I answered that one of his bullshit not going unanswered, but I would had answered that “Sincerely, I also want to learn the whole context of Charlie and Turning point”. I was already aware about how appalling Charlie was about racial issues, climate change and evolution. Going to deep dives about what he really, really said in context, just made him worse than what I expected.
That bit about the mass firing of federal workers, when Charlie supported the asinine efforts of Elon Musk and Trump to dismantle government offices and education, was something I was not aware of, but it came when the bigots and idiōtēs demanded that one should take a look about how “polite” Charlie was…
I have wanted to reply several times, but refrained, knowing it would not lead to a productive discussion.
I have the same problem in a lot of places: I want to understand the conservative position, but the people who espouse it seem to be utterly incapable of explaining themselves without resorting to fallacies, platitudes, and name-calling. I can’t have a serious conversation with someone who can’t refrain from using “libtard.”
Kirk himself seems to have been a master of disingenuous debate, “winning” conversation after conversation by being able to argue quickly, if superficially. I just fear the nation’s critical thinking skills are so poor that they don’t understand why “winning” this sort of argument doesn’t mean you’re correct. People seem so easily swayed by videos; I wonder if they can even read arguments written out in paragraph form? They probably haven’t had to do it since high school.
It’s not really a cite worth anything and anyone can see this. I should pay attention to this Elaine Richardson person on how “woke” is allowed to be used and how it means “thug” when I say it why exactly?
I can’t handle your cites because I’m too busy laughing.
I already answered this. It is not conducive to a serious conversation, just like it isn’t when the insults are directed at me. I do not recall being impolite to you specifically.
The world being improved in my lifetime (and probably ever) is off the table, in no small part thanks to people like Kirk who are devoted to making it worse. And merely being a human being doesn’t mean somebody deserves sympathy; we don’t live in a fantasy world, all the great monsters of history were human. And his “lost potential” was entirely a potential for doing yet more harm to the world.
Wow, I was wondering how more idiōtēs you would get.
Of course the right would be proud of willfully ignoring that the Democrats and the left had a point about stochastic terrorism. Of course, the dumb part is that laughing about it also dismisses the talking point about using Kirk to justify the clampdown of dissent against Trump.
I had the opposite problem, it took me some time to figure out where the ignore command was and how to use it. But yeah; they are the first person I’ve put on ignore since the changeover. It’s a function I’ve only used very rarely both here and on other forums.
Yeah. And conservatism was pretty awful before Trump as well, despite all the years of people insisting that there must be some reasonable, moral justification for whatever bigoted crusade they were on at the time.
But in real life, the reason conservatives support awful things and elect awful leaders is that they are awful people with awful intentions. Not misunderstood innocents or well-meaning-but-mistaken people who would change their ways if their victims just sucked up hard enough to them.