The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
OK, fair enough. I'm sorry for the lecturing tone of my posts, which itself isn't productive either. I do think Rogan's podcast has been a negative influence on many people but also honestly think he's not really a "Republican" and it would not shock me at all for him to swing back leftward in many ways while the Trump admin completely botches ruling the country. (One big complicating factor for him will be his deep ties with MMA/UFC, which is still rife with toxic right-wing masculinity and Trump support.)
he can do whatever he wants, but the level of support he's shown for trump is certainly disqualifying in terms of any liberal/left coalition-building that can happen after trump. either he's as MAGA as the others and playacting a doofus, or he's a doofus who's too simple to realize how MAGA-adjacent he is. i don't think it's incorrect to call him MAGA, and it's definitely not correct that the future majority is going to be built from welcoming back people like him.

if you're at dinner with 12 nazis, it's a dinner of 13 nazis.
 
Under that definition, Rogan is definitely MAGA. But I think there are good semantic reasons to distinguish enablers from avid supporters.
Mind if I ask what value you see in that? To me, its not different from one of our resident Pubs saying he supports gay marriage and abortion even though he voted for Amendment 1 and has voted for every anti gay and anti choice candidate available since. What good is such "support"?
 
he can do whatever he wants, but the level of support he's shown for trump is certainly disqualifying in terms of any liberal/left coalition-building that can happen after trump. either he's as MAGA as the others and playacting a doofus, or he's a doofus who's too simple to realize how MAGA-adjacent he is. i don't think it's incorrect to call him MAGA, and it's definitely not correct that the future majority is going to be built from welcoming back people like him.

if you're at dinner with 12 nazis, it's a dinner of 13 nazis.
First of all Rogan may be a lot of things - intellectually lazy, anti-intellectual, anti-science, too gullible, a chauvinist, a willing prop for Trump's disastrous election - but he isn't a Nazi.

Second of all, we're not just talking about Rogan himself. He has an audience of millions, if not tens of millions. Many of whom are not MAGA and/or are really not that political at all. It does nobody any good to tar him - and by extension his audience - as someone who is permanently excluded from our vision for a future America.

I am right there with many people who are absolutely appalled at how many Americans have been either too stupid or too apathetic to avoid getting dragged along with a campaign and administration who have not attempted to hide their illiberal and authoritarian ambitions. But we can't simply kick all those people out of the country or write all of them off from ever being reachable as decent citizens again. I'm not suggesting that Rogan wouldn't have to acknowledge and/or atone for his past role in some way. I'm not suggesting that I want him, like, filling public office. I personally hope his audience and influence wane. But trying to forcibly bar him and people like him from being part of building the country back will be just as counter-productive as Kamala refusing to go onto his podcast.
 
First of all Rogan may be a lot of things - intellectually lazy, anti-intellectual, anti-science, too gullible, a chauvinist, a willing prop for Trump's disastrous election - but he isn't a Nazi.

Second of all, we're not just talking about Rogan himself. He has an audience of millions, if not tens of millions. Many of whom are not MAGA and/or are really not that political at all. It does nobody any good to tar him - and by extension his audience - as someone who is permanently excluded from our vision for a future America.

I am right there with many people who are absolutely appalled at how many Americans have been either too stupid or too apathetic to avoid getting dragged along with a campaign and administration who have not attempted to hide their illiberal and authoritarian ambitions. But we can't simply kick all those people out of the country or write all of them off from ever being reachable as decent citizens again. I'm not suggesting that Rogan wouldn't have to acknowledge and/or atone for his past role in some way. I'm not suggesting that I want him, like, filling public office. I personally hope his audience and influence wane. But trying to forcibly bar him and people like him from being part of building the country back will be just as counter-productive as Kamala refusing to go onto his podcast.
I wish I shared your view that either Rogan himself or any of his audience can be reached or cares to be. I do not.
 
You guys seem to think that just because a person is political, they can't be fairly prosecuted.

That's why you say "weaponization" when it was Trump being prosecuted. It was not weaponized. It would have prosecuted anyone in that situation. Of course, only Trump would be in that situation, but that doesn't mean it was targeted.

If the entire Republican party got together and decided to launch missiles at major US cities, why wouldn't it be appropriate to prosecute the entire Republican party?
It is the epitome of hypocrisy that the guy who continually railed about "weaponization of the justice system" whenever he was being prosecuted for actual crimes (for which he was convicted by a jury of his peers) is on a revenge tour by, wait for it ..., purging and weaponizing the FBI and DOJ.
 
There is currently a 50+ page thread on the on3 main board about Libs being fired for posting about CK

It is mainly one lunatic posting libs of tik tok tweets talking to himself
 
To me the only difference between Rogan and the other people listed is Rogan tries to put on a facade of being above it all, while the others very publicly embrace MAGA culture. To me the facade comes off as utter bull shit but it obviously works on a lot of people because he's incredibly successful.
 
To me the only difference between Rogan and the other people listed is Rogan tries to put on a facade of being above it all, while the others very publicly embrace MAGA culture. To me the facade comes off as utter bull shit but it obviously works on a lot of people because he's incredibly successful.
Oh yea His listeners will tell you he is non Partisan
 
To me the only difference between Rogan and the other people listed is Rogan tries to put on a facade of being above it all, while the others very publicly embrace MAGA culture. To me the facade comes off as utter bull shit but it obviously works on a lot of people because he's incredibly successful.
Wow, so Zen is Rogan.
 
The show on which Rogan was attempting to rag on Biden for his comments about the Revolutionary War and airports was BAD.

Those comments were by Trump.

When someone corrected Rogan and informed him that Trump made those comments, Rogan basically shrugged his shoulders and said, “Oh.”

And changed topics.
He didn’t just change topics. He came up with some excuses for Trump making those comments before he changed topics.
 
I look forward to the day when this thread disappears from the top of the board.

I guess I could Ignore it, but pardon the pun, the Kirk thread excites a morbid curiosity.
 
First of all Rogan may be a lot of things - intellectually lazy, anti-intellectual, anti-science, too gullible, a chauvinist, a willing prop for Trump's disastrous election - but he isn't a Nazi.

Second of all, we're not just talking about Rogan himself. He has an audience of millions, if not tens of millions. Many of whom are not MAGA and/or are really not that political at all. It does nobody any good to tar him - and by extension his audience - as someone who is permanently excluded from our vision for a future America.
1) brother, that is the point of the aphorism. a "willing prop" for fascism is no better than a fascist.

2) the conversation was explicitly about Rogan himself.

3) "excluded from our vision for a future America?" even super isn't suggesting kicking every trump voter out of the country. they will simply be dragged into the next age of progress and can choose to either fall in line or become the "get off my lawn" grandparent nobody likes, as has happened with every positive social movement ever. but there's no way i'm saying that just because he's popular that he should have a voice in the contemporary liberal/left umbrella.
 
Mind if I ask what value you see in that? To me, its not different from one of our resident Pubs saying he supports gay marriage and abortion even though he voted for Amendment 1 and has voted for every anti gay and anti choice candidate available since. What good is such "support"?
It is the same reason I do not call all squares rectangles. I mean, they are all rectangles, but it is useful to distinguish between squares and rectangles because squares have certain attributes that are not shared by all rectangles.

All avid supporters are enablers but not all enablers are avid supporters. Same deal.

You view that team as a bunch of rectangles. I think it is useful to distinguish between the rectangles and the squares. In general, I think nuance is useful in political discourse. Grouping everyone into a single, broad category can be useful in certain circumstances, but in general, I think it is worth distinguishing between different groups that do not share all the same characteristics.
 
We're so far past the point of this becoming embarrassing. More and more Pubs, including Calla, seem to be recognizing it. Incredible to me that the others can't see it.
In an earlier post I suggested ( tongue in cheek ) that Trump and GQPers in Congress would make Charlie Kirk Day a national holiday. I am now removing my tongue from my cheek.
 
No, not waiting on that and I admit my comment was worded poorly. I think this issue is way more complex than just trump / fcc chair. To me this seems like what lawyers live for. The semantics in play give fcc chair cover. Maybe not enough for you, but JK made it easy.
You were always going to find a way to excuse this.

Lawyers can be used to try to explain anything?
 
My hope is that one of the things that come from CK's death, after all the firings and suspensions from people celebrating is over and people realize that they shouldn't post hate shit on social media, is that there is actually a reduction in that type of thing and political hate speech is more closely examined and we have better discourse in the country. But trump can't shut his damn mouth for two seconds and let this play out and is making it about him rather than CK. I'm not a fan of JK. I think he isn't very smart. I'm for everyone, including trump, raising hell at ABC about JK, but I'm not ok with him using the fcc to put pressure on ABC. I think he is going to wind up in court and lose when he does it to someone that their bosses say F u to trump and take him to court. Right now the right is winning in branding the left as the party of hate. Trump is about to fuck it up by taking the attention away from that and making this about censorship over pettiness.
kirk was a troll who spoke hate AND was for free speech
 
Back
Top