Anonymous #2 5d

My man you don’t need an hour and a half to be able to say yeah a statement was racist.

65

Anonymous #4 5d

Might sound crazy, but yeah you do actually need to understand why someone said what they did in order to understand a cherry-picked sentence from smack in middle of a conversation

-11

Anonymous #2 5d

I agree with number 2

-9

Anonymous #2 5d

If someone says “I want all black people dead.” I don’t need 2 hours to make a decision on if it’s racist or not. You can add context but it doesn’t change the statement is racist. Calling black people “prowling blacks” is racist idgaf. Saying the civil rights act was a mistake is racist idgaf how you try and pull a slippery slope fallacy. Context is not your get out of jail free card to pardon him from the fact he spent his career normalizing bigotry.

65

Anonymous #2 5d

You can’t just call all the stuff that makes him look bad because it sounds bad (because it is bad) “cherry-picked.”

31

Anonymous #3 5d

“It’s only racist if you make it racist” you’re telling on yourself there.

37

Anonymous #4 5d

He didn’t call black people “prowling blacks” he called the specific black people that prowl and attack white people that. And believe it or not, in the full quote on the civil rights act he actually explains WHY it was a mistake. So you’re proving me right with that one. You can call whatever you want a slippery slope fallacy but saying “context doesn’t matter” is not the genius argument you think it is

-10

Anonymous #4 5d

I won’t call everything controversial that he said cherry-picked, only the ones that are cherry-picked lol. That’s on you to actually learn what his argument is before bringing it up as a supposed proof

-7

Anonymous #2 5d

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.” May 19th 2023. And also saying “blacks that prowl” is the same fucking thing as “prowling blacks” you’re playing the semantics game and it changes nothing it’s still racist af language that dehumanizes black people as dangerous predators you need to watch out for. And he explained it was a mistake because he used a slippery slope fallacy about 1/2

32

Anonymous #2 5d

Watched him for a few years. Not much of what he said was racist. Even the stuff I didn’t 100% agree on wasn’t really racist.

-6

Anonymous #2 5d

White hatred. It was a fallacious argument that said black people should not have gotten the civil rights because it made things worse for white people. And you won’t call everything cherry picked but you won’t quantify what is and isn’t cherry picked you’re totally not giving yourself an unlimited get out of jail free card.

25

Anonymous #3 5d

If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action? January 3rd, 2024.

20

Anonymous #4 5d

If it’s back up by facts, it’s not racist…

-9

Anonymous #3 5d

White women were the biggest benefactors of affirmative action.

29

Anonymous #4 5d

Proof?

-6

Anonymous #4 5d

You’re doing exactly what i argued doesn’t work here. Using the same tired quotes that quite literally are the opposite of what you’re trying to say in full context. I don’t have the space here to transcribe entire videos, but they’re public for you to watch instead of repeating the same 5 quotes you see everyone else repost

-5

Anonymous #3 5d

https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2023/06/29/affirmative-action-who-benefits-white-women/70371219007/ https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action https://www.acluok.org/sites/default/files/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Affirmative-Action-Mythbusters.pdf

31

Anonymous #4 5d

From ChatGPT

-8

Anonymous #2 5d

My man you said he never said “prowling blacks” that’s a direct fucking quote. If you need someone to watch an hour and a half video to say “actually it wasn’t racist” it’s not because you care about saying actually the comment wasn’t racist you’re trying to ambush someone with so much shit they get knocked off the original point. It’s a common debate strategy problem is it’s not working here dude.

24

Anonymous #3 5d

“from chatgpt”

16

Anonymous #4 5d

I didn’t say he never said that, you alluded to him calling all black people prowling blacks. I said he called the ones that actually prowl and assault white people prowlers. There’s a difference. And “my brain gets overwhelmed by all the context of a conversation” isn’t the argument you think it is. If you can’t handle an entire argument then you don’t get to have one lol

-5

Anonymous #2 5d

“He didn’t call black people prowling blacks.” *inserts direct quote of him saying that* “you don’t understand that quote isn’t him actually saying it and when I said he didn’t say it I didn’t use the word never and I’m totally not playing the semantics game rn.” That’s how you sound rn. And also nice straw man at the end there.

27

Anonymous #4 5d

Also, who tf mentioned affirmative action and why does it matter who benefited the “most” from it? Charlie’s whole point was quotas make people question qualifications

-4

Anonymous OP 5d

Better than no research

-6

Anonymous #3 5d

no, actually, i don’t accept that the confirmation bias machine that has a reputation of inventing sources out of thin air is better than no research

22

Anonymous #4 5d

I’m not sure you know what a straw man is lol because you literally said I was trying to confuse you by using literal context. And again, believe it or not, there’s a difference between saying an entire race is doing something (what you implied he did) and calling out that there are people committing racially motivated assaults

-4

Anonymous #2 5d

Did I say that to you? No? Oh well try and keep up a little better.

18

Anonymous #4 5d

“If you need someone to watch an hour and a half video to say ‘actually it wasn't racist’ it's not because you care about saying actually the comment wasn't racist you're trying to ambush someone with so much shit they get knocked off the original point.” Word for word what you said. I also never said you needed 1.5 hr, all you need to watch is a 10 min conversation max. It’s not too much to ask of someone who wants to criticize someone’s opinion for them to actually know what that opinion is

-1

Anonymous #2 5d

No it was a strawman because I know damn well that you only care about using hours of “context” not because it actually makes someone’s language not racist but because you’re trying to overwhelm with information that isn’t even always relevant. And when you say “prowling blacks” that language is about a group of people a group of people you need to fear because they are dangerous. That language is racist. You’re trying to explain it away it’s still racist. You tried to say he never said those

9

Anonymous #2 5d

Words he did. You’re nothing but an apologist.

12

Anonymous #2 5d

I said did I say that to you when you brought up affirmative action dumb ass because I didn’t bring that up to you. You’re really struggling to keep up here.

6

Anonymous #4 5d

I never said he didn’t say those words lol, I said the cherry picked quotes you and everyone are bringing do not represent the argument he was making. You are never going to win the argument that knowing the context of what a conversation was about as well as what was said before and after is not important to understand the point made.

-1

Anonymous #4 5d

You quite literally brought up affirmative action via the quote you copy pasted. I didn’t bring it up

-2

Anonymous #2 5d

Sounds like you did say he didn’t say those words.

9

Anonymous #2 5d

Wasn’t bringing affirmative action up to YOU dumb fuck.

12

Anonymous #4 5d

We gonna ignore every other sentence I’ve had to repeat 5 times cuz you don’t understand?

11

Anonymous OP 5d

The cool thing about ChatGPT is that it has access to the internet and can grab from sources online.

-2

Anonymous #3 5d

the cool thing about chatgpt is that it still makes shit up

12

Anonymous OP 5d

I agree with you about ChatGPT on this one man, but so do reporters lol

0

Anonymous OP 5d

Humans make up shit too btw, just ask the left.

0

Anonymous #3 5d

Saying you won’t trust a black woman to fly a plane because she is black and a woman is both racist and misogynist

51

Anonymous #5 5d

Lol except it’s not. The whole point was how a company instated a quota to hire specifically black people and women. And his point was how quotas create doubts about qualifications. His example just combines the two criteria United Airlines gave for their diversity quota. And this is why context matters. The man has like 5000 hours of content available online and people continuously use the same 5 cherry-picked quotes without context. It’s not a smart argument

9

Anonymous #2 5d

You’re literally being racist, they’re is a “quota” (by definition not a quota) to promote diversity because there is a factual bias against poc and women, they are qualified pilots, it’s a racist and misogynist “fear”

31

Anonymous #2 5d

100% I'm still waiting for other's to show hard evidence.

7

Anonymous #6 5d

Same

1

Anonymous #5 5d

I’ll trust her if she is qualified. I’ll trust anyone to fly a plane as long as they have the proper qualifications and are good at flying the plane.

18

Anonymous #3 5d

They all are fucking qualified. To say it won’t trust them for being black and being a woman is racist.

11

Anonymous #6 5d

Most hilarious one I’ve seen so far is when they tried to claim he called a guy the C word. He called the dude by his name, Cenk.

12

Anonymous #5 5d

They wanted 50% of their pilots to be black or a woman. That’s by definition a quota. And regardless of if they are all still qualified OR whether you agree with Charlie’s premise or not, it’s literally not racist to hold the opinion that if you create a hiring criteria based on a race or gender quote, it leads to distrust in qualifications.

-4

Anonymous #5 5d

Never said I wouldn’t trust them if they are black. I only care if they are qualified and are good at their job, not what color their skin is.

10

Anonymous #3 5d

He said that.

-4

Anonymous #5 5d

Proof?

8

Anonymous #2 5d

Here 2 ill show you a post with all context that also demonstrates kirk being a piece of shit racist

5

Anonymous #8 5d

Definitely provocative, but a factually true statement. What’s the problem? I think it is pretty amazing to see NY healed from post 9/11 Muslim bigotry

11

Anonymous #2 5d

If you cant read the subtext here then youre probably illiterate. Theres no reason to mention 9/11 in this post.

-2

Anonymous #8 5d

Lmao all of a sudden subtext matters for a quote. I’ll stop being purposefully dense and can concede it’s a pretty shitty tweet but only if you pinky promise to be consistent on context and subtext and apply that logic to the rest of his quotes

6

Anonymous #2 5d

It doesnt take away from my original point even if I am to do that.

-1

Anonymous #8 5d

It’s factual. What more can we say.

9

Anonymous #3 5d

Mhmm and the left is using islam to slit the throat of america too right

0

Anonymous #8 5d

Never said that.

5

Anonymous #8 5d

I mean middle eastern Islamic countries have literally chanted death to america for decades now. There’s only one group of people in the world that blow themselves up for the righteous cause of bringing down America. And Islamism is factually inherently violent

7

Anonymous #3 5d

Kirk did

1

Anonymous #2 5d

Yep there it is knew you had that in you somewhere

0

Anonymous #8 5d

Proof?

5

Anonymous #8 5d

Any intro college course on foreign affairs mentions Islamism and its dangers lmao. Kirk never said it was the left doing it, just that it is

6

Anonymous #3 5d

I agree. Companies should not hire only to meet a quota. They should prioritize hiring the most competent pilots instead of trying to meet quotas especially when it's other people's lives on the line

9

Anonymous #2 5d

Don’t forget those companies had to stop because those racial quotas count as discriminatory hiring practices.

8

Anonymous #2 4d

This. This is why I came to comment. “It was taken out of context.” Bullshit.

-3

Anonymous #2 4d

THE WHOLE THING WAS RACIST, YOU POTATO!!!!

19

Anonymous ally.for.all 4d

Islamism is a US government recognized security threat. That’s not up for dispute no matter how unsexy it sounds to western ears who try to be tolerant of all. Saying Islamism is a threat to the west is like saying stepping in a nail hurts. Even radical Islam themselves say they’re a threat to the west

2

Anonymous #2 4d

it’s the fact that you’re referring to islam the religion as islamism and muslims (the people who practice islam) as islam. you’re clearly not well versed in history, which deals with facts, but instead you have clearly fallen for decades of propaganda. i don’t know why anyone is still trying to get you to see the light. there is clearly no hope. have fun being a hateful, ignorant bigot and have the day you deserve!

-2

Anonymous #2 4d

It’s crazy these people clearly have no idea of the horrors Europe is facing under the surge of Islamic influence. Islamic extremism is definitely a major threat to American culture, and radical Muslims are saying it TO OUR FACES and people refuse to listen

2

Anonymous #10 4d

You can keep calling people hateful ignorant bigots but then you ignore the truth your words mean nothing. Islamism IS radical Islam, only practiced by Muslims and is explicitly condoned by the doctrine itself. Not every Muslim practices it, but if they are at all religious then they accept the premise whether they act upon it themselves or not

2

Anonymous #14 4d

We didn’t do shit. The call is coming from inside the house.

1

Anonymous ally.for.all 3d

Good for you wait for being deported

4

Anonymous #14 2d

Impossible, you asshat.

1