lowenz on 21/9/2025 at 07:41
Quote Posted by SD
I think it requires two things; narcissism and intolerance. Intolerance of different opinions, and the narcissism that enables someone to think that they have a right to eliminate a person holding different opinions. Kirk was someone who promoted dialogue between people who held different opinions, so I suppose that made him an easy target in that regard. That the killer was a furry is possibly the least surprising element.
Narcissism is not about that, is about to act like Kirk using the dialogue excuse to show himself as a "brilliant mind" over the others. "Dialogue" my ass.
Schizoids are the ones wanting to "eliminate/exterminate" to protect/make a better world (see Putin) because they see it as a machine to maintain clean and functional.
lowenz on 21/9/2025 at 07:54
Quote Posted by Nicker
Charlie's overt white supremacism.
He was not a real supremacist, he just did want to have targets. And black people are the perfect targets.
It's why I really can't have any sympathy for a narcissist with psychopatich behaviour (like Kirk) hidden behind the religious self-righteousness.
I have more sympathy for real supremacists, genuine stupid people hit always a soft spot in me, they're totally clueless and somehow childish.
Fingernail on 21/9/2025 at 08:01
Quote Posted by SD
I really don't think taking a person's comments out of context does anyone any favours. There are plenty of black people who oppose affirmative action for precisely the same reasons that Kirk did.
Questioning affirmative action by, for instance, pouring scorn on the idea of a "black, lesbian" surgeon or pilot, is really just either confirming some of his audience's (likely) existing prejudice against those groups, or planting the idea as ridiculous on its face.
As I've heard pointed out, far from being "brave" or "courageous", the political positions he took as a wealthy white conservative male saw him really risking nothing of himself, whilst seeking to question, undermine or oppose the rights of those who are already relatively unempowered. Framed in, as Nicker says, "debates" against underprepared opponents surrounded by crowds of his supporters, which intentional or not, likely had an intimidating effect.
lowenz on 21/9/2025 at 08:02
Quote Posted by demagogue
The idea I got is that he's just not that political. He's into
gaming, guns, furries, and memes, but he hates the anti-LGBT rhetoric
Because he's part of the "fringe" like LGBT people, MORE fringe than them.
He's not a "libtard", just the right-winger idiots can't accept there's more "fringe" people not yet politically engaged because they're out of the actual political spectrum.
You'll see it in the future.
Fingernail on 21/9/2025 at 08:04
Quote Posted by lowenz
Because he's part of the "fringe" like LGBT people, hence, MORE fringe than them
I've noticed a growing trend recently where even things that are not trans related are somehow being labelled as "trans" so people can denounce it. Saw it recently with a discussion about a drag queen (not trans) on British TV, and some congressperson posting a video of those puppy-play fetish people having an event (also not necessarily trans related). It's basically just becoming a slur for "perverse, I don't like it" in the way that "gay" maybe was a generation ago. Doesn't matter if anyone invovled is actually trasngender.
SD on 21/9/2025 at 13:07
Quote Posted by Fingernail
Questioning affirmative action by, for instance, pouring scorn on the idea of a "black, lesbian" surgeon or pilot, is really just either confirming some of his audience's (likely) existing prejudice against those groups, or planting the idea as ridiculous on its face.
Or hidden option C, if you start promoting people because of their colour, then people will wonder whether people from that group are there wholly due to merit, or if the quantity of melanin in their skin played a part.
And to reiterate, there are plenty of black people who have issues with this kind of tokenism, because they want to be seen as successful on their own merits. Some of them were Kirk supporters.
lowenz on 21/9/2025 at 14:00
Quote Posted by SD
because they want to be seen as successful on their own merits. Some of them were Kirk supporters.
Yes but they (and you) can't understand the REAL problem
1) White=pass no matter what and if no merit.....you're one of us, BROTHER!
2) Black=pass if you got some merit.....'cause you're not one of us.....we check you, "mister N."
The "merit" is a kind of straw man (see the "successful society" argument above, ahah, why a society must be characterized as "successful" ?)
More amusing, I can say "they can't understand this because they're stupid black people" and use the white priv...."freedom of expression" to absolve myself. I'm defending them, right?! Kirk style.
Jason Moyer on 21/9/2025 at 14:02
Quote Posted by Fingernail
I've noticed a growing trend recently where even things that are not trans related are somehow being labelled as "trans" so people can denounce it.
Conservatives do this with everything. That's been a key part of their playbook longer than I've been alive, and I'm older than Star Wars. Obama is a communist! Dungeons and Dragons is satanic! Bill Burr is woke!
Jason Moyer on 21/9/2025 at 14:03
Quote Posted by SD
Or hidden option C, if you start promoting people because of their colour
No one is doing that. DEI is not a quota system.
