Media Matters

[IrishLax]

Did you steal this from a Charlie Kirk tweet?

Nah you told me yourself that's your job.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

I specifically said I read the first half of it,

So you didn't read it.

Got it.

literally shows that men are most attracted to women in their early 20s

That wasn't Kirk's point. He is incorrect on his point. This isn't complicated. No one, and literally no one, disagrees that younger people are more attractive. Kirk's point wasn't connected to scientific research. His point was centered around broad social issues (birth control) and his personal beliefs that women should subjugate themselves to men in their early 20's late teens.

Not only that, your own shitty explanation (about older women with baggage ie kids) doesn't even make sense with Kirk's context because his is related to childless women in their 30's(birth control)

So maybe understand what Kirk's point was, what his entire premise was, and figure things the fuck out before you respond.

 

[IrishLax]

The current one where you are agreeing with him and defending him.

*Looks at above posts*

So to confirm, I have literally never mentioned the guy until the past 24 hours where my position is:
1. It shouldn't be celebrated when people you disagree with get shot
2. The characterization of him appears to be hyperbolic

Good talk.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Nah you told me yourself that's your job.

Mass immigration is a job?

 

[BuaConstrictor]

2. The characterization of him appears to be hyperbolic

It's not.

 

[IrishLax]

So you didn't read it.

Got it.

It's not my obligation to read some article you linked that is overly long and then guess which passage you are referring. It would be far easier for you just to clip the specific part, but you are refusing to do that for what reason?

 

[greyhammer90]

The book Dataclysm -- which is from the guy who founded OKCupid -- literally shows that men are most attracted to women in their early 20s. I can also link you a dozen other studies on dating preferences, but it's pointless because you won't read them. I'm more curious why you are lying about this when it's so well documented?

Yeah this the part that is "bad faith" ... I specifically said I read the first half of it, and then asked where the objectionable / crazy part was because it's not in the first part of that very long article. Instead of saying:

"Hey here's the part that is crazy"

You instead act like an asshole. What is your problem?

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Are we playing dumb here and pretending that people aren't celebrating him being shot? Like do you think we are all stupid and not seeing people saying "happy thursday! it was great waking up today!" and we don't know what is being implied here?

We are "hands off" here so I don't really care what people's opinions are, but let's be real.

Are you talking about board members or society in general?

 

[BuaConstrictor]

that is overly long

It's a less than five minute read....

then guess which passage you are referring

The insane theory about Jews part would be the hint.

 

[NorthDakota]

Trump couldn't bother to show up for the funeral for two lawmakers that were assassinated. He didn't even call the Governor of their state, saying it was a waste of time.

You couldnt bother to know two lawmakers weren't assassinated.

One was. Another fortunately survived.

 

[TorontoGold]

In what universe do I like Charlie Kirk lmao... I barely even know who he is! Find me one post on here over the past 15+ years where I have said something positive about him.

What's insane is that I literally got done voting for my Democrat rep in a special election *this week* ... I vote almost exclusively Democrat. There is a long record of this on this site going back to pre-Trump 2016. There are receipts upon receipts of my leanings.

Here's what I'm not:
1. I'm not a ghoul
2. I'm not someone so blinded by partisan leanings that I can't see toxicity on the left

You are an extreme ideologue, likely because you make your $$$ on the backs of mass immigration. At least have the spine to own what you are, I can at least respect that.

Lax, respectfully, the idea of needing to "address" the toxicity of the Left is something that consistently happens on this site when it's someone who commits violence against someone on the Right. As someone who is very much anti-violence, I disagree with making Kirk a martyr which what this lunatic did.

Where it becomes a point of clear frustration of the "both sides are bad!!!" to me, is the multiple documented examples of people on this very site treating gun violence as some sort of boogeyman that can't be explained and how it's just so confusing. When the violence is committed on those on the Left, where are the posts that want decorum from those on the Right? Where is the "we need to be better!" from prominent voices on the Right? Why is it only the Left that needs to tone done rhetoric? It's frustrating to read these posts about how "golly gee the Left is so violent!" when you have literal examples of the most prominent Right wing influencers saying "Its a war" or Elon Musk saying "Democrats are the party of murder". We're just manufacturing consent so that the response to Kirk being killed is going to be 10x worse and I can promise you, no one on this site will be calling out the toxicity of the Right.

I don't care for George Floyd "the person", but look at how these threads talk about him like a drug addict deserved to be executed. Where are the calls for decorum for how the Right treats him?

Depending on where you fall in the political spectrum you could make an argument that Floyd had a more positive impact on the world than Kirk.

 

[NDhoosier]

Buaconstrictor, you are making bad faith arguments again and again. Irishlax answered your points quite well. All I see from you is out of context mainstream talking points that have been used to disparage Charlie Kirk. None of what you posted proves any point that you are trying to make that Charlie Kirk is a bad person. If anything, it just proves the point farther that radical leftists, like yourself, cannot think for themselves and take everything they dislike to its extremes without worrying about context.

I am sure you still believe the "very fine people" hoax from Charlotte.

It is people like you that have caused the political violence to get to the point it is today. You dont even understand his opinions, yet you disparage him right after he was assassinated for speaking his mind. The left is so afraid of debating ideas out in the open (because they know their opinions are indefensible), that they resort to name calling and violence. Your party made "punching a Nazi is ok" normal, but then you call everyone that has different opinions a Nazi, therefore justifying any violence. Just remember, the left is full of Karens and simps.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

When the violence is committed on those on the Left, where are the posts that want decorum from those on the Right?

Or...any posts at all...did the shootings in Minnesota in June even cover..10 posts? Where were those on the right when Drayer posted what he did back then?

The most "we" saw was drayer making the remark he did. Virginia saying it was "funny" that the shooter was appointed by Walz...and...not much else.

But yeah. Decorum.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Buaconstrictor, you are making bad faith arguments again and again. Irishlax answered your points quite well. All I see from you is out of context mainstream talking points that have been used to disparage Charlie Kirk. None of what you posted proves any point that you are trying to make that Charlie Kirk is a bad person. If anything, it just proves the point farther that radical leftists, like yourself, cannot think for themselves and take everything they dislike to its extremes without worrying about context.

I am sure you still believe the "very fine people" hoax from Charlotte.

It is people like you that have caused the political violence to get to the point it is today. You dont even understand his opinions, yet you disparage him right after he was assassinated for speaking his mind. The left is so afraid of debating ideas out in the open (because they know their opinions are indefensible), that they resort to name calling and violence. Your party made "punching a Nazi is ok" normal, but then you call everyone that has different opinions a Nazi, therefore justifying any violence. Just remember, the left is full of Karens and simps.

Who gave Bishop an alt-account?

 

[Fbolt]

Depending on where you fall in the political spectrum you could make an argument that Floyd had a more positive impact on the world than Kirk

I find this laughable. That you stated this, with SnD thumbs-upping it, is actually predictable.

 

[NorthDakota]

Are you talking about board members or society in general?

He was quoting a board member.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Who can forget the decorum laden posts about the church shooting last month?

1.
2.

 

[IrishLax]

Lax, respectfully, the idea of needing to "address" the toxicity of the Left is something that consistently happens on this site when it's someone who commits violence against someone on the Right. As someone who is very much anti-violence, I disagree with making Kirk a martyr which what this lunatic did.

Where it becomes a point of clear frustration of the "both sides are bad!!!" to me, is the multiple documented examples of people on this very site treating gun violence as some sort of boogeyman that can't be explained and how it's just so confusing.

Fair. To be honest, I do not spend very much time at all in the politics section of this site anymore. If the general feeling is that stuff is too slanted one way versus the other and the reaction here is "look at the hypocrisy" that's understandble.

I have *years* worth of posts ... literally hundreds if not thousands of posts ... from 2015 through 2020 calling out the toxicity / absurdity of right wing stuff. I figure I don't need to write novels of posts here to be like "hey also I know I'm criticizing left wing toxicity, but also here is bad right wing stuff!"

 

[IrishLax]

Buaconstrictor, you are making bad faith arguments again and again. Irishlax answered your points quite well. All I see from you is out of context mainstream talking points that have been used to disparage Charlie Kirk. None of what you posted proves any point that you are trying to make that Charlie Kirk is a bad person. If anything, it just proves the point farther that radical leftists, like yourself, cannot think for themselves and take everything they dislike to its extremes without worrying about context.

The good faith vs bad faith thing is really as simple as "are you trying to actually address what the person is saying." There are a lot of versions of bad faith arguments:
1. Attacking the person vs the position
2. Using misleading, untrue, or faked information to support your position
3. Refusing to answer questions directly

etc. etc.

The weird one for me here is the thing about older women being attractive. Like it's an extremely strange hill to die on that single women over 30 are perceived as better or equal than younger women when that's been definitively disproven *and* it's not an inherently Left or Right idea. It's just a behavioral / social fact. That's the moment I realized this guy is a waste of time to engage with.

 

[BuaConstrictor]

The weird one for me here is the thing about older women being attractive

Talk about "bad faith". I very explicitly explained why your point was wrong/ off-topic and how your defense of what Kirk said was idiotic and ignorant of Kirk's own point.

 

[IrishLax]

Yeah lesson learned lmao... total waste of time

Last time I can recall someone being that intentionally dense and bad faith was that right wing guy Loomis like 5 years ago.

 

[TorontoGold]

Fair. To be honest, I do not spend very much time at all in the politics section of this site anymore. If the general feeling is that stuff is too slanted one way versus the other and the reaction here is "look at the hypocrisy" that's understandble.

I have *years* worth of posts ... literally hundreds if not thousands of posts ... from 2015 through 2020 calling out the toxicity / absurdity of right wing stuff. I figure I don't need to write novels of posts here to be like "hey also I know I'm criticizing left wing toxicity, but also here is bad right wing stuff!"

That's why I said respectfully, because I do mean it respectfully and I know that you've done your share of arguing on these threads in the past.

I am speaking as a degenerate who still is in these threads. The amount of violent rhetoric spewed by the very same folks who are calling for "tone to be turned down" is sickening. Those same people are liking your posts which are calling out people for celebrating his death.

These people don't give a fuck about the tone and tenor of how people speak about people who aren't white conservatives. So my "criticism" (if you want to call it that) is that we routinely see disgusting shit said here, and now these same folks are tone policing. Bua does say inflammatory shit that I necessarily wouldn't, but the people who are chastising him have said worse or liked posts that pale in comparison.

 

[Fbolt]

Nah you told me yourself that's your job.

I have Bua blocked but can surmise this is a glorious exchange.

 

[Irish#1]

It doesn't even have to have all of that. Remember @SeekNDestroy is able to find that all out regardless and swat us all 😂

I've noticed a faded blue '96 Chevy Caprice cruising up and down my street lately. The guy gives me "that look" every time he passes.

 

[Irish#1]

I have Bua blocked but can surmise this is a glorious exchange.

Lax's posts are a classic example of why I blocked Bua a while back.

 

[ColoradoIrish]

I've noticed a faded blue '96 Chevy Caprice cruising up and down my street lately. The guy gives me "that look" every time he passes.

 

[IrishLax]

Seems like a reasonable take. New York Times op ed from Ezra Klein:

 

[Tejas]

I'm not sure what your insinuation here is but if you're a typical MAGA, London has fallen, Sharia Law is taking over type wouldn't that make your argument even weaker? Despite out of control immigration ruining the country their knife violence is still only 1/16 as bad as our gun violence per capita?

That was my bad on communication. I asked how you accounted for population meaning what population numbers were you using. I was having trouble pulling up the numbers cuz shitz was all fucksed up. You said 'multiplication' so asked 'which ones' I meant which population numbers.

 

[Irish#1]

View attachment 3060022

I'm staying away from the French bakery he recommended. lol

 

[BuaConstrictor]

Seems like a reasonable take. New York Times op ed from Ezra Klein:

"Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way."



Broadly saying African American women don't have the brain processing power of others.

He called women over 30 "unattractive in the dating pool" and angry/bitter.

Kirk said African Americans were better off under Jim Crow
Related: He said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.

He said during a 2024 podcast episode with fellow right wing activist Jack Posobeic: “I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm going to be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified,”

Kirk also bought into insane theories about Jews.

He said the Great Replacement Theory is a fact.

He was in Japan last week arguing against Japan allowing other groups into their country,

He accused Target and the LGBTQ Community of attempting to groom children.

He called trans people "abominations to God"

He said trans people are making it easier for foreign countries to take us over.

He said this about Islam as a religion. And this.

He supported the execution of homosexuals under "God's Perfect Law"

Kirk has repeatedly stated that women should be subordinate to men. Going as far to argue that they shouldn't get an education or work.