Charlie Kirk

[Si_]

Charlie Kirk did not believe in empathy, he though it was a weakness..

That's not actually correct. He said he didn't like the term, and explained it was too often used in politics by bad actors. He objected to politicians saying that they 'felt' the pain of others when everybody knew they couldn't care less.

He also said it was a 'made-up, new age term'. He was correct about that. The word itself has only been in use for about 100 years, and for over half of them it meant something different to what it does today. It's current meaning is derived from the new age culture of the 60s.

He never mentioned it being a weakness.

No offence, but don't just repeat stuff you find on social media, because 99.9% of the time it's BS.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

That's not actually correct. He said he didn't like the term, and explained it was too often used in politics by bad actors. He objected to politicians saying that they 'felt' the pain of others when everybody knew they couldn't care less.

He also said it was a 'made-up, new age term'. He was correct about that. The word itself has only been in use for about 100 years, and for over half of them it meant something different to what it does today. It's current meaning is derived from the new age culture of the 60s.

He never mentioned it being a weakness.

No offence, but don't just repeat stuff you find on social media, because 99.9% of the time it's BS.

Which is where you found most of your "pro" stuff.

 

[MNW67]

They might well be, but my quote doesn't provide evidence for that. The right of free speech, generally speaking but especially in the US, relates to suppression of opinion expressed by that country's citizens by government sanction. It does not apply to foreign citizens, so whilst banning entry to people who celebrated Kirk's death could be termed an over-reach, nobody's freedom of speech is being infringed.

As far as I can tell, that isn't logical. If a regime punishes people for speaking freely, then they are suppressing free speech. It doesn't matter where those people live. It might not be against the US Constitution for the government of the day to supress the free speech of foreigners. But they would still be suppressing it, nonetheless.

 

[Si_]

Which is where you found most of your "pro" stuff.

And maybe listening to his debates for ten years played a part too.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

And maybe listening to his debates for ten years played a part too.

So you have seen his debating style then.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

As far as I can tell, that isn't logical. If a regime punishes people for speaking freely, then they are suppressing free speech. It doesn't matter where those people live. It might not be against the US Constitution for the government of the day to supress the free speech of foreigners. But they would still be suppressing it, nonetheless.

I think the term free speech is bandied about too much.

Some only want free speech that they agree with, which is the exact opposite of free speech. As always, free speech carries responsibilities.

 

[Si_]

As far as I can tell, that isn't logical. If a regime punishes people for speaking freely, then they are suppressing free speech. It doesn't matter where those people live. It might not be against the US Constitution for the government to supress the free speech of foreigners. But they would still be suppressing it, nonetheless.

Free Speech means something very specific - the right of which is for citizens to express opinions without fear of sanction from their government. The US government might well be shown to be petty and intolerant by banning people who state unpleasant views, but they have not violated anybody's free speech. It is the citizens who have the right to free speech, not the government that confers it.

People use 'free speech' to mean anything, basically. If someone is banned from a forum, or sacked from their job, or told to be quiet, they complain that their right to freedom of speech is being infringed. It's simply not true (except when it is, and when it is it must involve government sanction).

 

[Si_]

So you have seen his debating style then.

Of course.

 

[catlad]

He made stuff up frequently, among his opinions he didn't like: black people being allowed to fly planes, gay people, civil rights, atheists, Martin Luther king, gun control, women being equal to their husbands etc.

Well, you can rule Martin Luther king out..

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Of course.

Q E D

 

[ajrtd]

And he wasn't against blacks flying plane either.

 

[Si_]

Q E D

You appear to be posting words at random that have no coherent narrative.

 

[MNW67]

Free Speech means something very specific - the right of which is for citizens to express opinions without fear of sanction from their government. The US government might well be shown to be petty and intolerant by banning people who state unpleasant views, but they have not violated anybody's free speech. It is the citizens who have the right to free speech, not the government that confers it.

People use 'free speech' to mean anything, basically. If someone is banned from a forum, or sacked from their job, or told to be quiet, they complain that their right to freedom of speech is being infringed. It's simply not true (except when it is, and when it is it must involve government sanction).

If a British citizen who wants to visit the USA knows that criticising Trump will get them banned from entering the USA, then their ability to speak freely is being suppressed.

 

[Lower]

Charlie Kirk did not believe in empathy, he though it was a weakness.

Unlike him, I do have empathy and believe it is a strength.

It is terrible that he died at just 31 and his wife and children will never get over it, this will haunt them every day for life. I heard today, not sure if true, that they were in the audience if so that is unimaginable.


I fear the hatred and division in USA will continue to rise and we will see more atrocities, poss a politically motivated mass shooting before long.

I think his empathy views were grammatical and technical. He didn’t believe that empathy was possible because he didn’t think it was possible to share someone else’s feelings. He didn’t believe in sympathy, ie consideration of someone else’s feelings.

I don’t agree with his views on empathy, but I don’t think he was as black or white in his views as you portray.

 

[Si_]

If a British citizen who wants to visit the USA knows that criticising Trump will get them banned from entering the USA, then their ability to speak freely is being suppressed.

It's not. Their ability to travel to the US is being suppressed. That has nothing to do with free speech.