Upload a full and unedited video of Charlie being hateful.

Gordy wants people to spread hate   ::)

Nine posted so far. :)

Love it  ;D

European Parliament Refuses Moment of Silence for Charlie Kirk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkWQzVvFCJU

He's gathered a handful of pre-prepared excuses to trot out whenever you post a video of Kirk saying openly racist things, misrepresenting DEI, and using it as cover to claim Black people are "too stupid" to earn those positions without affirmative action or DEI supposedly lowering standards, claims that are outright false.

DEI does not lower standards, that's just the excuse bigoted white people give when traditional hiring practices no longer grant them automatic advantage because of their race.

They claim to champion "meritocracy," failing to understand that DEI is meritocracy, it simply restores opportunities they're no longer entitled to by default. Their idea of merit is nothing more than regaining the privileges lost when race no longer dictates access.

Gordon thinks he's armed with clever gotchas, ready to step on every rake like a Frank. Yet even if you post an hour-long podcast highlighting the exact moments where Kirk makes these racist statements in full context, he'll fall back on the tired "taken out of context" defence.

He simply does not see them as racist because he agrees with them.

The dance has already been performed to death, we know exactly how it will play out.

Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0.

I'm afraid you're taking him out of context there, Sad. Gordon's not racist.

He once went to Delhi. He's fingered a Boong. Some of his best friends are black hommers.

Gordon knows the tinted races all too well. If this makes him a little wary, you can hardly blame Gordon.

That's on them, no?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 6:49pm:

He's gathered a handful of pre-prepared excuses to trot out whenever you post a video of Kirk saying openly racist things, misrepresenting DEI, and using it as cover to claim Black people are "too stupid" to earn those positions without affirmative action or DEI supposedly lowering standards, claims that are outright false. DEI does not lower standards, that's just the excuse bigoted white people give when traditional hiring practices no longer grant them automatic advantage because of their race. They claim to champion "meritocracy," failing to understand that DEI is meritocracy, it simply restores opportunities they're no longer entitled to by default. Their idea of merit is nothing more than regaining the privileges lost when race no longer dictates access. Gordon thinks he's armed with clever gotchas, ready to step on every rake like a Frank. Yet even if you post an hour-long podcast highlighting the exact moments where Kirk makes these racist statements in full context, he'll fall back on the tired "taken out of context" defence. He simply does not see them as racist because he agrees with them. The dance has already been performed to death, we know exactly how it will play out.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Barack_Obama_drops_the_mic.gif

Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0.

Charlie Kirk gets owned by a kid way smarter than him...

https://youtube.com/shorts/zWvd91So5GI?si=h2BWqdRrp64iU8cv

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 9:02pm:

Charlie Kirk gets owned by a kid way smarter than him...

Well, to be fair, that would be most kids.

Kirk was very articulate - I'll give him that.

However, he wasn't smart or intelligent.

He was quite ignorant, in fact.

And, quite evil.

Having said that, he certainly did not deserve to be murdered by a right-wing, MAGA, Christian gun-nut.

Gordon wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 7:20pm:

Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0.

How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it.

So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly.

Sound like a plan?

Here we go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GvGILMyKI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upp7HVa1lVY&ab_channel=AdamMockler

Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos?

You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:12pm:

Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 10:08pm:

How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:14pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:12pm: Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets. ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 10:08pm: How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan?

Why do we need to have videos of youtubers waffling on?

Is it too hard to find something with the whole debate so we can see context of discussion.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 9:02pm:

Charlie Kirk gets owned by a kid way smarter than him... https://youtube.com/shorts/zWvd91So5GI?si=h2BWqdRrp64iU8cv

:D :D

The kid himself confused DEI (40 year old practice) with unuversal adult franchise (100 year old practice).

A edited video, anyway. Bbwiyawnesque/gweggyesque.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:18pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:14pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:12pm: Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets. ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 10:08pm: How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan? Why do we need to have videos of youtubers waffling on? Is it too hard to find something with the whole debate so we can see context of discussion.

Because everything is being pulled down in order to sanitise Kirk.

You know this. You called for this.

Now you're crying about it.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:18pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:14pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:12pm: Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets. ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 10:08pm: How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan? Why do we need to have videos of youtubers waffling on? Is it too hard to find something with the whole debate so we can see context of discussion.

I told you, I know what you're doing.  I'm not going to spend the time getting the transcripts, which you won't read anyway and just launch into your pre-prepared response.

If the youtube videos that do in fact show the comments of his that are important, but may show some other commentry isn't enough, then it's clear you're not actually interested in the topic, you just want your launchpad.

You're taking him out of context, Mother. Charlie didn't really want to execute Sleepy Joe, he was just having a bit of fun.

Mind you, would it be so bad if he was? Gordon wouldn't mind if Sleepy Joe was taken out. He said so a number of times.

That's not spreading hate, it's just saying what's on people's minds, that's all. Charlie was just exercising his first amendment rights. Let's all take a chill pill.

Besides, I'm sure Sleepy Joe's house is pretty easy to find if anybody's interested in taking Charlie up on it.

Wise words indeed, no?

Karnal wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 12:13am:

You're taking him out of context, Mother. Charlie didn't really want to execute Sleepy Joe, he was just having a bit of fun. Mind you, would it be so bad if he was? Gordon wouldn't mind if Sleepy Joe was taken out. He said so a number of times. That's not spreading hate, it's just saying what's on people's minds, that's all. Charlie was just exercising his first amendment rights. Let's all take a chill pill. Besides, I'm sure Sleepy Joe's house is pretty easy to find if anybody's interested in taking Charlie up on it. Wise words indeed, no?

Karnal is our master of sarcasm.  ;D

No need to execute Sleepy Joe - he was dead from the shoulders up already... and his kingdom was just waiting to fall.. Death By Karamela ...

All this hate speech against an assassinated man just putting his views out there is unseemly and will avail you 'lefties' nothing - the tides have turned.... beware the anger of the righteous people who have had enough...

Getchu heads outchu asses... wake up and stop being lead by the media into the fantasy world of the oddballs of modern Western society.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:50pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:18pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:14pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:12pm: Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets. ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 10:08pm: How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan? Why do we need to have videos of youtubers waffling on? Is it too hard to find something with the whole debate so we can see context of discussion. I told you, I know what you're doing.  I'm not going to spend the time getting the transcripts, which you won't read anyway and just launch into your pre-prepared response. If the youtube videos that do in fact show the comments of his that are important, but may show some other commentry isn't enough, then it's clear you're not actually interested in the topic, you just want your launchpad.

Deep is the delusion and paranoia in this one... seeks no dialogue but seeks only to impose one view.... sees everyone as one big conspiracy against him and his 'kind'.

Must have skin in the game....

mothra wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:46pm:

Because everything is being pulled down in order to sanitise Kirk. You know this. You called for this. Now you're crying about it.

So what?  What good can come from rubbishing the man now and crying endlessly about how evil he was.  Even thinking that way makes you weird...

Charles Kirk has no need to be sanitised - he was what he was, and openly so.

You aren't going to stop the tides of change roaring at you like a runaway train by attacking the current martyr to reason.... you'll only accelerate that train..... and I want the popcorn franchise for the crowds in and watching this one... popcorn, coffee and Dave's hot dogs.... we'll make a fortune...

Bobby. wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 12:27am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 12:13am: You're taking him out of context, Mother. Charlie didn't really want to execute Sleepy Joe, he was just having a bit of fun. Mind you, would it be so bad if he was? Gordon wouldn't mind if Sleepy Joe was taken out. He said so a number of times. That's not spreading hate, it's just saying what's on people's minds, that's all. Charlie was just exercising his first amendment rights. Let's all take a chill pill. Besides, I'm sure Sleepy Joe's house is pretty easy to find if anybody's interested in taking Charlie up on it. Wise words indeed, no? Karnal is our master of sarcasm.  ;D

Oh? We all remember you calling for Sleepy Joe's execution, dear. You had a right old chuckle at Nancy's hubby too.

I can't remember too many times you've condemned any of the dozens of far right hate crimes, Bobby, and when you have, it had to be squeezed out of you. Gordon?

Never ever.

Freeeeedom, innit.

mothra wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 11:46pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:18pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:14pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:12pm: Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets. ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 10:08pm: How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan? Why do we need to have videos of youtubers waffling on? Is it too hard to find something with the whole debate so we can see context of discussion. Because everything is being pulled down in order to sanitise Kirk. You know this. You called for this. Now you're crying about it.

Nonsense.

Karnal wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 4:42am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 12:27am: Karnal wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 12:13am: You're taking him out of context, Mother. Charlie didn't really want to execute Sleepy Joe, he was just having a bit of fun. Mind you, would it be so bad if he was? Gordon wouldn't mind if Sleepy Joe was taken out. He said so a number of times. That's not spreading hate, it's just saying what's on people's minds, that's all. Charlie was just exercising his first amendment rights. Let's all take a chill pill. Besides, I'm sure Sleepy Joe's house is pretty easy to find if anybody's interested in taking Charlie up on it. Wise words indeed, no? Karnal is our master of sarcasm.  ;D Oh? We all remember you calling for Sleepy Joe's execution, dear. You had a right old chuckle at Nancy's hubby too. I can't remember too many times you've condemned any of the dozens of far right hate crimes, Bobby, and when you have, it had to be squeezed out of you. Gordon? Never ever. Freeeeedom, innit.

I always condemn hate crimes.

you are forgiven

namaste

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 12:41am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:50pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:18pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:14pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 11:12pm: Anyone got videos of Charlie debating someone instead of youtubers posting edited videos? You need the context of the exchange you can't just pick snippets. ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 10:08pm: How about this, why don't I just post a compilation of the things he's actually said, instead of wasting my time hand-holding you through the full clips, transcripts, and context, only for you to parrot the same pre-packaged excuses anyway, and then whinge about "context" or simply defend it outright as if bigotry becomes magically acceptable if you agree with it. So why don't I just put the compilation up, and you can trot out the exact same tired deflections you were going to post regardless. Then, at least, we can respond to the script you're working from without playing the charade that you're engaging honestly. Sound like a plan? Why do we need to have videos of youtubers waffling on? Is it too hard to find something with the whole debate so we can see context of discussion. I told you, I know what you're doing.  I'm not going to spend the time getting the transcripts, which you won't read anyway and just launch into your pre-prepared response. If the youtube videos that do in fact show the comments of his that are important, but may show some other commentry isn't enough, then it's clear you're not actually interested in the topic, you just want your launchpad. Deep is the delusion and paranoia in this one... seeks no dialogue but seeks only to impose one view.... sees everyone as one big conspiracy against him and his 'kind'. Must have skin in the game....

Of course I do, I am a human being living on earth.  You delusional bigots are ruining it for the rest of us.

Gordon wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 7:00pm:

Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0.

C'mon, people! Gordon here needs to be a victim of his own white male entitlement. 

Videos of Kirk hate speech STILL = 0

On DEI. If you have the attention span watch pt1 and 2 or just start in 2.

PT1. https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSDPjjQWv/

PT2. https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSDP2wRfT/

Not 0. I posted a few. A composite, as it were.

Why do you always lie, Gordy?

Mothra posted a video of people who HATE what Kirk says.

Videos of Kirk hate speech STILL = 0

If the bloke had said
‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’
then 99.9% would agree.

Gordon wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 9:39am:

Mothra posted a video of people who HATE what Kirk says. Videos of Kirk hate speech STILL = 0

Why do you lie? You always lie.

there were several clips of Kirk in there nd they were very near the start.

Why didn't you watch it GOrdy? Afrais to be brought into question? Again?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 9:43am:

If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree.

Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit?

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 9:50am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit?

No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle.
Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc.
We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals.

But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience?

Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 11:11am:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles.

Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel?

What we have so far is hate filled lefties, Mothra taking the lead, hating what Charlie Kirk says, and spreading the kind of hate which got him shot in the neck.

Mothra is in his murder.

Apart from that, Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 9:02pm:

Charlie Kirk gets owned by a kid way smarter than him... https://youtube.com/shorts/zWvd91So5GI?si=h2BWqdRrp64iU8cv

DEI? ;D ;D ;D ;D

what happened to one vote one value? Has someone disenfranchised communities?

mothra wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 10:35pm:

8-)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upp7HVa1lVY&ab_channel=AdamMockler

You and the youtuber missed a vital word in  the school lunches question. The question was posed "should the schools provide free lunch for ALL students." It even comes up on the screen. How could someone miss that? ::)

So according to that, even millionaires kids should get free lunches. ::)

lee wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 1:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 9:02pm: Charlie Kirk gets owned by a kid way smarter than him... https://youtube.com/shorts/zWvd91So5GI?si=h2BWqdRrp64iU8cv DEI? ;D ;D ;D ;D what happened to one vote one value? Has someone disenfranchised communities?

I like what what Charlie Kirk says about DEI, but actually one of my favourite American commentators, not just black but favourite outright is John Mcwhorter.

They have differing opinions, but actually not so far apart. Charlie is called a rascist because he is white. Mcwhorter gets called an Uncle Tom.

DEI Must Change
But Donald Trump’s executive order throws the baby out with the bathwater.

In combating DEI, Donald Trump is doing the right thing. In that sentence I just wrote, I almost choked writing the six final words. But it is what I believe. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and it is high time America engaged in an honest conversation about this business called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

However, the actual substance of Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” reveals—big surprise—a smash of the knout, a coarse, unreflective bleat in the guise of statecraft. Getting DEI right while retaining the moral sophistication our nation is capable of will require actions much more specific—intelligent, even.

Make no mistake: it has been high time for a major rethink on what DEI has turned into since the pandemic, with DEI becoming a term of art for what is too often an institutionalized anti-whiteness. Under this conception, if outcomes between races aren't equal, the only possible reason can be discrimination—i.e. some kind of white malfeasance, whether intended or not—and egregious enough that rules and standards must be changed. A watchcry of adherents of this philosophy is Ibram X. Kendi’s famous quote in his massively influential How to Be an Antiracist: “When I see disparities, I see racism.”

This kind of DEI took root especially in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, when a radical contingent calling for a racial reckoning enforced an allegiance to anti-whiteness on pain of social media humiliation, cancellation, and unemployment. Between September 2019 and September 2020, DEI positions jumped by 56.3%. In 2023, Tabia Lee, a Black woman, was ousted from the directorship of the DEI program at De Anza Community College for, as she alleged in her lawsuit, being insufficiently opposed to whiteness (Jews included) and “not the right kind of Black person.” Lee has said, “The default here in America especially is [a type of DEI] that focuses on racial division and perpetual strife around racialized identity.”

If all of this were somehow constructive then maybe we could talk about how you have to crack eggs to make omelettes. But none of the news about this incarnation of DEI has been good. There is copious evidence—“hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s,” write sociologists Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev—to suggest that the corporate anti-bias training central to its mission simply doesn't work. It does not meaningfully change employees’ thinking, and tends to be recalled instead as mere hoops they had to jump through. “You spend some money, you get people excited, and then a year later, you’re at the same place,” says DEI strategist Lily Zheng, the author of DEI Deconstructed. At the University of Michigan, the main result of a campus-wide DEI infusion has—according to a deeply-reported New York Times Magazine piece—been frustration, discomfort, and alienation. “The most common attitude I encountered about DEI during my visits to Ann Arbor was a kind of wary disdain,” Nicholas Confessore wrote in The Times to summarize his months of reporting at Michigan. DEI’s casual reference to racial categories as determinative is both facile and menacing, recalling the phrenological nonsense of another time. Take the pitilessly dehumanizing conception of “whiteness” that Coca-Cola employees, for instance, have been fed in DEI trainings: If you are white, apparently you should know that you are inherently oppressive, arrogant, smug, defensive, ignorant, that you lack humility and have a hard time listening or believing, that you resist apathy, and that you embrace white solidarity.

That characterization of whiteness may sound familiar to those who read Robin DiAngelo’s best-selling White Fragility, a book that manifests another problem with post-2020 DEI: incoherent argumentation. To take one of the more absurd examples from her book, DiAngelo writes that Americans are so blithely racist as to believe that Jackie Robinson was the first Black person who was skilled enough at baseball to play in the Major Leagues, as opposed to presuming that racism had previously barred Black people from them.

pt2

Overall, this new, prevailing DEI is based on a core assumption that battling the power of whiteness be not just one goal, but the central goal of our institutions. This is a simplistic and needlessly restrictive niche ideology, allowed freer rein than any mature society should permit. Following from that vantage-point, DEI bureaucracies have swelled beyond any plausible conception of utility: in Fairfax County, Virginia, the public school system’s DEI bureaucracy now numbers some 52 employees with a combined salary ($6.4 million dollars a year) that could pay for 125 extra teachers. Only through this idea that battling whiteness’ power should be the core of human endeavor does it possibly make sense for universities to require diversity statements of applicants even to faculty jobs in STEM subjects.

We can understand these trends better if we recognize that modern DEI is equivalent to a religious faith in Europe circa 1300 A.D., fully equipped with seminary-trained clergy aglow with Good News whom it is immoral to question. DEI’s hegemony is a legacy of peak woke, freezing us in a pendulum swing to the hard left that reached its apogee sometime around June 2020. It’s been in place for a while, and to dismiss resistance to it as mere racism is reductive. Trump did not go on a witch hunt against affirmative action during his first term—it is the post-2020 detour of DEI that animated his minions’ current attack.

The problem with Trump’s executive order is that it goes beyond addressing this recent transmogrification of DEI and puts a wholesale pox on what a certain kind of person is given to calling “stirring up that stuff” about race. It would stand to reason that the proper approach to DEI overall (which has in essence been a new term for affirmative action) is, as President Bill Clinton put it about racial preferences in the 1990s, to “Mend it, not end it” i.e. to try and improve a worthy project that has its flaws. There is no mending in Trump’s order, which instead attempts to simply vaporize any institutionalized commitment to social justice.

One can be utterly revolted by the way DEI has been practiced of late while still supporting institutions that use outreach strategies to identify applicants less likely to come to their attention via normal channels. Organizations should not be barred from investigating possible injustice or—as Trump’s executive order endeavors to inhibit—to sharing data with third-party DEI entities.

Surely the idea is not that teaching about Black history, including the profound role that racism has played in it, is “radical and wasteful,” to quote what the order targets. That our country openly addresses Black history is a badge of honor and a sign of compassion. And yet Trump’s executive order has already made the U.S. Air Force feel it necessary to take off-line a teaching video on Tuskegee airmen. A change like that is grievous.

One of the most appalling aspects of Trump’s anti-DEI animus is that he has gone as far as to rescind Lyndon Johnson’s seminal 1965 executive order that prohibited discriminatory practices in hiring and employment within the federal government and which introduced the phrase “affirmative action” into widespread use.

Trump attempts to justify himself in his executive order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which rescinds the 1965 order. And I do get it—favoring Black hires can be interpreted as a kind of discrimination against whites. That’s an old argument, and one that has never met a true smackdown reply. For that reason I have always thought racial preferences in university admissions should have been applied as a temporary measure rather than one preserved until a Great Day when racism doesn’t exist.

But while deep-sixing the nakedly anti-white posturing of today’s DEI is one thing, it is another to strike down the basic acknowledgement that people should be given a fair shake regardless of sex or color. A mature society endeavors to search for talent beyond where it might seem most intuitive to look and uses imagination—and compassion—in allocating avenues to success. Affirmative action, in its initial sense—unsullied by the distortions of identity politics, the tacit commitment to lowering standards, and the temptations of virtue signalling—was a model of moral advancement for the world and something that the United States could be proud of.

Outlawing affirmative action of any kind, as Trump attempts to do, will discourage institutions from trying to level the playing field at all. This overreaction to DEI’s acknowledged missteps not only sets us back—it is immorality incarnate.

John McWhorter is an associate professor of linguistics at Columbia University, a columnist for The New York Times, and a member of Persuasion’s Board of Advisors.

Gordon wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 12:56pm:

What we have so far is hate filled lefties, Mothra taking the lead, hating what Charlie Kirk says, and spreading the kind of hate which got him shot in the neck. Mothra is in his murder. Apart from that, Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0

The problem here is that you've unilaterally appointed yourself as the arbiter of what constitutes hate speech.

Given that you see no issue with referring to black people as gorillas, it's clear that nothing Kirk has said will ever register as hate speech to you, because you've already normalised, defended, or indulged in the same, if not worse, rhetoric yourself.

Even your take on DEI is fundamentally wrong. It isn't about lowering standards, but because you feel threatened by a level playing field, you have to distort it into something it's not, casting yourself as the victim. That's the same narrative Kirk pushes when he insists black people have "taken" the place of a white person, as though being white alone entitles someone to that position, as though privilege is a birthright rather than a distortion of merit.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 1:48pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 12:56pm: What we have so far is hate filled lefties, Mothra taking the lead, hating what Charlie Kirk says, and spreading the kind of hate which got him shot in the neck. Mothra is in his murder. Apart from that, Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 The problem here is that you've unilaterally appointed yourself as the arbiter of what constitutes hate speech. Given that you see no issue with referring to black people as gorillas, it's clear that nothing Kirk has said will ever register as hate speech to you, because you've already normalised, defended, or indulged in the same, if not worse, rhetoric yourself. Even your take on DEI is fundamentally wrong. It isn't about lowering standards, but because you feel threatened by a level playing field, you have to distort it into something it's not, casting yourself as the victim. That's the same narrative Kirk pushes when he insists black people have "taken" the place of a white person, as though being white alone entitles someone to that position, as though privilege is a birthright rather than a distortion of merit.

So you didn't have the attention span to read Mcwhorters essay?

The bar of what constitutes hate speech is lower than ground level. People saying that children should not be sliced up and medicated by trans extremists is now hate speech.

You just hate what he says, and call it hate speech. You're part of the problem and that will get more people shot. Hang your head in shame.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel?

I answered your question, now do you not agree that road deaths are the price that we pay for our own pleasure and convenience?

1,337 for the last year, think of them the next time you fill the tank.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 1:56pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? I answered your question, now do you not agree that road deaths are the price that we pay for our own pleasure and convenience? 1,337 for the last year, think of them the next time you fill the tank.

Mothra is focusing on guns vs cars but isn't mentally agile enough to understand the underlying concept that in just about every area imaginable, good is accepted over perfect and for practical reasons, and that cost lives.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel?

Apples and unicorns   ::)

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 11:20am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel?

We know you ignore the context of what he said.

Charlie said you will never reduce gun deaths to zero.

At 1 min 15 seconds NSW Police minister says greater than 97% of all gun crime is done by criminals with illegal guns.
If guns laws worked why is greater than 97% of all gun crime done by those who aren't allowed to have guns?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKXLxKX8RgQ

He also mentioned the largest number of firearm deaths are suicides with older white males being the largest demographic by a long way.
If Mothra and Pecca discover these older white guys might be republicans they would probably be happy and encourage more of this to happen.
  ::)

It's armed robbery if you point a gun at someone and rob them it doesn't matter if no shots are fired.

Defensive gun use is estimated at over 2 million cases a year the vast majority of these have no shots fired.

Is over 2 million people defending themselves with a gun something Mothra and Pecca want banned so they can be like Australia where police advise you to be a good victim and comply with criminals?

If leftists in Australia think they can take constitutional rights away from Americans would they also think Americans are entitled to take away our rights or is lefty logic a one way street?

---

If he’d said
‘’ Chain saw deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having easily cut firewood’’
then 99.9% would agree.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 2:10pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::)

But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::) But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience?

We have random breath testing to reduce our road deaths

America has over 40K motor vehicle deaths every year.

Random breath testing, where police can stop drivers without specific cause is  considered unconstitutional in the US under the Fourth Amendment which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures." Courts have ruled that stopping drivers without individualized suspicion violates this protection.


Nobody ever suggests violating 4th amendment to get drunk drivers off the road.

Many on here have a limited knowledge of the US Constitution, limited by their misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, mostly due, one hopes, to weak knowledge of the English language.

Gordon wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 1:56pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 1:48pm: Gordon wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 12:56pm: What we have so far is hate filled lefties, Mothra taking the lead, hating what Charlie Kirk says, and spreading the kind of hate which got him shot in the neck. Mothra is in his murder. Apart from that, Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 The problem here is that you've unilaterally appointed yourself as the arbiter of what constitutes hate speech. Given that you see no issue with referring to black people as gorillas, it's clear that nothing Kirk has said will ever register as hate speech to you, because you've already normalised, defended, or indulged in the same, if not worse, rhetoric yourself. Even your take on DEI is fundamentally wrong. It isn't about lowering standards, but because you feel threatened by a level playing field, you have to distort it into something it's not, casting yourself as the victim. That's the same narrative Kirk pushes when he insists black people have "taken" the place of a white person, as though being white alone entitles someone to that position, as though privilege is a birthright rather than a distortion of merit. So you didn't have the attention span to read Mcwhorters essay? The bar of what constitutes hate speech is lower than ground level. People saying that children should not be sliced up and medicated by trans extremists is now hate speech. You just hate what he says, and call it hate speech. You're part of the problem and that will get more people shot. Hang your head in shame.

Even if what you've said about me is true, you are ok with calling black people gorillas.  What makes you think you have a grounded approach to hate speech?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 3:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::) But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience?

What were cars designed to do?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 5:22pm:

What were cars designed to do?

Be self propelled projectiles under the control of whatever nut is behind the steering wheel? It's true! Riding bikes gave me empirical evidence.

Setanta wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 6:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 5:22pm: What were cars designed to do? Be self propelled projectiles under the control of whatever nut is behind the steering wheel? It's true! Riding bikes gave me empirical evidence.

Road engineers and politicians have known for about 100 years how to eliminate traffic deaths, and that's to never have cars passing closely in opposite directions and to eliminate intersections but x amount of traffic deaths have always been accepted because of the cost to engineer safe roads.

If you believe cars are a necessity, then you are also accepting the road toll that comes with them. In much the same way, believing in the freedom to own a gun means accepting the deaths that inevitably follow. Both are choices that trade safety for convenience, culture, or personal empowerment — and both come with a human price tag.

Gordon wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 7:17pm:

Setanta wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 6:00pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 5:22pm: What were cars designed to do? Be self propelled projectiles under the control of whatever nut is behind the steering wheel? It's true! Riding bikes gave me empirical evidence. Road engineers and politicians have known for about 100 years how to eliminate traffic deaths, and that's to never have cars passing closely in opposite directions and to eliminate intersections but x amount of traffic deaths have always been accepted because of the cost to engineer safe roads. If you believe cars are a necessity, then you are also accepting the road toll that comes with them. In much the same way, believing in the freedom to own a gun means accepting the deaths that inevitably follow. Both are choices that trade safety for convenience, culture, or personal empowerment — and both come with a human price tag.

Freedom costs lives, in the gaining of and the continuation of. So does suppressing freedom. I wonder which costs more? Which is more acceptable?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 5:22pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::) But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What were cars designed to do?

Carry people of course; but my question is;
do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience?
What cars were designed to do is entirely irrelevant.

Look at the dignity and self control by Charlie and Riley when faced with disgusting behavior

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSDakhaMV/

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 8:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 5:22pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::) But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What were cars designed to do? Carry people of course; but my question is; do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What cars were designed to do is entirely irrelevant.

No - it's the most relevant point.

What were guns designed to do?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:14am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 8:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 5:22pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::) But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What were cars designed to do? Carry people of course; but my question is; do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What cars were designed to do is entirely irrelevant. No - it's the most relevant point. What were guns designed to do?

Depends on which guns, some, like Furnace Cannons, have but one specific purpose.
Likewise Signal Guns, Starting pistols, Humane Killers [used by veterinary workers] , Stun guns [used in abattoirs], many target guns etc.

Cars kill many thousands of people worldwide even though they are not designed to do so, but they are involved in deaths not only by accident but also deliberately in suicide and murder.

And deaths because of the use of aluminium ladders is part of the price that we pay for their lightness and usefulness.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 11:11am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 8:14am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 8:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 5:22pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 3:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? Apples and unicorns   ::) But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What were cars designed to do? Carry people of course; but my question is; do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? What cars were designed to do is entirely irrelevant. No - it's the most relevant point. What were guns designed to do? Depends on which guns, some, like Furnace Cannons, have but one specific purpose. Likewise Signal Guns, Starting pistols, Humane Killers [used by veterinary workers] , Stun guns [used in abattoirs], many target guns etc. Cars kill many thousands of people worldwide even though they are not designed to do so, but they are involved in deaths not only by accident but also deliberately in suicide and murder.

White flag accepted, folded and put away with the many others I have in storage.

Gweggy the camphor king. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

5 pages now, plenty of hate from the left, yet Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0.

Are all the reports I'm hearing now, about domestic violence, true?

So now domestic violence is hate speech? Only the left. ;)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 2:45pm:

Are all the reports I'm hearing now, about domestic violence, true?

Ah, yes - not a skerrick of a word before - now that he can't defend himself - it's 'reports'.... unlicenced rumours to overcome reality...

What is wrong with you people?

Every big mouthed bad-mouth of Kirk will take on the mantle of gospel... what an absolute pack of losers you all are... his wife is going to keep up and extend his 'work'...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 3:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 2:45pm: Are all the reports I'm hearing now, about domestic violence, true? Ah, yes - not a skerrick of a word before - now that he can't defend himself - it's 'reports'.... unlicenced rumours to overcome reality... What is wrong with you people? ...

Huh?   :-/

I'm just the messenger - don't shoot me (pardon the pun).

I'm hearing several reports of domestic violence.

All I'm doing is asking if they're true.

Sheesh  ::)

Further to  ‘what are guns designed to do’ are what are known as ‘’Clump’’ guns, designed only for target shooting.
Weighing 30lbs and upwards they are impractical to carry in the field and are rested on a chunk of wood to fire.

The only ‘’white’’ flag that I can envisage is the tail of your shirt, Greggy, as you flee for cover.

mothra wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 10:35pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upp7HVa1lVY&ab_channel=AdamMockler

Excellent video.

Adam Mockler - another podcaster (along with Kirk) I hadn't heard of before the latter's assassination - turns out to be a humanist and a rationalist.

Unlike dumb Kirk, who thinks the parents of hungry kids are to blame for  entrenched social disadvantage, Adam can see there is a problem needing to be fixed.   

Perhaps this is the problem: dumb, low IQ Conservatives combined with their natural self-interest think poverty is self-inflicted, rather than a sign of systemic failure.

So Biden's pre-election calls to tax the rich are typically regarded by low IQ Conservatives as a 'radical Left'  attack on "freedom"; hence Kirk called for Biden's execution.

The Deplorable Conservative in full flight.



 

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 4:32pm:

Unlike dumb Kirk, who thinks the parents of hungry kids are to blame for  entrenched social disadvantage, Adam can see there is a problem needing to be fixed.

The question asked  was about ALL kids getting free lunches. But don't let your hypocrisy upset you. ;D ;D ;D ;D

At about 1.20, it is even printed on the screen. ;)

There was not even discussion of all kids whose parents were on minimum wage, needing free lunches. No data presented. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 4:38pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 4:32pm: Unlike dumb Kirk, who thinks the parents of hungry kids are to blame for  entrenched social disadvantage, Adam can see there is a problem needing to be fixed.    The question asked  was about ALL kids getting free lunches. But don't let your hypocrisy upset you. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Blind self-interested Conservative Lee succeeds in proving my case:

Question: "do you think there should be free school lunch for all children?"

Kirk's reply: "No of course not, because parents should feed their kids, not the government."

See how Lee's blind devious brain has  changed that exchange into an assertion that the questioner was asking whether provision of free school lunches should be means tested (a legitimate question).

Whereas the concern of the questioner  was about all kids being well fed at school.

Lee's deplorable Conservative brain obfuscates the issue again.   

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 4:58pm:

See how Lee's blind devious brain has  changed that exchange into an assertion that the questioner was asking whether provision of free school lunches should be means tested (a legitimate question).

Where is the connotation of mean tested in the question? Where does it make any claim other than ALL children? You are a tosser. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 5:03pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 4:58pm: See how Lee's blind devious brain has  changed that exchange into an assertion that the questioner was asking whether provision of free school lunches should be means tested (a legitimate question). Where is the connotation of mean tested in the question? Where does it make any claim other than ALL children? You are a tosser. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grappler, aren't you ashamed to be on Lee's side - come on,  speak up, low IQ  Lee needs your assistance ....

Note: he's making a song and dance about "all children", yet he can't see the connection with means testing he is ascribing to the questioner - who is only concerned with all chidren eating well  at school.


edit: Graps has gone  - he's another intellectual pigmy.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 5:14pm:

Note: he's making a song and dance about "all children", yet he can't see the connection with means testing..

And neither can you. How sad to be you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 5:17pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 5:14pm: Note: he's making a song and dance about "all children", yet he can't see the connection with means testing.. And neither can you. How sad to be you. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I already did, though your pigmy brain can't see it:

Question: "do you think there should be free school lunch for all children?"

Kirk's reply: "No of course not, because parents should feed their kids, not the government."

Meaning, NO kids should receive free government-supplied lunches at school.

Poor dumb Lee, to be pitied;  yet his manner of thinking will destroy US democracy.... and France and the UK et al ....where the working class is rebelling against  "government austerity" to save the rich.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 5:26pm:

Question: "do you think there should be free school lunch for all children?" Kirk's reply: "No of course not, because parents should feed their kids, not the government." Meaning, NO kids should receive free government-supplied lunches at school.

Nope. You are answering your version of the question. The answer isn't great, BUT the question was asked of ALL students? So how many people on the minimum wage couldn't send their kids to school with lunch? All kids? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You really do beclown yourself.

That's not the question.... the question is - "In a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people should all families be ABLE to prosper and feed their kids adequately."

When we see government blunder after blunder, and calculated government policy after policy designed to reduce the peasantry under despotism and neo-Feudalism... and those in that government and their mates being handed the top slots and opportunity to build riches like some modern Chinese warlord......................   ............    ....................      as if this is some kind of 'right' and the way the world should run....... then we see that the question is much broader and much deeper than simply 'should parents feed their kids at school'.

Rather - parents should be in the position to feed their kids at school.............. under proper economic management and proper governance....

"Iniusta gubernatio nulla gubernatio est omnino"

Government has a duty ... not just an obligation .... to render fair and equitable opportunity through their governance over economic factors, to create an environment in which all can attain a basic level of sustenance...

Gordon wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 2:03pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 1:56pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? I answered your question, now do you not agree that road deaths are the price that we pay for our own pleasure and convenience? 1,337 for the last year, think of them the next time you fill the tank. Mothra is focusing on guns vs cars but isn't mentally agile enough to understand the underlying concept that in just about every area imaginable, good is accepted over perfect and for practical reasons, and that cost lives.

Oh this is delicious! I go out for dinner every couple of weeks with friends and one of the thing we do is compare the stupidest things we've seen on social media in the elapsed time. It's a bit of a competition.

This theory is to be my offering. I can't wait to tell them that the guy who backed it thought it was so intellectually nuanced it was beyond my reach.

Just lmao!

Let's see if you can get anywhere with this, Gordy although i'm not confident ... what are the consequences of taking cars off the road?

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 5:55pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 5:26pm: Question: "do you think there should be free school lunch for all children?" Kirk's reply: "No of course not, because parents should feed their kids, not the government." Meaning, NO kids should receive free government-supplied lunches at school. Quote: Nope. You are answering your version of the question. Crippled brain: the relevent point is KIRK's answer to the question, not my comprehension/"version" of the question (or your denial of what the question meant). [quote]The answer isn't great,

Indeed it's not; it proves Kirk was an ideologically blind, conservative a**hole who was more interested in assigning blame for poverty, rather than fixing it. 



Quote:

BUT the question was asked of ALL students?

No, the question was asked: should all students be properly fed.


Quote:

So how many people on the minimum wage couldn't send their kids to school with lunch? All kids? ;

Blind ideologue:

(google)

the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is not enough to lift a full-time worker above the poverty line, with the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage having reached its lowest point in decades when adjusted for inflation.


Quote:

You really do beclown yourself.

I'm exposing your blind, inadequate self-interested Conservative ideology, while democracy is on the brink.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 6:03pm:

That's not the question.... the question is - "In a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people should all families be ABLE to prosper and feed their kids adequately."

 

The question and answer stand as reported; Kirk shows himself to be an ignorant Conservative a** hole.


Quote:

Rather - parents should be in the position to feed their kids at school.............. under proper economic management and proper governance...

Indeed, so how is "proper governance" - including eliminating entrenched disadvantage - to be achieved?


Quote:

Government has a duty ... not just an obligation .... to render fair and equitable opportunity through their governance over economic factors, to create an environment in which all can attain a basic level of sustenance...

Note: not everyone can successfully compete in the profit-driven private sector market.

Your solution?

Hopefully not Kirk's, which was to assign blame for poverty, rather than fixing it, while rejecting a role for government.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 6:23pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 2:03pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 1:56pm: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:20am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 11:11am: mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:50am: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:43am: If the bloke had said ‘’Road deaths are the price we pay for the convenience of having motor transportation.’’ then 99.9% would agree. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with mass transit? No, I’m equating it with the convenience of having personal transportation by motor vehicle. Mass transit includes planes, ships, trains and buses etc. We have our private cars etc for our own convenience and pleasure, it’s only in the last 100 years that the car has become commonplace, before that most people walked or rode animals. But do you not agree that road deaths are the price we pay for our convenience? Not only humans but an estimated 55,000 animals die on Australian roads annually as a result of collisions with motor vehicles. Are you seriously equating gun ownership with car travel? I answered your question, now do you not agree that road deaths are the price that we pay for our own pleasure and convenience? 1,337 for the last year, think of them the next time you fill the tank. Mothra is focusing on guns vs cars but isn't mentally agile enough to understand the underlying concept that in just about every area imaginable, good is accepted over perfect and for practical reasons, and that cost lives. Oh this is delicious! I go out for dinner every couple of weeks with friends and one of the thing we do is compare the stupidest things we've seen on social media in the elapsed time. It's a bit of a competition. This theory is to be my offering. I can't wait to tell them that the guy who backed it thought it was so intellectually nuanced it was beyond my reach. Just lmao! Let's see if you can get anywhere with this, Gordy although i'm not confident ... what are the consequences of taking cars off the road?

Yeah - we all do that ......................................

Taking guns off the road?  why .... simple .... people wouldn't be able to move guns around so easily, off-road deaths would rise, people would drive anyway, and revolution would break out.... same as if they took people's legal firearms from them over there...

We're different here, of course - we decent honest people do the right thing even when we know our government is robbing us and allowing criminals free range.... with guns...

What are the consequences of taking cars off the roads.
Positives:
1] A vast reduction in road deaths for both humans and the other animals.
2] A vast reduction in pollution.
3] A vast increase in public transport.
4] More breeding of horses,
5] Much more use of bicycles.
6] More walking and consequently better health.
7] More disposable income.

Negatives:
1] Less work for motor mechanics.
2] Less work for panel beaters etc.
3] Less petrol stations
4] Less tax income for Government.

The question is though, would you give up the convenience of a motor car or bike to save lives?

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:09pm:

What are the consequences of taking cars off the roads. Positives: 1] A vast reduction in road deaths for both humans and the other animals. 2] A vast reduction in pollution. 3] A vast increase in public transport. 4] More breeding of horses, 5] Much more use of bicycles. 6] More walking and consequently better health. 7] More disposable income. Negatives: 1] Less work for motor mechanics. 2] Less work for panel beaters etc. 3] Less petrol stations 4] Less tax income for Government. The question is though, would you give up the convenience of a motor car or bike to save lives?

Society would utterly collapse is what would happen.

It's an eye-wateringly stupid argument.

Guns and cars do ot weight he same. Not even close.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 6:41pm:

The question and answer stand as reported;

Now all you have to do is answer the question you don't want to. How many kids of people on minimum payments can't provide their kids with school lunch?


thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 6:41pm:

Quote: Rather - parents should be in the position to feed their kids at school.............. under proper economic management and proper governance...

Not my quote. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 6:41pm:

Quote: Government has a duty ... not just an obligation .... to render fair and equitable opportunity through their governance over economic factors, to create an environment in which all can attain a basic level of sustenance...

Again not my quote. So ask the hard question, given again above. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You really have to be loopy not to answer that question. The interviewed talking head did not answer that question, and now you. You are about 19 and 6 short of a quid. ;D ;D ;D

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:14pm:

Guns and cars do ot weight he same. Not even close.

So what is expected death rate of driving a car at speed into a crowded mall per 100kg? ::)

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:30pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:14pm: Guns and cars do ot weight he same. Not even close. So what is expected death rate of driving a car at speed into a crowded mall per 100kg? ::)

Who hurt you, Lee?

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:35pm:

Who hurt you, Lee?

Don't want to answer, eh? ;)

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:39pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:35pm: Who hurt you, Lee? Don't want to answer, eh? ;)

I think my question weighs more.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:42pm:

I think my question weighs more.

About 0.6 gram total. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:57pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:42pm: I think my question weighs more. About 0.6 gram total. ;)

The weight  of an argument isn't ordinarily measurable in grams, Lee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing?

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:04pm:

ee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing?

Thanks, Is that all you have. I thought you were full of it.  I need more for my garden. ;)

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:04pm:

The weight  of an argument isn't ordinarily measurable in grams, Lee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing?

;D

I know someone here who (allegedly) sells it for $2 a bag.

He's been spreading some of it around in the Coronavirus section again today.

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:07pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 8:04pm: ee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing? Thanks, Is that all you have. I thought you were full of it.  I need more for my garden. ;)

Were i full of horseshit, Lee, i would not be required to purchase it for you ... now would i?

I take back my offer. You weren't really thinking at all.

... or if you were you can't be trusted with Horseshit.

Carl D wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:09pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 8:04pm: The weight  of an argument isn't ordinarily measurable in grams, Lee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing? ;D I know someone here who (allegedly) sells it for $2 a bag. He's been spreading some of it around in the Coronavirus section again today.

Read one post of Horseboy's, you've read them all.

I only bother with the short ones.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:42pm:

lee wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:39pm: mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:35pm: Who hurt you, Lee? Don't want to answer, eh? ;) I think my question weighs more.

I think you don't want to answer.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:42pm:

lee wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:39pm: mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:35pm: Who hurt you, Lee? Don't want to answer, eh? ;) I think my question weighs more.

Well - I think MY question weighs more...

Let me clear this confusion up for you all ... I was the superior being who wrote this:-


Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 6:03pm:

That's not the question.... the question is - "In a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people should all families be ABLE to prosper and feed their kids adequately." When we see government blunder after blunder, and calculated government policy after policy designed to reduce the peasantry under despotism and neo-Feudalism... and those in that government and their mates being handed the top slots and opportunity to build riches like some modern Chinese warlord......................   ............    ....................      as if this is some kind of 'right' and the way the world should run....... then we see that the question is much broader and much deeper than simply 'should parents feed their kids at school'. Rather - parents should be in the position to feed their kids at school.............. under proper economic management and proper governance.... "Iniusta gubernatio nulla gubernatio est omnino" Government has a duty ... not just an obligation .... to render fair and equitable opportunity through their governance over economic factors, to create an environment in which all can attain a basic level of sustenance...

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:14pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:09pm: What are the consequences of taking cars off the roads. Positives: 1] A vast reduction in road deaths for both humans and the other animals. 2] A vast reduction in pollution. 3] A vast increase in public transport. 4] More breeding of horses, 5] Much more use of bicycles. 6] More walking and consequently better health. 7] More disposable income. Negatives: 1] Less work for motor mechanics. 2] Less work for panel beaters etc. 3] Less petrol stations 4] Less tax income for Government. The question is though, would you give up the convenience of a motor car or bike to save lives? Society would utterly collapse is what would happen. It's an eye-wateringly stupid argument. Guns and cars do ot weight he same. Not even close.

There would needs be a transition period anyone would realise that, but surely you’d give up the convenience to save even one life, let alone hundreds.
Society would soon adjust, after all cars weren’t around in anywhere like today’s numbers even 50 years ago.
I walked to school every day and walked everywhere else until my dad got me a pushbike when I was12, had already learned to ride a full sized bike, we rode them through the frame, on an angle.
When I went hunting I usually rode a horse, got my first .22 for my tenth birthday and permission to shoot without supervision.
For our holidays we always went by train, of course back in those now distant days there was a much better train service and a lot more towns were served by the railway.

But if you’re willing to accept thousands of people’s deaths every year then enjoy your motoring.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:04pm:

lee wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:57pm: mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:42pm: I think my question weighs more. About 0.6 gram total. ;) The weight  of an argument isn't ordinarily measurable in grams, Lee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing?

And yet the weight of the human soul can be measured as life departs the earthly coil.... so it stands to reason that an argument - being a reflection of the human spirit resident within each of us, must have some intrinsic weight... it is, in fact, not the 'quality' of that human spirit that we must view while we discuss and argue a point - but the direction that spirit is taking... when it is a woke spirit accepting automatic doublethink as normal and accepting without question the dramas of the mainstream media and of political and other ideologues ... it is a easy thing to see the direction that spirit is taking.  The greatest difficulty lies in any attempt to bring that spirit back into reality.... the extreme lost cases seek refuge in some weird concept of gender or 'race' or religion or some other cult idea .... and the total failures kill people without reason.

I suppose those could be titled Kirkophobes....

Setanta wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:40pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:42pm: lee wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:39pm: mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:35pm: Who hurt you, Lee? Don't want to answer, eh? ;) I think my question weighs more. I think you don't want to answer.

Answer what? That gibberish?

Look if you genuinely think that banning cars to save lives is as sound an argument as banning guns to save lives and you're not just being predictably combatant, may i suggest you try to have a little think about the consequences of ceasing motor transport (yes, aaaaaall of them) and the consequences of banning guns.

Under one scenario, kids don't get to school. Under the other, kids get don't get killed at school.

Which do you prefer?

I can't believe i'm actually debating this. This place knows no end to utter stupidity. It's almost not funny anymore.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 9:10pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:14pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:09pm: What are the consequences of taking cars off the roads. Positives: 1] A vast reduction in road deaths for both humans and the other animals. 2] A vast reduction in pollution. 3] A vast increase in public transport. 4] More breeding of horses, 5] Much more use of bicycles. 6] More walking and consequently better health. 7] More disposable income. Negatives: 1] Less work for motor mechanics. 2] Less work for panel beaters etc. 3] Less petrol stations 4] Less tax income for Government. The question is though, would you give up the convenience of a motor car or bike to save lives? Society would utterly collapse is what would happen. It's an eye-wateringly stupid argument. Guns and cars do ot weight he same. Not even close. There would needs be a transition period anyone would realise that, but surely you’d give up the convenience to save even one life, let alone hundreds. Society would soon adjust, after all cars weren’t around in anywhere like today’s numbers even 50 years ago. I walked to school every day and walked everywhere else until my dad got me a pushbike when I was12, had already learned to ride a full sized bike, we rode them through the frame, on an angle. When I went hunting I usually rode a horse, got my first .22 for my tenth birthday and permission to shoot without supervision. For our holidays we always went by train, of course back in those now distant days there was a much better train service and a lot more towns were served by the railway. But if you’re willing to accept thousands of people’s deaths every year then enjoy your motoring.

Of all of the ....

Cars are essential in our society. Unfortunately there are some tragedies but tis holds true with everything in life. It's really not the clever argument you think it is.
You could apply it to anything ... drugs for example.

Yeah go on, do that. We'll see how it works out.

Drugs in this argument hold far greater equilibrium than cars.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 9:54pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 9:10pm: mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:14pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 7:09pm: What are the consequences of taking cars off the roads. Positives: 1] A vast reduction in road deaths for both humans and the other animals. 2] A vast reduction in pollution. 3] A vast increase in public transport. 4] More breeding of horses, 5] Much more use of bicycles. 6] More walking and consequently better health. 7] More disposable income. Negatives: 1] Less work for motor mechanics. 2] Less work for panel beaters etc. 3] Less petrol stations 4] Less tax income for Government. The question is though, would you give up the convenience of a motor car or bike to save lives? Society would utterly collapse is what would happen. It's an eye-wateringly stupid argument. Guns and cars do ot weight he same. Not even close. There would needs be a transition period anyone would realise that, but surely you’d give up the convenience to save even one life, let alone hundreds. Society would soon adjust, after all cars weren’t around in anywhere like today’s numbers even 50 years ago. I walked to school every day and walked everywhere else until my dad got me a pushbike when I was12, had already learned to ride a full sized bike, we rode them through the frame, on an angle. When I went hunting I usually rode a horse, got my first .22 for my tenth birthday and permission to shoot without supervision. For our holidays we always went by train, of course back in those now distant days there was a much better train service and a lot more towns were served by the railway. But if you’re willing to accept thousands of people’s deaths every year then enjoy your motoring. Of all of the .... Cars are essential in our society. Unfortunately there are some tragedies but tis holds true with everything in life. It's really not the clever argument you think it is. You could apply it to anything ... drugs for example. Yeah go on, do that. We'll see how it works out. Drugs in this argument hold far greater equilibrium than cars.

You’re seeing the light,
Charlie Kirk said exactly what you are saying and he’s made out to be the worst in the world.

However to apply the same reasoning to drugs must be feasible as you say the argument could be applied to anything, and it can, aluminium ladders allowed mankind, for the first time in history to easily carry a ladder that was also a good conductor of electricity, hence when such a ladder came into contact with a live wire the carrier usually died.

Wooden ladders save lives.

https://c.tenor.com/mALrxq1ZocQAAAAC/tenor.gif

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 7:28pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 6:41pm: The question and answer stand as reported; Now all you have to do is answer the question you don't want to. How many kids of people on minimum payments can't provide their kids with school lunch?

Conservative fraud or low IQ ideologue like Kirk?

" the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is not enough to lift a full-time worker above the poverty line, with the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage having reached its lowest point in decades when adjusted for inflation.

Poverty is the problem. dummy. 


Quote:

Not my quote.

Dummy or fraud; I was replying  to grappler, not you. 


Quote:

Government has a duty ... not just an obligation .... to render fair and equitable opportunity through their governance over economic factors, to create an environment in which all can attain a basic level of sustenance... Again not my quote. So ask the hard question, given again above.

No it was grappler; you imagined you were replying to me, when you ignored the  post containing MY quote re the federal minimum wage.


Quote:

You really have to be loopy not to answer that question. The interviewed talking head did not answer that question, and now you.

Question answered above, AND already answered in the post you ignored (#80); the federal minimum wage in the US is below the poverty level, which is why kids from those families are going to school without proper meals.

Your self deception, lies, and Kirk-like ignorance are amazing to behold.

Democracy is on the brink, given Conservatives largely agree with Kirk's
self-interested   'every man for himself' approach to economics.

Deplorable.

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 11:02pm:

https://c.tenor.com/mALrxq1ZocQAAAAC/tenor.gif

Proof that wooden lives save ladders, too..... you won't see any of you characters using a ladder to construct something.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 12:08am:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 11:02pm: https://c.tenor.com/mALrxq1ZocQAAAAC/tenor.gif Proof that wooden lives save ladders, too..... you won't see any of you characters using a ladder to construct something.....

Yet: Government has a duty ... not just an obligation .... to render fair and equitable opportunity through their governance over economic factors, to create an environment in which all can attain a basic level of sustenance..., your observation which fraudulent/dumb lee disowned.

And you didn't  answer my question (you choosing to play dumb too?): how does "government achieve equitable governance over economic factors"? 

Carl D wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 8:09pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 21st, 2025 at 8:04pm: The weight  of an argument isn't ordinarily measurable in grams, Lee but if you like, i'll chip in for a few kilos of horseshit to compensate you for all the heavy thinking you're doing? ;D I know someone here who (allegedly) sells it for $2 a bag. He's been spreading some of it around in the Coronavirus section again today.

True, but he has the lovely Mrs Scoot to put it all into his Tupperware lunchboxes for his Maccas walkthroughs.

That's the "noble Alpha" for you. If the beta cucks can't even get themselves a hot babe wife, how the hell do they think they're going to take on the big fella?

Karmala knows this all too well.

I came across a video that clarified something I'd been circling around for a while, the duality of Kirk, and why people come away with such radically different impressions of him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j08ZM3GjgP4

It's a useful reminder that not everyone who leaps to defend him does so because they relish his sneering takes on women, his contempt for minorities, or his tedious rhetoric about white victimhood. Some are being fed a carefully curated version of Kirk, the "reasonable" free speech advocate who appears to offer students a broader perspective than their supposedly stifling institutions.

I, on the other hand, am served an endless reel of his uglier moments, dishonesty in debate, grotesque misrepresentations, and the stark contrast between his own chopped-up highlight reels and the raw footage from the audiences themselves. That paints a much different picture than the sanitised, camera-ready version who looks "admirable" on face value.

But even if you grant that softer portrayal, it doesn't erase the reality. Not when there's this, and countless other examples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLXdkgrYYE

The flowery version collapses under context. The question is simple: does that whitewashed Kirk redeem the real one?

No. Not even close. A man who must distort, mislead, and outright lie to win arguments with students or to spoon-feed his supporters a narrative they'll never fact-check is no saint.

It isn't "hate" to call this behaviour out, it's honesty. And the legacy he leaves behind will be defined as much, if not more, by his bad faith and intellectual cowardice than by the illusion of tolerance he hides behind.

When George Floyd died, BLM organized riots nationwide that killed 25-40 people, injured 900 cops & caused $2 billion in damages

When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, people organized prayer vigils & millions of dollars were raised for his wife & 2 children

We are not the same…

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 9:48am:

I came across a video that clarified something I'd been circling around for a while, the duality of Kirk, and why people come away with such radically different impressions of him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j08ZM3GjgP4 It's a useful reminder that not everyone who leaps to defend him does so because they relish his sneering takes on women, his contempt for minorities, or his tedious rhetoric about white victimhood. Some are being fed a carefully curated version of Kirk, the "reasonable" free speech advocate who appears to offer students a broader perspective than their supposedly stifling institutions. I, on the other hand, am served an endless reel of his uglier moments, dishonesty in debate, grotesque misrepresentations, and the stark contrast between his own chopped-up highlight reels and the raw footage from the audiences themselves. That paints a much different picture than the sanitised, camera-ready version who looks "admirable" on face value. But even if you grant that softer portrayal, it doesn't erase the reality. Not when there's this, and countless other examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLXdkgrYYE The flowery version collapses under context. The question is simple: does that whitewashed Kirk redeem the real one? No. Not even close. A man who must distort, mislead, and outright lie to win arguments with students or to spoon-feed his supporters a narrative they'll never fact-check is no saint. It isn't "hate" to call this behaviour out, it's honesty. And the legacy he leaves behind will be defined as much, if not more, by his bad faith and intellectual cowardice than by the illusion of tolerance he hides behind.

Yep, good post as usual.  Can't argue with that.

Moreover, he fully supported and defended an adjudicated rapist & convicted felon and assisted him during the Jan. 6 insurrection.

For this alone Kirk must be eternally condemned.

SerialBrain9 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 9:55am:

When George Floyd died, BLM organized riots nationwide that killed 25-40 people, injured 900 cops & caused $2 billion in damages When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, people organized prayer vigils & millions of dollars were raised for his wife & 2 children We are not the same… From a Place You Will Not See, Comes a Sound You Will Not Hear. .  ▄︻デ╦═一━

Your last meme: too grotesque, in light of how Kirk was taken out...

As for BLM: systemic poverty is endemic in the black community, government should fix it.

Yet Kirk said government should not supply meals to school kids; he was more interested in blaming the parents than fixing the reality of entrenched poverty.

eg.   the current U.S. federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is below the poverty line for most, if not all, household sizes, and has been for many years. For example, a single person earning the federal minimum wage would not earn enough to be above the poverty line for a one-person household. 

Conservatives like Kirk  are ignorant as well as being blinded by their own self-interest which buttresses their belief  'poverty is always with us'.

Note: government can eradicate poverty without chasing your money via taxation; study Modern Money. 

George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs.

Did Trump pardon that cop sent down for that druggie's death?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 10:04am:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 9:48am: I came across a video that clarified something I'd been circling around for a while, the duality of Kirk, and why people come away with such radically different impressions of him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j08ZM3GjgP4 It's a useful reminder that not everyone who leaps to defend him does so because they relish his sneering takes on women, his contempt for minorities, or his tedious rhetoric about white victimhood. Some are being fed a carefully curated version of Kirk, the "reasonable" free speech advocate who appears to offer students a broader perspective than their supposedly stifling institutions. I, on the other hand, am served an endless reel of his uglier moments, dishonesty in debate, grotesque misrepresentations, and the stark contrast between his own chopped-up highlight reels and the raw footage from the audiences themselves. That paints a much different picture than the sanitised, camera-ready version who looks "admirable" on face value. But even if you grant that softer portrayal, it doesn't erase the reality. Not when there's this, and countless other examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzLXdkgrYYE The flowery version collapses under context. The question is simple: does that whitewashed Kirk redeem the real one? No. Not even close. A man who must distort, mislead, and outright lie to win arguments with students or to spoon-feed his supporters a narrative they'll never fact-check is no saint. It isn't "hate" to call this behaviour out, it's honesty. And the legacy he leaves behind will be defined as much, if not more, by his bad faith and intellectual cowardice than by the illusion of tolerance he hides behind. Yep, good post as usual.  Can't argue with that. Moreover, he fully supported and defended an adjudicated rapist & convicted felon and assisted him during the Jan. 6 insurrection. For this alone Kirk must be eternally condemned.

Kirkophobia and Trumpophobia are like that... hyperbolising things out of context is unseemly and must be eternally condemned...

Hyperbolised - all he said is true - suggesting that poor old White Joe should receive the death penalty is not calling for his arbitrary killing - it is suggesting that a judicial process could be pursued for the evils created by that administration .. politicians held to account.

No need to go further - that would upset you neo-reactionary neo-conservatives desperately trying to hold onto the woke platform... defending the indefensible...living in La-La Land where everything is all pink clouds and nobody is harmed by having rights raped from them to suit some fringe dweller's idea of reality - even worse when the fringe dweller is in some government or agency and assumes the mantle of unearned and unwarranted power instead of doing service.........

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 10:32am:

George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs.

Two autopsy reports – one performed by Hennepin County’s medical examiner and one commissioned by Floyd’s family – concluded Floyd’s death was a homicide.

Although they pointed to different causes of death, neither report said he died because of an overdose.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 10:37am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:32am: George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs. Two autopsy reports – one performed by Hennepin County’s medical examiner and one commissioned by Floyd’s family – concluded Floyd’s death was a homicide. Although they pointed to different causes of death, neither report said he died because of an overdose.

The public one - not privately paid for - said he had massive quanities of 4-5 drugs in his system and his lungs were struggling with fluid buildup and his cardio system was in serious trouble.  He wasn't suffocated - he died from the cumulative effects of multiple drug over-use over an extended time period.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 10:32am:

George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs. Did Trump pardon that cop sent down for that druggie's death?

Even Kirk himself had to walk back that fabrication, before doubling down and peddling it again years later.

So it's hardly surprising that your devotion to him seems rooted less in principle and more in the comfort of racism.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 10:32am:

George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs.

And why is drug taking endemic in low socio economic groups?


Quote:

Did Trump pardon that cop sent down for that druggie's death?

Not yet........

Trump's less predictable than dummy Kirk.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 6:04pm:

Gordy wants people to spread hate   ::)

Now how did you come to that asinine conclusion?

Don't tell me... you're not as astute as you make believe you are?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 6:43pm:

Love it  ;D European Parliament Refuses Moment of Silence for Charlie Kirk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkWQzVvFCJU

What would you expect from leftist haters that support terrorists?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 19^th, 2025 at 9:02pm:

Charlie Kirk gets owned by a kid way smarter than him... https://youtube.com/shorts/zWvd91So5GI?si=h2BWqdRrp64iU8cv

AI generated BS.

Marla wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 7:19am:

Gordon wrote on Sep 19th, 2025 at 7:00pm: Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0. C'mon, people! Gordon here needs to be a victim of his own white male entitlement.

Oh please .... you liberal idiot.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 11:11am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:32am: George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs. And why is drug taking endemic in low socio economic groups? Quote: Did Trump pardon that cop sent down for that druggie's death? Not yet........ Trump's less predictable than dummy Kirk.

Because they love it.

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 8:33am:

Not 0. I posted a few. A composite, as it were. Why do you always lie, Gordy?

Such hate speech.  ::)

This is hate speech according you & the other leftoid numpties here.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2194889587604243

mothra wrote on Sep 20^th, 2025 at 9:49am:

Gordon wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:39am: Mothra posted a video of people who HATE what Kirk says. Videos of Kirk hate speech STILL = 0 Why do you lie? You always lie. there were several clips of Kirk in there nd they were very near the start. Why didn't you watch it GOrdy? Afrais to be brought into question? Again?

Hypocrite

mothra wrote on Sep 21^st, 2025 at 11:02pm:

https://c.tenor.com/mALrxq1ZocQAAAAC/tenor.gif

The point is that you are willing to have people die on the roads for your own selfish convenience.

We don’t really need cars however we do need firearms.

Black American on Charlie Kirks funeral

https://www.facebook.com/reel/768569756093546

Black Americans on Black Americans

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1453180259147222

Same applies to many Black Australians.

For the leftoids.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/553913371119025

I guess there is no reaching any of you huh...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 12:00pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 11:11am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:32am: George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs. And why is drug taking endemic in low socio economic groups? Quote: Did Trump pardon that cop sent down for that druggie's death? Not yet........ Trump's less predictable than dummy Kirk. Because they love it.

Democracy is at a crossroads, with that sort of shallow thinking.

Drug taking is balm for entrenched economic disadvantage.

Please engage your brain.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 12:58pm:

I guess there is no reaching any of you huh...

It would appear so.

Let's see how it resolves in "the land of the free", in which Musk is offered a trillion dollar pay package, while a fulltime worker on the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr) is below the poverty line.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 1:02pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 12:00pm: thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 11:11am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:32am: George Floyd died because he had multiple drugs in his system and lungs struggling with fluid buildup due to those drugs. And why is drug taking endemic in low socio economic groups? Quote: Did Trump pardon that cop sent down for that druggie's death? Not yet........ Trump's less predictable than dummy Kirk. Because they love it. Democracy is at a crossroads, with that sort of shallow thinking. Drug taking is balm for entrenched economic disadvantage. Please engage your brain.

On the contrary - democracy is at a crossroads precisely because of the very realistic and deep thinking of those like me, who have a grasp on issues way over and above absolute government control and dictatorship of everything.

You can't fool me - I come from one of the most deprived backgrounds you could imagine in the West - I chose not to 'do drugs' and other stuff, but instead to follow a different path....  let's call it a Floydian Non-Slip...

Most of you have zero idea.... I, on the contrary - have EVERY idea.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 12:58pm:

I guess there is no reaching any of you huh...

... the mirror cracked ....

Gnads wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 12:02pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:49am: Gordon wrote on Sep 20th, 2025 at 9:39am: Mothra posted a video of people who HATE what Kirk says. Videos of Kirk hate speech STILL = 0 Why do you lie? You always lie. there were several clips of Kirk in there nd they were very near the start. Why didn't you watch it GOrdy? Afrais to be brought into question? Again? Hypocrite

Nah - smothra is a pure lover of humanity ..... absolutely...... true story!!  Like ever so many these days - hshe virtue signals by choosing the losers who refuse to lift themselves by their own bootstraps.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 12:58pm:

I guess there is no reaching any of you huh...

No... you keep your hands to yourself(figuratively speaking) no one needs your reach out (or is that reach around?) ...

you're not saving anyone.

People do however need saving from you & your ilk.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 1:12pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 12:58pm: I guess there is no reaching any of you huh... ... the mirror cracked ....

The difference is that I can acknowledge the moderate things Kirk has said, the rare occasions where he's managed to sound reasonable, act in apparent good faith, or engage in genuine dialogue.

But that's only a small sliver of what he represented. The rest, the lies, the deceit, the selective editing, and the deliberate dishonesty, are what define him.

And yet, those with a vested interest, whether out of ideology or mere tribal loyalty, insist on canonising him as some kind of saint, even when the full, unedited evidence is right in front of them.

Those like you seem to have chosen the myth over the reality, and once that decision is made, it seems nothing, least of all the truth, can reach them.

Gnads wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 1:25pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 12:58pm: I guess there is no reaching any of you huh... No... you keep your hands to yourself(figuratively speaking) no one needs your reach out (or is that reach around?) ... you're not saving anyone. People do however need saving from you & your ilk.

Always the victim then?

How "modern alpha" of you.  The new breed of grievance masculinity...

10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer.

Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 1:32pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 1:12pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 12:58pm: I guess there is no reaching any of you huh... ... the mirror cracked .... The difference is that I can acknowledge the moderate things Kirk has said, the rare occasions where he's managed to sound reasonable, act in apparent good faith, or engage in genuine dialogue. But that's only a small sliver of what he represented. The rest, the lies, the deceit, the selective editing, and the deliberate dishonesty, are what define him.

And the fact that he supported and defended an adjudicated rapist and convicted felon who stole money from charities.

He also bussed in rioters to the rapist's Jan. 6 insurrection.

He was a vile, violent, racist little man.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSDHqN3Gs/

Gordon wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 7:32pm:

10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0

Yeah

They certainly have no self awareness

Gordon wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 8:17pm:

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSDHqN3Gs/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhN4Rimxb4A

Here is a video debunking the nonsense Charlie was racist for saying some black women.....

He even posted clips of those women admitting the only reason they got the job was being black and female.


Quote:

Finally! A fellow blue hair is here to tell me how to think about this! https://x.com/AwakenWithJP/status/1968835686800261485

Love how he sits down to watch Kimmel after proving Charlie was a racist
;D

Gordon wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 7:32pm:

10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0

Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0.

This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is.

SerialBrain9 wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 9:55am:

When George Floyd died, BLM organized riots nationwide that killed 25-40 people, injured 900 cops & caused $2 billion in damages When Charlie Kirk was assassinated, people organized prayer vigils & millions of dollars were raised for his wife & 2 children We are not the same…

Strange. BLM organized marches all over the world - not one killing, arson attack, looting spree, nothing. Just a bunch of people walking around with signs. Millions.

Now, when your DL tried to stop an election - oh, forget about it.

They had a peaceful walking tour.

BUTTHURT !!!

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 10:10pm:

Gordon wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 7:32pm: 10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0. This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is.

I think Gordon meant nobody posted the context, Sad, but that's okay.

Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns.

Apparently Charlie was talking about mass shootings when he was shot. He actually stuck his next out - bam. The alleged killer said he'd had enough, he just couldn't take the hate anymore.

So he took it out on Charlie.

Look, it's fair to say Charlie died doing what he loved, sticking it to the leftards. The big fella certainly said as much. His team are now trying to work out how to do the mass arrests. Apparently Pam's been given two weeks.

Charlie's wife seems to be doing okay. She's taken over as the CEO of Turning Point, doing fundraisers and getting the message out there. Life goes on.

Erika said she'd found it in her heart to forgive the killer. That's nice, the big fella said, but he begs to differ. There needs to be a reckoning. Burn baby burn.

In times like these, I feel we all need to remember our shared humanity, no? Life is so short. As Charlie's untimely death shows, we need to make every minute count.

As DL said, we'll need to wait and see what happens.

And when it does, I'm sure Gordon will be back to celebrating hate speech again. Just give him some time to be virtuous, okay?

He's earned that much, no?

O hate vieos? Why does Gordy lie and lie?

Here's another one ... Charlie unedited and in all his own words:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wFf75NKNc4&ab_channel=StephenWoodford

Karnal wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2025 at 11:32pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:10pm: Gordon wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 7:32pm: 10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0. This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is. I think Gordon meant nobody posted the context, Sad, but that's okay. Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns. Apparently Charlie was talking about mass shootings when he was shot. He actually stuck his next out - bam. The alleged killer said he'd had enough, he just couldn't take the hate anymore. So he took it out on Charlie. Look, it's fair to say Charlie died doing what he loved, sticking it to the leftards. The big fella certainly said as much. His team are now trying to work out how to do the mass arrests. Apparently Pam's been given two weeks. Charlie's wife seems to be doing okay. She's taken over as the CEO of Turning Point, doing fundraisers and getting the message out there. Life goes on. Erika said she'd found it in her heart to forgive the killer. That's nice, the big fella said, but he begs to differ. There needs to be a reckoning. Burn baby burn. In times like these, I feel we all need to remember our shared humanity, no? Life is so short. As Charlie's untimely death shows, we need to make every minute count. As DL said, we'll need to wait and see what happens. And when it does, I'm sure Gordon will be back to celebrating hate speech again. Just give him some time to be virtuous, okay? He's earned that much, no?

A deeply dishonest misrepresentation.
The quote about garbage people misrepresenting things applies to you in spades, wee son of Lahore.

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2025 at 3:14am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 11:32pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:10pm: Gordon wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 7:32pm: 10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0. This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is. I think Gordon meant nobody posted the context, Sad, but that's okay. Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns. Apparently Charlie was talking about mass shootings when he was shot. He actually stuck his next out - bam. The alleged killer said he'd had enough, he just couldn't take the hate anymore. So he took it out on Charlie. Look, it's fair to say Charlie died doing what he loved, sticking it to the leftards. The big fella certainly said as much. His team are now trying to work out how to do the mass arrests. Apparently Pam's been given two weeks. Charlie's wife seems to be doing okay. She's taken over as the CEO of Turning Point, doing fundraisers and getting the message out there. Life goes on. Erika said she'd found it in her heart to forgive the killer. That's nice, the big fella said, but he begs to differ. There needs to be a reckoning. Burn baby burn. In times like these, I feel we all need to remember our shared humanity, no? Life is so short. As Charlie's untimely death shows, we need to make every minute count. As DL said, we'll need to wait and see what happens. And when it does, I'm sure Gordon will be back to celebrating hate speech again. Just give him some time to be virtuous, okay? He's earned that much, no? A deeply dishonest misrepresentation. The quote about garbage people misrepresenting things applies to you in spades, wee son of Lahore.

If it's dishonest i can't see where. Could you point it out for us?

.

mothra wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2025 at 4:33am:

Frank wrote on Sep 23rd, 2025 at 3:14am: Karnal wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 11:32pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:10pm: Gordon wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 7:32pm: 10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0. This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is. I think Gordon meant nobody posted the context, Sad, but that's okay. Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns. Apparently Charlie was talking about mass shootings when he was shot. He actually stuck his next out - bam. The alleged killer said he'd had enough, he just couldn't take the hate anymore. So he took it out on Charlie. Look, it's fair to say Charlie died doing what he loved, sticking it to the leftards. The big fella certainly said as much. His team are now trying to work out how to do the mass arrests. Apparently Pam's been given two weeks. Charlie's wife seems to be doing okay. She's taken over as the CEO of Turning Point, doing fundraisers and getting the message out there. Life goes on. Erika said she'd found it in her heart to forgive the killer. That's nice, the big fella said, but he begs to differ. There needs to be a reckoning. Burn baby burn. In times like these, I feel we all need to remember our shared humanity, no? Life is so short. As Charlie's untimely death shows, we need to make every minute count. As DL said, we'll need to wait and see what happens. And when it does, I'm sure Gordon will be back to celebrating hate speech again. Just give him some time to be virtuous, okay? He's earned that much, no? A deeply dishonest misrepresentation. The quote about garbage people misrepresenting things applies to you in spades, wee son of Lahore. If it's dishonest i can't see where. Could you point it out for us?

Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns.

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2025 at 3:14am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 11:32pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:10pm: Gordon wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 7:32pm: 10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0. This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is. I think Gordon meant nobody posted the context, Sad, but that's okay. Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns. Apparently Charlie was talking about mass shootings when he was shot. He actually stuck his next out - bam. The alleged killer said he'd had enough, he just couldn't take the hate anymore. So he took it out on Charlie. Look, it's fair to say Charlie died doing what he loved, sticking it to the leftards. The big fella certainly said as much. His team are now trying to work out how to do the mass arrests. Apparently Pam's been given two weeks. Charlie's wife seems to be doing okay. She's taken over as the CEO of Turning Point, doing fundraisers and getting the message out there. Life goes on. Erika said she'd found it in her heart to forgive the killer. That's nice, the big fella said, but he begs to differ. There needs to be a reckoning. Burn baby burn. In times like these, I feel we all need to remember our shared humanity, no? Life is so short. As Charlie's untimely death shows, we need to make every minute count. As DL said, we'll need to wait and see what happens. And when it does, I'm sure Gordon will be back to celebrating hate speech again. Just give him some time to be virtuous, okay? He's earned that much, no? A deeply dishonest misrepresentation. The quote about garbage people misrepresenting things applies to you in spades, wee son of Lahore.

Hate speech alert, leftards. Try to keep the kiddies away, mkay?

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2025 at 3:22pm:

mothra wrote on Sep 23rd, 2025 at 4:33am: Frank wrote on Sep 23rd, 2025 at 3:14am: Karnal wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 11:32pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 10:10pm: Gordon wrote on Sep 22nd, 2025 at 7:32pm: 10 pages of fixated radicalized lefties spewing online hate, the kind of hate which indoctrinated Charlies killer. Videos of Kirk hate speech = 0 Just because you ignore what has been posted doesn't mean it's 0. This is the problem with someone as hateful and bigoted as you being the arbitor of what hate speech is. I think Gordon meant nobody posted the context, Sad, but that's okay. Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns. Apparently Charlie was talking about mass shootings when he was shot. He actually stuck his next out - bam. The alleged killer said he'd had enough, he just couldn't take the hate anymore. So he took it out on Charlie. Look, it's fair to say Charlie died doing what he loved, sticking it to the leftards. The big fella certainly said as much. His team are now trying to work out how to do the mass arrests. Apparently Pam's been given two weeks. Charlie's wife seems to be doing okay. She's taken over as the CEO of Turning Point, doing fundraisers and getting the message out there. Life goes on. Erika said she'd found it in her heart to forgive the killer. That's nice, the big fella said, but he begs to differ. There needs to be a reckoning. Burn baby burn. In times like these, I feel we all need to remember our shared humanity, no? Life is so short. As Charlie's untimely death shows, we need to make every minute count. As DL said, we'll need to wait and see what happens. And when it does, I'm sure Gordon will be back to celebrating hate speech again. Just give him some time to be virtuous, okay? He's earned that much, no? A deeply dishonest misrepresentation. The quote about garbage people misrepresenting things applies to you in spades, wee son of Lahore. If it's dishonest i can't see where. Could you point it out for us? Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns.

You forgot the need to accept thousands of road deaths and many more thousands of injuries to protect car ownership.

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2025 at 3:22pm:

Gordon agrees with pretty much all of it anyway. The need to stop the Great Replacement to save Whitey, the need to let Israel destroy Gaza to take out the Muselman, the need to let a few moms die in childbirth to prevent abortions, the need to accept a few mass shootings to protect guns.

https://media.tenor.com/zsyaeay7NOAAAAAM/simpson.gif

Frank wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2025 at 3:14am:

A deeply dishonest misrepresentation. The quote about garbage people misrepresenting things applies to you in spades, wee son of Lahore.

Speaking of wee sons of Lahore....


Harvard University has reportedly hired a drag queen named LaWhore Vagistan as a visiting professor, who will teach a course in the coming spring semester.

Kareem Khubchandani, perhaps better known by his stage name, LaWhore Vagistan, will teach a course on the TV show RuPaul’s Drag Race, beginning in early 2026, according to a July message sent from Harvard to the college community, obtained by the New York Post.

The university further revealed that Khubchandani, a visiting professor from Tufts University — where he taught theater, dance, and performance studies — will teach in the Studies of Gender and Sexuality program thanks to the Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus.

Moreover, the drag queen is reportedly expected to teach his course under the “LaWhore” persona.

“My name is LaWhore Vagistan, my preferred pronouns are ‘she’ or ‘aunty.’ I chose ‘LaWhore’ because my family traces its origins to Pakistan: Lahore is an important city in Pakistan, and well, I’m a bit of a whore,” Khubchandani explained in a 2015 interview with his own drag alter ego, published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

“And Vagistan, because I see the subcontinent as one, big, beautiful Vag … istan,” the drag queen added.

" thanks to the Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus Circus"

Fixed it. ;).

And?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2025 at 4:45pm:

And?

Grotesque and sinister stupidity appears unremarkable and normal to numpties like you, silly little "intellectual" teapot.

Frank wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2025 at 6:39pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 4:45pm: And? Grotesque and sinister stupidity appears unremarkable and normal to numpties like you, silly little "intellectual" teapot.

If you can't articulate your point, that's on you, dummy.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2025 at 4:45pm:

And?

The articulation of your point has won me over. Maybe.. What was your point again?  :-/

Setanta wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2025 at 9:57pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 4:45pm: And? The articulation of your point has won me over. Maybe.. What was your point again?  :-/

He posted a Breitbart article without any reference to the source or an opinion given.

What exactly is his point meant to be here?

Is he suggesting the government should dictate what courses Harvard can or can't teach?

Is he trying to undermine the reputation of Harvard itself?

Or is it just another lazy attempt to pass off a copy/paste job as if it's his own insight, when in reality it's nothing more than parroting whatever source has told him what and how to think this week?

Honestly, is it too much to expect actual discussion on a discussion forum?

Or are the far-right extremists on here a heavily protected species now?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4^th, 2025 at 7:49am:

Setanta wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 9:57pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 4:45pm: And? The articulation of your point has won me over. Maybe.. What was your point again?  :-/ He posted a Breitbart article without any reference to the source or an opinion given. What exactly is his point meant to be here? Is he suggesting the government should dictate what courses Harvard can or can't teach? Is he trying to undermine the reputation of Harvard itself? Or is it just another lazy attempt to pass off a copy/paste job as if it's his own insight, when in reality it's nothing more than parroting whatever source has told him what and how to think this week? Honestly, is it too much to expect actual discussion on a discussion forum? Or are the far-right extremists on here a heavily protected species now?

You have no difficulty identifying it as a Breitbart article, "intellectual" little teapot.

And the article contained no opinions, only publicly available info first published by thd New York Post, as is acknowledged in the text.

Your knuckles must be well and truly shot with all your emotional hand-wringing over the years. Sad.

My post was picking up on the son of Lahore. You know, the karnal connection. Tsk, tsk  ::) ::)

To what end, what's the point of your post?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4^th, 2025 at 4:53pm:

To what end, what's the point of your post?

Gawd, you ARE thick and slow. A true 'intellectual'.


Quote:

Speaking of wee sons of Lahore...

Setanta wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2025 at 9:57pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 4:45pm: And? The articulation of your point has won me over. Maybe.. What was your point again?  :-/

OR ?

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4^th, 2025 at 4:53pm:

To what end, what's the point of your post?

The purpose of the post?  Why - to defeat your position!

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4^th, 2025 at 7:49am:

Setanta wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 9:57pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 3rd, 2025 at 4:45pm: And? The articulation of your point has won me over. Maybe.. What was your point again?  :-/ He posted a Breitbart article without any reference to the source or an opinion given. What exactly is his point meant to be here? Is he suggesting the government should dictate what courses Harvard can or can't teach? Is he trying to undermine the reputation of Harvard itself? Or is it just another lazy attempt to pass off a copy/paste job as if it's his own insight, when in reality it's nothing more than parroting whatever source has told him what and how to think this week? Honestly, is it too much to expect actual discussion on a discussion forum? Or are the far-right extremists on here a heavily protected species now?

Pointed question:- Does Harvard have a reputation these days after its support for Hamas and for chopping up children with chemicals and knives? How could it possibly defend what it always knew to be indefensible?

Well - this is scarcely a scientific study - the free thinking mind would instantly associate such a post with the reason it is posted... if one has to explain it - one is dealing with Philistines who have the sense of humour and intellect of a sand adder .......

Humour is the greatest finger pointer of reality.... and parody is one of the most penetrating aspects of humour... but one must never lose track of the simple truth that parody and hyperbole are not one and the same .....

I would suggest the REAL issue that would require government intervention is the simple set of questions - is this course mandatory?  If so, on what basis?  What is its purpose?  On what basis should any student be compelled to pay for such a course, especially if it is mandatory?

In the 1980's here a mandatory social science component was enforced in degree courses................. how now the rather loose definition of 'social science' these days?  The study of minority anti=-social groups is not really social science for the majority - that is a very specialised niche suitable only for discussion at high-flying specialist cosktail parties as some kind of frippery .... but having little to no relevance to society at large......

Frank wrote on Oct 4^th, 2025 at 4:56pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4th, 2025 at 4:53pm: To what end, what's the point of your post? Gawd, you ARE thick and slow. A true 'intellectual'. Quote: Speaking of wee sons of Lahore...

So there was no point then.

That makes more sense.  Better watch out for those rakes dear.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 6:59am:

Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2025 at 4:56pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4th, 2025 at 4:53pm: To what end, what's the point of your post? Gawd, you ARE thick and slow. A true 'intellectual'. Quote: Speaking of wee sons of Lahore... So there was no point then. That makes more sense.  Better watch out for those rakes dear.

Gawd, you ARE thick and slow. A true 'intellectual'.

Frank wrote on Oct 5^th, 2025 at 5:21pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 5th, 2025 at 6:59am: Frank wrote on Oct 4th, 2025 at 4:56pm: ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 4th, 2025 at 4:53pm: To what end, what's the point of your post? Gawd, you ARE thick and slow. A true 'intellectual'. Quote: Speaking of wee sons of Lahore... So there was no point then. That makes more sense.  Better watch out for those rakes dear. Gawd, you ARE thick and slow. A true 'intellectual'.

And you're reverting to insults again, I must be over the target.