You can see the Leftist's malicious attempt to conflate state mandated periods of instruction by government agents as "freedom of expression"; as well as attempting to conflate "viewpoint discrimination" with "obscenity restriction". You'll also notice her other tactic of claiming that there was no policy that teachers were given to instruct students on these materials, despite the fact that they were made available in the library.
Let's go over each of these:
The state doesn't have a right to free expression.
That's not how free expression works. The government is a coercive entity that we allow to resolve property disputes and stop grievous violations of society. Teachers have no right to freedom of expression during school hours, or during periods of instruction. You didn't like it when they prayed in class, so now you will accept that you can shut your fucking mouth and recognize that as a state agent you don't have a right to speak.
"Free Speech" and "Free Expression" is a colloquialism referring to what is considered "an expressed lack of viewpoint discrimination".
"Free Speech" and "Free Expression" has never meant, at any time in history, in any situation, nor in any environment "doing or saying whatever I want no matter what." The government is barred from regulating viewpoints, as this level of regulation was well understood to be an easy and direct threat against the general public by the government as the government would inevitably use it to regulate political thought and dissent. "Viewpoint discrimination" is what the government is banned from doing. Obscenity and pornography are not viewpoints.
Please note that Leftists already support the suppression of viewpoints in the form of "Hate Speech".
"What about violent imagery?"
Violent imagery is not regulated by the state, nor should it be. Frankly, violent imagery is so gross to the sensibilities of most people that it is privately restricted (possibly to a degree that it perhaps shouldn't be. I have larger arguments involving the old subreddit "Watch People Die" and the value it actually gives to see gore and horror occasionally).
Please note that Leftists regularly engage in explicit glorification of violence, incitement to violence, advocation of violence, and horrific imagery so long as thier political enemies are being targeted.
"There was no policy"
Whether or not a teacher violated their professional standards to teach children how to hook-up for sexual encounters with adults on Grinder is secondary to the level of violation that is actually taking place. Again, teachers do not have the same rights as normal people because they are state agents and need to follow instructional guidelines and limitations. However, even if the teachers themselves were not explicitly engaged in grooming children for online sex acts; the fact that the material was made available to children via the library is still unacceptable.
Please note that the Library industry is wildly fucking Leftist; and Librarians made up the majority of all employers for small donors to the Joe Biden campaign. If your curious, Trump's majority employer for small donors was "United States Marine Corps"
I think you, and Tim (who, being a fence sitter, is at most half right), fell into her rhetorical trap.
This conversation around porn in schools has nothing to do with freedom of expression, or lack thereof, because they're children. They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
This is purely an issue of parental rights. It is not censorship to prevent your 5yo frpm watching Human Centipede, or reading Che, or even watching the news. It's simply protecting them from what you think could harm your kids, which is up to you, not the state.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries, even though they're disgusting, so long as parents are working with their kids to ensure they're safety and so long as they can't be checked out with a kids' card.
There's no argument here based on "freedom of expression"; if adults want to read filth, it's not up to the government to pass judgement. If you don't like reading it, don't, if you don't like your tax dollars being spent on it, take it up with your local library committee.
But parents are responsible for their kids and the government has no right to expose kids to sexual (or violent) content.
They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
You've got this all backwards and wrong-way around.
Tinker v. Illinois already addressed that: yes, minors have a right to Freedom of Expression, even in public schools. In fact, minors are particularly protected from government viewpoint discrimination because their parents aren't there as an intermediary, and the minor's speech is being directly regulated by the state. The fact that students are additionally compelled to attend school, and can be seized by the police in order to do so, is such a major infringement that you have to allow students in particular a right to free expression (or: to not be targeted by government viewpoint discrimination).
A public school is already such a massive infringement on an individual's rights and liberties by the state, that the right to resist further infringements is absolutely needed.
He and I aren't addressing the free speech rights of minors because it's a settled issue.
The second part you've got off is that Freedom of Expression isn't relevant. First of all, the children aren't expressing themselves by reading, that's not how any of that works. But the other part is that the state doesn't have a right to expression at all. Reading isn't expression one one side, and on the other: the state doesn't have a right to it anyway.
A teacher in private, outside the performance of their duties does, but again, that's not the issue here. School instruction is not free speech of teachers. The presence of books in classrooms isn't the free political expression of a school library, or librarians.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries
School libraries. That's a huge difference. The state is providing material to minors. That material does not meet with the consent of the parents, violates obscenity law, and otherwise violates the taboos of the local community. That's a huge problem for the state to be doing that, when the state already compels the children to attend.
Live debate is tricky, so I won't be too critical, but I will say he violated one big cardinal rule...never interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake.
When she started saying 'maybe that teacher had a child who...' he should have let her continue, or even asked her to continue. There's no way that was going anywhere good, and chances are she would have dunked on herself - either through some insane statement, or having to sputter to a stop - harder than Tim ever could have. Let this creep talk!
And then when she said she wasn't saying children need Grindr, he again should have let her continue, or asked what she was saying.
Don't get me wrong, he dunked on this bitch pretty damn bad, but there was also a ton of wasted potential. This person was primed to make an absolute fool of themselves, and Tim insisted on doing it for her instead, which is nowhere near as effective. Just give her enough rope to hang herself (in this case it looks like she brought it herself!), and let it play out.
Also, that was great at the end, where she was saying he was "picking specific examples." It's never alright for a teacher to do this bullshit. A specific example is great, because it shows it's happening.
The only flaw I've seen with that approach is that Leftists are so dishonest that sometimes you need to intentionally interrupt their mistake because it's bait to make you derail your own argument. I'll give you my Reddit conversation I had with a Leftist over Juneteenth here
"UniqueUsername" here must have tried every fucking deflection in the book to get away from my single, repetitive, falsifiable, demand: Give me a picture of this very well known holiday that's been continuously celebrated across the US for 157 years. Which he even had to go so far as to do the "Educate yourself" excuse because he knew that he can't.
Many of the deflections look like intentional mistakes. Unforced errors. But in military tactics (which is all talking with a Leftist ever is: rhetorical warfare against a sophist) these serve as nothing more than a feigned retreat to get you to attack a different direction, because the position you are on is actually effective, and their deflections aren't working. If you want your enemy to attack in a specific direction, then you have to present him with an opportunity.
Instead of giving me photos from Juneteenth, now we're arguing about Emancipation Day, or we're arguing about Saturnalium versus Christmas, or we're arguing about Father's Day, or we're arguing about how a holiday originates, or we're arguing about Easter, or we're arguing about whether or not there can be photographs from the 1800. These aren't honest mistakes, they're not even dishonest mistakes. They are feigns to derail the conversation onto a different topic. They can't win the battle the ground they are on, so they start at different battle somewhere else. I admit to falling for this too many times because sometimes people say really stupid shit that baits too hard.
At a certain point, you really need to corner them, and just pound the hell out of their position so that no one will take it back up. That guarantees that the other positions they tried to distract you with aren't going to be addressed; but you purpose is to do so much permanent damage to this position, that they can't take it back up for a while; and that no "Useful Idiot" watching will take it at all. Rhetorical scorched Earth. Don't worry about those other positions, you'll have a fight tomorrow on them if they need to be taken.
I’d say it’s more that we’ve let a grim caricature of female nature take over in an effort to not be mean, and we need a return to masculinity as far as leadership and values go. Right now we’re being run by hysterical female values to appeal to hysterical female women because they’re one of the biggest voting demos you can swing.
I think Connor Tomlinson best described it as the "Pathological Devouring Mother Dragon of Chaos" or something like that. The feminine chaotic evil that murders civilization and tears order to pieces. That's definitely at play here.
If our only option is to destroy the education system or take a long time to reform it with these people still in positions of power, I say destroy it. They have proven time and again they will happily sexually groom kids to push their ideology
Agreed. At the very least we already need to switch from public schooling to private schooling as is; and then we'd still have to actually purge the education industry of Leftists who train educators. The only relatively fast way to do that is to go to a fully private system which is already a massive undertaking.
It's not just that the education system is broken. It's a systemic failure. The teachers are broken, the students are broken, the administrators are broken, the trainers are broken, so on and so forth. Full Leftist possession means that Leftists would also rather die than refuse to give up that territory; so the chance of reform is zero.
This entire show van be summed up with her inability to comprehend hypotheticals, or abstract thought. That and a low iQ. Also why women should be in politics or lead anything anywhere.
Don't act like this is an ignorant woman, when it is clearly a malicious Leftist. There's no such thing as a person who can't understand a hypothetical, it's a person who's refusing to understand.
There's no such thing as a person who can't understand a hypothetical
Tell me you have never worked closely with the black community without telling me that you have never worked closely with the black community. There are hard floors in IQ below which certain mental functions cannot be performed.
While I'm sure you and your mother would fall into that category of total mental retardation; you're effectively denying something lower than even Theory of Mind.
I know you're ignorant and racist enough to want to say that black people are not more intelligent than dogs, but that is physically not the case.
There is a major difference between short-term time preference, and the inability to conceive of a hypothetical.
I'm just saying your being objectively fucking retarded is all. Your hate-boner for blacks doesn't change the fact that you a) don't understand IQ, b) don't understand what the scores correspond to. You're being absurd.
Actually I am top 1% per every IQ test I have ever taken.
.> u dont understand IQ and scores durrr
just to recap the past few posts for viewers joining us after the break
Evans and Over, 2007 deals directly with the strong correlation between lower IQ and being able to deal with hypotheticals and conditional logic. They also cite other similar tests with higher median IQs than their study that had better results, and theorize that had their study had a moderately lower median IQ, it might have had a massively different result, i.e., a fucking IQ floor.
Please do not try to tell someone who has studied intelligence and its effects from both the psychological and management viewpoints all the way up to the graduate level that they do not understand IQ, it makes you look like a retarded motherfucker.
And as far as "hateboner", it's not hate, it's utter disgust. American blacks treat society the same way "refugee" Muslims treat European society, but you defend one and routinely call out the other.
Yeah, you haven't studied IQ. You're just lying. If you'd actually understood IQ, you wouldn't even be working from the premise that it's an excellent measure of intelligence, let alone using it to slander blacks as a race. Try reading The Bell Curve instead of saying you did.
American blacks treat society the same way "refugee" Muslims treat European society, but you defend one and routinely call out the other.
I literally made a post about how Juneteenth is a Black National Socialist gaslighting event that is being celebrated with mass shootings. Followed by mentioning to someone else on a different topic that UK is absolutely battered by racialist apologetics for Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs that categorically support the rape of children, and the police are facilitating it. Go ahead and sit down faggot.
There are absolutely people who are incapable of considering and arguing a position that they do not agree with, and similarly there are people who are incapable of considering a hypothetical. Both black and white, though probably disproportionately black.
I have met people without an effective planning horizon. That is, they can't look into the future and consider how their actions will impact their future situation. Certainly not longer than the next meal.
Admittedly they were probably pretty damn stupid before they gave themselves alcohol induced brain damage; "organic brain injury".
Even then the medical profession deems them fit to make medical decisions about their own care.
I don't see it as uncalled for. It's another worthless racist interjecting himself with "Let me make this about how I fucking hate black people with my ignorance of IQ!"
I don't need my dog to come in and shit on the floor, and I don't need a stormfag to come in and shit on the thread.
I'm sure there are dozens of people incapable of having the ability to abstract to such an extreme degree that they can't understand hypotheticals. But, as I said here, those people are literally 100% disabled because they have the minds of toddlers, and can't look after themselves. The ability to understand external perspective is so rudimentary that dressing yourself is typically a more difficult cognitive task in humans.
This is like someone coming up and saying "LOL. Tell me you've never worked with fucking mayos without telling me you never worked with mayos. Look at that smelly bitch! Did you know these fucking failed experiments had to be taught how to bathe by the Maya? They conquered Europe for over a thousand years and never took one bath! I'm really very smart."
That comment isn't needed, isn't wanted, isn't correct, and isn't relevant. It is racist though. But that's not really a good thing.
On top of all of that. Are you really saying that you think that a Leftist won't argue something they don't believe or agree with? Almost every Leftist argument is entirely in bad faith as it is. Half of all Leftist arguments would meet that criteria. Shit like "Communism's never been tried" and "Critical Race Theory doesn't exist". Obviously they can understand hypotheticals... they're lying!
I disagree. You threw a childish fit and started name calling because someone said something you don't like. And he was saying this about a white woman, by the way.
I don't need a stormfag to come in and shit on the thread.
And now you're continuing the childish fit. This is beneath you.
It's another worthless racist interjecting himself with "Let me make this about how I fucking hate black people with my ignorance of IQ!"
I don't think your command of the ramifications of IQ is as great as you think it is, but I'm not particularly interested in having that discussion except that your "dozens of people" concession is almost certainly a gross underestimation.
Just quit being an asshole when someone isn't being an asshole to you.
On top of all of that. Are you really saying that you think that a Leftist won't argue something they don't believe or agree with?
So now you're trying to put me on the side of leftists so that you can prove that I'm wrong about something completely unrelated? What the fuck? Chill out.
And he was saying this about a white woman, by the way.
No, he was saying this about black people, as a race.
This isn't a childish emotional reaction. I'm intentionally belittling him because he is choosing to derail the thread with an ignorant, racist, and irrelevant comment that I'm going to condemn. I'm going to be an asshole to someone who's being an asshole, even if I'm not black, and not the target of his assholery.
You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract? Are you serious or just saying she does but is malicious? I agree she's communist scum who gladly throws children to wolves if it meant her ideas win, and I find her and the ideas that have her repulsive and evil. But she's also a retard.
You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract?
I'm sure that some people can't abstract.
However, what that means is that those people are so mentally crippled that they do not have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is what happens naturally to 5 year olds. It means that they are so mentally crippled that they have 100% disability and a legal guardian.
It works like this:
Jack and Jane are having a picnic. They have picnic basket and a loaf of bread between them. Jack puts the loaf of bread in the basket. Jane leaves for a moment. While she's gone, Jack takes the bread and puts it behind a tree. Jane comes back.
Where does Jane think the bread is?
3 year olds do not have "Theory of Mind" and are therefore not able to abstract the concept of another person's perception; and will almost always say: "Jane thinks it's behind the tree."
5 year olds have developed Theory of Mind, and are capable of abstraction. They then proceed to gasp, and typically realize that they have 'hidden knowledge' about the location of the bread, because Jane thinks the bread is still in the basket, but it's actually behind the tree.
"Jane thinks it's behind the tree" is what happens when people can't abstract. Developing Theory of Mind late is a sign of significant Autism, and it means the child isn't going to develop properly. Never developing it makes the person a cripple. Someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old can't function in society, let alone host a podcast, or drive a car out to the Timcast bunker.
This would be like asking, "what if Jack put it in the car?" and the response is, "but Jack put it behind the tree." Which is what you would get if someone could not understand a hypothetical.
Theory of mind and arguing a hypothetical are not the same thing.
No, but it seems to me that the only way to make that response is to not be able to have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind requires you to be able to create an abstraction that represents a different view. Theory Of Mind is about whether or not the subject has the capacity for creating and then personifying an abstraction. A hypothetical still requires the capacity to abstract. If you can't abstract, you can't have Theory of Mind.
If you can't form a hypothetical scenario, we couldn't even test the scenario. They aren't literally showing people moving bread in the woods. They are starting with a hypothetical: "Imagine two people are having a picnic in the woods."
If someone didn't understand hypotheticals, they might respond with: "But we're not in the woods."
Without the capacity for hypotheticals, we can't even test Theory of Mind. Not only are we saying "this woman doesn't have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old", we're saying she has far less than that. We're not talking about someone with sub standard IQ, we're talking about someone who is so developmentally disabled that they have nearly single digit IQs. We've entered the region of non-human animal intelligence.
Not to mention that if you watch longer parts of the conversation, she uses hypotheticals herself in order to deflect from the conversation; so obviously she can understand hypotheticals. She's just being dishonest.
Yes, but so what? Timcast fans are saying he wiped the floor with her, simps and trannies are saying she ebinly smacked him down, and both sides go on smugly believing they "won" yet another argument. Meanwhile, what actually transpired? An NPC delivered predictable NPC talking points straight from her masters at Actblue and Tim countered them with facts anyone with an IQ over 60 already knows. Nothing of any substance actually happened here. Nobody learned anything. Nobody's mind was changed. This is the very definition of sound and fury.
That's a good point. We should always seek to demoralize ourselves and shit all over any attempt to counter Leftist rhetorical warfare so that we can sodomize ourselves with black-pills.
Remember, we can only win the culture war by defeating ourselves, and ignoring any potential positive outcome.
Schizo take. Platforming a propagandist - even for the purpose of "debating" her - is not countering their rhetoric. There is no rhetoric. It's all phantoms who will be gone before you finish destroying them with facts and logic.
This is what almost nobody understands. THE LEFT HAVE NO BELIEFS. You can "counter" all you want, but you will achieve nothing. This woman doesn't believe a single thing she's saying. It's all noises being fed through her lizard brain by whoever's paying her. She is not capable of having beliefs. She is a soulless golem animated by avarice. By the time you get done formulating the perfect response, her "belief system" has changed entirely and now you have to start over. Her existence serves only one purpose: to waste your time arguing with someone who does not exist.
The only appropriate thing to say to a propagandist is "kill yourself". Anything beyond that and you're playing their game on their terms.
This is not about convincing the opposition.
You can say "anyone who is not an idiot already knows this reeee", but then you are ignoring the fact that developing your political opinion is a process AND not everyone is 45 years old.
Hands up everybody, who among us was at least somewhat of a naive and retarded semi-lib-ish moron at one point.
I know for a fact I wasn't born knowing about a lot of things that are facts informing my current political views. And I didn't grow up in a heavily liberal envorinment either.
What new facts or information are being shared here that couldn't be shared in a much more efficient and effective way by simply stating them? Virtually everyone knows about these books because the left won't shut the fuck up about them, and if someone somehow doesn't know about them, this is a terrible way to introduce them to the topic.
If someone is capable of being moral, simply learning that there are books with gay porn, masturbation, and instructions on how to join a hookup app in schools will suffice to immediately inspire them to hate leftism. However, they may require proof for such a frankly extraordinary claim. Some guy wearing a beanie saying "trust me bro" is not proof. Screenshots are proof. Scans are proof. Show them the facts. Let them decide for themselves. That's what worked for me.
I personally credit zero percent of my current political awareness to internet cat fights, and I'd bet that almost everyone else would do the same if they really thought about it.
I think what he is saying is that not everyone is you. Or us. There is an endless series of young people that 'come of age' mentally every single day, and THOSE people WILL learn from this sort of exhibition. We want them to learn the correct thing, and Tim does a decent job presenting this to people who are not already adults with an understanding of what is happening.
Virtually everyone knows about these books because the left won't shut the fuck up about them
No, I'd say the majority of America either still doesn't know about the existence of these books or thinks they're a myth. Media saturation takes a really long time.
This is what almost nobody understands. THE LEFT HAVE NO BELIEFS. You can "counter" all you want, but you will achieve nothing. This woman doesn't believe a single thing she's saying. It's all noises being fed through her lizard brain by whoever's paying her.
As with all debates, you are not trying to make your opponent recant.......... Instead, you are showing the audience that you are right and she is wrong.
Careful. Deploying this leftist trope suggests that you actually believe in this "deplatforming" nonsense as a political tactic (denying someone an opportunity to speak publicly because of his political position). The left uses this method because their positions are morally indefensible and frequently irrational, as the Pool podcast discussion shows in no uncertain terms.
Also, debates between woke Marxists and non-revolutionaries can inform a larger section of the public about critical Marxist nonsense and the danger it poses. The more people see the way the left lies and obfuscates reality and truth, the better.
The Left is also known for their projection; they attack the "platforming" of ideologues because they platform ideologues. See CNN, New York Times, or Guardian editorials for examples.
I agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but for that to work, you have to let them run, not shut them down.
Leftism is a Philosophy of War. They have beliefs, but you are dealing with someone who's beliefs are around the conquest of power. Yes, actually, there is rhetoric. In fact, it's all rhetorical warfare.
You are mistakenly accepting Leftist Sophistry as it's framework. That's not the case. The sophistry is merely a tactic; a means to an end. Yes, she does exist, and yes she is dangerous. No, the purpose is not to debate them, but to defeat her in front of others so that they know how to defeat Leftists as they arrive.
He only defeated her in the eyes of people already on his side though. She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
If he had definitively proven her wrong about something, I could see where you're coming from. But he didn't. He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate. You don't convince a child-fucker to become a good person by pointing out flaws in their logic.
She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
This is literally 1:1 "don't platform hate logic".
No, dragging them through the mud works. In fact, censoring them is far worse because the shit they are doing is already hidden from even their own supporters.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate
You're talking from a philosophical stance. The rest of us are trying to point out the pragmatic reality. "our side" and "their side" don't reflect a perfect dichotomous divide in the population. Most people are uninformed of these issues, unaware of these issues, or ignorant of these issues.
Yes, some Leftists will always say "yas queen slay". Others will also note that she preformed badly and will tell others not to go on. Most people will see the performance and cringe, realizing she did poorly, and pull back from certain arguments, or disassociate from The Majority Report.
He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
She didn't say that, and that's the point. A fuckton of what the Left does is entirely related to optics and aesthetics. This is because power is illusory, and requires specific optics and aesthetics to maintain itself. The very show name itself "Majority Report" requires the optics of "we are Leftists that represent the morally correct majority opinion, and are resisting the concentrated power of a few evil tyrants." Most "Useful Idiot" Leftists live entirely off this aesthetic. Damaging it causes serious damage to their moment and organization.
This is why when people were talking about CRT more, you hade the authors of CRT themselves claiming that they didn't even know what it was, or that it didn't even exist. They were making bold-faced lies about their own meta-narrative because (as they described in their own papers), the narrative was fundamentally unpalatable to most Americans, black or white. They can't come out and say, "It is a categorical moral imperative to racially discriminate and segregate whites in an effort to racially demoralize them, in order to create a balkanized racialist framework that destroys Capitalism." That's bananas. So, they had to paint the aesthetic that they are noble Civil Rights heroes fighting against evil Klansmen who want black kids dead, and that Critical Race Theory doesn't exist, "It's just history".
The Left operates on aesthetic. Embarrassing them and mocking them does quite a bit of damage.
And that is the weakness of her and those who believe like her. They walk away thinking they are victorious because to do otherwise is to accept that they were wrong. This is not an acceptable outcome, so they do the 3-monkey pose and willfully continue to believe the things they were already told to believe by their propaganda masters in the leftist media. People in the 3-monkey pose are susceptible to being defeated more easily when we knock down their leftist masters.
As soon as the tide turns, they are the ones who will eventually announce that they have always believed woke was stupid, and they never really supported leftists. They are THAT weak-minded and shallow. We just need to keep pushing, keep attacking the legacy globalist media, and keep rejecting neo-marxist garbage.
I think you’re close to correct for anyone already “in” the culture war—it’s like how after each Presidential debate, everyone thinks their candidate clearly won—but you’d be surprised what a small percentage of the population is really involved in the culture war. I think stuff like this is useful even on the off-chance that a “normie” will see it, because a lot of how the woke brigade has gained so much power and influence is by creating conditions where their voice and their arguments predominate and there can be consequences for saying anything else. A lot of people in the world know something screwy is going on but just need to hear someone with a platform articulate the counter-arguments. We win the culture war by giving normal people the courage and confidence to call wokeism what it is, not a liberation movement but a crazy alliance between racist grifters and mentally ill pedophiles. So I sort of agree with you for people already on this forum but I think it’s useful for less involved people.
A lot of people in the world know something screwy is going on but just need to hear someone with a platform articulate the counter-arguments. We win the culture war by giving normal people the courage and confidence to call wokeism what it is.
100%. I think in time the reality of the horrors of critical Marxist wokeness will sink in more generally, but only if people keep hammering away at it and confronting it at every opportunity--the larger the audience the better.
You can see the Leftist's malicious attempt to conflate state mandated periods of instruction by government agents as "freedom of expression"; as well as attempting to conflate "viewpoint discrimination" with "obscenity restriction". You'll also notice her other tactic of claiming that there was no policy that teachers were given to instruct students on these materials, despite the fact that they were made available in the library.
Let's go over each of these:
That's not how free expression works. The government is a coercive entity that we allow to resolve property disputes and stop grievous violations of society. Teachers have no right to freedom of expression during school hours, or during periods of instruction. You didn't like it when they prayed in class, so now you will accept that you can shut your fucking mouth and recognize that as a state agent you don't have a right to speak.
"Free Speech" and "Free Expression" has never meant, at any time in history, in any situation, nor in any environment "doing or saying whatever I want no matter what." The government is barred from regulating viewpoints, as this level of regulation was well understood to be an easy and direct threat against the general public by the government as the government would inevitably use it to regulate political thought and dissent. "Viewpoint discrimination" is what the government is banned from doing. Obscenity and pornography are not viewpoints.
Please note that Leftists already support the suppression of viewpoints in the form of "Hate Speech".
Violent imagery is not regulated by the state, nor should it be. Frankly, violent imagery is so gross to the sensibilities of most people that it is privately restricted (possibly to a degree that it perhaps shouldn't be. I have larger arguments involving the old subreddit "Watch People Die" and the value it actually gives to see gore and horror occasionally).
Please note that Leftists regularly engage in explicit glorification of violence, incitement to violence, advocation of violence, and horrific imagery so long as thier political enemies are being targeted.
Whether or not a teacher violated their professional standards to teach children how to hook-up for sexual encounters with adults on Grinder is secondary to the level of violation that is actually taking place. Again, teachers do not have the same rights as normal people because they are state agents and need to follow instructional guidelines and limitations. However, even if the teachers themselves were not explicitly engaged in grooming children for online sex acts; the fact that the material was made available to children via the library is still unacceptable.
Please note that the Library industry is wildly fucking Leftist; and Librarians made up the majority of all employers for small donors to the Joe Biden campaign. If your curious, Trump's majority employer for small donors was "United States Marine Corps"
Saved for future reference. Bravo, sir.
Thanks!
I think you, and Tim (who, being a fence sitter, is at most half right), fell into her rhetorical trap.
This conversation around porn in schools has nothing to do with freedom of expression, or lack thereof, because they're children. They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
This is purely an issue of parental rights. It is not censorship to prevent your 5yo frpm watching Human Centipede, or reading Che, or even watching the news. It's simply protecting them from what you think could harm your kids, which is up to you, not the state.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries, even though they're disgusting, so long as parents are working with their kids to ensure they're safety and so long as they can't be checked out with a kids' card.
There's no argument here based on "freedom of expression"; if adults want to read filth, it's not up to the government to pass judgement. If you don't like reading it, don't, if you don't like your tax dollars being spent on it, take it up with your local library committee.
But parents are responsible for their kids and the government has no right to expose kids to sexual (or violent) content.
You've got this all backwards and wrong-way around.
Tinker v. Illinois already addressed that: yes, minors have a right to Freedom of Expression, even in public schools. In fact, minors are particularly protected from government viewpoint discrimination because their parents aren't there as an intermediary, and the minor's speech is being directly regulated by the state. The fact that students are additionally compelled to attend school, and can be seized by the police in order to do so, is such a major infringement that you have to allow students in particular a right to free expression (or: to not be targeted by government viewpoint discrimination).
A public school is already such a massive infringement on an individual's rights and liberties by the state, that the right to resist further infringements is absolutely needed.
He and I aren't addressing the free speech rights of minors because it's a settled issue.
The second part you've got off is that Freedom of Expression isn't relevant. First of all, the children aren't expressing themselves by reading, that's not how any of that works. But the other part is that the state doesn't have a right to expression at all. Reading isn't expression one one side, and on the other: the state doesn't have a right to it anyway.
A teacher in private, outside the performance of their duties does, but again, that's not the issue here. School instruction is not free speech of teachers. The presence of books in classrooms isn't the free political expression of a school library, or librarians.
School libraries. That's a huge difference. The state is providing material to minors. That material does not meet with the consent of the parents, violates obscenity law, and otherwise violates the taboos of the local community. That's a huge problem for the state to be doing that, when the state already compels the children to attend.
Live debate is tricky, so I won't be too critical, but I will say he violated one big cardinal rule...never interrupt your opponent when they're making a mistake.
When she started saying 'maybe that teacher had a child who...' he should have let her continue, or even asked her to continue. There's no way that was going anywhere good, and chances are she would have dunked on herself - either through some insane statement, or having to sputter to a stop - harder than Tim ever could have. Let this creep talk!
And then when she said she wasn't saying children need Grindr, he again should have let her continue, or asked what she was saying.
Don't get me wrong, he dunked on this bitch pretty damn bad, but there was also a ton of wasted potential. This person was primed to make an absolute fool of themselves, and Tim insisted on doing it for her instead, which is nowhere near as effective. Just give her enough rope to hang herself (in this case it looks like she brought it herself!), and let it play out.
Also, that was great at the end, where she was saying he was "picking specific examples." It's never alright for a teacher to do this bullshit. A specific example is great, because it shows it's happening.
The only flaw I've seen with that approach is that Leftists are so dishonest that sometimes you need to intentionally interrupt their mistake because it's bait to make you derail your own argument. I'll give you my Reddit conversation I had with a Leftist over Juneteenth here
"UniqueUsername" here must have tried every fucking deflection in the book to get away from my single, repetitive, falsifiable, demand: Give me a picture of this very well known holiday that's been continuously celebrated across the US for 157 years. Which he even had to go so far as to do the "Educate yourself" excuse because he knew that he can't.
Many of the deflections look like intentional mistakes. Unforced errors. But in military tactics (which is all talking with a Leftist ever is: rhetorical warfare against a sophist) these serve as nothing more than a feigned retreat to get you to attack a different direction, because the position you are on is actually effective, and their deflections aren't working. If you want your enemy to attack in a specific direction, then you have to present him with an opportunity.
Instead of giving me photos from Juneteenth, now we're arguing about Emancipation Day, or we're arguing about Saturnalium versus Christmas, or we're arguing about Father's Day, or we're arguing about how a holiday originates, or we're arguing about Easter, or we're arguing about whether or not there can be photographs from the 1800. These aren't honest mistakes, they're not even dishonest mistakes. They are feigns to derail the conversation onto a different topic. They can't win the battle the ground they are on, so they start at different battle somewhere else. I admit to falling for this too many times because sometimes people say really stupid shit that baits too hard.
At a certain point, you really need to corner them, and just pound the hell out of their position so that no one will take it back up. That guarantees that the other positions they tried to distract you with aren't going to be addressed; but you purpose is to do so much permanent damage to this position, that they can't take it back up for a while; and that no "Useful Idiot" watching will take it at all. Rhetorical scorched Earth. Don't worry about those other positions, you'll have a fight tomorrow on them if they need to be taken.
It's amazing how often leftist tactics mirror those of women, lol.
Our particular system of authoritarianism cultivates feminine power pathologies because it's geared toward recruiting women as a power block.
I’d say it’s more that we’ve let a grim caricature of female nature take over in an effort to not be mean, and we need a return to masculinity as far as leadership and values go. Right now we’re being run by hysterical female values to appeal to hysterical female women because they’re one of the biggest voting demos you can swing.
I think Connor Tomlinson best described it as the "Pathological Devouring Mother Dragon of Chaos" or something like that. The feminine chaotic evil that murders civilization and tears order to pieces. That's definitely at play here.
The last time I saw a rape this bad, the ACLU was complaining that a gender affirming surgery wasn't done prior to the rapist's execution.
If our only option is to destroy the education system or take a long time to reform it with these people still in positions of power, I say destroy it. They have proven time and again they will happily sexually groom kids to push their ideology
Agreed. At the very least we already need to switch from public schooling to private schooling as is; and then we'd still have to actually purge the education industry of Leftists who train educators. The only relatively fast way to do that is to go to a fully private system which is already a massive undertaking.
It's not just that the education system is broken. It's a systemic failure. The teachers are broken, the students are broken, the administrators are broken, the trainers are broken, so on and so forth. Full Leftist possession means that Leftists would also rather die than refuse to give up that territory; so the chance of reform is zero.
This entire show van be summed up with her inability to comprehend hypotheticals, or abstract thought. That and a low iQ. Also why women should be in politics or lead anything anywhere.
Don't act like this is an ignorant woman, when it is clearly a malicious Leftist. There's no such thing as a person who can't understand a hypothetical, it's a person who's refusing to understand.
Tell me you have never worked closely with the black community without telling me that you have never worked closely with the black community. There are hard floors in IQ below which certain mental functions cannot be performed.
Quiet faggot, the adults are talking.
While I'm sure you and your mother would fall into that category of total mental retardation; you're effectively denying something lower than even Theory of Mind.
I know you're ignorant and racist enough to want to say that black people are not more intelligent than dogs, but that is physically not the case.
There is a major difference between short-term time preference, and the inability to conceive of a hypothetical.
IQ puts me in the top 1%, and unlike you, my parents weren't cousins in an arranged marriage.
You can deny reality for whatever reason you want to, but those of us who have to work and live in your little melting pot utopia get to see reality.
I'm just saying your being objectively fucking retarded is all. Your hate-boner for blacks doesn't change the fact that you a) don't understand IQ, b) don't understand what the scores correspond to. You're being absurd.
.> ur stoopit
Actually I am top 1% per every IQ test I have ever taken.
.> u dont understand IQ and scores durrr
just to recap the past few posts for viewers joining us after the break
Evans and Over, 2007 deals directly with the strong correlation between lower IQ and being able to deal with hypotheticals and conditional logic. They also cite other similar tests with higher median IQs than their study that had better results, and theorize that had their study had a moderately lower median IQ, it might have had a massively different result, i.e., a fucking IQ floor.
Please do not try to tell someone who has studied intelligence and its effects from both the psychological and management viewpoints all the way up to the graduate level that they do not understand IQ, it makes you look like a retarded motherfucker.
And as far as "hateboner", it's not hate, it's utter disgust. American blacks treat society the same way "refugee" Muslims treat European society, but you defend one and routinely call out the other.
Yeah, you haven't studied IQ. You're just lying. If you'd actually understood IQ, you wouldn't even be working from the premise that it's an excellent measure of intelligence, let alone using it to slander blacks as a race. Try reading The Bell Curve instead of saying you did.
I literally made a post about how Juneteenth is a Black National Socialist gaslighting event that is being celebrated with mass shootings. Followed by mentioning to someone else on a different topic that UK is absolutely battered by racialist apologetics for Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs that categorically support the rape of children, and the police are facilitating it. Go ahead and sit down faggot.
Yep, about 20 points.
The IQ he's talking about is at 20 points, not 20 points below the mean.
A crow is capable creating hypothetical scenarios in it's own head.
You really are just insufferable, Giz. Please get over yourself.
Go beat up some random black kid at the 7-11 to make yourself feel better.
In fact, call him a nigger. I give you permission.
Ok, that was uncalled for, and you're wrong here.
There are absolutely people who are incapable of considering and arguing a position that they do not agree with, and similarly there are people who are incapable of considering a hypothetical. Both black and white, though probably disproportionately black.
I have met people without an effective planning horizon. That is, they can't look into the future and consider how their actions will impact their future situation. Certainly not longer than the next meal.
Admittedly they were probably pretty damn stupid before they gave themselves alcohol induced brain damage; "organic brain injury".
Even then the medical profession deems them fit to make medical decisions about their own care.
I don't see it as uncalled for. It's another worthless racist interjecting himself with "Let me make this about how I fucking hate black people with my ignorance of IQ!"
I don't need my dog to come in and shit on the floor, and I don't need a stormfag to come in and shit on the thread.
I'm sure there are dozens of people incapable of having the ability to abstract to such an extreme degree that they can't understand hypotheticals. But, as I said here, those people are literally 100% disabled because they have the minds of toddlers, and can't look after themselves. The ability to understand external perspective is so rudimentary that dressing yourself is typically a more difficult cognitive task in humans.
This is like someone coming up and saying "LOL. Tell me you've never worked with fucking mayos without telling me you never worked with mayos. Look at that smelly bitch! Did you know these fucking failed experiments had to be taught how to bathe by the Maya? They conquered Europe for over a thousand years and never took one bath! I'm really very smart."
That comment isn't needed, isn't wanted, isn't correct, and isn't relevant. It is racist though. But that's not really a good thing.
On top of all of that. Are you really saying that you think that a Leftist won't argue something they don't believe or agree with? Almost every Leftist argument is entirely in bad faith as it is. Half of all Leftist arguments would meet that criteria. Shit like "Communism's never been tried" and "Critical Race Theory doesn't exist". Obviously they can understand hypotheticals... they're lying!
I disagree. You threw a childish fit and started name calling because someone said something you don't like. And he was saying this about a white woman, by the way.
And now you're continuing the childish fit. This is beneath you.
I don't think your command of the ramifications of IQ is as great as you think it is, but I'm not particularly interested in having that discussion except that your "dozens of people" concession is almost certainly a gross underestimation.
Just quit being an asshole when someone isn't being an asshole to you.
So now you're trying to put me on the side of leftists so that you can prove that I'm wrong about something completely unrelated? What the fuck? Chill out.
No, he was saying this about black people, as a race.
This isn't a childish emotional reaction. I'm intentionally belittling him because he is choosing to derail the thread with an ignorant, racist, and irrelevant comment that I'm going to condemn. I'm going to be an asshole to someone who's being an asshole, even if I'm not black, and not the target of his assholery.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: This... is doing the opposite of that.
You seriously don't believe some people don't have the ability to think in the abstract? Are you serious or just saying she does but is malicious? I agree she's communist scum who gladly throws children to wolves if it meant her ideas win, and I find her and the ideas that have her repulsive and evil. But she's also a retard.
Yes, yes he is actually saying that.
I'm sure that some people can't abstract.
However, what that means is that those people are so mentally crippled that they do not have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is what happens naturally to 5 year olds. It means that they are so mentally crippled that they have 100% disability and a legal guardian.
It works like this:
Jack and Jane are having a picnic. They have picnic basket and a loaf of bread between them. Jack puts the loaf of bread in the basket. Jane leaves for a moment. While she's gone, Jack takes the bread and puts it behind a tree. Jane comes back.
Where does Jane think the bread is?
3 year olds do not have "Theory of Mind" and are therefore not able to abstract the concept of another person's perception; and will almost always say: "Jane thinks it's behind the tree."
5 year olds have developed Theory of Mind, and are capable of abstraction. They then proceed to gasp, and typically realize that they have 'hidden knowledge' about the location of the bread, because Jane thinks the bread is still in the basket, but it's actually behind the tree.
"Jane thinks it's behind the tree" is what happens when people can't abstract. Developing Theory of Mind late is a sign of significant Autism, and it means the child isn't going to develop properly. Never developing it makes the person a cripple. Someone with the intellectual capacity of a 3 year old can't function in society, let alone host a podcast, or drive a car out to the Timcast bunker.
Your example is not a hypothetical.
This would be like asking, "what if Jack put it in the car?" and the response is, "but Jack put it behind the tree." Which is what you would get if someone could not understand a hypothetical.
Theory of mind and arguing a hypothetical are not the same thing.
No, but it seems to me that the only way to make that response is to not be able to have Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind requires you to be able to create an abstraction that represents a different view. Theory Of Mind is about whether or not the subject has the capacity for creating and then personifying an abstraction. A hypothetical still requires the capacity to abstract. If you can't abstract, you can't have Theory of Mind.
If you can't form a hypothetical scenario, we couldn't even test the scenario. They aren't literally showing people moving bread in the woods. They are starting with a hypothetical: "Imagine two people are having a picnic in the woods."
If someone didn't understand hypotheticals, they might respond with: "But we're not in the woods."
Without the capacity for hypotheticals, we can't even test Theory of Mind. Not only are we saying "this woman doesn't have the cognitive capacity of a 5 year old", we're saying she has far less than that. We're not talking about someone with sub standard IQ, we're talking about someone who is so developmentally disabled that they have nearly single digit IQs. We've entered the region of non-human animal intelligence.
Not to mention that if you watch longer parts of the conversation, she uses hypotheticals herself in order to deflect from the conversation; so obviously she can understand hypotheticals. She's just being dishonest.
Yes, but so what? Timcast fans are saying he wiped the floor with her, simps and trannies are saying she ebinly smacked him down, and both sides go on smugly believing they "won" yet another argument. Meanwhile, what actually transpired? An NPC delivered predictable NPC talking points straight from her masters at Actblue and Tim countered them with facts anyone with an IQ over 60 already knows. Nothing of any substance actually happened here. Nobody learned anything. Nobody's mind was changed. This is the very definition of sound and fury.
That's a good point. We should always seek to demoralize ourselves and shit all over any attempt to counter Leftist rhetorical warfare so that we can sodomize ourselves with black-pills.
Remember, we can only win the culture war by defeating ourselves, and ignoring any potential positive outcome.
Thank you for your contribution.
Schizo take. Platforming a propagandist - even for the purpose of "debating" her - is not countering their rhetoric. There is no rhetoric. It's all phantoms who will be gone before you finish destroying them with facts and logic.
This is what almost nobody understands. THE LEFT HAVE NO BELIEFS. You can "counter" all you want, but you will achieve nothing. This woman doesn't believe a single thing she's saying. It's all noises being fed through her lizard brain by whoever's paying her. She is not capable of having beliefs. She is a soulless golem animated by avarice. By the time you get done formulating the perfect response, her "belief system" has changed entirely and now you have to start over. Her existence serves only one purpose: to waste your time arguing with someone who does not exist.
The only appropriate thing to say to a propagandist is "kill yourself". Anything beyond that and you're playing their game on their terms.
This is not about convincing the opposition.
You can say "anyone who is not an idiot already knows this reeee", but then you are ignoring the fact that developing your political opinion is a process AND not everyone is 45 years old.
Hands up everybody, who among us was at least somewhat of a naive and retarded semi-lib-ish moron at one point.
I know for a fact I wasn't born knowing about a lot of things that are facts informing my current political views. And I didn't grow up in a heavily liberal envorinment either.
What new facts or information are being shared here that couldn't be shared in a much more efficient and effective way by simply stating them? Virtually everyone knows about these books because the left won't shut the fuck up about them, and if someone somehow doesn't know about them, this is a terrible way to introduce them to the topic.
If someone is capable of being moral, simply learning that there are books with gay porn, masturbation, and instructions on how to join a hookup app in schools will suffice to immediately inspire them to hate leftism. However, they may require proof for such a frankly extraordinary claim. Some guy wearing a beanie saying "trust me bro" is not proof. Screenshots are proof. Scans are proof. Show them the facts. Let them decide for themselves. That's what worked for me.
I personally credit zero percent of my current political awareness to internet cat fights, and I'd bet that almost everyone else would do the same if they really thought about it.
I think what he is saying is that not everyone is you. Or us. There is an endless series of young people that 'come of age' mentally every single day, and THOSE people WILL learn from this sort of exhibition. We want them to learn the correct thing, and Tim does a decent job presenting this to people who are not already adults with an understanding of what is happening.
No, I'd say the majority of America either still doesn't know about the existence of these books or thinks they're a myth. Media saturation takes a really long time.
raises hand
As with all debates, you are not trying to make your opponent recant.......... Instead, you are showing the audience that you are right and she is wrong.
Careful. Deploying this leftist trope suggests that you actually believe in this "deplatforming" nonsense as a political tactic (denying someone an opportunity to speak publicly because of his political position). The left uses this method because their positions are morally indefensible and frequently irrational, as the Pool podcast discussion shows in no uncertain terms.
Also, debates between woke Marxists and non-revolutionaries can inform a larger section of the public about critical Marxist nonsense and the danger it poses. The more people see the way the left lies and obfuscates reality and truth, the better.
The Left is also known for their projection; they attack the "platforming" of ideologues because they platform ideologues. See CNN, New York Times, or Guardian editorials for examples.
I agree that sunlight is the best disinfectant, but for that to work, you have to let them run, not shut them down.
Platforming is a real thing. Deplatforming is not. It's like how you can say words but you can't un-say them.
You're mixing up some things here.
Leftism is a Philosophy of War. They have beliefs, but you are dealing with someone who's beliefs are around the conquest of power. Yes, actually, there is rhetoric. In fact, it's all rhetorical warfare.
You are mistakenly accepting Leftist Sophistry as it's framework. That's not the case. The sophistry is merely a tactic; a means to an end. Yes, she does exist, and yes she is dangerous. No, the purpose is not to debate them, but to defeat her in front of others so that they know how to defeat Leftists as they arrive.
He only defeated her in the eyes of people already on his side though. She's been using this interview as proof that she defeated him and using it to advertise her propaganda show, and her boasting has a lot more reach because it has DNC money behind it. It's a net negative outcome for the side of truth.
If he had definitively proven her wrong about something, I could see where you're coming from. But he didn't. He asked her "do you hold these reprehensible beliefs?", she proudly replied "yes, I am an evil pedophile", he said "that's bad", and she said "nuh uh". A zero information exchange. As I said in another comment, reasonable humans don't need to be convinced that pedophilia is bad. They know it instinctively. So repeating "this woman is a pedophile, and that's bad" is just preaching to the choir.
There is no "neutral side" in this debate. You don't convince a child-fucker to become a good person by pointing out flaws in their logic.
This is literally 1:1 "don't platform hate logic".
No, dragging them through the mud works. In fact, censoring them is far worse because the shit they are doing is already hidden from even their own supporters.
You're talking from a philosophical stance. The rest of us are trying to point out the pragmatic reality. "our side" and "their side" don't reflect a perfect dichotomous divide in the population. Most people are uninformed of these issues, unaware of these issues, or ignorant of these issues.
Yes, some Leftists will always say "yas queen slay". Others will also note that she preformed badly and will tell others not to go on. Most people will see the performance and cringe, realizing she did poorly, and pull back from certain arguments, or disassociate from The Majority Report.
She didn't say that, and that's the point. A fuckton of what the Left does is entirely related to optics and aesthetics. This is because power is illusory, and requires specific optics and aesthetics to maintain itself. The very show name itself "Majority Report" requires the optics of "we are Leftists that represent the morally correct majority opinion, and are resisting the concentrated power of a few evil tyrants." Most "Useful Idiot" Leftists live entirely off this aesthetic. Damaging it causes serious damage to their moment and organization.
This is why when people were talking about CRT more, you hade the authors of CRT themselves claiming that they didn't even know what it was, or that it didn't even exist. They were making bold-faced lies about their own meta-narrative because (as they described in their own papers), the narrative was fundamentally unpalatable to most Americans, black or white. They can't come out and say, "It is a categorical moral imperative to racially discriminate and segregate whites in an effort to racially demoralize them, in order to create a balkanized racialist framework that destroys Capitalism." That's bananas. So, they had to paint the aesthetic that they are noble Civil Rights heroes fighting against evil Klansmen who want black kids dead, and that Critical Race Theory doesn't exist, "It's just history".
The Left operates on aesthetic. Embarrassing them and mocking them does quite a bit of damage.
But she's not defeated; she literally thinks she owned a bigot and her audience does to.
If it's all rhetorical, nothing is real, and words don't matter.
They're using rhetoric as a weapon. Their words don't matter to them. Words matter to everyone else.
And that is the weakness of her and those who believe like her. They walk away thinking they are victorious because to do otherwise is to accept that they were wrong. This is not an acceptable outcome, so they do the 3-monkey pose and willfully continue to believe the things they were already told to believe by their propaganda masters in the leftist media. People in the 3-monkey pose are susceptible to being defeated more easily when we knock down their leftist masters.
As soon as the tide turns, they are the ones who will eventually announce that they have always believed woke was stupid, and they never really supported leftists. They are THAT weak-minded and shallow. We just need to keep pushing, keep attacking the legacy globalist media, and keep rejecting neo-marxist garbage.
I think you’re close to correct for anyone already “in” the culture war—it’s like how after each Presidential debate, everyone thinks their candidate clearly won—but you’d be surprised what a small percentage of the population is really involved in the culture war. I think stuff like this is useful even on the off-chance that a “normie” will see it, because a lot of how the woke brigade has gained so much power and influence is by creating conditions where their voice and their arguments predominate and there can be consequences for saying anything else. A lot of people in the world know something screwy is going on but just need to hear someone with a platform articulate the counter-arguments. We win the culture war by giving normal people the courage and confidence to call wokeism what it is, not a liberation movement but a crazy alliance between racist grifters and mentally ill pedophiles. So I sort of agree with you for people already on this forum but I think it’s useful for less involved people.
100%. I think in time the reality of the horrors of critical Marxist wokeness will sink in more generally, but only if people keep hammering away at it and confronting it at every opportunity--the larger the audience the better.
This was from his "Culture War" podcast, Episode 18: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOnfHUhU9X8
Repeal the 19th amendment
If Kyle Rittenhouse was a Leftist, and you attacked him, he would still have done nothing wrong.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed: Rule 2 - Violent Speech