[Yamer]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

While it can't be debated that Trump is doing his best impression of what a pro-Isreal adolf would look like in the 21st century and the nazi insinuations are calling a spade a spade (not just petty name calling, which is what Trump and many of his supporters seem to think it is - and to them I'd suggest picking up a history textbook and noting the parallels) no one can take you or anybody on the left seriously going forward as proponents for human life if you just pick and choose when they matter and when it's fine to devalue them because of a moral or ideological impasse.

Literally nobody is doing this. Why do you make this stuff up in order to argue a point nobody is making?

Charlie carved out a niche of debating and spreading messages to young americans, and basically monopolized the gig. While he was shooting fish in a barrel given that they're young, inexperienced and impressionable, the dems could've sent in their own, saner version of Kirk to combat him in that arena but they didn't do s#### about it. They earned that election loss and it was entirely their own faults for being out of touch with young voters.

Yes, this is all the Democrats' fault for not creating a contrary extremist personality and putting them on a podcast tour. Galaxy brain stuff, here.

As valid as some of the points you make are, still this guilty by association thing that the left does (granting the person in question a less than human status in their mind) is a really icky tendency of outspoken left leaning individuals.

Again, you're gonna have to point out where I did this, champ.

Maybe more of you should take after Harris on this one and choose decency as a response to a murder. If you want to make your point while remaining in line with the values your public figures preach then make it without stooping by making distasteful remarks about a guy that is already deceased and whose reign of terror on campuses is now concluded (like, stop.. he's dead).

Well, see, here's the difference between us: I don't get my social or ethical cues from politicians and public figures, so I'm content expressing the views and values I have constructed for myself over the course of my life. I'm not feeling or saying anything in accordance to some social construct of rigid ideology like a lemming.

And if you think Charlie Kirk's scope of harm was limited to college campuses then you're just not all that bright.

In theory, any well educated liberal can and should clean house with a mass of Charlie supporters, but they let their emotions get the best of them and instead lean into exactly that profile that the right stereotypes liberals as and just further solidifies and emboldens that view.

Biggest problem in my view with passionate leftists is that they do at times forget their humanity in their quest for proving right and wrong. What's frustrating is that they don't have to.

In who's theory? Yours? The prevailing stereotyping perpetuated from the right-wing to create leftists as the other that needs to be cautioned against?

You understand who the subject of this conversation is and the things he had to say about the most vulnerable and disadvanted corners of society, correct? And you're out here appealing to my humanity?

Your boos mean nothing. I've seen what makes you cheer.

That's the sad part. Public figures on the right are largely full of #### and wrong on many counts, but even with an arsenal of facts at their disposal, the left still manage to get roped in emotionally and completely lose their composure.

You guys need to learn to handle those you disagree with like Alex O'Connor (an atheist) handled a room full of christians and mormons. He rolled over them with his knowledge of the bible and history without losing his cool even once (or mocking/scorning his opponent). And in the end that scored a lot of points with the religious individuals, and many of them came away with more willingness to learn and be open to new perspectives.

I'm not interested in conforming to some type-set personality you feel is appropriate in conversation and debate, and I'm not open to new perspectives on how the civil rights movement was a mistake or how trans persons shouldn't exist.

Aren't you the same type of people that get upset about not having failing grades in schools and kids getting participation ribbons? Yet, you're all so afraid of the way someone disagrees with you. Don't be mean, don't be 'emotional', and don't call my stupid thoughts and actions stupid. Shouldn't you be happy that we're not coddling you?

You guys are your own worst enemies with how you continually show up exactly how they expect. With such a condescending demeanor, no wonder they don't listen.

Switch up your approach, you're smart enough (I hope). But maybe at the end of the day you guys are just in love with hating and belittling the right and the hit you get from it more than educating and setting an example of civility without descending into hypocrisy.

Yes, if only the left would be nicer and more civil than the right we could make some real progress. I think we're just tired of inhaling that pungent stench that comes from the total lack of self-awareness when persons like yourself say these kinds of things. You literally just made a backhanded insult to my intelligence while stepping up on your soapbox.

Maybe try being the change you want to see in the world before you start lecturing people on ethics and civility. And since you're so horny for unsolicited advice, how about thinking for yourself and viewing others as people instead of stereotypes that only disappoint you when they don't reflect the perverted standard you've set for them.