Even the death of Indian Open AI whistleblower. The MSM has no interest and SF police quickly ruled it as a suicide. Only Tucker Carlson was asking the questions and still his.
Pretty much sums up western ideology, you have freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences.
A humane response:
1 Like
That video from X in second link was an eye opener. https://x.com/benleo444/status/1966614434324816332
Man was a good debater, had quite good values about life. The fact that he is ready to debate means he can be a man who understood the other side.
3 Likes
Lol. Orange peel said, “Free speech is not a shield for glorifying violence.”
Kirk was an advocate for gun violence.
This incident made me believe in Karma, for the first time.
2 Likes
You guys really know a lot about this Kirk guy.
To think he actually advocated gun violence makes me feel maybe he had it coming.
Indian Corrupt politicians need such treatment too.
1 Like
Exactly my thoughts brother
The irony was that he was dismissing gun-related shootings and accepting them “for the greater good.”
He was dealt the same hand. Let that sink in.
2 Likes
There is serious misunderstanding here about his stance. Posts mentioned by user @adder clarifies the situation.
Gun ownership is about collective self responsibility of citizens of that country as per their constitutional charter. The moment that given power is abused, they are violating fundamental human rights without collective responsibility to the country and violating the constitution of the country. Nobody tried to properly debate with him and prove him wrong why the power of gun ownership is now being misused far and wide and it’s time needing to be controlled now. Neither they attempted to create a movement which is far more clear headed and could influence people for their own good.
The reality is that none from the acute sickly chronic liberals had the nuance to win a debate with him, so they killed him in cold blood. Leftist liberals caws about free speech, thoughts and expressions, but just those not questioning them. Then moment you start debating or questioning them, their true face comes out violently.
Currently, this just like a jerkfest of edgy teenagers without an iota of moral compass or fundamentals about reality of life and what he talked.
4 Likes
But does that even matter?
You cannot deny his own words, stating that it is a prudent deal to have a few gun related deaths so that everyone continues to have the right to own guns?
“It is rational.”
That isn’t something you would debate about, that is a view he publicly expressed to both his followers and his detractors. He had direct influence over millions of people with that and everything else he said.
It wasn’t a “convince me otherwise” — it was a statement.
Am I missing something here?
You’re focused on the merit of his methodology (for the lack of a better word) and willingness to debate without giving much thought to what his words/ideas implied or championed.
To risk Godwin’s law, that’s like saying the nazis had really good uniforms. It doesn’t change the fact they were nazis and they caused irreparable harm. That they were fashionable has no bearing at all.
Sure he debated well and invited conflicting viewpoints — but he and his organization spewed their regressive and narrow-minded ideology upon everyone.
Instead of looking at what the reaction of left vs right or liberal vs conservative is, which is far too easy, see what is dividing the right — right vs right. They’re not united in this, there is fracturing and I think that is more worthy to focus on.
eg: GOP Senator ‘Disgusted’ by MAGA Using Kirk’s Death to Stoke ‘War’
In any case, what’s far more interesting to me is how the fabric of western civilization is being undone. There is no freedom of speech, there’s no “God-given” right, there’s no freedom of disagreement — everything is a facade. Raising your voice, no matter how respectfully, threatens your employment, your livelihood.
Imagine that, it’s unbelievable. The people who put a man on the moon, who invented the atom bomb, who propagated instantaneous communication with the internet, they’ve devolved to firing teachers for social media posts — whilst in the middle of a teacher shortage! It’s like shooting your foot because you stubbed your toe.
Looks like one day we’ll have more freedoms in India than any other white-majority country.
All of these post saying he got what he deserved is in bad taste. I heard his 2 kids were in the tent.
I didn’t follow him. Just saw some videos on youtube. IDK he was against indians?
US/canada are gun loving countries. Its sport/hunt for them for many many years. Still doesn’t give the right to shoot anyone except for self-defense. Public there is not scared of guns. Yes they have had incidents. Majority voted for Trump and the things he believed in.
Cars are a death box, ppl/kids misuse them too. Before the pune/delhi case, how could you blame parents but now you can. If you own a car, you are responsible for it.
I can’t say for anywhere else but in the us you have freedom of speech, freedom of choice but not freedom of crime/violence.
Trump is not hitler and his followers are not nazis. Some deranged kid might have believed this and thought he’s doing the greater good.
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion and I’m not going to impose mine on anyone.
If you feel for our domestic problems here, make a new thread. Start a conversation. Be the change you want to be. Dialog is most important.
Not to be personal but what is the fabric of western civilization?
3 Likes
Elon Musk should’ve focused on nerdy things, this man is not going to be accepted elsewhere.
It does matter because otherwise, the result is violence and disarray.
The very thing we are discussing about right now. Charlie opted for debate, his enemies opted for violence. Have to understand the depth of this fundamentally, as a societal system.
Am no way his ‘supporter’ or ‘fan’. But I prefer the options that he took up, than by his opponent’s. He is viewing this from american view point (how they achieved freedom from UK, Civil war, etc.), just like how an Indian will from Indian view point (Indian freedom fight, peaceful means aka ahimsa), whether view points are right or wrong is and should be debatable.
That is where the collective responsibility comes from, in backdrop of origin principle of gun rights in their society.
What kind, number of gun related deaths he is ready to accept, aka, the error tolerance percentage of the system. Intricacies of that should have been put to debate.
And such mass cultural changes should be taken from collective will and acceptance of people (understanding contemporary newly emerged situation) than some left-fascist ideologist’s flick-of-a-second decision.
Should be a statement that should be put in deep debate. His opponents failed at it. If he is not ready to debate that topic over and over with finer results, it’s failure of both sides.
There seems to be extremely pseudo-media biased misunderstanding here. Primarily because people are not willing to listen fully and fall for his enemies treacherous methods.
Haha, look who took a gun to kill a person who is ready to debate. Whom you are calling a Nazi ? Is a word most misused in recent times, by all parties.
That is what is expected to happen when environment is not conducive for peaceful, honest debates.
Fully agree with this. They recently are not liking their own medicine.
Like one can be arrested for a social media post in UK. That happens in India too, sometimes if politician or person in power don’t like the comment, still have a feeling we are in better shape.
What people are tolerating and celebrate now is extremely exploitive dishonest, disgusting ways of poeple like Bob Vylan, now humming hum, haa, hum… when called out: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lUz6q4U9Q4k
1 Like
His wife’s speech is the weirdest thing I’ve seen in a while.
That’s a little naive, his words harmed vulnerable people. His followers and detractors both acted upon the ideology he directly propagated.
Again to risk Godwin’s law, Hitler’s only confirmed kill was himself — his words, his ideology is what led to the death of millions.
You appear to be discounting the position of power and influence he had. Remember, he had millions of followers. It wasn’t a small after college debate circle.
I can’t get straight information from my own parents and they’ve been married for half a century and live in the same house. Whenever something happens, they both have different versions of the event. I have to verify with our cameras.
He spoke to millions who then acted upon or carried forward his ideology. He had a responsibility that he didn’t take seriously because he couldn’t see beyond whoever had the microphone. He didn’t consider the rippling effect of putting controversial ideas up for debate.
The result of a public debate falls to the most stupid, ignorant, idiotic, regressive person in attendance. That person is the legacy of any public debate.
Intellectuals never win. They just get other intellectuals to applaud them.
…
Let’s see what happens when you take away the person pulling the trigger.
Assume his position was that seat belts were uncomfortable and it is prudent/rational to accept a few deaths every year so that everyone can sit comfortably in their cars. And then he goes and dies in a crash. Would the response you’re seeing make more sense in that scenario?
Headlines would be bipartisan and say “rando with nonsensical opinion of seat belts gets killed in a car accident because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt.”
People might say he was an idiot cosplaying an intellectual.
3 Likes
re: debates
Q: Who won this debate last year?
A: Whoever is president now.