CC09LawAg said:
Lol.
"Who are these people questioning me? Why won't everyone just agree with what I say?!"
Exactly.
RIP Charlie Kirk
12,442 Views |
202 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by King of the Dairy Queen
Exactly.
CC09LawAg said:
Lol.
"Who are these people questioning me? Why won't everyone just agree with what I say?!"
I'd have discussions with regular GBers but there's a reason I don't go to the politics board. It's not bc they disagree, it's because they are mean and they attack. Not my kind of discussion.
I read the article you posted about the Grapevine conference. It doesn't sound objective in the least and paints a picture that really turns me off from his opinions and beliefs. I don't find it credible for the pursuit of objectivity. I'm going to go search for maybe a video or clip of him speaking about the whole female subservience bit and see if I can get more context since the claim is that it's been taken out of context.
I didn't start watching his stuff until about 6 months ago. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I also don't think he ever said anything with any kind of hate.
It was mostly the campus debates that I saw. He always seemed to try and use facts, but also would try and challenge the the people he debated to look into the things that he was telling them so they could verify that they were true and not just take his word for it
I recognize a few of the quotes that nai posted, and they are definitely taken out of context to make it sound like he is full of hate
It was mostly the campus debates that I saw. He always seemed to try and use facts, but also would try and challenge the the people he debated to look into the things that he was telling them so they could verify that they were true and not just take his word for it
I recognize a few of the quotes that nai posted, and they are definitely taken out of context to make it sound like he is full of hate
I've read the thread and I wouldn't characterize anything that has happened thus far that way.
Seems like the most heated it got was with out of context quotes, where you then call out others to have to prove they're out of context, and that has since been done?
Seems like the most heated it got was with out of context quotes, where you then call out others to have to prove they're out of context, and that has since been done?
One poster attempted to find the context for one so I am working on doing the same.
Guys, its not worth debating people who have no intention of being swayed by logic and data. It will only lead to bannings.
I'm not sure if you are meaning me but I was trying to as politely and non Confrontational as possible only address the empathy quote. So I hope you aren't talking about me bc I don't go to politics board and just wanted to address that one quote
713nervy said:CC09LawAg said:
Lol.
"Who are these people questioning me? Why won't everyone just agree with what I say?!"
I'd have discussions with regular GBers but there's a reason I don't go to the politics board. It's not bc they disagree, it's because they are mean and they attack. Not my kind of discussion.
Most of the folks on F16 are good people who have strong opinions but are still capable of meaningful, respectful discussion, but there is definitely a faction of people who seem to spend their entire lives just being really angry at everything.
Well, they have someone in custody now.
713nervy said:
Who tf are these posters?! Go back to F16.
Are you in need of a safe space?
713nervy said:CC09LawAg said:
Lol.
"Who are these people questioning me? Why won't everyone just agree with what I say?!"
I'd have discussions with regular GBers but there's a reason I don't go to the politics board. It's not bc they disagree, it's because they are mean and they attack. Not my kind of discussion.
Sure there are some, but that is a complete mischaracterization of that board…I get it, you don't want to post over there, partly because of some of the posters and partly because you disagree with 90% of them…and I totally get it.
javajaws said:713nervy said:
Who tf are these posters?! Go back to F16.
Are you in need of a safe space?
YES! There's a spider in my kitchen! Please come get it for me!
713nervy said:javajaws said:713nervy said:
Who tf are these posters?! Go back to F16.
Are you in need of a safe space?
YES! There's a spider in my kitchen! Please come get it for me!
Spiders are easy, just don't make me chase a lizard around your house - those things freak me out!
If you have a serious infestation though I just spotted an Abrams tank a mile from my house I could try and borrow...
bullard21k said:
I'm not sure if you are meaning me but I was trying to as politely and non Confrontational as possible only address the empathy quote. So I hope you aren't talking about me bc I don't go to politics board and just wanted to address that one quote
Respectful discourse is always welcome! Disagreements are healthy.
Okay. I did more research. I honestly didn't know where to go to find all the context - I was searching for full clips where I could see the words coming out of his own mouth. That's about all I trusted with the goal of pure objectivity. I read a few news articles - ones from abcnews or those not heavily associated with one side or the other. I didn't get enough info bc it still seemed like his statements were provocative and not great.
So I turned to chatGPT. Here is the prompt I gave it:
Can you give me a few clips with entire conversations where Charlie Kirk explained his opinion on women working in the home and foregoing higher education? I would like to explore from an objective point of view whether or not the quotes and clips I have seen circling social media have been taken out of context to form a more clear opinion on this aspect of Charlie's beliefs.
And here's the long feedback it gave me.
I found several clips and transcripts of Charlie Kirk speaking about women, education, marriage, and family. I'll share what the speakers say (verbatim as much as possible), and then examine whether in those cases context seems to be omitted or distorted in the social-media quotes. If you want, I can try to find full videos for each so you can see them in full.
Key Clips / Conversations & What He Said
Here are a few of the more prominent clips with substantial quotes:
1. The Ingraham Angle "What is going on with women and not wanting to prioritize family?"
Source: Fox News, with Laura Ingraham and Charlie Kirk.
What Kirk said (paraphrased & partial transcript):
Kirk: "This is a pattern that I have seen time and time again on college campuses where young men are ordering their life correctly. They want to first and foremost have children, get married, and then have a nice job, or to be able to travel."
He goes on: "Young women don't value having children, and this is one of the reasons why we are seeing a fertility collapse in the West. Less and less young people get married. We're seeing more and more people go into their 30s to have children."
Later in the exchange, when asked what advice he'd give young women taught to put careers first, he says: "Having children is more important than having a good career … you can always go back to your career later, that there is a window where you primarily should pursue marriage and having children."
2. 14-year-old in high school asking Kirk about college Advice about "MRS degree"
Source: A Q&A / speech event (Turning Point USA). Clip: "Charlie Kirk tells a 14-year-old girl the main reason women …"
What Kirk said (more complete transcript):
A young girl (Addie, 14) asks: she's interested in political journalism, what are the pros and cons of going to college.
Kirk responds to all young ladies in the audience: "Who's here with your top priority? Your top priority is get married and have kids. Raise your hand." Then:
"Interestingly, I think there is an argument to bring back the MRS degree. No, seriously. And just be clear, that's why you're going to college, right? Don't lie to yourself. Don't, like, oh, I'm going, I'm studying sociology. No, you're not. We know why you're here. And that's okay, actually."
Then:
"Especially an SEC school. Like you will find a husband if you have the intent to find a husband at Ole Miss. Like it's just going to happen."
And later:
"And so, yeah, you could go learn some stuff. That's fine, I guess, or whatever. Just don't listen to your professors."
Analyzing Context & What's Possibly Missing or Misrepresented
To understand how social media may be distorting or simplifying his views, here are some observations:
1. He does sometimes frame things provocatively.
In the MRS-degree clip, he uses somewhat provocative phrasing: "Don't lie to yourself… we know why you're here." That's likely to be quoted in short form ("he said women go to college just to find husbands") while omitting his caveats or other points.
In the Ingraham clip, similar framing: comparing "priorities" of young men vs women; "there is a window where … pursue marriage and having children first" etc.
2. He presents his statements as part of a larger argument about societal / generational trends (fertility, marriage rates).
He doesn't just say "women shouldn't get higher education" he's talking about what he perceives as a broader cultural shift, and he offers the opinion that focusing on marriage/family earlier might be more beneficial.
He acknowledges trade-offs: e.g. one clip he says you can always go back to your career later.
3. Potential omissions or nuances often left out in short quotes:
That Kirk sometimes frames schooling or higher education as useful "if you're going there for reasons beyond career ambition" or within certain life priorities. The "MRS degree" comment is sarcastic but also implies a value in marriage/family.
That the "career first" narrative is something he is critiquing, not necessarily fully endorsing, but warning about its effects. Social media clips may omit those warnings or assumptions.
He speaks in terms of "young women… who voted for Harris" etc in some context, comparing political/cultural alignment. Those qualifiers are often dropped in viral clips, which might make it sound more universal than he states.
4. What he seems not to explicitly say (based on what is publicly available):
He does not (in the clips I found) appear to say that women must forego higher education altogether, or that education is bad. He talks more about priorities and order, or trade-offs, rather than absolute bans.
He doesn't (in what I saw) articulate detailed plans for how society should change structurally if these views were adopted (such as policy changes or support systems), at least not in those excerpts.
Conclusion: Are the Social Media Quotes Taken Out of Context?
Based on what I saw:
- Yes - many of the shorter social media snippets omit qualifiers or broader framing, making some statements appear more extreme or more universal than Kirk's own wording.
- But not entirely - many quotes are not fabricated; they are grounded in what Kirk actually said. The core ideas (that he believes marriage/family should be higher priorities for many young women, that pursuing a career first can have costs, and that higher education is sometimes pursued for social or relational reasons) are in his public remarks. Social media tends to cherry-pick them, often omitting when he says "you can come back to a career later," or when he compares men and women, or when he critiques certain political or cultural trends.
So I turned to chatGPT. Here is the prompt I gave it:
Can you give me a few clips with entire conversations where Charlie Kirk explained his opinion on women working in the home and foregoing higher education? I would like to explore from an objective point of view whether or not the quotes and clips I have seen circling social media have been taken out of context to form a more clear opinion on this aspect of Charlie's beliefs.
And here's the long feedback it gave me.
I found several clips and transcripts of Charlie Kirk speaking about women, education, marriage, and family. I'll share what the speakers say (verbatim as much as possible), and then examine whether in those cases context seems to be omitted or distorted in the social-media quotes. If you want, I can try to find full videos for each so you can see them in full.
Key Clips / Conversations & What He Said
Here are a few of the more prominent clips with substantial quotes:
1. The Ingraham Angle "What is going on with women and not wanting to prioritize family?"
Source: Fox News, with Laura Ingraham and Charlie Kirk.
What Kirk said (paraphrased & partial transcript):
Kirk: "This is a pattern that I have seen time and time again on college campuses where young men are ordering their life correctly. They want to first and foremost have children, get married, and then have a nice job, or to be able to travel."
He goes on: "Young women don't value having children, and this is one of the reasons why we are seeing a fertility collapse in the West. Less and less young people get married. We're seeing more and more people go into their 30s to have children."
Later in the exchange, when asked what advice he'd give young women taught to put careers first, he says: "Having children is more important than having a good career … you can always go back to your career later, that there is a window where you primarily should pursue marriage and having children."
2. 14-year-old in high school asking Kirk about college Advice about "MRS degree"
Source: A Q&A / speech event (Turning Point USA). Clip: "Charlie Kirk tells a 14-year-old girl the main reason women …"
What Kirk said (more complete transcript):
A young girl (Addie, 14) asks: she's interested in political journalism, what are the pros and cons of going to college.
Kirk responds to all young ladies in the audience: "Who's here with your top priority? Your top priority is get married and have kids. Raise your hand." Then:
"Interestingly, I think there is an argument to bring back the MRS degree. No, seriously. And just be clear, that's why you're going to college, right? Don't lie to yourself. Don't, like, oh, I'm going, I'm studying sociology. No, you're not. We know why you're here. And that's okay, actually."
Then:
"Especially an SEC school. Like you will find a husband if you have the intent to find a husband at Ole Miss. Like it's just going to happen."
And later:
"And so, yeah, you could go learn some stuff. That's fine, I guess, or whatever. Just don't listen to your professors."
Analyzing Context & What's Possibly Missing or Misrepresented
To understand how social media may be distorting or simplifying his views, here are some observations:
1. He does sometimes frame things provocatively.
In the MRS-degree clip, he uses somewhat provocative phrasing: "Don't lie to yourself… we know why you're here." That's likely to be quoted in short form ("he said women go to college just to find husbands") while omitting his caveats or other points.
In the Ingraham clip, similar framing: comparing "priorities" of young men vs women; "there is a window where … pursue marriage and having children first" etc.
2. He presents his statements as part of a larger argument about societal / generational trends (fertility, marriage rates).
He doesn't just say "women shouldn't get higher education" he's talking about what he perceives as a broader cultural shift, and he offers the opinion that focusing on marriage/family earlier might be more beneficial.
He acknowledges trade-offs: e.g. one clip he says you can always go back to your career later.
3. Potential omissions or nuances often left out in short quotes:
That Kirk sometimes frames schooling or higher education as useful "if you're going there for reasons beyond career ambition" or within certain life priorities. The "MRS degree" comment is sarcastic but also implies a value in marriage/family.
That the "career first" narrative is something he is critiquing, not necessarily fully endorsing, but warning about its effects. Social media clips may omit those warnings or assumptions.
He speaks in terms of "young women… who voted for Harris" etc in some context, comparing political/cultural alignment. Those qualifiers are often dropped in viral clips, which might make it sound more universal than he states.
4. What he seems not to explicitly say (based on what is publicly available):
He does not (in the clips I found) appear to say that women must forego higher education altogether, or that education is bad. He talks more about priorities and order, or trade-offs, rather than absolute bans.
He doesn't (in what I saw) articulate detailed plans for how society should change structurally if these views were adopted (such as policy changes or support systems), at least not in those excerpts.
Conclusion: Are the Social Media Quotes Taken Out of Context?
Based on what I saw:
- Yes - many of the shorter social media snippets omit qualifiers or broader framing, making some statements appear more extreme or more universal than Kirk's own wording.
- But not entirely - many quotes are not fabricated; they are grounded in what Kirk actually said. The core ideas (that he believes marriage/family should be higher priorities for many young women, that pursuing a career first can have costs, and that higher education is sometimes pursued for social or relational reasons) are in his public remarks. Social media tends to cherry-pick them, often omitting when he says "you can come back to a career later," or when he compares men and women, or when he critiques certain political or cultural trends.
713nervy said:bullard21k said:
I'm not sure if you are meaning me but I was trying to as politely and non Confrontational as possible only address the empathy quote. So I hope you aren't talking about me bc I don't go to politics board and just wanted to address that one quote
Respectful discourse is always welcome! Disagreements are healthy.
Which is why it is important to post what you want on F16 as well. Most of us don't want that place becoming the right wing version of Reddit with only one side being able to have a voice.
I appreciate you taking the time to do that. Now having done that, do you still think he was some extreme hatred filled person? Or is it possible that, without having followed him, and only see excerpts and things posted by people in your circle or algorithm, that your characterization of him was based on half truths and cherry picked quotes used to throw gas on the fire? Is it possible he was merely someone who didn't see things the way you do, but was always open minded when debating people he didn't agree with (and never actually said hateful things)?
histag10 said:
I appreciate you taking the time to do that. Now having done that, do you still think he was some extreme hatred filled person? Or is it possible that, without having followed him, and only see excerpts and things posted by people in your circle or algorithm, that your characterization of him was based on half truths and cherry picked quotes used to throw gas on the fire? Is it possible he was merely someone who didn't see things the way you do, but was always open minded when debating people he didn't agree with (and never actually said hateful things)?
Well said. See it all over Facebook from "friends" who believe things the internet told them to believe. Folks need to realize that someone saying things you don't agree with isn't hate speech.
Unless they're promoting the normalization of pedophillia. Don't much care what misery befalls those folks.
But when someone whose viewpoints are closely aligned to your own, is demonized by the left for having those views, and has built a platform based on open discourse and civil debate is murdered by a lunatic who holds an opposing view, the willingness to try to understand that opposing view evaporates.
Don't know about transgendered but the kid was angry about fascists.
Quote:
As described, the bullets read (exact capitalization not confirmed at this point):
- "Notices bulges OWO what's this?"
- "Hey fascist! Catch!" Up arrow symbol, right arrow, three down arrow symbols
- "Oh bella ciao bella ciao bella ciao ciao ciao"
- "If you read this, you are gay lmao"
swc93 said:
Don't know about transgendered but the kid was angry about fascists.Quote:
As described, the bullets read (exact capitalization not confirmed at this point):
- "Notices bulges OWO what's this?"
- "Hey fascist! Catch!" Up arrow symbol, right arrow, three down arrow symbols
- "Oh bella ciao bella ciao bella ciao ciao ciao"
- "If you read this, you are gay lmao"
And that's the true irony. The left can say the right is full of facists, but only one is forcibly suppressing their opposition....
Here's the thing - I am having to work hard to come to the (now) educated opinion that his beliefs are harmful to people I deeply care about. I've worked through his comments about women, saying that named prominent black women don't have the brain processing power, and that it was a mistake to pass the civil rights act. I don't think I'll continue.
I've learned that the statements aren't within their context, yes. But the context isn't helping THAT much. Having these beliefs is one thing, but he traveled the country trying to persuade people to believe the same things. He spent lots of money toward these causes that many believe are hurtful.
I believe he was motivated my self preservation, preservation of white culture and traditional society and what some might call Christian values - but I don't agree that they are all Christian values and I don't find his opinions to be promoting love and acceptance.
I've learned that the statements aren't within their context, yes. But the context isn't helping THAT much. Having these beliefs is one thing, but he traveled the country trying to persuade people to believe the same things. He spent lots of money toward these causes that many believe are hurtful.
I believe he was motivated my self preservation, preservation of white culture and traditional society and what some might call Christian values - but I don't agree that they are all Christian values and I don't find his opinions to be promoting love and acceptance.
As usual, the left is seen doing exactly what they accuse the right of doing.
Kirk could have cherry picked specific women that illustrated his point but didn't apply to all women.
Sheila Jackson Lee said man planted a flag on Mars and that the Constitution was 400 years old, among other missteps. She was not smart, but hey, good for her getting preferential treatment to get into an Ivy League school.
Maxine Waters? Good grief. It's incredible anybody voted for her. She didn't win her seat because of her qualifications.
Thats two off the top of my head.
Sheila Jackson Lee said man planted a flag on Mars and that the Constitution was 400 years old, among other missteps. She was not smart, but hey, good for her getting preferential treatment to get into an Ivy League school.
Maxine Waters? Good grief. It's incredible anybody voted for her. She didn't win her seat because of her qualifications.
Thats two off the top of my head.
Don't forget Ketanji Brown Jackson who doesn't know what a woman is
maroon barchetta said:
Kirk could have cherry picked specific women that illustrated his point but didn't apply to all women.
He named several prominent women when he made the statement, yes, and the quote was not intended to apply to all black women.
713nervy said:
Here's the thing - I am having to work hard to come to the (now) educated opinion that his beliefs are harmful to people I deeply care about. I've worked through his comments about women, saying that named prominent black women don't have the brain processing power, and that it was a mistake to pass the civil rights act. I don't think I'll continue.
I've learned that the statements aren't within their context, yes. But the context isn't helping THAT much. Having these beliefs is one thing, but he traveled the country trying to persuade people to believe the same things. He spent lots of money toward these causes that many believe are hurtful.
I believe he was motivated my self preservation, preservation of white culture and traditional society and what some might call Christian values - but I don't agree that they are all Christian values and I don't find his opinions to be promoting love and acceptance.
Love is a Christian value. Acceptance is not.
And what, exactly, is wrong with the preservation of white culture? That doesn't necessitate the destruction of other culture (unless that particular culture is trying to destroy white culture). What, exactly, is wrong with the preservation of traditional society? Nuclear families are good for society.
What is your issue on his statement about the civil rights act? Specifically. Because what I took from the whole speech he had about it, and multiple other times he said it and explained, is that he agrees we should all be equal and afforded the same rights, and segregation was bad. However, the creation of the civil rights act created an avenue for litigous racism and prejudice (obviously not the original intent, but what it has devolved to). Hell, I'll use Charlie's death to give an example of what he meant. We have seen countless people fired in the past 48 hours for posting certain things about his assassination. Some of those are people who are in protected classes through the civil rights act. Any bets on how many of them use the civil rights act to try to sue their former employers for wrongful termination of someone in a protected class? Can you not see how he got there? He never said we shouldn't all be treated equal. He said the creation of the law was a mistake because of what it has become and what it gave way to.
You keep referencing the hateful things he said about people you care about. Can you please expand specifically on what statement(s) you are talking about? Because I have to believe they were taken out of context, as Charlie was never really hateful. He didn't say hateful things to or about people he disagreed with. He didn't try to convince people to think exactly like he did. He just wanted conversations to happen without violence.
You keep referencing the hateful things he said about people you care about. Can you please expand specifically on what statement(s) you are talking about? Because I have to believe they were taken out of context, as Charlie was never really hateful. He didn't say hateful things to or about people he disagreed with. He didn't try to convince people to think exactly like he did. He just wanted conversations to happen without violence.
What do you define as white culture? It was not that long ago that the Irish, or Czech, were even considered white. So what is white culture?
EXACTLY! At one point, he spoke to what love is. He said love isn't telling someone what they want to hear to make them feel good about themselves. Its caring enough about someone to have the conviction to tell them the truth in a caring way, even if it may hurt their feelings. We dont lie to people we love.
You dont have to accept everything about a person to love them. And, you are right, acceptance is not a Christian value, per se. Love is. Acceptance in Christianty is conforming your life to the moral good. That is how you find acceptance in God. If Christianity was all about acceptance, there would be no sin or hell.
You dont have to accept everything about a person to love them. And, you are right, acceptance is not a Christian value, per se. Love is. Acceptance in Christianty is conforming your life to the moral good. That is how you find acceptance in God. If Christianity was all about acceptance, there would be no sin or hell.
This statement is not entirely accurate. Please refer to the 2 Minnesota representatives who were shot and of January 6th. Can we just agree that political violence is horrible and should never be condoned? That free speech is our right even if one may not agree with what is being said?
The AntAGonist said:
What do you define as white culture? It was not that long ago that the Irish, or Czech, were even considered white. So what is white culture?
In the context of the ongoing conversation, I took it to mean western civilization in general.
And micks aren't really white people. They're just micks. The Czechs are pretty cool though.
Touche. Only one side is calling the other fascists while suppressing the opposition.
And yes, ALL violence is bad, political or otherwise. But let's not act like the party of peace is innocent here. Their reactions to this (and the attempted assassination of Trump) are telling.
Free speech doesn't apply here. Free speech just means you have the freedom to speak out against your government without the fear of retaliation by the government. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want whenever without consequences (as many are finding out after being fired for what they are saying about CK's death). Murder is always wrong. Political assassinations are always wrong.
And yes, ALL violence is bad, political or otherwise. But let's not act like the party of peace is innocent here. Their reactions to this (and the attempted assassination of Trump) are telling.
Free speech doesn't apply here. Free speech just means you have the freedom to speak out against your government without the fear of retaliation by the government. Free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want whenever without consequences (as many are finding out after being fired for what they are saying about CK's death). Murder is always wrong. Political assassinations are always wrong.
Lol! At least you're honest. I'll give you that.
You mean the people shot by the guy appointed to his job by the previous Democrat governor of Minnesota and then reappointed by the Democrat VP candidate? The guy with No Kings pamphlets? Yeah, he was a nutjob. But I wouldn't be too quick to put him on the other team
Featured Stories
See All
30:27
18h ago
2.4k
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Bad Tigers Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
11:39
9h ago
1.6k
Perfect showing in Texas A&M Invitational ends with sweep of LMU
by Olivia Rodriguez
Early fall practice takeaways as McMillan & Co. prepare for 2025-26
by Luke Evangelist
29:32
3d ago
11k
Marcel Reed attributes his calm demeanor to his competitiveness
by Billy Liucci