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.”