11–20 of 31 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?
From what I'm gathering, the quote she attributes to Kirk appears to not be a statement he made. I'm not able to find a source for that quote anywhere, but I'm also not about to go watch/listen to everything Kirk ever said in case it was never transcribed anywhere. If it is true that Kirk never said that, I would say that definitely compromises the trust in her as a journalist. And I'm saying this as someone who is o…
The paraphrase would be if I said, my co-works Bob and John were congenital idiots and I was quoted as saying "All Unix Administrators are congenital idiots"
Should she get fired for that kind of thing? Easily yes if she did it in a work product.
If she did it for something outside of work? I have no idea. Probably not but nominally she was doing straight news for the Washington Post. The deeper problem is the no one goes into Journalism to do straight news reporting but everyone at least starts off doing that and for most that's all they ever do - but everyone wants the dream; getting paid to tell other people what they think is right and wrong with the world. The only way to get that dream job is to start off doing it for free but it's not hard to see how that might conflict with your day job if your day job is straight news reporting.
From what I'm gathering, the quote she attributes to Kirk appears to not be a statement he made. I'm not able to find a source for that quote anywhere, but I'm also not about to go watch/listen to everything Kirk ever said in case it was never transcribed anywhere. If it is true that Kirk never said that, I would say that definitely compromises the trust in her as a journalist. And I'm saying this as someone who is o…
From what I'm gathering, the quote she attributes to Kirk appears to not be a statement he made. I'm not able to find a source for that quote anywhere, but I'm also not about to go watch/listen to everything Kirk ever said in case it was never transcribed anywhere. If it is true that Kirk never said that, I would say that definitely compromises the trust in her as a journalist. And I'm saying this as someone who is o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?
In life, where certainty is much more rare, it is a good rule of thumb to handle doubts this way. By OP's own admission, they can't watch every hour and minute of Charlie Kirk's speeches, interviews, and TV appearances. But he has a clear pattern of making remarks such as this.
Why would you believe that he did not make that statement? Objectivity does not require anyone be neutral for no reason. It is reasonable to assume that the author is correct.
From what I'm gathering, the quote she attributes to Kirk appears to not be a statement he made. I'm not able to find a source for that quote anywhere, but I'm also not about to go watch/listen to everything Kirk ever said in case it was never transcribed anywhere. If it is true that Kirk never said that, I would say that definitely compromises the trust in her as a journalist. And I'm saying this as someone who is o…
There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should any side get the benefit of the doubt?
In any given conflict, there would be doubt. And one side will have the advantage due to it. Like in sports tv umpiring. Whenever the image is not clear as to what the decision should be, the rules have a carve out on which side whould get the benefit of benefit of that doubt. Otherwise the game will be stuck. In life, where certainty is much more rare, it is a good rule of thumb to handle doubts this way. By OP's ow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
His point is not that black people are less capable but that DEI policies causing looser standards causes people to question whether a particular black person they encounter in a role is sufficiently qualified given those well known looser standards, and that this is bad for everyone, black people included. You can argue he’s still wrong, but it’s quite clear from the various clips that this is what he is arguing. In…
It is yet another in a long line of politically correct terms used by the American Right to counch their racism. Charlie Kirk's commentary is no different than Rish Limbaugh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His point is not that black people are less capable but that DEI policies causing looser standards causes people to question whether a particular black person they encounter in a role is sufficiently qualified given those well known looser standards, and that this is bad for everyone, black people included. You can argue he’s still wrong, but it’s quite clear from the various clips that this is what he is arguing. In…
Except none of these are based on fact. All of this has been addressed elsewhere. DEI is Critical Race Theory is Affirmative Action. It is yet another in a long line of politically correct terms used by the American Right to counch their racism. Charlie Kirk's commentary is no different than Rish Limbaugh.
I am not an expert in Charlie Kirk (I barely knew anything about him a week ago), but from the many many clips I have seen of him since, he seems to me to genuinely not be racist.
It's not worth debating whether DEI and affirmative action are problematic are not. We probably disagree, and this is a waste of both of our time. But in terms of this story, the simple fact is a journalist should not be misquoting someone. If one thinks he's racist by subtext, one can try to argue that, but at least be honest about what he's literally saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing uncharacteristic about statement. This is something similar he said about black people. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1ZPr6KwnzA/ The benefit of the doubt should go to the author. Why are we pretending that he was not this?
His point is not that black people are less capable but that DEI policies causing looser standards causes people to question whether a particular black person they encounter in a role is sufficiently qualified given those well known looser standards, and that this is bad for everyone, black people included. You can argue he’s still wrong, but it’s quite clear from the various clips that this is what he is arguing. In…
These ideas are equivalent. The belief that employers are lowering their standards in order to include more black people is based on the idea that any additional black person hired must necessarily be less competent than a hypothetical white person who could have been hired instead of them; that is, white supremacy. In Kirk's words: "You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
They don't believe that there are black people who are qualified but weren't hired because of, for example, discrimination, because they don't believe "discrimination" exists per se, they just think of not hiring black people as logical meritocratic decision-making.