14. What Charlie Kirk ACTUALLY said in those quotes.

"B-but, he doesn't deserve empathy because he said empathy bad" 

"B-but he said gun violence good!" 

"He said he'd force his daughter to carry her rapist's baby!"

Shut the actual fuck up. None of you have a single clue what you're actually quoting, you just want an excuse to justify your blatant celebration of a murder. That's literally it. Not a SINGLE ONE of you have actually watched one of his debates, you've only seen short clips taken out of context and twisted by your radleft media. And you, of course, are immediately outraged and scandalized because that's what you're supposed to be. And then you parrot it everywhere like a good little bot.

Imagine somebody shows you a painting, and you say "oh wow, what a gorgeous painting." Then they tell you it was painted by Adolf Hitler. Of course you're shocked, so you say, "Damn, I didn't know that. It's a shame he became so evil and didn't just stick with art. He was a horrible person, but I gotta to say he did some pretty good stuff. I mean, look at the details and realism here." Of course, by "stuff" you're referring to artwork, since you're literally looking at and talking about one of his paintings when you said it -- but it doesn't matter. What the headlines would read is only "____ says Hitler 'did some pretty good stuff'." 

Here are the FULL responses that your "quotes" are pulled from. 

1. "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."

Full quote: "The new communication strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say 'I feel your pain', instead it is to say you're actually not in pain. Bill Clinton in the 90s, he was all about empathy, about sympathy -- I can't stand the word empathy, actually. Empathy is a made up, new age term that it does a lot of damage -- but it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy I prefer much more than empathy, but that's a separate topic for another time." He later goes on to say, "Empathy is where you try to feel someone's pain and sorrows as if they're your own. Compassion allows for understanding."

In the video where he was saying this, he was SPECIFICALLY discussing how empathy is used as a tool in politics by people like Bill Clinton to appeal to a voter's emotions. "It is very effective when it comes to politics" -- as in, it's very easy to manipulate people by projecting a sense of relatability in order to get them to vote for you. No one can truly know what another person's pain feels like. That's why Charlie said he prefers using terms like sympathy and compassion, because that is more like saying "you're in pain, and I can't truly know how it feels, but I see you and I understand that you're in pain." 

Saying to someone who is suffering, "I feel your pain" honestly comes across as tone-deaf to me. Like, no you don't, the fuck? You're not me, you DON'T know how it feels to me and you certainly don't feel it yourself. It's impossible. I'd much rather someone say "I'm so sorry you're going through this. I can't possibly imagine how that feels, but I care about you and I'm here for you." 

2. "I think it's worth it to have some gun deaths, so that we can have our guns"

Interviewer: "I just had a question related to 2nd amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But I'm seeing people argue from the other side that they wanna take our 2nd amendment rights away -- how do we convince them that it's important to have our right to defend ourselves?"

Charlie Kirk: "Yeah that's a good question, thank you. So, I'm a big 2nd amendment fan. But I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting -- I love hunting -- the 2nd amendment is not even about personal defense, but that is important. The 2nd amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. The people need an ability to protect themselves, to protect their communities, and to protect their families.

Now, we must also be real, we must be honest -- having an armed citizenry comes with a price. And that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50 thousand. 50 thousand people die on the road every year. That's the price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50 thousand less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving -- the accessibility, the mobility -- is worth the cost of 50 thousand people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear, that we're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them, by having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools.

We should have an honest, and clear, reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society where you have an armed population and not a single gun death. But I think it's worth it -- I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the 2nd amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

So then how do you reduce them? Very simple. People say 'oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings?' I dont know, how did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How did we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How do we stop all the shootings at gun shows -- notice how there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, where there's all these guns? Because everyone's armed.

If our money, and our sporting events, and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?"

I think this one is fairly self-explanatory. And I think the car analogy was the perfect comparison for this. I will also add another analogy -- 8 million people die from surgery every year. So does that mean we should just stop performing surgeries? No. 

3. "He said he would force his 10-year-old daughter to give birth if she was raped"

****Note: this exchange from Jubilee is difficult to transcribe 100% accurately because Kirk and the woman he's debating with interrupt each other pretty much CONSTANTLY throughout the whole thing. The woman also yells over him a lot, making his responses and explanations difficult to hear at times.****

Woman: "Ok so I just have one question. There's like, in any case, you don't think there's ANY case where abortion should be legal?"

Charlie: "There's a very very rare couple cases--"

Woman: "Okay, so you do think that in a couple cases, it IS legal."

Charlie: "IF a ceserean section is not going to save the mother's life, and the mother's life is actually at risk -- which is debated amongst growing numbers of OBGYNs -- that is the only case where abortion should be allowed. But people say -- it is a growing consensus in the pro life world that abortion is never medically necessary."

Woman: "Okay... so if... if you had a daughter and she was 10 and she got raped--"

Charlie: "Well, I do have a daughter--"

Woman: "And she was gonna give birth and she was -- no, wait -- oh and she was gonna give birth and was gonna live. Would you want her to go through that and carry her rapist's baby?"

Charlie: "That's awfully graphic."

Woman: "It's -- no! But it's a real life scenario that happens to many people."

Charlie: "The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered."

Woman: "Oh, okay, great. So I -- that's insane. Um...."

Charlie: "But let me tell you why. No, hold on, let me ask you a question. There's two ultrasounds I have -- one is a baby conceived rape, one is a baby conceived by loving couple, which one is which?"

Woman: "Your daughter is probably-- was hopefully-- conceived by a somewhat loving couple--"

Charlie: *points to the other people in the circle* "Which person here was conceived by rape? Tell me which one was conceived by rape."

Woman: "You don't know."

Charlie: "Exactly! Because it's all human rights, and it's all human beings--"

Woman: "But that doesn't matter-- but it's about your daughter-- who has to give birth to it and has to be tortured by that for the rest of her life-- and it's gonna take away every freedom she's ever gonna have, that's gonna ruin her life, she's gonna grow up and she's gonna be attached---" (it's unclear how her sentence finished; she interrupted Charlie who tried to finish HIS response throughout and she kept getting louder)

Charlie: "Abortion is not a victimless crime. My point is, HOW you were conceived is irrelevant to what human rights you get--"

Woman: "But--"

Charlie: "Hold on a second. If a person conceived from rape walks down the side of the street, it's not like they don't get first amendment rights or second amendment rights--"

Woman: "It's not about that--"

Charlie: "The worst thing to do to the daughter, is to then say 'hey, we're gonna go murder the being inside of you.' "

Woman: "They wouldn't even know-- like, listen."

Charlie: "They wouldn't know???"

Woman: "Listen listen listen listen listen--"

Charlie: "But wouldn't it be-- wouldn't it be a better story to say 'something evil happened, and we do something good in the face of evil'? Instead-- instead of do evil and then murder the being, because we're gonna pander to the evil? No, what makes the west great is that we do good after evil, not evil after evil--"

Woman: "It's not about the being, the cells, it's not about-- no no no, I'M speaking. No, I'm speaking!"

Charlie: "No, we were both speaking--"

Woman: "NO, I'M SPEAKING. NO I'M SPEAKING, NO I'M SPEAKING NO I'M SPEAKING NO I'M SPEAKING NO I'M SPEAKING NO I'M SPEAKING."

Charlie: "You wanna say that one more time?" 

Woman: "No I'm speaking."

Woman: "If there is a 5-year-old child who is pregnant and the baby is 2 weeks in utero--"

Charlie: "5-year-olds can't get pregnant."

Woman: "Actually they have, and they have given birth, and--"

Charlie: "Is that common?"

Woman: "Yes." (FACT CHECK -- there is only 1 confirmed case in history of a 5-year-old girl getting pregnant, and it was due to a rare condition. Her name was Lina Medina and it happened in Peru in 1933.)

Charlie: "How many-- I'm curious, how many--"

Woman: "I hope your daughter lives a very happy life and gets away from you."

Charlie: "Okay so, that is really nasty."

What happened here is that this woman came in with one question, as she stated in the beginning, and when she couldn't argue with his answer, she brought in a "gotcha" question. I think Charlie knew this and was having none of it. Her goal was to pose an impossibly difficult question that would have no "right" response; if he agreed that abortion would be the solution he'd be a hypocrite, and if he said she should give birth to the child then she could paint him as a monster. He chose to stand by his principles and his previous answers, and use the rest of his time to emphasize that individuals who were conceived out of rape are just as valuable as those who weren't.

She, on the other hand, used the rest of her time to demonize him and yell over him, ending with a lovely insult that unfortunately mirrors the current reality -- Charlie was taken from his wife and daughter. Now, I actually don't agree with Charlie's stance here. If you read my own post on abortion you'll know that I believe abortion should be available to rape victims, regardless of age. I think if this conversation had simply ended at the first question as she truly said she "just had one question", then that would've been a whole different story. As it stands though, she chose to pursue the graphic hypothetical.

I'll likely add to this post as more miscontrued quotes pop up.

EDIT 1:

1. "I will pray for him as much as he prayed for the people in gaza"

Literally 48 hours before his death, Charlie Kirk spoke about the genocide in Gaza. He has also criticized the Israeli government in the past.

"We've pushed back on the media about Covid, on lockdowns, on Ukraine, on the border -- maybe we should also ask a question: is the media totally presenting the truth when it comes to Israel?" 

"So now, Bibi and the Israel hard-right government has a mandate -- I have to be careful the way I say this -- they're going to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza. And I don't use that term lightly, okay? They're talking about basically removing 2.5 million people. This idea that they can have a peace treaty is morally crap, after you see women and children be burned alive and dragged through the street. There are some serious questions here Patrick, and let me tell you, my pattern recognition over the last 5 years has become pretty sharp. Covid, Maui fires, Epstein -- when I see a story and it doesn't click...."

"I have less ability sometimes online, to criticize the Israeli government without backlash than actual Israelis do. You're not allowed to! It's just some type of paranoid, 'we're just going to stamp out everything' kind of process."

"You and I believe that we're Americans, and Americans first, period. We are citizens of THIS nation. And Israel, we have funded, we have supported, but honestly, the way they are treating me is SO repulsive -- I have text messages calling me an anti-semite. My moral character is now being put into question."

"What I find strange is that we're able to criticize the American government sometimes in the Christian world, with more freedom than the Israeli government. To be pro-Israel means you believe in the NATION of Israel, not necessarily the government of Israel. When Joe Biden was president, we loved America, but we detested our government. And those two things beautifully coexisted."

The woman interviewing him also mentions that the Israeli government has "come after" Kirk's organization, Turning Point USA, in the past. Apparently Kirk was moderating someone else's debate, and gave equal speaking time to several debaters. One happened to be pro-Israel, and the government was not happy that Kirk didn't allow him continue to talk past his allotted amount of time. Kirk expressed his frustration with having to "walk on eggshells" and not "being allowed" to say anything they might come after him for.