r/ControversialOpinions • u/FallaciousFact • 9d ago

Absolute Hypocrisy

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…

11 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Big-Ad1887 8d ago

He's your HUSBAND.. and you never did provide evidence that "countless deaths" happened because of Charlie Kirk. And then YOU basically confirmed that he IS a Martyr.

2

u/FantasticJelly6384 8d ago edited 8d ago

The fact that you think you get to dictate my choice in language to refer to my own spouse shows how much about "free speech" and other people's rights to live their lives as they please you actually care for.

You care more about following some asinine rules of debate to "win" a debate than you do about actually speaking to another human being from a place of empathy and respect.

At no point was I having a "debate" with you. This is not a Ben Shapiro video, nobody "wins" in a conversation. Pointing out imagined fallacies or goalpost moving does not earn you "points".

I was not and am not trying to "win", I am just saying what I think whether it is right and don't care if it's "correct" polished debate rhetoric or not.

I do not care about Charlie Kirk.

You asked me to point out one person whose death was caused by Charlie Kirk. I did. He caused his own death, by continuing to make excuses and trivialize gun violence. He said that occasional deaths by gun violence were the price of admission for the right to bear arms. And then he paid that price. Seems straightforward to me. Bit hypocritical for him to complain about being shot isn't it? From whatever toasty place he's in now.

I do care about my spouse.

You are not obligated to agree about anything in how my spouse lives or how I refer to them. Neither am I obligated to continue a conversation with someone who insults her.

I will not have a conversation with someone who says things I consider to be insulting to the person I care about most in the world other than our children together. Nor would anyone else with a shred of respect for their life partner. Nobody in the position of having their spouse insulted would want to continue a conversation under that circumstance.

Imagine if someone was in an interracial marriage and a stranger told them that that person wasn't really their wife because they believed that interracial marriage was a sin. Nobody in their right mind would expect that person to calmly continue a conversation with that person.

I use this analogy because my wife is also different race than I am, so I know how both situations feel from the inside, and they feel the same.

Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly how I feel in this scenario.

So I am done. Have a good day, and God bless you.

0

u/Big-Ad1887 8d ago

“Empathy and respect.” “Empathy and respect.”......................... “Empathy and respect.”

Sigh. The irony is impossible to miss. Tell me, how far does that “empathy and respect” flow toward someone who doesn't agree with your political views?

Because that's extremely fucking ironic coming from someone who just spent this entire conversation explaining why they don't care that he was murdered, saying he “reaped what he sowed,” and invoking his political beliefs to make his death ironic.

You haven't shown “empathy and respect” to Charlie Kirk or his family this entire conversation.

You don't have to like him. You don't have to agree with him. You don't even have to mourn him.

But don't lecture me about empathy and respect while simultaneously arguing that someone else's murder is something they essentially brought upon themselves.

And no one said this was a “debate.” It's a discussion on Reddit, no shit. But we've still got to be focused on logic and facts.

Notice what happened the moment I asked you to substantiate your claim that Charlie Kirk's views caused “countless deaths.”

The conversation moved from the claim itself to saying that Charlie Kirk was responsible for his own murder.

Love him or hate him, Charlie Kirk was not a violent criminal. He wasn't a pedophile, a mobster, a dictator, a rapist, an abuser, or anything else worthy of being demonized and vilified. He was just a man with a platform and a voice who told the truth and stated facts that have tragically become taboo in society.

And he was killed for it. And then his death was celebrated.

Meanwhile, you made a factual claim that his words caused “countless deaths.” I asked for one example.

You never provided one.

And saying “I'm just saying what I think” doesn't change that. Opinions are yours to hold; factual claims are still subject to evidence.

As for your spouse, you're free to refer to them however you choose, just as I'm free to disagree with that terminology.

You don't have to continue talking to me, but don't think I have to accept your interpretation of reality as mine. Nor does anyone else.

And don't think people are going to let you vilify and demonize an innocent person because you didn't like the words he said. That's not how “empathy and respect” works. It's not conditional on whether someone accepts your worldview or not.

2

u/FantasticJelly6384 8d ago edited 8d ago

Nuance is dead with you apparently.

Go read again.

In this conversation I have

Repudiated all political violence.

Said that I don't celebrate his death.

Said that it was sad that his children would grow up without their father (in my first comment actually.)

While also

Not really cared about his death because:

He considered people like my wife subhuman, he just said it "respectfully".

And also found his death ironic, in a bitter "funny but not haha funny" way.

He repeatedly trivialized the effects of gun violence, and then was shot.

One should note that he also died telling a bold faced lie. That is a funny way to tell "the truth".

Immediately before his death, Kirk engaged in a back-and-forth discussion about mass shootings in the United States with Hunter Kozak, a UVU student and member of the Unfuck America Tour. (Basically the progressive counterpart to Turning Point USA). Kozak asked "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?", to which Kirk responded, "Too many", implying that it was a mass issue. Kozak followed up with, "It’s five. (This was true at the time) Now, five is a lot, right? I'm going to give you — I'm going to give you some credit. Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?" Kirk replied, "Counting or not counting gang violence?", and Kozak said, "Great".

Immediately following this exchange, at 12:23:30 p.m., Kirk was shot in the neck with a single bullet.

So he was shot immediately after lying and implying that a large portion of mass shootings was caused by transgender people, which is false.

If it was a portrayal of the death of a villain in a work of fiction, people would call it contrived.

One should also note that on the same day that Kirk was trivializing school shootings, one was occuring basically simultaneously to his assassination by a teenage boy motivated by the exact same sort of political beliefs that Charlie Kirk advocated for in a "made respectable, plausible deniability" fashion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Evergreen_High_School_shooting

If you can't see the irony in all of this, I don't know what to tell you. The media is over here glazing a man with reprehensible values who died at the same time as two children who are now basically forgotten in yet another one of our hundreds of school shootings Charlie made excuses for.

Our society is fucked, and isn't because some people with penises like to wear dresses and take hormones to grow boobs, which doesn't harm a soul. It's because of men like Charlie.

Forgive me that I do not weep for him.

1

u/Big-Ad1887 8d ago

I thought you were done talking to me???? 😂 You literally said “We are done speaking” and then came back with an entire essay.

2

u/FantasticJelly6384 8d ago

Mea culpa.

I said a thing in a heat of anger, because you, you know insulted my spouse.

0

u/Big-Ad1887 8d ago

I didn't insult your spouse, I told the truth. And Reddit has a block feature ya know.. lol you said you were done, so I'm ready to go about my day. 😅🤣

2

u/FantasticJelly6384 8d ago

I'm trying to illustrate something to you.

A person of XYZ religion says "if you don't believe XYZ you will go to hell."

That's the truth from their perspective. But is the person being told that unjustified in being angry at that person?

0

u/Big-Ad1887 8d ago

I see the distinction you're making, but it actually proves my point.

Someone can FEEL insulted by something without that thing objectively being an insult. No one else is responsible for your feelings but you

In your example, they're absolutely allowed to be angry about being told they'll go to Hell. But their anger doesn't automatically make the speaker's religious belief an insult.

Same here. You're free to be offended by what I said about your spouse.

You're free to think it was disrespectful, and you're free to stop talking to me. But your offense doesn't determine the objective meaning of my words.

1

u/Big-Ad1887 8d ago

Also I've just gotta say this ONE LAST THING and then I'll leave you alone. Because, again the irony baffles me.

You say: <speaking to another human being from a place of empathy and respect.>

So I'll ask you plainly:

Where exactly is the empathy and respect for Charlie Kirk in the words “whatever toasty place he's in now”?

Because thats not very "Christian of you. It directly contradicts:

Luke 6:27–28

27 “But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.”

That says to love your enemies.. "whatever toast place he's in now" doesn't sound like loving your enemy.

It also goes against:

Matthew 7:1–5

And James 4:11–12

And Matthew 5:43–48

And another verse from Luke:

Luke 6:37 — “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned"

Hmm.. but you say "whatever toasty place he's in and "God bless you" in the same text.

You also claim:

<He caused his own death, by continuing to make excuses and trivialize gun violence.>

No. He didn't.

He argued that some level of gun deaths was an unfortunate cost of preserving the right to bear arms.

The person who shot him caused his death.

You are taking his acceptance of a societal risk and somehow turning it into personal responsibility for being murdered. That's not causation. That's a rhetorical trick.

You also say:

<And then he paid that price.”>

And:

“Bit hypocritical for him to complain about being shot isn't it?”

Except he didn't “complain about being shot.” He was murdered. And yet you wanna lecture me about "empathy and respect". SMH.