Path: ...!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: [OT] Charlie Kirk assassinated
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 16:17:43 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <ifb6cklto68bs0dn5sucqhhgl7m628l713@4ax.com>
References: <109spk1$22i5g$2@dont-email.me> <109td32$28gkk$2@dont-email.me> <1577670826.779262811.248950.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <109usc5$2o986$1@dont-email.me> <109v374$2qja2$5@dont-email.me> <109v8gg$2slv1$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2025 20:17:45 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b889914c0682ff2f4478d2c0e3ede76c";
	logging-data="3070160"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19qAGlO61bNt+hBvpJzabhYhKZn5xcymEc="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:w/el/m/mCTkSnhYRXaaMmgIFS6U=

On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:38:55 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On 9/11/2025 2:08 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2025 at 9:11:49 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/11/2025 1:56 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   I saw him all the time on Facebook reels, which are intrusive little very
>>>>   short videos they force on you. I didn’t know his name. The stuff they
>>>>   showed on Facebook was very carefully culled to have him responding to some
>>>>   stupendously stupid idiot who would make some moronic claim along the lines
>>>>   of that men start menstruating as soon as they declare themselves as women
>>>>   so he didn’t have a lot of difficulty coming back at them.
>>>
>>> I feel like there's a name for that sort of opponent. "Clay pigeon"?
>> 
>> That was always the complaint from the students that would come to the mic to
>> debate him-- that his encyclopedic knowledge of everything from American
>> history to biology to the Bible wasn't fair and he was just using both his
>> superior knowledge and superior rhetorical talent to 'beat up on a bunch of
>> unprepared kids' and make them look bad.
>> 
>> Of course that was nonsense. No one was forcing them to the mic. If they
>> wanted to step up and debate him on a subject of *their* choice, it was
>> certainly no excuse that he knew the facts and figures better than they did.
>> They could have researched what they wanted to say ahead of time and come
>> similarly armed. It's certainly not his fault that nearly every one of them
>> failed to do so.
>
>They call immature viewpoints "sophomoric" for a reason.  I haven't seen 
>the videos, but I'm familiar with the technique of choosing a weak 
>adversary ...and with how it proves even less than honest debate does. 
>Meanwhile, sure, I think anyone under 30 who's certain about any popular 
>controversy should be given an opportunity to show his ignorance.
>

We get that all the time in the videos that show someone asking young
people simple questions whether about the three branches of
government, the locations of various US states or countries. Stuff
that should have been covered in middle and high school, let alone
what college age kids should know.