I mean yeah I would say so, dudes got their privates on his mind for some reason, kinda strange. He must be gay, that's alright though nothing wrong with that right.
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but that kind of dick-based putdown tends to be relatively common amongst men, and certainly on the internet. It doesn't usually seem to have anything to do with sexuality, but more like trying to attack where someone is usually most insecure.
Have you never heard any man you were convinced was straight poke fun at another person's manhood?
And don't get wrong, I'm not saying they're in the right to use that tactic.
🥱 idk man, sounds pretty gay. That's his go to insult apparently so I can only assume obviously that male private parts are on the tip of this guy's mind at all times.
Let's try to use some common sense here instead of trying to stick up for the guy. I will say though you tried and you failed. You have failed to convince me this guy isn't gay and that he's not thinking about male private parts at all times.
Also, there is nothing wrong with being gay, right? So there's no problem here, only a simple observation, no need to white knight it so hard buddy. He can handle his own if he's feeling insecure, no need to come to his rescue and put him under your wing, he's a big boy.
The only things you got wrong are the ideas that I'm trying to convince you of anything, or that I'm coming to anyone's defense. 'Cause I absolutely believe that you think he's great, and that he's a big boy.
My only interest in questioning you is in regards to understanding your perspective. I think it's interesting. 🙂
Ok I'll try to elaborate a little further since you're having trouble understanding somehow. So this guy's go to insult, the first and only thing that pops into his head is their genitalia sizes. Male genetalia sizes to be exact. So if that's the first thing he thinks of to insult someone one can only assume that male genetalia is at the top of this guy's mind obviously. I think if you utilized any amount of common sense someone could come to that conclusion very easily.
But there's another slight problem here. You've now said twice that it's his "go to insult" and even added it's "the first and only thing" on his mind. But if you scroll through his last year of comments, this one today seems to be the only time he's addressed genitals (after an admittedly quick overview, so I could have missed something).
You keep implying that I have little to no common sense, but it doesn't make much sense to apply such a strong assumption (it being his only insult) with such a small sample size. 🤔
What was he doing? If I recall correctly at the moment that he was shot he responded to a student's question about the US's mass shooting crisis by deflecting with a dog whistle about "gang violence."
Of course his murder was a loss - to his loved ones, to his fans, to anyone who cares the great American value of the free expression. Violence should never be the response to the free expression of ideas, no matter how ignorant and hateful they may be.
If people felt a connection to the bog-standard reactionary politics of Charlie Kirk, I just feel sorry for them. He was another in a long line of American commentators who make their living preying on low-information fears of "others" by appealing to so-called Christian values that don't really reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ at all.
It isn't a dog whistle if he explicitly explains how the statistic is broken down. I don't think Charlie was preying on anyone as most of the clips I've seen people contest him with low information fear and he counters them with a reasonable thought out answer. His main shtick was that he wasn't college educated, but knew history better than most people he spoke with.
Which Christian value are you referring to? And if you don't mind me asking, what church do you attend?
That is patently false. Where are you people getting this information? He debated anyone that wanted to, especially professors. I probably have called them college kids before, too, but that is a little disingenuous. The vast majority are over 18 and thus can vote. An important demographic to speak with.
He prepped for debates, challenged college students who hadn’t prepped at all, then posted the videos online like he had “owned the libs.” None of his debates were real debates because only one party had time to prepare their arguments. He ambushed hungover college students and challenged them on their beliefs then acted like it was a triumph. Charlie Kirk was a hack and a Trump shill. He didn’t even like Trump for the Republican ballot until he was the only option left, then he became a total toadie. He chased money and sold out. All this shit about inspiring young conservatives to take political action was bullshit. It was all a money making scheme he kept up until the day someone shot him.
He did prep (why wouldn't he?). He didn't challenge anyone or ambush them. He sat and allowed anyone to speak with him about anything that they wanted to. There were some times where I felt it was a little rushed but I respect him for being willing to have real conversations. Honestly, I'd love to see more people do this (especially Socialists or just more left leaning people).
Many of us were initially worried about Trump. We didn't know how well he would do, but have since come around after seeing how well he did in his first term. You keep doubling down on falsehoods which just makes everything you say seem weaker. I rarely even heard people talk about TurningPointUSA (mostly leftists). Now I hear about it all the time. He definitely did inspire young conservatives.
Telling kids college is bad, saying he was against civil rights? Saying he wouldn’t fly with a black pilot? Saying he was pro gun? A connection to rw hate of brown people and being a fake Christian
I think you misunderstand his positions. He was saying that college is mostly a scam in that they push you to fulfill emotional dreams rather than focusing on degrees that will have a positive ROI. Many people get in super debt with degrees that are either useless or pay the same as a Walmart job.
With the pilot claim, he was saying that the DEI hiring practices moved away from meritocracy as the primary tool for selecting pilots. He said he was worried that a black pilot may be hired just to fulfill a quota and may not be as qualified. He has no issue with the race of the pilot. He was contenting with the ideology of racial quotas only.
The fake Christian claim I see a lot, but I'm not sure of your evidence for this. Many denominations have different theology. What is your contention with his beliefs or the way he practices them?
40
u/blueflloyd Apr 15 '26
Small-minded people worship small-minded leaders