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.
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.