, and when I looked it up it turns out, not so much. He was of the opinion that DEI was bullshit, and was being abused. When he said he would want to check the credentials of a black pilot, he wasnt saying that black pilots are less than white ones. He was saying that people in positions of hiring are putting appearance before merit. Something that has been proven to be happening. The most direct example would be the RAF that was found to be passing over straight white men in favour of non whites and women for "diversity" reasons. It was illegal as fuck, but the thought at the time was that it was fine because it was positive discrimination. At the Oxford Union, the President Elect, George Abaraonye, some how got into Oxford even though he did not meet the basic criteria for admission. Guess what skin colour he has?
Theres examples of positive discrimination all over the place. Its everywhere. Its special treatment, not because someone might excel in other areas that call for special consideration, but because these institutions want to be seen as diverse for popularity reasons. And you can say thats great, but what about if the pendulum swings back again? What we should have been doing was making sure that we changed the system to better serve everyone, instead of just making random people the posterchildren for various companies and institutions social media presence. For example, improving access to education at younger years for everyone so that no one needs special treatment or consideration. Trump showed how easy it is to over turn shakingly written law with Roe, I shocked that everyone else doesnt see the issues with other laws that might be just as shaky.
But thats where the real problem lies. Theres so little debate going on. Its all buzzwords, with the battlelines already well drawn and no one wants to hear anything that makes them question what they already hold to be true. We are all utterly terrified of being wrong, and will fight to the death to make sure we never are with an endless stream of name calling, characters assassination, and fucking memes.
A guy was murdered because of the things he said while being open to debate. And some people cheered for this, like it was a good thing. Those on the right do it as well, as those same people love to point out as though it justifies their behaviour. If thats not an example of the radicalisation of the culture wars, I dont know what is. Both sides are cheering on real world violence like they are watching football teams scoring touch downs. Its all rather insane.
Oh spare us, Kirk never had any interest in good faith debate.
They why did anyone go to speak to him? Why dont YOU spare me, me the nonsense of making shit up? Theres plenty of reasons to hate him, without just inserting your bullshit.
Lol, it's pretty obvious now that you're just a salty Charlie Kirk fan.
I couldnt stand the cunt, but keep trying. Youll get it eventually...
Yeah, sure. You couldn't stand him, you just get really, really mad when people point out that he never had any interest in good faith debate.
Im not mad, really, really, or otherwise. Thats just you doing your weird social media thing. My point was clear, you dont have one. All you have is personal attacks and attempted character assassination. But you still dont see that youve been radicalised by online culture wars and social media programming, to the point you cheer when human beings are murdered. But thats ok, cos youve got excuses, right? Right?
Watch this, and see if any of it sounds familiar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0jS4M3cKg
Uh-huh. You definitely sound really mad.
I dont "sound" like anything to you...
Lol, yeah, you're definitely a Kirk disciple.
No, I just dont eat shit like you lot do just because it fits my weird little culture war narrative.
Sure thing, person who's spent the last week getting deeply, personally outraged at people besmirching Kirks honour