Even though all presidents besides Truman have shown extreme restraint relative to their power and influence. — AmadeusD

OMG, I usually ignore you and should probably stick with that, but Cheney and Bush Junior were not restrained in their efforts to secure the US effort to have military control of the Middle East. If you want to argue that point, begin by learning about the NeoCons and the American Project.

https://www.google.com/search?q=god+and+fascism&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjISCAYQIxgnGOoCGN0FGJ0GGOgGMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLSAQkxNTUxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRRa6xn67UPF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That fits perfectly with the Evanicals self image and nationalism that is the result of the 1958 National Defence Education Act, strengthening Fascism in the US, and leaving our democracy undefined in the classroom, and gives US our Hitler.

Christians believe they are God's chosen people — Athena

Christians believe we are all, every single one (not just Jews and believes but all human beings), God’s children. God is Father. And brother. Your heart isn’t into Christianity, so why would think you could clarify what Christians believe to me, a thoughtful, practicing Catholic?

I hate seeing politicians invoke religion, and hate seeing the church be political and weigh in on public policy. Both institutions screw up everything when they muddle morality with polity. Th muddling effect is why people see maga and Muslims as wanting a caliphate, and why people see leftists as making politics their cult-like moral compass.

So you are not helping your political case at all by invoking what Christians believe.

Weren’t Newton and Galileo and many, many other builders of the science you seem to hold up so high, Christian? Why do you think there is something inherent about Christianity that is incompatible with science? If the two are actually compatible, then all anecdotal evidence of a Christian who was bad and that scientist or politician was better, are different conversations, and don’t necessitate the opinion that religion is a net oppressive and ignorance building force.

Christians believe we are all, every single one, God’s children. God is Father. And brother. Your heart isn’t into Christianity, so why would you think you could clarify what Christians believe to me, a thoughtful, practicing Catholic? — Fire Ologist

My conflict with Christians begins with loving the teachings of Jesus that I hold dear. I also enjoy the paganism that is a part of Christianity, and perhaps more so, Catholicism. And, I didn't argue with Christians until Cheney and Bush Junior and what they did with the US Military Industrial Complex. Some Christians opposed this, but way too many were thrilled by our illegal destruction of Iraq. Christians should have objected to Bush Junior using Christian rhetoric to promote his illegal war on Iraq and calling that our American "glory and power". Instead of Christians taking a strong stand against this, they are voting for another man who is taking advantage of Christians to promote his own power and glory. The problem is with the belief. There never was a god who told His people they are his favorites and as such he wants them to take land and kill everyone living on the land but this story has justified a lot of wrong.

I hate seeing politicians invoke religion, and hate seeing the church be political and weigh in on public policy. Both institutions screw up everything when they muddle morality with polity. The muddying effect is why people see maga and Muslims as wanting a caliphate, and why people see leftists as making politics their cult-like moral compass.

I am so glad we share an agreement on this point.

So you are not helping your political case at all by invoking what Christians believe.

What? Where should the questioning and arguing begin if not with the book that many believe is the word of God? I sure wish I could quote AI. More than once God told the Hebrews to take land and kill everyone. This god is a war god, and ever since these stories, Christians have justified their extermination of others with these Christian stories. The loving God Christians are worshipping today wasn't a loving god but a jealous, revengeful, punishing, and fearsome god, until our bellies were full.

Weren’t Newton and Galileo and many, many other builders of the science you seem to hold up so high, Christian?

You have to be Christian when Christians are in control. Christians were killing those suspected of not being one of them. With the Church's control of information, it is a miracle that Christian documents were not destroyed along with those daring to have non approved of thoughts. The church went through different periods of tolerance and intolerance. A discussion of Christianity needs to include history. Christianity does not have a good history.

Why do you think there is something inherent about Christianity that is incompatible with science?

The story of Adam (uncultivated plain) and Eve (Lady who makes live) and Eden (settlement on the plain) was a Sumerian story found in the Sumerian library of Ur and adjusted to fit the idea of one god by Abraham's people. The original story is as believable to me as the Hebrew story. But I like the Greek story of Pandora and the Box a whole lot better than the story of Adam and Eve. Pandora was warned not to open the gift from Zeus but she couldn't control her curiousity and when she opened the gift, the miseries flew out of the box, slowing down our mastery of technology. Zeus was right. We did learn all the technologies and we are now smart but wise and we have turned our backs on the gods.

Why do I think Christianity is incompatible with science? I know there are other creation stories and that it was a Sumerian goddess who made us of mud and blew life into us, so we could help the river stay in its banks. That just is not compatible with science. Our DNA comes from the line of anthropoids, not minerals of mud.

If the two are actually compatible, then all anecdotal evidence of a Christian who was bad and that scientist or politician was better, are different conversations, and don’t necessitate the opinion that religion is a net oppressive and ignorance-building force.

Oh, :chin: It is history that makes Christianity oppressive and an ignorant-building force. How many examples do you want? Do you believe a God favors us in wars? Do you believe a god of war is also a god of love? How about not washing our hands? Do you think that is good advice, or does it maintain superstition and ignorance? Like those who refuse vaccinations. India and China were way ahead of us when it comes to cleanliness and health. Adopting the demonology of Persia when the New Testament was written was not a step forward.

Athena, you have given a link to a Google search that links Christendom and Fascism. Facsim rises the state above all else, including religion and uses religion as an instrument, not a motivating factor. Fascists tend to be non-religious with a rather sociopathic ability to wield religion.

This is not to suggest I do not understand the concept of Christofascism. But uhh... that Google search being your 'source' for a claim which it does not support (and is a bloody Google search) is leaving me quite wanting, and futher assured of my views on your discussion inabilities.

Further, Bush and Cheney could have levelled the middle east. It is not credible to say they were not restrained. And believe me, I was extremely anti-Iraq and Bush in general. I burst into tears at work when Obama was elected. I just happen to not let my reason be driven by my hatred of those I disagree with.

You can go back to ignoring me. I speak for myself, not because I think you'll say something interesting.

More parochial stuff. Yes, your education system is a bit fucked. As are your health and social security systems. Other nations are progressing, if slowly.

The objection here is to the "we" in the title.

More parochial stuff. Yes, your education system is a bit fucked. As are your health and social security systems. Other nations are progressing, if slowly.

The objection here is to the "we" in the title. — Banno

:snicker: What is wrong with that word? What is a better word?

And what was parochial about all the political stuff I said?

Why would you say our education system is fucked? What do you know about it, and what does education have to do with the culture and direction of a nation?

I don't think we are doing very well in the effort to have a meaningful discussion. Perhaps I am being insensitive to what the fuck is important to you? But I don't see your expression of what is important to you; I only see objections to what I have said.

You can go back to ignoring me. I speak for myself, not because I think you'll say something interesting. — AmadeusD

Okay :grin:

Christians believe we are all, every single one (not just Jews and believes but all human beings), God’s children. — Fire Ologist

Charlie Kirk pointed out that God thinks trans are abominations. Kinda worse to be hated by your dad than a stranger.

Once again, what he actually did was quote scripture and fit cross dressing into a bible outline of 'abomination'. He did not outline any personal view, or suggest that trans people are not loved by God and was always extremely clear that no matter what he thinks of people's choices and lifestyles, he loves them and wishes them the best.

I am not having a go. Being accurate is really important when making accusations about people to support vilification (particularly in light of defending the idea that his speech was hateful).

"You hear that William Thomas [deadnaming Lia Thomas]? You're an abomination to God."
–– Charlie Kirk

The congregation applauds.

Yep. In the exact context I gave.

He also, multiple times, stood up for minorities even against his own fans, spoke highly of all people as children of God. This speaks to delusion, as I'm not religious, ubt it is outright wrong to suggest that he, personally, had some moral issue with trans people tout court.

This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim).

There's no context that excuses what he said. He is using scripture to support his point that trans people are a "middle finger" to God and Thomas is an "abomination".

He also lied about the 2020 election being stolen.

1. Uhh, the claim is his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. This context puts paid to that egregiously stupid claim. It is incorrect. Given that we have several instances of Charlie defending minorities against his own followers, maybe you should reconsider the ridiculous caricature you seem to have in mind.

2. We've just found out that it may have been (well, that's dramatic - but certainly there's truck to some claims made back then). But I don't defend that - everyone says elections are stolen and it's always stupid. Russian influence etc... Plenty of people claim Trump stole both elections. Not serious people, to be sure (well, to my knowledge). This is wholly irrelevant to what's been said, though.

I suggest you make an effort to falsify your incorrect view on this person. I've provided one link.

I think I'm going to do what Athena has been doing.

That is the standard response to being asked to challenge your own views. Particularly when evidence is presented. Not sure why.

This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim). — AmadeusD

I didn't say that Kirk was a racist, fascist, natzi, homophobe, transphobe, or claim that his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. I simply quoted him saying to a cheering audience:

"You hear that William Thomas? You're an abomination to God."
–– Charlie Kirk

That being the case, I don't know what relevance the Williams video has. Maybe projection? It's funny that Williams goes on and on about what he calls the "Newman effect" in the video but around halfway through he unwittingly demonstrates a glaring example of it himself. He reduces the Harvard admittance process to "melanin over merit," completely ignoring all admittance considerations beside academic metrics. No selective U.S. colleges use only academics and Harvard has always argued that academic metrics alone were not enough to fairly choose between many extremely highly qualified applicants. Also, if his concern is actually unfair college admittance practices, why can't I find him criticizing legacy admissions, donor preferences, athlete recruitment, or wealth-based advantages?

In the end of the video Williams says that he loves people who have more melanin than he does. Unfortunately it appears that that love is as shallow as his cheap "melanin over merit" slogan.

or claim that his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. — praxis

You have certainly made this claim, but i accept the others. I shouldn't have intimated you had.

Besides this, we are just going to go in circles bitching about how one another is incapable of honestly addressing things - for me, your take on the video, for instance. I imagine the same in reverse. Let's just leave it aside :) I thought your "sexistential" quip was 10/10 btw. Good job.

P.S: If you do truly want to try to get the bottom of any of this/understand what hte reasoning is for a claim, do feel free to continue through PMs. That seems to be working for me on this more contentious issues.

Watch the video again. Williams completely ignores all admittance considerations beside academic metrics. He reduces the Harvard admittance process to the shallow slogan "melanin over merit."

I've watched it several times - I'm not quite understand how this plays into the things about Kirk, though. Again, please DM if you'd like to continue this one. Talking past each other is, imo fine, if we're doing it privately with some faith.

No worries, mate, I'll walk you through it and explain it as simply as I can. If you still don't understand DM me and I'll try to help further.

I wouldn't normally watch the Williams video again but I was doing zone 2 training on a spin bike when I read your message so I figured why not.

Where we started is with you responding to my quoting Kirk's comment about trans being an abomination to God. You wrote:

He did not outline any personal view, or suggest that trans people are not loved by God and was always extremely clear that no matter what he thinks of people's choices and lifestyles, he loves them and wishes them the best. — AmadeusD

Kirk deadnamed (very offensive and he knew it was offensive) a trans athlete and said that they are an abomination to God. He didn't say that God loves that person, he said that they're an abomination to God, which means that God is disgusted by them and hates them. That's what 'abomination' means.

His audience cheered appreciatively at these remarks.

You say that Kirk loved people regardless of what he thought of their choices and lifestyles. How could you possibly know the heart of another person? Have you even met Kirk?

I did a search for "Did Charlie Kirk ever say that he loved transgender people?" and couldn't find anything. If he loved them regardless of their choices and lifestyles then why didn't he say it? That would have been really powerful, and it would have shown a loving spirit. He would probably have lost a lot of his audience and income, but it would have shown a loving spirit.

As I mentioned, I took another look at the Williams video and it's even worse the second time around. The first time I missed where he was defending Kirk saying that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously… It’s very obvious to us that you were not smart enough to be able to get in on your own. I could not make it in on my own, so I needed to take opportunities from someone more deserving."

Michelle Obama graduated salutatorian from High School, Got a BA at Princeton, and then received her Juris Doctor (JD) from Harvard Law School. After graduation she was a lawyer at a top-tier international law firm before moving on to public service.

Kirk was a community college dropout and he's criticizing her intelligence?! Williams defends what Kirk said, saying that it was Kirk's opinion, and he then tries to support Kirk's opinion.

Williams academic and work career also pales sharply in comparison to Michelle Obama's.

I've mentioned how Williams demonstrates what he calls the "Newman effect" in the same video he criticizes it. I suppose he gets away with it because he knows that his audience will not be critical of anything he says.

Anyway, again, if any of this is unclear just DM me and I'll see if I can help.

LOL. Tbc, I am joking with both of these next lines as it seemed you were:

Thought we agreed to avoid each other? The condescension is a nice touch too ;)

Please bear in mind here, we're both on the "non Charlie" side of life. I do not, and did not, enjoy his rhetoric and tendency to become what would be called unprofessional at times.
I'm merely trying to sort out unfair charges (in my view). In this case, fairly egregious and used to support justifications for absolutely disgusting stuff like being ambivalent to his murder (or pretending his activities were anywhere in the same universe as his murder).

Well, you've shot yourself in the foot here I think. I'll explain that and then walk you through the rest (see? Nice touch).

You say that Kirk loved people regardless of what he thought of their choices and lifestyles. How could you possibly know the heart of another person? Have you even met Kirk? — praxis

Have you? How could you know his heart? yet you've claimed to know both his, and his followers hearts apparently. You now seem to reject that, but the consistency is a huge problem. For me, I take his words at face (see below). For what it's worth, No, i have not met Kirk - but i have, at least, listened to him outside of manipulative sound bites. You, self-admitted, have not (has this changed? Important if so). This makes it extremely hard to understand why you think you have a clue about this stuff beyond a 'impression'. Lets run through why.. (other than the obvious - you are uninformed by definition in this case). So, now that the (unintentional, i'm sure) hypocrisy is writ large, let's go through where you're simply factually wrong:

Kirk said, multiple times, God loves all people specifically talking to his detractors, or those he personally disagrees with. Here's another example, albeit I need to explain this one: There is a viral clip (i'm sure you'll be able to find it) in which a trans women (from memory) comes up to Kirk at one of his campus events and asks for advice (in good faith). Kirk responds in good faith and is quite emphatic that this person is loved, deserves respect and support - just not the support you would choose. He was extremely clear about this. If you continue to deny it, I will just ignore it becuas its counter to reality.

which means that God is disgusted by them and hates them. That's what 'abomination' means. — praxis

That's true, and an extremely awkward wording which does not sit with his personal beliefs. See how that works? He outlined the Biblical position, which is juxtaposed directly with his personal belief that God loves everyone and he was frequently vocal about that (there's also, though this is offtopic, tension between God and Jesus despite them being hte same guy. Fucking Bible). You are caught up on a matter which is trivial in the large discussion, uninformative and is honestly kind of a red flag in terms of your ability to see things clearly. You are holding on to a concept that seems both unimportant, and wrong about Kirk (rather than his take on the Bible).

If he loved them regardless of their choices and lifestyles then why didn't he say it? — praxis

He did. That you didn't find it in your search says potentially three things:

1. You aren't quite across how best to search specifics (no shade - most people aren't. I am trained in this due to legal work);
2. You ignore/avoid that which you're looking for in service of continuing an erroneous line of claim (I presume not, out of good faith); or
3. It is difficult, because of the biases at Google or whatever, to find information directly relevant - I've found this to be the case and it was proven, somewhat. Assuming these are accurate, it would be compounding on your resistance to accepting the (hypothetical) that Kirk didn't hate trans people. That's fair to think (particularly your insistence on using that one, context-less clip as support. It does push one that way - no shade. I'm just showing reasons you wont have found these things which clarify and contextualise).

I don't know which is true, but you have missed several crucial items. Two given above ( if you care, DM me I'll find the specific clips I'm talking about - unfortunately, even great search skills wont pull up instagram clips, partially due to the above but partially due to saturation of click-baity things creating supreme amounts of noise in search terms - But those clips lead us to their 'parent' sources, so just giving some lay of the land).

That would have been really powerful, and it would have shown a loving spirit. He would probably have lost a lot of his audience and income, but it would have shown a loving spirit. — praxis

Yeah, I totally agree particularly in light of what you're taking from him prima facie. The thing is, he did. He did show a loving spirit. Constantly. You have admitted that you do not, and have not, made any effort to go through his material besides biased clips(pending above question on this). Do you really think its reasonable to think you have a line on Kirk's beliefs in this case? the answer is that you do not. You don't even have the resources to hand to intimate such. You have only the pre-prepared clips and attitude to come the conclusion you have. I could be wrong, but I am at least well-informed.

As I mentioned, I took another look at the Williams video and it's even worse the second time around. The first time I missed where he was defending Kirk saying that Michelle Obama and other black women — praxis

Careful - this one was extremely specific and has been broadly cut to make it look racist. It was about specific people - and not becuase they were black, but because DEI is not a good way to hire people. That much is true, but I was also uncomfortable with that exchange. However... You're making a gross, gross mistake:

Michelle Obama graduated salutatorian from High School, ... international law firm before moving on to public service. — praxis

None of this says much about intelligence. I think Kirk was wrong, anyway, so we're not arguing there. But his point, and it's a good one, is that credentialism is bogus. I know plenty of lawyers. Top flight lawyers. KCs; judges and general practitioners. Some are the dumbest people I've met in my life. I know judges who you would not believe were judges, given their inability to apply general logic or remove their emotional outbursts from their opinions. I am not decrying Michelle Obama. I am saying that his point was sound - he was probably talking to the wrong person. But I don't know Michelle Obama. I've seen her say some utterly batshit crazy stuff that makes me think she's probably not all that intelligent. Her degrees and job don't have a lick to do with this.

Kirk was a community college dropout and he's criticizing her intelligence?! Williams defends what Kirk said, saying that it was Kirk's opinion, and he then tries to support Kirk's opinion. — praxis

There's nothing wrong here. Not sure what you're getting at. Being a college drop out has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, you could argue Kirk was more intelligent to drop out given the life he was able to lead after doing so. For him, that was an extremely good move. The fact he got killed has nothing to do with it - a crazy person shot him for his views. Not interesting or relevant to the intelligence issue.

Williams is talking about hte Newman effect as a tool critics use - assuming the worst in others.

You're doing that right now. He did not. I'm unsure what you wanted there.

P.S on the issue of deadnaming: I don't give a fuck. Deadname whoever you want. It isn't interesting to me. People call me shit I don't like all the time. There's a specific, identity-driven reason for this but it's a bit personal. I can tell you, I know what the fuck being deadnamed is like and how it feels. I seriously doubt you have a concept of it other than being told what to do. Kirk is more than welcome to say "I don't not believe you are a woman, and so I will refer to you as a man. Your name as a man was "x" and so I'll use that".

You disagree, clearly. That's fine. But it isn't an argument.

You are caught up on a matter which is trivial… — AmadeusD

The story is that Kirk was killed because he spread hate, and we might assume perceived hatred towards transgender people was particularly egregious to Kirk’s assassin, being that he had a trans lover. So to me the quote I’m caught up on seems quite significant.

Williams, btw, said in the video that he reviewed hundreds of clips of Kirk searching for offensive things Kirk may have said and he didn’t mention the transgender abomination thing. That’s telling.

He did [Charlie Kirk publicly stating that he loves transgender people] — AmadeusD

:lol: If he did it would be easy to find.

The story is that Kirk was killed because he spread hate, and we might assume perceived hatred towards transgender people was particularly egregious to Kirk’s assassin, being that he had a trans lover. So to me the quote I’m caught up on seems quite significant. — praxis

Yeah, that's roughly the story. It might have been. But if that person was thinking along the same lines you are, are we surprised? You are predestined to justify reactionary irrationality because you've bought the biased media narrative about Kirk. it is trivial, and that's the problem with why he was killed. It was a trivial issue, and yet some mentally unstable weirdo shot him over it. Just denounce it already lmao.

for offensive things Kirk may have sai name calling — praxis

Which weakens the video, but its best to be accurate. He didn't mention that becuase he was responding to a person claiming God loves trans people and trans people are covered in the Bible to dunk on Kirk's religious affiliation. He obliterated that claim without giving a personal opinion. That this isn't clear tells me you've not seen more than the six seconds you're relying on. That he knows the person was wrong about the bible and, yes, was a dick about it, doesn't really tell me anything except he's vehemently religious.

:lol: If he did it would be easy to find. — praxis

*sigh*. I have (there is a correction to your inference here below) given you ample explanation why you might not have found it - I am beginning to think its mostly on you, though.

You have manipulated that exchange. Here's what you said:

I did a search for "Did Charlie Kirk ever say that he loved transgender people?" — praxis

He routinely said he loves everyone. Are trans people not people?

Besides this, I've given two examples and have invited you to ask for the clip described. I see you are not quite willing to be honest about this now that I've begun presenting the evidence for my claims. Okay, but that's not very fun.

Would, if you see it, the clip of him speaking directly to a trans student, claiming to love, support and want the best for them, that change anything for you?

He routinely said he loves everyone. Are trans people not people? — AmadeusD

I would be fascinated to hear what you think loving everyone means, if you’re able to take the question seriously.

It means what it says.

I love everyone. That doesn't mean I like everyone, accept their choices or think their self report is accurate. "tough love" is a real thing - I will not lie to someone i love, and I don't care much that its discomforting to them to tell the truth (and in Kirk's mind, tihs is what he was doing..so..)

I have two children. You can't play that game :lol: (this, should be clearly in jest).

Edit: This is bordering on fun again.

I have two children. — AmadeusD

This may be hard for you, but pretend one of your kids is trans and you're at some function with a bunch of people and some person on stage with a microphone points to your kid and says in front of everyone you're an abomination to God.

What would you do? I would want to hurt that person. I wouldn't actually punch the person, but I would give them a piece of my mind. Do you think that's weird? And if the person said, "but I love everyone!" that wouldn't make me feel any better.

It means what it says. — AmadeusD

If you can’t say anything about it that appears to mean it’s basically meaningless to you—just empty words.

I love everyone. ... I will not lie to someone i love — AmadeusD

Okay, that’s one meaningful indicator of what it means to love everyone—you don’t lie.

If you check with politifact or some other fact checking organization there are many instances of claims made by Charlie Kirk that are judged to be false. Just typical MAGA stuff like about the 2020 election, Covid, climate change, etc. There is often a gap between political rhetoric and objective fact, to put it mildly, and it's obvious that Charlie was fully immersed in the game of politics—worse, MAGA politics.

No heavy judgment, but if loving everyone means not lying, well, Charlie's love seems to have been rather shallow.

Do you lie? Just from your last couple of posts…

you've claimed to know both his [Charlie Kirk], and his followers hearts — AmadeusD

Where have I claimed that?

I'm merely trying to sort out unfair charges (in my view). In this case, fairly egregious and used to support justifications for absolutely disgusting stuff like being ambivalent to his murder (or pretending his activities were anywhere in the same universe as his murder). — AmadeusD

I'm justifying ambivalence to his murder and pretending that his quote about trans abomination is as morally wrong as his assassination?

i have, at least, listened to him outside of manipulative sound bites. You, self-admitted, have not — AmadeusD

I admitted to watching the godawful Williams video that you suggested I watch. I admitted to suffering through it twice, in fact.

Williams is talking about hte Newman effect as a tool critics use - assuming the worst in others.

You're doing that right now. He did not. — AmadeusD

He was supporting Kirk's claim that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously," etc. That seems to be assuming the worst in them. He did not try to show their lack of intelligence, he just took it for granted.

You are predestined to justify reactionary irrationality [assassination] because you've bought the biased media narrative about Kirk. — AmadeusD

I am?

He didn't mention that [in the video, Williams didn't mention the incident of Kirk saying the trans athlete is an abomination to God] because... — AmadeusD

What follows after because is an indecipherable word salad. The truth is you don't know why he didn't mention it, right?

Anyway, if you and Kirk love everyone that means you love people who, for instance, rape and murder innocent children. That seems deranged. But I can see it to be true on a spiritual or transendent level, and also perhaps on a theological level.

Was Charlie spiritually or theologically advanced?

From what I could find he had no formal religious training, just sort of a DIY Bible guy. He didn't even belong to any particular congregation, and it's unclear if he even went to church regularly. And as I mentioned, his academic career consisted of a short time at community college.

In this light, isn't it rather self-aggrandizing to say that you love everyone—that you're so spiritually advanced that you can transcend the conventional world of good and evil?

It's not hard, at all.

No, I wouldn't, and I cannot understand why you would, for several reasons (though, I don't find it weird. Giving opinions is natural response when they're coming up against each other, so not judging your position there):

Firstly, I am not religious. What's being claim is illegitimate to me. In any case, the context made it incredibly clear Kirk was not vilifiying a trans person, personally. If that's the premise you're operating on, we can drop it. It goes no where.
Secondarily, what the fuck do I care about a random person saying this? Unless the person was someone I actually trusted and (personally) loved - and seemed to be putting my child at risk - I cannot see why I would expend energy on this. That seems bizarre and perhaps the root of much emotional nonsense in the modern world. Stop trying to police random people's thoughts and feelings (this requires that the next response is apt, so hang tight).
Thirdly, if my kid went up and spoke to someone who is (at least portrayed as..) transphobic, how is it possible the fault is with the person my child went and antagonized in some way? My job is to teach my child to either put up with their decisions, or not go into spaces they already determine might be harmful to them. We do this with non-trans kids. And trans kids are (well, probably aren't a real thing in the sense meant here) aren't special in this way.
Fourth, that's their right. Plain and simple.
Fifth my job is to help my kid, not hurt other people. If you think otherwise, we live in different worlds.

Given the context, your final little bit doesn't seem relevant - a wider look at Charlie's views and interactions with people make it quite clear his intent (quite important) is not to villify. Believe it or not (genuinely - not me telling you its true regardless - just saying, that's my take whether or not you believe those interpretations).

If you can’t say anything about it that appears to mean it’s basically meaningless to you—just empty words. — praxis

This sentence does not make sense. If you could rephrase I could reply a bit more directly, but on it's face it looks like all you're doing is trying to say that there's an ulterior meaning (or, esoteric anyway) and that I'm wrong to take it at face value. Rejected on first principle grounds.

Okay, that’s one meaningful indicator of what it means to love everyone—you don’t lie. — praxis

Generally, maybe. But that is an absolute leap imo and not something I'm willing to take as a tenet. because there are counter-examples - but again, generally, yes, cool. Hopefully not a big spanner here.

If you check with politifact or some other fact checking organization there are many instances of claims made by Charlie Kirk that are judged to be false. Just typical MAGA stuff like about the 2020 election, Covid, climate change, etc. There is often a gap between political rhetoric and objective fact, to put it mildly, and it's obvious that Charlie was fully immersed in the game of politics—worse, MAGA politics.

No heavy judgment, but if loving everyone means not lying, well, Charlie's love seems to have been rather shallow. — praxis

Hmm. This is odd. Making a false claim is not lying; it's being wrong. Some of those are in contention anyway. But this doesn't speak to his claim to love everyone. This is just you assuming he willfully said false things. Very different claims, I think. You seem inordinately obsessed with propping up your beliefs about Charlie on demonstrably bad reasoning and factually inaccurate claims - can I ask why you're motivated to do this?

Where have I claimed that? — praxis

The reference here is to another thread, and in that thread, I variously quoted two examples these (Thread is closed - quote from you is "Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in?"
"A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'"

You have directly claimed this at least twice and from what I see in the thread, one at least, is after I provided you with information which should have stopped you from making this claim, even if you have an internal commitment to it. There is no evidence of such. That is required.

I'm justifying ambivalence to his murder and pretending that his quote about trans abomination is as morally wrong as his assassination? — praxis

If you could point out where I charged you with that, it would be helpful. GIven we're discussing honestly, I would want a direct response to that. Irony looms large my friend.

I admitted to watching the godawful Williams video that you suggested I watch. I admitted to suffering through it twice, in fact — praxis

Jesus. You still don't see your own arse in the mirror do you?

He was supporting Kirk's claim that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously," etc. That seems to be assuming the worst in them. He did not try to show their lack of intelligence, he just took it for granted. — praxis

He didn't assume anything. He commented on what he sees in their actual effect in the world (and to be clear, specific Black women who he (rightly or wrongly - this is extremely important) acknowledge were DEI-derived hires. I don't have the knee-jerk to DEI hires Charlie had, but on those grounds there is actually no good reason to reject what he's said which has been clipped to hell to sound racist which it demonstrably was not), and their actual, let's call them failings to be charitable. He did not, arbitrarily claim anything there. This is exactly what the next response is about...

I am? — praxis

Obviously.

What follows after because is an indecipherable word salad. The truth is you don't know why he didn't mention it, right? — praxis

That you appear to choose not to understand English in situations that it wouldn't be helpful for your position, isn't my problem. Feel free to have a go. I'm not judging you for that, but i am for this reply.

Anyway, if you and Kirk love everyone that means you love people who, for instance, rape and murder innocent children. That seems deranged. But I can see it to be true on a spiritual or transendent level, and also perhaps on a theological level. — praxis

That is roughly what is meant by the phrase "I love everyone". You seem to have solved your own problem here by finally acknowledging the actual intent and meaning of something someone else has said. That is good.
I love everyone on this exact level - we're all human, we're all fallible. It doesn't mean (as i've already made explicitly clear) that I agree with anything the person has done or said. I think you're bigoted. But that doesn't mean I don't love you on that same level. Clear enough?

Was Charlie spiritually or theologically advanced? — praxis

Hard to tell, given that's an almost meaningless thing to be - but I acknowledge what you're getting at. He wasn't a scholar, although, i'd suggest he had a better understanding of Biblical matters than the majority of American xtians. Speculation, to be sure.

In this light, isn't it rather self-aggrandizing to say that you love everyone—that you're so spiritually advanced that you can transcend the conventional world of good and evil? — praxis

I can't understand the question. It's just a vibe that people who understand the plight of the human race tend to take on. There's nothing 'advanced' about noticing that we're all human. I also suggest: Try taking 3 dried grams of psilocybin and not coming out with that as an extremely strong motivator for at least the short-term. It's the opposite of self-aggrandizing. And for Charlie, someone who routinely vilified himself, it seems a wilfully stupidity to suggest this - but i admit, I may not understand why you're asking given the lead-up doesn't do anything for it.

Making a false claim is not lying; it's being wrong. — AmadeusD

Well, personally, I wouldn’t make false claims—claims that politifact or others could easily debunk—to people I love.

acknowledge were DEI-derived hires — AmadeusD

Michelle Obama has never acknowledged that she was a DEI hire. Why would she if she never was?

That you appear to choose not to understand English in situations that it wouldn't be helpful for your position, isn't my problem. — AmadeusD

I’m sure it makes sense to you.

i'd suggest he had a better understanding of Biblical matters than the majority of American xtians. — AmadeusD

:lol: Agreed.

just a vibe — AmadeusD

Deadnaming someone and telling them they’re an abomination to God is just a vibe too—a hateful vibe.

Well, personally, I wouldn’t make false claims—claims that politifact or others could easily debunk—to people I love. — praxis

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, though. If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good.

Michelle Obama has never acknowledged that she was a DEI hire. Why would she if she never was? — praxis

No, please read a bit more clearly: "On the grounds that". This means, taking that person's position on board and considering it from that perspective. I essentially agree with you, although she wasn't hired at all anyway just came along for the ride. I think she's said some absolutely god awful, stupid, indefensibly false shit over the years - but she wasn't even hired, so you're right to push that (and as I said, I don't take Kirk's position anyway). Charlie considered that to be hte case, and responded in that context. Again, can easily be called dumb or reactive for this, and probably should be. But its not lying or any other kind of bigotry.

I’m sure it makes sense to you. — praxis

If it makes sense, it makes sense. It can't make sense to me and not you :) It can just either be senseless, or misread.

Deadnaming someone and telling them they’re an abomination to God is just a vibe too—a hateful vibe. — praxis

Very, extremely, disagreed. But i have a feeling you are someone who thinks deadnaming someone is "violence" and I genuinely think its trivial (and no, I am not ill-informed about hte claims from certain kinds of trans people about this issue - I just have my own views and don't swallow personal claims at face value, generally) so there is probably too much daylight between us. As i've noted before, I do not give a flying fuck about deadnaming. I get deadnamed all the time. I simply couldn't give a shit. And my view is anyone who does make a big deal of it is doing themselves a mischief. If your identity is disturbed by being called Dan, that's not my problem. I can only give my own views (although, those of my trans friends mirror mine - they get on with their lives)