
You guys are actually braindead. If you took a second to listen to what Charlie said, he was never racist or homophobic. You guys are just soft. He was always respectful to the people he was talking to, and gave them the same energy they gave him. You guys are so lost, and I genuinely feel bad for you because you will not go far in life if you believe everything you see on the internet. As the soft liberals would say, “hope this helps!”
Repeatedly called trans people pedophiles while saying pedophiles deserve the death penalty (ironic considering current circumstances). Blamed gun violence on black and trans people TILL HIS DYING BREATH. He was also one of the leading voices against gun regulations, making him almost directly responsible for children being shot up in their classrooms. Sorry you can’t handle some dark humor, liberal but it’s not my problem.
Just because you’re too weak to hear what needs to be said doesn’t mean his points weren’t valid. Maybe one day you’ll understand that criminals (ie school shooters) don’t follow gun laws, and having an area where no one can carry to defend themselves puts a huge target on everyone there. I know somewhere in that weird little MLP pea brain you’ve got, there are two cells you can rub together to comprehend the reasons his positions were such.
My point was how is celebrating the death of someone you disagree with different than them saying trans should get the death penalty lmao how dense can you be, I’m against death PERIOD, and that’s easy for me to say. Btw PLEASE link me to where he said that I would LOVE to know, except he never said it so you can’t
Maybe you’re better than me oh holy one but I’m not against death. Does it suck? Sure. I wouldn’t wish death upon anyone seriously but I can sleep happy at night knowing people that hate me for doing nothing to them are dead and can’t hurt me and lie awake knowing those that do are still alive. I disagreed with Charlie Kirk but I didn’t hate him like he hated so many others.
First, you’re talking about the wrong law. The Voting Rights Act was 1965. The quote was about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Second, criticizing a law doesn’t automatically make someone racist. The actual debate is whether his criticism was about racial equality itself or about federal government authority. You can disagree with his reasoning, but those aren’t the same thing.
You’re right I did give the two names of the laws confused in my head. But when someone says “made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” That’s pretty fucking racist. You do realize without federal intervention Black people could not vote in the American south.
I agree federal intervention was necessary. My point is that criticizing the Civil Rights Act doesn’t automatically make someone racist. People have opposed parts of it for constitutional or federal power reasons without opposing racial equality. If you think Charlie Kirk is racist, point to something he’s said that shows he supports racial discrimination or racial superiority, not just that he criticized a law.
I can see why people would view that quote as evidence of Great Replacement Theory. I’d want to see the full context before deciding whether he’s talking about a racial replacement conspiracy or making an argument about immigration and voting demographics. I think illegal immigration is bad, and the reason that it was such a shitshow during bidens term is because he basically purposely let them in so they could vote for him. I think this is what Charlie was saying, just based on this quote.
It’s also worth mentioning I don’t agree with everything he says. That’s not saying I’m saying he’s wrong here, I’m just saying that people expect me to die on the hill of everything he said which I don’t, I die on the hill that says he is not racist or homophobic. You have still yet to give me evidence that he said one race is superior, or that he said one race shouldn’t be here or something