Charlie Kirk Assassinated
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nope. Agema's post is here. It is describing Kirk. It is in response to Tstorm talking about Kirk. You can ask either of them if you like, whether they were referring to Kirk or Dreiko in their posts.
the more extreme online left... pays attention to patterns of incel behavior?
???
By saying incels are feminising other dudes running round in tac vests and get ups with lingerie under it and becoming gay Nazis to avoid having to be with women?
Sounds a bit weird and conspiratorial to me with little to no supporting evidence.
But hey the left aren't going to be fooled by sensationalist claims like:
The New York mass slave burial pit being found (This was one from the height of Tumblr)
Jussie Smollett attempting to be Lynched by Maga Goons
The Pee Tape
The Papers relating to that.
The Canadian Maga dude pulling off a girls Hijab
The KKK invading a college campus
Lynching ropes set up at a college Campus
The evil Covington Kids harassing poor innocent members of the public
MAGA burning down a Black community church
Trump was never shot it was all a hoax
The Russians hacked the election
Could be true, could be false. Hard to verify one way or another. It would explain some people's weird fixation on sissification erotica.
Now, now. Quoting Kirk's words is evil. You're supposed to mindlessly revere and lionize (a false, sanitized version of) him!
Oh... maybe the MLK Jr. comparison isn't as silly as I thought, then.
I'm not sure that a lot of these guys like Charlie Kirk have particularly cohesive, considered ideologies.
These aren't philosophers and deep thinkers, developing and building a coherent body of work. They're internet influencers. They're chasing short-lived memes, surfing on the trends of the day without any depth, and as long as they have the right sort of political vibe, that's enough. Just like TikTok and YouTube, someone comes up with an interesting line, and it becomes the fashion du jour which everyone cribs until it's worn out and they move to the next one. And let's face it, I doubt Charlie Kirk thought up most of those lines of attack.
Indeed, Kirk's whole schtick wasn't really any sort of interrogation of truth. He didn't have any profundity: it was just debating wankery - rhetoric, tricks and sophistry.
Even with all that, he's just another neo-Nazi/KKK scumbag who is just another tool made to be broken by bigger bitches and grifters. Killed by his own "ideology" and "memes".
The problem with how the Republicans want to debate is to do it with the intent to win, so they use unethical tactics, and do so against non-peers, vs sound out their arguments, lay out facts, and have the viewer/listener decide, and the problem with democrats is that if we did debates their way, no one would watch the debates. Somewhere in the middle, where it's not all vibes or boring policy that doesn't encourage people to have debates amongst themselves, and create more democracy.
Charles Kirk should debate Sam Seder, Destiny, and have a dialogue with college students. If I argued like a republican, it would be like me going up to someone who doesn't know the importance of 5 nanometer or below semiconductors to the world economy and geopolitics, but has opinions on it, and if I were a democrat, my arguments would use acronyms and words in a paper that few have read but has lots of citations from peers in the field but I would bore the ever fuck out of people, they stop listening, and I could get away with enacting policies that may warrant more scrutiny or debate.
Charles Kirk should debate Sam Seder, Destiny, and have a dialogue with college students. If I argued like a republican, it would be like me going up to someone who doesn't know the importance of 5 nanometer or below semiconductors to the world economy and geopolitics, but has opinions on it, and if I were a democrat, my arguments would use acronyms and words in a paper that few have read but has lots of citations from peers in the field but I would bore the ever fuck out of people, they stop listening, and I could get away with enacting policies that may warrant more scrutiny or debate.
ORLY??
Almost like they're adopting the approach of their opponents and suddenly playing by the same rules or something?
The people you think he should have debated are genuinely worse at argument than the average user in this forum. You can watch Sam Sedar and Destiny and actively recognize the lack of comprehension they have while talking. Which is not to say they are dumb or incapable of comprehending, but they turn their brains off and spout words without thought, ideas that they've already memorized. It's like singing along with a song, you say all the words without necessarily processing any of them in the moment. It's fine for performance, which makes sense as that is their career, they are performers, but seeing them talk to a person live without actually connecting into the conversation is incredibly frustrating.
You're sort of describing how the world's best chess players win games. They don't do it so much through brute force calculation as by comparing positions in the game they are playing against a vast repository of other positions from games they've memorised. This is actually how pretty much anyone does things better as their skills advance through experience.
So they debate like this because these points have been asked before. It doesn't need a new answer thought through any more than the wheel needs to be reinvented. In order to make these debaters think and engage more, it's their antagonists' responsibility to present them a sufficient challenge.
And underlying issue here is that most debate by these guys is bullshit. Most debaters - including Charlie Kirk - are not interested in interrogating reality. They are fanatics who believe they know the truth, and as such there is no greater understanding of the world to be found by talking. They are debating to win so they can post their victories on social media, and rhetoric, trickery, sophistry and bullshit is as good as knowledge and reasoning.
I'd recommend the Daily Wire's Backstage content. They'll spend much of the time agreeing with each other and making fun of you, but they pretty much always find disagreement with each other at some point that becomes a serious interrogation of reality. Excepting perhaps Matt Walsh, they aren't just repeating the same few things at each other, it's actual thoughtful debate when they disagree.
I'm not giving any of those pricks a penny by adding to their page views and ad revenue. And that's not partisan, because I refuse to waste my time listening to liberal-left internet blowhards run fake discussions either.
This is not an honest interrogation of reality. Put two right-wingers in a room to debate, half the possibilities aren't even up for debate. It's a curated environment of thought where even the differences are constrained such that no output can challenge the bigger movement. So too did the USSR allow debate, just so long as state-approved ideas always won.
In as much as you refuse to see it, I can only insist that I am right and you are assuming falsehoods.