The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
Far more inflammatory, No. Inflammatory? Yes. Inflammatory is inflammatory and subjective. I agree that Fox is msnbc and will lie, half lies, misconstrue, etc. when they think it benefits them. JK wasn't being comedic when he said what he said. He hasn't been comedic in years although his line about trump and the goldfish was pretty funny.

A big difference in all this is that fox is very profitable and has big ratings and kisses trump's ass. JK isn't profitable and has poor ratings and is often negative. Does that justify fcc threats? Not at all. ABC should have had the courage to can JK when he became a total political hack and pissed off half the country but they didn't have the stones to do it. Now trump has given them the opportunity they likely are glad to have and trump is the bad guy.
lol you fell for the profit narrative
 
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
Rogan's audience skews young to middle aged and male. Many of them are what we would have traditionally classified as "low-propensity voters" A lot of them probably didn't even vote in 2024; a lot of them probably voted for the first time or the first time in a long time. His audience overlaps (to what extent is debatable) with those of truly odious "manosphere" dirtbags like Adin Ross and Andrew Tate, but it is by no means coextensive with those more toxic corners of the manosphere. Rogan's audience likely has both a lot of college-educated and non-college educated listeners, but probably not that many (in a relative sense) with graduate/professional degrees. Some of them are heavily anti-intellectual; some of them are the "suspicious of authority" types that would have historically been as likely to be considered "far left" as "far right." (In that way it's similar to the "MAHA" movement which has brought together both far-right and far-left people who have historically distrusted government and regulation for different reasons, through their shared anti-science, pro-home-remedy, somewhat conspiracy theory-prone sensibilities).

The Democratic Party, in my opinion, badly underestimated the impact of this cohort of potential voters in 2024 - disaffected, mostly white (but also increasingly latino and black) men in the 18-44 age group who feel like they have been falling behind economically and culturally, blamed the party that appeared to be ruling at the time for that, and were very much turned off by the left's electoral pitches (they are not motivated by "rule of law," which they barely understand and/or don't care about, and were turned off by what they perceived as identity politics, swayed by messaging that misleadingly painted Trump as focusing on the economy and jobs over culture wars). And that was one of the major factors in the election - Trump and his people eschewed a more traditional media strategy and had Trump do a manosphere podcaster/streamer tour, which was strategically very effective.

Are some parts of that audience practically unreachable for Dems? Yes, probably. But men 18-44 (or even simply white men 18-44 without college and/or graduate degrees) are too big a group for Dems to simply say "we will concede that group and force ourselves to build a coalition without them." And many of those same people are the ones who are going to be turned off by the more authoritarian stuff the administration is doing, because they don't really like heavy-handed government intervention (unlike, say, a "ramrouser MAGA" type who supports heavy-handed government intervention as long as it is directed at people he doesn't like). Whether that means they vote Dem or just go back to not voting at all, it is important to keep Trump from consolidating his hold on that group.
 
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,
This will not happen if people continue to lionize CK as some sort of paragon of the virtue of debate. CK made himself and his organization famous - and made himself a lot of money - by stoking hate on social media. The whole initial point of his "debate me" videos was to create rage-baiting clips with captions like "OMG listen to what crazy liberal says when Charlie Kirk destroys her."
 
Now you're speaking my language!
Haha. I think Cruz and Rogan are actually an interesting juxtaposition. Cruz is very smart but extremely malicious and malignant. Rogan is neither malicious nor malignant (or at least far less of those things than Cruz) but is far less intelligent and as a result malicious and malignant people can manipulate him very easily. The one thing both guys share is that they have realized how to get extremely wealthy and/or powerful by understanding what their audience wants, and giving it to them.
 
I have zero faith that Jeff Bezos will “do the right thing.” He has “FUCK YOU MONEY” and he bends the knee to Trump. I realize he has a space company that likely is dependent on US Government contracts. I realize that Trump can fuck with Amazon. Jeff Bezos has “FUCK YOU MONEY.” Jeff is 61 and has the BEST MEDICAL CARE. Regardless, his time on earth is coming to a close; and, despite having “FUCK YOU MONEY,” Jeff is good giving Trump rim jobs.

Tim Cook might not have “FUCK YOU MONEY.” After all, he’s only worth $2.5 billion. Tim might be beholden to Apple’s Board of Directors; maybe they’re Trumplicans. Low billions might not be “FUCK YOU MONEY.” Tim Cook is 64.

Bezos and Cook should have on their tombstones, “I was beyond wealthy. When the time came for me to stand up and be counted, I gave Donald Trump a rim job.”
 
I have zero faith that Jeff Bezos will “do the right thing.” He has “FUCK YOU MONEY” and he bends the knee to Trump. I realize he has a space company that likely is dependent on US Government contracts. I realize that Trump can fuck with Amazon. Jeff Bezos has “FUCK YOU MONEY.” Jeff is 61 and has the BEST MEDICAL CARE. Regardless, his time on earth is coming to a close; and, despite having “FUCK YOU MONEY,” Jeff is good giving Trump rim jobs.

Tim Cook might not have “FUCK YOU MONEY.” After all, he’s only worth $2.5 billion. Tim might be beholden to Apple’s Board of Directors; maybe they’re Trumplicans. Low billions might not be “FUCK YOU MONEY.” Tim Cook is 64.

Bezos and Cook should have on their tombstones, “I was beyond wealthy. When the time came for me to stand up and be counted, I gave Donald Trump a rim job.”
This. Every bit of this.
 
You mean government pressure the way the Biden Administration directed Twitter and Facebook (among other social media companies) to cancel conservatives and suppress information? Zuckerberg has testified about the immense pressure the Federal government placed on him to comply.

I've said repeatedly that I do not support the FCC's recent actions but I still believe it was more of a business decision vs real fear of losing its license.
Ultimately, the point isn't the firing of Kimmel but the FCC's actions themselves. What the FCC did (whether it ultimately made a difference) is a very serious assault on our freedom of speech.

But, also, it is disingenuous to argue that the threats made had no impact on ABC's decision.
 
So, @Callatoroy and @Ramrouser should Brian Kilmeade be fired? It seems that his words are far more detrimental to people.

I like Kilmeade but he misrepresented / misreported the UNC academic issue. His comments about the homeless
So, @Callatoroy and @Ramrouser should Brian Kilmeade be fired? It seems that his words are far more detrimental to people.

I like kilmeade but he misrepresented / misreported on the UNC academic mess. His comments about executing mentally ill homeless people in wake of the charlotte stabbing should get him fired if we are holding everyone to the same standard that professional journalists should be held to. IMO He is getting a pass because his comment was about the homeless which people don't tend to be sympathetic towards compared to CK. Doesn't make it ok and violent rhetoric is violent rhetoric. He should be fired.
 
This will not happen if people continue to lionize CK as some sort of paragon of the virtue of debate. CK made himself and his organization famous - and made himself a lot of money - by stoking hate on social media. The whole initial point of his "debate me" videos was to create rage-baiting clips with captions like "OMG listen to what crazy liberal says when Charlie Kirk destroys her."
It went much further than that.
 
lol you fell for the profit narrative
I didn't fall for anything. It is a variable in all of this and you seem only focused on one aspect of it. Namely, the fcc pressuring ABC. While I agree that is very troubling based on what knowledge I have, it isn't the only thing in play. This relates to only broadcast licensing. JK can now say anything he wants and the g'ment can't touch him. So his freedom of speech hasn't been neutered. Only his ability to draw a check from ABC and say dumb shit. ABC, part of a public company where profits matter, could have told trump and the fcc to kick rocks but they didn't because....why?
 
kirk was a troll who spoke hate AND was for free speech
I wasn't very knowledgeable about CK prior to the shooting. Since then I have become quite knowledgeable about him. Just as with anyone, there are positives and negatives. He said some things that I don't understand without more context and that are perplexing to me. IMO, his positives far outweighed any negatives. He don't believe he stood for hate speech because nothing about him points to that being a part of his personality. Where he failed is in better explaining his pov's on things that many felt were hateful. I'm not going to change your opinion and am not trying to. Just stating my opinion on your comment.
 
You were always going to find a way to excuse this.

Lawyers can be used to try to explain anything?
Not excusing anything. I think i have been clear. I think the issue goes deeper than a biased, kneejerk reaction strengthened by hatred. There are parts I am troubled by and rhetoric that is intolerable to me.
 
I never understand this. There is no dishonor in being wrong. Here's one way to think about it.

Einstein had three big ideas in his life. 1) the speed of light is invariant in all reference frames; 2) free fall and weightlessness are the same; 3) God does not play dice with the universe. The first led to special relativity; the second to general relativity; and the third was an argument against quantum mechanics that turned out to be wrong.

If Einstein of all people went 2/3, how it is a problem for people to admit they are occasionally wrong about minor things.
Because it is not just a challenge to one belief but their entire worldview.
 
A National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk on his birthday, October 14.

Other people born on October 14th: George Perry Floyd Jr.
Are you comparing the two? The only appropriate comparison is that both were male and neither deserved to die. There was a comment in an earlier post saying CK shouldn't be lionized. My guess is you likely agree with that. You know who else shouldn't be lionized? George Floyd. Didn't stop the media and many on the left though did it?
 
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.
Agree with some of what you say.
BUT, trump has been about pettiness since he lost in 2020. Everyone knew what they were getting and they were ok with it.
 
I didn't fall for anything. It is a variable in all of this and you seem only focused on one aspect of it. Namely, the fcc pressuring ABC. While I agree that is very troubling based on what knowledge I have, it isn't the only thing in play. This relates to only broadcast licensing. JK can now say anything he wants and the g'ment can't touch him. So his freedom of speech hasn't been neutered. Only his ability to draw a check from ABC and say dumb shit. ABC, part of a public company where profits matter, could have told trump and the fcc to kick rocks but they didn't because....why?
Because they didn't want to deal with a $15Billion lawsuit like filed against the NYT. The amounts in these trump lawsuits is beyond ridiculous and he should probably lose these case, except the risk isn't worth it to the companies so they cave and his cult thinks he won.
 
Are you comparing the two? The only appropriate comparison is that both were male and neither deserved to die. There was a comment in an earlier post saying CK shouldn't be lionized. My guess is you likely agree with that. You know who else shouldn't be lionized? George Floyd. Didn't stop the media and many on the left though did it?
The big difference is that the Floyd case was about what happened to him. For Kirk they want to lionize him for his supposed courageous life.

As you said, neither deserved to die. Floyd's was a case of police overuse of force which happens much more often in this country.

Ultimately, neither should have been killed and both were probably avoidable.
 
Back
Top