pull down to refresh

The Guardian is tracking quotes from Charlie Kirk that they find bigoted or whatever, and specifically on the DEI ones, I really don't understand why people think those are racist.
On the pilot one, his point is that if you lower standards for black pilots (this was done in the name of DEI), and you only know your pilot is black with no other aptitude metrics, all you know is on average that your pilot is worse than average
On the customer service one, it's a similar vein (would be interested in what the full context of the quote is).
Broadly speaking, it's a shame for talented minorities (excluding Asians who are penalized relative to white people because they are too successful) who don't need affirmative action because, like I said before, everyone assumes they were held to a lower bar.
Am I missing something? I can't even steelman their points.
It is really sad that they would do this. Obviously, with any public figure you can cherry pick quotes that make them look bad without acknowledging the broader point in context. I find it shameful that they would do this so soon after someone is murdered.
reply
I don’t understand the need to point out why you didn’t like someone who was just murdered. You shouldn’t need to like someone to be horrified by their public killing.
reply
If I were to be charitable, I would say there are right wingers glorifying him because they like his work - maybe you could say excessively - and people feel the need to set the record straight
reply
I’m surrounded by people who feel the need to emphasize what a bad guy he was. It’s clear their only real concern is political violence coming back their way. It’s a complete lack of empathy.
These outlets know that their audiences weren’t Charlie Kirk fans. They’re just trying to give them a cheap excuse for their complete disregard for a man’s life.
reply
It feels a bit like a strand of puritanism, where certain words and ideas are verboten, and speaking them entails punishment or censorship, regardless of the context in which they were spoken. Feels a bit like a Catholic inquisitor reading out a list of heresies for which the accused is guilty.
reply
Shame is in short supply.
reply
20 sats \ 1 reply \ @gmd 12 Sep
One only needs to look at the disgusting incoming Oxford Union president who celebrated Kirk's death after Kirk debated him in person in good faith.
How does someone like that get into Oxford with ABB? Get a pass to show up to debates in joggers and still end up president? If the lowering of standards weren't so blatant people wouldn't be quick question merit and competency. It's not at all an illogical conclusion for people to draw.
There is a very very common human trait that is irrespective of ideology. Confirmation bias. Put another way is when people seek to confirm their pre-existing beliefs instead of to first understand where someone is coming from. Then counter that. I've experienced this for most of my life in Christian circles around internal debates that have existed for centuries. Protestants vs. Catholics and Catholics vs. Protestants. Within the Protestant camp, which is far from unified. In politics you see this.
Instead of putting words in people's mouths. Instead of saying what someone means. Ask them. Do you mean this? Oh, you don't. Well that's what it sounded like to me. We don't even agree on the definitions of words many times. This flows into interpersonal relationships as well.
Articles like this are not in good faith. At least they don't appear to be. They are so common these days I believe because this type of work is rewarded. Believe me. I find it unfruitful to talk about politics and social issues with most people. Why? Because they are just parrots. They aren't even thinking. Thinking is hard. But the few people I can talk to in sincerity and love... it worth so much. I learn so much.
reply
One problem we also have is that far too many people still just trust what they hear. Again, this is all over the spectrum but I'm more in-tune with it when it comes from the left.
Over and over again these NGOs that are so-called watchdogs are just wrong. Like way off. They smear people and call them names. Even after Covid we have far to much trust in "sources". I knew non-leftists that were shocked by the decline of Biden. Far too many people have been manipulated into false narratives for their whole lives. And the opposition is often over the top and easy to dismiss.
Sometimes I feel like a therapist for my less in-tune friends.
reply
deleted by author