Seriously?? You took the time to actually type out the R word, and by the time you got done, still hadn't reached the conclusion that that word was inappropriate?
Hmmm, what would the Charlie Shooter do?
Clemson professor looking to get fired...
- Thread starter douggainey
- Start date
Hmmm, what would the Charlie Shooter do?
These are misrepresentations of his sometimes not very responsible rhetoric. Just for folks who are even trying to be remotely fair, lots of libertarians think the Civil Rights Act is/was problematic, not because of its effects, but because of its regulation of private, not state, discrimination and its expansion of government power over property rights and freedom of association.
Kirk’s version of the dumb “replacement theory” had nothing to with antisemitism, and instead was about immigration and the belief that the left was trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants. He would notice all the left wing anti-white rhetoric and instead of dispensing with race, would take it up by arguing high immigration was at least partly about trying to dilute the white vote.
These also look like AI summaries, which are totally shockingly not very accurate.
Could that replacement theory have anything to do with them shipping in millions of illegals in a very short time period and the obstinate actions that lead to illegals voting in our elections? This is only a few factors that support the great replacement theory. There are more.
I think this is dumb, but it’s also clearly not what that poster was making it out to be.
This is the only great replacement theory I have heard and I absolutely think there is validity to it. Its about cheap labor and maintaining political power.
Well, there's the video where he says passing the civil rights act was a mistake and confirms he said it himself.
There's the video where he states the great replacement strategy is in effect on the border, and if you arent familiar with the insane great replacement theory, go read about it yourself. It is heavily rooted in antisemitism.
And yes, i called you retarded because you're acting retarded. Snowflake.
I provided the videos of what he said, its not misrepresenting anything. You can say his version of the as he called it 'great replacement strategy' had nothing to do with antisemitism, but the great replacement theory that everyone else knows is deeply rooted in antisemitism. You're being extremely generous to think thats not what he meant when he referenced it directly.
Well, there's the video where he says passing the civil rights act was a mistake and confirms he said it himself.
There's the video where he states the great replacement strategy is in effect on the border, and if you arent familiar with the insane great replacement theory, go read about it yourself. It is heavily rooted in antisemitism.
And yes, i called you retarded because you're acting retarded. Snowflake.
he never makes his point in the MLK video. he basically says "you'll have to tune in."
he certainly believed that America is much too race focused, and he's correct. Seems like that was his point.
I’ve never heard anybody use that term that way. I think that’s more of a niche thing, and it’s not particularly generous to listen to what somebody actually says instead of finding the worst possible interpretation and insisting on that one.
In fact, one of the reasons people think he could’ve been killed by a Groyper is because he was so pro-Israel/a philo-Semite.
1:47 in the video, he's contacted about his comments about the civil rights act being a mistake "also true". Why do we keep pretending he didnt say the things he said even though he confirms he said the things he said?
Great Replacement conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
It's not a niche thing. If you want to say he just coincidentally called his version of it the same thing of an extremely popular conspiracy theory, i'll leave that up to you.
Enjoy your hypocrisy then I guess, have a good weekend
Except you went and found some definition of the term I don’t recognize from anything else I’ve ever seen, and it’s one he clearly didn’t believe in.Great Replacement conspiracy theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's not a niche thing. If you want to say he just coincidentally called his version of it the same thing of an extremely popular conspiracy theory, i'll leave that up to you.
One reason why some people on the right just decide to become feckless partisans is because of stuff like this where people on the left seem to have no interest in fairly assessing anything they disagree with.
Didn’t he say “it’s not a theory, it’s a reality” or do you mean specifically that definition?
Just because you haven't heard of it, doesnt make it niche. I didnt 'go find some defintion' I went to the actual wikipedia page for the actual great replacement theory that provides sources for its origin.
yes, I saw that. But he never makes his point in that video as to why. blacks are far worse off since the civil rights movement than they were before, that is a fact. I'd be interested to hear Kirk's reasoning that the posted video does not show it.
he is clearly making the point that America is hyper focused on race, and this is a bad thing. He's right.
Wait, worse off? Than when they had their own water fountains etc. Please expound.
Yes, much worse off. I'm not arguing that blacks should be forced to drink out of separate water fountains. the left currently wants segregation, I do not.
But chronologically - there's no debate. Blacks are far worse off today than they were in 1950, and by any metric you'd like to consider. This is a fact.
Interesting, so when they were segregated, couldn't vote, had no representation, were denied jobs because of their race, denied housing because of their race, they were better off?
I dont think you believe that, but thats what you're trying to say to protect CK, who did believe those things.
do you argue that black people are better off today socioeconomically than they were in, say, 1940? You're making that argument?
it's like you liberals can't see that blacks are far behind in every category. you can't see that liberal policies hurt them. it's one of the most glaring shames of our time.
LBJ hurt blacks more than any man in American history.
and to directly answer your question, yes they were better off when we were segregated. They actually valued family, owned businesses, and committed crimes at similar rates to whites. Again, these are facts. And again, I am not in favor of segregation.
Last edited:
I guess I don’t know where to go from there. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that
made it illegal to discriminate in a non significant amount of ways (employment, entering public spaces, universities, schools in general, hotels, bathrooms, et ). So it seems wild to say they’d be better off if they could still be refused service for being black.
Saying they were better off at X date compared to Y date, doesn’t have to mean that Z action in between caused either. DEI isn’t in that act, neither is affirmative action.
The first part of the bill also made voter registration level. They previously had barriers in some place to vote.
Even supposing that was true, 100% of the people who confuse causation with correlation eventually die.
Who is better off socioeconomically than they were in the 40s? No one. We came off WW2 and the great depression and the wealth gap was the smallest its ever been. Since then, every year the wealth gap grows and the rich turn the middle and lower class against each other so we don't look up.
But every other factor of the 40s vs the 2020s? yes, there's not a person on the planet that would choose to go back to the 40s and be a black man or woman and be treated that way and live that life.
Holy **** that is the wildest edit ive ever seen. You went back to add in that YES they were better segregated. You're ******* insane dude. You dont know what you're saying
I agree. I'm not arguing causation with regard to the civil rights movement. Read my posts. I'm arguing blacks are worse off today than before the civil rights movement.
you are avoiding the point.
the gap between blacks and whites has GROWN substantially since 1940. You know this to be true, but you're a liberal so you will not acknowledge it.
Blacks were better off during segregation. That is a fact. I am not a proponent of segregation.
Where am I wrong? what edit??
You are avoiding my point. You now want to argue that I believe in segregation when I've stated numerous times that I do not. Segregation is bad. But it's a fact that African Americans were much better off in that era than they are today from a standpoint of obeying the law, making and saving money, becoming educated, etc.
I am sorry this is uncomfortable to you libs.
Got you. I guess I just think mentioning that in the context of someone saying a bill outlawing segregation, provided equal voting rights/employment, etc was bad, is not coming across how you meant it then.
Why do libs want black people dependent on government? Oh, for votes. that's right.
You truly are one that just doesn’t get it. The Constitution protects you from being jailed for speaking in its free speech language. It doesn’t protect you from consequences like losing your job. I don’t think the professors should be jailed but do think their speech doesn’t represent the broader values of Clemson University and its faculty and students and in such, creates an environment of hostility that makes the ultimate purpose of a university difficult to complete.
I said that was the context of what was being discussed. I didn’t actually say you said anything in that post.
Would prefer we riot? Seems that is the way you guys manage your emotions and objections unless you are like some and voice your objections with hunting rifles, scopes and rooftops.
I said in my post that i do not think you believe in segregation, you're just repeating fox news talking points to carry water for CK for some reason. Weird.
I see you've gone to the old trusty black people do more crimes rhetoric. You should do some reading on systemtic racism and discrimination. Then after you do that, read about how black americans make up almost 70% of drug crime exonerees and are 19x more likely to be wrongly convicted of a drug offense and 7x more likely to be convicted of a major crime.
Your point about education is just wrong. In the 40s, only about 8% of black americans had a high school education. In 2023, 35% of black americans have an associates degree while raising their HS graduation rate to over 50%.
Once again, the wealth gap was smaller in the 40s so of course they had a better opportunity to make and save money in relation to every one else in the 40s.
Every post you make in this thread reeks of fox news talking points with no original thought or research attached to it.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
Inside the contrast in styles between how Clemson and LSU are handling practices this month
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
Friday Clemson Football & Recruiting Nuggets
-
03
Rivals
Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia three to watch as touted LB Jay Schell's junior visits take shape
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
What Clemson's real depth chart looks like on the offensive line following scrimmage No. 2
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Takeaways from Clemson's Thursday scrimmage