Support NeoGAF

[calico]

The difference is context

The main difference is that Antifa's definition of the 'fascism' they are opposed to is now so broad that it includes everyone who isn't fully aligned with them, ie. everyone who isn't far left.

The WW2 generation which fought against and defeated the Nazis had racial segregation, controlled immigration, put Japanese-Americans in camps, turned away the MS St. Louis, discharged homosexuals from the military and probably would have beaten someone to death in the street if they burned an American flag. There is a 100% chance Antifa would consider such people fascists. Clearly at the time Americans did not consider themselves fascists, and so it must be something beyond these things which they considered set the (actual) fascists apart from themselves.

If the definition is now so broad as to include both the Nazis and the Americans who defeated them, then what is even the point of the term? It has been rendered meaningless. 'MAGA' would have to move a mile to the 'right' on almost everything before it even reached the people who fought the fascists, let alone the actual fascists.

 

[Hot5pur]

It is only being used to media being so dominated by one side of American politics which makes most of those seem unusually divisive. Many Americans hold the view that abortion is murder, and/or the view that keeping 2A is worth the cost for instance, it is just that mainstream media will almost always present these as being the 'wrong' opinion.

I think we have to qualify statements like "many Americans". Is it 1%, 5%? It seems the best stats I could find say that only 10% believe it's morally wrong in all cases, which is what I would consider equivalent to "murder". So a small minority, and even then, I'm not sure that 10% would characterize it as murder.
But Kirk didn't just stop at murder, he likened it to the Holocaust - that is a far more inflammatory and sinister way to frame something. Again, he wasn't looking for nuance, he was looking to stir the base, trigger reactions, and promote his brand. I would also say that Fox News is as mainstream media as it gets and it certainly doesn't mark this (anti-abortion) as the "wrong opinion".

Do you think we live in a perfect society where we can have armed citizenry and not have a single gun death?

See now that's a very sensible way to frame an argument. If we want to have guns for protection against the government or otherwise, that comes with certain costs, and we need to evaluate tradeoffs and address problems.
That's not the nuanced perspective Kirk was taking. In the aftermath of a mass shooting, possibly the most fraught time, he flat out just said that we should just accept mass shootings, where in reality a big part of the reason for their occurrence is extremely lax gun laws and powerful lobby groups.
Charlie would be the kind of guy to parrot talking points about how it's a mental health or radicalization issue, but at the end of the day, it's far too easy for weapons capable of doing extreme amount of damage very quickly to end up in the wrong hands.

The audience Kirk was able to attract were probably some of the most vulnerable folks in the US. Just like Nick Fuentes can get a cult following from disenfranchised men, Charlie was just the next step up, using religious dogma and inflammatory language to take advantage of people's fears and propensity for tribalism.
Religion in particular is a powerful tool to keep people in line, it's administered to folks at an early age, when their parent's love for them is contingent in adopting religious views, which is why breaking away from religious dogma and trying to think critically about such topics triggers a survival response.
The irony is that Dems/Reps don't see themselves as falling prey to groupthink and belonging to some cult. In both the Floyd and Kirk cases, their respective "sides" lionized them despite them being overall reprehensible people, while the other sides making light or even celebrating the event, rather than having a common sense discussion about the actual problems, and trying to bring down the temperature.

 

[PlayofSparta]

Yeah, movies like Valkyrie romanticize those men and carefully sidestep the elephant in the room.

Claus von Stauffenberg and Henning von Tresckow were military monarchists supporters. They knew of the shoah like everyone did but the plot was to avoid complete german destruction. So they wanted peace with the West. But they knew revenge was coming for all germans by the Soviet Union. There were former nazis in the plot, but in the case of these two, no.

 

[calico]

I think we have to qualify statements like "many Americans". Is it 1%, 5%? It seems the best stats I could find say that only 10% believe it's morally wrong in all cases, which is what I would consider equivalent to "murder". So a small minority, and even then, I'm not sure that 10% would characterize it as murder.

A yougov poll from 2022 has it at 29% strongly agree and 15% somewhat agree that abortion is the same as murdering a child.

This cannot be conflated with 'morally wrong in all cases', which is a different standard.

But Kirk didn't just stop at murder, he likened it to the Holocaust

If someone takes the view that abortion is murder, then it is not too surprising they will see millions of murders as comparable to a holocaust.

If we want to have guns for protection against the government or otherwise, that comes with certain costs, and we need to evaluate tradeoffs and address problems.
That's not the nuanced perspective Kirk was taking.

It is the exact position he was taking. The quote you replied to and described as "a very sensible way to frame an argument" was paraphrasing what Charlie said.

 

[Hot5pur]

A yougov poll from 2022 has it at 29% strongly agree and 15% somewhat agree that abortion is the same as murdering a child.

This cannot be conflated with 'morally wrong in all cases', which is a different standard.


If someone takes the view that abortion is murder, then it is not too surprising they will see millions of murders as comparable to a holocaust.


It is the exact position he was taking. The quote you replied to and described as "a very sensible way to frame an argument" was paraphrasing what Charlie said.

I managed to find that Yougov poll, though from 2022, but I can't imagine views have shifted. That was quite a surprise how many people view abortion that way, although maybe not that surprising given how much of it is underpinned by religion.
My other comments is not about that there isn't a point behind gun ownership, or that there are aspects of abortion that could be morally questionable, it was about how this guy was effectively a troll looking to cause the maximum amount of controversy.
I don't know why people are so adamant about defending him, but I suppose when one thinks they belong to a "side" that is the natural inclination.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I managed to find that Yougov poll, though from 2022, but I can't imagine views have shifted. That was quite a surprise how many people view abortion that way, although maybe not that surprising given how much of it is underpinned by religion.
My other comments is not about that there isn't a point behind gun ownership, or that there are aspects of abortion that could be morally questionable, it was about how this guy was effectively a troll looking to cause the maximum amount of controversy.
I don't know why people are so adamant about defending him, but I suppose when one thinks they belong to a "side" that is the natural inclination.

I don't give a shit about Charlie Kirk. I never heard of him before this. I give a fuck about the thousands of absolute lunatics that think political assasination is ok, and what they are going to do next.

 

[rm082e]

Do you think we live in a perfect society where we can have armed citizenry and not have a single gun death?

I'm not Hot5pur - I'm not trying to speak for him.

But I'd like to ask where did this strawman line get started?

I never watched CK's stuff prior to his death. But the day it happened, I watched the video of him talking in that on-stage interview where he said this. It was so obviously a disingenuous line that I cringed when he said it. I'm not a leftie, I'm a centrist. But I've never heard a single leftie say anything like this. Why are right wingers acting like this is the gotcha for people who want more gun control?

Lefties, to one degree or another along a continuum, are saying they don't think the number of murders, suicides, accidents, injuries, and the overall threat of mass shootings are worth it to have the second amendment. If you actually listen to what they're saying, that's what they're saying. Some of them want to keep the 2A and have more restrictions in place. Those farther down the continuum are saying they're willing to give up the 2A entirely and want as many guns eliminated as possible. But I haven't heard a single one of them suggest that we can live in an armed society with the 2A unchanged, and not have any murders, accidents, injuries, or mass shootings.

If someone (not just you crazepharmacist ) supports the 2A, accepts all the deaths and random violence, and doesn't want any more gun laws on the books, they should follow Charlie's example and just own the cost of the 2A right. Painting everyone who doesn't think it's worth it as naive or crazy is a form of weakness. This is one of the things I respect about Charlie in retrospect is he was willing to take responsibility for the weight of his convictions.

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

they should follow Charlie's example and just own the cost of the 2A right.

CK was not killed by a gun, but by a deranged leftist lunatic that would have killed him one way or the other. He did not own that cost. A fractured society does.

The antigun position is dishonest because they put the blame for criminality where it doesn't belong. Whenever a madman shoots at people we should be wondering why that person went unchecked all this time and what led him to that. That's crime prevention. Antigun measures are not.

 

[jason10mm]

Whatever happened to the roommate? I heard she recently "disappeared l" as if she fled or something?

Have you checked your roomies bedroom, he might be hiding under the bed....

 

[laynelane]

1. Charlie Kirk represented free speech and respectful debate between opposing sides. He was killed for it and many celebrated it. Which is why it's a big deal for Americans, especially for the right.
2. I think people can hold more than two thoughts at one time. For example, I can care about Charlie Kirk and also care about my family and about the future of my country.

Your point in #1 about the reactions to the murder is the main reason why this has been ongoing, imo. People celebrating, asking who's next, 'joking' about it, etc. and the resulting suspensions, terminations, apologies, etc. It's not uncommon for a small number of people to be happy about the death of a person they don't like or disagree with - there's always assholes, basically. But this wasn't a small number of people and it was people in positions of trust (teachers, doctors, etc.), business people, actors, etc. That many of them are actually facing consequences is also a bit of a change from the norm too so that's also newsworthy.

Another reason is that the video of the murder has been widely distributed. It's one thing to read the details of a horrific murder and quite another to see it for oneself. It's creates a big emotional reaction and, therefore, a bigger reaction overall.

 

[Kiwicha]

This is a 146 thread, because is the only "political" thread in this forum. Add the way the assassination happpened and the reaction to it from some lunatics and it is easy to understand why we are still talking about it.
I'm going back to the sweet embrace of the Sidney Sweeney thread

 

[FalconPunch]

Sure. Right up there with the desire to visit North Korea.

Well you do you. I've been, it's absolutely not like the media says at all. You wouldn't know that though…. but keep watching the news as they continue to force feed you narratives.

Next time you turn on the news, ask yourself the following question:

1) What actually happened?
2) What is the presenter trying to suggest? There are the facts and the opinion surrounding the facts.
3) Who benefits from the news being slanted in this particular way?

There are 6 companies that own almost all the media in the states and each of them have their own agenda to push.

 

[FalconPunch]

So this is why your upset that people are spending 145 peaches talk about Charlie Kirk?

Taking examples from a thread and extrapolating
that out of all of society and then making sweeping grand claims about what it all means seems to be highly suspect in my view.

I'm assuming from your post, you are from Canada? You say we're your neighbors.

I've done nothing of the sort. Unlike the vast majority of people in this thread, i like to confirm things with my own eyes and form independent opinions. I've have visited more states in the US than most Americans and i'm not even American. I'll be passing through again in a couple of days.

Everything I've said can be fact checked easily. I'm not going to do that on your behalf.

This is not directed at you but, if more people spent time actually doing their due diligence and going to confirm claims with their own eyes, we'd all be better for it. Too many people are far too intellectually lazy and simple slop up whatever slogans, news stories, etc that they're fed. Its why the country is in this pickle in the first place.

 

[daffyduck]

Well you do you. I've been, it's absolutely not like the media says at all. You wouldn't know that though…. but keep watching the news as they continue to force feed narratives down your throats lol.

You do understand you're sounding like the 50 cent party?

 

[calico]

I never watched CK's stuff prior to his death. But the day it happened, I watched the video of him talking in that on-stage interview where he said this. It was so obviously a disingenuous line that I cringed when he said it. I'm not a leftie, I'm a centrist. But I've never heard a single leftie say anything like this. Why are right wingers acting like this is the gotcha for people who want more gun control?

His point was the right shouldn't try and defend the second amendment by presenting an unrealistic view where there can be an armed citizenry and no gun deaths. He is acknowledging that with an armed citizenry there will inevitably be some gun deaths (though he suggests these could be reduced), but that he considers the benefits worth the risks, and that this is the basis on which the right should defend it.

I don't think the right considers it any kind of gotcha, only that it is not a fair representation of what he actually said to suggest he was saying he didn't care about gun deaths.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Erika Kirk is on the podcast right now.

 

[Kiwicha]

Erika Kirk is on the podcast right now.

I'm sure she is faking her suffering and using it for financial gain.
As sure as my pronouns are they/them.

 

[FalconPunch]

You do understand you're sounding like the 50 cent party?

Except I'm not Chinese and have no interest in being Chinese. All I'm telling you is to go and do your due diligence and check for yourself.

 

[Icymanipulator]

[

I've done nothing of the sort. Unlike the vast majority of people in this thread, i like to confirm things with my own eyes and form independent opinions. I've have visited more states in the US than most Americans and i'm not even American. I'll be passing through again in a couple of days.

Everything I've said can be fact checked easily. I'm not going to do that on your behalf.

This is not directed at you but, if more people spent time actually doing their due diligence and going to confirm claims with their own eyes, we'd all be better for it. Too many people are far too intellectually lazy and simple slop up whatever slogans, news stories, etc that they're fed. Its why the country is in this pickle in the first place.

You made grand sweeping statements about society based on the posts in this thread.

 

[Icymanipulator]

Interesting perspective. In my opinion he was more of a provocative figure with a religious agenda and made a career out of inflammatory rhetoric, almost Milo level (if you remember that guy).

Kirk had some choice quotes about:
- downgrading MLK and the civil rights movement
- making a joke about how gays can't be thrown off buildings in Ghaza anymore because their buildings are destroyed
- Being anxious about black airplane pilots because of DEI
- saying feminism was a mistake and women's jobs is to take care of the family and be home makers
- calling George Floyd a scumbag in the immediate aftermath of his death
- saying abortion is comparable or worse than the holocaust
- saying 2nd amendment was worth it despite all the mass shootings

And many, many more. Now it's possible a lot of these seem mild to some folks. To me it seems this guy was set on taking society back into the dark ages. But I think more he realized he could make a career by being a shit disturber rather than doing something valuable with his life. One less divisive inflammatory online persona I guess, but I'm sure someone will fill that role soon enough.

I'm at work but I'm quoting this so I can get back to it later. Nearly everything you list has context to it and the way you're presenting it is disingenuous. This is little different than the way the insane left has been clipping videos or not showing context and then screaming that he's racist or a "Nazi" when nothing could be further from the truth. Dozens of videos prove otherwise.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I'm at work but I'm quoting this so I can get back to it later. Nearly everything you list has context to it and the way you're presenting it is disingenuous. This is little different than the way the insane left has been clipping videos or not showing context and then screaming that he's racist or a "Nazi" when nothing could be further from the truth. Dozens of videos prove otherwise.

Fast media consumption through edited videos is a problem for sure. It's upsetting to see the bad faith takes finding traction, when we know exactly the context of a lot of the criticisms. Did he say some questionable stuff? Probably? But who hasn't? That's what is so annoying about the whole post-death debate on Kirk as a moral person. He was clearly someone who tried to be good and faithful, but some people just want to feel OK with the assassination, so they have the slander the poor guy.

 

[TDiddyLive]

I've done nothing of the sort. Unlike the vast majority of people in this thread, i like to confirm things with my own eyes and form independent opinions. I've have visited more states in the US than most Americans and i'm not even American. I'll be passing through again in a couple of days.

Just a point about your comment here, not the rest of the discussion you're having.

First, it's a little presumptuous to assume the vast majority aren't forming their own opinions and doing their own research to confirm things.

Second, it looks like you're trying to create a voice of authority for yourself with your example. Visiting and traveling through places gives you an experience, but in no way makes you familiar with a location. For example, I went to a NASCAR race in Talladega last year then drove 3 hours to Tennessee. In no way did that teach me what life is like for people that live in Alabama.

 

[Hot5pur]

I'm at work but I'm quoting this so I can get back to it later. Nearly everything you list has context to it and the way you're presenting it is disingenuous. This is little different than the way the insane left has been clipping videos or not showing context and then screaming that he's racist or a "Nazi" when nothing could be further from the truth. Dozens of videos prove otherwise.

That's interesting, because I've watched videos or listened to podcasts where he said those things with full context, and I chose the ones where it was very clear what he meant. By all means it would be interesting to see your interpretation in his defense.

 

[Unknown?]

No offense but why is there a 145 page thread about this? Yea Charlie for sure didn't deserve to die for sharing his opinions but he's just a random dude. To tell you how messed up the usa is, people are fighting each over a random social media influencer? Why is the government giving special treatment to this case over similar cases? Blaming video games, triggering culture wars? Why is the president triggering culture wars and writing on social media about this shit? His job is to unify. That's the job of a president. I mean one has to be a complete idiot to ignore the cultural pendulum swings that are creating a more turbulent discourse with each government.

Even in this thread, people are fighting themselves over a random social media influencer? Literally ripping the country apart at the seams in a stupid tit for tat culture war? All while this is going on, the US dollar continues to lose value, bills have been passed triggering the biggest mismanagement of federal funds I've seen from a so called G8 country. As someone who spent some time in a 3rd world country, these are the same patterns of corruption I saw over there. People arguing over useless shit. Liberals this, Republicans that.... blah, blah, blah. Very soon, Americans will come to know poverty if this continues. There's only one big loser here as this nonsense continues and it's American citizens. The speed at which the world is rushing to reorganize itself is breakneck. If the US loses reserve currency status, it's entirely fucked for a myriad of reasons. And right now, the biggest winner is looking to be China. If any of you ever have the opportunity, go to China and you'll very clearly see first hand how the states is already being gapped in many categories.

China isn't doing any better, they use the same debt based monetary system that will collapse just as the dollar.

Many countries have been utterly decimated(from war or hyperinflation) but built back extremely quickly. We are screwed if we lose reserve currency status but only if we keep using shitty currency. The fiat experiment failed and it's time to go back to sound money.

 

[Trilobit]

I'm going back to the sweet embrace of the Sidney Sweeney thread

I'm going to ask EviLore to ban you from the Sydney thread.

 

[kimcorecoba]

Wow so convincing. Do you have anything to back to that up lol.

I think that is what debatable means, since even you cannot do as you have asked of them. Its all based on perspective and opinions.

 

[StueyDuck]

I think that is what debatable means, since even you cannot do as you have asked of them. Its all based on perspective and opinions.

If we live in a world where bad opinion or wrong opinion makes you a bad person, and people are "debating it",.

then we truly are fucked...

I thought it was common knowledge amongst level-headed people that actions define you, not opinions.

 

[Banjo64]

In cases like this where the evidence is cast iron I think there's a legitimate case to perform a publicly broadcast Blood Eagle on the guilty party.

 

[Moneal]

That's interesting, because I've watched videos or listened to podcasts where he said those things with full context, and I chose the ones where it was very clear what he meant. By all means it would be interesting to see your interpretation in his defense.

Well the MLK and Civil Rights one has already been talked about in this very thread. He was speaking about MLK in terms of adultery. The Civil Rights movement part was about the current use of the movement and how it is used as an anti-white movement. The 2A quote has also been done to death in this thread. He was comparing it to many other things that have negative outcomes and how our society has accepted that those negative outcomes, and how gun deaths are no different. I don't know why the abortion one is on the list. There are more than 1 million abortions a year in the US alone. That is something akin to the Holocaust.

 

[Stitch]

 

[Barakov]

I don't give a shit about Charlie Kirk. I never heard of him before this. I give a fuck about the thousands of absolute lunatics that think political assasination is ok, and what they are going to do next.

Yup. All those people cheering his death means that they would cheer the death of anybody who doesn't agree with them. Once you cross that threshold it's nearly impossible to go back.

 

[crazepharmacist]

I think we have to qualify statements like "many Americans". Is it 1%, 5%? It seems the best stats I could find say that only 10% believe it's morally wrong in all cases, which is what I would consider equivalent to "murder". So a small minority, and even then, I'm not sure that 10% would characterize it as murder.
But Kirk didn't just stop at murder, he likened it to the Holocaust - that is a far more inflammatory and sinister way to frame something. Again, he wasn't looking for nuance, he was looking to stir the base, trigger reactions, and promote his brand. I would also say that Fox News is as mainstream media as it gets and it certainly doesn't mark this (anti-abortion) as the "wrong opinion".


See now that's a very sensible way to frame an argument. If we want to have guns for protection against the government or otherwise, that comes with certain costs, and we need to evaluate tradeoffs and address problems.
That's not the nuanced perspective Kirk was taking. In the aftermath of a mass shooting, possibly the most fraught time, he flat out just said that we should just accept mass shootings, where in reality a big part of the reason for their occurrence is extremely lax gun laws and powerful lobby groups.
Charlie would be the kind of guy to parrot talking points about how it's a mental health or radicalization issue, but at the end of the day, it's far too easy for weapons capable of doing extreme amount of damage very quickly to end up in the wrong hands.

The audience Kirk was able to attract were probably some of the most vulnerable folks in the US. Just like Nick Fuentes can get a cult following from disenfranchised men, Charlie was just the next step up, using religious dogma and inflammatory language to take advantage of people's fears and propensity for tribalism.
Religion in particular is a powerful tool to keep people in line, it's administered to folks at an early age, when their parent's love for them is contingent in adopting religious views, which is why breaking away from religious dogma and trying to think critically about such topics triggers a survival response.
The irony is that Dems/Reps don't see themselves as falling prey to groupthink and belonging to some cult. In both the Floyd and Kirk cases, their respective "sides" lionized them despite them being overall reprehensible people, while the other sides making light or even celebrating the event, rather than having a common sense discussion about the actual problems, and trying to bring down the temperature.

It actually is the nuanced argument he was trying to take. You just took his quote out of context. Just like every other liberal who celebrated his death.

 

[Woggleman]

I have watched many of his videos and while we would not have seen eye to eye on some things he never struck me as a malicious or hateful person.

He had his views and the idea that he deserved to lose his life over them. Is just disgusting and repulsive to me.

Much of the modern left on the other hand is full of hate and malice. You can almost see it dripping off of them toward anybody who does not march in lockstep with their views and that doesn't win anybody over.

 

[Halo is Back]

This is a 146 thread, because is the only "political" thread in this forum. Add the way the assassination happpened and the reaction to it from some lunatics and it is easy to understand why we are still talking about it.
I'm going back to the sweet embrace of the Sidney Sweeney thread

 

[taizuke]

Has anyone pointed out the 1998 movie Snake Eyes starring Nicholas Cage and how it has too many similarities with the death of Charlie Kirk? Like the death of a politician named Charles Kirkland, being shot in the neck, and all this during a boxing match with one of the fighters named Tyler The Executioner. Also, the boxing match appears to take place on September 10.

Just search on youtube for the movie and you'll find plenty of people talking about it and pointing out other parallels as well.

 

[mclaren777]

I will probably regret wading into this mess, but I wanted to share an excellent podcast with you all. Two different friends recommended it to me and listening to it was like a much-needed hug.

Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Website

 

[Icymanipulator]

That's interesting, because I've watched videos or listened to podcasts where he said those things with full context, and I chose the ones where it was very clear what he meant. By all means it would be interesting to see your interpretation in his defense.

Hmm I've watched hours of his videos at this point, and this is what I've seen .

Charlie wasn't racist


On the civil rights comments


Goes over multiple lies and misconceptions




There's way more I could post. Can you link me some that show other wise?

 

[MayauMiao]

They probably thought ICE Cube is going after the illegals.

 

[Madonis]

Hmm I've watched hours of his videos at this point, and this is what I've seen .

Charlie wasn't racist


On the civil rights comments


Goes over multiple lies and misconceptions




There's way more I could post. Can you link me some that show other wise?

I've seen a couple of the videos you posted. I don't buy them. They're all about whitewashing his words and coming up with endless excuses. If it was only one or two things, in isolation, then you could have a point. Yet when you need to excuse a dozen or more controversial statements, then something smells rotten.

To put this in perspective...it's like pretending that making literacy tests obligatory for voters under Jim Crow wasn't racist at all. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of non-racist justifications for why it would be beneficial to make sure that "all" voters can read and write...but those excuses would be highly misleading when you look at how those tests were actually used (and why, coincidentally, most white people usually didn't have to take them).

Clearly, anyone can come up with some sort of reasoning for why MLK is overrated and why the civil rights act was a "huge mistake" when debating the topic in a totally abstract manner...yet the reality is that such criticisms, in practice, wouldn't be without consequences for black people back in the day. If the folks who were opposing MLK and the civil rights movement had won those battles, things worse than "DEI" would have been allowed to continue. Like those ridiculous "literacy" tests and supposedly "separate but equal" accommodations.

The man was entitled to his opinions, good or bad. People are also entitled to disagree with him about those topics and on other matters.

Not even the worst possible interpretation justifies what happened to him. Yet his violent, tragic death doesn't immediately sand off all of his edges either.

 

[Unfortunatecookie]

People will do that , make fools of themselves, people will probably also find themselves unemployed afterwards.

If people want to show their ass in America they got every right to, but freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences and if you act like a clown you will be treated like one.

Yep.

It's a terrible indicator of your ethics when your first reaction to a death -- of a non-violent, non-criminal person -- is to make fun of it.

 

[kimcorecoba]

If we live in a world where bad opinion or wrong opinion makes you a bad person, and people are "debating it",.

then we truly are fucked...

I thought it was common knowledge amongst level-headed people that actions define you, not opinions.

Ermm, slow down. I think you read my post wrongly, not surprising in this thread, lots if hot headedness, nobody is listening to others except themselves.

The first person made an earlier comment that charlie kirk was a good man, the other person states, infact, that claim is debatable, aka an opinion. The first asks if he has evidence of the fact that it was debatable. I was correcting the first gentleman that a "debatable" claim is same as being an opinion just like his claim that Charlie Kirk was a good man. He cannot prove it, but it is their opinion which is fine too.

Why request evidence of an opinion when you your cannot provide "evidence" for your opinions. Thats what I was drawing the person's attention to. I'm not here to indulge in the political hypocrisy on both sides.

 

[violence]

They probably thought ICE Cube is going after the illegals.

He did refuse the vaccine.

 

[cormack12]

I keep coming back to catch up in this thread. It has a really good flow and exchange of ideas. I'd only add a couple of things, not directed at anyone but more just musings I've had while reading the last couple of pages.

Kirk had been doing this for what 12 years? Most of the 'debates' I've seen are usually around 4 main topics - gun control, abortion, black crime and the civil rights movement (sometimes as an adjunct to black crime). Right, so in more than a decade he is going to have heard the vast, vast majority of these queries and gotcha's, and from an increasingly belligerent and rude subset of students etc. It is true to say at times he was more curt and left out the nuance of his complete argument, depending on who was in front of him, if they appeared to be there in good faith and how they were acting. But it's also understandable

I've seen a couple of the videos you posted. I don't buy them. They're all about whitewashing his words and coming up with endless excuses. If it was only one or two things, in isolation, then you could have a point. Yet when you need to excuse a dozen or more controversial statements, then something smells rotten.

Not even the worst possible interpretation justifies what happened to him. Yet his violent, tragic death doesn't immediately sand off all of his edges either.

He has said in debates that Jim Crow was clearly racist (both lawfully and as an era). Unfortunately these are usually just side points in larger youtube videos.

I would concede he has also headlined his view on MLK and the CRM with 'clickbait' style sentences. My opinion is that - from what I've seen - these are not 'arguments' that can win the other side over. You're not going to change his mind on abortion, and he probably won't change those students ideas on abortion. The point is simply to exchange their alignment and where possible find a middle ground. Sure, his statements may have been pithy and reductive in their nuance, but if you notice, in most cases that is what hooks the other person. What do you mean CRM was a bad thing? Then it opens up the exchange into more nuance. And it is no different to snipping some of these students and then saying 'Whoa! You think black rapists should get off free because they grew up in the projects?'

For example, his view on CRM is not to discredit the goals (which are aligned with Christianity) but to weigh up the downstream and longstanding effects in hindsight. Then to lean on further arguments like how that affects or impugns on constitutional rights.

For me, I think its an acid test to see how well equipped people are to debate, or if they are interpreting things in good faith. I had no idea who this guy was, and as a result I've now seen loads of older (and more recent videos) and not once have I thought he has left his position open to being misrepresented as it has been.

Note, I'm not an American, nor do I particularly have an alignment on red or blue. I do enjoy schadenfreude though and stupid people getting put in their place by logic and reasoning.

 

[ADiTAR]

Bill is always on point.

 

[StueyDuck]

Ermm, slow down. I think you read my post wrongly, not surprising in this thread, lots if hot headedness, nobody is listening to others except themselves.

The first person made an earlier comment that charlie kirk was a good man, the other person states, infact, that claim is debatable, aka an opinion. The first asks if he has evidence of the fact that it was debatable. I was correcting the first gentleman that a "debatable" claim is same as being an opinion just like his claim that Charlie Kirk was a good man. He cannot prove it, but it is their opinion which is fine too.

Why request evidence of an opinion when you your cannot provide "evidence" for your opinions. Thats what I was drawing the person's attention to. I'm not here to indulge in the political hypocrisy on both sides.

But there is evidence that he was a good man, he was a loving husband and father, he also treated those around him with respect, thats not really an opinion...

Thats the problem, people think words make you good and bad and not your actions?

Being good and bad isnt subjective... or would you say everyones favorite bad guy Hitler was debatably good and its peoples opinions and nothing tangible with no evidence?

 

[Clear]

Bill is always on point.

Good monologue, but I think he's missing the fact that the Covid response set the bar for permissible levels of autocracy, and was co-signed by, and enabled via big tech and the media.

You can't un-ring that bell, and there will be consequences in terms of public trust.

 

[ADiTAR]

Good monologue, but I think he's missing the fact that the Covid response set the bar for permissible levels of autocracy, and was co-signed by, and enabled via big tech and the media.

You can't un-ring that bell, and there will be consequences in terms of public trust.

He talked about that too in other places.

 

[Clear]

He talked about that too in other places.

Not saying he hasn't, just that in the context of "let's make a deal", it only works if there's trust. And I think that until a large enough portion of the centre-right believes the left has reformed such that it reflects their beliefs and concerns, things will continue to move in the direction they have been doing.

Just disavowing the fringe elements is no longer enough. There needs to be substantive change in policy and blunt admissions of past mistakes.

Because until that happens, trust will never be restored.

 

[CGNoire]

Bill is always on point.

One of his Best.

 

[poppabk]

Good monologue, but I think he's missing the fact that the Covid response set the bar for permissible levels of autocracy, and was co-signed by, and enabled via big tech and the media.

You can't un-ring that bell, and there will be consequences in terms of public trust.

I don't think Trump was acting like an autocrat, in fact his handling of Covid was probably his biggest success. Vaccines developed in record time and distributed rapidly and successfully.