Was it on purpose?

[WellPreserved]

Lmao, there’s nothing to heed either.



You don’t understand. That’s ok.


It means: Kirk is someone you would want deplatformed, so the fact that you laugh at people who haven’t heard of him will only get more and more people to look him up and read about what he says. Thereby INCREASING the reach of his platform. And while it might get some people to disagree with him , other people might start agreeing with him…so could easily be helping him gain followers with your spite.

I was surprised you hadn't heard of him as he's been discussed multiple times on this forum and he and TPUSA have been pretty prolific since 2012. I don't think Della runs the risk of increasing his reach.

I didn’t say I’d never heard of him, I said I paid little attention to what he said.

I still detest what was said about MLK, but who knows… maybe I’ll agree with him about other topics if Della is trying to push it so hard that I’d like him… I’ll give his other topics a listen and decide…

If you agree with him, you agree with him. You don't have to know of him to agree, lol.

[Slimshandy]

I was surprised you hadn't heard of him as he's been discussed multiple times on this forum and he and TPUSA have been pretty prolific since 2012. I don't think Della runs the risk of increasing his reach.

I didn’t say I’d never heard of him, I said I paid little attention to what he said.

I still detest what was said about MLK, but who knows… maybe I’ll agree with him about other topics if Della is trying to push it so hard that I’d like him… I’ll give his other topics a listen and decide…

If you agree with him, you agree with him. You don't have to know of him to agree, lol.

How would I know if I agree with him if I don’t know what he said…

I started the conversation talking about how I DIDN’T agree with him when it came to what you told me he said…

Dells is trying to push the idea pretty hard that I WOULD agree with him on other subjects… so I’d have to hear what he said in order to decide.

[WellPreserved]

I didn’t say I’d never heard of him, I said I paid little attention to what he said.

I still detest what was said about MLK, but who knows… maybe I’ll agree with him about other topics if Della is trying to push it so hard that I’d like him… I’ll give his other topics a listen and decide…

If you agree with him, you agree with him. You don't have to know of him to agree, lol.

How would I know if I agree with him if I don’t know what he said…

I started the conversation talking about how I DIDN’T agree with him when it came to what you told me he said…

Dells is trying to push the idea pretty hard that I WOULD agree with him on other subjects… so I’d have to hear what he said in order to decide.

If you start to follow Kirk and agree with him that Christians can't be democrats wouldn't it be fair to say that his opinion is just confirming your own? I'm just using that as an example. You either agree or disagree that Christians can't be democrats regardless of whether or not you follow Charlie Kirk.

[Slimshandy]

If you agree with him, you agree with him. You don't have to know of him to agree, lol.

How would I know if I agree with him if I don’t know what he said…

I started the conversation talking about how I DIDN’T agree with him when it came to what you told me he said…

Dells is trying to push the idea pretty hard that I WOULD agree with him on other subjects… so I’d have to hear what he said in order to decide.

If you start to follow Kirk and agree with him that Christians can't be democrats wouldn't it be fair to say that his opinion is just confirming your own? I'm just using that as an example. You either agree or disagree that Christians can't be democrats regardless of whether or not you follow Charlie Kirk.

Would it be fair to say that any partisan news opinions watched on a regular basis are just confirming one’s own opinions?

People watch Rachel Maddow because they typically agree with Rachel Maddow… people watch Candace Owens because they typically agree with Candace Owens.


People like finding voices to listen to that they agree with… so even though I wouldn’t have thought I would like him from your opening words about his beliefs, Della seems to think I’d really enjoy him, so I might have to give him a second chance to be heard.

[WellPreserved]

How would I know if I agree with him if I don’t know what he said…

I started the conversation talking about how I DIDN’T agree with him when it came to what you told me he said…

Dells is trying to push the idea pretty hard that I WOULD agree with him on other subjects… so I’d have to hear what he said in order to decide.

If you start to follow Kirk and agree with him that Christians can't be democrats wouldn't it be fair to say that his opinion is just confirming your own? I'm just using that as an example. You either agree or disagree that Christians can't be democrats regardless of whether or not you follow Charlie Kirk.

Would it be fair to say that any partisan news opinions watched on a regular basis are just confirming one’s own opinions?

People watch Rachel Maddow because they typically agree with Rachel Maddow… people watch Candace Owens because they typically agree with Candace Owens.


People like finding voices to listen to that they agree with… so even though I wouldn’t have thought I would like him from your opening words about his beliefs, Della seems to think I’d really enjoy him, so I might have to give him a second chance to be heard.

Sure. I don't watch news, I get it from publications. No way would I read "Gateway Pundit" but it's not because I am concerned that I may agree with some of what is written. I also would have no fear mentioning "Gateway Pundit" in a post as I assume that if anyone gravitated to it just because of my words and found themselves agreeing with a lot of articles in it, it's just confirmation bias.

So now that you do know who Charlie Kirk and the organization TPUSA are, has your opinion about their motivation to speak at Memphis State changed? Just trying to stay on track!

[Slimshandy]

If you start to follow Kirk and agree with him that Christians can't be democrats wouldn't it be fair to say that his opinion is just confirming your own? I'm just using that as an example. You either agree or disagree that Christians can't be democrats regardless of whether or not you follow Charlie Kirk.

Would it be fair to say that any partisan news opinions watched on a regular basis are just confirming one’s own opinions?

People watch Rachel Maddow because they typically agree with Rachel Maddow… people watch Candace Owens because they typically agree with Candace Owens.


People like finding voices to listen to that they agree with… so even though I wouldn’t have thought I would like him from your opening words about his beliefs, Della seems to think I’d really enjoy him, so I might have to give him a second chance to be heard.

Sure. I don't watch news, I get it from publications. No way would I read "Gateway Pundit" but it's not because I am concerned that I may agree with some of what is written. I also would have no fear mentioning "Gateway Pundit" in a post as I assume that if anyone gravitated to it just because of my words and found themselves agreeing with a lot of articles in it, it's just confirmation bias.

So now that you do know who Charlie Kirk and the organization TPUSA are, has your opinion about their motivation to speak at Memphis State changed? Just trying to stay on track!

Oh, you should never have fear that simply mentioning something would cause someone to gravitate towards it, but if someone says “I don’t agree with them” and you keep pushing and pushing that they do… that might cause someone to put a lot more effort into finding out than they ever would have. Counterintuitive to say the least… sometimes it’s better to let someone who is disagreeing with a voice you want deplatformed to simply disagree with what they said and move on.


Not really, no…
If their main goal is to “Advocacy of conservatism on education campuses” and "combat liberalism on college and university campuses" it makes a lot of sense that the second amendment and Rittenhouse would be right up their alley.

[WellPreserved]

Would it be fair to say that any partisan news opinions watched on a regular basis are just confirming one’s own opinions?

People watch Rachel Maddow because they typically agree with Rachel Maddow… people watch Candace Owens because they typically agree with Candace Owens.


People like finding voices to listen to that they agree with… so even though I wouldn’t have thought I would like him from your opening words about his beliefs, Della seems to think I’d really enjoy him, so I might have to give him a second chance to be heard.

Sure. I don't watch news, I get it from publications. No way would I read "Gateway Pundit" but it's not because I am concerned that I may agree with some of what is written. I also would have no fear mentioning "Gateway Pundit" in a post as I assume that if anyone gravitated to it just because of my words and found themselves agreeing with a lot of articles in it, it's just confirmation bias.

So now that you do know who Charlie Kirk and the organization TPUSA are, has your opinion about their motivation to speak at Memphis State changed? Just trying to stay on track!

Oh, you should never have fear that simply mentioning something would cause someone to gravitate towards it, but if someone says “I don’t agree with them” and you keep pushing and pushing that they do… that might cause someone to put a lot more effort into finding out than they ever would have. Counterintuitive to say the least… sometimes it’s better to let someone who is disagreeing with a voice you want deplatformed to simply disagree with what they said and move on.


Not really, no…
If their main goal is to “Advocacy of conservatism on education campuses” and "combat liberalism on college and university campuses" it makes a lot of sense that the second amendment and Rittenhouse would be right up their alley.

Okay. I too think that there are some things that Charlie Kirk has stated that seem in alignment with your beliefs. I don't think if you immediately follow Kirk, you are somehow going to "turn".

Hm. The TPUSA/Rittenhouse book tour is being held on I think 5 campuses in the US. I think the choice of Memphis State being one of them was to inspire protest which they got (why else include "the lies of BLM" on this and only this campus). Kirk calls the BLM protestors at the event "rioters" and I think that is part of his calculated optic. Rittenhouse was able to speak (he wasn't "de-platformed") just like the protestors were legally able to protest.

Students at Kent State are also planning to protest Rittenhouse appearance scheduled for mid April. I think that campus was also selected for the optics. And love him or hate him, Rittenhouse did shoot and kill protesters so I can imagine Kent State students would have some feelings about that.

[Slimshandy]

Sure. I don't watch news, I get it from publications. No way would I read "Gateway Pundit" but it's not because I am concerned that I may agree with some of what is written. I also would have no fear mentioning "Gateway Pundit" in a post as I assume that if anyone gravitated to it just because of my words and found themselves agreeing with a lot of articles in it, it's just confirmation bias.

So now that you do know who Charlie Kirk and the organization TPUSA are, has your opinion about their motivation to speak at Memphis State changed? Just trying to stay on track!

Oh, you should never have fear that simply mentioning something would cause someone to gravitate towards it, but if someone says “I don’t agree with them” and you keep pushing and pushing that they do… that might cause someone to put a lot more effort into finding out than they ever would have. Counterintuitive to say the least… sometimes it’s better to let someone who is disagreeing with a voice you want deplatformed to simply disagree with what they said and move on.


Not really, no…
If their main goal is to “Advocacy of conservatism on education campuses” and "combat liberalism on college and university campuses" it makes a lot of sense that the second amendment and Rittenhouse would be right up their alley.

Okay. I too think that there are some things that Charlie Kirk has stated that seem in alignment with your beliefs. I don't think if you immediately follow Kirk, you are somehow going to "turn".

Hm. The TPUSA/Rittenhouse book tour is being held on I think 5 campuses in the US. I think the choice of Memphis State being one of them was to inspire protest which they got (why else include "the lies of BLM" on this and only this campus). Kirk calls the BLM protestors at the event "rioters" and I think that is part of his calculated optic. Rittenhouse was able to speak (he wasn't "de-platformed") just like the protestors were legally able to protest.

Students at Kent State are also planning to protest Rittenhouse appearance scheduled for mid April. I think that campus was also selected for the optics. And love him or hate him, Rittenhouse did shoot and kill protesters so I can imagine Kent State students would have some feelings about that.

Then as I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of being right and I’ll give him a second chance…


Rittenhouse didn’t shoot protesters, he shot a child rapist trying to loot stores and two people that tried to harm him after the child rapist attacked him and was shot. All of this was proven court and he was acquitted because of it. Because of the lies the actual organization of BLM kept spreading about him, people have made terroristic threats that continue today. Sounds like something Rittenhouse might want to address.

Not exactly the same thing a Kent State protesters being shot by our own National Guard.

[SallyMae]

Then as I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of being right and I’ll give him a second chance…


Rittenhouse didn’t shoot protesters, he shot a child rapist trying to loot stores and two people that tried to harm him after the child rapist attacked him and was shot. All of this was proven court and he was acquitted because of it. Because of the lies the actual organization of BLM kept spreading about him, people have made terroristic threats that continue today. Sounds like something Rittenhouse might want to address.

Not exactly the same thing a Kent State protesters being shot by our own National Guard.

Are you saying Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was a child molester? Or that Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was looting? I thought the reason he was acquitted was because they thought he acted in self defense. Do you think the shooting was justified on account that the guy was a child molester or because he was looting? I don't agree, and it actually makes Rittenhouse seem like MORE of a lawless vigilante to point that out. He has no authority to shoot child molesters or looters.

[Slimshandy]

Then as I said, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt of being right and I’ll give him a second chance…


Rittenhouse didn’t shoot protesters, he shot a child rapist trying to loot stores and two people that tried to harm him after the child rapist attacked him and was shot. All of this was proven court and he was acquitted because of it. Because of the lies the actual organization of BLM kept spreading about him, people have made terroristic threats that continue today. Sounds like something Rittenhouse might want to address.

Not exactly the same thing a Kent State protesters being shot by our own National Guard.

Are you saying Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was a child molester? Or that Rittenhouse shot the guy because he was looting? I thought the reason he was acquitted was because they thought he acted in self defense. Do you think the shooting was justified on account that the guy was a child molester or because he was looting? I don't agree, and it actually makes Rittenhouse seem like MORE of a lawless vigilante to point that out. He has no authority to shoot child molesters or looters.

I’m saying he shot the guy because the guy was attacking him.


The guy that was attacking him was there to loot.

The guy that was there to loot and attacked a kid, was also a child rapist who had just gotten out of prison… so yes, I think the shooting was justified and the man who was shot was the worst kind of criminal in existence.