[jrflowers]

Charlie Kirk’s performances were hours long and you’ve now posted three times about how a single clip that you saw vindicates his entire career and reputation - while also declining to discuss anything other than that one clip.

I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes?

Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?

[duckdriver]

"Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate."

So are we in agreement that you were wrong?

If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example of the song is pretty relevant, wouldn't you say?

[jrflowers]

The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”.

Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.