" 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 It’s not just outdated - it actively encourages resentment toward women who speak up or push back.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.