I find it amusing some in the left view Kirk as a reincarnated Jesus only to blast him when he did something human. Its like some if these people havent listened to Shapiro, Fuentes or other right winged commentators. It just shows these leftist have zero interest in anyones thoughts or opinions who do not lock step into their own ifeology. Its a very narcissistic mentality.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/17/opinion/charlie-kirk-college-campus-speaker.html Opinion Guest Essay Barnard President: Charlie Kirk Challenged College Students. We Need More Like Him. Sept. 17, 2025 By Laura Ann Rosenbury Ms. Rosenbury is the president of Barnard College. Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking on a college campus. This is a grim moment for higher education, for our country and for freedom of speech. Violence is never a legitimate means of disagreeing with a speaker on a college campus. Mr. Kirk was a controversial and polarizing figure, but that doesn’t matter. A commitment to nonviolent disagreement should be an obvious part of the fabric of our campuses, just as it is obvious that students need oxygen to breathe. Colleges and universities need to reconfirm our commitment to nonviolent forms of disagreement — even when we are confronted with voices that disparage or dismiss identities and worldviews. This is also a time to foster more disagreement, not less. In an increasingly polarized country, where social media algorithms make it easier than ever to operate in an echo chamber, it’s not surprising that almost 1,000 people signed a petition calling for Utah Valley University to rescind Mr. Kirk’s invitation to speak on campus. The university rightly responded by issuing a statement affirming its “commitment to free speech, intellectual inquiry and constructive dialogue.” Colleges and universities have long resisted polarization and monolithic thinking by invoking these commitments to open discussion and inquiry, and we must continue to do so. College campuses must remain places where students are able to ask and grapple with hard questions, especially those that are uncomfortable and even hurtful. Higher education’s role is not to erase conflict but to channel it into dialogue, debate and learning. To do so, educators and students must face ideas we find offensive and speakers whose words cause pain. Yet new strategies are also needed. Some on social media have attempted to minimize the broader implications of Mr. Kirk’s assassination by pointing to his extreme views, such as his arguments that some gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms. These attempts are like blaming a victim of sexual assault for going to a party wearing provocative clothing. Instead of demonizing or valorizing any individual viewpoint, we must focus our energies on combating the groupthink that shifts us away from intellectual exploration and discourse — and, sadly, toward violence. To do so, we must critically examine how our campus cultures have evolved and need to change. Recent conversations about higher education have focused primarily on undue government interference. But we must also acknowledge the ways higher education is under attack from within. Throughout the country and on many campuses, it is too easy to retreat into silos, reject nuance and seek out only those courses, speakers, colleagues, friends and environments that buttress our existing worldviews. The campus disruptions I’ve seen over the past two years — disruptions that have interrupted classes, destroyed property and restricted access to libraries — reflect this siloed mind-set. Protest should not silence others, and advocacy of political views should not undermine our academic mission. To pave a different path forward, many colleges are now offering courses and programs on civil discourse and dialogue. At Barnard, we have started a new multiyear initiative of workshops and study groups to cultivate curiosity, broaden inquiry and help students engage others holding differing views with empathy and open minds. But we all must do more. We must have the courage to explore ideas that diverge greatly from our own. That will mean inviting a diverse range of outside speakers to campus. We do not need to create a specific balance of views; we must simply engage with the widest possible spectrum of views respectfully, without disruption or violence. When I was a professor of law, I made it a point to foster such openness by requiring my students to argue positions with which they disagreed. This included making students who supported abortion rights argue against them, and vice versa. At first, many resisted. But by the end of the semester, they recognized the value and importance of articulating and defending contrasting views. This skill is not and should not be limited to law schools; instead it is a lesson that belongs in every classroom and throughout our campuses. The purpose of higher education is not to advance one viewpoint over another, but to provide our students with the tools and training they need to examine and challenge all beliefs, including their own. That is the core of a liberal arts education: teaching students how to think, not what to think. We must commit to disagreeing better by fostering campus dialogue where differences in perspective and opinion remain differences. We cannot allow our dialogues to devolve into violence or absolutism. If we cannot keep that peace, we risk undermining the very purpose of higher education.
what am i taking out of context? i read his words. i dont need to watch a youtube video of some random person making excuses for what he said. kirk was assuming that a black pilot was unqualified to fly a plane. how can you interpret that otherwise? he is engaging in a false premise. everyone has to meet the same standards regardless of color and i found no evidence that white pilots were denied jobs in favor of black pilots. ill ask again, if you have any credible sources to refute that id be happy to read them. he made a douchey racist comment and then actually blamed "the left" for forcing him to say and think that. its pretty f***ed up logic.
It's a debate. He is not assuming Black pilots are all unqualified or don't make great pilots. He is arguing that IF policies are implemented which allow for lesser standards & qualifications based solely on race, then it may be a cause for concern. Currently, if there are no DEI hiring practices in the airline industry, then the only ones that would be questioning the ability of Black pilots would be racists.
Kid....the video timestamp is not an explanation from a guy, it's an actual clip of Kirk talking about that specific comment. Clearly, you are not even interested in anything that would run counter to your quote that you put into a vacuum. Face it, you hate Kirk because he is a conservative, that is the only reason. All the other junk is just stretched out remarks and exaggerations to try to justify the fact you hate the guy because he is conservative. You are the hateful one.
Go woke, go broke (Inb4 Kimmel is rich already) Take note others who are still popping off like watching a family man get assassinated publicly is a joke:
When I read this transcript, I immediately felt like it was scripted and BS, so therefore false. The 'old man' comment reminded me someone who is Robinsons age who used that term to describe their father. I thought it was odd and dated until you consider the context - Robinson views his father as old, outdated and out of touch with reality. This particular individual is very bright, very well spoken and prides his communication skills. He is also a Portland leftist who believes Seattle is not left enough. And ironically enough, when he was in his late teens, his parents removed all the guns from the house because they were extremely concerned with his rhetoric. In his early teens, he was very enamored with Hitler and Nazi germany. He is very pro china. And a reddit fiend. That said, Robinson is not your typical kid. Im inclined to believe the transcript as very plausible, although very oddly detailed for someone who was going great lengths to not leave a trail.
In all seriousness - I appreciate your thought out response but these text messages were not written by two 21-23 year old gay men dating… they were written by someone middle aged or older. The word use is hilarious.
New York Times and WAPO do not set the standards anymore. They are not liberal. There days of being the 'pinnacle' of journalism is over and I do not believe they represent the left. Legacy media is dying off and independent media is growing.
In 2025, I dont think they represent most liberals anymore than Fox News or Brietbart represents the conservatives or maybe they do....and then we have a bigger problem.
it was not a debate. it was him and a guest on his talk show that he seemed to be agreeing with. there was no debate between those two. did you read the transcript? and even if it was a debate, so what? he still said what he said. thats actually exactly what he is assuming. did you read the transcript? and as i have pointed out multiple times now his argument was based on a false premise. the standards and qualifications were not being lowered and i have yet to see any evidence that a black pilot took a job from a white pilot.
little boy...i didnt put anything in a vacuum. its the full exchange. you told me his quote about questioning the qualifications of black pilots was taken out of context so i said "fair enough, let me go see the entirety of what he was saying". i did just that and posted the full statement he made. the full statement certainly doesnt help your defense of him. then you posted some random video and told me to watch it. you said you were "smart", but you cant articulate any position or explain the context on your own...instead you want me to watch some youtube video. i dont need to watch kirk to explain the context...his words are right there. it seems like youre the one who is not interested in anything that would run counter your kirk-vacuum. your emotions are clearly getting the best of you now. all im doing is calling him out for the comments that he made. if you like all the racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic and divisive stuff he put out there thats your right, but dont be surprised that others might not be willing to go along with it. the fact that you call me "hateful" for criticizing kirk for making those comments says alot more about you than it does about me.
