Guns.

josevolution

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

It reads like he took lessons from the master weavers team! 

Lerxst1992

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

I don’t care what a partisan governor says. 

We all know that famous political circle graph. Radical left and radical right are pretty close. The only reason I hope ge’s radical right is to shut maga’s mouth about this narrative grow their culture war. 

Otherwise to me it makes no difference. Radical is radical. Radical anything isn’t a part of either of the two “teams”. 

I agree it doesn’t matter. The part I disagree with is it seems like both sides are pointing fingers equally. There’s rumors he’s part of a right wing organization as well has part of the trans community. Seems like everyone is pointing fingers and being like “see, it wasn’t my group!”

I also believe the governor because the truth is coming out, it would be too stupid to lie about it. To say he’s (or the FBI, whoever) spoken with family and friends and claim they say he’s moved one direction politically. All they'd have to do is put out a statement saying that’s not true and he’d look like a huge idiot. Of course they’re talking to everyone who was currently involved in his life and scrubbing all of his social media. It’d be too stupid to lie about the results when it’s going to come out anyway. 

Do you really believe governors never lie?  And you really believe with this whole crazy scenario that there is such a thing as "the truth coming out"?  Those seem like very, very long stretches to me.  

Just saying.  I don't know shit, and in this case, I think it makes sense to say that.  I don't think any of us really know shit about this topic- beyond the actual occurrence on last Wednesday, of course.

I didn’t say governors don’t lie. I said I don’t think they’d lie in such a high profile case that would so easily be disproved. 
I do believe the governor in this instance because there are too many people who knew the shooter. If the governor just blatantly lied about being in touch with them and the information they provided, one of them would say something. I’m sure the family and partner is already be hounded by the media. If they’re making up lies about their son, they’d probably post on X the truth.

I like the Utah Gov...he's a reasonable republican.

But he and some news orgs seem to really stress that the trans bits are coming from the FBI. That is suspect to me. I wouldn't put it past them to put out these "findings" only to later reverse them. trump is all about having the facts match his initial reaction.

But I could be wrong. 

You are not wrong. The WSJ should be ashamed of what they printed in the hours after the shooting about the bullets. That was clearly a political narrative release by whatever law enforcement official they continually quoted. 

What did you expect from a Murdick rag?

Their news division is usually very good. That’s why Trump is suing them. 

They are a shell of their former selves and are oh so very slowly bending the knee.

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

Who’s the author? I don’t watch or listen to any podcasts for this very reason. It’s like being 13, doing bong hits with your friends and discussing whatever issues of the day. Basically pointless.

HughFreakingDillon

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

Who’s the author? I don’t watch or listen to any podcasts for this very reason. It’s like being 13, doing bong hits with your friends and discussing whatever issues of the day. Basically pointless.

From my facebook link. Gern copied the text for those that don’t/won’t use it. 

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

I mentioned Kirks practices somewhere on here just like this person did.  100% he set things up.  He reminded me of a talk show host who would quickly change the subject to steer the conversation into how they wanted.

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

Who’s the author? I don’t watch or listen to any podcasts for this very reason. It’s like being 13, doing bong hits with your friends and discussing whatever issues of the day. Basically pointless.

From my facebook link. Gern copied the text for those that don’t/won’t use it. 

I don’t do faceturd so can’t access the link and the copy/paste doesn’t refer to who’s speaking or wrote it.

Bentleyspop

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

Who’s the author? I don’t watch or listen to any podcasts for this very reason. It’s like being 13, doing bong hits with your friends and discussing whatever issues of the day. Basically pointless.

From my facebook link. Gern copied the text for those that don’t/won’t use it. 

I don’t do faceturd so can’t access the link and the copy/paste doesn’t refer to who’s speaking or wrote it.

I don't  have the Crackbook either but can access the link. The author is Rachel Hurley.

Halifax2TheMax

Bentleyspop said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

Who’s the author? I don’t watch or listen to any podcasts for this very reason. It’s like being 13, doing bong hits with your friends and discussing whatever issues of the day. Basically pointless.

From my facebook link. Gern copied the text for those that don’t/won’t use it. 

I don’t do faceturd so can’t access the link and the copy/paste doesn’t refer to who’s speaking or wrote it.

I don't  have the Crackboom either but can access the link. The author is Rachel Hurley.

Thank you. Who is Rachel Hurley and her claim to fame that she’s turning down podcast invites?

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

"The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

First, there’s the obvious setup problem.

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready.

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit.

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.
Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged.

I’ve turned down every podcast and interview request that’s come my way in the past few months. Two reasons. First, I have zero interest in making myself the story. Second, and more importantly, I’m not some oracle with instant answers on demand.

Podcasts and debates aren’t designed for real intellectual work. They’re built for entertainment. Serious thinking doesn’t happen in a soundbite. It requires time to wrestle with ideas, to sit with them, to test them against reality. My first reaction isn’t always my best one - and I’m honest enough to admit that. What feels true in the moment often crumbles under reflection. That’s why I’d rather write than perform.

Because while I also make my living from creating content - I refuse to mistake performance for truth."






I completely agree with the "intellectual violence" comment...

I mentioned Kirks practices somewhere on here just like this person did.  100% he set things up.  He reminded me of a talk show host who would quickly change the subject to steer the conversation into how they wanted.

yeah like Morton Downey Jr...again, nothing against him and he certainly didn't deserve to be killed but putting him on a pedestal is just ridiculous

I swear that my facebook "friends" that are posting daily about him haven't listened to him as much as they suggest

DE4173

I imagine team blue will be "cheering" against Patel today while team red "cheers" for him. 🤪

josevolution

DE4173 said:

I imagine team blue will be "cheering" against Patel today while team red "cheers" for him. 🤪

How about we just get the truth? From Patel he’s completely out of his league no? 

Halifax2TheMax

DE4173 said:

I imagine team blue will be "cheering" against Patel today while team red "cheers" for him. 🤪

Ka$h has no business running the FBI.

DE4173

1. 💯
2. Depends on #1

darwinstheory

HughFreakingDillon said:

This debunks Kirk’s “honest debate” completely: 

https://www.facebook.com/share/1ChQ1m6nhF/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Thanks for posting. 💯 true 

Gern Blansten

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

I haven't seen that update. But I wonder what he thought the dad was going to think when the FBI shows the picture of the lost rifle at the exact same time the son lost it?

Tim Simmons

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Go Beavers said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The fact his entire family is maga could mean nothing. He could be the black sheep who is the only liberal. And could have caused such a giant swing he could have been radicalized. 

Or he could be radicalized maga. 

The point being, we don’t have anything verifiable yet. 

The governor came out this morning and said based on information from the family, friends and his partner and private messages, he was “radicalized” by the extreme left. As far as I know, that is the first official response from anyone directly involved in the investigation as to the shooter’s beliefs. 

How does one in Utah go radical left?

Binge watching the West Wing? 

Read A Moving Train message boards?

the bitterness

Literally the same comment as the west wing, is that one bitter?

west wing is a phenomenal show, back when there wasn’t a woke litmus test among democrats.

had a nice long post for u the other day  about why nyc mayor race is very relevant to national politics….its not bitter at all.

No. The fact that you think this place is so ‘radical left’ that it upsets you so much that you need to keep trying to get that dig in whenever you can.

Halifax2TheMax

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

Is dad the “responsible” gun owner who allowed his weapon to be used in a murder? He should face criminal charges as an accessory, no? Then be sued for civil damages by the survivors, eh?

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Gern Blansten said:

wow these texts between the shooter and his roommate tell the whole story....he really thought he was going to get away with it

was more concerned about having to tell his dad that he lost the rifle

Is dad the “responsible” gun owner who allowed his weapon to be used in a murder? He should face criminal charges as an accessory, no? Then be sued for civil damages by the survivors, eh?

Not if the son had no legal restrictions against guns.
If I loan my car to someone who can legally drive, and they get a DUI and kill someone, am I responsible?
If the son had no legal restrictions against gun, could legally own and operate one, it's not the dad's fault if he loaned him a family gun. Now, if he was aware that the son had issues and didn't take basic steps from preventing him from getting it, then I'd agree.