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!