RE: Freedom of Speech
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Dear @agmoore,
You are writing "Charlie Kirk's statement was hurtful and highly divisive".
Hurtful? Charlie Kirk did hurt nobody. Adults who are so vulnerable, fragile or weak that they are hurt (!) by mere words, are simply idiots.
With your choice of words you justify that someone who allegedly hurts (Charlie Kirk) others may also be hurt. This is a justifying or at least trivializing and relativizing of murder.
In his view, strides toward equal justice harmed the country.
This is a lie. He argued that government interventions like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action, or DEI programs have had unintended negative consequences for American society. He did not say that (generic, abstract) strides toward equal justice do harm.
https://x.com/thatskaizen/status/1969455380385448231?s=46&t=xez3QnqCAOkhFARxU04jBA
What are all the condolences worth when lies about him and his views are continuously spread? All those sentences like "It's bad that he was killed, BUT..."
Dear @zuerich,
I think you misinterpreted the thrust of my blog. I was addressing the right of congressional representatives to demur when asked to sign on to a congressional resolution. I was explaining how they could mourn his death and condemn his murder, but not endorse his political legacy. I would not have signed onto that resolution and my blog explained why I would not.
There are many people in the world I disagree with. I will not endorse statements from family members many times. However, I would fight to the death to protect them. I just don't agree with their ideas.
And so it is with Charlie Kirk.
Just a few thoughts in response to your comment:
Words are powerful. I'm not sure there would have been an American Revolution without pamphleteers spreading words, arousing public sentiment. The Bible is just words. What power have those words had through history?
I repeat: My blog was not about Charlie Kirk's murder. It was about a congressional resolution. Hate killed Charlie Kirk. An irrational man, impelled by hate, killed Charlie Kirk.
Here you paraphrase him. And you lump together a number of different government actions that seem related but are quite distinct.
He did say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake. He did say that Martin Luther King was an awful person. Charlie Kirk wasn't addressing Martin Luther King's personal life when he said these words. He was addressing the symbolic power that man had in the Civil Rights Movement("the ‘MLK Myth’ keeps America shackled to destructive 1960s laws").
Charlie Kirk was a very knowledgeable man. He surely knew that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not lead to affirmative action. Lyndon Johnson's executive orders did that. Whatever one thinks of affirmative action, it was not part of the '64 law. Nor were voting rights, except tangentially (sorry AOC, you are wrong about that). The Voting Rights Act of 1965 dealt with voting rights.
Before passage of the Civil Rights Act, public accommodations--swimming pools, bathrooms, parks, water fountains, etc.--could and were closed to Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Italians, etc. Such segregation was legal and it was common practice. What the law did was state that such segregation, in public places, was illegal.
Affirmative Action, D.E.I. was not part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor was it implied by the Civil Rights Act. Affirmative action was the result of Lyndon Johnson's executive orders, and by interpretation of those orders.
To say that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake is to say that ending segregation was a mistake.
You post a quote from AOC. I think she was out of line. I think her fiery speech was inappropriate at the time. And, she was wrong. As I stated, the right to vote was not addressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In May of 2022 you posted a blog that described a Code of Conduct for Hive. I remembered that blog. I was impressed by it and I try to follow the guidelines in there. I try to be respectful of others, civil and not polarizing.
What I say may upset you or someone else because you disagree, but I hope at all times I am true to the spirit of that code.
Thanks very much for commenting.
Dear @agmoore,
thank you for your reply.
I did not interpret your blog. I cited 2 sentences of your blog, and showed that the first is morally wrong (relativizing murder) and the second is factually wrong.
And yes, words are immensely powerful (I am a studied linguist). That is exactly why we should choose our words carefully. We should not write "hurtful" if words don't hurt (unlike bullets or knives). We should not arbitrarily label people as nazi, fascist, extremist (unless they are like Cenk Uygur or AOC) - because other people justify murder with those labels.
And yes, I paraphrased Charlie Kirk. And you used a tertiary source (https://www.factcheck.org/2025/09/viral-claims-about-charlie-kirks-words/). This is not the whole statement of CK on this matter. Neither do the authors of this site use his whole statement. They refer to secondary sources. What are we really talking about here? There are hundreds if not thousands of hours of talks of Charlie Kirk online. The last 2 weeks have been used to scan all of this material for inappropriate statements.
If this tertiary "source" is the worst you can find, you have to conclude that Charlie Kirk was a good-natured, benevolent and fantastic human being - and that is what he was.
No, that is utterly wrong and defies all logic, and you know that. If I say "the French Revolution was a mistake" (which it was) do I say that ending monarchy was a mistake? Of course not.
Kind regards,
zuerich
Hello @zuerich,
Thank you for that response.
I will offer here two sources, one primary (which I did consult) for quotes in my blog:
A Rumble podcast (Charlie Kirk's): https://rumble.com/v46i1it-thoughtcrime-ep.-28-tunnel-trouble-j-e-d-i-rodgers-vs-kimmel.html and a link to a Charlie Kirk website that summarizes a podcast: https://archive.is/NyfZr
The sweeping political, social and cultural changes brought about by the French Revolution do not compare with the specific, well-defined provisions of the Civil Rights Act. It wasn't just the monarchy that was eliminated by the revolution. That was probably one of the least consequential aspects of the revolution. A country was drenched in blood. There was social upheaval that shook Europe. That cannot compare to one law, a law with a very limited, defined goal.
The Civil Rights Act (not the Civil Rights Movement) clearly described four classes of people. It clearly defined specific areas in which protection against discrimination was provided. It applied only to public areas, and even then there were exceptions carved out. To say that law was a mistake is to say that granting those specific protections (not all the acts and declarations that came afterwards) was wrong. Not just segregation, but a wide array of discriminatory practices would return (I, for one, would not have been given the job).
I do appreciate your thoughtful response. As always, you offer the opportunity for me to examine my own positions. That is a good thing.
With regard and respect,
@agmoore
The goal was limited and defined, but not its consequences. Charlie even said that the goal was noble.
„In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three cases (Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which barred employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, precluded employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.“
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Charlie explicitely referred to those consequences.
Again, that is objectively wrong. You can object to a law if it leads to bad consequences. This does not mean that you object to each single Part of that law. You may wish to have a more concise version of that law that has no or far fewer of those unintended consequences. I think many of the pro-voters of 1964 would be more than surprised to see how „their“ law has been abused.
Kind regards
zuerich
Dear @zuerich,
That is a very enlightening response. It gets to the heart of the disagreement congressional representative had with the Congressional Resolution. While you and Charlie Kirk may consider those SCOTUS decisions to be 'bad consequence', many would disagree with you.
It's been an interesting conversation. I had no insight into Turning Point or Charlie Kirk before I wrote this blog and before I had this discussion with you. Now I know and understand much more.
Thank you.
With regard and respect,
@agmoore
Dear @agmoore,
perhaps my latest post makes my position even clearer. I don't speak for CK, of course.
Thank you for our conversation.
Kind regards,
zuerich
I just read that post, with great interest. It does help to clarify not only your position, but the issue of equal rights. For whom, when, how...I will respond to that post at length a bit later.
Thanks for your honesty and willingness to address controversial issues in a civil manner.
Regards,
@agmoore