techstepgenr8tion wrote:
I don't think Kirk should have been assassinated full stop. I found people like him and Steven Crowder 'wrong but more tolerable and sane than the people they were debating'. It was kind of like the campus version of @whatever.
Agree to a point. where Kirk was dangerous was his technique of gaslighting vulnerable groups. Fuentes doesn't hide his prejudice so he is largely (for now) on the margin. Kirk (on the other hand) wrapped his prejudice in some type of justification acceptable to mainstream MAGAs. Although the left and some media outlets often did misquote him, Kirk was effectively planting the same ideas as Fuentes in a largely converted audience too afraid to openly say it.
Good example is his comment on black women and intelligence, According to left wing media Kirk said “Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person’s slot.” - this was widely circulated. (also something Fuentes does believe).
But according to Snopes what he actually said was" Black women like television presenter Joy Reid; former first lady Michelle Obama; former Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas; and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson do “not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously.”
Kirk was best friends with Candace Owens so it was apparent he was saying "black woke liberal women" like Michelle Obama etc...attack was specific.
But of course MAGAs aren't that sophisticated, Kirk also said "I wouldn't trust a black female pilot". Again not because of black women having low intelligence but because "diversity equity and inclusion" means (according to Kirk) less qualified black female pilots would be picked over qualified white male pilots.
But to MAGA the message being communicated from Kirk is black women don't have brains to be pilots, politicians or judges. And Kirk knew this is what was coming across. So his core message wasn't that different from Nick Fuentes. He just packaged his comms in a more mainstream way.