Rubbish, all of it!

The conga line of suck-holers political parties, are what people are objecting to.

Full and open debate is honest and refreshing. Price echoed her constituents concerns.
I hear complaints about Indian immigrants all day everyday, and a good part of the complaining is justified in my view, by the evidence.

We can also equate objection to mass immigration of Indians, to mass immigration of the MENA cohort: Observe for yourself the disaster Victoria has become from roving gangs of Black African crime gangs turning the streets of Melbourne into a war zone. So by extension, if Price made public complaint over this issue, and nominated Black Africans as the root cause of the collapsing society in Victoria, she would be again wrong. Wake-up Scott!

Pathetic! Since when did Australians have to apologise for what they clearly meant to say? Just because some bed-wetter disagrees with them?

In what way are some people's opinions “inappropriate” and others not? What Prasser really means is that some people are not entitled to have an opinion. Why is one honest opinion of an elected member of Parliament an “outburst”. I believe Alex Hawke is a bully, and Sussan Ley is a dill, but they are entitled to have opinions because we authorised them to have opinions, as we did Jacinta Price.

How dare Scott Prasser, a nobody to 99.9% of Australia, write such crap.

Whether or not Jacinta Price supports Ley as leader - and who could do so without lying? - is not going to detract from the fact that the Coalition is definitely not his “strong Opposition”, and never will be, without more people with the guts and honesty of Jacinta Price.

As for Ms. Price “learning” from old John Howard - what rot! One of only two Prime Ministers to ever lose his own seat at an election. How about also taking lessons from Peter Dutton, who single-handedly lost the 2025 election by not sticking to his guns like Jacinta Price does.

I admit that at first that I was dubious about Jacinta Price, wrongly thinking that she was empowered merely by her part aboriginal status; but, that is clearly not true, and she is one of a very few Australian politicians we can have faith in.

Just looking at Prasser's background is a clear indicator as to his ability & even greater inability to make such a call.

If only Pauline, Jacinta, Alex Antic & other Conservatives could be voted into the Public service Board !

Jacinta should have apologised for any offence and restated her view that you're as much an Australian citizen if you have been here five minutes or have an ancestry that predates history. Her claim that Labor is using immigration to increase its vote is harder to put in the racist basket.

So you're saying she put put her career first and not stand true to her convictions?

The coalition is unelectable anyway, and they're already are sellouts.
I think Dutton showed he cared about Israel more than Australia.
Ley has about as much chance of winning as he did, Zero.

One look at her and you can see she's weak and pathetic and wouldn't be respected on a world stage.

I'm sick of this finger wagging 'You must apologise' culture.
Maybe you want to make her sit, roll over and bark like a dog as well?
Pee on herself for you as well?
Tsst-Tsst

Fester

Sorry. No, she should not have said what you or I or anyone says she should have said. She honestly, and bravely, said what she wanted to say. She is not a self-serving grub like so many of her colleagues in all parties are.

She said Labor was stacking electorates with Indians, to boost their advantage. That is dead right, and easily verified. It's about the Labor Party, not Indians. The idea she should apologise for "hurt feelings" is nonsense. Australia has completely lost its mind to woke-ness.

Just imagine this in reverse, a senior Beijing or Delhi politician, apologising for the "hurt feelings" of migrants. As if. Just for starters, China and India don't have mass migration, no way would they be that stupid. Only Western nations do this.

Here is a sobering anecdote to today’s dislocated Australia: Pre Tsunami Banda Aceh 26/12/2004. The day after Christmas. How fitting, and no clue to the nature of the impending doom on the horizon: beautiful sunny and calm day, surrounded by azure blue waters of the tropical paradise, a tourist Mecca.

The only signs of the impending doom were Elephants in panic, breaking their leg chains and fleeing to the high ground; and lack of bird life.
Very few people recognised their own misgivings under those circumstances, and were saved by openly voicing them to family members.

We are now governed by senseless Dictators, purely self interested in their own selfish gains, and obviously determined to shut us up, and close down channels of communication!

We the Plebeians, need to revolt before it’s too late to turn the ship around

And i should add as another sobering reminder of the shifting Earth under our feet, the most popular baby’s name in the UK is officially Muhammad.
How long before Australia is swamped likewise with totally unsuitable immigrants, and added to the basket case of Europe?

What a pantermine ! The fact of the matter is that the Redbridge
poll found that 82% of Indian migrants vote Labour.
Not surprising then that the government brings in as many Indians
as possible.

And another statistic difficult, if not impossible to verify, is the Social Housing quota attributable to immigrants. Rolling suburbs of them by a simple look around.
Many of them used as a Chinese doss house for underhanded profit and sub-letting.

Maybe the emigrating Countries could stump up with housing developments tailored towards housing their own immigrants to Australia, leaving the Governments concerned here in Australia, to get on and build Social Housing applicable to Australian Citizens, which should be their primary concern

Any country whose top 3 sources of immigrants are India, China and the Philippines is in serious trouble. People more like us locals don't want to come here any more because they know that Australia is as bad, and getting worse, than the UK, Europe etc when it comes to Third World invaders. People with money seem to be attracted by the United Arab Emerites.

The Coalition are now conservative social justice warriors
Susan Ley demanding Price give an apology, then gives one herself.
Did Jacinta Price break any laws?
They all act as if she did, think about that.

There is nothing 'conservative' about the Liberal Party; it has gone the way of the UK Tories. While there is some hope for the UK in the shape of Reform, there is nothing good on the horizon for Australia.

It is absurd to think that a party calling itself the 'Liberal Party' could ever be conservative. It's only the extreme Leftists who think being slightly to right of their own Marxist ideology makes you conservative.

If the Liberals and the Nationals were - as a whole, not just a very few of their individual members - conservative, they would be in government now.

Conservatives don't throw one of their own to the wolves, arrogantly apologise for her, and suck up to minorities, while ignoring the majority.

Jacinta Price is increasingly proving to be an embarrassment and liability to the Liberals. She’s squandering the political capital she built during the Voice referendum by alienating communities, destabilising the Coalition, and refusing to show even basic political maturity - like apologising when her framing causes legitimate concern.

This isn’t about suppressing opinions. It’s about understanding the difference between speaking plainly and speaking recklessly. Price wasn’t attacked for opposing Labor’s immigration policy, she was criticised because she framed it in a way that echoed conspiracy theories about “ethnic vote-stacking,” which will understandably offend people, even if that wasn’t her intent.

Instead of clarifying and moving forward, she doubled down, attacked her own colleagues, and helped turn what should have been a critique of Labor into another Liberal implosion. The Coalition desperately needs to look like a credible alternative. Price is making that harder, not easier.

There’s a lesson in John Howard’s trajectory - not because he was perfect, but because he learned that message discipline, team loyalty, and strategic humility matter in politics. If Price can't grasp that, she may soon find herself with an adoring fan base, but no influence, just like every other populist backbencher who refused to learn the difference between heat and light.

This is a scenario resulting from the educating of people who can't be educated & people who don't get educated yet have the common sense to see all the wrong & observe the discrimination dished out by the incompetent !
Now is the time to start restoring common sense ! Now is the time to start bringing back the requirement of merit !
Now is the time to apply the brakes to the bandwagon of the fake "qualified".

If Price can't grasp that..
John Daysh,
Spoken like a true bureaucrat. What you need to admit is that this artificial complexity of jargon & other babble in the circles within the the corridors of power is what brought us to this situation.
Ordinary people can see the incompetence dished out by the "experts" & the costs their antics incur economically & socially !
Ordinary people have merit, the elitists have none ! Nothing that people need on a daily basis is provided by elitists, only by ordinary people.

When Senator Price said that you were equally an Australian regardless of your heritage or time here, she outlined the democratic principle of equality, one of the main arguments against the voice. I don't know why she doesn't just affirm that belief and dismiss the view that she regards Australians of Indian heritage as being different from other Australians.

I work with a number of Indian migrants. Some fled Fiji. Another related that friends of her father had been chucked out of Kenya by Idi Amin as well as other friends who had a business in the States being fearful of being deported by Trump (a fear shared by one of my relatives).

Upholding the democratic foundation of equality by treating all citizens equally makes for a strong and unified nation.

That Labor is using mass migration to shore up its vote is not a wild conspiracy theory, but Senator Price relating the practice to Indian migrants was hurtful to Indian migrants, divisive and counterproductive.

From the article...
""That Price's immigration comments might be based on some recent polling,.... [is] neither here nor there."

So what she said was factually accurate, but that's beside the point?? ??

That pretty much sums up the way things work in the Liberal Party these days. (It is of course how they've worked in the ALP for decades).

That Indian immigrants overwhelming vote ALP is established. What can't be known is whether that influences the ALP's decisions about who does and doesn't get to come. But what we do know with certainty is, if Indian immigrants were coming here and overwhelming supporting the Libs, a lot less Indian visas would issued.

Recently tens of thousands marched against the current immigration. policies. This was a profound shock to the establishment and establishment parties who have tried to vivify the marchers as being fascist-adjacent. Its been the goto argument for a while now, using terms like racist and islamophobic etc. What we seen overseas is that, once a few leaders stop being intimidated by these slurs, (eg Trump, Farage, AfD, le Penn) genuinely good people who fear for their and their kids futures, become emboldened to stand against the uniparty policies.

So they need to squash such leaders in their infancy. Hence the hysteria around Price's saying the quiet bit out loud. That she stood her ground is to her credit. Now that she stands outside the constraints of party group-think things should be interesting.

Australia has completely lost its mind to woke-ness.
Steve S,
Yes, ever since the Goaf ! Patriotism & general decency was dismantled by the removing of National Service. This is the predicted outcome. Stupidity & senselessness are fully entrenched & the frightening possibility of irreversibility.

Vale Charlie Kirk.

"Vale Charlie Kirk."

Indeed.
The world is a worse place for his passing.

Of course, the lunatic left is cheering the murder of a man who spent his short life trying to get people to discuss. There are some of these left lunatics discussing things, alright - who they would like to see gunned down next.

You know who you are.

Quite a percentage of subcontinental & middle eastern looking officers with corresponding name tags seem to be among Customs, Police & Defence personnel, Public service & trading businesses.
Is this because Australians are becoming too useless or ist it to do with an agenda ?
Building sites & general manual labour work places seem to have far less such representation.

I'm all for discussion ttbn, but there needs to be respect for what a discussion is and for the other parties. I don't think much of having discussions with John Cleese characters (the argument sketch or the Jehovah scene), but it does beat a discussion with a delusional psychopath trying to aggressively verbal you.

Of course, poor old Charlie stood no chance with an oxygen thief who argued via messages written on bullets.

Fester

Respect? Charlie Kirk always listened with tolerance and respect in his quiet prove-me-wrong conversations, mainly with young people.

He got shot dead for it.

Lots of people, young and old, are saying he deserved it. So appalling have been some of the comments made by some professional commentators, that even their left-wing employers and organisations are sacking them in disgust.

'Respect' has been replaced with unhinged rage and violence, particularly from people always accusing others of being far right. It seems to me that people who were once described as conservatives are now regarded by the Left as dangerous animals deserving to be actually killed for their opinions.

It is no longer safe to be a public figure and openly express your opinions in the rubble of Western society.

ttbn,

Did someone say, "I don't agree with a word you said and I'll shoot you to death before I let you say it."?

People need to understand what an argument is, that people aren't good bad for the sake of having differing opinions, and most importantly that human civilisation is the result of discourse.

It would have been nice if argument was part of the curriculum and included discussion of national issues like The Voice and whether the yes campaign was arguing that you were a bad person if you did not vote "yes".

Totalitarian regimes are always after the "bad" people and as such stifle the development of civilisation.

mhaze,

If you're referring here to the 85% figure pushed by Price, that's been debunked.

//That Indian immigrants overwhelming vote ALP is established.//

Roy Morgan’s 2023-25 data shows 45% Labor, 39% Coalition, with the rest spread across Greens and others. Even the most pro-Labor subgroup was 49% vs 36%. That’s a lean, not an overwhelming bloc.

//What can’t be known is whether that influences the ALP’s decisions about who does and doesn’t get to come.//

What can be known is that this is baseless speculation. Immigration policy is non-discriminatory by nationality and has been for decades. Intakes are determined by skills, family, and humanitarian need - not party preference.

//But what we do know with certainty is, if Indian immigrants were coming here and overwhelming supporting the Libs, a lot less Indian visas would [be] issued.//

This isn’t known with certainty. Quite the opposite. It's approaching tinfoil-hat territory.

If that logic held, why did Indian migration surge under Coalition governments from 2013 to 2022? By your reasoning, Liberals were importing Labor voters. The claim falls apart instantly.

//Recently tens of thousands marched against the current immigration policies… [and were] vivified as fascist-adjacent.//

When protests feature far-right symbols and slogans, don’t be surprised if they’re described as far-right adjacent. The presence of a few ordinary citizens doesn’t erase the extremist banners behind them.

//Once a few leaders stop being intimidated by these slurs… genuinely good people… become emboldened.//

Translation: when demagogues normalise xenophobia, ordinary people feel safer airing it. You call that "emboldening." Many would call it mainstreaming prejudice.

//Hence the hysteria around Price’s saying the quiet bit out loud.//

Yes, and the worst part is that the quiet part was false and divisive. That’s why even members of her own party distanced themselves. She wasn’t revealing a hidden truth, she was recycling a debunked conspiracy theory.

//The world is a worse place for [Charlie Kirk's] passing.//

Yes, but not for the reasons you might think.

The guy built an entire career on dehumanising minorities, undermining democratic norms, and stoking culture-war resentments.

He died in the toxic atmosphere he helped create.

He died in the toxic atmosphere he helped create.
John Daysh,
I'm more inclined to think he was killed because he was a threat to the toxic & their agenda !

"He died in the toxic atmosphere he helped create."

Yes, just like women bring sexual assault upon themselves. Are people psychopaths from birth or is it just a lifestyle choice?

Indyvidual,

That’s the kind of thinking that turns every lightning strike into a sniper.

Kirk had plenty of critics, but he was hardly a lone voice against "the system," he was a highly funded, high-profile culture warrior with friends in Congress, airtime across conservative media, and direct access to Trump. The idea that he was some kind of suppressed dissident stretches credibility well past breaking point.

As tragic though his death was, elevating it into martyrdom by shadowy enemy design doesn’t help anyone. It just feeds the same paranoia loop that has people seeing political assassination plots behind every act of violence, while ignoring the real factors that make violence more likely: polarisation, dehumanisation, and tribal rage - much of which Kirk actively encouraged.

He didn’t deserve to die, but that’s no reason to rewrite the script into fan fiction.
___

Fester,

That’s a wild and inappropriate analogy. Not to mention a false equivalence fallacy.

There’s a massive difference between saying someone “deserved” harm and saying someone contributed to the conditions in which that harm became more likely. I never said Kirk deserved what happened to him - I said he helped create the toxic climate that ultimately consumed him. That’s not victim-blaming, that’s acknowledging consequence and feedback.

If a political figure builds a movement around outrage, fear, and dehumanisation - regardless of ideology - and then gets caught in the backlash of that same dynamic, it's not blaming the victim to say: this is the ecosystem you cultivated.

Your comparison to sexual assault is not only a category error, it trivialises both issues.

Leftist ideology is nasty and violent. History is full of them murdering their opponents. Now they are increasingly being challenged, and they aren't capable of defending their extreme views; so, it's back to the killing, then trying to convince us that the people they murder brought it on themselves.

However, if you look in the right places, you will see and hear of 'old-fashioned' (for want of a better description) lefties who are as disgusted as other decent people are, and who, in America, are vowing never to vote Democrat again. Some even think the that the Democrat party they once supported has turned into a terrorist organisation.

In Australia, the Albanese regime has reduced Labor to something similar: a Marxist hate-filled mob that is totally different from the Labor Party of the past. At the moment they want to crush free speech with censorship. If that doesn't work, violence could be next.

If a political figure builds a movement around outrage, fear, and dehumanisation -
John Daysh,
Going by that philosophy and, as per daily evidence the whole of the Left falls into that category.

The only mistake Jacinta made was saying Indian. Media are mongrels. There are plenty of immigrants needed and are welcome in this country, there are plenty here that should never have been allowed into the country and should be deported immediately. As for politicians being careful about what they say and how they say it, most just waffle on and are not worth listening too, the media love it because they can put their own slant on it which they do on a regular basis.

"If you're referring here to the 85% figure pushed by Price, that's been debunked."

Debunked? well lucky I didn't mention it then. Nor did Price. But when you can't address my views, make them up for me and tell me how wrong these fabricated views are. Standard JD.

"Yes, and the worst part is that the quiet part was false and divisive."

Oh yes, never be divisive. Always go along with the zeitgeist. Unless the JDs of this world disagree with the zeitgeist in which case going against it is brave and 'progressive'.

"The guy built an entire career on dehumanising minorities, undermining democratic norms, and stoking culture-war resentments."

JD demonstrates :1. that he understands precisely nothing about what Kirk preached and 2. his own utter lack of humanity.

I was going to let this pass through to the keeper because I couldn't be bothered to address such ignorance, but then had second thoughts....

"When protests feature far-right symbols and slogans, don’t be surprised if they’re described as far-right adjacent. The presence of a few ordinary citizens doesn’t erase the extremist banners behind them."

I made a special trip to the big smoke to attend one of these rallies. The notion that it was a "few ordinary citizens" is as profound an error as one person can make and JD has shown us a litany of profound errors. This was a gigantic number of "ordinary citizens" with a few extremists seeking to ride the wave. That the media was more interested in the extremists than the "ordinary citizens" was to expected. That the usual dills would fall for the media's spin is obvious.

What I found most extraordinary from these "ordinary citizens" was that they were very aware of the motives of the media and the extremists in their midst. and were determined to not play into either's hands, and encouraged others around them to do likewise.

My expectation is that when these "few ordinary citizens" saw how the media and their own government distorted the truth of the marches, they will be even more convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

Not that the dills who fell for the media/governmental spin will understand that.

I did say "if", mhaze.

//Debunked? Well lucky I didn't mention it then.//

So your "I didn't say that!" doesn't work here either. Standard mhaze.

//Nor did Price.//

Yes, she did. In her 3AW interview:
http://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/senior-liberal-texts-colleagues-to-clean-up-price-s-indian-migrant-data-claims-20250910-p5mtt2.html

//But when you can't address my views…//

I addressed them directly, using Roy Morgan data and pointing out that your claim of electoral engineering was speculative and evidence-free. Instead of engaging with that, you’ve now shifted to talking about protests - while still avoiding the immigration logic I dismantled.

//Always go along with the zeitgeist…//

No, the issue isn't "being divisive." It’s how one divides.

Price didn’t challenge orthodoxy with facts or nuance - she did it by pointing the finger at a specific ethnic group and suggesting they were being used as electoral pawns. That’s not brave. That’s reckless.

//JD demonstrates… his own utter lack of humanity.//

This sort of melodramatic accusation doesn’t rebut anything. It’s just projection disguised as argument. I criticised Charlie Kirk’s rhetoric - not his existence. You, on the other hand, defended a baseless conspiracy by comparing media framing to government oppression.

Which of us is losing perspective here?

//This was a gigantic number of ‘ordinary citizens’ with a few extremists seeking to ride the wave.//

I don’t dispute that many attendees had genuine concerns. But when those protests prominently feature Australia First Party, white nationalist symbols, or Great Replacement placards, you don’t get to pretend it’s just the media distorting things.

Optics matter - especially if no one on the ground is willing to call that stuff out while it’s happening.

If people want to be taken seriously, they can start by distancing themselves from the extremists - not acting like it’s unfair to be judged by the company they’re too timid to challenge.

ttbn,

I've had a look into your sweeping claims, and when it comes to the question of who "murders their opponents more" in the modern era, winner is overwhelmingly the extreme right.

There was a surge of left-wing terrorism in the US during the 1970s - bombings by groups like the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and Puerto Rican separatists. But those attacks were overwhelmingly aimed at property, often with warnings, and killed comparatively few. From 1975-2025, left-wing extremists were responsible for around 65 deaths in the US.

Now compare that with the far-right. The same data show 391 deaths caused by right-wing extremists in the same period - six times as many. Add to that the long history of KKK terror, lynchings, civil-rights era murders, the Oklahoma City bombing (168 killed), Charleston, Pittsburgh, El Paso, and the January 6th riot. In the last decade alone, around three-quarters of extremist murders in the US have been committed by the far-right, not the far-left.

Calling Labor "a Marxist terrorist organisation" might make for a Facebook meme, but it’s divorced from reality. The Albanese government is many things, but it isn’t Marxist, it hasn’t sponsored political killings, and suggesting otherwise trivialises genuine terrorism.

Criticise policy all you like, but pretending that the left is uniquely violent, or that censorship will inevitably lead to murder, is not supported by either history or the current evidence.

This is just for perspective, of course. I'm not about to commit an association fallacy by pretending that this is in any way a reflection on you personally.

You should try doing the same.

JD

You're not disputing the Indian vote favours the ALP. Just quibbling over the extent.

"No, the issue isn't "being divisive."

Well you said 'divisive'.

"This sort of melodramatic accusation doesn’t rebut anything."

No it wasn't a rebuttal. It was an observation.

"Optics matter "

And you fell for what the media chose to show you. Hardly surprising

mhaze,

I’m not "quibbling" over the extent, I’m correcting a key factual claim. There’s a world of difference between a lean and an overwhelming bloc. You based a conspiratorial implication on a distortion, and I responded with actual data.

That’s not a quibble. That’s what debate should look like.

//Well, you said divisive.//

Yes, I said divisive and false.

You’re treating "divisive" as though it’s automatically noble. It’s not. Some divisions are principled. Others are reckless, baseless, or harmful. That’s the distinction you’re dodging.

//No it wasn't a rebuttal. It was an observation.//

You called me inhumane for criticising Charlie Kirk. That wasn’t an observation - it was a character smear, and a lazy one at that. An observation implies some degree of objectivity or detachment. What you offered was neither: it was subjective, evaluative, and didn’t even reflect what I actually said.

//You fell for what the media chose to show you.//

Or I judged the protests based on what was clearly visible: Australia First Party banners, white nationalist slogans, "Great Replacement" signs. If those elements were truly fringe, where was the public pushback from the "ordinary citizens" around them?

You don’t get to control the narrative and deny the optics. If it looks bad and no one challenges it, that’s not media spin - that’s complacency.

//Hardly surprising//

Actually, it would be very surprising. Your apparent inability to identify sound media literacy skills in others explains... a lot.

"I’m not "quibbling" over the extent, I’m correcting a key factual claim."

You 'corrected' a claim I didn't make. Well done!.

Polling shows Indian-Australians, particularly younger cohorts, favour the ALP at levels much higher than the general population. Quibble with that.

(BTW, the very fact that we talk about Indian-Australians, Chinese-Australians, Sudanese-Australians shows the real problems. We used to have just Australians. Now we have tribes that tear the fabric apart. Highlighting that is why the establishment thinks Price needs to be destroyed. )

"You’re treating "divisive" as though it’s automatically noble."

You used the word as a proof she's wrong. Its the standard thinking by the left - disagreeing with us is divisive.

"you called me inhumane for criticising Charlie Kirk. "

No. I called you inhumane for suggesting he had it coming because he held views you don't like.

"I judged the protests based on what was clearly visible: "

But what was visible, was what the media showed you. Its almost pathetically comedic that you don't understand that.

A sign I saw from the recent London mass-protest... "Why is it when people tell the truth, they are called far right"

I'm sorry, mhaze. Did you only mean 84%?

//You 'corrected' a claim I didn't make.//

Or perhaps, by “overwhelmingly,” you meant the ~57% on a two-party preferred basis?

Don’t be ridiculous. You may not have used the 85% figure explicitly, but you repeated the exact implication it’s meant to serve: that Labor is shaping immigration policy based on voting blocs. I addressed the data behind that idea - and you're now admitting the lean exists, just arguing over framing.

So no, I didn’t correct a “claim you didn’t make.” I corrected the claim you were relying on.

//The fact we talk about Indian-Australians... shows the real problems.//

No, what we have is diversity within the category “Australian.” You’re conflating cultural identity with political fragmentation. That’s a classic slippery slope fallacy. A hyphen in someone’s identity doesn’t tear the fabric apart - conspiracies about those identities being electoral pawns do.

//You used [‘divisive’] as proof she’s wrong.//

False.

I said she was both divisive and wrong - wrong in substance (her claim was baseless), and divisive in effect (it alienated a specific community). The two aren’t interchangeable.

“Yes, and the worst part is that the quiet part was false and divisive.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400147

//You suggested Kirk had it coming.//

I explicitly said he didn’t deserve to die. I also said he contributed to a toxic political atmosphere - which is not “having it coming,” it’s recognising a tragic symmetry. You’re rewriting my words to suit your outrage.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this coming from someone whose most common defence is: “I didn’t say that.”

//But what was visible, was what the media showed you.//

This is your fallback every time facts are inconvenient. The banners, signs, and slogans I referenced were documented across outlets and by protest-goers themselves.

If you’re citing a protest sign from London to make your point, then you’ve already conceded that visibility does matter.

"Or perhaps, by “overwhelmingly,” you meant the ~57% on a two-party preferred basis?"

Actually I was more thinking of the polls showing over 60/40 pro-ALP and in some cohorts of the Indian tribe, 70/30.

"Did you only mean 84%?"

Can't give up on your failed orig9nal assertion, eh, JD?

"I corrected the claim you were relying on."

Which is rather difficult when you didn't understand what that claim was. But making stuff up has never been an impediment before, so why start now?

"I explicitly said he didn’t deserve to die."

And I didn't say you did!! honestly its exhausting having to correct all your false assertions over and over.

But you did say that "He died in the toxic atmosphere he helped create.". That what he said outraged the anxiously outrageable doesn't explain his death.

I'd also point out that just as you've fallen for the media's claims about the protest marches, you've also fallen for their claims about what Kirk said.

As to the marches, I was there at the media claimed was full of extremists - claims you've absorbed without thought. But its false. Just plain false. It was overwhelmingly attended by "ordinary citizens" who were concerned about their country and they were joined by a few people who had other agendas but utterly failed to get the "ordinary citizens" to join in.

But you don't want that to be true but will deny it ad infinitum.

You’re just sliding the goalposts until one lands, mhaze.

//Actually I was more thinking of the polls showing over 60/40 pro-ALP and in some cohorts... 70/30.//

So… you weren’t thinking of 85%, but you also weren’t thinking of 57%? You’ve gone from "overwhelmingly" to "some cohorts," and still haven’t cited a source.

//Can't give up on your failed original assertion, eh JD?//

I didn’t invent the 85% figure, Price did.

I corrected it because you repeated the implication it supports: that Labor is gaming immigration to build a voting bloc. If you're walking that back now, that’s fine, but at least own the shift.

//Which is rather difficult when you didn't understand what that claim was.//
Then maybe next time define it clearly. You can’t accuse people of misrepresenting you while leaving your own position vague enough to wriggle in and out of.

//That what he said outraged the anxiously outrageable doesn't explain his death.//

No, and I didn’t say it did.

What I did say is that Kirk amplified tribal rage and outrage politics for years - and that he died in a political climate shaped by those dynamics. That’s not excusing violence. It’s noting contributing conditions. Misrepresenting that as "he had it coming" is dishonest.

//As to the marches, I was there… overwhelmingly attended by ordinary citizens.//

I never said otherwise.

I said that extremist symbols were visible, and they were. You keep dodging that fact by appealing to your physical presence. Being in the crowd doesn’t give you veto power over what was photographed, filmed, and shared.

//You’ll deny it ad infinitum.//

Really? Despite no signs of ever having done so before? Like, no double-standards:

"Overwhelmingly is one of those weaselly words that can mean all sorts of things." (23/07/2025)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10628#371108

"That Indian immigrants overwhelming vote ALP is established." (13/09/2025)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400136

No contradictions:

"Personally I try to never evaluate the message based upon the messenger. I prefer to look at the actual data." (27/07/2024)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10452#362839

"So to try to back up his idiocy he links to Planned Parenthood claiming that the footage was edited."(18/09/2024)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10473#364386

Ri-i-i-i-ight.

I don't think it's Jacinta Price that's irrelevant but Susan Ley and the Liberal Party they don't talk about things that are relevant to the electorate. .

So I never used the 85% figure. JD tried to tie it to me anyway.

Then when I insist that I never used or believed it, he says I'm moving the goalposts.

Struth!!.

As to Kirk, he was a unique bred who recognised political difference and tried to argue it through rather than fight it through... and he was killed for it. And then those whose only form of counter-argument is violence or supporting violence, tried to silence him. They think they've won but, as usual, they're wrong

mhaze,

Do you think if you wait long enough, your audience will forget what happened?

//So I never used the 85% figure. JD tried to tie it to me anyway.//

You keep acting like typing “85%” is the only thing that counts - as though you didn’t echo its implication loud and clear:

“That Indian immigrants overwhelmingly vote ALP is established.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400136

That’s what I challenged - the underlying narrative, not just a number. Disproving that isn’t “moving goalposts,” it’s addressing the goal you yourself aimed at.

As for Charlie Kirk, no one here said he deserved what happened. What I said - and still stand by - is that he amplified outrage, tribalism, and bad-faith framing for years. That you now want to cast him as a gentle unifier who was “killed for civil debate” is historical fan fiction.

We can condemn violence without rewriting reality.

If your side has to invent martyrdoms to feel righteous, maybe it’s time to reconsider the storyline.

70/30, 60/40 is overwhelming.

JD has claimed, sans evidence, that Kirk was" dehumanising minorities, undermining democratic norms, and stoking culture-war" and fuelling outrage.

Telling people they're wrong, explaining why they're wrong. Giving them a chance to debate the issue. This is the Kirk that the left-wing media didn't want to talk about and the Kirk that JD utterly fails to understand. Just as he fails to understand the outrage at his execution on one side and the joy the left is expressing on the other.

As I said, this feels like an inflexion point.

mhaze,

A 70/30 split is notable, yes - but in political analysis, it isn’t typically described as "overwhelming." That term is usually reserved for margins above 85-90%, where a group votes in near lockstep.

That’s why Price’s (false) 85% figure was so potent - and so dangerous. It framed Indian-Australians as a monolithic bloc manipulated by Labor, and justified fear-based rhetoric.

I still don’t agree that "overwhelming" is a weaselly word, but it’s telling that you once called it weaselly when it suited your argument, and now lean on it here as if it’s self-evident. That’s the inconsistency I highlighted - not just the number, but the rhetorical elasticity behind it.

On Kirk:

You keep trying to link me to the idea that he deserved to die, but my words are in black and white.

I explicitly said he didn’t. I also said he contributed to a political culture of outrage, tribalism, and bad-faith framing. That isn’t justification, it’s context. You can be horrified by his death and still acknowledge the toxicity of his methods. That what nuance looks like.

Kirk didn’t just tell people they were wrong, he told them their opponents were dangerous, un-American, or evil. That’s not civil debate. It’s demonisation, and it was central to his brand.

If we want to prevent more violence, we have to stop mythologising those who profit from division, even if we mourn their fate.

//"As I said, this feels like an inflexion point."//

In what sense? What’s changed here that hasn’t already been happening with political violence?

I don’t recall you saying the same after Melissa Hortman’s assassination two months ago - a Democrat gunned down alongside her husband by a radicalised extremist. There was no sympathy, no talk of "inflection points," no introspection.

So what makes this different?

" it isn’t typically described as "overwhelming." "

It is by me.

"That term is usually reserved for margins above 85-90%,"
Reserved by whom? No you're just making sh!t up.

"that "overwhelming" is a weaselly word"

Context, a word that seems to elude you.

"link me to the idea that he deserved to die,"

I've never made that link. But you need to pretend I did because my actual point can't be refuted.

Can't help but notice that JD still refrains from offering proof of Kirk's claimed toxicity.

I don't believe that for a second, mhaze.

//It is by me.//

So to you, "overwhelming" can include a small majority? Right. By that standard, you'd probably say you "aced" a quiz you got 6 out of 10 on.

Again though, you did once dismiss the word a as weaselly. So, it's hardly surprising what you're doing with it now.

//Reserved by whom?//

Political analysts, journalists, academics - people whose job it is to quantify voting behaviour. People who, I'd wager, don't consider 6/10 acing a quiz. When they describe a voting bloc or monolithic pattern, they usually mean margins over 85-90%.

I’m happy to provide examples if you're actually interested in how these terms are used in political science.

//Context, a word that seems to elude you.//

And yet I applied it in my last post. You just make these insults up, don't you?

But, OK then - explain the context. Why was "overwhelming" a weasel word when I used it, but a precise one now? Because you're using it?

//I’ve never made that link. But you need to pretend I did...//

You keep playing this two-step: hint, suggest, feign outrage, then deny the implication when it’s called out. It’s rhetorical fog.

But thank you for finally clarifying. If you agree that I didn’t say Kirk deserved to die, then stop implying it’s what I meant. That would be a start.

//Still refrains from offering proof of Kirk’s claimed toxicity.//

Really?

Kirk regularly framed political opponents as un-American, evil, or dangerous. He accused Democrats of hating America, called transgender people "mentally ill," mocked school shooting survivors, and openly defended authoritarian leaders while undermining democratic processes. He ran Turning Point USA - an outrage mill designed to inflame culture war grievances.

This is all on record. If you haven’t seen it, it’s because you either don’t want to, or because you're mourning someone you'd never even heard of before he was killed.

Again, none of that justifies what happened to him. But if you’re going to canonise him, I’m going to push back against revisionist history.

"they usually mean margins over 85-90%."

Do they? Got any stats on that? </grin> You're just fabricating this now. What you're really saying is that your definition is different to mine and that I therefore have to use yours. Quite the egotist.

As to Kirk....yet again no examples, just assertions fed to JD by the legacy press. And as we saw in regards to the marches (above) JD is anxious to believe whatever fable the legacy press feds him.

You’re not scoring the "gotcha" you think you are there, mhaze/

//Got any stats on that? <grin>//

I never claimed it as a strict numerical rule. You’re free to use words creatively, but in any serious context - political, statistical, or even everyday - "overwhelming" is a relative term that implies a large, often near-total dominance.

If you call 60/40 or 70/30 "overwhelming," then what term would you use for 90/10? Or 98/2?

Your definition makes "overwhelming majority" and "small majority" functionally indistinguishable, even though they’re conceptually opposite. That’s not semantics; it’s a category error.

If your definitions erase these distinctions, you’re not being precise - you’re just moving the goalposts of language to suit your argument.

//What you're really saying is that your definition is different to mine and that I therefore have to use yours.//

No.

I’m saying if you want to be taken seriously in a political debate, you can’t redefine common terms to suit your argument after criticising someone else for using them. You once called "overwhelming" a weaselly word - now you wield it with mathematical authority to support a conclusion you like.

Now, while you're tunnel-visioning on that minor semantic quibble, here’s what you've conveniently ignored:

On the claim that Labor "imports votes":

- You echoed Price’s narrative about Indian-Australian voters without citing any source.

- You never addressed why a 60/40 or 70/30 split, even if accurate, wouldn’t support the kind of bloc-vote manipulation Price (and you) suggested.

- You failed to defend your own inconsistency on the term "overwhelming" when it helped your argument versus when it didn’t.

On Charlie Kirk:

- You claimed I hadn’t supported my "toxicity" claim - and when I listed multiple public, on-record examples of Kirk demonising opponents and fuelling outrage culture, you dismissed them all without refutation, calling it "legacy press fables."

- You ignored the central point: that amplifying tribalism and demonising opposition creates dangerous political climates - regardless of whether one personally supports violence or not.

There's a lot there we still need to get through!

" I listed multiple public, on-record examples of Kirk demonising opponents and fuelling outrage culture"

I must have missed that post.

And I suspect you missed it as well. Just making stuff up again. Its becoming a pattern.

You've haven't shown any examples of what you alleged Kirk said, just regurgitated unsourced claims from his opponents.

mhaze,

Yes, you must have miss *those* posts. Either that, or you have no understanding of the psychological and sociological impact of his claims and actions.

Some specific examples:

- He once called for a figure like Ilhan Omar to be "deported" and described her as a "terrorist sympathiser."
- He espoused themes of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory.
- On transgender issues, he'd said: "The one issue I think that is so against our senses … is the transgender thing happening in America right now. He also called for people who provide gender-affirming care to face "Nuremberg-style" trials.

Beyond isolated quotes:

He regularly framed political opponents - particularly transgender people, migrants, and progressives - not just as wrong, but as dangerous, mentally ill, or anti-American. That’s not civil disagreement, it’s demonisation. And there’s a mountain of psychological and sociological research showing the real-world effects of that kind of framing:

- He constantly painted LGBT people - especially trans people - as either mentally unstable or dangerous. Which doesn’t just stir up debate, it contributes to the kind of fear and alienation that leads young people to harm themselves.

- His attitude toward women followed the same pattern: downplaying inequality, mocking feminism, and propping up old-school male dominance. It’s not just outdated - it actively encourages resentment toward women who speak up or push back.

- And the way he framed politics - not as disagreement, but as a battle between good and evil - that’s how you divide a country. It trains people to see anyone on the other side as a threat, not a neighbour.

Kirk went beyond claiming that people they were wrong and inviting debate. His whole brand was grievance. That’s why he ran Turning Point USA - not a think tank, but a culture-war outrage machine.

Then there was his Watchlist, in which professors were demonised for no good reason, and without due process, resulting in harassment and threats.

He may not have endorsed violence, but he sure as hell helped build the kind of rhetorical environment where someone else could justify it.

"Yes, you must have miss *those* posts. "

So despite constant assertions, there were no actual posts. It'd be nice if you owned up.

So, that list is he best you can come up with after all this time and, I'm sure, begging Grok for help out of the hole you've dug. No wonder you tried so hard to skip it.

Do you seriously think that any of those things you've listed were unusual or unique to Kirk or TP USA? The worries about Omar have been voiced by gigantic numbers over the past few years. Ditto the great replacement analysis. And of course, transgenderism as a mental illness is supported by a heavy cohort of scientists. If just talking about them is reason enough to be executed then 10s of millions of USians are dead men walking.

So Kirk wasn't saying anything out of the ordinary. Just saying things the left preferred went unsaid and arguing his point in ways they, the left, couldn't match.

It seems you support the silly leftard view that words can be violence. Kirk simply postulated a view and then supported it with logic and evidence. That many hated the views and were upset that he was unassailable in those views is the reason he was hated.

But a society that executes those who say things some don't want said, is hardy a stable society.

But they did manage to prove him wrong on one issue. "Kirk tried to show that the left could be reasoned with and, in the end, the left finally proved him wrong on that".

Did you really think you were going to get that one by me, mhaze?

//So despite constant assertions, there were no actual posts. It'd be nice if you owned up.//

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400197
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23646#400194

But since you've mentioned Grok...

//No wonder you tried so hard to skip it.//

Question:
In the attached debate, has John Daysh refrained from, or resisted, explaining to mhaze how he believed Charlie Kirk was a toxic influence?

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_4ffae97a-3a04-4ce8-a1b3-595a3d7dd6d9
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1SY3tkow5cd5FQDCFV9YTkdxFX52IbuEG/view?usp=sharing

Spoiler: No.

You asked for examples. I gave them. You called them “unsourced claims.” I clarified that they were public, on-record statements and patterns of behaviour. You then switched tack - not to dispute the substance, but to say they weren’t “unique to Kirk,” as if that changes anything.

Let’s break that down:

- I said Kirk helped mainstream dehumanising narratives - about trans people, immigrants, political opponents. You replied, essentially: “Well, lots of people do that.” Not exactly the defense you think it is.

- You then falsely suggested I said Kirk deserved what happened to him - again. I didn’t. And again, you pivot to the old “left thinks words are violence” routine, ignoring that Kirk’s brand was built on inflaming rather than informing.

- You also claimed he was “unassailable.” By who? You? Because from where I’m sitting, he built an entire career on dodging honest disagreement by mocking, misrepresenting, or platforming sycophants. The only thing he made unassailable was the outrage he monetised.

- And finally, you ended with a martyr fantasy: that Kirk “tried to show the left could be reasoned with.” Mate, this is the same guy who gleefully led chants of “lock her up,” called school shooting survivors crisis actors, and repeatedly told his audience the other side hates America.

That’s not bridge-building. That’s culture war for profit.

So no, I don’t support censorship or violence. But I also don’t support rewriting history to sanctify someone whose career depended on outrage and division.

If you want to defend Kirk, do it. But do it honestly - not by pretending he was a statesman taken down by free speech haters.

'If you want to defend Kirk, do it."

I don't need to defend Kirk. He neither did nor said anything that needs defending.

And the limpness of your last post (in both senses of the phrase) proves it.

mhaze,

If you’re reduced to claiming that Charlie Kirk has “never said or done anything that needs defending,” then we’re not debating anymore - you’re canonising.

That’s not a political opinion; that’s hero worship. No scrutiny, no accountability, just blind faith in the purity of your guy. You’ve waved away every example I’ve cited - not because they’re untrue, but because they’re inconvenient.

You say I’m the one “making things up,” but when asked to engage with the actual content of Kirk’s public statements - statements anyone can Google - you dodge, deflect, and insult. That’s not debate. That’s retreat.

And if the best you can do after all this is attempt to re-assert control with sneer and insults, then it’s safe to say the discussion’s gone limp on your end, not mine.

JD,

When you come up with something that needs defending, I'll defend it.

But just asserting that if I do your job and search Google for something he did wrong isn't going to work.

So off you go. Scrounge through the WWW or beg Grok for help. Find something from Kirk that needs to be defended, and then I'll defend it or admit that he was wrong on that point. But just whining that he said things the left don't like isn't a cause that needs to be defended. Indeed its a reason to laud the man.

mhaze,

You keep moving the goalposts - first saying I provided no examples, then saying the examples don’t "need defending," and now telling me to bring you something specific that you’ll either defend or reject.

Let’s test your consistency. Here are three examples. Not paraphrased, not filtered - verbatim quotes from Charlie Kirk:

1. Demonising political opposition:

"The Democratic Party hates America."
- Charlie Kirk, speech at SAS2022 (Turning Point USA), July 2022
Source: C-SPAN video, timestamp ~14:00

Do you defend this? Is it reasonable, in your view, to declare that a major political party "hates America"?

2. Transphobic framing:

"Transgenderism is a mental illness."
- Charlie Kirk, repeatedly on his podcast, e.g. [Episode: "There Are Only Two Genders"]
Source: Audio snippet and transcript here

Do you defend this? Do you consider it a medically sound diagnosis, or inflammatory rhetoric designed to dehumanise?

3. Victim-blaming and mockery of school shooting survivors:

"David Hogg is a total fraud. He’s a crisis actor, basically. A puppet."
- Kirk on Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor
Source: [Referenced in multiple outlets including Media Matters and Right Wing Watch]

Do you defend this? Do you think it’s fair game to call a school shooting survivor a "crisis actor" - or does that fall into the category of "stuff the left doesn’t like" too?

If none of this needs defending, say so. Just be honest about it: say you agree with all three, and that you’re fine with a public figure building their brand by demonising opponents, dehumanising minorities, and mocking teenagers who survived mass shootings.

If you don’t agree with one or more of these, then congratulations - you’ve just found something that does need defending. I’ll be waiting.

And let’s not pretend this is about censorship or "the left being offended." This is about rhetorical ethics. Civility in public life. And measureable harm. If you genuinely think Kirk was just a poor misunderstood intellectual, these quotes should be no problem for you to unpack.

Your move.

You're struggling to recognise the goalposts.

First off you tried to dodge the need to show Kirk actually saying things that you found abhorrent by relying on unsourced claims from the legacy press. Then you did get around to making a few specific claims which were again short on evidence and long on assertion, but were at least specific.

And I specifically rejected them as things Kirk said that needed defending. Now we have a slightly more scholarly effort, although abysmally thin on trying to show things that warranted Kirk getting a target on his back.

Still I'll address them. But don't think this is a defence since these things Grok gave you don't need defence. But I will explain it to you.

"1. Demonising political opposition:"
Since my trust in your sources is minimal, I wanted to see the alleged quote "The Democratic Party hates America." in context since you, unsurprisingly didn't provide a link. Neither Google, DuckDuckGO, nor ChatGPT could find an instance of Kirk saying that. Perhaps Grok is leading you down the garden path. Oh wait Grok couldn't find it either!!

To be fair, Kirk and great swathes of the American right say that the Democrats hate the current American dream and the history of the USA. Things like the 1619 Project, so beloved of the left, are examples. And I know Kirk has talked of the left's love of illegal immigration saying its because they want to change America into something they might like.

"Transgenderism is a mental illness."
Couldn't be bothered seeing if you made that up as well. But yes transgender is a mental dysphoria. Although as I recall, Kirk did say that often the illness was with the parents who were anxious to have the status symbol of a trans child than with the child itself.
/cont

I'm not struggling to recognise anything, mhaze. Here’s the progression:

1. You demanded specific quotes.
2. I provided them.
3. You claimed they didn’t “need defending” (because you apparently agree with them).
4. Now, you’re downplaying or dodging them.

I misremembered Kirk's comment on the Democrats. He demonised them by saying that they're "at war with America." So no, I wasn't lead down any garden paths.

http://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2505967656404419

You didn’t bother checking if Kirk had said transgenderism was a mental illness, but rushed to agree with the sentiment anyway - but with strategically different wording:

//But yes transgender is a mental dysphoria.//

A disphoria isn't a mental illness.

Either way, it wasn’t framed as a clinical concern. Kirk repeatedly used it as a cultural cudgel, accusing parents of chasing “woke status” and painting trans youth as a threat.

That kind of framing does need scrutiny, because it contributes to social stigma and mental health risks, especially among youth.

And you didn’t even address the The Parkland Survivor smear. Said on video. To his audience. About a school shooting survivor. Do you defend that?

Zooming out again: this was never just about isolated quotes. It’s about patterns of rhetoric - framing disagreement as treason, minorities as mentally ill threats, and victims as liars.

You’re right that Kirk wasn’t “unique” in doing this. But that’s not the defence you think it is. “Others do it too” is an excuse, not an argument.

You said:
“When you come up with something that needs defending, I’ll defend it.”

But you haven’t.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I take it you've abandoned your claims in support of Price now.

/cont

"David Hogg is a total fraud. He’s a crisis actor, basically. A puppet."

Do you really want to hang your hat on Hogg love? Hogg is a shooting survivor in his mind only. Yes he was in the school where the shootings occurred but wasn't within cooee of the actual event. But he played it for all he was worth and made a 'killing' out of his claimed near-death experience. All the way to the head of the Democratic National Congress where they quickly realised he was a fraud and a shyster and booted him out after 2 weeks!! Then he was forced to apologise for lying about Marco Rubio. Saying he's a crisis actor is almost too kind. But then Kirk was often too kind.

I don't need to hang my hat on Hogg, mhaze.

Kirk's demonisation of minorities and intolerance doesn't have to be encapsulated in neat little quotes. A divisive overall message is enough.

Regardless, you asked for a quote that "needed defending," so I gave you one. You've now responded, not by defending it… but by doubling down on the smear.

Let’s be crystal clear here:

- Hogg was a student at the school.
- He was present during the shooting.
- He took cover and helped other students shelter.
- He began campaigning shortly afterward.
- He was not in the same room as the shooter (which is true for most survivors of most mass shootings).

That doesn’t make him a "fraud." It makes him a survivor. And the smear portraying him as a crisis actor has been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers across the spectrum. It’s also a textbook tactic used by grifters to discredit victims of politically inconvenient tragedies.

And your claim that he led the Democratic National Committee is false. He was elected as one of several vice chairs in early 2025, but stepped down after internal party disputes over the process - not because he was exposed or booted.

You said:

"When you come up with something that needs defending, I’ll defend it."

Instead, you:

- Repeated the smear.
- Invented a fake DNC position.
- Called him a liar for being afraid during a school shooting.

This isn’t defence. It’s deflection. Speaking of quotes, however, let's look at two you were hoping I'd cite out-of-context:

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
- The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

"If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?"
- The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

Even when framed as critiques of DEI, these aren’t just clumsy, they’re corrosive. They feed into broader narratives that cast Black professionals as suspect and marginalised people as somehow overprivileged. That’s not an anti-woke message, that’s cultural resentment dressed up as commentary.

You keep coming up with stuff you find personally distasteful and then demand that I defend it.

But I don't need to defend it because I don't find it distasteful. Hogg was/is a fraud and even his erstwhile supporters in the DNC worked it out. DEI was/is a disaster for minorities. The Biden regime prioritising the life of a black women who deliberately broke Russian law over that of a marine who was a political prisoner, was a disgrace. A bloke wanting to cut his cock off (or a women her breasts) is a mental illness. And when people do it to kids, its a crime, maybe not in a legal sense, but in a moral sense. And Kirk had the courage to say it.

All of these things are valid comments and don't need defending. That you find them offensive and demand that everyone genuflect in adherence to your opinions, is merely a reflection on you and your intolerance of alternate views.

And again, having an alternative view doesn't justify (or explain) putting a target on his back. But intolerance of alternate views leads the mentally unstable to shooting a bloke in the throat.

"I take it you've abandoned your claims in support of Price now."

Why? Has anything changed? Or are you just trying to change the subject away from one where you're floundering?

You must have missed the part where I said “measurable harm,” mhaze.

//You keep coming up with stuff you find personally distasteful and then demand that I defend it.//

I haven’t “demanded” anything. You said: “When you come up with something that needs defending, I’ll defend it.”

I did. You didn’t.

//Hogg was/is a fraud and even his erstwhile supporters in the DNC worked it out.//

False on every front:

- He was a student at the school.
- He took cover and helped others shelter.
- He became an activist.
- He was elected a non-executive vice chair (not DNC leader).
- He stepped down after procedural disputes, not because he was “found out.”

So no, the DNC didn’t “work it out.” You invented that. This isn’t defence, it’s repetition of a smear built on fiction.

//DEI was/is a disaster for minorities.//

By what metric?

DEI aims to correct systemic barriers. Even if imperfect, that’s not the same as “a disaster.” Kirk’s rhetoric didn’t critique DEI - it stoked distrust of minorities by implying Black pilots aren’t qualified and mocking a “WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian.”

That’s not policy critique. It’s coded resentment.

//The Biden regime prioritising the life of a black women… was a disgrace.//

She wasn’t prioritised for her identity, she was freed through a high-profile prisoner swap. That’s how diplomacy works. You can question the deal, but using her identity to discredit the outcome is telling.

//A bloke wanting to cut his cock off… is a mental illness.//

No, it’s gender dysphoria - not a “mental illness” in the way you imply.

Your language strips dignity, not adds clarity. “When people do it to kids, it’s a crime”? Not legally. And medically, puberty blockers are evidence-based and often reversible.

To recap, you suggested you’d defend Kirk if needed; instead, you:

- Repeated every smear
- Misrepresented Hogg and the DNC
- Equated DEI with failure
- Dismissed trans people with bile

Getting back to Price for a moment, again, I'll take it you've conceded there.

“When you come up with something that needs defending, I’ll defend it.
I did. You didn’t."

This fundamentally eludes you, doesn't it. You think these things need defending because you disagree with them. I neither think they need defending nor disagree with them. But you don't seem to be able to get past the notion that you disagreeing with them is the same as them being wrong and needing a defence.

You'd be wrong.

As to Price..."I'll take it you've conceded there"

Wrong again.

No, it doesn’t elude me in the slightest, mhaze.

//This fundamentally eludes you, doesn't it. You think these things need defending because you disagree with them.//

I think they need defending because they cause measurable harm, are based on falsehoods, or are delivered in ways that foment contempt for minorities and victims.

//I neither think they need defending nor disagree with them.//

Right. You agree with the smears, so you see no need to defend them - even when they’re based on fiction. That’s the problem.

Take Hogg, for example:

You called him a "fraud" and claimed the DNC "worked it out." But he:

- Was a student who sheltered during the shooting
- Helped others find cover
- Became an activist
- Was elected as a non-executive vice chair (not DNC leader)
- Stepped down over procedural disputes, not scandal

You then referred to the "crisis actor" accusation as "almost too kind", even after it was widely debunked. That’s not a different opinion. That’s misinformation.

Same with DEI:

You didn’t explain why it’s a "disaster for minorities" - you just declared it, and you'r apparently fine with racially charged hypotheticals ("Black pilot," "WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian") that stoke suspicion of minorities by failing to denounce them.

That’s not critique. That’s dog-whistling, whether intentional or not.

And your language on trans issues?

"A bloke wanting to cut his cock off" isn’t neutral. It’s a slur and grotesque oversimplification masquerading as argument, and it tells us more about your disdain than your reasoning.

If your views rely on language that vulgar and dismissive, then you’re not debating - you’re deriding. So yes, these things do need defending. Not because I "disagree," but because they’re:

- Factually wrong
- Socially corrosive
- Repeated without evidence, nuance, or empathy

//Wrong again.//

Oh, I can assure you that I interpret your sudden dropping of your arguments surrounding Price as a concession. Why else would you go silent there?

Question:
"... is mhaze correct in saying that John Daysh is floundering on the topic of Charlie Kirk's legacy?"

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk%3D_3e56548e-b7fe-4709-952b-8f928ae13517

Well, it's clearly not that!

"I think they need defending because they cause measurable harm"

And I think the opposite because they did immeasurable good in awakening the American youth to truths that their education system was denying them.

It seems many agree....
http://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1969796417527972269
http://x.com/PatriciaHeaton/status/1969760175469867150

An inflexion point indeed...
http://x.com/TheGlobal_Index/status/1969802894577914135/photo/1

You have this view that if someone says something with which you disagree they immediately need to be held to account. You seem to have this view that if someone says something that people who think of themselves as oppressed find disturbing, then it is definitionally wrong.

Hogg was at the school but never in the slightest danger. He parlayed his proximity into a career by telling CNN and its viewers what they wanted to hear and then parleyed that into a senior position with the DNC who, upon seeing the true Hogg, disassociated from him tout suite.

DEI hires are bad for the minority groups because the perception grows that all minority hires are DEI and less qualified. Its not true or fair but a fact nonetheless. It also led to many minority students getting accepted into courses that they were clearly incapable of handling, leaving them with nothing but a student debt. But these are facts that people like you prefer weren't true and therefore ignore.

As to Price..."Why else would you go silent there?"

What needed to be said was said. Its rather childish to continue the did/didn't back and forth with nothing new being raised, in the belief that the last one to talk, wins.

Its also beyond hilarious that you run to Grok so often seeking validation.

You’re mistaking “many agree” for “measurable evidence,” mhaze.

I’m not talking about a fallacious appeal to popularity. I’m talking decades of peer-reviewed research showing that vilification, misinformation, and identity-based contempt correlate with harm - including suicidality, reduced access to healthcare and education, and workplace discrimination.

Meyer (2003): Minority stress theory - chronic exposure to stigma raises mental health risks
Tebbe & Moradi (2016): Exposure to anti-trans bias linked with depression and anxiety
Russell & Fish (2016): LGBTQ youth facing societal rejection show higher rates of suicidality
Pew (2023): Most Black Americans report institutional barriers and suspicion
APA (2021): Public rhetoric impacts real psychological outcomes

And there's hundreds more where they came from.

If you think that doesn’t matter because “many agree” with your take on X (Twitter), that’s not an argument - it’s a popularity contest. And mob consensus =/= truth.

//Hogg was at the school but never in the slightest danger.//

False.

He was in the building while 17 people were murdered, helped others shelter, and then became a prominent voice for reform - which made him a target. Your version isn’t an “alternative view.” It’s a fabricated hit job.

//DEI hurts minorities…//

You’re blaming DEI for perceptions stoked by people like Kirk. That’s like shouting “this rescue team looks unqualified!” and then blaming the team when others start to believe you. If DEI creates a false stigma, the fault lies with those creating and amplifying the stigma, not the policy.

//You run to Grok for validation.//

No, I cite Grok because it engages the argument directly and holds claims accountable. If it’s wrong, refute it. Mocking it just signals a loss of footing.

//What needed to be said was said [on Price]//

I agree, and your subsequent silence was telling.

I’ll take that as “conceded,” whether or not you can bring yourself to say the word. We both know if I’d gone silent, you’d be crowing “concession.”

You misunderstand...(how often do I have to say that?).

My point about the crowds at the Kirk memorial wasn't about an appeal to popularity but about evidence of my observation that Kirk "did immeasurable good in awakening the American youth to truths that their education system was denying them."

That pointing out these truths upsets all sorts of people who believe they have a right to not hear unpalatable truths, is probably true. But its not a reason for someone like Kirk to remain silent or be silenced.

"//What needed to be said was said [on Price]//I agree, and your subsequent silence was telling"

So you agree that everything that needed to be said had been said and then want more to be said!! Logic takes a holiday.

Never, mhaze.

//You misunderstand...(how often do I have to say that?).//

But you do anyway - usually by choice, not chance.

//My point about the crowds at the Kirk memorial wasn't about an appeal to popularity but about evidence of my observation that Kirk "did immeasurable good in awakening the American youth to truths that their education system was denying them."//

That’s just a reworded popularity claim. There is no evidence to show that Kirk did any good.

Crowds don’t confirm truth, and they certainly don’t quantify "immeasurable good." A mass of people showing up to honour someone doesn’t mean that person’s ideas were factually sound - it means they were emotionally resonant. That may explain the turnout, but it doesn’t defend the message.

I cited measurable harm from Kirk’s rhetoric - backed by empirical research. You offered a few tweets and crowd sizes as rebuttal. That’s not a clash of worldviews. That’s evidence vs vibes.

//That pointing out these truths upsets all sorts of people who believe they have a right to not hear unpalatable truths, is probably true. But its not a reason for someone like Kirk to remain silent or be silenced.//

No one said he should be silenced. I said his claims deserve scrutiny - especially when they vilify already-vulnerable groups.

And calling something an "unpalatable truth" doesn’t make it true. "Black pilots might not be qualified" isn’t brave, it’s corrosive.

You’re not defending hard truths. You’re laundering prejudice through the language of bravery.

//So you agree that everything that needed to be said had been said and then want more to be said!! Logic takes a holiday.//

No. I agreed that you felt you had nothing more to say, not that you’d said anything persuasive.

You declared victory, then ran out the back door. That’s not logic taking a holiday. That’s rhetoric clocking off early.

"That’s just a reworded popularity claim."

It still eludes you. Its nothing to do with a popularity claim. Its about my observation that Kirk's death and the murder of Iryna Zarutska represent an inflexion point in US society. The memorial confirms it.

BTW Kirk's wife, at that memorial, forgave the murderer.

"There is no evidence to show that Kirk did any good."

Well none that you'd accept or understand, anyway.

"Crowds don’t confirm truth"

Yet when a crowd of neo-Nazis attended a march you were falling over yourself to tell us it meant something.

"You’re not defending hard truths."

There's that inability to understand the difference between opinion and truth. In JD-land all his opinions are truth and all unwanted truths are opinion.

"You declared victory, then ran out the back door. "

Did I? Weren't you the one declaring that I'd conceded despite my not having conceded to any of your misunderstandings.

Then it’s a symbolic claim, mhaze, not an evidentiary one.

//It’s about my observation that Kirk’s death and the murder of Iryna Zarutska represent an inflexion point in US society. The memorial confirms it.//

You said Kirk “did immeasurable good.” A memorial might confirm emotional impact, but not the factual accuracy or social benefit of his ideas. That still requires evidence, not just optics.

//BTW Kirk’s wife, at that memorial, forgave the murderer.//

That’s her prerogative, and it’s deeply human. But it doesn’t prove Kirk’s ideas were noble, helpful, or true.

//Well [no evidence] that you'd accept or understand, anyway.//

Translation: “I can’t provide any, but I’ll imply it exists.” A classic dodge. How could you know if I'd accept it when you haven't even presented it?

//Yet when a crowd of neo-Nazis attended a march you were falling over yourself to tell us it meant something.//

Yes, it meant the event attracted extremists. That’s a data point about who showed up, not what was true. You’re conflating turnout with truth again.

//There’s that inability to understand the difference between opinion and truth. In JD-land all his opinions are truth and all unwanted truths are opinion.//

Says the man who keeps confusing evidence-based research with “just your opinion.” I cited peer-reviewed studies showing measurable harm. You replied with tweets and a hunch. That’s not a worldview, it’s a vibe sheet.

//Did I? Weren’t you the one declaring that I’d conceded despite my not having conceded to any of your misunderstandings.//

Yes, you did.

What you say and what you do aren’t always the same. If you’ve got a case on Price, present it. Otherwise, your silence speaks louder than the memes.

You agree that everything that needed to be said re Price was said and then in the very next post you assert that I haven't said anything. It must be comforting to be able to adjust your claims with such alacrity while still thinking they stand up.

Just like your assertion that I've provided no evidence on Kirk by which of course you mean I've provided no evidence that you'd accept - might I point out that on that criteria, none exists.

And your hilarious claim that you've provided peer reviewed proof that Kirk did harm when all you did is show some studies that show that some people feel harm if someone looks sideways at them.

You hate Kirk and all he stands for. I get it. Its in the marrow of the woke left. Its why so many of the woke left have cheered his murder. Millions have a different view. You might not like that but you are going to have to deal with.

Anyway, as with the Price discussion, all that needs to be said has been said. I'm out.

You’ve said a lot, mhaze, just not anything that holds up.

//You agree that everything that needed to be said re Price was said and then in the very next post you assert that I haven't said anything.//

No, I said you decided nothing more needed to be said. I never claimed your contributions had merit. You tapped out. I noted it. That’s not contradiction - that’s documentation.

//Just like your assertion that I’ve provided no evidence on Kirk...//

Still true.

You’ve provided crowds, tweets, and vibes. None of that supports the claim that Kirk’s legacy was beneficial, let alone that it outweighed the measurable harm his rhetoric caused.

//Studies that show that some people feel harm if someone looks sideways at them.//

Reducing peer-reviewed findings on suicidality, discrimination, and structural disadvantage to “people feeling looked at” is grotesque - and illustrative. You’re not interested in harm reduction. You’re interested in rhetorical supremacy.

//You hate Kirk and all he stands for.//

No, I oppose dishonest ideologues who profit off stoking contempt for the vulnerable. That’s not “hate,” it’s ethical objection grounded in data and principle.

//Millions have a different view.//

And millions thought asbestos was safe. Appeal to numbers proves nothing, that's why there's even a logical fallacy named after it.

//Anyway, as with the Price discussion, all that needs to be said has been said. I’m out.//

Of course you are. That’s what happens when your talking points are spent, your smears debunked, and your arguments reduced to tone-policing and projection.

Let the record show:

You couldn’t defend Kirk’s fabrications.
You couldn’t support your DEI claims with data.
You couldn’t engage with trans issues without bile.
You couldn’t even define your objection to Price.
And now you’re bowing out, again, calling it closure.

Noted.

"Its why so many of the woke left have cheered his murder."
- Millions of Christians seem to cheer on the slaughter of Palestinian women and kids for Israel, and we're not talking one bloke who was tragically murdered weeks ago, we're talking wholesale mass murder of women and kids with the total number increasing by the day, and I'm not even sure what date we should start counting from.

The problem with the so-called moral and decent conservative right
- Is that everything moral and decent was flushed down the S-Bend after Oct 7, 2023 - when Israel went on such a rampage one might conclude it was planned that way and the Wests religious right turned the other cheek, and their backs on what Jesus taught.

Judas Christians, in support of genocide.

'I oppose Israels slaughter of innocent women and kids'
- Can you even say that mhaze? repeat what I just wrote above.
Denounce Israels slaughter and prove you value human life.

Prove you have morals and ethics first before accusing others of having none.