Australian Politics Forum - The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 53418 Gender:	Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now Reply #75 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:05pm Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:04pm: Stop lying, teapot. https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1760482913/43#43 https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1760482913/45#45
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

ProudKangaroo Gold Member Offline The Sandstorm is coming 🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵 Posts: 21166 Meeanjin (Brisbane)	Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now Reply #76 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:05pm Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:04pm: Stop lying, teapot. I accept your surrender. If you are not surrendering, please highlight what I've said that's a lie, or apologise for the false accusation. Otherwise, white flag accepted.
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53418
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #77 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:15pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

ProudKangaroo

Gold Member

Offline

The Sandstorm is coming
🎵Doo doo doo doo🎵

Posts: 21166
Meeanjin (Brisbane)

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #78 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:14pm

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.
)

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53418
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #79 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:33pm

Quote:

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

A load of muddled, tendentious bollocks, teapot. Rubbish.

I take my cues on American DEI from the black sage of Stanford:

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Leroy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3784
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #80 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:46pm

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:14pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.
)

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

I think its more about you just not understanding what he said.

Kirk has no problem with black people being hired, his point is if you have a policy that insists that a certain amount of people are hired due to being black then that is racist.

The other point he made is if you have a policy that ensures a certain amount of black people must be hired then those black people that are deserving of placement will always be have a cloud over them because they are in a system that ensures black people must be employed and not on competence and merit.

Back to top

Trump derangement syndrome
Fareed Zakaria defined the term as "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people's judgment"

Lets check in at 5pm on 23rd July 2025 then at 5pm on 30th July

IP Logged

Leroy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3784
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #81 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:50pm

And when you talk about standards its easy to see his point, if a basketball team is forced to hire half white players instead of the best players then they will not have the best team which is a fall in standards. If any sports team is forced to pick players ensuring white players make up 50% of the team then their standards would drop.

Back to top

Trump derangement syndrome
Fareed Zakaria defined the term as "hatred of President Trump so intense that it impairs people's judgment"

Lets check in at 5pm on 23rd July 2025 then at 5pm on 30th July

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99145

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #82 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:54pm

Leroy wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:14pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.
)

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

I think its more about you just not understanding what he said.

Kirk has no problem with black people being hired, his point is if you have a policy that insists that a certain amount of people are hired due to being black then that is racist.

The other point he made is if you have a policy that ensures a certain amount of black people must be hired then those black people that are deserving of placement will always be have a cloud over them because they are in a system that ensures black people must be employed and not on competence and merit.

Thanks, Leroy. Now, can you point to one policy in the entire US government that has ever ensured a certain number of black people must be hired?

Cheers.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 53418 Gender:	Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now Reply #83 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:01pm https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial...
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146649
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #84 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:03pm

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:54pm:

Leroy wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:14pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.
)

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

I think its more about you just not understanding what he said.

Kirk has no problem with black people being hired, his point is if you have a policy that insists that a certain amount of people are hired due to being black then that is racist.

The other point he made is if you have a policy that ensures a certain amount of black people must be hired then those black people that are deserving of placement will always be have a cloud over them because they are in a system that ensures black people must be employed and not on competence and merit.

Thanks, Leroy. Now, can you point to one policy in the entire US government that has ever ensured a certain number of black people must be hired?

Cheers.

I'm sure he'll provide that for you in the next few minutes.

Leroy? Undecided

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 53418
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #85 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:08pm

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:54pm:

Leroy wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:14pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.
)

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

I think its more about you just not understanding what he said.

Kirk has no problem with black people being hired, his point is if you have a policy that insists that a certain amount of people are hired due to being black then that is racist.

The other point he made is if you have a policy that ensures a certain amount of black people must be hired then those black people that are deserving of placement will always be have a cloud over them because they are in a system that ensures black people must be employed and not on competence and merit.

Thanks, Leroy. Now, can you point to one policy in the entire US government that has ever ensured a certain number of black people must be hired?

Cheers.

Can you point to anything policy in the entire US government that excluded any eligible people to equally participate?

Ie any policy that needed to be corrected by a DEI policy?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146649
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #86 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:09pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:54pm:

Leroy wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:46pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:14pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:08pm:

ProudKangaroo wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 4:59pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 3:58pm:

I have provided the full context of two of Kirk's supposedly wacist utterances.

Little teapot refuses to point out which bit was wacist, she/zi just bangs on and on, as if she/zi has not been proven a tendentious liar and distorted.

You keep pretending not to understand what makes it racist, so let me spell it out as clearly as I can, again.

It's not "just a concern about DEI." It's the part where he explicitly questions the competence of Black professionals because they are Black, and then attributes their success to handouts rather than merit. He frames Black doctors and pilots as intellectually inferior, incapable of earning their position without lowered standards, and claims that white people were displaced because of it.

That is textbook racism. He is assigning lower intelligence and ability to an entire race, and pushing a lie that DEI means replacing qualified white people with unqualified Black people.

DEI does not lower standards, that narrative is a deliberate falsehood used as a shield to justify bigotry. It's a convenient excuse to dress up racism as "concern."

You don't see it that way because you use it as a shield too.

If ANYONE is hired because of his race or sex, not his competence for the task, that is DEI and that is wacist and sexist.

Which is Kirk's point.
)

That framing is dishonest from the start because it pretends that DEI = "hiring unqualified people because of race or sex." That's not what DEI is, that's just the caricature racists use to attack it, or as a shield for their vile rhetoric.

DEI doesn't tell anyone to ignore competence, it pushes equal access to opportunity and addresses historical gatekeeping that kept qualified people out before they were even allowed to compete.

The only way Kirk's argument works is if you start from the assumption that Black people or women only succeed because of lowered standards. He's not critiquing a system, he's presuming incompetence based on identity. That's why it's racist.

If DEI meant "hire unqualified people," then point to an actual policy that says that. You won't find one. What you'll find are racists who see a Black doctor and immediately assume charity hire.

That's not a critique of hiring practices, that's a confession of their own prejudice.

Of Kirk and you.

I think its more about you just not understanding what he said.

Kirk has no problem with black people being hired, his point is if you have a policy that insists that a certain amount of people are hired due to being black then that is racist.

The other point he made is if you have a policy that ensures a certain amount of black people must be hired then those black people that are deserving of placement will always be have a cloud over them because they are in a system that ensures black people must be employed and not on competence and merit.

Thanks, Leroy. Now, can you point to one policy in the entire US government that has ever ensured a certain number of black people must be hired?

Cheers.

I'm sure he'll provide that for you in the next few minutes.

Leroy? Undecided

Leroy?

Oh, he's gone.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99145

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #87 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:13pm

Leroy wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 5:50pm:

And when you talk about standards its easy to see his point, if a basketball team is forced to hire half white players instead of the best players then they will not have the best team which is a fall in standards. If any sports team is forced to pick players ensuring white players make up 50% of the team then their standards would drop.

I think you'll find sports teams scout for half-white players - just as government employers are forced to advertise to, interview and give equal opportunities to people with front bottoms, disabilities, tintedness and LGBTIQ genes that can't be prayed away, dear.

Chuck, of course, would have known all this if he just picked up a govt DEI policy. Twenty minutes reading could have saved him hours of spruiking krap, but to be honest with you, I think he enjoyed the lie.

He was schooled a number of times in debates, including the one he did on Jubilee, but he preferred to keep doing his schtick.

Money for jam, innit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 99145

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #88 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:20pm

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:01pm:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial...

Why, thanks for your support, dear boy. Now, having read all that, can you point to one part that says the tinted races must be hired?

I'm sure Leroy will value your contribution to the debate, wherever he is.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146649
Gender: male

Re: The whole Charlie Kirk circus is ridiculous now
Reply #89 - Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:33pm

Karnal wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:20pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 20^th, 2025 at 6:01pm:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial...

Why, thanks for your support, dear boy. Now, having read all that, can you point to one part that says the tinted races must be hired?

I'm sure Leroy will value your contribution to the debate, wherever he is.

I didn't see anything about "a certain amount" either.

Leroy's gone, so hopefully Frank can clear this up.

Back to top

IP Logged