Why are Erika Kirk's wishes being ignored?

[Twalli]

Erika believes that her husband's killer should be forgiven and has forgiven him. She says that it's what God wants and what Charlie would want. Why won't those who claim to carry his torch refuse to forgive him? How is that honoring Charlie's memory?
It seems that MAGA is just using his death to justify something that they already wanted to do but didn't have a pretense to do earlier. If that is the case, I can't think of a situation that is more disrespectful. The last thing I would want is for my death to be used to pursue a violent and illegal agenda.

[dustybiker2]

Thank trump. He retweeted a video back in 2020 by cowboys for trump that said "the only good democrat is a dead democrat."

This is his philosophy.

Stir up the most uneducated and gullible people in the country to use for his own personal profit. It doesn't matter if it's some dead young father shot by a mentally unstable maga-raised young man. Or his wife.

Trump has no bounds.

He will incite others to do his bidding and then discard them, unless its someone like Bondi who knows where the bodies are buried.

[Chazmatazz269]

Forgiveness is divine, but forgetting is foolish. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of leftists who are still celebrating Kirk’s death and openly threatening to kill more people whose opinions they claim are “offensive”.
Only foolish people are going to pretend that they’re not in danger in order to give people like you a false sense of forgiveness. The performative bullsh*t game is all yours. Leave us be to show our respects as we see fit.

[DonaldDarko]

Neither Erica Kirk nor I could save him from the consequences of his actions even if we wanted to. If I shoot someone I'll go to prison to just like he did. It's just the system of laws that we have. There is nothing to be done. Aside from that the man is a killer only a fool would let him into society. He's unhinged enough that he might just as well shoot you as he would one of us.

[Friendlybro79]

Because we're all different. For example, just because someone tells you to not be upset over something doesn't make it easy for others to just stop being upset. So if someone says you should forgive someone because they have, doesn't mean it's easy for others to do the same.

I didn't agree with all of his beliefs, think this is awful that he was killed, and humans just don't react the way other people want them to just because they ask you to. I think this makes sense.

[Twalli]

Shouldn't we honor the wishes of the one affected most by his death. She's his wife, nobody is grieving more than she is.

[Friendlybro79]

I don't disagree with your sentiment. It's just not easy for others and it doesn't work like that for others. Just like people grieve differently, no one can just forgive others because they're told to. It's not an easy act for others. Maybe she was able to easier than her kids will one day. You're not wrong for not forgiving someone for a terrible act. You don't have to. If you would like to honor her wishes you should. In a biblical sense, I think this is a very important thing. In an emotional sense I feel the same too. I just can't expect every grieving wife of a murdered husband in cold blood to be just like Mrs. Kirk. We're not all wired the same.

[Friendlybro79]

Meaning I think it's quote uplifting that she does and that's coming from someone who doesn't agree with many of her husband's views. That can be a kind act to bring people together.

I haven't been following her but I hope she uses her forgiveness to find ways to still exercise her free speech no matter what it is, but I do hope she finds to bring people together. I think registered Republicans and Democrats can easily get along in every day life. Let's not let politicians and main stream media tear us apart.

[David318578]

Well to bad. When the guy who wanted nothing more then to sit down and talk about issues gets killed for talking about issues and then your side celebrates his death?

Thats a strong message from the left that talking is pointless, so dont start crying now that the side that wanted an open dialect now is listening to the message that you guys have sent that the talking is over.

[Syntosi]

I personally dont care. Its just funny to point out the hypocrisy since the right wing obviously dont give a shit about Charlie Kirk and only tries to use his tragic death for their own political benefit. To you people he is just a prop.

[David318578]

@Syntosi The right wanted a peaceful solution to our differences. The left said no thanks and wanted a war.. some on the right are now saying "fine" thats not hypocrisy.

[Syntosi]

So you agree, Charlie Kirk is just a prop to you. You dont care about him or the position he held.

[Twalli]

Find one leftist that said "no talk, war"

[David318578]

@Syntosi no I do not agree he was just a prop. And i do care about the position he held because im not in the camp that wants a war.
Just because i acknowledge that there are people on the right that are now in that camp does not mean i agree with them.
There is a difference between understanding their reasoning and agreeing with it.

[David318578]

@Twalli the 1000s of libs who jumped on social media cheering his death fit that description perfectly, let alone the dems that have actively called for violence.

[Syntosi]

Oh really? So you understand their reasoning. Do enlighten me then, what is that reasoning?

[Twalli]

So, you assume they want war.

[beefcakebradybatson]

@Syntosi AMEN, Syntosi !!!

[David318578]

@Syntosi yes I understand the lefts reasoning and why so many wanted him dead. Kirk wanted to talk and debate topics. The lefts view is indefensible when challenged, and Kirk challenged their view.

So if someone is challenging your position and you can't defend it. You have 2 options

1) reevaluate your position, the left doesn't seem smart enough for this option

2) silence the voice. This is what the left decided to do. With trying to stop him from debating, interrupting and protesting his talks. And finally killing him.

[beefcakebradybatson]

That's a rightie slogan, Twali.

[Syntosi]

@David318578
Charlie Kirk did not want to talk and debate topics. He specifically targeted people who could not articulate, formulate or defend their positions because he was a "debate me bro" AKA someone who wanted to "win" a debate and portray the opposition in a bad light rather than have a productive conversation.

This is why Charlie Kirk loved to challenge random people, why by extension could not prepare for the debate beforehand unlike Charlie Kirk, and he also loved to debate young people who might lack debating experience or have not properly formulated their own opinions into a coherent worldview which makes it easier for Charlie to tear them apart.

In gaming terms, he is like a max leveled character going back to the starter zone and challenging people to PVP and then uses that as an argument on why he is good at PVP.

Charlie Kirks actual positions are trash and he regularly got absolutely demolished anytime he accidentally ran into someone who actually was prepared for him.

[beefcakebradybatson]

BS and you know it, boy-o.

[David318578]

@Syntosi all nonsense, Charlie Kirk talked to anyone who wanted to talk, including college professors. Plenty of videos of professors and faculty talking to him.

They just couldn't do any better because their stance is not defendable

[Syntosi]

@David318578
While he sometimes did debate people with more knowledge or debating skills that was by far the minority and something he did less and less after getting his butt kicked. The fact that you dont even know this goes to show that you never actually knew the man.

[David318578]

@Syntosi if he was getting his butt kicked he would still be alive.

[Syntosi]

Why? Are you making the argument that the shooter had a rational argument to justify his actions?

[David318578]

@Syntosi its really not complicated, if you where doing the same thing, with going to talk to college kids in public about whatever, and all that happens was you got crushed by the counter argument and made to look foolish.

Nobody on the other side would want to silence you, they would want you to keep talking so they can easily show the world how foolish your ideas are, your foolishness would be ideal for recruiting to the other side of your ideas.

If Charlie was getting destroyed then the left would love to keep destroying his ideas in public. But he wasn't getting destroyed, he was destroying leftist ideologies, which leaves the only option of silence him..

[Syntosi]

But my sweet summer child, the left was enjoying destroying Charlie Kirk already. Do you have any idea of how overflowing Youtube is of videos where people absolutely demolish Kirk in debates?

Again, Charlie Kirk was not a successful debater outside of the times where he targeted kids and people unprepared.

[Twalli]

@Syntosi you watch Charlie Kirk's videos, he looks like a master debate. You look at other videos and you realize that when he has to debate those who are prepared, he's out of hus depth.
Typically he just says "well, that's what I believe."

[Syntosi]

@Twalli
Exactly. He maintains a carefully curated image of a "master debater" but that has more to do with marketing skills than his actual debating skills.

[David318578]

@Twalli @Syntosi you both are stretching here lol. He debated in an open forum out in public where anyone could step up to the mic, this wasn't some orchestrated event where they could pick and choose who to debate.

He had an open invitation to pretty much anyone.

[Syntosi]

@David318578
What are the odds of running into a random person that has spent days preparing for a random debate on very difficult subjects that most people dont even think twice about?

You do realize that debaters spend a lot of time preparing their arguments and researching the topic before they start a debate right? You can't possibly think they just walk up there and start yapping away.

[David318578]

@Syntosi so what you are saying is that liberals have very strong benefits on a topic without having done any research on that topic? And thats why Charlie keeps destroying them because he has actually done research on the topics that libs believe? Yeah that sounds about right..

[Syntosi]

... Winning a debate has literally nothing to do with who is right and wrong. Its a skill onto itself and a good debater can easily run circles around someone who is merely objectively right. That is why I keep saying that you need to prepare and research before going into a debate. I am getting the distinct feeling that you dont actually understand how debates work on a fundamental level.

[David318578]

@Syntosi i understand how debates work. And if we are picking a topic and i didn't do much research on it then yes i would probably do poorly.
But Charlie isn't picking some random topic, he is not setting the stage for just some specific topic.

Liberals are setting the topic when they come up to the mic and ask Charlie a question. And the topics that liberals are choosing are things they believe in a fundamental level. And also topics they are learning in college lol

Here is the problem, the things that they are learning in college from lunatics professors can only survive in echo chambers. Its all crumbles apart when challenged.

[Syntosi]

My guy. Politics, economy and social issues are "random topics" in that nobody is expected to know jack shit about them without professional insight into that subject. Also, a basic part of debating is to predict what your opponent is going to say and ask so that you can develop answers and strategies before the debate even starts.

In other words, Charlie Kirk already knows roughly what subject a random person will ask of him and he already has planned out his answers beforehand. It is the same thing that magicians do, the idea that you ever had a real "choice" is an illusion if Charlie Kirk did his homework properly.

You are also confusing knowledge with wisdom. Here is a handy visual aid:


What schools teaches is facts and the basics of wisdom but you need to actually take the time to develop actual wisdom. This is why people who just learned something or young people without experience can be so easily defeated in debates. They need time and effort to nurture what they have gained in school to build their wisdom which is very important when trying to debate someone.

Again, Charlie Kirk is like a max level going back to sealclub level 1 newbies.

[David318578]

@Syntosi your coping hard here my guy. Current liberal ideology is idiotic. The topic that got Charlie killed was the trans ideology, and to try and take the stance that liberals where not prepared for that debate is silly. When your ideology is saying men can get pregnant, or has to rely on circular definitions to even define what a man or woman is. That topic is easily destroyed with just a tiny bit of common sense, you dont need to be a "master debater" to destroy stupid ideas.

[Syntosi]

You see, this is the problem here. You dont even know what liberal means. Your whole worldview and everything you know is fundamentally wrong.

At this point you probably want to try argue with me but you dont even know what a "liberal" is. Look at this political compass and tell me where liberalism is:
www.reddit.com/media

[David318578]

@Syntosi that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said or the topic we where having

[Syntosi]

It has. Do you realize how silly you sound to me when you are outraged and ramble on about RIGHT WING ideology in universities?

You dont even understand the words you use, much less the reality you are trying to argue against. You are completely uneducated and misinformed while trying to tell ME things that you think are true. Do you have any idea how much of a waste of my time it is for me to sit here and listen to what you have to say?

You know nothing and you can't stop yapping about it long enough to actually learn something.

[David318578]

@Syntosi again nothing you just typed has anything to do with the debate about Carlie Kirk and the reason he was murdered.

This is another example of what im talking about, libs can not defend their ideology, i gave you specifics about the absurdity of the trans ideology and all you have done is try and change the subject.

[Syntosi]

And I have just pointed out that you dont understand what you are talking about. But sure, lets talk about why Charlie Kirk was murdered. The murderer has, as far as I know, given the reason that Charlie Kirk is spreading too much hate in society. Notably, the ADL used to have a list of extremism where they included Charlie Kirk because he spread "extremism and hate".

So there is very good reason to conclude that the murderers argument that Charlie Kirk was spreading hate is objectively true which by extension makes Charlie Kirk someone who undermines social stability and increases violence. Is this a reason enough to murder Charlie Kirk? Apparently at least 1 person thought so.

But you can't make the argument that Charlie Kirk was innocent in this. He objectively did what the murderer was accusing him of and coincidentally this also means that Charlie Kirk is directly contributing to the breakdown in society that you are criticizing yourself. Charlie Kirk is objectively someone who causes, directly or indirectly, violence and death. In this case it just happens to be his own life on the line.

But you can't accept this.

[David318578]

@Syntosi you haven't pointed out anything, all you have done is attempt to change the subject.

But at least this last reply had something to do with the debate. So good job on that at least. Downside with your argument that "he is spreading hate" is, its completely lacking anything to back it up. And this brings us back to why so many liberals get destroyed by him.

Liberals can't argue the actual topic they believe in so, one of the tactics they use is just to go with a personal attack.

The amount of times he is just called a racist or a bigot by libs is amusing, and they look like fools when he asks for examples and they just run away.

So do you have any examples of him spreading hate?

[beefcakebradybatson]

LOTS of them in the 60's and 70's.

[Syntosi]

@David318578
I pointed out several explicit things that is highly relevant to the topic which you wanted to talk about, namely, and I quote "nothing you just typed has anything to do with the debate about Carlie Kirk and the reason he was murdered."

In response to this I talked about the motive for the murderer, Charlie Kirks part in this motive and also how Charlie Kirk worked to increase the violence and hatred which in turn increases the number of political assassinations and makes Charlie Kirk a collaborator in his own death.

To support my claim that Charlie Kirk spreads hatred and extremism, which he does, I pointed out that the ADL included him and his organization, "Turning point USA" in their list for spreading hatred and extremism until they were forced to remove it after his death because Republicans were getting their panties in a bundle and throwing a hissyfit.

And again, you have aptly demonstrated that you are incapable of having a debate or even a conversation with since you keep insisting on using ridiculous terms like "libs" to label your opposition. This was never about the truth or rational reasoning for you. You are just here peddling identity politics and wasting everyone's time.

[David318578]

@Syntosi no again you tried to change the subject. And the only thing you said that was kind of on topic was "Charlie spreads hate"

So i asked for specific examples of him spreading hate.

[Syntosi]

And I referenced the ADL. Try to keep up.

[Twalli]

Okay, you ossec my point. Kirk's channel shows him winning. Yet, he didn't win all or most of the topics. If you watch videos on debates that he didn't post, you see that he loses too.

[David318578]

@Syntosi ADL is not an example of him spreading hate.. try and keep up.

[Syntosi]

Yes they are. And I specifically picked the ADL because I dont trust that you would understand what Charlie Kirk spreading hatred would look like even if I pointed it out to you so instead I resorted to referencing a 3rd party that agrees with me.

[David318578]

@Syntosi the ADL is NOT an example, thats just a second hand source.

If I said something negative about you. Like your a pro pedo advocate or whatever and you denied it and demanded I give examples of you saying things that are pro pedo.

And all i came up with was bob said you where.. thats good enough for you? Your just going to have to accept that label? Really?

I asked for actual examples and you can't provide anything other then an origination that lists Christians as a white supremacist organization.

[beefcakebradybatson]

LOTS of Democrats were in Washington Jan.6,2021. Get your head out of your a**, boy-o.

[Syntosi]

The ADL is a neutral party that specializes in this subject in particular and that vouches for my claim and also provides their own examples.

If I said something negative about you, like you're a pro pedo advocate or something, then it is completely fair and relevant for me to reference a major organization that tracks pro pedo advocates and publishes a list of them.

[David318578]

@Syntosi no how this works is either you make the clam or you say someone else makes the clam.

If I say "you are a pedo advocate" then the burden of proof is on me to defend my position.

If I say "the ADL lists you as a pedo advocate" then im saying "my opinion is weak because i dont have any first hand information"

You made the accusation against Charlie Kirk. Its up to you to defend your position.

And the reason why first hand information is important is because its easy for joke originations to manipulate people.

Take the ADL. They are anything but a neutral origination. Here is what they listed on people who identify as Christian

"ADL’s entry on “Christian Identity” identified as an extremist theology that promotes white supremacy"

The absurdity of that statement shows how much of a joke the ADL is. I guess all the black people who identify as Christians must be white supremacists lol

Your source is a joke, you need to be your own source and stop letting organizations think for you.

[Still-alive]

because they all don't actually give a shit about charlie kirk, they just wanna grift off him and use it as an excuse to attack the left even though the shooter was definitely not a leftie. and 99% of the time the shooters of these catastrophe's isn't on the left and they can't stand that!

[AviatorTom]

Forgiveness does not mean no punishment. Our society treats premeditsted murder as a serious crime, and the perpetrator should be punished for it. Life imprisonment with no chance for parole would be a reasonable punishment.

[Twalli]

For him, but the calls for war are not against the killer.

[DrPepper12]

Bingo. MAGA is being USED is my only observation.

[jshm2]

Lol, When has a White Christian man ever listened to a woman's wishes?

[blondfrog]

It effects all of us cause keeping him in jail would be a waste of tax payer dollars. We should kill the little homo. Stop being so soft.

[Twalli]

You clearly don't like the law.

[blondfrog]

That's seriously all you have? I could only imagine how tongue tied you would be if I saw your reaction in real life. You know I'm right. Guy was 22 and he did for his transgendered girlfriend. He was old enough to know what he was doing. We waste so much taxes on prisoners food, jail cells, their entertainment like football fields and tvs. Think about it, if we cut so much of our taxes for prisoners that could make the difference of someone saving enough money to not get evicted from their apartment and enough to pay rent. Talk about cruel irony.

[Twalli]

So you decide to do away with due process.

[blondfrog]

You can still have due process and have the death penalty.

[Twalli]

Yeah, but he actually needs to go to trial. Until the trial he's in jail.

[blondfrog]

Sure of course, but this trial shouldn't last that long. Longer trials are for cases that doesn't have enough proof. There is already more than enough proof to trial this guy and that shows he is guilty. Then he should get the death penalty which shouldn't take longer than a week to execute him.

[Twalli]

Trials are slow and he is not at the top of the docket

[blondfrog]

Anyone who murderers intentionally should be on top of the docket. With the rare exception of say a father or mother avenging their son or daughters killer. If I actually showed you the amount of taxes you pay to keep these prisoners behind these walls you would change your stance.

[Twalli]

Actually I don't pay any taxes now.

[blondfrog]

And that's why you don't care. You lost dude. Just be humble and admit you lost. I don't wanna normalize serial killers or murders of any kind.

[Twalli]

I don't pay taxes because I don't work. I don't work because Trump decided to slash healthcare, and I need doctors working to have a job.

[blondfrog]

Biden slashes healthcare too as a matter of fact all of our past US presidents did. At least for the middle class they did. Obama was the worst because he even made people pay for Obama care even if you didn't want to.

[Twalli]

Almost every other developed country has universal healthcare.

[blondfrog]

Yes and neither party cares about healthcare the Democrats don't give two craps either about healthcare. You have been brainwashed.

[Twalli]

There actually was a lot of interest in making it a law under JFK, LBJ, and Nixon.

[blondfrog]

Could of would of should've but it never happened. You lost dude. And I'm sick of this conversation. Your clearly stubborn and unwilling to listen.

[Twalli]

I'm just saying that before Reagan and hyperconservativism, Universal Healthcare was supported by most people. Medicaid is as messed up as it is because it was designed to be a short-term plan until we got Universal Healthcare.

[seeyounexttuesday]

What does MAGA want to do? Murder their political enemies? Oh wait, that’s the let. Your days of bullshit are over.

[Twalli]

They're threating to do that, and some have. But when asked, your leaders ignore them and don't even know their names. Be honest, did you know who Charlie Kirk was before he was shot? Most people didn't, even those now baying for blood.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Of course I know who Charlie Kirk was. I watched his videos multiple times a day. He was brilliant, and articulate. Unlike the left.

[Twalli]

You mean unlike the ones he showed in his videos.

[seeyounexttuesday]

I’ve yet to find one of you that’s intelligent.

[Twalli]

Do you look?

[seeyounexttuesday]

Are you capable of an intelligent thought?

[Twalli]

Yes, but it doesn't mean you're capable of understanding it.

[loveslongnails]

Magats don't care about that. Anything is fair game to push their agenda.

[exitseven]

i am going to let him live. Lets go with that.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

for the same reason why you commies ignored peace and forgiveness when George Floyd overdose on fentanyl

[Staximus]

I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was until he got shot, but the guy who shot him should be hanged in the town square.

[Kingofkings1992]

What? What she says about the situation is irrelevant. The state is in charge. We’re talking about a murder case, not a domestic battery case

[Gwendoline]

What violence? Prayer vigils?

[Twalli]

Really? You haven't seen anything else in reaction to his death than that?

[Gwendoline]

No. No riots or attacks or anything

[Twalli]

No calls to start a war against the left?

[Gwendoline]

Haven't seen that anywhere

[Twalli]

You must not watch any interviews

[Gwendoline]

What that Ukrainian girl got killed in seen a lot of crazy stuff from black people, doesn't mean there will be more violence against white women. Just the crazies.

[Twalli]

You really don't live in reality.

[Gwendoline]

Going only by what I've seen

[Twalli]

So what people say means nothing?

[DarcyDuke]

How are her wishes being ignored?

[Twalli]

She doesn't want the violence being promised in retaliation to his death.

[DarcyDuke]

What violence?

[Twalli]

As in actual performed violence, none yet. The calls for war and killing of democrats are what I mean by promised violence.

[jamesgoldman]

They'll claim she's a liberal and carry on

[beefcakebradybatson]

MAGANs are Fascist POS. F**k 'em !!!