Trump says suspect in custody in killing of Charlie Kirk

[BeyondET]

He doesn’t look like a killer either but you are probably right.

Isn't killing a violent act?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Simple, Trump is not known for truth, yet has been very successful in winning over an audience. He would not be where he is today if he had held truth above malarkey.

Or if we did as a country.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Never happened.

Sure it did.

 

[Chesterton]

From here: Making Sense of the Trans Right - The Gay & Lesbian Review

'I interviewed more than 110 transgender people with far-right views for my forthcoming book, Belonging Through Exclusion: Understanding the Transgender Far Right, which examines the motivations behind their beliefs and what actions could prevent others from joining them.'

Plus: LGBTQ conservatism - Wikipedia

I'm not even sure why this is even being questioned. Again, what has your gender have to do with your politics or your religious beliefs?

How "far" right are you looking for?

Buck Angel and Blaire White come to mind (as people who expressed conservative viewpoints on the subject)

(Disclosure, Buck was a FTM trans adult film star in the past, so if you google that name, don't blame me if you get an eyeful of something you weren't expecting to see)... But Buck has also been very vocal about the fact that it's gotten too pervasive and lacked screening processes and due diligence, Buck's words "someone's got to step up and save these kids from corrupt doctors".

It should be noted, that Buck was considered (at one point) to be one of the "Pioneers of the movement", but Buck also recounts how the decision was a long and arduous one, and not a decision that should be made in a period of 3 months based on the whims of a 13 year old.


Now, the argument I've heard from some uber-progressives before is that their opinions on the issue "don't count as much" because they're more "passable" and...I kid you not, I've heard some use the term "passable-privilege" to describe Blaire and Buck.
(Meaning, since they're "convincing" enough that if they walked into the bathroom of their choice, nobody would notice or care), therefore, their opinions "aren't as valid".

As if "it has to challenge someone's comfort level" is "the point" or some "feather in the cap" for the movement.

The fact that someone wrote a book called Understanding the Transgender Far Right kind of makes my point for me, doesn't it?

 

[Chesterton]

He preached to mthe choir.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You obviously know nothing of what he did.

We can only agree to disagree.

I disagree.

 

[Hentenza]

Isn't killing a violent act?

Yes

 

[RDKirk]

It's about winning over the audience. And truth usually wins over the audience better than malarkey.

LOL, certainly not.

"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” -- Jonathan Swift 1710

I have found that truth is usually less credible than a lie because the truth is absolute--the truth is what it is, regardless what any individual believes.
But a lie is explicitly crafted to fit into the beliefs its intended audience already holds...so the lie sounds more credible.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What does that have to do with debating? Or did you just take what I said and go off on a tangent with it?

What I meant was that Trump is very effective at convincing his audience and yet lies all the time. Even for a politician, his disregard for the truth is, and has always been, stunning. If he had stuck to portraying the truth, he never would have starred in the Apprentice, he would have been unsuccessful in his presidential bids, he wouldn’t have any criminal convictions, and Ashli Babbitt would still be alive.

But even aside from Trump, the notion that truth is better at persuading people is preposterous. “ A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”, etc

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But even aside from Trump, the notion that truth is better at persuading people is preposterous. “ A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”, etc

Some some of that we ("we" meaning society as a whole) have brought on ourselves to a degree.

I think everyone from across the spectrum can think of instances where certain truths are considered an unacceptable.

Example:
If I walked into a room full of conservatives and started listing out facts about global temperatures or sea levels

...or

If I walked into a room full of progressives and started listing out facts about crime rates by race

... Both of those will get me disinvited from those respective circles.

And on a separate but related point, much of what gets discussed as "truth", is actually just instances of people "expert shopping" to find some people with credentials who agree with them, in order to elevate the their opinion to "fact"

If we consider some of the more hot button topics in society (abortion, trans rights, gay marriage, immigration). Those are all largely debated within the realm of opinion. There are various factoids about extraneous aspects of the conversation that person can point to, but there's no single codified scientific experiment or test that can be ran in order to prove one position or the other is "truth".

 

[iluvatar5150]

Some some of that we ("we" meaning society as a whole) have brought on ourselves to a degree.

I think it’s part of being human. Dishonest propaganda has been a thing since basically forever.

 

[Servus]

What I meant was that Trump is very effective at convincing his audience and yet lies all the time. Even for a politician, his disregard for the truth is, and has always been, stunning. If he had stuck to portraying the truth, he never would have starred in the Apprentice, he would have been unsuccessful in his presidential bids, he wouldn’t have any criminal convictions, and Ashli Babbitt would still be alive.

But even aside from Trump, the notion that truth is better at persuading people is preposterous. “ A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”, etc

None of that has anything to do with the CF debate audience I was talking about. So yes you took what I said and went off on a non-sequitur tangent with it.

 

[Servus]

LOL, certainly not.

"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.” -- Jonathan Swift 1710

I have found that truth is usually less credible than a lie because the truth is absolute--the truth is what it is, regardless what any individual believes.
But a lie is explicitly crafted to fall fit into the beliefs its intended audience already holds...so the lie sounds more credible.

I said truth often wins out over malarky. Many came up to the microphone and spewed malarky, which Charlie Kirk demolished with the truth.

 

[iluvatar5150]

None of that has anything to do with the CF debate audience I was talking about. So yes you took what I said and went off on a non-sequitur tangent with it.

Perhaps you should revisit what you wrote. Nothing in any of your posts on this matter suggested, in any way, that your comments were limited to the folks on CF.

 

[Servus]

Perhaps you should revisit what you wrote. Nothing in any of your posts on this matter suggested, in any way, that your comments were limited to the folks on CF.

Okay, none of that had anything to do with the debate audience I was talking about. So yes you took what I said and went off on a non-sequitur tangent with it.

 

[rambot]

I said truth often wins out over malarky. Many came up to the microphone and spewed malarky, which Charlie Kirk demolished with the truth.

Ok but rdkirk was explaining how that is not the case and it was an intriguing thought.

How do you respond to that?

 

[Servus]

Ok but rdkirk was explaining how that is not the case and it was an intriguing thought.

How do you respond to that?

I already did. What rdkirk is saying is that if there's a debate over the existence of leprechauns, and someone demolishes that notion with truth, there are people who will still insist that leprechauns exist. But that doesn't mean the truth didn't win out. Truth wins out over malarky for those with the capacity to see reason.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I was specifically talking about an audience listening to a debate. Anything outside of that is taking what I said off on a non-sequitur tangent.

Does anyone remember Trump’s behavior or performance in the debates he participated in! It seemed to be more insults and condescending pejorative name calling than truth. And yet look who we awarded as victor.

 

[Bradskii]

Probably more than you. It was not worthy of the death penalty because he had the moral high ground. Debate is all about presenting facts to support your ideas, Charlie did that very well . Your opinion that many times he came in a distant second or was sticking it to them is a flawed biased opinion that shows if you really did watch some of his videos you really didn’t look at them objectively. That is my opinion!. I really would like to see at least one video where in your opinion Charlie came in a distant second, if there is one.

I've given an example where I am impressed by the debating skills of someone on the far right whose views I most definitely disagree with: Ben Shapiro. There are others. So it's not the fatuous case that 'This guy says something I don't like, therefore he's a bad debater'. Kirk said a lot of things I didn't like AND he was a bad debater.

 

[Bradskii]

Point out how you think Charlie who did not go to college came in a distant second in this debate with a college professor.

I'm not interested in playing Youtube ping pong. If you can't tell a good debater from a bad one then there ain't anything I could post that would change your mind. At least I know what your standards are.

 

[rjs330]

“Why has he not been bailed out?” Kirk said Monday on his podcast of the man who allegedly beat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul with a hammer last Friday. “By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out."

Kirk also said this in the same segment.

"I'm not qualifying it. I think it's awful. It's not right. But why is it that in Chicago you're able to commit murder and be out the next day? Why is it that you're able to trespass, second-degree murder, arson, threaten a public official, cashless bail — this happens all over San Francisco."

He was referring to a system thats lets people out all the time for equally bad crimes on a cashless bail, but not if you go after the Pelosi’s.

No where in his podcast did he ever do what you claimed when you said, "He praised Pelosi's attacker. He was fine with using a hammer."

1. He didn't praise Pelosi’s attacker.
2. He didn't say he was fine with him using a hammer.

His point in context was about the inconsistency with the legal system.