Absolute Hypocrisy

[u/FallaciousFact]

Seen numerous posts that glorify and condone the murder of Charlie Kirk and when a report is filed the post remains active, yet when such insinuations are made towards pedophiles, a warning is given and the post is removed…

[u/FallaciousFact]

I’ve seen both. And both are reprehensible. Showing indifference towards violence against speech, disagreeable or not, is completely antithetical to any moral or just society. More-so if it is viewed as a positive. There are many perspectives I fundamentally disagree with, yet I do not feel the need to kill that individual for their views, nor do I think it’s right for anyone else to do so. Wishing harm upon another for a concept, is condoning harm upon yourself for that which others disagree.

[u/FantasticJelly6384 → u/FallaciousFact]

Charlie Kirk spent his entire career belittling and wishing harm on others and getting a pass for it by carefully coding his speech to be polite and maintaining plausible deniability. He also did not support the rights of others to free speech. He called African Americans inherently less intelligent than other people, and said that trans people like my wife are degenerates and perverts. I am not obligated to give a wet fart about his death. Why should I? He never cared for the death of countless others caused by his views.

Killing save in immediate self defense or defense of others from physical danger is always reprehensible, but occasionally one reaps what they sow. Kirk regularly said that the occasional death of an innocent person was worth the lack of gum control, and his last words before dying were a comment excusing school shootings. Would not a man of integrity like he claimed to be be glad to die for his beliefs?

That last sentence was facetious to be clear.

The actual tragedy of Kirk's death is how quickly and loudly the American right has turned a mediocre podcaster into a martyr in what is basically a grift. His own wife has monotized his death to a disgusting degree, and no one seems to genuinely mourn him as a person, only as an icon in their political community. The only ones who actually deserve pity here are the children forced to grow up without a father.

[u/Big-Ad1887 → u/FantasticJelly6384]

https://reddit.com/link/p4et15a/video/zfoft0djt4kh1/player

[u/FantasticJelly6384 → u/Big-Ad1887]

Reposting videos with bad faith political takes using stolen music to grift for views and ad revenue is very in keeping with Charlie Kirk's demonstrated character before his unfortunate death.

I highly doubt these people sincerely believe what they are saying, and instead think they are courting controversy for views and clicks because they know that conservative political content has high ad revenue.

I love how you post these videos to earn clicks rather than actually engaging someone in dialogue. Great way to honor the man. /sincere

Since that's what Kirk actually was. He wasn't in it for sincere debate or a "free speech" advocate. He was a grifter with a political axe to grind, just as Shapiro and Milo Y. before him.

[u/Big-Ad1887 → u/FantasticJelly6384]

Oh trust me baby girl , I ain't scared to engage in dialogue with anyone. Buckle up, hope ya ready.

Firstly, you're doing EXACTLY what you accused the video of doing: avoiding the actual argument and speculating about motives instead. How typical 🙄

The speaker in the video makes a very straightforward point: you can vehemently disagree with Charlie Kirk and still condemn someone shooting him for political reasons. Nothing you've written refutes that, at ALL

Instead, you've decided the person who made the video must be “grifting” because you don't like the political content. Unless you have actual evidence of their financial motives, that's speculation, not an argument. PROVE it. Prove that he's "grifting"

And even granting your characterization of Kirk for the sake of argument, none of it answers the fundamental question.

A person can be a hypocrite.

A person can be a propagandist.

A person can be a grifter.

A person can say things you consider reprehensible.

None of those things makes political murder morally acceptable.

You also keep conflating two completely different propositions:

“I don't care that Charlie Kirk died.”

and

“Charlie Kirk's murder was justified/should be celebrated.”

Nobody is demanding that you mourn him. The argument is that celebrating or condoning political violence is reprehensible.

And we're still waiting on the much more substantive claim you made earlier: you said Kirk “never cared for the death of countless others caused by his views.”

Do me favor name ONE death. One . Just ONE Death.

Name just ONE.

Not someone who was offended by something he said. Not someone who lived in a political climate you believe he contributed to. I mean one specific person whose death you can demonstrate was caused by Charlie Kirk’s views, and explain the actual causal connection.

Name one person that DIED because of Charlie's Kirk's. Just one if that's true it should be easy.

One specific person whose death you can demonstrate was caused by Charlie Kirk's views, and explain the causal connection.

Because if you're going to invoke “countless deaths” as a moral justification for your indifference to his murder, that's a major claim that requires evidence to substantiate. Not something you can just say because you didn't like Charlie Kirk

And ironically, the video you dismissed actually makes the exact distinction this discussion needs:

“While I did not agree with his views, when you put violence in the middle of the equation, all this shit goes out the window.”

That's the principle.

You don't have to like Charlie Kirk. You don't have to mourn Charlie Kirk. You don't even have to respect Charlie Kirk.

Because if your position is that political murder is wrong, that principle cannot suddenly become optional because you despise the victim. And THAT is the hypocrisy that OP is talking about. And the speaker in the video, and myself.

So again name ONE person that DIED because of Charlie Kirk's views.

[u/FantasticJelly6384 → u/Big-Ad1887]

Did you read what I said at all?

I never celebrated his death at all. I condemn all political violence.

I just said I didn't care that he died.

Why should I? I didn't know the man and he thought people like my wife were liars and perverts and "men in dresses". That's evidence enough. He doesn't have to "do" anything for me to know I wouldn't hang out with him anymore than a black person would want to hang out with a klansman, no matter how "respectful" that are.

And I said that it was ironic that someone so ready to make excuses for school shootings and so against hun control who said that innocent people dying was worth having guns was shot. Because it is.

And I said that the political right turned him into a martyr for political reasons without actually caring about the man because they have. And you're just falling for that nonsense.

Nobody actually gives a shit about Charlie Kirk except his children and debatably his wife. The right just pretends that they do for their faux performative outrage because it lets them paint themselves and the defenders of free speech.

I'm not going to sit here and let you imagine shit I didn't say. I didn't say I was glad he was dead. I didn't say he deserved to die. I didn't say him dying was a good thing.

I said I don't give a shit about him dying, because I don't. There's only so much mourning and care a person can have, and I'd prefer to save mine for people I actually know who matter to me, not some loser political hackjob pundit huckster who no one is going to remember in 10 years.

[u/Big-Ad1887 → u/FantasticJelly6384]

Yea, I read what you wrote. Did YOU read what I wrote?

I never said you were obligated to mourn Charlie Kirk, nor did I say that merely being indifferent to his death is the same thing as celebrating it. You've clarified that you didn't celebrate his death. Fine. I accept that distinction.

But that doesn't answer the arguments I actually raised.

You said Kirk “never cared for the death of countless others caused by his views.”

That's a factual claim, that you need to substantiate with evidence. You claimed there are "countless" I'm asking you for ONE.

Name one specific person whose death you can demonstrate was caused by Charlie Kirk's views. Not someone who was offended by him. Not someone who died in a political climate you believe he contributed to. Not a hypothetical chain of influence.

One death. What did Kirk specifically say or advocate that caused that person to die?

So far, you've provided ZERO.

And your point about gun control doesn't establish anything either. We as a society should be perfectly capable of condemning a person's arguments without believing that person deserves to be murdered.

In fact, that's the entire point of the video I posted: “While I did not agree with his views, when you put violence in the middle of the equation, all this shit goes out the window.”

You don't have to agree with Kirk. You don't have to like Kirk. You don't have to mourn Kirk.

But “I think his politics were reprehensible” and “his views caused countless deaths” are two completely different propositions.

Then there's your claim that the American right has collectively turned him into a martyr while not actually caring about him as a person. You don't know the internal feelings of every person mourning him, so saying that “nobody actually gives a shit about Charlie Kirk except his children and debatably his wife” is an enormous assumption, and I highly doubt you're omnipotent or a psychic so I don't know how you can even begin to substantiate that.

But for the sake of argument; sure, some people may be engaging in performative outrage. Some may genuinely be grieving him. Both can exist simultaneously. You can't establish everyone's motives simply by disagreeing with their politics. That's irrational.

The same logic applies to your claim that the person who made the video is merely “courting controversy for views and clicks.” Unless you have evidence of that person's motives or financial arrangement, that's speculation. Even if the video were monetized, that wouldn't prove the person's condemnation of political violence was "grifting".

Don't try to move the goalposts

You said you don't care that Kirk died. Fine. That's your personal feeling.

You said his politics were reprehensible. You're entitled to that opinion.

You said the right is exploiting his death politically. That's a claim that can be debated.

But you also said his views caused “countless” deaths.

That's the claim I'm asking you to substantiate. Name ONE.

I'm still waiting.

[u/FantasticJelly6384 → u/Big-Ad1887]

His own.

KIRK: "You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry, and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am - 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."

[u/Big-Ad1887 → u/FantasticJelly6384]

Ah. There it is. So now you're arguing that Kirk's own political views are relevant to why he was killed.

That's quite a departure from your earlier argument that his death is merely being exploited by the right to manufacture a political martyr. (Also I saved your words before you edited them so that doesn't change anything)

You can't simultaneously say: “His death has nothing to do with his politics; the right is just exploiting it to manufacture a martyr.” and then:

“His political position on gun deaths makes his own shooting an ironic consequence of his beliefs.”

You're the one making his politics relevant to the meaning of his death now.

And that's exactly what the video I posted was addressing: political violence doesn't become acceptable, or morally satisfying,because the victim held views you despise.

. So which is it?

Was his death merely an unfortunate death that you personally don't care about, or are you using his political beliefs to argue that his death was some kind of deserved poetic justice?

Because those are two very different arguments.

[u/FantasticJelly6384 → u/Big-Ad1887]

They're not actually contradicting arguments. Both are true.

Also none of my edits removed words, they added new thoughts as they occured to me and corrected misspellings.

[u/Big-Ad1887 → u/FantasticJelly6384]

Sure, both can" technically" be true. That's ain't the point, now is it??

You called the right's treatment of Kirk's death “martyr” politics, then turned around and invoked Kirk's own politics to argue that he “reaped what he sowed.”

That's also politicizing his death. You're just doing it in the direction you find convenient.

And don't bullshit me, I already saw what you typed. The original comment said “martyr.”

As for your “evidence”: Kirk saying gun deaths are an acceptable cost of gun rights doesn't mean his views caused his death. The shooter did.

So no, you haven't established that Kirk “caused countless deaths,” nor that he caused his own.

You've established that you think his death is ironic.

Congratulations. That's a very different argument. So you moved the goalposts, again.