Comment on Charlie Kirk in his own words.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 13 hours agoThat doesn’t explain why you felt the need to give examples from your own life that support Kirk’s argument.
Comment on Charlie Kirk in his own words.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 13 hours agoThat doesn’t explain why you felt the need to give examples from your own life that support Kirk’s argument.
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Because those are examples of what he was talking about. Im adding context. Information is king. Do you not agree? If you dont know something, how can you ever hope to understand a persons point of view? If you dont understand their point of view, how can defeat them in debate?
The easy way to look at this, is the thing that almost everyone does these days. They take one example of something that offends them, and then applies it to the whole. The immigrate who rapes a child 2 minutes off the boat, the left wing lunatic with blue hair that says all men are rapists, the right wing lunatic that says all women should be in the kitchen. We see these examples everyday, and people use them as excuses to be horrible people. Does my pointing out the RAF and the Oxford Union instances make something true? No. But you need to know them, so that you know where someone else is coming from. So you that you can say “yes, but…”. Too much of online discourse is “thats lie!” with nothing to back up the claim. You can google those two things, and see that they are true. And you can then understand why someone might make a claim based on those two examples. But thats when you would, or should, point out the instances where it wasnt the case. Thats how the debate goes. We dont just accept what strangers on the internet tell us is true, or worse what gets us worthless internet points.
The only way to combat hate is with truth. And in order to gain truth, you must have information. Even when that information breaks what you thought to be true, or just makes it harder to prove whats true. I cant just be circlejerking all the time.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 12 hours ago
I don’t see how any of that is relevant, unless you are attempting to deflect criticism away from Kirk’s beliefs. It’s enough to say the DEI comments are edited. You don’t need to start explaining why his argument is technically correct in some cases, because all that does is justify its continued use. It’s a bad faith argument based on racial hatred. That’s it, there is no “well ackchyually” with this stuff.
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Im not explaining why its correct, Im explaining why he made it. Because the general idea is that he was just straight up racist. Which may very well be true, but if you have the context of why he said it, or at least the context in which he presented the argument, then you can understand it and challenge it. No? If all you think of someone is that they are a racist, then you can easily dismiss them. But that doesnt challenge the point. And if you hate that so many others are listening to the point, then its on you to challenge them with truth, rather than just calling them bigots and getting a pat on the back from like minded internet strangers.
Im advocating for people to arm themselves with information. I dont really see why thats so wrong.
0x0@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
May i present you… an echo chamber.
Ilandar@lemmy.today 12 hours ago
Nice try, but you’ve now gone full mask-off in other comments so it’s quite clear what you’re attempting to do here. Are we really supposed to believe that you aren’t trying to legitimise Kirk’s DEI arguments when you type stuff like this?