Calm

If I had refused to watch videos from black people who knew Kirk, you would have a point. If there are transcripts, I will use them. If there aren’t, it will likely take me longer, but if it’s for a continuing conversation and claims are repeated, typically I do end up taking on the video, though may not watch the entire part, but will watch the quoted material and anything before or after that’s on the same subject. I prefer transcripts and I prefer Kirk’s own words to others’ interpretations. I have spent some time trying to find fuller transcripts for his quotes and a bit of time trying to find accessible without signing up for anything actual shows. None of the quotes I find most problematic are available in full transcripts that I can find and I don’t care to subscribe, to hand out my email to others unless absolutely necessary. It is hard enough at this point to catch all the important emails in the mass of trivia I get. I have been assuming that defenders will share what they see as sufficient to refute misconceptions and depending on those as my fullest context. Kind of wondering though why if it’s so important to people for Charlie Kirk to be understood and fuller context will show this, why someone hasn’t put complete transcripts out there to be found easily without having to get added to a mailing list. That would be my first impulse…and link with time stamp to a video so people could see the original as well. If anyone knows of those, I would love to see them if access without sharing private info. I admit to having lost the actual videos post you posted somewhere. They are not coming up in a search, so when I decided to do a deeper dive that you suggested, from black individuals’ POV, I had to use your list of names. Searching on videos for Brandon Tatum, Charlie Kirk, and black pilot, I got an instagram where Tatum’s primary response was ‘silly’, ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ and ‘go watch what he actually said’….but no actual details of clarification or links to fuller clips. Nothing else pulled up seemed relevant. So that had not increased my knowledge at all besides to learn of someone who supported Kirk (though I was already aware of many, so not much new info). Terrance K. Williams: His video on Kirk’s death was beautiful and moving. Scanning through his Instagram account, his tributes to Kirk were great. I got stopped though by one though that claimed Democrats assassinated Abe Lincoln, JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X and tried to assassinate others, that it is a criminal and deadly dangerous organization. His credibility for his political arguments took a major hit for me even if I don’t doubt his love for Kirk and Kirk’s concern and friendship with him. Rob Smith: found some very moving tributes by him as well as stories about Kirk helping young black kids get to the White House, didn’t find context corrections from him, but he led me to this one by Isaiah Robinson, which showed nothing more than what I had seen before, so I assumed Kirk’s defenders saw that as enough information to get a correct picture of Kirk. And if so, I stand by what I said. DEI meant more minorities were being interviewed, etc, but never meant unqualified individuals were hired or let into universities and allowed to pass classes they should have failed, so the only reason someone would go there in thought was if they choose to do so if they were informed that black pilots, etc were actually fully qualified for those jobs, etc. And to share that thought and to justify that thought as “fair” (as did the person he was talking to and he did not stop and say the guy was wrong) when experienced in public speaking is very problematic to me for the reasons I gave above. His alleged black women don’t have the brain power to be taken seriously (altered by a reporter iirc) is defended because he didn’t say that but only applied it to four black women…as if that makes it alright. Even if he had said that about 4 highly respected white guys…if someone ever says “Charlie Kirk did not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously, he was only there because he stole someone else’s slot”…I would find that highly offensive. He is also connecting their current undeserved in his view apparently status with the aid they received from Affirmative Action, which has implications for everyone else helped by the same…which was why he brought up them saying that Affirmation Action helped them be where they are today. The assumption that it was a white person who would have gotten their slot is problematic as well. Btw, this is another clip that defenders show ending here, so assuming they feel this is sufficient and nothing significant follows that would change meaning. PS: I brought this up because of Stargazer asking if Kirk ever lied about something….I think he is deceptive about the results of Affirmative Action, specifically the quality of such hires. I think he has chosen language in some cases that allows him to attack it without responsibility (DEI is forcing him to have these doubts even though he knows it’s not reality, but the only way that makes sense for him to fairly have doubts is if DEI allows unqualified people to steal slots from qualified people and he gave in another instance, four examples of where he saw that as happening).

Here’s more of the quote… Why does he choose to interpret (instinctively or not) the white qualified guy not getting the job to mean that anyone else getting it isn’t equally qualified? That’s his choice. That’s his responsibility. His own bigotry, imo. Where is the accountability?

But why would DEI create that space when it was never about lowering standards, but about opening up opportunities, allowing more to be considered. That he goes there isn’t DEI’s fault, but his acceptance of the falsehoods others promoted about it, including now himself since he is labeling the DEI as at fault. I edited to correct my comment, but then forgot it wasn’t a new post, so reposting here so you don’t have to go back. He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here. Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true? It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”. They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us.

The widespread corruption in the CCP seems like it wouldn’t lend itself well to such an approach. A significant purge of officials and leaders would be needed first, imo, to “easily adopt” such an approach. Plus if Chinese entertainment is any sign of their society’s desires, the Chinese want to be rich and get special treatment just like most of the rest of the world.

Truth….

The one debate I watched, I couldn’t tell much because he refused to engage with his own stats, but he tossed out “that’s incorrect” against stats I believe are correct because I looked at both the original research, which seemed to follow decent methodology, and the rebuttal and found the rebuttal highly problematic (using a category as something it was not, for example, to raise numbers). So I don’t know if Kirk made a habit of this, but it definitely sent up a red flag to me that I needed to be careful with his claims. Also his comments about black pilots…that was an outright lie to me to suggest they hadn’t met the same standards as every white pilot who flew, that they weren’t really qualified when they had passed all the same tests and had to fly extensively for just as many hours before getting their pilot license, so they had the experience as well. Edited: I am wrong he was claiming black pilots weren’t qualified. He was only saying he gut thought that way….and it was someone else’s fault, not his responsibility apparently. This was part of one factcheck I checked on this. The problem is I think Kirk is an experienced commentator and he should have anticipated that most people would have missed the point given how he presented it. It comes across as more plausible deniability to me given his own level of communication skills, which I see as quite advanced, he is very articulate and can be very insightful from what I have seen. So a misstep like this leading to a massive misunderstanding as he recognizes….hard not to see it as intentional for me. He is still blaming the DEI rather than the falsehoods here. Why is he forced to look at it as allowing unqualified people at the helm if he knows that isn’t true? It’s like blaming LDS themselves because someone’s gut response is “they are not Christian!”. They didn’t get the idea we don’t believe in or follow Christ from us. There were comments I watched of Kirk’s that I thought were excellent. Some of the questions and experiences couples should explore before getting married were very intelligent, imo.

This…

Give me a crisis and that’s me. It’s needed. Around kids too because they need security. In recent years I have decided to be my more natural self because I don’t have the energy to play a different person for the benefit of even adults like I used to. I don’t need to be everyone else’s safety net/mother. That is not in the “it’s needed” category most days and shouldn’t be. So there might be raised eyebrows on the “calming” descriptor around my home because I get intense pretty quickly (as in interest and mental energy, not anger), though I put a loooootttt of effort into making the house a calming refuge for all, but primarily for massively selfish reasons. Calm people around me is much less stressful as is a calm environment. My husband is very mellow, so probably has a calming effect on others. But he is at times inconsistent in followthrough, so that lowers the sense of security some for me. Between the two of us, the intensity level stays at a reasonable level most of the time. I hope I am seen as the last two, I do work at those still. Being supportive of others was never a pretense like trying to be the stable one was. And seeking knowledge is probably my prime directive and why not share that when appropriate?

I don’t see the older Church as misogynistic, more attempting beneficent paternalism towards women in general. In a lot of ways though the older Church gave a lot of freedom and leadership to women (healing blessings, independently running the RS raising their own funding, etc). However, much of these freedoms and leadership opportunities were diminished over time and then substantially reduced under correlation (for example, the RS had raised funds to build their own headquarters in SLC, but the lot promised them was given to the Bishop’s Building instead and the RS got the second floor, they had to wait another 30 years before they got permission to try again). https://www.ldsliving.com/14-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-relief-society-building-on-temple-square/s/91190

Or were part of it, but not recognized as part of the workforce. Women were cheaper labour and so used in a lot of places in factories and companies since the early 1800’s (long before that in agriculture and as servants). And the jobs were often hard, often pretty mindless, and almost always low paying.

That would depend on how you collect your 20 articles. I don’t think it is safe to assume extreme positions must have some truth in them. The same sort of logic implies that with 20 sacks of garbage, anything that was common to all 20 was not actually garbage.

I don’t see how truth can be discovered by taking the average of two falsehoods. Two lies of opposite nature do not equal truth. I look at extremes too at times, but they are never a starting pointing or some sort of way to balance the other extreme. For example, there is the position of secular antimormons that generally see the Book of Mormon as a pure manmade fiction made up by Joseph Smith or someone else. Then there is one religious extreme that pushes the belief that demonic forces are responsible for the Book of Mormon. Somewhere in the middle of those two is not that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to transmit in some fashion an actual ancient record. If you assume Anarchism is the polar opposite of Facism as some do, combining them to find some sort of middle position you don’t get a form of democracy, imo.

I love the sound of it and the look for some reason. Add “Apostolic” to it and it can’t get much better…. I wonder how often I could slip it into conversation if it did continue.

I figured it was musing, just interested in your thought process.

This is what I do, though if I have a moment where I want to feel informed I tend to go to Reuters. It’s rated low bias and high factuality I am happy to say (since I have been fond of it since we lived in Canada). https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reuters/

Why?

It has an interesting rating for the Epoch Times. There are enough problematic articles if I am reading it correctly I would never rely on it at this point as even just my primary source. Probably not a good idea to start there because it might push you in the wrong direction, though including it in a variety of sources seems acceptable.

Ground News is good. AllSides is another possiblility.

When did something not being truthful mean it couldn’t be influential? There are plenty of flagrant lies out there being bought as truth and acted upon, imo.

This appears to consider there’s been a recent improvement, so needing to be careful with older material, but possibly current while still necessary to check with other sources due to being only “mostly factual”, seems to be worthwhile. I would be careful with it even if there has truly been a positive change overall because at this point one doesn’t know how often they will intentionally or unintentionally slip up and go back to old habits. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-epoch-times/ Ben, not seeing much in the wiki about the change save this. Given the money laundering and other suspect activities of the past, even with the improved rating, I think it needs to prove its trustworthiness longterm before being used as any sort of authoritative source. There are more reliable conservative voices out there that can be more depended on for now. Also MediaBias has its own issues, methodology may not be as rigorous as it should be. It is a starting place for research on media imo, just as wiki is, rather than authoritative.

Then you stating he is using the language in a certain way and not in the way suggested by others is speculation, it seems.

Or we give it multiple meanings….which is fun, imo, not criticizing, just don’t think we can claim one reading is correct and others not, though trying to identify the original meaning meant by the author, the one God first inspires to convey his messages is typically the most interesting to me.

I really like Elder Snow, but he is an emeritus general authority and at 75 is ten years older than the typical upper calling to the 12 range (I think one was 67, but most low 60s and 50s).

Not necessarily imo to other verses: That which was created on the earth was also the workmanship of his hands. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/jacob/4?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/29?lang=eng&id=p25#p25 Also in the multiple verses, God refers to breaking the commandment of loving thy neighbor given in the garden. The time he is discussing is in mortality. So when he speaks of creation, that could be mortality as well as he does not separate the two into different time periods, one has to assume it. The floods were sent in mortality…

I don’t disagree with either of you. I wonder whether or not plains does though.