₦airaland Forum

basilico:
Let's start with this black American regarding Charlie Kirks comments on black and civil rights


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SZUuTZ8ebA?si=1IlPKAFQsaKPl5Vo

And this one too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXxmgMV15fk?si=fLASMw5ln_gPfSnN

+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

they will fight from bunkers and give motivational speech to USA soldiers

They’ll be right behind us. 900 Miles behind .

DeepSight:
+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

Phew. I'll digest this slowly by slowly....

Details of funding No Kings protest

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2037000888858907014.html

cococandy:
MAGA right now 🤡🤡🤡

Wahala Dey oo

DeepSight:
+
Pls be so kind as to answer these for me -

1. Is it your view that black people were better off in the states before the Civil Rights Movement?

2. Is it your view that the Civil Rights Act (and Voting Rights Act) were mistakes?

3. Is it your view that black people are better off on account of slavery?

3. Is it your view that apartheid in South Africa was good?

What does your fantasies have to do with my post?
How are your questions related to the video I posted.

bemeruca:
What does your fantasies have to do with my post?
How are your questions related to the video I posted.

+
Are you afraid or shamed of your own opinions? Two people said you certain things. Answer, I want to confirm.
I added the apartheid one myself as I think it is corelated.

DeepSight:
+
Are you afraid or shamed of your own opinions? Two people said you certain things. Answer, I want to confirm.
I added the apartheid one myself as I think it is corelated.

If you believe it's my opinion then why are you asking?

You have already made up crap in your head.

But to give you an idea.
Apartheid bad, south Africans, blacks are in control, they have the foundation, a good one to build upon, to strive on, to improve and continuously develop. But we know how things are going.

bemeruca:
If you believe it's my opinion then why are you asking?

You have already made up crap in your head.

+
I am asking you, talk.

DeepSight:
+
I am asking you, talk.

I have talked and notice how you ignored it 😂

bemeruca:
I have talked and notice how you ignored it 😂

+
You only answered for apartheid. Talk. E get why.

basilico:
That's a black American I'm told you have to be in America to be considered knowledgeable

How many times did i tell you your maga cult is dead? Now do you see everyone rejecting the tyrant child predator? From right wing to left wing, everyone is piling on the tyrant and the Epstein class.

cococandy:
MAGA right now 🤡🤡🤡

Maga is just dead, all the things they voted for, they aint getting it except the closed borders. Even maga cultists don't want to enlist in the draft if it eventually happens.

And this Charlie's murder has cut the maga cult in half - the deranged Zionist maga (Israeli first) and the Catholic nationalist maga (America first).

But the funny thing is basilico doesn't know which side he belongs.

Obrigardo:
Maga is just dead, all the things they voted for, they aint getting it except the closed borders. Even maga cultists don't want to enlist in the draft if it eventually happens.

They need to be drafted first.

This wat they support so much, they need to be physically present and see the horrors of it themselves

cococandy:
They need to be drafted first.

This wat they support so much, they need to be physically present and see the horrors of it themselves

And the tyrant's sons and grand daughter would get drafted, and it's no joke that even maga is calling for it.

I predicted maga will humiliate the tyrant trump family just like Iraqis humiliated Saddam. And it's playing out nicely.

bemeruca:
Well, the fact that human beings don't see themselves as one is a thing. Today there is religious conflict, Gender conflict, political conflict etc.

I'd love if we could see ourselves as one but that's not how things are.

We can learn ben. You and I can learn to see each other as human beings and treat each other with regard and respect despite our differences.

Care to try from now on?

DeepSight:
+
You only answered for apartheid. Talk. E get why.

Is it your view that black people were better off in the states before the Civil Rights Movement?

You will hear me say black people were doing better in that era in terms of looking after their own, family values, two parent households etc. Aside from that they were in a struggle too.

2. Is it your view that the Civil Rights Act (and Voting Rights Act) were mistakes?

The reason Charlie said it was a mistake has nothing to do with the rights of black people. What he was saying is the civil rights act's goal of ending Jim Crow was legitimate and noble,

His argument is that; it overreach by giving government permanent authority over private businesses and employment. and that this spawned bureaucratic tools like the EEOC and disparate impact doctrine that drifted into reverse discrimination and speech suppression.

His position is that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was always the proper constitutional vehicle making the statute unnecessary and ultimately harmful to limited government and individual liberty. So his argument has nothing against black people.

3. Is it your view that black people are better off on account of slavery?

How can black people be better off on slavery?

Couple that with a Critical Thinking and Logic 101 and we might just have a mentally functional electorate who are not easily manipulated .

bemeruca:
You will hear me say black people were doing better in that era in terms of looking after their own, family values, two parent households etc. Aside from that they were in a struggle too.



The reason Charlie said it was a mistake has nothing to do with the rights of black people. What he was saying is the civil rights act's goal of ending Jim Crow was legitimate and noble,

His argument is that; it overreach by giving government permanent authority over private businesses and employment. and that this spawned bureaucratic tools like the EEOC and disparate impact doctrine that drifted into reverse discrimination and speech suppression.

His position is that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was always the proper constitutional vehicle making the statute unnecessary and ultimately harmful to limited government and individual liberty. So his argument has nothing against black people.



How can black people be better off on slavery?

+
Thank you for clarifying but pls see my detailed response to basilico on Kirk's statement on the Civil Rights Act.

DeepSight:
+
Now I have watched your video (edit: looks like you just added another one).

The simple fact is that if he was only against the way in which people have manipulated the Civil Rights Act towards other ends, he should have said so clearly. His subsequent attempts to explain away his initial remarks are not honest. The Civil Rights Act was a moral and legal necessity in the United States and along with the Voting Rights Act it came to correct more than a century of deprivation of rights based on race.

Affirmative Action, and the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion which he complains arose from the Civil Rights Act are not evils - and more importantly, did not in fact arise from the Act as he claimed - which I will show below. They are ideological frameworks set up to correct institutional exclusion and the marginalization which black people had suffered for ages. Without such frameworks, it is not possible to correct the institutional and economic harm done to a segment of the population for ages and which had become radically entrenched in many ways.

The same principle was deployed and still stands in South Africa after apartheid. And it makes sense. When you are moving from an apartheid system to an egalitarian system of true equality of rights, there is the necessity to correct entrenched inequalities and you can only do that by giving those who have been locked out of the system a real chance to be included - which is what undergirds the idea of saying, look, to correct the imbalance, we are now going to give priority to these people - just the same way we gave priority to white people for ages! What is not fair about that?

Do you know that for ages the American government for example, gave out virtually free expanses of land to white people? They did not do this for black people. Now that was a policy that created generations of wealthy white people - without any question of merit. At the same time it impoverished black people and shunt them to the margins of society putting them in the economic position whereby they would have to work in servitude.

If such privileges were given to generations of white people which account for the generational wealth white people have as against the generational poverty of black people - tell me, what is wrong with saying, okay, now that we are done with segregation and all that, lets give a real chance to the marginalized people by now prioritizing them?

This is the core of affirmative action and DEI and there is nothing wrong with it. In South Africa, after apartheid, it was introduced as BEE (Black Economic Empowerment) and laws were made establishing minimum quotas for black ownership of businesses and black employment, which still stand till today. For a person who talks about context it is sad that you miss the context here - no one woke up suddenly to grant the blacks these privileges from no where, the context was the deprivation and abominable discrimination they had already suffered and the only way to bring them to par on board would be to apply these privileges - which frankly are still nothing compared to the ages of discriminatory privilages granted to whites which elevated them economically in the first place.

It is important that you understand in this that segregation in the USA was nothing but apartheid as well. IN FACT, it is the very definition of apartheid BECAUSE apartheid means apartness.

I have written long so let me tie it up - If the complaint of Charlie Kirk was against affirmative action and DEI principles, then he should not have attacked the Civil Rights Act. Above, I have shown that there is in fact nothing wrong with both affirmative action and DEI in the context and circumstances, but let me take it a step further. Let me show you that he was even wrong in linking both to the Civil Rights Act -

I have argued this before and I reproduce it here.

Here goes:

As I said, the Civil Rights Act did not legislate Affirmative Action.

Title VII & Title VI prohibit employment discrimination and discrimination in federally funded programs - thus the Civil Rights Act is an anti-discrimination law. It states that employment decisions should not be made "because of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

This is exactly what it set out to do because of the overwhelming existing discrimination against Black people. I hope you understand that we are talking about a movement and a law that saved blacks from segregation, much systemic discrimination including housing discrimination and accompanied with the Voting Rights Act empowered blacks to vote by removing many of the systemic impediments blocking blacks from voting.

Note that:
Title VII includes a specific section (Section 703(j)) which states that employers are not required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group due to an imbalance in the number or percentage of protected groups in their workforce. This language was intended to prevent the act from being interpreted as a mandate for racial quotas.

Thus it is very very wrong to claim that the Civil Rights Act was problematic or "went too far" with respect to affirmative action.

Affirmative Action actually arose thereafter though executive orders and judicial pronouncements in the context of the succeeding period and the zeitgeist of the time which was directed towards restoring as much equality as possible.

Therefore it is clear that Charlie was VERY wrong in saying that the Civl Rights Act was a mistake. In fact, he was not schooled on the details of the Act as I have shown above.

Now finally, just to show you that there was something insidious about his opposition to the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, what was his problem with Martin Luther King? He made statements attacking such an icon - I cull -

"1. On the MLK Holiday: Kirk questioned the national celebration of Dr. King, stating, "I think we’ve made a huge mistake in the way we have idolized and deified Martin Luther King."

2. On King's Legacy: He referred to King as "not a good person" in various broadcasts, often citing King's personal life or his later-stage political views on economic redistribution as reasons to distance the conservative movement from his legacy."

What was the motivation behind these attacks on the person of Dr. King?

budaatum:
We can learn ben. You and I can learn to see each other as human beings and treat each other with regard and respect despite our differences.

Care to try from now on?

We can, some of us like me are aware but unfortunately, humans will always see themselves as different. I am being called a House neeg for saying I see white people as people not white. That is proving my point. I always complain about the US vs them mentality on this thread.

So you know what I mean. I am not saying brothers don't fight and all those things. But when two people who have never seen each other before, interacted before are fighting because of their identity, you know what I mean. This is why I said your siblings argument does not make sense.

DeepSight:
+
Thank you for clarifying but pls see my detailed response to basilico on Kirk's statement on the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, but Charlie Kirk issue about the civil rights act was against government overreach not black people.

You have called him a racist for that without understanding the argument he is making.

bemeruca:
Yeah, but Charlie Kirk issue about the civil rights act was against government overreach not black people.

You have called him a racist for that without understanding the argument he is making.

+
I have shown that his argument was wrong and if you read the post I made to basilico you will also see that there were underlying sentiments with the way he spoke of MLK.

The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with what he complains of: look at my post to basilico you will see that I cited the sections of the Act which specifically prohibit the things he complained about. So he didnt have a clue what he was arguing and its obvious he never read the Act.

And to add one more thing. Just as with Trump, when a person has made many raycist statements, its corroborative. You can excuse a few and rationalize them, but when there are many, it speaks to a bent.

DeepSight:
+
I have shown that his argument was wrong and if you read the post I made to basilico you will also see that there were underlying sentiments with the way he spoke of MLK.

The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with what he complains of: look at my post to basilico you will see that I cited the sections of the Act which specifically prohibit the things he complained about. So he didnt have a clue what he was arguing and its obvious he never read the Act.

And to add one more thing. Just as with Trump, when a person has made many raycist statements, its corroborative. You can excuse a few and rationalize them, but when there are many, it speaks to a bent.

Yeah, you can say it is wrong but don't say he is racist for that or what he was saying is racist

bemeruca:
Yeah, you can say it is wrong but don't say he is racist for that or what he was saying is racist

+
Remember what I said about many statements being corroborative. If those were the only things he said, people wouldnt shout racism. But he made MANY different statements, including reposting and supporting a raycist tweet that claimed Africans cannot plan ahead, and lack words for the future.

DeepSight:
+
Remember what I said about many statements being corroborative. If those were the only things he said, people wouldnt shout racism. But he made MANY different statements, including reposting and supporting a raycist tweet that claimed Africans cannot plan ahead, and lack words for the future.

As you learn the context of what he said you see none of it are racist. So you want to say he said this small thing here, there and so and so. Let's just conclude he is a racist because they are uncomfortable but legitimate topic or discussion to be heard.

This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

basilico:
So hours are the most important thing when it comes to flying.

I've flown several times in the jump seat of 72-80 seaters.You only get that opportunit with explicit permission from the Captain of the plane.

Hours (practice and experience) are the most important thing when it comes to flying
Basilico: I've sat in the jump seat(passenger seat) of a plane several times so I have experience flying planes.


I'm sad for what we call education nowadays.
People keep proving you have to be low IQ to be MAGA.

bemeruca:
As you learn the context of what he said you see none of it are racist. So you want to say he said this small thing here, there and so and so. Let's just conclude he is a racist because they are uncomfortable but legitimate topic or discussion to be heard.

This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

+
What is new? I gave you a whole list, you dismissed everything.
Oh, the one about the retweet. Yes, its a fact, let me find it.

IjeBos:
Hours (practice and experience) are the most important thing when it comes to flying
Basilico: I've sat in the jump seat(passenger seat) of a plane several times so I have experience flying planes.


I'm sad for what we call education nowadays.
People keep proving you have to be low IQ to be MAGA.

+
I found that post of his rather odd to say the least/.

bemeruca:
This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

DeepSight:
+
What is new? I gave you a whole list, you dismissed everything.
Oh, the one about the retweet. Yes, its a fact, let me find it.

+
Have a look here and go ahead and defend again.

Charlie Kirk reposted this tweet: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1958744916818796844

DeepSight:
+
Have a look here and go ahead and defend again.

Charlie Kirk reposted this tweet: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1958744916818796844

Guys watch this and tell me if deepsight is not crazy.
So Charlie Kirk is racist for posting this?

pic.twitter.com/2NZr4O47cH

— Nightmare Vision (@GodCloseMyEyes) August 21, 2025

I posted something similar how in our language in the various tribes of Africa, we don't have the word or concept for maintenance.

This one was explained by a black man who has lived in Nigeria, other African countries, and is currently in the US.

bemeruca:
Guys watch this and tell me if deepsight is not crazy.
So Charlie Kirk is racist for posting this?

+
Are you telling me you missed the message he was passing?

Anyway, its not surprising.

IjeBos:
Hours (practice and experience) are the most important thing when it comes to flying
Basilico: I've sat in the jump seat(passenger seat) of a plane several times so I have experience flying planes.


I'm sad for what we call education nowadays.
People keep proving you have to be low IQ to be MAGA.

In the cockpit it's only youthe Captain and the First officer , it's very interesting seeing how they go through the motions. .
Very professional no room for mistakes.

When an airline wants to bring in DEI quotas ,I would not use that airline.