Fu*%face Von Clownstick

A man was murdered for speaking his beliefs. Instead of condemning that, you chose to rant with self righteous indignation about the actions of people who were not Charlie.

You really have no footing to argue about the of morals of others


 
Charlie Kirk spread hate and intolerance against people that were not like him.

The republicans used his funeral as a time to campaign for their political party and repeatedly used the words "war' and "fight". Kirk was no saint.

Everyone knows Trump pulled the strings of his puppet heading the FCC and was behind Kimmel's show being cancelled, yet he bold face lies to the American public.

 
DSMc said:
speaking his beliefs
Click to expand...
Of course it was an awful act that has no place in the world, such a terrible thing for this guys kids and everyone who had to see it.

But, I think he was doing a little more than simply speaking his beliefs, it seems like he was very antagonistic as another commenter wrote "rage baiting." I don't love that term personally but I think it fits perfectly here.

I think it's wholly disingenuous to say this guy was just speaking his beliefs, Dave, he was looking for trouble every time he opened his mouth.
 
From Cory Nichols:

Kirk was known for making many controversial statements in his short life that made him useful to the kind of people who profit from fear and hate. Here's a sampling of the kinds of things he's said over the years:

On his opinion of Black people:

"If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'"

On Martin Luther King, Jr:

“MLK was awful... He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.”

On transgender people:

“I refuse to lie. I will not call a man a woman or a woman a man, like, I refuse to do that. And in fact, I reject the entire premise of transgenderism. I don't think it really exists. I think it’s a mental disease, and we’ve allowed it to all of a sudden become an identity... Transgenderism is a brain problem, not a body problem, and that’s how we should go about it.”

On feminism:

"...it is the leading feminist organizations in the country that are either silent or complicit in pushing this [transgender rights], because feminism was never about advancing female rights. Feminism was about hating men. What better way to hate men than to take young boys and chop off their parts?"

On Jewish people:

“Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them... It is true that some of the largest financiers of left-wing anti-white causes have been Jewish Americans..”

On immigration:

"America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that."

On what women should really want:

“The biggest thing is this: more younger women need to get married at a younger age and start having kids. The single woman issue is one of the biggest issues facing a civilization. We have more single women in their early 30s that are the most depressed, suicidal, anxious, and lonely in America’s history because there’s a biological clock that’s going off and they realize that they’re not going to be able to have kids, that they’re not as desirable in the dating market or in the dating pool, and so they start to lash out on the rest of society by voting Democrat."

On the importance of keeping Americans armed:

“Yes, people die from gun violence. It’s tragic. But that's the price of freedom. Unfortunately, it's worth it to keep the Second Amendment intact. I think it’s worth it. It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational."

I'm not going to tell anyone how they should feel about this man's death. If you feel sympathy for his family, have at it. If you think it's tragic that anyone should die from a bullet, then that's fine, too. But know this: he spent his life advocating for a country where people should feel unafraid to openly express their hate, and where other people can freely buy and carry guns to shoot at other people in schools, in churches, in their workplaces, or at public events.
And by this time tomorrow, the billionaires who gave him money to spread their hate to a new generation will find someone else to do their dirty work, just as if he had never existed.

No statues, no scholarships, no buildings erected in his name, just another fallen foot soldier in their war against progress who will be forgotten as soon as he’s no longer useful to his hate-filled masters.

Every death is a tragedy. Sometimes, a life is, too.
Click to expand...
 
Kirk's method, summed up:

While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.

The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.

Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.
Click to expand...
 
Tuebor said:
Kirk's method, summed up:
Click to expand...
From the last paragraph "Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But"

Always a but isn't there. Saying Charlie wasn't a true debater is like saying a boxer is a fighter because he is not an MMA
 
I don’t particularly mourn the guy - he said really terrible things - and he has called for violence against others. For instance, he condoned violence against Nancy Pelosi - a couple days after her husband was attacked viciously with a hammer, he says “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out.” That’s condoning political violence, celebrating that kind of behavior. Also, he railed against empathy. So I certainly don’t need to show him that emotion.

Still, I don’t condone the killing. I think it’s a shame the internet has become so devoid of real discourse that a blowhard like that got any traction. But he shouldn’t be killed for his words. It would be different if he said something like ‘We need to get someone over to Pelosi’s house and finish the job.’ That should wind you up in jail, I would think. Vigilante justice is a slippery slope.

What’s most dangerous about this was the videos I’ve seen of young white men saying ‘White Men Fight Back!’ And immediately we get death threats at all the historically black colleges, and two black men lynched… even though the shooter was just a white dood! And somehow it’s the fault of his trans roommate-maybe-lover? Give me a effin break. My dog ate my homework?

Now they wanna take my gun away. Even the NRA is on the side of trans folks with that one! Nancy Mace just said all trans people should be locked up in a mental institution with a straight jacket and an iron lock. A little on-the-nose as far as scapegoating, but we live in a pretty dumb time. Would you miss my idle treebuzz banter I wonder, or would you lock the key?

So now we see the kind of violence and hate this man inspired, and his legacy speaks for itself.
 
What' up with presenting well written, reasoned, calm non-inflammatory content? Tastes like I just ate salad, vegetables and a shot of of vitamins and medicine. Strange healthy mental feeling. My craving is for another hit of rage farming. Fight the craving..


Bondi's probably gonna crucify the videographer who bumped the escalator e-stop, that is if she is allowed to know about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom