651
Charlie Kirk in his own words. Half of the United States is paying tribute to this man.
(files.catbox.moe)
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
651 points (96.8% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
42215 readers
1256 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Its also heavily edited to make it look so much worse.
Ive give the first example, the "If I see a black man flying a plane...." one. The context was DEI. He was talking about the resent the cases where DEI initiatives were putting people into positions either in jobs or in colleges based not on their qualifications, but on their skin colour and/or sex/gender. It wasnt just a blanket statement that black people cant do jobs at high levels, it was statement about how shitting employment and enrolment practices are, that we are no long getting the best person for the job.
An example of this in my own country is the RAF. They were caught passing over more qualified straight white men for promotion because they wanted more women and people of colour. The excuse given at the end of the investigation was that it was "positive discrimination", so therefor it was totally fine to do it. Turns out, it wasnt.
Another example here is George Abaraonye, the president elect of the Oxford Union. His grades didnt meet the requirement to even be considered for a place. But he got a place anyway based on... you guessed it. The fact that hes black. And even though hes made many public statements that call for violence over debate, hes now the president elect of the Oxford Union. A debating society.
So while Kirk is/was still a bellend, he didnt say what the video makes it look like it said most of the time. Why are people doing this? I dont know. Because the shit he actually said was bad enough. It didnt need this fiction that everyone repeats.
...they just added those to "being good at sports" as far as US colleges go...
The DEI pilot clips were also edited alongside his comments about Michelle Obama and a couple of other prominent black women (the "brain processing power" clip) to make it seem like he was saying black pilots are stupid. However, the DEI argument is not an intelligent or nuanced one and you are falling into the trap of giving it more respect than it deserves. It's an obvious trojan horse for racism and paragraphs of anecdotes from a different country don't change that.
Im not giving it any respect, Im simply pointing out that his comments are edited. Thats it. Im not saying hes right. Only that we should be pissed off at what he said, not what clickbait told us he said.
That doesn't explain why you felt the need to give examples from your own life that support Kirk's argument.
Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?
The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say "yes, but...". Too much of online discourse is "thats lie!" with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.
The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.
I don't see how any of that is relevant, unless you are attempting to deflect criticism away from Kirk's beliefs. It's enough to say the DEI comments are edited. You don't need to start explaining why his argument is technically correct in some cases, because all that does is justify its continued use. It's a bad faith argument based on racial hatred. That's it, there is no "well ackchyually" with this stuff.
Im not explaining why its correct, Im explaining why he made it. Because the general idea is that he was just straight up racist. Which may very well be true, but if you have the context of why he said it, or at least the context in which he presented the argument, then you can understand it and challenge it. No? If all you think of someone is that they are a racist, then you can easily dismiss them. But that doesnt challenge the point. And if you hate that so many others are listening to the point, then its on you to challenge them with truth, rather than just calling them bigots and getting a pat on the back from like minded internet strangers.
Im advocating for people to arm themselves with information. I dont really see why thats so wrong.
May i present you... an echo chamber.
Nice try, but you've now gone full mask-off in other comments so it's quite clear what you're attempting to do here. Are we really supposed to believe that you aren't trying to legitimise Kirk's DEI arguments when you type stuff like this?
You think treating black people as human beings and giving them the same access to education as their white counterparts is "mask off"? What mask do you think I was wearing exactly???
Go back 100 years, and you'll find white people in the US putting up barriers to social mobility towards black people. That means not giving mortgages, or if they did, only for certain areas, and even then only at silly mark ups. The problem started back then, and its never been corrected. And no, DEI does not address this. Giving special treatment to the chosen few is not any kind of solution to the problem. Its little more than a way of saying "look, we're one of good ones. We let you into our private club!". If not supporting that shit makes me racist, well, thats fine. Cos the only people who would call me racist, are the type of people who always want black people with their hand out so they can get a pat on the back when they put some loose change in it.
honestly I think he makes himself look plenty bad editing aside. have seen plenty of clips of him talking about women and minorities - there's no 'context' that makes calling people of color DEI at every turn OK.
Frankly I find your fixation on the DEI thing - both in the RAF and otherwise - telling. you're so busy worrying about what other people accomplished perhaps you should focus on your own fuckin lane.
no one took your opportunities.
Which is my point, he doesnt need to be edited.
As for the rest of what you said, sorry, but thats just not true. People who werent qualified or as qualified as others got preference over others because of their skin colour in those instances that I mentioned. If you want to argue that its not that wide spread, thats fair enough. But it does happen, and I proved it with these two easily variable truths. Im sorry that hurts your feelings, but maybe you need to grow up a little bit, and understand that the heroes and villains of the world dont fit so neatly into the boxes youve prepared for them.
Also, the point about DEI isnt that black people or women or whoever else gets a job. The point is about the companies making these token gestures of representation so they can get a pat on the back from social media. And that its these companies that have created this atmosphere where people are looking at black people in jobs and unsure if they gained that job through merit or because some company wanted to fill a quota.
More to the point, because they create these token placements, we dont address other areas like black people have fewer opportunities to get the education needed to compete on an equal level. Black people arent stupid, but its easy to see that they are limited, especially in the US, to having access to higher education. And even more so prestigious higher education.
The problem, IMO, of DEI is that it addresses the symptoms in a superficial way for social media back slapping purposes, but doesnt address the causes of why these programs need to exist at all. Is this a right wing view? I think black people should have better access to the tools needed to compete, you think they should just be handed things as they need the charity. But you call me the asshole? Hmm...
then start documenting it, if it's real you should be able to prove a single instance for sure, right?
pft. you're an unfettered racist. the problem, IMO, is that you only see what you want to see.
I already did. Twice in fact. What a silly goose you are. Just desperate to call people racist, so you can get your little up arrow touched.
Ok add the context: He was responding to the article that United was going to add more women and people of color to their... TRAINING program. Is there anything wrong with adding DEI to a training program as an opportunity? Both groups are drastically underrepresented, like in the under 10 percent range or so.
The qualifications are the same, they can't be a pilot without the qualifying. It was not a pass to skip training or auto pass a test.
So either Charlie is lying, stupid, or just plain racist. He does not get a pass on that. He was definitely saying they cant do the job.
Thats fine. Thats a perfectly valid rebuttal to what he said. Because its addressing what he actually said, and not some edited clip to get clickable ragebait.
Well, no. Kirk was still a shit. These conartists will take a sliver of truth and build a racist narratives around it. Anyone who could cut though the bullshit and deliver a good faith discussion on DEI gets drown out by the charlitins because there's no audience for that. Kirk was both proving a shit produce to his customer base and increasing that customer base because he always had to ratchet up his rhetoric because he's competing against the other shitspinners.
How do you even fucking know that? Why are you worried about a "debating society"? Are you worried that someone unqualified to be a debater has the position now and we'll all have lower quality debates on the shelves of grocery stores? The only reason you give a shit about that is because someone told you to.
And the clip at the end about it being worth it was about school shootings. He thinks school shootings are worth it for gun rights.
This was about 250 clips. Are you telling me every single one of those was perfectly fine in context?
I didnt say any of them were fine in context. My point was, that the context made each quote mean a different thing. Rather than just being blanket statements about race or gender or whatever.
Hate the man for who he was, not for what some ragebait heavily edited clip told you he was.
This is who he was.
No, it wasnt. Thats the point of context. You want to hate him, I have no issue with that. I dont really like him either. But the difference between us is that I hate him for who he actually was, you hate him based on twitter posts that were meant to monetise your outrage. We are not the same.
yeah you're some child, who's obsessed with someone getting something that they may have not earned, because you say so.
or you're an adult who's blaming their mediocre life on minorities getting opportunities.
either way it's just sad.
Im not doing either of those things, but whatever you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel like youre winning at something...
So brave of you.
Not what he said. Again, edited. The full context is that he was saying that society pays a price for the nice things it has. His other example was cars.
“You will never live in a society where you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But … I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.”
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price – 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving – speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. … We should have an honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.”
Up to you if think hes right about the 2A being a nice thing for society to have. He thought it was in order for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Personally, I didnt agree with him for a multitude of reasons. But I disagreed with what he said, not what he didnt say.
As a non American, I don't understand how this longer quote is any different from what was said by the person you are replying to.
Also "God given right" to have guns? That's a crazy statement.
Im not American, and I can see the difference between "paying a price for a greater good/convenience" and "Fuck them kids!".
God given right to have guns is a crazy statement. I certainly hope youre not thinking that Im defending the man? Im only holding him to account for his actual words, not the heavily edited ragebait that being passed around social media. What he actually said was enough. Its probably also worth noting the "god given rights" he was talking about was freedom. Hes talking about the people having a means(guns) to protect themselves from a government that would rob them of freedom.
An example of this would be Ukraine making a deal with Russia that they wouldnt have nukes. In exchange, Russia said they would never invade....
You keep calling it "rage bait" to quote him, but I think that's missing a big aspect of this. The man was very intentionally phrasing these things in ways that he knew would upset people who didn't agree with him. There's a whole culture around that on the far right, where you're supposed to say things that would enrage "the left" because that's how people know you're "based" and not "woke." And obviously he's not worried about people being offended because anyone who would be offended isn't his target audience, while people who are his target audience will get a dopamine hit from hearing him offend those other people. It's win-win for him. So with the thing about the pilots, he knows full well that the standards are the same, but he also knows that his audience are going to be sympathetic to the idea of being uncomfortable around black people, so the facts be damned, he's gonna pretend that's a rational argument against DEI.
So I don't think it's the clip videos that are the "rage bait" here. I think that's part and parcel of the whole Charlie Kirk idiom.
Its all ragebait, mate. Left, right, doesnt matter. Media, both social and mainstream, wants your engagement. And there no better way to do that than rage. The brown man who just got off the boat and raped a young girl, the blue haired landwhale who said "all men are rapists by design!", Charlie Kirk said black people suck, etc etc etc etc. Its all ragebait, all the time. Anything to keep you engaged, and them making money off of you.
He is literally saying he thinks a few deaths a year are worth it. Not to mention we have a school shooting every 3 weeks in the country. And if he were asked about the one that happened the day he was killed, do you suppose he'd use his platform to demand better gun safety laws? How about the one from 2 weeks ago, and the day before that, and the last 300 months. Just curious which of those he wrote his pal Donny and demanded better gun laws.
Yes, its worth a few deaths to have the ability to defend yourselves against a shit government. What about that isnt fucking clear?
Gun safety laws are why I DONT AGREE WITH HIM!!!!!!! Im not arguing his point, I dont agree with him. Im saying that what he said want "Fuck them kids!", which is what all of you are saying he said.
I know you want the worthless uparrows, but for fucks sake.
I have heard the entire thing. And I don't see how what you wrote is any better. It doesn't change the statement at all.
Yeah, posting the context of someones words is really weird. Better to just let you all have your circlejerk based on lies and well placed edits... Jesus fucking christ, you people are so fucking weird. Getting angry at being fact checked. You know who does that...
Sure. Show me the full context, where before saying that Clarence Thomas was a greater man than MLK Jr he says, "I'm going to list out a few examples of statements which, if you ever hear someone say after a blow to the head, mean they should go to the hospital right away. Number one:".
I never said everything he said was good. In fact, I said it wasnt.
I dont know about the Clarence Thomas quote, but I know he said the same about Ben Carson... Which is a big yikes, Im sure you'll agree.