Charlie Kirk Shot in the Neck in Utah (Update: Shooter Alt-right links)
- Thread starter lir2016
- Start date
Already been documented over several years of this forum
Trump most likely fucked both of them.
Trump will make America great again because he is genius, lol
Yes, Erika will carry on the tradition.
Right, you are all about being non-partisan.
You are, come on man! Haven't you ever played on a hockey team?
It's obvious they do not like the
but they don't lie about facts.PBD, Poole and others you watch are non-partisan?
Last edited:
Never said Poole, PDB were nonpartisan...They are clearly not.It's obvious they do not like the
PBD, Poole and others you watch are non-partisan?
The difference between me and you is that I admit it whereas you not so much with your choices.
Luke has potential though. I subscribed to his channel. His comment section is hard left though, holy.
Sean Fitzgerald The Actual Justice Warrior is the most balanced of the lot.
It's obvious they do not like the
How do you figure when I posted it's obvious they do like the
Plus, I do actually watch PBD, Poole and others. I will not subscribe to them but will skim through their podcasts as I do the good guys. I rarely watch an entire podcast, even by the good guys.
So you post vids that you don't even watch, lol...That's crazy disingenuous..How do you figure when I posted it's obvious they do like the
Plus, I do actually watch PBD, Poole and others. I will not subscribe to them but will skim through their podcasts as I do the good guys. I rarely watch an entire podcast, even by the good guys.
Every now and then Van Jones takes his head out of the sand...
I skim most; I don't have the time to sit through every word, do you?
Btw. here is one you will enjoy and your boy is far from balanced
Here is a tidbit for you: go to the 31:10 point and listen to your boy stating, "once we take over Canada, their oil will be ours."
Yes, very nice guy, you call balanced...
Amazing what my skimming of vids finds eh?
Last edited:
Charlie Kirk wanted people to "prove Me Wrong". Why is it liberals are afraid to ask that question?
Answer (1 of 180): Because Charlie Kirk wasn’t interested in an exchange of ideas or learning other perspectives. His paycheck depended on him declaring himself “proven right” no matter what by using deflection, straw man arguments, gish-galloping, talking points and other techniques used to try...
By doing his ‘prove me wrong’ schtick, Kirk wanted:
- You and other gullible schmos to think/assume that he was open-minded and courageous/honourable enough to to actually want an honest debate - that he would actually change his mind if confronted with facts, figures and arguments that contradicted his stated view. And then either:
- To then be able to gesture to the absence of people debating him and say ‘Look! They can’t! I must be right!’, or;
- If someone was stupid enough to engage him, to have, by the nature of the setup, pre-set the terms and grounds of the debate to massively favour his position, so that he could look as if he ‘won’, and then say: ‘we had an honest debate and I won!’. But since he was the one setting the question and assertion, he ensured it was up to his opponent (usually unprepared) to rebut it, while having all the time in the world beforehand to ensure that he himself was fully prepared. And if you think being able to look like you’re winning in that scenario is an achievement, then I have a massive treasure sitting here in Nigeria that I will release to you if only you’ll send me an advance fee.
Asking the question: ‘Vaccines work. Prove me wrong’ is a fucking stupid waste of time.
Asking the question: ‘Global warming exists and is caused by human behaviour. Prove me wrong’ is a fucking stupid waste of time.
Asking the question: ‘Universal healthcare is cheaper and provides better outcomes for the population. Prove me wrong’ is a fucking stupid waste of time.
And so on.
You have clearly never heard the expression: ‘Never mud wrestle with a pig. You will both end up filthy, but the pig will enjoy it. And it will be a fucking stupid waste of time’.
6K views
View 327 upvotes
View 2 shares
They weren’t.
They just understood what consumers of Kirk videos titled with clickbait headlines like “Charle Kirk DESTROYS college feminist!!!!” don’t.
That Charlie didn’t use that tagline because he was willing to have his mind changed.
Look, Charlie was not the worst of the right wing by any stretch of the imagination, and most of the viewpoints he held weren’t some outrageous over the top version of conservative ideals, most of what he talked about was pretty standard in conservative circles today, but some of the stuff that passes for standard talk in conservative circles today is pretty hardcore, and as with so many Conservative talking points these days have a pretty standoffish relationship with truth and reality.
He had a gift for presenting an image of “just a guy who wants to have open dialogue.” But while conservatives watch him and see “a nice young man just trying to calmly and rationally present his conservative values,” anyone who has a love for facts and evidence will pretty quickly understand why he was so frustrating to the kids he was picking on.
When Kirk was faced with people who actually did understand debate, understood how to properly counter rhetorical fallacy who understood how to prepare to counter rapid fire pseudo- facts and irrelevant interjections it quickly became apparent why he preferred setting up a table on random college campuses and picking on freshmen.
Btw, in case you were wondering, the Cambridge debate team who steamrolled Kirk on all his favorite topics earlier this year is right now showing how you behave when someone does something horrendous even to someone who’s views you disagreed with point by point.
Cambridge students who debated Charlie Kirk condemn his murder, 'We must never lose sight of our humanity'
Students who once debated Charlie Kirk at the University of Cambridge denounced his murder, stressing that political differences can never justify violence.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/worl...se-sight-of-our-humanity-101757916536402.html
They’re right.
But it wouldn’t hurt to take at least the spirit of what you thought Kirk was doing on those campuses and try some open dialogue with people who disagreed with him to understand why no, we don’t really think you can canonize him, and no, we don’t think he was a very nice guy, especially to some groups of people for whom life is hard enough without conservative rhetoric making it harder.
And no. Watching a guy for 10 years setting up a table with a “change my mind” sign on it never have his mind changed isn’t a sign that he was really great at arguing. It means he was never actually willing to change it.
www.quora.com
They just understood what consumers of Kirk videos titled with clickbait headlines like “Charle Kirk DESTROYS college feminist!!!!” don’t.
That Charlie didn’t use that tagline because he was willing to have his mind changed.
Look, Charlie was not the worst of the right wing by any stretch of the imagination, and most of the viewpoints he held weren’t some outrageous over the top version of conservative ideals, most of what he talked about was pretty standard in conservative circles today, but some of the stuff that passes for standard talk in conservative circles today is pretty hardcore, and as with so many Conservative talking points these days have a pretty standoffish relationship with truth and reality.
He had a gift for presenting an image of “just a guy who wants to have open dialogue.” But while conservatives watch him and see “a nice young man just trying to calmly and rationally present his conservative values,” anyone who has a love for facts and evidence will pretty quickly understand why he was so frustrating to the kids he was picking on.
When Kirk was faced with people who actually did understand debate, understood how to properly counter rhetorical fallacy who understood how to prepare to counter rapid fire pseudo- facts and irrelevant interjections it quickly became apparent why he preferred setting up a table on random college campuses and picking on freshmen.
Btw, in case you were wondering, the Cambridge debate team who steamrolled Kirk on all his favorite topics earlier this year is right now showing how you behave when someone does something horrendous even to someone who’s views you disagreed with point by point.
Cambridge students who debated Charlie Kirk condemn his murder, 'We must never lose sight of our humanity'
Students who once debated Charlie Kirk at the University of Cambridge denounced his murder, stressing that political differences can never justify violence.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/worl...se-sight-of-our-humanity-101757916536402.html
They’re right.
But it wouldn’t hurt to take at least the spirit of what you thought Kirk was doing on those campuses and try some open dialogue with people who disagreed with him to understand why no, we don’t really think you can canonize him, and no, we don’t think he was a very nice guy, especially to some groups of people for whom life is hard enough without conservative rhetoric making it harder.
And no. Watching a guy for 10 years setting up a table with a “change my mind” sign on it never have his mind changed isn’t a sign that he was really great at arguing. It means he was never actually willing to change it.
Charlie Kirk wanted people to "prove Me Wrong". Why is it liberals are afraid to ask that question?
Answer (1 of 180): Because Charlie Kirk wasn’t interested in an exchange of ideas or learning other perspectives. His paycheck depended on him declaring himself “proven right” no matter what by using deflection, straw man arguments, gish-galloping, talking points and other techniques used to try...
Last edited:
Charlie Kirk was a social media star. But the nice thing about being a social media star is that you get to choose what you put up on your platform.
Don’t get me wrong, Charlie Kirk was undoubted a skilled debater. But there were also times when he absolutely got his ass handed to him during “prove me wrong” sessions. When he visited the UK he got absolutely clobbered by the students at Cambridge University, and by the end he kept mumbling: “well, I’m sorry, I just don’t agree.” However, unsurprisingly, he chooses not to use video footage from those types of sessions extensively in his promotional material. He only tends to use material that makes him look good and which endorses his personal platform.
This creates the misleading impression amongst his social media followers that he was some kind of unassailable fount of wisdom which others had no real answer to. That simply wasn’t (and isn’t) true.
Don’t get me wrong, Charlie Kirk was undoubted a skilled debater. But there were also times when he absolutely got his ass handed to him during “prove me wrong” sessions. When he visited the UK he got absolutely clobbered by the students at Cambridge University, and by the end he kept mumbling: “well, I’m sorry, I just don’t agree.” However, unsurprisingly, he chooses not to use video footage from those types of sessions extensively in his promotional material. He only tends to use material that makes him look good and which endorses his personal platform.
This creates the misleading impression amongst his social media followers that he was some kind of unassailable fount of wisdom which others had no real answer to. That simply wasn’t (and isn’t) true.
