No, Im debating you. What Im also doing is taking what he said at face value, and not supplanting what he said with what I think he meant. No more "reading between the lines". You hold people to account for the things that they say, not what you think they might say behind closed doors. Especially when it comes to someone is as miss quoted as Kirk is/was.

For example, it was pretty funny seeing Stephen King claim that Kirk had said that "gays should be stoned", and then get noted to fuck because it wasnt true. But theres loads of people who do this all the time that never get noted, or when they do they ignore it in place of what the "feel". For context, Kirk was commenting on something said by Ms Rachel(a youtuber) that was cherry picking bible verses as some kind of "gotcha", using Leviticus 19(Love you neighbour as yourself), and Kirk said:

“Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours, 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’”.

This was then widely reported as Kirk advocating for the stoning of gays(if you read between the lines). You begin to see the problem? Media today, both social and main stream, is more interested in getting clicks than it is telling us the truth. And nothing generates clicks quicker than outrage.

I have no doubts the man was a fanny. And when he did talk, he often did the same thing. Saying things to get the reaction that give him a platform. Even his widow just the other day, when speaking after his murder, was performative as fuck. Like she too needs to always be driving engagement, rather than taking the time to actually honour the man she loved, she was rallying support for his message. Grief might make us do weird things, but ugh. Its exhausting listening to these people talk the way they do.