The notion that speech is somehow “violent” is absurd. Speech can be used to incite violence, but it is not inherently violent. We must draw a clear line between actual violence and mere offense.
100% agree as usual Ayanda. His passing was tragic, but even more so is the sick thinking that resulted in it, clothed in the idea of DEI (which is in itself a farce because by its very exercising excluded someone like Charlie). I too did not agree 100% with everything he said but I loved what he was trying to accomplish, something that has been sorely lacking in society for too long.
I'm glad he didn't want to kill blacks but he was against even private policies encouraging diversity and inclusion. Surely private policies on DEI not Kirks business or the far Right with whom he was associated.
Now while he may not have wanted to kill blacks he was quite ambiguous on gay people. In a diatribe for denying gay people marriage rights he referenced Leviticus 20:13 to back it up. It says: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Then he said that verse calling for killing gays was "God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
Like most conservatives he was vehemently against individualism and wanted social conformity and the only way to stamp out individualism is to stamp out markets—which is what his buddy Trump is doing now.
I did note that Charlie and I were not in agreement on everything, and that the points you're raising here were not necessarily relevant in this piece.
100% agree as usual Ayanda. His passing was tragic, but even more so is the sick thinking that resulted in it, clothed in the idea of DEI (which is in itself a farce because by its very exercising excluded someone like Charlie). I too did not agree 100% with everything he said but I loved what he was trying to accomplish, something that has been sorely lacking in society for too long.
I'm glad he didn't want to kill blacks but he was against even private policies encouraging diversity and inclusion. Surely private policies on DEI not Kirks business or the far Right with whom he was associated.
Now while he may not have wanted to kill blacks he was quite ambiguous on gay people. In a diatribe for denying gay people marriage rights he referenced Leviticus 20:13 to back it up. It says: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Then he said that verse calling for killing gays was "God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”
Like most conservatives he was vehemently against individualism and wanted social conformity and the only way to stamp out individualism is to stamp out markets—which is what his buddy Trump is doing now.
I did note that Charlie and I were not in agreement on everything, and that the points you're raising here were not necessarily relevant in this piece.
Free speech was the focus here.