Charlie Kirk doodgeschoten #24

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:40 schreef Zorro het volgende:

[..]
Hoe is dat belangrijk?
Ik vermoed dat vrijwel alle Israel haters daar ook nooit geweest zijn.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:31 schreef hondonspain het volgende:

[..]
Je bedoeld de miljoenen illegalen?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:35 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
Ben je er ooit geweest?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 08:39 schreef HowardRoark het volgende:
Woke-isme is een overdreven nadruk op intersectionele identiteitspolitiek

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:44 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
Als iemand zegt dat de VS "nog leuker" gaat zijn ben ik benieuwd wat ze bedoelen. Ik vond het 10 jaar geleden al een deprimerende politiestaat en dat is sindsdien alleen maar erger geworden.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:52 schreef VEM2012 het volgende:

[..]
Ik heb er gewoond.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:55 schreef VEM2012 het volgende:

[..]
Geen idee waar jij het over hebt. Zodra je door de douane heen bent nergens last van. En wees gewoon beleefd als je een interactie hebt met de politie. Dan zijn ze ook correct tegen jou.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:56 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
O m g misschien waren we wel buurtjes!!!!!

Heb je ook een jaar doorgebracht in Leavenworth voor de volle experience?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:01 schreef VEM2012 het volgende:

[..]
Ik heb gewoond in Cali. Op een steenworp van San Francisco. Toen het daar nog niet zo’n puinzooi was als nu…

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:01 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
Treinstations vol reclame en filmpjes over bommen die overal kunnen liggen, stappen met meer politiewagens in de straat dan kroegen, douane die je zonder wat te zeggen vastgrijpt omdat je vingerafdruk niet wil scannen, bevolking die echt te schijterig om te poepen is en je mag niet eens de fucking straat oversteken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 09:51 schreef VEM2012 het volgende:

[..]
Nee. Vooral een hoop figuren uit Hollywood die zichzelf schromelijk overschatten.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:01 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
Treinstations vol reclame en filmpjes over bommen die overal kunnen liggen, stappen met meer politiewagens in de straat dan kroegen, douane die je zonder wat te zeggen vastgrijpt omdat je vingerafdruk niet wil scannen, bevolking die echt te schijterig om te poepen is en je mag niet eens de fucking straat oversteken.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:02 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
Het was een gevangenisgrapje begrijpbaar voor de echte locals.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:07 schreef capricia het volgende:

[..]
Oh echt, gaan er zoveel mensen de VS verlaten?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:03 schreef Scrummie het volgende:

[..]
Het zal wel aan jou liggen dan.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:10 schreef VEM2012 het volgende:

[..]
Ik verkeerde duidelijk in wat andere kringen dan jij.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:08 schreef VEM2012 het volgende:

[..]
Stappen met toezicht. Dus daar hoeven vrouwen de nacht niet meer op te eisen (onwaar overigens, mijn vrouw is in NY meermaals belaagd)?

Dat de douane je in de kraag grijpt omdat jij recalcitrant doet lijkt mij normaal.

En de VS is inderdaad niet overal geschikt voor wandelaars en fietsers. Maar goed, heb je liever Amsterdam waar je met de auto nergens met goed fatsoen kan komen?

Sowieso heeft de VS vele gezichten. Prachtig land. Leuke mensen. Ik ga zeker nog met mijn kinderen terug voor rondreizen. En ik sluit niet uit dat ik er nog eens ga wonen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:25 schreef Glazenmaker het volgende:

[..]
Ik heb mij nog nooit zo onveilig gevoeld.

Niet wat ik schreef.

Ja ik heb liever Amsterdam waar mensen op straat kunnen overleven buiten een auto. Stukje vrijheid.

Graag.

quote:

Rachel Hurley
18h

The misinformation surrounding Charlie Kirk is astounding - and I’m not talking about average people sounding off on social media - I’m talking about the bullshit being spread by major news outlets and so-called liberal journalists.

I’m looking at you, Ezra Klein.

While Kirk’s shooter was obviously overly steeped in internet whackadoo memelord culture - the “normies” don’t have a clue about how internet culture works at all.

Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal.

The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

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.

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 10:07 schreef capricia het volgende:

[..]
Oh echt, gaan er zoveel mensen de VS verlaten?

quote:

Op dinsdag 16 september 2025 11:46 schreef RetepV het volgende:
Ik heb daarmee het vermoeden dat Kirk een onderdeel van de tactieken van Trump was waarmee Trump de Universiteiten probeert te "anti-linksen" en "anti-woken".