Got a naive question, I knew Charlie Kirk only from toiler paper usa memes.
Did he make fun of people with other opinions or were his opinions so extreme that others simply avoided coming to his debates?
From what Bernie said it seems like he held some sort of debates like this last one.
I’m completely out of the loop in terms of his history, so please forgive me
People like Charlie Kirk are capable of all of it.
He debated some people fairly. Rare for them to debate adults, but it’s easy to find them arguing with youth. Charlie wasn’t stupid and he could navigate through common topics with something approaching grace.
He also performatively debated, like when he was shot. He doesn’t listen to facts, he’s hoping to say punchy phrases for the cameras, he’s hoping someone makes an ass of themselves. It’s a product for his customers that harms society.
He also went to safe spaces like podcasts and got very loose with it: conspiracies, hatred, divisiveness, violent rhetoric. Nobody could challenge him there.
He also engaged in unapologetic racism, like recently blaming a black fire chief for kids drowning somewhere else. No debate, no engaging the public, literally just being evil.
I think when people say Charlie was basically good, they are talking about very specific parts about his life. I get TPUSA ads about Kirk destroying stupid trans kids. It was Charlie’s hatred that got the most play. I’m just trying to be objective about it.
Honestly, I pay only some attention to these rather marginal characters. I get Kirk and Steven Crowder and Fuentes and Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson mixed up sometimes. But at least in my head, I put them under this “debate me bro” category.
From what I’ve seen of their “debates”, they are run nothing like an actual debate should be, and the scam seems to be that if someone declines to “debate” them, the person would be seen in the minds of idiots that they “forfeited”. Because the debate-me bro’s debate-fu is so very strong. 🙄
If they do agree, it’s only elevating and platforming these marginal characters that feed on being “edgy”. And I really don’t think there is any winning of these “debates” because they are not done in good faith. Again, from the few times I’ve dipped into this kind of thing.
JFC, the least amount of awareness.
Got a naive question, I knew Charlie Kirk only from toiler paper usa memes. Did he make fun of people with other opinions or were his opinions so extreme that others simply avoided coming to his debates?
From what Bernie said it seems like he held some sort of debates like this last one.
I’m completely out of the loop in terms of his history, so please forgive me
People like Charlie Kirk are capable of all of it.
He debated some people fairly. Rare for them to debate adults, but it’s easy to find them arguing with youth. Charlie wasn’t stupid and he could navigate through common topics with something approaching grace.
He also performatively debated, like when he was shot. He doesn’t listen to facts, he’s hoping to say punchy phrases for the cameras, he’s hoping someone makes an ass of themselves. It’s a product for his customers that harms society.
He also went to safe spaces like podcasts and got very loose with it: conspiracies, hatred, divisiveness, violent rhetoric. Nobody could challenge him there.
He also engaged in unapologetic racism, like recently blaming a black fire chief for kids drowning somewhere else. No debate, no engaging the public, literally just being evil.
I think when people say Charlie was basically good, they are talking about very specific parts about his life. I get TPUSA ads about Kirk destroying stupid trans kids. It was Charlie’s hatred that got the most play. I’m just trying to be objective about it.
Honestly, I pay only some attention to these rather marginal characters. I get Kirk and Steven Crowder and Fuentes and Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson mixed up sometimes. But at least in my head, I put them under this “debate me bro” category.
From what I’ve seen of their “debates”, they are run nothing like an actual debate should be, and the scam seems to be that if someone declines to “debate” them, the person would be seen in the minds of idiots that they “forfeited”. Because the debate-me bro’s debate-fu is so very strong. 🙄
If they do agree, it’s only elevating and platforming these marginal characters that feed on being “edgy”. And I really don’t think there is any winning of these “debates” because they are not done in good faith. Again, from the few times I’ve dipped into this kind of thing.
Just look up some of his old videos, and find out for yourself. Don’t take our word for it. See for yourself what a horrible person he was.
Don’t worry about it, he’s dead.