Good grief. No wonder he changed sides, if he had to put up with this kind of vocal abuse from Cenk and the rest back then...
Politics: Rubin used to be a progressive, but distanced himself from that movement after several incidents, such as a disagreement with his "The Young Turks" colleague Cenk Uygur, and watching a disagreement between Sam Harris and Ben Affleck on the TV show "Real Time with Bill Maher".
Rubin has also said he disliked the left's response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting for what he saw as rationalization for the attack by criticizing the magazine for publishing images depicting Muhammad while failing to defend their right to free speech.
VIDEO EXCERPT: Here's a massive loss here on a human level of a very bright, successful young man who, like you said, he didn't smoke, he didn't take drugs, he wasn't a party guy.
He was committed to his beliefs, and he's committed to, you know, spreading the word of his beliefs, but also allowing people to debate with him about those beliefs. That's what a democratic society should be about.
And yet here he is now dead at 31 because somebody was incapable of listening to his beliefs without wanting to kill him.
Look, I don't talk about it that often. I happen to be gay. It's not a big deal.
I've been married for over 10 years, and I've sat with Charlie and my husband and his wife and talked about marriage and talked about the differences there, and all of those things. And we talked it out. That's what Charlie was great at.
[...] It seems to me that everyone agrees that Donald Trump is not Hitler and his supporters are not Nazis. So with that in mind, I'd like to read some other headlines. These are video titles from Cenk's channel. And if in the spirit of reconciliation, maybe he wants to delete these things...
"Trump cuts anti-Nazi program."
"Trump spreading Nazi propaganda."
"Nazis encouraged by Trump's Charlottville response."
"Trump defends Nazis, very fine people."
"Trump retweets a neo-Nazi again."
"Trump disappoints neo-Nazi supporters."
So, these things don't come out of nowhere. I only blame one person at the end of the day for these murders, which is the crazy person who does the murders.
But pretending that -- what is wildly asymmetrical -- I think I have laid that out with evidence here...
Quit trying to slander a man who was just assassinated, you piece of filth.
Charlie and his organization lived to create videos of the best moments of his campus debates. My FB newsfeed is full of them. It's only fair to post one that is not so flattering..
(Sep 13, 2025 02:37 AM)Syne Wrote: Quit trying to slander a man who was just assassinated, you piece of filth.
Charlie and his organization lived to create videos of the best moments of his campus debates. My FB newsfeed is full of them. It's only fair to post one that is not so flattering..
No, it's not. You're a worthless piece of trash trying to dunk on a man who was just ruthlessly assassinated.
confused2Sep 13, 2025 01:20 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 13, 2025 01:48 PM by confused2.)
There's conflicting views on whether to look at "Who was Charlie Kirk" or just have a celebration of his life. It doesn't surprise me that folks he thought should be stoned (to death?) would find less to celebrate about his life than those who received great gifts from him and be more on the "Who was Charlie Kirk" side of things.
Quote:In addition to spreading unfounded claims about LGBTQ+ people, including blaming transgender people for inflation, Kirk did in fact make calls for violence against the community in recent years. And in at least one instance he alluded favorably to stoning gay people to death — a point that those reacting indignantly to King's comments seem to have forgotten or willfully overlooked.
In 2024, reacting to a video from YouTuber Ms. Rachel, in which she talks about the importance of "love thy neighbor" in the Bible, Kirk paraphrased a passage from Leviticus that advocates for stoning gay people, calling it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
"By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours," he said to camera. "In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is…in Leviticus 18 is that, 'thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death.' Just sayin'."
More: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/step...Hf6fEIs_cJ
An AI, when asked what a religious leader who accumulate significant wealth are called responded rather bluntly with "Hypocrite"*. I don't know whether or not this applies to Charlie Kirk. There might be a clue in the clip MR posted .. maybe not.
In fairness perhaps religion should be seen in the same light as Youtube .. the influencers who get the most followers get the most money - I don't think anyone would claim there was anything wrong with that.
* The AI will be giving what it thinks would be the normal response of a large group of humans - without taking into account the views of any followers of any particular religious leader.
C CSep 13, 2025 06:19 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 13, 2025 06:39 PM by C C.)
(Sep 13, 2025 01:20 PM)confused2 Wrote: [...] In 2024, reacting to a video from YouTuber Ms. Rachel, in which she talks about the importance of "love thy neighbor" in the Bible, Kirk paraphrased a passage from Leviticus that advocates for stoning gay people, calling it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
"By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours," he said to camera. "In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is…in Leviticus 18 is that, 'thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death.' Just sayin'."
EXCERPT: After backlash from Kirk supporters, the author Stephen King, who had posted on X on Sept. 11 that Kirk had “advocated stoning gays to death,” retracted his claim and apologized. King said, “What [Kirk] actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”
- - - - - - - - - -
IOW, if Kirk was around he'd probably be shouting and gesticulating like Cenk Uygur in the video above, that he was being taken out of context. That's what both sides of the political spectrum do to each other.
Despite the kayfabe, politics is like a pro-wresting match where rivals do whatever it takes to win. Any opponent in the ring who is posturing to the audience that they should be awarded victory because they are morally noble and champions of _X_ social justice causes or _X_ Christian causes is just going to be decked by a chair from behind.
(Sep 13, 2025 01:20 PM)confused2 Wrote: There's conflicting views on whether to look at "Who was Charlie Kirk" or just have a celebration of his life. It doesn't surprise me that folks he thought should be stoned (to death?) would find less to celebrate about his life than those who received great gifts from him and be more on the "Who was Charlie Kirk" side of things.
Quote:In addition to spreading unfounded claims about LGBTQ+ people, including blaming transgender people for inflation, Kirk did in fact make calls for violence against the community in recent years. And in at least one instance he alluded favorably to stoning gay people to death — a point that those reacting indignantly to King's comments seem to have forgotten or willfully overlooked.
In 2024, reacting to a video from YouTuber Ms. Rachel, in which she talks about the importance of "love thy neighbor" in the Bible, Kirk paraphrased a passage from Leviticus that advocates for stoning gay people, calling it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
"By the way, Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours," he said to camera. "In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is…in Leviticus 18 is that, 'thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death.' Just sayin'."
He was actually pointing out that she was cherry-picking the Bible. Referencing a Bible verse isn't an endorsement of it in present day. It's actually pointing out the fact that you should show discernment, rather than blindly "love thy neighbor" without any regard for their actions.
But you evil people sure are keen to denigrate a man you didn't seem to notice before. It's psychopathic, and pathetic, to wait for a man's death to suddenly heap criticism on him.
Quote:An AI, when asked what a religious leader who accumulate significant wealth are called responded rather bluntly with "Hypocrite"*. I don't know whether or not this applies to Charlie Kirk. There might be a clue in the clip MR posted .. maybe not.
In fairness perhaps religion should be seen in the same light as Youtube .. the influencers who get the most followers get the most money - I don't think anyone would claim there was anything wrong with that.
* The AI will be giving what it thinks would be the normal response of a large group of humans - without taking into account the views of any followers of any particular religious leader.
Kirk was an open capitalist (not a religious leader). So his income aligned with his professed capitalist values.
Uygur claims to be a capitalist who believes in a strong social safety net. So Uygur trying to criticize Kirk for his income is hypocritical of Uygur.
Of course it takes a little digging to find videos where Charlie was NOT coming off as some intellectual powerhouse and MAGA hero as those are precisely the ones his organization does not flood the Internet with. But here's one where he actually had to confront someone who was not just a young naive "snowflake" to be humiliated before his drooling fan base:
^More of a moron leftist trying, and failing (although he'd never understand that), to besmirch a man after he's died.
You might as well be these evil pieces of shit celebrating, because trying to dunk on a dead man is essentially the same.
Sep 12, 2025 11:47 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 13, 2025 05:19 AM by C C.)
