Anonymous #4 6w

Exactly like just because dude said MLK was an awful person & that the civil rights act was a mistake doesn’t mean we should hate his supporters. They just simply have a different opinion 🙃🙄🤢😵‍💫

16

Anonymous #5 6w

I think you need to do research about the context of what was really said. he very much was against racism and I think you should realize peoples freedom of speech and thoughts are protected under the US Constitution regardless of how anyone feels.

14

Anonymous #4 6w

politics is so heavily polarized that people completely villainize the other side of the coin without any discussion. Its very alarming

19

Anonymous #1 6w

we carry the flame🔥🔥🔥🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

6

Anonymous #4 6w

Can you please explain why someone against racism would say MLK was an awful person & the Civil rights act was a mistake wasn’t racist. Charlie Kirk was definitely racist. You can just say you like dude.

17

Anonymous #2 6w

The comment section is pro Charlie Kirk

15

Anonymous #3 6w

Who

5

Anonymous #5 6w

Because a human being is not just a symbol. Every influential person in history did lots of things good and bad. When someone makes an assessment of another as “awful,” it’s typically either 1) Pushing back on a previous pattern of viewing a complex human being through rose-tinted glasses, 2) trying to weigh the net impact of all the good and bad ripple effects that resulted from what he did, or 3) contrasting a person’s positive effect on the world with his less moral private life.

-7

Anonymous #5 6w

To criticize MLK is not to support segregation. That’s as foolish as saying the critics of Robespierre just want peasants to starve. Read what his friend Ralph Abernathy wrote about his last night before being murdered. Abernathy didn’t see his friend as awful, but he acknowledged some things that happened. I don’t blame Charlie for making a broad-brush assessment that Abernathy wouldn’t, because most of us are pretty judgmental.

-5

Anonymous #5 6w

As for the CRA, you have to understand what laws actually are and do instead of judging every law by the name people give it. If I hypothetically passed a law called the Justice for Orphans Act and one of its effects was trapping young people in debt slavery, you should criticize me and that law, no matter how many stupid people think you hate orphans because you’re against a law that has a name nobody could disagree with.

-1

Anonymous #5 6w

Now think about how many different legal and incentive levers are being pulled in ANY piece of legislation that’s anywhere from 128 to 390 pages long, depending on the publisher. I highly doubt half of Congress has even read most of the thing

-1

Anonymous #5 6w

Now I’m not necessarily making the case for or against Charlie’s positions on MLK and/or the CRA. I don’t entirely know what all my thoughts are on them. But I am making a case for why a reasonable person in good faith could come to certain conclusions without it being out of malice or hatred.

-1

Anonymous #10 6w

You didn’t answer the question what makes the Civil Rights Act being passed a huge mistake other than racism. As for MLK of course no one is above criticism but saying he’s an awful person isn’t the same as criticism & yes I’d say if you claim he’s awful you stand against what he stood for

13

Anonymous #5 6w

You should watch the whole debate before you make wrong assumptions about people. I don’t like the guy but lying and taking statements out of context to hate someone is just intellectually dishonest.

4

Anonymous #4 6w

What context makes getting rid of the civil rights act good for minorities?

11

Anonymous #5 6w

He never said absolve it dude. This why I keep saying watch the debate he literally says to change so to can’t be used to justify other things he disagreed with, which yet again is another OPINION.

5

Anonymous #5 6w

Hey now, you’re asking me to do a different task than before. I can articulate why somebody might assess historical facts in a certain way, but don’t talk to me like it’s my own position or expect me to try to convince you of something I never claimed to hold myself.

1

Anonymous #5 6w

TLDR: You’re moving the goalpost. And secondly, if you can’t distinguish between “X caused bad results” and “we should simply uno-reverse X”, then you probably shouldn’t be involved in politics in the first place.

3

Anonymous #5 6w

It’s gross 💔

19

Anonymous #4 6w

No one ever said that they aren’t allowed to have different opinions..

11

Anonymous #11 6w

As a Kirk fan, it makes me nervous.

4

Anonymous OP 6w

IDK, the hundreds of thousands of people who cheered or made excuses for his murder would beg to differ… But I know that in your case, you’re just talking about things you would not find attractive in a date

-2

Anonymous OP 6w

Acting like people are bad and treating them as such because of opposing opinions is forcing your opinion. It is basically screaming that you can’t have a different opinion from me.

7

Anonymous #4 6w

Nah, OP’s just talking about “icks”. Being romantically repulsed by a date not aligning with your beliefs is normal. You just have to be courteous

6

Anonymous #10 6w

It makes me nervous too. But in my view Fuentes is a rival of Kirk, but because the leftists assassinated him, Fuentes is probably the right successor. Simply and only because they murdered Kirk. The leftists can’t be shown any mercy after that, unfortunately.

1

Anonymous #10 6w

I agree I think it’s important not to spread hate and lie due to opposing opinions but you can have your own opinions and feel repulsed by others if you want to.

10

Anonymous #10 6w

Sorry but you’re legit arguing like you agree with it and obviously “"X caused bad results" and "we should simply uno-reverse X", is fine but we’re talking a specific thing not something broad. Charlie Kirk saying that the civil rights act was awful. What parts of the civil rights act being removed or changed would help people? What makes it a mistake? So if I don’t believe that certain parts of civil rights as implemented at the time weren’t mistakes I shouldn’t be apart of politics?

13

Anonymous #9 6w

God forbid people who are to the right oppose murder of someone who advocated to our cause.

-2

Anonymous #4 6w

If my opinion is that marginalized people are inferior would it be wrong to treat me like a bad person if you had a different opinion than me? If you disagreed with me on marginalized people being inferior & treated me poorly because of it would I right to say you’re forcing you opinion?

8

Anonymous #11 6w

Idk if I’d say debating random college students makes him special. Like they aren’t professional debtors like he is.

6

Anonymous #11 6w

Dawg you’re talking like you’re going to attack a school & you’re making me nervous

14

Anonymous #3 6w

Huh??? You mean the 16 year old who was lured out to a park by people who she thought were her friends and murdered.

16

Anonymous #13 6w

She didn’t even do anything at all

13

Anonymous #5 6w

In this scenario you’re arguing that claiming people are Inferior is the same as saying you disagree with certain political positions. I would say if your opinion is harming individuals such as spewing hate towards them or with some individuals wishing death on them then your opinion is wrong regardless of which side you’re on. I didn’t like Charlie Kirk but acting like he hated certain races or marginalized groups is just incorrect.

-1

Anonymous #5 6w

Again I would say context matters because if I took every situation that the left has spoke about out of context I could justify hating them as well and that is just intellectually dishonest.

0

Anonymous #13 6w

stop defending her weirdo

-4

Anonymous #5 6w

No, he’s talking about political tactics and realpolitik. Ex. enacting a policy (that you otherwise wouldn’t necessarily think is the best) because it crushes the power of your opponents

-2

Anonymous #11 6w

Sad. N is so much less mature and courteous, not to mention the differences in actual beliefs

-2

Anonymous #10 6w

The main difference is media training & Israel as far as Charlie & Nick go. Nick says the quiet part out loud where as Charlie Kirk hints & makes dog whistles about the same thing. The only other major difference is Nick is openly anti Israel & antisemitic where as Charlie was pro Israel & outside of the great replacement theory wasn’t antisemitic at least in front of the cameras.

7

Anonymous #4 6w

Yes I get it everything about Charlie Kirk is out of context & in context it’s obvious he’s not racist. MLK being awful out of context, Civil Rights act being a mistake out of context, all the time in urban America prowling blacks hurting white people fun out of context, moronic black women in customer service has me wondering if she was a DEI hire is also out of context. Yep not racist just everything is devoid of context.

1

Anonymous #5 6w

I will say I never approved of DEI because I don’t think race or sex should matter in any regard when hiring someone. No I don’t think he was racist because he openly spoke several times against people like Nick Fuentes who are actually racist and if you looked at the context he spoke against MLK because of the rape allegations. He also disapproved of civil rights act being used to justify men in women’s sports that’s why he wanted it changed not because he was racist.

2

Anonymous #5 6w

That’s why context matters you should also recognize if we lower the standard we are gonna have bad candidates. Race should never matter in any regard. As of person of color I would rather be hired by my qualifications rather than a DEI hire. It’s a shameful excuse for inclusion and it makes people of color seem incapable.

2

Anonymous #4 6w

First of all that’s not how DEI works. DEI doesn’t = we just hire non white people that’s what racist people think it is. Hence why Carlie Kirk would make his black pilots comment. Lol crazy that you believe that’s the only reason he thinks MLk is an awful person. Funny that Kirk used to glaze Trump & would never say he’s an awful person despite the many sexual assault & rape allegations against him including a conviction against Jean Carroll. Funny how that didn’t make Trump an awful person

3

Anonymous #5 6w

The same Charlie Kirk who claims he agreed with almost all of Andrew Tates views. The only difference between Nick & & Charlie is Nick says the quiet part out loud where’s as Charlie Kirk is media trained & makes dog whistles about the same thing. With the notable difference being Israel. Kirk was pro Israel at least in public & not as antisemitic although he did believe in the great replacement theory. Nick is openly anti Israel as well as antisemitic outside of that their views are close

4

Anonymous #5 6w

I do wanna throw in here that I think trump is an awful person I’m not disagreeing with you there but I disagree with you about DEI I would never want to be a diversity hire ever. My experience in qualifications should be the only thing that is reviewed not my skin color. The big issue I have the with the trumps cases is they were fabricated, the judge allowed for false evidence to be use to make trump look worse.

-1

Anonymous #4 6w

So MLK is awful despite only being accused but Trump is great because despite being accused by many & convicted it was all fabricated to make him look bad? So like Charlie Kirk you get nervous when you see black people in certain positions because you assume there’s a good chance they’re only there due to being being black since that’s how you guys believe DEI & affirmative action works? Also getting nervous around black people isn’t racist in your opinion?

3

Anonymous #5 6w

Look man, we have a fundamental disagreement on DEI and affirmative action, so we will literally never agree on this. I have more important stuff to do rather than arguing with a wall. Just do your research before you accuse random people of being racist, it quite literally desensitizes society from what the term actually means when you throw it around like that. Have a good day.

6

Anonymous #4 6w

Well of course we have a fundamental disagreement you believe DEI & affirmative action means any non white person is hired when that’s not how that works. You also defended Kirk claiming to be nervous around black people because he assumes they’re unqualified yet you say it’s not racist. You’re the wall saying the sky is red & that me telling you it’s blue is just a fundamental disagreement

5

Anonymous #5 6w

Also love how no one denied what I said about black people making them nervous or believing that unqualified minorities are just being handed jobs over white men.

1

Anonymous #5 6w

Lastly why does everyone in this comment section claim they don’t agree with Charlie Kirk & Trump but go out of their way to defend their beliefs?

1

Anonymous #4 6w

Most people on the right with a platform say they're "against racism" but I feel like you can tell when they're clearly not. He was obsessed with painting "blacks" as violent and publicly endorsed "great replacement" conspiracy theories. And yes he has freedom of speech but that's not really being debated here. I also don't think he should've been killed btw. I just think he had some really fucked up views that are in fact harmful to this country.

11

Anonymous #11 6w

I actually agree with this as a leftist. I do think there are more respectful right wing debaters out there, so that first part feels like a a bit of an exaggeration, but other than that you're spot on. Fuentes and Walsh are worse than Kirk, and they and their supporters have now been emboldened to stop watering down their blatant hate speech and fascism.

-1

Anonymous #3 6w

Girls biggest crime in life was trusting the wrong people

10

Anonymous #13 6w

you covering up the shit she did makes you just as bad as charlie kirk btw

-4

Anonymous #15 6w

They’re emboldened for a good reason though. I appreciate you agreeing even though you’re a leftist. But I never understood how leftists can have the audacity to talk about fascism when they themselves are just as radical but on the other side. It’s like a murderer trying to lecture to another murderer that what they did was wrong lol

-1

Anonymous #3 6w

I know you’re trolling but I want you to tell me what she ever did

14

Anonymous #13 6w

you know what she did and you will get what you deserve for defending her just like charlie kirk did

-5

Anonymous #3 6w

What do you try to get out of trolling like this, genuinely curious. Like is it just boredom

13

Anonymous #13 6w

im not even trolling? im just telling you that if you keep defending that sicko you will get what you deserve

-6

Anonymous #3 6w

I’m also bored and I just want you to come up with some reason

11

Anonymous #13 6w

why would i explain what you are defending? you cant even say it on this app without getting banned and im not falling for that

-9

Anonymous #3 6w

Actually the more I think about it, the more disrespectful this is. It’s a child who was murdered and you’re trying to drag her name for what

9

Anonymous #13 6w

Whatever I’ll trust that anyone actually buying into whatever this is knows how to google

13

Anonymous #13 6w

so it makes it ok just because she was a child? let me guess, you defend charlie kirk as well because he had a family? fucking freak

0

Anonymous #11 6w

Well no

2

Anonymous #4 6w

Liking him is an opinion in the way arsenic is a flavor.

5

Anonymous #3 5w

Idk what happened with Brianna Ghey but that does NOT sound comparible

5

Anonymous #3 5w

You’re hating on a kid for existing? And you’re comparing her to a racist, sexist POS?

4

Anonymous #10 5w

what are you yapping about stop reflecting

1

Anonymous #17 5w

im comparing a racist, sexist pos to a racist, sexist pos actually

-4

Anonymous #3 5w

So… kkkirk to trump?

8

Anonymous #3 5w

I told myself I wouldn’t respond but she’s not racist or sexist and I don’t want anyone to believe the bs this dude is saying. Like there’s not even any basis to this, like there’s no controversy surrounding her being a bad person. She’s just a trans kid who was murdered.

12

Anonymous #17 5w

trump is one too but i was obviously referring to ghey

-3

Anonymous #13 5w

she literally is, stop defending her

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

No, she’s not. You’re trying to “justify” a hate crime.

5

Anonymous #3 5w

Just say what she did or admit you're trolling

6

Anonymous #17 5w

you are defending a racist, sexist piece of shit

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

I’m not trying to defend kkkirk.

3

Anonymous #3 5w

Say what she did wrong, if anything, give examples. It seems no one is on your side rn so like if you can’t point to smthn maybe just let it go and reflect 😭

4

Anonymous #18 5w

i literally cant say it on here since the app wont let you post it. are you dense?

-4

Anonymous #3 5w

You just don’t have anything to share, that’s all.

7

Anonymous #17 5w

ok post about what epstein did and see what happens. go ahead and prove me wrong

-2

Anonymous #3 5w

You can easily censor it or just imply it, no one's falling for the ban excuse

9

Anonymous #3 5w

Epstein sex trafficked children

9

Anonymous #3 5w

I’ve seen plenty of posts on this app about Epstein

7

Anonymous #3 5w

Here’s from a government site. Yet, I can’t seem to find anything about what you’ve shared… almost like you’re trying to ‘justify’ a disgusting hate crime against a kid who did nothing wrong.

5

Anonymous #3 5w

I see stuff Epstein did all the time on this app, I know nothing about Ghey bc there's nothing to say

2

Anonymous #13 5w

oh so ig you can post about that stuff without getting banned. well there you go, she was grooming and trafficking them too

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

Sure Jan

9

Anonymous #13 5w

she literally did that. plus she said a bunch of racist and sexist shit

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

Drop the source

6

Anonymous #15 5w

here https://imgur.com/gallery/Ygkpi7s

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

Still waiting for an actual source. Post a screenshot if need be.

3

Anonymous #17 5w

Even that link doesn’t even exist

9

Anonymous #13 5w

The closest thing I can find is that her murderer is the problematic one who shared pictures of a classmate at a former school and had racist comments. Absolutely NOTHING painting Brianna in a bad light because she didn’t do anything wrong.

4

Anonymous #17 5w

I had the thought cross my mind that maybe they were getting her and her murderer mixed up somehow

8

Anonymous #13 5w

Hey, anything to dismiss a disgusting hate crime, it seems… poor kid can’t even rest in peace without awful people trying to “justify” it. She deserved so much better.

9

Anonymous #17 5w

Yeah.. I’m still leaning towards trolling. Bc wby was it was even brought up here and this whole thing is weird. But this one actually upsets me and we let disgusting things off as “just trolling” too much

4