ChaoticMusings

Plenty of videos to be watched on social media denying him being a racist…created and spoken by people of colour.

Syl wrote:

---

Fluffy wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Syl wrote:

---

I had never heard of him a week ago. Since then, I have watched a lot of his vids online, he could be patronising, rude, deliberately provoking, and in the two clips above, downright nasty and aggressive.
I suppose people see and hear what they want to.

---

 Imagine if there 10,000 hours of you talking on video. 

 

I bet I could say the same about you..

 

I know they could say the same about me..

---

 Without doubt, they could say the same about you, me anyone, but we are not advocating our lifestyle as the best. Perfect home, perfect partner, perfect children, perfect life choices....nor are we preaching to the youth of today how their lifestyle is all wrong.

I agree with some of the things he says, just not the preachy way he delivers his message.

I also watched on from the last clip you showed with the young porn star and others.

He admitted in the past he had had problems with porn, when the porn star asked him a flippant question about' had he jerked off to her' his face changed and so did his demeaner.,...he quickly recovered though, helped out by the host.

---

 What did he do different than any preacher trying to convince people their way was the best because God said so?.

 

Or any politician that wanted people to see their ideas were the best for them.

 

He went into the public realm and had civil conversations with people that agreed or disagreed with him..

 

We need more people like that and less people attacking people that step up and do that..

-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 18th of September 2025 04:47:37 PM

---

 I don't think people like that should be attacked, I do think people should be challenged though.....Sadly, he can't respond now, but this is a debate forum, so we can still give opinions.

---

 And he loved being challenged.

 

That was what he lived for.

 

And I guess what he died for too..

 

My point is, it's fair to challenge his stances. It's not fair to label him based on misrepresentation of his stances.

 

Let's take DEI. It's perfectly acceptable for him to say it led to less qualified people being promoted, because that's what DEI does.

 

Stating that doesn't make you racist. I'd say supporting DEI might make you a racist though..

---

 I think everyone agreed that when he talked about black women getting the jobs, or black pilots getting the jobs, to fill a quota....he was not being racist.

---

 I didn't and neither do many commentators regarding the subject but I  always respect your view and am happy to agree to disagree.

If he had just stated he wasn't in favour of affirmative action that would of been fine. But saying black women don't have the "brain processing power of their own so they had to steal white people's  jobs to  go be taken seriously "..that is saying something else again. The actual language used and the implications are rather unpalatable and deliberately so. So he can get his point across just stopping short of getting into trouble.

---

 On the video I watched, he was speaking about the four black women he named, who got the jobs through affirmative action. He wasn't speaking about black women in general, at least that's not the take I saw.

I did say earlier on, he spoke about them in a derogatory manner, but that didn't make him racist, just patronising and rude.

---

 I think saying those black women don't have the brain processing power to get white people's job's goes beyond being merely partronising.. and yes imo, it's racism betrays itself by not only the  needless offensive terminology but the wider underlying implication that his opinion goes beyond those four women.

If he wasn't bigoted and just passionate about speaking often about the failings of black people or pitting them against white people which he KNOWS will just inflame tensions that means he was a  trouble maker who sought to isolate black people. I don't personally believe it's that simple.

One of the four women he targeted was former first lady Michelle Obama (who is far from stupid) so it was also a sneaky chance to get a dig in at the left. He also make fun of the way she spoke. This , the humble martyr of the right. He wouldn't thank the American media attempting to sanitize  his word's.

But as you know I always respect your viewpoint on anything 

Maddog wrote:

---

Barksdale wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

Stephen King gave you the correct context for the last one..

If the last one was such a steaming pile of shit, the rest should be discounted too, because it's screams of an agenda..

I'm not going to spend an hour trying to refute a source so blatantly unreliable. 

You could randomly watch the man in action and form your own opinions about him I guess.  That's how I did it..

 

---

 I didn't make the same argument that Stephen King did. I did not say that Charlie Kirk had advocated stoning people to death and neither did the information which was pulled out using an AI assistant. What it showed was there is evidence, using Charlie Kirk's own words, of him dehumanising various groups and that it didn't look good. And it doesn't.

I don't know the full contexts, and neither it seems, do you. You and are both interpreting the evidence we have at our disposal to draw conclusions. You claim the sources are unreliable buYiur t do not say why except it seems because it doesn't converge with your interpretation of what Charlie Kirk meant by what you have seen. That's just another "trust me bro" approach.  

-- Edited by Barksdale on Thursday 18th of September 2025 05:55:21 PM

---

 Your source made the argument that Kirk advocated for stoning gays.

 

Did he?

---

 You KNOW he didn't ! I don't know why you didn't tell Avon he had missed the news about Stephen King getting his wires crossed  but you have picked on the one and only inaccurate and infamous example.

I think we should be content to just hold out own opinions instead of going round on an endless loop. We won't convince one another in all instances and that's the way life is.

Barksdale wrote:

---

Fluffy wrote:

You KNOW he didn't ! I don't know why you didn't tell Avon he had missed the news about Stephen King getting his wires crossed  but you have picked on the one and only inaccurate and infamous example.

---

 LOL, yes that Stephen King story completely passed me by. MD did say however that Stephen King had got it right in his last tweet where he stated it was about cherry picking Bible quotes. Also, I generally like to check things for myself if I can so I can form my own view. 

I've watched a bit of Charlie Kirk's Jubilee debate and I can see why white Christian people like him. He puts forward standard arguments which supports those viewpoints.

---

 20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.

Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump  - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.

I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.

If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

---

Vam wrote:

---

 20 pages in, and it’s good to see a general consensus that it IS possible be shocked and saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death at such a young age, while at the same time not be impressed by what he stood for.

Personally, I suspect the reality is that he didn’t really stand for anything much. He was able to identify a lucrative market of bored, disaffected, dipshit kids and - just like trump  - he cynically exploited that market with toxic bullshit, lies and triggering rhetoric that was guaranteed to keep the $$$ rolling in.

I doubt he believed in half of what he used to preach or ‘debate’. Again, just like trump, he performed the politics of spectacle.

If by any chance his bible-thumping ways were heartfelt, and not performative, then that would make him a Christofascist in my opinion.

---

 HEADS-UP  There's someone here who thinks the sun shone out of his arse, so be prepared for further incoming.

---

 🤷🏻‍♀️ In which direction does water flow on a duck’s back? 😉

Syl wrote:

---

Charlie Kirk didn't always get the better out of debating with young kids.

 

---

 Yes I saw this! That young man was very passionate and intense He seemed to be shaking a little I thought, possibly with nerves but also rage.  I saw another female student who was a feminist hold her own against him admirably too. She explained in an interview that Kirk had pet phrases he liked to use so students who saw enough debates his knew what he was going to say. 

Debating only students who will suffer from nerves no matter how intellectual they are (especially in front of their peers) always struck me as odd and rather cowardly. I know he was trying to recruit members for his Turning Point club which he hoped would also become inevitable votes for Trump but it would of been interesting to see him debate some liberal academics who had more life experience.

Btw off topic but I think I was a tad confused  yesterday and in a reply called you Vam. 🤦 I am sorry, I knew I was responding to you so it makes no sense!  I apologise any way

Barksdale wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

---

Barksdale wrote:

---

Maddog wrote:

Stephen King gave you the correct context for the last one..

If the last one was such a steaming pile of shit, the rest should be discounted too, because it's screams of an agenda..

I'm not going to spend an hour trying to refute a source so blatantly unreliable. 

You could randomly watch the man in action and form your own opinions about him I guess.  That's how I did it..

 

---

 I didn't make the same argument that Stephen King did. I did not say that Charlie Kirk had advocated stoning people to death and neither did the information which was pulled out using an AI assistant. What it showed was there is evidence, using Charlie Kirk's own words, of him dehumanising various groups and that it didn't look good. And it doesn't.

I don't know the full contexts, and neither it seems, do you. You and are both interpreting the evidence we have at our disposal to draw conclusions. You claim the sources are unreliable buYiur t do not say why except it seems because it doesn't converge with your interpretation of what Charlie Kirk meant by what you have seen. That's just another "trust me bro" approach.  

-- Edited by Barksdale on Thursday 18th of September 2025 05:55:21 PM

---

 Your source made the argument that Kirk advocated for stoning gays.

Did he?

---

 No it didn't. What is says is Charlie Kirk had cited a Bible Verse which when it comes to homosexuality that God's law was perfect and it was that which said is they should be stoned to death. 

Therefore his position is open to interpretation but if it is infallible law and Christians should follow God's word then it supports the framing that execution is justified. I don't know what he meant but was his motive innocent in setting out that Bible verse? Maybe or maybe put in context he was setting out a belief such action was supported by the Bible. What would be the point in setting it out otherwise?

---

 Stephen King literally tells you why Kirk chose that verse, in the tweet I posted.

To show that cherry picking verses and following them literally is problematic, and shouldn't be done..

Syl wrote:

---

No problem Fluffy, you can call me anything you like, just don't call me Shirley. 

Avon and me, have also pointed out his preference in choosing young, and compared to him, inexperienced speakers, to debate his topics with. Most of the time he does run rings round them, but his preaching style was very repetitive.

---

 Maher and Newsom are both twice his age. 

His campus work was only part of what he did..He rightfully believed that college campuses were breeding grounds for misinformation.

It makes sense to go where the problem is..

Syl wrote:

---

And he spouted quite a lot of misinformation himself, dangerous when you are preaching to young minds.

---

 What misinformation? 

Opinions aren't misinformation..

When you say you want migrants to stop coming across the channel that's not misinformation. That's your opinion. When you state the costs associated with taking care of those migrants is too high, that's your opinion, not misinformation..

Calling opinion misinformation is what people do to stifle debate..