World news and politics.

[zimbos05]

So what's the way forward are we just going to keep yelling at each other for the next fifty years?

I think it requires the people to be better than those leading us. Realising we can't allow division and hate to define us. As long as we keep arguing amongst us, those in control will keep creating division. Most of the issues that people have and are concerned about - on both sides - are very valid. The people in charge, and the media just make you believe that one or the other is responsible.

For example, migration is not the issue with housing prices (this has been proven multiple times). However, they will tell you it is so that you ignore the actual reasons, and fight the wrong people.

 

[JS96]

So he did say it in response to a question about a question on a recent shooting? Hence, quoting it and discussing his quote is not wrong.If i'm not mistaken, the recent shooting was a school shooting. Now at no point did I say he used the word kids, but when school shootings are such a prominent thing and the question of gun rights come up around this, and that is his response, the inference is that he is ok with children deaths, so long as no one restricts gun rights. Therefore, eveyryone is allowed to make it about kids. That is one of the main issues, mass school shootings. He was an advocate for gun control. Those arguing for gun control are doing so because of the deaths of school kids. Otherwise, the alternative response is, "school shootings happen far too often. We must protect our gun rights, but we must have stronger and better gun laws to prevent these deaths, whilst preserving the right to own guns for those who are responsible". It's really not hard to be rational as a right wing person. I just did it. You literally live in a country where gun control has been effective.

Whilst you also produced a quote about him being "rational" and "factual", here's another



This does not happen, but since you bring up the genocide...

As soon as he was shot a wave of references to other topics were made.

There's no denying Kirk got many facts wrong. That's a handy site and I think the majority of people will be wrong with their facts. It's all a number salad.

In saying that the concept of the debates were to present arguments and see where common ground can be made.

The question was to an recent shooting and my hunch is it was a school shooting. It must not be made out that Kirk's statement was to be that school shootings are fine. I'm sure everyone would agree that's disgraceful. I think nearer to the end of the quote article he goes on to say such things. Here, he needed to be more explicit. I think we have the issue that if people don't say things explicitly then assumptions are made about what they believe.

I can understand those that do want to defend the 2nd amendment. I can see where they're coming from in a militia sense. For a lot of people it's really embedded in their minds but often misinterpreted. I certainly don't agree with how guns are circulated and used the vast majority of times. Farmers, hunters and sports are OK with the absolute strictest of regulations.

 

[JS96]

All the same people happily celebrated murder of people overseas.

And for me he did make his motza off starting shit

So I guess who should be the bigger person? Those students should've walked away and not engaged. The paradox is by not engaging they're not doing what Kirk wanted, debate. In turn his opponents also wouldn't have been able to try to set the record straight.

 

[JS96]

It's laughable that the right are trying to be all rational and empathetic, whilst in the same breath having a go at others. I agree with you, condemn murder, but let's not pretend like people from the right are not just as guilty of doing the exact same thing that some on the left are doing in regards to Charlie. I would not celebrate his murder, but when his whole life was built on creating fear and hate towards specific groups, I can understand why those people feel a sense of justice.

Your last statement is what most people think I believe.

The problem with these radicals is they'll pretend to be your friend then slit your throat in the night. We need much more moderate views and cooperation across many fronts. People also need to be free to call out concerns from radicals. Unfortunately they have their own supporters who twist and deny anything is indeed radical. Eventually it's too late to stop it.

 

[Muz]

Fair enough. But what’s apparent is dialogue is dead and there’s no point trying to argue and reason via our viewpoints anymore. If one cannot state a simple truth such as “men cant have babies” without being branded transphobe , evil, fascist etc we really ought to cease communicating at all and segregate society according to right and left. The right wont want to give up its right to state simple truths and the left wont want to give up its right to control, cancel , assassinate speech it perceives at hate filled. So we are at an impasse without any feasible way forward, other than say civil war or segregation. The current status quo cannot continue since its now no longer just disagreements about speech and policy but has morphed into a culture of assassination and gravedancing. This isnt sustainable.

It seems like democracy is essentially dead and I’m not even sure the left wants democracy anymore. Why would they when people like Kirk constantly make their viewpoints seem retarded and they had no way to fire back other than with, ironically, a gun.

Lol. 'Welcome back' I guess.

 

[JS96]

I think it requires the people to be better than those leading us. Realising we can't allow division and hate to define us. As long as we keep arguing amongst us, those in control will keep creating division. Most of the issues that people have and are concerned about - on both sides - are very valid. The people in charge, and the media just make you believe that one or the other is responsible.

For example, migration is not the issue with housing prices (this has been proven multiple times). However, they will tell you it is so that you ignore the actual reasons, and fight the wrong people.

You're right and those at the top are lapping it up. Migration is also being used as a tool to do this. I don't think anyone has an issue with the positive contributions migration brings.

However, put a more distant culture amongst the local populous, have the former develop a parallel society, said society becomes a bubble that raids the rest of the community with crime and other problems the government refuses to address, no wonder people are pissed.

It's hardly a different culture but Northern Colombia has a massive problem with Venezuelans. Many West German cities now have the issue with Roma taking over neighbourhoods and start waring with Chechyans. The leaders just shrug their shoulders.

I'm glad Australia can keep a lot of this at bay.

 

[JS96]

Lol. 'Welcome back' I guess.

Roosty and Lupi are two different people, right?

 

[zimbos05]

As soon as he was shot a wave of references to other topics were made.

There's no denying Kirk got many facts wrong. That's a handy site and I think the majority of people will be wrong with their facts. It's all a number salad.

In saying that the concept of the debates were to present arguments and see where common ground can be made.

The question was to an recent shooting and my hunch is it was a school shooting. It must not be made out that Kirk's statement was to be that school shootings are fine. I'm sure everyone would agree that's disgraceful. I think nearer to the end of the quote article he goes on to say such things. Here, he needed to be more explicit. I think we have the issue that if people don't say things explicitly then assumptions are made about what they believe.

I can understand those that do want to defend the 2nd amendment. I can see where they're coming from in a militia sense. For a lot of people it's really embedded in their minds but often misinterpreted. I certainly don't agree with how guns are circulated and used the vast majority of times. Farmers, hunters and sports are OK with the absolute strictest of regulations.

Charlie was never interested in common ground. I'll stand by this statement. I've watched many of his debates, and never once heard him say, "you make a good point" or "I understand what you're saying" or "that's valid", or "I'll concede to that". He always questioned and responded with difference.

He never once condemned a school shooting, so you can't say he was against them. He had the chance to, but instead said what he said. You can't not say things, and expect people to mind read.

I will never understand the 2nd amendment, not even in a militia sense. There shouldn't be any reason for every day citizens to be armed the way they are in America

 

[JS96]

Charlie was never interested in common ground. I'll stand by this statement. I've watched many of his debates, and never once heard him say, "you make a good point" or "I understand what you're saying" or "that's valid", or "I'll concede to that". He always questioned and responded with difference.

He never once condemned a school shooting, so you can't say he was against them. He had the chance to, but instead said what he said. You can't not say things, and expect people to mind read.

I will never understand the 2nd amendment, not even in a militia sense. There shouldn't be any reason for every day citizens to be armed the way they are in America

Here's one where he said it in the first 60 seconds. Please don't retort with it being simply one example. There are plenty of heated discussions with clowns opposite him where consensus wasn't given a chance and also plenty where agreement was found between the two speakers.

I'm sure Kirk didn't condone school shootings but maybe he felt it also sympathised his view of it being a by product of the system. This is how people then gaslight. They don't address and issue and then they get asked up front about it and respond 'of course I condemn that'. It's a convenient response to still appear the good guy while not thoroughly addressing the matter at hand.

 

[JS96]

For the record my contributions here in Kirk are not to condone absolutely everything he's ever said. I think it's valuable that we're clarifying how people have engaged and what the pitfalls of doing it poorly are.

There have been some sound debates over the years. There have also been plenty of moments where I think he just went way off and I couldn't go along with that. Covid was tough but his views on Australia closing it's border I couldn't agree with. Despite numbers spiking post reopening, I felt it was prudent at the time to do so. In hindsight they also got a lot wrong and there should've been appropriate loading between states or in some aspects in life. Benefit of hindsight I guess.

 

[zimbos05]

Here's one where he said it in the first 60 seconds. Please don't retort with it being simply one example. There are plenty of heated discussions with clowns opposite him where consensus wasn't given a chance and also plenty where agreement was found between the two speakers.

I'm sure Kirk didn't condone school shootings but maybe he felt it also sympathised his view of it being a by product of the system. This is how people then gaslight. They don't address and issue and then they get asked up front about it and respond 'of course I condemn that'. It's a convenient response to still appear the good guy while not thoroughly addressing the matter at hand.

He only found common ground on something he and right wing politicians have benefit in. It's like here in Australia. Dutton is hardcore nuclear energy, despite what all the experts and professionals have said. Nuclear energy has long been a talking point for the right because they know it benefits them.

You can't say things that the man himself didn't say. He has had many opportunities to condemn school shooting and demand changes in gun laws to prevent them, yet always argued against those gun laws and never condemned it. In much the same way I get asked constantly to condemn Hamas - despite never supporting them or being responsible for their actions. Until I do, people consider me a terrorist sympathiser or Hamas supporter, they don't say, "He might have not condemned them, but we know he does". Kirk never condemning the school shootings, and not advocating for gun laws is what he was. It was his beliefs and views, so no need to change the narrative.

Also, just watched his wifes speech. She definitely did utilise some threatening language in there. Not sure that is helping with the whole sympathetic and calm angle the right is going for.

 

[Keeper66]

He only found common ground on something he and right wing politicians have benefit in. It's like here in Australia. Dutton is hardcore nuclear energy, despite what all the experts and professionals have said. Nuclear energy has long been a talking point for the right because they know it benefits them.

You can't say things that the man himself didn't say. He has had many opportunities to condemn school shooting and demand changes in gun laws to prevent them, yet always argued against those gun laws and never condemned it. In much the same way I get asked constantly to condemn Hamas - despite never supporting them or being responsible for their actions. Until I do, people consider me a terrorist sympathiser or Hamas supporter, they don't say, "He might have not condemned them, but we know he does". Kirk never condemning the school shootings, and not advocating for gun laws is what he was. It was his beliefs and views, so no need to change the narrative.

Also, just watched his wifes speech. She definitely did utilise some threatening language in there. Not sure that is helping with the whole sympathetic and calm angle the right is going for.

Yep, I thought his wife's speech was disgraceful. Talk about throwing fuel on the fire.

 

[JS96]

He only found common ground on something he and right wing politicians have benefit in. It's like here in Australia. Dutton is hardcore nuclear energy, despite what all the experts and professionals have said. Nuclear energy has long been a talking point for the right because they know it benefits them.

You can't say things that the man himself didn't say. He has had many opportunities to condemn school shooting and demand changes in gun laws to prevent them, yet always argued against those gun laws and never condemned it. In much the same way I get asked constantly to condemn Hamas - despite never supporting them or being responsible for their actions. Until I do, people consider me a terrorist sympathiser or Hamas supporter, they don't say, "He might have not condemned them, but we know he does". Kirk never condemning the school shootings, and not advocating for gun laws is what he was. It was his beliefs and views, so no need to change the narrative.

Also, just watched his wifes speech. She definitely did utilise some threatening language in there. Not sure that is helping with the whole sympathetic and calm angle the right is going for.

So I guess his true thoughts on such matters are just left open then. Like with anyone who doesn't openly state something. Until people speak, we can only assume.

The organisation and his wife aren't going to listen to any PR consultants right now as they themselves will use this for their cause. Maybe they've burned down and looted Salt Lake City. Yazbek will need a new club.

 

[zimbos05]

So I guess his true thoughts on such matters are just left open then. Like with anyone who doesn't openly state something. Until people speak, we can only assume.

Isn't that how it works though? We can only go off of what he said and declared.

 

[JS96]

Isn't that how it works though? We can only go off of what he said and declared.

Yes, yet many people will gaslight by playing the victim and express themselves and make a game of it. When asked, they use it to say it's crazy to even consider said viewpoint could've ever been any different. I guess it's a tactic of holding something in to keep people guessing and the use it when it's most effective. Something of a timeline.

I don't think there's any explicit statement of condemning school shootings which shows Kirk would employ such victim tactics. As I said, there were discussions he had where I just couldn't go along with it and it became a stupid game. Drunk on his own influence.

 

[Muz]

The compassionate right.

 

[roosty]

I was kind of understanding you until you implied Kirk made rational points and blamed the left for everything.

You were rational until you said, "the left are the problem and at fault for everything".

It doesn’t matter whether you or I think Kirk made rational or irrational points what matters is he, and all of us are entitled to make them. That’s the most basic fundamental building block of a free democratic society. It’s not like his views were fringe right extreme, he was basically just your garden variety right winger. He wasn’t famous or interesting for his views rather his ability to articulate them.

The big talking point wasn’t that Kirk said sometimes moderately objectionable things. It was that this was a domestic terrorist incident, a political assassination and an appalling attack on democracy. Those are the big ticket issues here. Yet the left don’t seem too perturbed by this, they are more concerned about some of the things Kirk said, such as something he said about empathy once. Like that’s the big talking point, not being murdered in front of your wife, kids and a bunch of college kids, but he once said he didn’t like empathy, and how he defended the second amendent. Whatever Kirk said or did through his life that people didn’t like is insignificant by a factor 100 million compared to what happened to him and the fact it was a political assassination and domestic terrorist incident, and millions of people are laughing about it. That ought to be the focus here, dont ya think?

A normal sane person would not take glee in another person being murdered for their political beliefs. Even if you heavily disagreed with him, a normal sane person would be more concerned about the wider ramifications of being murdered for your opinion and this increasingly normalised culture of gravedancing. Even dumbo Abbie Chatfield and other hard leftists understood that. They think “shit we dont like the guy but this is really bad for democracy. I wonder what happens next”. Yet the left cannot bring itself to collectively stand up for democracy, defend free speech and give space and time to Kirk’s mourners, so that society can perhaps rebuild and continue in a functional way. Instead they just want to shit all over his legacy, rip apart every sinew of his character and dance and shit all over his dead body. Simply because hate feel good.

So these are the kinds of values and norms the modern left embodies. Hatred, intolerance, savagery and assassination in place of dialogue and debate. Not exactly a good prognosis for a healthy democracy. I dont really give a shit about your whataboutisms to do with the right. The right was prepared to discuss and debate the things you didnt like about us but you guys shot him.

 

[JS96]

The compassionate right.

Firstly, a disgraceful suggestion for someone who is simply homeless.

Secondly, you can see how cut the video is. I believe this lethal injection is in reference to the tram murderer. Nevertheless when he says 'kill em' is fire worthy. I think neither of us should waste time holding our breath for Fox to do something.

Aren't there certain media standards? Even for the United States? Probably would end up being another lengthy court case.

 

[roosty]

The compassionate right.

Lol you are so fucking stupid Muz.

The context was in light of the Ukrainaian refugeee who was murdered by a black man. He was mentally ill but refused treatment, so the panel were deliberating about what to do for people like him who posed risks to society but refused treatment. The black panelist suggested forcing treatment otherwise they might end up in jail for crimes such as murder, and Kilmead extended his logic further by suggesting they might end up dead by lethal injection.

Are you such a stupid fucking moron that you seriously thought he was suggesting to kill all homeless by lethal injection? Oh my gosh no wonder you are filled such rage, you can’t even think beyond those shittty algorithmic videos you are fed on social media to feed your hatred.

You used to be alright muz but seems youve gone off a cliff. Were you planning on assassinating anyone yourself?

 

[roosty]

Firstly, a disgraceful suggestion for someone who is simply homeless.

Secondly, you can see how cut the video is. I believe this lethal injection is in reference to the tram murderer. Nevertheless when he says 'kill em' is fire worthy. I think both us shouldn't waste time holding our breath for Fox to do something.

Aren't there certain media standards? Even for the United States? Probably would end up being another lengthy court case.

You are just a sad dumbass like muz.