Anonymous #3 5w

He’s racist but also a podcaster. The podcast thing is just to get the point across that his entire platform was irrelevant

1

Anonymous OP 5w

well you def can’t say it’s irrelevant when he’s the reason a vast majority of young men voted for trump

1

Anonymous #3 5w

He isn’t lol. Theres no objective proof that he was the reason a MAJORITY of young men voted for Trump.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

His existence was only relevant to those who already endorsed racist and MAGA like ideals. Now we can sit peacefully knowing that he can no longer spew the same nonsense

1

Anonymous OP 5w

oh but there is tho. there’s plenty of proof. multiple news stations and even NY Times credit trumps Arizona win to kirk. multiple outlets report TPUSA’s efforts brought out ~125,000 low propensity/irregular voters. cited by sources with access to internal data. also not rlly obj proof but almost everyone in the admin credits the youth vote to kirk, including trump and vance themselves.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

holy seethe bro😭😭 no way he has you this agitated this long after his death

0

Anonymous #3 5w

Not agitated at him. I’m agitated that people have any interest in sucking his dick after death.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

Despite the claims they make. They quite literally cannot prove that. That alll being said as well, the current admin also said they would not denounce or condemn text messages from the YR group chat where they said “I like Hitler” and “rape is epic” The admin is hardly the arbiter or truth or virtue

1

Anonymous OP 5w

“now we can all sit peacefully knowing he can no longer spew the same nonsense” implies that you could not “sit peacefully” due to him no??🤔🤔🤔 same could also be said abt you too tho. why do you have so much interest in bashing him after his death? 🧐

1

Anonymous OP 5w

i promise you they can. i could type it all out but it’s extensive and exhaustive but id be willing to if you really want to be proven wrong that badly. just because they choose not to condemn does not mean they are lying. they may not be arbiters of virtue but they literally have 0 reason to lie in this situation. like what does trump gain from crediting his a portion of his election win to someone else??😭😭

1

Anonymous #3 5w

No it doesn’t. And to answer your question The right was attempting to ruin peoples lives for criticizing him. This is just me expressing the thought after they’ve given up on being the tone police.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

I truly do not believe that you can prove objectively that most young men turned to Trump from Charlie specifically. Trump and the Maga administration, kind of the maga movement as a whole, gain political ground by associating themselves with popular and influential right wing figures

1

Anonymous OP 5w

look bro if you’re gonna make an argument at least articulate it well. that is EXACTLY what that sentence insinuates. also, they aren’t ruining lives for criticizing him but rather for making fun of his death, which i’m sure isn’t allowed in almost any company policy so they lowkey did it to themselves.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

You asked me a question, I answered. So the right, who platformed a man who said he would question the qualifications of a black pilot, has the right to ruin the lives of people who mock that?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

TPUSA’s “chase the vote/ballot chasers” raised/spent over $100million and hired over 1,000 ppl to focus on low propensity voters and early voting. he essentially hounded people who leaned republican but rarely vote. this resulted in a gain of 9-13 points with under 30 voters in blue wall states (MI, WI, PA) and in WI, precincts near major campuses observed ~4 points more republican than the state average.

1

Anonymous #3 5w

however, a plethora of reputable news stations, figures of authority, and people with degrees in relevant fields all say kirk was pivotal in the election. so yes, he most definitely had an influence on the election but i’m sure you with your political science degree and other relevant ones know more than the combined knowledge of literally everyone else with the same degrees or more.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

you answered objectively wrong. and no, if you re-read what i said, it very clearly says they were trying to ruin the lives of people mocking his death. i was not in any way referring to people criticizing him for his racist remarks

1

Anonymous #3 5w

The argument wasn’t if he had influence. It was if he was the cause of the MAJORITY of young men doing this one thing. You asked me a question about what I implied, so no it wasn’t objectively wrong. You just don’t like my answer. Re-read that last portion. You misunderstood.

0

Anonymous OP 5w

yes it was and to prove he had influence i brought up the fact he influenced the youth vote in favor of trump. and if we’re talking about how he has you frothing at the mouth after death, he totally does. you used “now” as a temporal adverb which explicitly marks a change just happened, followed by your main clause, then used “knowing” as a present participle introducing a subordinate clause indicating the reason followed by one more clause which is the content of the “knowing” clause.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

the literally is no plausible alternative parsing😭😭 every single grammatical and logical connector in the sentence ties your newfound peace directly and causally to his death

1

Anonymous #3 5w

You quite literally made a claim of it being the majority, that is what I’m contesting. I’m very well aware of what I was implying, it’s intellectually dishonest to ask me that question about my intent of implication and then refuse it. And for that last part?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

well i believe i already argued my points and have yet to hear back from you. then why deny it? more than once at that. the last part was just to drill it into your brain idk

1

Anonymous #3 5w

Yet to hear back from me on what specifically? I’ve been contesting everything that’s been said in separate paragraphs. No Im talking about your misinterpretation of the Kirk firing thing.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

the data i provided pointing towards his influence in turning a majority of young men to voters for trump. wdym? i feel like there’s a clear difference between criticizing someone’s remarks vs making fun of his traumatic death. one is perfectly fine and even encouraged (promotes discourse) and the other is just purely hateful and does nothing for anyone. now idk abt you but hate is not a very beneficial emotion to have in the workplace

1

Anonymous #3 5w

None of what you gave me pointed out a majority? It just claimed influence. You say it does nothing for anyone, no it doesn’t. I imagine making jokes about bad people gives others the ability to also speak up and express themselves without having any threat to their own personal goals. I’ll rephrase, do you think it’s good that the right, the same people who platformed a man who mocked muslims and made racist remarks, are going after people for making jokes about him after death?

1

Anonymous OP 5w

that was the original argument 😭 you called his platform irrelevant and i said no, he def had influence to which i then brought up the fact that he is the reason so many young men voted for trump. also, that question is blatantly dishonest. this minimization tactic of turning gloating into “jokes” is disgusting and your tu quoque riddled question disguised as moral high ground is ridiculous. also, kirk already had a platform it just simply got bigger.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

you’re also pushing an underlying rule with this beyond idiotic paragraph. you think it’s ok to cheer on murder if you think that person is bad? who defines bad? because as it stands republicans think ruth bader ginsburg is a bad person, do you think it’s ok for them to celebrate her death? not to make jokes, but to actually celebrate and cheer for her death?

1

Anonymous #3 5w

No it wasn’t. You made a comment about the majority of young men coming from Kirk. That is dishonest, because your evidence only showed he had influence, not the majority specific claim you made. I will answer and acknowledge your questions once you answer mine. You calling it dishonest doesn’t make it dishonest. It’s a moral question. Is it good or bad? Try again.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

dawg cmon this is getting ridiculous 😭😭 my whole entire point was that he DOES have influence after you called his podcast irrelevant, and to prove it i brought up those facts about him turning low propensity voters into trump voters. see how the logic flows? i make a claim - which was when i said you can’t call his platform irrelevant -> you refute claim -> i backup claim by showing statistical data. to which you’ve basically responded with “nuh uh” for the past few exchanges.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

my whole original argument was NEVER the majority specific claim you’re rambling about, that was the supporting argument. NOT THE CLAIM😭😭 also, idk if yk this but im not just calling your argument dishonest for the fun of it that question was literally a logical fallacy😭 i have no obligation to answer but i will since this whole argument stems from YOUR own double standards and logically inconsistent statement.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

no it is not good if republicans go after ppl making jokes about him after death, but yes it is absolutely fine if they go after people celebrating/gloating after his death. there you go. not like i’ve said this before or anything 😭

1

Anonymous #3 5w

Your entire claim was this “vast majority”

1

Anonymous #3 5w

Why is it inherently bad to celebrate his death? They’ve been targeting people for doing both but at least you acknowledge those fired for jokes are not being targeted justifiably

1

Anonymous OP 5w

that might’ve been an overstatement, but the point still stands regardless

1

Anonymous OP 5w

because there is no solid, determinable line on what is “bad.” refer to my ruth bader ginsburg example. also, i personally have never seen them going after individuals simply making jokes. if anything it’s become even more prominent with the kirkify shit which is funny asf, but i have yet to see anyone get in trouble for doing so.

1