I'm going to preface this by saying I do not condone political violence from any side of politics. There should be robust debate, but that's all it should be - an exchange of ideas, not bullets. Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die for his beliefs, nor do his children deserve to grow up without the chance to make memories with their father or his wife with her husband.

Having said that, I am shocked at the level of reverence and the use of the US military members to lift his coffin. This must have most military veterans (past and present) and the families of those who died furious. He was not and never was a member of the US military. He was a community college dropout who was rejected by West Point Military Academy.

He had a history of racism, sexism and bigotry. He said that someone should bail out the person who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband at their home, calling that person an "amazing patriot". He said the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1864 was a huge mistake. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment, public facilities, and education, effectively ending the Jim Crow era of legal segregation and discrimination in the United States.

He blamed Jews for ruining American culture and said that gay people are destructive and endorsed having them put to death. He believed that the Second Amendment is worth the cost of some innocent lives. If that isn't ironic in light of recent events, I don't know what is. He said black women like Joy Reid, Sheila Jackson Lee and Michelle Obama only got to where they did due to affirmative action because they don't - in his twisted opinion - have the brain processing power to be taken seriously and that they had stolen a white persons' slot.

He once said, "If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, boy I hope he's qualified". He spent his life talking down to immigrants, women, Jews and non-whites only to get killed in one of the whitest places in America while being asked a question about gun control in a country where there are more mass shootings than there are days in the year.

When Melissa Hortman, her husband and their dog were murdered, Charlie Kirk tried to link Governor Walz and other Democrats to the murders. Here's a direct quote from Kirk himself, "I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up, new-age term and it does a lot of damage". With that, I'll just say perhaps we shouldn't feel empathy for his death - maybe just for his wife and children. He is no hero. He is no martyr. He is a racist, a sexist and he glorified and celebrated violence against Democrats. Trump said of the Colorado school shooting, "we have to get over it". Charlie Kirk deserves a private burial and then to be forgotten by history.

Trump needs to stop putting this guy on a pedestal.

Charlie Kirk was a better person than you could ever hope to be. The more you speak ill of the dead the lower you become.

Leroy wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 10:12am:

Charlie Kirk was a better person than you could ever hope to be. The more you speak ill of the dead the lower you become.

Interesting.

I assume you like to praise Hitler then.

After all, you wouldn't want to speak I'll of the dead would you?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 9:57am:

Trump needs to stop putting this guy on a pedestal.

Indeed.

Never gonna happen though.

Trump loves trash like Kirk.

Bigots, misogynists, white supremacists - these are Trump's people.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 10:22am:

Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 10:12am: Charlie Kirk was a better person than you could ever hope to be. The more you speak ill of the dead the lower you become. Interesting. I assume you like to praise Hitler then. After all, you wouldn't want to speak I'll of the dead would you?

Its something someone of your intellect could not understand.

Leroy's a big Hitler fan.

Didn't see that one coming, but it shouldn't surprise us.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 10:31am:

Leroy's a big Hitler fan. Didn't see that one coming, but it shouldn't surprise us.

You should have seen it coming, its your MO, we all seen it coming.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:51am:

Charlie Kirk deserves a private burial and then to be forgotten by history.

Amen to that.

Leroy wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 10:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 10:22am: Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 10:12am: Charlie Kirk was a better person than you could ever hope to be. The more you speak ill of the dead the lower you become. Interesting. I assume you like to praise Hitler then. After all, you wouldn't want to speak I'll of the dead would you? Its something someone of your intellect could not understand.

True. You’d have to be pretty stupid to idolise someone like Hitler, or think Charlie Kirk was a good person.

On sep 11 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot and the right went berserk.

Just a day or two earlier a young girl was shot dead and dozens of others injured during a church service. The right reluctantly offered thoughts and prayers.

Looks like his wife is dog whistling the violent right-wing mob:

“If you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country,” she said.

I feel sorry for those two kids.

Charlie Kirk  was a good man -

the good die young -

they shot the messenger.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 12:07pm:

On sep 11 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot and the right went berserk. Just a day or two earlier a young girl was shot dead and dozens of others injured during a church service. The right reluctantly offered thoughts and prayers.

Trump was asked by the press pool at the White House today how he was coping after the death of Kirk. He said he was okay, then he pointed to the trucks delivering building materials for his $200m ballroom and went on to talk about that as if the previous question had never even been asked. Something seriously wrong in his head.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 12:07pm:

On sep 11 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot and the right went berserk. Just a day or two earlier a young girl was shot dead and dozens of others injured during a church service. The right reluctantly offered thoughts and prayers.

The right offered thoughts and prayers. The left cheered Kirk's death. :'(

lee wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 6:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 12:07pm: On sep 11 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot and the right went berserk. Just a day or two earlier a young girl was shot dead and dozens of others injured during a church service. The right reluctantly offered thoughts and prayers. The right offered thoughts and prayers. The left cheered Kirk's death. :'(

The right called for more violence.

The left were united in condemning the senseless attack.

I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve???

:-? :-? :-?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 6:44pm:

The left were united in condemning the senseless attack.

Except for those of you cheering from the sidelines.

lee wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 7:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:44pm: The left were united in condemning the senseless attack. Except for those of you cheering from the sidelines.

Not a single person here has done that.

Meanwhile, you defend a rapist and his paedophile friend.

Sick.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 7:14pm:

Meanwhile, you defend a rapist and his paedophile friend.

You still haven't provided proof last time you claimed that. You are a complete tosser. Get your hand out of your shorts.

"Left-wing social media fanatics have celebrated influencer Charlie Kirk's murder -  with some comparing him to Adolf Hitler and even suggesting he 'deserved' his fate. "

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086259/Disgusting-comments-left-wing-lunatics-Charlie-Kirk.html

lee wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 7:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:14pm: Meanwhile, you defend a rapist and his paedophile friend. You still haven't provided proof last time you claimed that. You are a complete tosser. Get your hand out of your shorts. "Left-wing social media fanatics have celebrated influencer Charlie Kirk's murder -  with some comparing him to Adolf Hitler and even suggesting he 'deserved' his fate. " https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15086259/Disgusting-comments-left-wing-lunatics-Charlie-Kirk.html

Do you defend all rapists, or just the right-wing ones?

The serial liar shows his true colours. Well done gweggy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course if you don't know how to do a search, I am sure FD will help you. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 7:30pm:

The serial liar shows his true colours. Well done gweggy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Of course if you don't know how to do a search, I am sure FD will help you. ;)

You didn't answer my question.

Do you defend all rapists, or just the right-wing ones?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 6:52pm:

I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-?

No purpose - about as useless as the killing of John Lennon. One result, though, is reported as rising anger in the US against 'the left'..

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 6:52pm:

I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-?

Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations.

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 6:52pm:

I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve???

You're lucky you'd never heard of him, Phil - he was a truly horrible person.

The purpose of his murder?  Who knows?

All I know is that it was senseless and totally indefensible.

As repugnant as his views were, he did not deserve to die for them.

Leroy wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 7:39pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations.

He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term.

He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:34pm:

Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member.

And now we have it that if you worked in the US right now, that post could get you fired.

mothra wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:37pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:34pm: Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member. And now we have it that if you worked in the US right now, that post could get you fired.

So what? If I post comments critical of Trump and then try to go on holiday in the United States, I could get barred from entering now because the orange felon can't handle ANY criticism.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:53pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:37pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:34pm: Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member. And now we have it that if you worked in the US right now, that post could get you fired. So what? If I post comments critical of Trump and then try to go on holiday in the United States, I could get barred from entering now because the orange felon can't handle ANY criticism.

Freeeeeeee speech. Innit.

mothra wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:54pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:53pm: mothra wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:37pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:34pm: Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member. And now we have it that if you worked in the US right now, that post could get you fired. So what? If I post comments critical of Trump and then try to go on holiday in the United States, I could get barred from entering now because the orange felon can't handle ANY criticism. Freeeeeeee speech. Innit.

Of course it is - as long as you toe the line of indoctrination as stated by MAGA.

lee wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 6:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 12:07pm: On sep 11 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot and the right went berserk. Just a day or two earlier a young girl was shot dead and dozens of others injured during a church service. The right reluctantly offered thoughts and prayers. The right offered thoughts and prayers. The left cheered Kirk's death. :'(

Quote:

The left cheered Kirk's death.

The above comment is:

1) Untrue
2) False
3) A lie
4) All of the above

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:53pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:37pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:34pm: Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member. And now we have it that if you worked in the US right now, that post could get you fired. So what? If I post comments critical of Trump and then try to go on holiday in the United States, I could get barred from entering now because the orange felon can't handle ANY criticism.

Sounds fair to me.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 8:34pm:

Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member.

You misrepresent him with the usual lazy, shop-soiled lefty slogans.

Stupid but typical.

Frank wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 6:04am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 8:34pm: Leroy wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 7:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:52pm: I never heard of Charlie Kirk before he was killed....What purpose did this murder hope to serve??? :-? :-? :-? Kirk promoted conversation between the left and right, he tried to have open conversations with the intention of learning and understanding each other. He wanted to bring people together where they could listen to each other with respect and civility. He was prepared to take any question and answer honestly and respect the person he would have a conversation with. The purpose of his death was to stop him from having open conversations. He wanted to bring people together? No, he didn't. He believed women should submit to their husband because men are in charge. He believed black people should be segregated from white people. He said some gun deaths are acceptable if that's what it takes to protect the Second Amendment. He accused Jews of controlling much of America. He would not allow his own daughter to have an abortion if she had been raped as a ten year-old, forcing her to carry the baby to full-term. He was a white supremacist, a racist, a sexist, a bigot and an anti-semite. He does not deserve any Presidential medals, he doesn't deserve having his coffin being carried by military personnel. He does deserve a private burial and to be forgotten by history as just another nutjob MAGA cult member. You misrepresent him with the usual lazy, shop-soiled lefty slogans. Stupid but typical.

Just go and watch his videos on his own channel and you can see that I'm not lying, but that you're in denial. He was divisive and full of hatred. He was the epitome of MAGA.

I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say.

Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 13^th, 2025 at 9:50pm:

lee wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 6:26pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 13th, 2025 at 12:07pm: On sep 11 2025 Charlie Kirk was shot and the right went berserk. Just a day or two earlier a young girl was shot dead and dozens of others injured during a church service. The right reluctantly offered thoughts and prayers. The right offered thoughts and prayers. The left cheered Kirk's death. :'( Quote: The left cheered Kirk's death. The above comment is: 1) Untrue 2) False 3) A lie 4) All of the above

No it's not ..... not at all.

My friends, please do not tear each other apart.   Charlie's death should be a reflection point for all of us on both sides of the political spectrum to stand up and say that political violence has no place in our society.  Each time, someone is killed - regardless if he or she is right or left wing, it is an attack on democracy against ALL of us. 

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 8:37am:

I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done.

Would video of him saying things like "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"?

How about him saying black women like Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, and Sheila Jackson Lee "do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." when talking about college admissions?

What about him saying that "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s." and calling any progress made by black people as a whole or even individuals is DEI.

Or is that just Christian values?

tickleandrose wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 9:20am:

My friends, please do not tear each other apart.   Charlie's death should be a reflection point for all of us on both sides of the political spectrum to stand up and say that political violence has no place in our society.  Each time, someone is killed - regardless if he or she is right or left wing, it is an attack on democracy against ALL of us.

It should, but even before the identity of the shooter was known, the right was openly fantasising about murdering their political opponents, craving a civil war.

If only the left shows up with civility, it's never going to stick.

I don't want more violence, but given the right's reaction, it feels inevitable.

Especially when you consider their previous indifference, or outright mockery, towards Democrat victims of political violence, even assassinations.

We're not dealing with normal, rational people on the right.  This is just a game to them.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 8:37am:

I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done.

Sure.

In 2024, he said, “If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'”

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 9:34am:

MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 8:37am: I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done. Sure. In 2024, he said, “If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'”

I bet he didn't say that about white pilots.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 9:41am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 9:34am: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 8:37am: I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done. Sure. In 2024, he said, “If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'” I bet he didn't say that about white pilots.

Nope - just black ones.

Racism 101

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 9:41am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 9:34am: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 8:37am: I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done. Sure. In 2024, he said, “If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'” I bet he didn't say that about white pilots.

   
Quote:

KOLVET: We've all been in the back of a plane when the turbulence hits or when you're flying through a storm and you're like, "I'm so glad I saw the guy with the right stuff and the square jaw get into the cockpit before we took off. And I feel better now, thinking about that."     KIRK: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."     KOLVET: But you wouldn't have done that before!     KIRK: That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.     NEFF: It is the reality the left has created.     KIRK: I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."     KOLVET: Such a good point. That's so fair.     KIRK: It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right? … And by the way, then you couple it with the FAA, air-traffic control, they got a bunch of morons and affirmative-action people.

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 9:20am:

MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 8:37am: I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done. Would video of him saying things like "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"? How about him saying black women like Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, and Sheila Jackson Lee "do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." when talking about college admissions? What about him saying that "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s." and calling any progress made by black people as a whole or even individuals is DEI. Or is that just Christian values?

Those quotes are taken out of context.

He spoke those words in the context of DEI admissions and hiring policies, where preferential treatment is given based on race, gender, sexuality etc, and not on academic merit or actual skill.

He was saying we should have a world where DEI doesn't exist, that way when you do see a pilot no matter what their race or gender, no one thinks about "were they employed based on DEI policies ".

Same for all jobs.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 12:50pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 9:20am: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 8:37am: I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done. Would video of him saying things like "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"? How about him saying black women like Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, and Sheila Jackson Lee "do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." when talking about college admissions? What about him saying that "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s." and calling any progress made by black people as a whole or even individuals is DEI. Or is that just Christian values? Those quotes are taken out of context. He spoke those words in the context of DEI admissions and hiring policies, where preferential treatment is given based on race, gender, sexuality etc, and not on academic merit or actual skill.

Racism 101

He was a racist prick.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 12:51pm:

Racism 101

So it is racism to hire on merit. Like maths are racist. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 12:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 12:51pm: Racism 101 So it is racism to hire on merit. Like maths are racist. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Maybe don't start drinking so early in the day, lee.

This is racist: "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"

This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge:

https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 1:24pm:

This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge:

Thanks.

Racist AND sexist.

Moreover, it's pretty rich coming from someone like Kirk who supports and defends Trump.

Nobody in Trump's cabinet is qualified for their jobs - they were all hired for their loyalty, not on merit.

Why didn't Kirk ever criticise Trump for that?

Why didn't he ever say "If I see a fall-down drunk alcoholic from Fox News in the Pentagon, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"

Or, "If I see an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist who eats roadkill in Health & Human Services, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 1:24pm:

This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544

So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit?

"If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified."

Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist?

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 1:40pm:

MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:24pm: This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544 So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit? "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified." Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist?

They could see it as racist if they ignored the context (either willingly or ignorantly).

I personally believe DEI hiring and admissions policies are racist because it perpetuates the "bigotry of low expectations" mindset when it comes to minority groups.

It also doesn't help them feel pride when it comes across they were hired to "fill a 40 percent quota" and not purely based on merit.

Being anti-DEI is the least racist in my opinion, because it means people, no matter what their background, are being employed or given university admission based on merit and nothing else.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 1:55pm:

Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:40pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:24pm: This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544 So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit? "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified." Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist? They could see it as racist if they ignored the context (either willingly or ignorantly). I personally believe DEI hiring and admissions policies are racist because it perpetuates the "bigotry of low expectations" mindset when it comes to minority groups. It also doesn't help them feel pride when it comes across they were hired to "fill a 40 percent quota" and not purely based on merit. Being anti-DEI is the least racist in my opinion, because it means people, no matter what their background, are being employed or given university admission based on merit and nothing else.

You'd be wrong, because for roles like working in ATC, for example, candidates are selected for training based on the same criteria and are assessed against the same criteria. They are not given their ATC licence unless they meet the same standards. While a certain number positions may be reserved for certain groups (e.g. women or minorities), they still have to meet the same standards.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:01pm:

MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:40pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:24pm: This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544 So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit? "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified." Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist? They could see it as racist if they ignored the context (either willingly or ignorantly). I personally believe DEI hiring and admissions policies are racist because it perpetuates the "bigotry of low expectations" mindset when it comes to minority groups. It also doesn't help them feel pride when it comes across they were hired to "fill a 40 percent quota" and not purely based on merit. Being anti-DEI is the least racist in my opinion, because it means people, no matter what their background, are being employed or given university admission based on merit and nothing else. You'd be wrong, because for roles like working in ATC, for example, candidates are selected for training based on the same criteria and are assessed against the same criteria. They are not given their ATC licence unless they meet the same standards. While a certain number positions may be reserved for certain groups (e.g. women or minorities), they still have to meet the same standards.

What is the point of the reservation then?

What is the point of even having a competitive job application process if simply having a ticket is all that is required?

I prefer my pilots to be chosen for their skills, training, native ability and experience.

You can teach monkeys to fly - and there is no more reason to forcibly include minorities than there is to forcibly include more women into politics or anything else.  It is purely on merit.

We just want people who are best at the job - not seat fillers.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:14pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:01pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:40pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:24pm: This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544 So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit? "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified." Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist? They could see it as racist if they ignored the context (either willingly or ignorantly). I personally believe DEI hiring and admissions policies are racist because it perpetuates the "bigotry of low expectations" mindset when it comes to minority groups. It also doesn't help them feel pride when it comes across they were hired to "fill a 40 percent quota" and not purely based on merit. Being anti-DEI is the least racist in my opinion, because it means people, no matter what their background, are being employed or given university admission based on merit and nothing else. You'd be wrong, because for roles like working in ATC, for example, candidates are selected for training based on the same criteria and are assessed against the same criteria. They are not given their ATC licence unless they meet the same standards. While a certain number positions may be reserved for certain groups (e.g. women or minorities), they still have to meet the same standards. What is the point of the reservation then? What is the point of even having a competitive job application process if simply having a ticket is all that is required?

The point is to get these minority groups into these jobs that traditionally they have not been employed in. It's like getting more women into becoming pilots. Or more men becoming Kingergarten teachers. Or black people into jobs that were traditionally done by white people. It's about giving them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't think existed. But as I said, they still have to meet the same standards, hence why female pilots are no less competent than their male counterparts.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:17pm:

I prefer my pilots to be chosen for their skills, training, native ability and experience.

They are.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:17pm:

I prefer my pilots to be chosen for their skills, training, native ability and experience. You can teach monkeys to fly - and there is no more reason to forcibly include minorities than there is to forcibly include more women into politics or anything else.  It is purely on merit. We just want people who are best at the job - not seat fillers.

You may be able to teach monkeys to fly, but you can't teach them how to deal with complex emergency situations. Female trainee pilots go through the same scenarios and assessments as males. It's not about forcing minorities into jobs, it's about opening up opportunities for them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:23pm:

MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:14pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:01pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:40pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:24pm: This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544 So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit? "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified." Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist? They could see it as racist if they ignored the context (either willingly or ignorantly). I personally believe DEI hiring and admissions policies are racist because it perpetuates the "bigotry of low expectations" mindset when it comes to minority groups. It also doesn't help them feel pride when it comes across they were hired to "fill a 40 percent quota" and not purely based on merit. Being anti-DEI is the least racist in my opinion, because it means people, no matter what their background, are being employed or given university admission based on merit and nothing else. You'd be wrong, because for roles like working in ATC, for example, candidates are selected for training based on the same criteria and are assessed against the same criteria. They are not given their ATC licence unless they meet the same standards. While a certain number positions may be reserved for certain groups (e.g. women or minorities), they still have to meet the same standards. What is the point of the reservation then? What is the point of even having a competitive job application process if simply having a ticket is all that is required? The point is to get these minority groups into these jobs that traditionally they have not been employed in. It's like getting more women into becoming pilots. Or more men becoming Kingergarten teachers. Or black people into jobs that were traditionally done by white people. It's about giving them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't think existed. But as I said, they still have to meet the same standards, hence why female pilots are no less competent than their male counterparts.

So can you explain why some people are getting into teaching degrees with low HSC and ATAR scores?

How is that good? To reduce the entry standards to get the quota people through the door?

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:27pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:23pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:14pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:01pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Captain Nemo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:40pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 1:24pm: This is what Charlie Kirk actually said when it came to his "black pilot" comment. You be the judge: https://youtu.be/wl3UwsNZ544 So, if United Airlines has a target of at least 40% of their pilots being Black or women... why did Charlie focus on the black bit? "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified." Can you see that people would look at that statement and assume he was being racist? They could see it as racist if they ignored the context (either willingly or ignorantly). I personally believe DEI hiring and admissions policies are racist because it perpetuates the "bigotry of low expectations" mindset when it comes to minority groups. It also doesn't help them feel pride when it comes across they were hired to "fill a 40 percent quota" and not purely based on merit. Being anti-DEI is the least racist in my opinion, because it means people, no matter what their background, are being employed or given university admission based on merit and nothing else. You'd be wrong, because for roles like working in ATC, for example, candidates are selected for training based on the same criteria and are assessed against the same criteria. They are not given their ATC licence unless they meet the same standards. While a certain number positions may be reserved for certain groups (e.g. women or minorities), they still have to meet the same standards. What is the point of the reservation then? What is the point of even having a competitive job application process if simply having a ticket is all that is required? The point is to get these minority groups into these jobs that traditionally they have not been employed in. It's like getting more women into becoming pilots. Or more men becoming Kingergarten teachers. Or black people into jobs that were traditionally done by white people. It's about giving them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't think existed. But as I said, they still have to meet the same standards, hence why female pilots are no less competent than their male counterparts. So can you explain why some people are getting into teaching degrees with low HSC and ATAR scores? How is that good?

My wife is a school principal - she knows all about this and we actually talked about this a couple of years ago. It has absolutely nothing to do with DEI or minorities or anything like that. It is basically desperation, borne out of a critical shortage of qualified teachers. Entry requirements for the teaching degrees were lowered in an attempt to attract more people to the profession. Obviously, you only get the degree if you pass the same assessments as everyone else, but it's just about trying to fill vacancies.

My son goes to a private school and they won't employ teachers just based on their degree. They also want to see their HSC results and ATAR to confirm their grades in their degrees. Universities are degree factories these days and a bit DEI to put it bluntly.

All the teachers at my son's school know they are there because they were the best candidate, regardless of their skin colour or gender.

I wonder if the teachers at some other schools definitely know this? Or were they the 'quota' candidate?

See the issue with DEI?

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 2:46pm:

My son goes to a private school and they won't employ teachers just based on their degree. They also want to see their HSC results and ATAR to confirm their grades in their degrees. Universities are degree factories these days and a bit DEI to put it bluntly. All the teachers at my son's school know they are there because they were the best candidate, regardless of their skin colour or gender. I wonder if the teachers at some other schools definitely know this? Or were they the 'quota' candidate? See the issue with DEI?

Private schools aren't a guarantee of a better educational result for children. Not always. In fact, many are out performed by public schools. I know because my wife and I looked extensively when our children reached school age.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 3:09pm:

MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:46pm: My son goes to a private school and they won't employ teachers just based on their degree. They also want to see their HSC results and ATAR to confirm their grades in their degrees. Universities are degree factories these days and a bit DEI to put it bluntly. All the teachers at my son's school know they are there because they were the best candidate, regardless of their skin colour or gender. I wonder if the teachers at some other schools definitely know this? Or were they the 'quota' candidate? See the issue with DEI? Private schools aren't a guarantee of a better educational result for children. Not always. In fact, many are out performed by public schools. I know because my wife and I looked extensively when our children reached school age.

A good way to look at it, its the environment that allows your child to get the best education. If your child does like the school they are in, private or public it will reduce the quality of their education. I personally think the larger the school the poorer the education, too small and the lack of resources.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 1:09pm:

lee wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 12:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 12:51pm: Racism 101 So it is racism to hire on merit. Like maths are racist. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Maybe don't start drinking so early in the day, lee. This is racist: "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"

If I see a white, colour skin indeterminate pilot, I hope like hell they are the best qualified. ;)

He simply used the example of a black pilot in reference to DEI employment policies. He didn't say he didn't want to see black pilots. He actually said he would like to see THE BEST pilots, without considering their racial background, gender etc. The best qualified.

So no, he was not a bigot.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 4:18pm:

He simply used the example of a black pilot in reference to DEI employment policies. He didn't say he didn't want to see black pilots. He actually said he would like to see THE BEST pilots, without considering their racial background, gender etc. The best qualified. So no, he was not a bigot.

He didn't have to.

What he said was still racist.

Charlie Kirk equivalent to Horst Wessel. (not Rinus van der Lubbe)

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 4:24pm:

Charlie Kirk equivalent to Horst Wessel. (not Rinus van der Lubbe)

:D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 4:24pm:

Charlie Kirk equivalent to Horst Wessel. (not Rinus van der Lubbe)

Indeed.

Nazi propaganda mythologized details of Wessel’s death and turned him into the party’s most famous martyr. Wessel was celebrated in several propagandistic books, films, and public ceremonies. In addition, Wessel had written lyrics to a song that became the Nazi Party anthem after his death. The Nazis used Wessel’s legend to celebrate their ideals of political violence and self-sacrifice—and to encourage others to fight and die for the Nazi movement. His death was also used to rationalize attacks on Communists and other targets of the Nazi Party.

Leroy wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 3:19pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 3:09pm: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 2:46pm: My son goes to a private school and they won't employ teachers just based on their degree. They also want to see their HSC results and ATAR to confirm their grades in their degrees. Universities are degree factories these days and a bit DEI to put it bluntly. All the teachers at my son's school know they are there because they were the best candidate, regardless of their skin colour or gender. I wonder if the teachers at some other schools definitely know this? Or were they the 'quota' candidate? See the issue with DEI? Private schools aren't a guarantee of a better educational result for children. Not always. In fact, many are out performed by public schools. I know because my wife and I looked extensively when our children reached school age. A good way to look at it, its the environment that allows your child to get the best education. If your child does like the school they are in, private or public it will reduce the quality of their education. I personally think the larger the school the poorer the education, too small and the lack of resources.

Large schools tend to have more and sometimes better resources than smaller ones because there are more students from which the school can receive voluntary fee contributions. Additionally, the amount of funding a public school receives from the state government is directly proportional to the size of the student population. Otherwise you could have small schools with less than 50 students receiving more funding than schools with 700 students.

With regard to the quality of education, a large part of that comes down to who is teaching the children. Contrary to popular belief, private school teachers are NOT paid more than their public school colleagues. In fact, more often than not, the opposite is true except in a rare handful of cases. Public school teachers get paid more and are generally more attractive to most entering the profession. Most private schools are religious, and so attract teachers because of faith to a large degree - although not always. The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) sets the overarching curriculum framework based on the Australian Curriculum, which public and private schools in NSW must follow. Private schools may employ different teaching methodologies, but the curriculums (i.e. what must be taught in each subject) are pretty standard.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 4:18pm:

He simply used the example of a black pilot in reference to DEI employment policies. He didn't say he didn't want to see black pilots. He actually said he would like to see THE BEST pilots, without considering their racial background, gender etc. The best qualified. So no, he was not a bigot.

The intent of his statement is clear - he is less trustful of black pilots based solely upon their skin colour. It's quite obvious.

MattE wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 12:50pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 9:20am: MattE wrote on Sep 14th, 2025 at 8:37am: I keep hearing leftists say Charlie Kirk was a racist and bigot. Yet they provide no evidence to back up what they say. Can you provide any evidence he was racist and bigoted? By this, I don't mean your opinion, but actual evidence from what Charlie Kirk has said and/or done. Would video of him saying things like "If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"? How about him saying black women like Michelle Obama, Joy Reid, and Sheila Jackson Lee "do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot." when talking about college admissions? What about him saying that "We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s." and calling any progress made by black people as a whole or even individuals is DEI. Or is that just Christian values? Those quotes are taken out of context. He spoke those words in the context of DEI admissions and hiring policies, where preferential treatment is given based on race, gender, sexuality etc, and not on academic merit or actual skill. He was saying we should have a world where DEI doesn't exist, that way when you do see a pilot no matter what their race or gender, no one thinks about "were they employed based on DEI policies ". Same for all jobs.

Kirk's comments are racist because they rest on a blanket assumption that a person's competence in a professional role, whether as a pilot or surgeon, is determined not by their training, qualifications, or individual merit, but by their skin colour.

He isn't merely "criticising DEI", he's pushing a racist narrative that black people in elite or high-stakes professions are inherently less trustworthy. His invocation of DEI is nothing more than a fig leaf to normalise racial stereotyping.

If you've decided that this somehow isn't racist, then there's little point in continuing with you. You've chosen your truth, and it conveniently aligns with what you want to believe rather than what is real.

The trouble is, just like quotas in politics - you have no way of knowing if ANY of your pilots actually is the best for the job..

Remember Yeager when he commanded the US Air Force Astronaut Program (separate from NASA at that time and the US Navy had one, too), when pressure was put on him to accept a Black pilot ...who - on all criteria - was NOT up to the standard required - and Yeager refused.

I prefer my pilots to not be Quota bunnies... remember my once lady pilot given the left seat by the buy with one more shoulder stripe - and when we landed at Mascot in a blustery wind - she did a good job of getting us down three times.  No fault there... she did well.

... this is Captain Beau speaking.. I'm miffed with my ex-lover taking up with another man, and I'm going to make a statement about it by running his house through with my plane... I hope that won't inconvenience any of you ... and please - I'm trying to keep this a secret ...

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 6:52pm:

Kirk's comments are racist because they rest on a blanket assumption that a person's competence in a professional role, whether as a pilot or surgeon, is determined not by their training, qualifications, or individual merit, but by their skin colour. He isn't merely "criticising DEI", he's pushing a racist narrative that black people in elite or high-stakes professions are inherently less trustworthy. His invocation of DEI is nothing more than a fig leaf to normalise racial stereotyping. If you've decided that this somehow isn't racist, then there's little point in continuing with you. You've chosen your truth, and it conveniently aligns with what you want to believe rather than what is real.

I don't know if you are just trying to out stupid greg but you are calling Kirk racist because he explores what people think, read his words again and you will see (if you actually look). He is talking about does freedom of speech spread to thought crime.


Quote:

KOLVET: We've all been in the back of a plane when the turbulence hits or when you're flying through a storm and you're like, "I'm so glad I saw the guy with the right stuff and the square jaw get into the cockpit before we took off. And I feel better now, thinking about that."     KIRK: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."     KOLVET: But you wouldn't have done that before!     KIRK: That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.

I know putting his words into context destroys your racist theory but when you are looking down a barrel don't yell fire.

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 14^th, 2025 at 6:52pm:

Kirk's comments are racist because they rest on a blanket assumption that a person's competence in a professional role, whether as a pilot or surgeon, is determined not by their training, qualifications, or individual merit, but by their skin colour. He isn't merely "criticising DEI", he's pushing a racist narrative that black people in elite or high-stakes professions are inherently less trustworthy. His invocation of DEI is nothing more than a fig leaf to normalise racial stereotyping. If you've decided that this somehow isn't racist, then there's little point in continuing with you. You've chosen your truth, and it conveniently aligns with what you want to believe rather than what is real.

Nonsense. The comments were made in the context of DEI.
When people are given preferential treatment BECAUSE of their race, sex, or other 'diversity' attributes it is perfectly reasonable to ask what proportion of merit was lacking for which the DEI  preferment was making up.
For you to characterise such questioning as wacist is stupid and lazy. You effectively rule any questioning of racial or other DEI preferment  verboten.
Lazy stupid and deeply sinister.