Charlie Kirk shot and killed (updated)

Muh videos showed him debatin' college kids and now I like him!

 

Again, more like his exchanges exposed progresso idiocy/ psychosis, which drove normal inquiring ppl away from radioactive Psycho Lefty

THAT was why he was so effective, and why your Psycho side bombarded him with death threats, until one particular Psycho Lefty, finally acted on his marching orders.

 

I'm guessing they didn't show you videos of him eating shit, being racist or telling people to let go of the Epstein files once he got his marching orders from the Trump admin lol. The guy was a little toady, that's why you didnt pay attention to him in life - he wasn't saying anything you couldn't get for free here from the lowest quality conservative posters. You probably knew that intuitively. Now, you got force fed his greatest hits compilation and have become a super fan. Sad, really.

 

In what way was he effective? You hadnt even heard of him, now some people have told you he was a debating genius and you are telling us he was amazing. Obviously whatever propaganda you've been viewing was more effective on you than Charlie Kirk debating a college teen.

 

Dude talked publicly consistently. Yall have had to cherry select quotes to back your flimsy racist allegation against him.

Meanwhile, there are hours of Psycho Lefty melting down, losing their shit, documenting of death threats, and the grand finale of Psycho Lefty proving himself truly psycho, and validating the perceived radioactivity.

 

Yes, he was a content generator. Lots of people do that, that's pretty much the whole internet now in fact. You claim it was effective. Michael Moore did it for years before you could DIY it, and it was entertaining, but I'm not sure how "effective" it was. Bush got reelected. Guns are even more legal now. The auto industry didnt come back to Detroit. Our healthcare system still sucks. Seems like it is most effective on the already converted.

 

Michael Moore repulsed more ppl away from his views than he attracted.

CK seems to have gotten Psycho Lefty to repel more ppl from their own views, than MM.

I repeat myself.

Note-he was very instrumental in moving the needle rightwards with the young voters...

...and as a result, instrumental in making 45 = 47.

Keep it up Psycho Lefty!

Wooooo woooo!!!

 

Some fun from the clipboard:

Who's your POTUS?
*Clap clap, clap clap clap*

Who's your POTUS?
*Clap clap, clap clap clap*

Who's your POTUS?
*Clap clap, clap clap clap*

Who's your POTUS?
*Clap clap, clap clap clap*



Lol!

 

To me, young people are the perfect people for this type of encounter because they think they have it all figured out. They're very easy to challenge, and that challenge goes a long way in helping them re-think their perfect ideologies. From my POV, his engagements were less about who won and more about getting people to reconsider pre-conceived notions. Would love to see people from the left do this as well.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

If MM repulsed so many people, its strange that conservatives like CK or James O'Keefe essentially adopted his methods of "gotcha" interviews/debate clips or undercover bits. Or perhaps you are lying to yourself because conservatives seem to be working overtime to convince us Kirk wasn't loathsome. You are working for free doing that.

 

I did hear him say that executions should be public, televised (brought to you by Coca Cola), and witnessed by kids.

 

In my opinion your brain isn't fully developed until 24 years of age and thus easily manipulated and convinced He wanted numbers. I saw an interaction with him and a gay conservative student. He told him that he didn't care what he did in his bedroom as long as he joined, because it was all about numbers. He then tried to debate Cambridge university students about gay marriage and was owned. All he could say at the end was "I still don't like it". I don't think he was just trying to challenge kids to be more open minded.

 

Fight preceived indoctrination with indoctrination that is dangerous at that to women, BIPOC and LGBTQ. Cool.

 

I'm not strictly speaking to what Charlie's intentions were; I'm speaking to the actual impact and ability to take something away from the engagements. I watched many live amateur debates (some professional) at UF over the years (even including things like people taking on the plaza preachers). Charlie may have been wrong (or even simply out-debated) about any number of things that he didn't provide content for. But there's just something enjoyable about watching two efforts go head to head in terms of trying to sway people. An interested and honest party has the ability to discern anything from *that's an opinion* (perhaps one that I like or dislike) to *that's an idea that is holding up to scrutiny* or *that idea isn't holding up to scrutiny.* So many people hear things that will cause them to do their own research on the matter, maybe look more into an opposing view and how it is presented...maybe looking for ways to challenge one's own view. It's anti-echo-chamber (or at least potentially), and that is very important, to me. Maybe most don't view these things that way, but there's so much more to learn than what one individual is expressing about the subject matter.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Debating has almost no value other than entertainment. Its certainly better when two knowledgeable people who have some shared reality do it, but at the end of the day, that too is still a form of infotainment, one that is deeply ingrained in our political culture to be sure, but it still is that. The Lincoln-Douglas debate was just what people got into when there was no movies or TV (the point was to generate publicity not inform then too). Its probably one of the lowest forms of political discourse, but we treat it like its sacred.

 

Wow, I couldn't disagree with this more...unless you are talking about two political candidates behind podiums reciting canned messages regardless of the points that are being raised. Making ones ideas available for criticism is an important part of growth. Not even sure how true compromise could ever exist without debate.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

That is pretty much what it is in every debate, isn't it? And at the end there is a "winner" - not because someone has a better idea, but because they were more convincing in presenting an idea. Its a sales pitch. Its just Shark Tank in a different format. There are much better ways to present and critique ideas ... dialogue is not the same as debate!

 

Absolutely. When you are talking about an even handed debate between two people with opposing views. He "debated" kids with an average age of 19. The Cambridge debate was more even handed, although I'm not a fan of fast talking. Even his last words showed he had no real intention of debating in the normal sense of the word. Answering a question with a question and listening to reply instead of listening to understand. This is why he never did his own research to see if maybe HE was wrong.

 

I don't think that is the case at all. Let's look at what he chose to title his videos:

"Charlie Kirk Hands out Huge L's at University of California- San Diego."

"Charlie Kirk Sends Van Jones into a Mental Breakdown"

"Charlie Kirk vs. the Washington State Woke Mob"

"Charlie Kirk Crushes Woke Lies at Michigan State"

It is all about self-declaring victory and dominance. If it was about breaking through pre-conceived notions, you would see titles on his videos like "I never considered this opinion on *insert important opinion of the day* and it changed my mind when I did, how about you viewers?" But yeah, it isn't that.

 

I've learned much more from a "discussion" than any "debate."