Anonymous #1 1w

single as in one 😐

59

Anonymous #2 1w

I know what single means

-11

Anonymous #1 1w

but you dont know how decipher context from reading

42

Anonymous #3 1w

Smartest republican

19

Anonymous #1 1w

comprehension is a skill that’s severely lacking in america

21

Anonymous #6 1w

The fact that he has a statue when his family and friends callled him out in a documentary for being an awful human.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Not the world. Only indoctrinated morons who have one less avenue to confirm their biases. 🤣 If he did literally anything important, feel free to enlighten me.

7

Anonymous #7 1w

I mean we saw several other countries hold vigils or memorials for Charlie or atleast recognize him so idk seems like a fair claim. Also just because YOU didn’t like him doesn’t mean you can’t discredit the amount of work he put in in such a short amount of time. He built turning point from the ground up as an 18 year old, had a widely successful podcast and social media presence, and managed to become a major political commentator and recognizable name.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

None of that is actually an achievement that benefits society. In fact, it’s all an active detriment.

9

Anonymous #1 1w

You got a 13 in comprehension on the ACT

1

Anonymous #7 1w

It’s still very much an achievement even though you may have not been the audience. A good chunk of 18 year olds these days are struggling to learn how to read or do basic math, so for him to build up a non profit organization and be that self-determined is impressive. If it was a democrat kid doing this you’d have a difference in opinion.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

I don’t think a significant number of 18-year-olds are struggling to learn how to read, and depending on what you mean by "basic math," not much is required for entrepreneurship, much less spewing right-wing propaganda.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Democrats are less inclined to spew blatant propaganda, even if not by much, and I don’t imagine that Democrats would seek a martyr whose death was the product of an isolated incident of senseless violence. 🤣 And we don’t need to categorize these hypotheticals according to political party. Yeah, no shit, it’s the things he said that makes his influence overwhelmingly negative. If he said different things, that would be a meaningful difference they would cause me to change my attitude

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Even if it was someone I liked, I would not appeal to their general ability to achieve to justify my sadness for their death. I would also have to justify that their achievements were actually beneficial in some way. Achievement itself does not hold any inherent value to society.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Uhhh have you seen the decline in reading and math scores in high school seniors across the country lately??? I’ve seen that this is the lowest they’ve been in decades. Look into it. Hence why I say for him to be well spoken and well read and able to speak on his opinions with confidence and facts to back it up on a dime is an achievement of self-determination. I personally had some things that I disagreed with him on, but I can still recognize his impact.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Brother he was on the last chopper out of Nam he got out when literacy rates were arguably highest before the downhill turn started kicking in

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Yes. He had an impact. I recognize it too. It was a BAD one. What do we disagree on?

0

Anonymous #6 1w

Without any additional knowledge of Charlie Kirk’s life, you cannot say it was much of an achievement. Was he underprivileged? Statistics tell us nothing about the explanation of the observed trends. Once you have found the explanation, you can see if it applies to Charlie, and then and ONLY then can his achievements be considered impressive. Otherwise, praise every academic researcher of the same age since they are actually benefiting society.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Political violence isn’t an “isolated incident”. It’s a problem on both sides. Also don’t say democrats don’t love a martyr when they praised George Floyd as one and who they said was a victim of “senseless murder”. Again I’m not going to argue with you about how he has had a positive impact on millions of people bc it seems like you just like to argue and ignore the reality. Again just bc someone doesn’t speak to you doesn’t mean they aren’t speaking at all.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Charlie couldn’t have been too intelligent. He was a science denier.

0

Anonymous #6 1w

George Floyd’s death was a product of police brutality, which is a systemic injustice. It can be assuaged through reform, which is why retaliation against government officials who have the power to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future is justified. That is the distinction I was making. Political violence DOES consist of isolated incidents that occur because of individual hatred, NOT systemic injustice.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

What reality am I ignoring, buddy? I’ll wait. It seems like the only reason you like to comment is to assuage your own cognitive dissonance.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Which orifice did you pull that one out of? Having faith doesn’t mean science denier.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

You are entitled to your opinion bc that is a subjective statement. I don’t know how to put that any more simply for you.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Denying evolution, the effectiveness of vaccines, anthropogenic climate change is all science denial. Whether having faith entails science denial is up to the individual. But calling any of these a result of faith does not make them contradict the conclusions of objective science any less.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

All the things you have said are subjective. Think whatever you want but don’t make broad generalizations about everyone based on your opinions. That is all. Fact: he had an impact. Of course your personal identity and politics is gonna influence what that impact was. Again this is a super basic concept.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

I mean the science also says there’s only men and women but a lot of people love to say otherwise . Does that make them unintelligent?

1

Anonymous #6 1w

If your only claim is that he had an impact, why are you still replying? Can you find one comment where I denied that he had an impact? And no, it isn’t only "personal identity and politics." Like I said, he denied objective truth. The martyr of the right is an ignorant science-denier and liar.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

No. "Men" and "women" are not technical terms in any scientific discipline as far as I am aware. This is another misconception among science deniers of the right.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Male and female. X and Y. The point still stands, that’s basically biology and yet people love to deny it.

0

Anonymous #6 1w

People don’t deny that X and Y chromosomes exist, buddy. Sorry.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Omg you’re too dumb to even begin getting into genetics

2

Anonymous #7 1w

They don’t deny, but they willingly disregard lol

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Ok and the most recent martyr of the left was a druggie and criminal with a rap sheet. The fact is that you can sit on here and speak into oblivion all day if you want but it doesn’t change the way people are feeling in the real world. You don’t need to agree with him or like him to still condemn political violence on a whole. There are shitty people on both sides and if you care to turn a blind eye to the ones on your side, that’s on you.

-3

Anonymous #5 1w

How so? No objective scientific truth would have any necessary bearing on behavior, as you seem to be implying. Such a conclusion would be normative and extend outside the realm of science and objective truth.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Explain klinefelter’s, quickly and without looking it up

1

Anonymous #6 1w

You are shifting the goalposts. This was initially a discussion about Charlie, but you provided the classic whataboutism in which you compared him to the left, which is causing us to discuss sex and gender. And now, you’re trying to act as though this conversation was about political violence all along. It wasn’t. Political violence was never on the table for discussion.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

The "martyr" of the left, if he can even be considered such, was not because of his individual impact. It’s because of the larger injustice he represents. No one gives a shit about George Floyd, I assure you. We don’t operate like the right operates. People give a shit about police brutality, and a movement is simply much more compelling with a name and a face behind it.

0

Anonymous #8 1w

Medical anomaly: genetic disorder.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Conversations like this lead people to think that political violence is ok. We wouldn’t be having this conversation at all if it wasn’t for political violence. You are entitled to believe & feel what you want. Again, ramble into the oblivion. You’re the one who said you’d like the guy if he agreed with you on things. Thus, achievements do hold significant value in society. The fact is your initial comment was inaccurate and if that’s all you want to discuss without straying then there ya go.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Don’t let your people hear you say you don’t care about Floyd 😱

1

Anonymous #5 1w

"Disorders" are normative defined as that which needs fixing. If there is no hope or reason for a cure, it cannot be considered a disorder. Idk what exactly you’re meaning to say, but I hope this helps.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

No one cares about Floyd. They care about police brutality. All leftists would affirm this.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Conversations like what? I don’t make any claim as to whether or not Charlie Kirk’s death was justified. However, one relevant position of mine IS that disagreement, political beliefs, and value are not trivial reasons for his death. When you say, "you don’t care about his death because you disagreed with him" with the implication that this is a silly reason that paints me as a petty or awful person, THIS is what I disagree with.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

It could be said that I don’t care or maybe even would have rooted for Hitler’s death for the same reason. You could reduce all of Hitler’s achievements to the death that he directly incited, but no, I hate Hitler for his beliefs. Everyone should. Some beliefs can be awful and harmful. My position on Charlie Kirk’s death is this: To the extent that anyone deserves to die, Charlie Kirk did more than many other people. This is not directly justifying his death.

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Klinefelter would still mean the person is genetically male… Idk what you were hoping to prove. Intersex people don’t have some unique sex chromosome, they are still comprised of X and Y variations.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

It all depends on how we define "male." Definitions cannot be considered objectively true. Your initial statement whataboutism regarding sex and gender was wrong and stupid.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

And this is where I end the conversation when you compare the life and death of a literal dictator and murderer of millions to someone who didn’t even hold a formal position in politics. Your perspective in ranking how much someone deserves to die is skewed and I feel sorry that you can’t see that what you said in that last part was quite literally justifying his death. As I said, enjoy speaking into the oblivion.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

It was an analogy. You’re not very intelligent, analytically or emotionally, if you can’t understand the overarching point. Do you or do you not hate Hitler for his beliefs? If you do hate Hitler for his beliefs, why are you pointing out that I hate Charlie for his beliefs as if this speaks for itself as to how unjustified my position is?

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Genetic females cannot have Klinefelter. Move on and take your skewed opinions elsewhere.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

If "genetic female" is not defined independently of chromosomal makeup, then what you just said is a tautology. Not much of what I have been saying is opinion. You just hate analytical thought.

1

Anonymous #7 1w

Analogy means comparison. I think you’re proving my point on the decline of reading levels.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

I don’t say otherwise. But it’s a specific comparison on one specific attribute of the two situations. Your eyes glazed over once you saw the word "Hitler" so that you failed to even recognize the specific comparison I was making. I was not comparing the entirety of the Charlie as a person to the entirety of Hitler as a person at that moment. Who has trouble with reading comprehension?

1

Anonymous #7 1w

See now you’re just being argumentative for the sake of being annoying. So, as I said, go and ramble into oblivion. Maybe go do something of value today instead of sitting on here. Or maybe just keep responding and rot away on this app.

-2

Anonymous #6 1w

"Argumentative for the sake of being annoying" = analytical thought. It’s how truth is attained. If you don’t like it, then you don’t like truth, buddy. I rest my case.

2