shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

---

When you put it that way you can argue Ben Shapiro is manipulating people and Charlie Kirk was manipulating people. Everybody with a platform is attempting some small form of manipulation by convincing people their positions are correct.

I'm sure you don't know what Nick Fuentes' solutions are. If we continue to vote for Republicans everything will get better.

---

---

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro don't try to blame the Jews for everything and don't encourage harassment if not outright violence against their opponents.

---

Neither does Fuentes. You'd know that if you watched his show instead of believing everything you're told from people who also don't watch the show. He also doesn't encourage violence. He encourages his followers to go their events and ask difficult questions.

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro are filled with solutions and ways to fix problems, they don't just spend all their time trying to get people wound up. They also look for civil debate and polite discussion with their opponents.

---

Their solutions, so much as they differ(ed) from Fuentes', are to vote for the GOP. Other than that, Fuentes says basically the same stuff about religion and morality (obviously not religion in the case of Shapiro). I'd encourage you to actually watch his show after the shooting in Minneapolis and the two shows he has done since the Kirk assassination. He talks about spirituality and good vs evil the same way Kirk or Shapiro would. Fuentes also looks for civil debate. He's been trying to debate both of them for years and neither would because they know what it would mean for them.

Quote:

---

I also find it funny that you think I am in the "trust the GOP" camp. Anyone that has followed me for the decades I have been on this site knows I like effective leaders that talk about actual solutions and have a plan to implement them, I like results. That's why I was such a big DeSantis guy. That's why I have countless threads getting into the minutia of who we have in leadership.

---

My comment about the GOP was mostly meant to reflect Kirk and Shapiro's solutions being different from Fuentes'. DeSantis was promising but has been weirdly obsessed with Israel as a state governor.

Quote:

---

If you want to trust in a guy like Fuentes go for it but know that there is no one else the Left would like more as the face of the GOP and conservatives than him. He is not a serious person.

---

The right could do way worse. We've been doing way worse for a long time. You say he's not a serious person, but you don't really know the first thing about him other than what leftist rags and Con, Inc. have told you.

---

I've watched plenty of Fuentes, as I said he reminded me a lot of David Duke. They both can sound very reasonable and elicit conservative talking points. They talk about morality and religion. Then they get into blaming Jews and minorities. Then they start attacking other conservatives and act as though they are the wise ones. Once again they talk about pain and get you riled up and talk about before you know it you are spending all of your time and effort attacking conservatives in a purity test. Of course the great joke there is to think of someone like Fuentes as pure and righteous.

Kirk and Shapiro look at the GOP as the party they can take over and they basically have in a way. It takes time though and there are political realities to face for serious people. That is why Fuentes is not serious. He doesn't have any clue about how to actually produce political change and he isn't even trying to. You do that by building coalitions, something Fuentes will never be able to do even if he wanted to which he doesn't.

Hey but that's a journey you need to figure out on your own. God Bless. Make not mistake though if you think someone like Fuentes and his type that have 80% of the country that despise them is the path forward you should really consider the political reality of that.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

---

When you put it that way you can argue Ben Shapiro is manipulating people and Charlie Kirk was manipulating people. Everybody with a platform is attempting some small form of manipulation by convincing people their positions are correct.

I'm sure you don't know what Nick Fuentes' solutions are. If we continue to vote for Republicans everything will get better.

---

---

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro don't try to blame the Jews for everything and don't encourage harassment if not outright violence against their opponents.

---

Neither does Fuentes. You'd know that if you watched his show instead of believing everything you're told from people who also don't watch the show. He also doesn't encourage violence. He encourages his followers to go their events and ask difficult questions.

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro are filled with solutions and ways to fix problems, they don't just spend all their time trying to get people wound up. They also look for civil debate and polite discussion with their opponents.

---

Their solutions, so much as they differ(ed) from Fuentes', are to vote for the GOP. Other than that, Fuentes says basically the same stuff about religion and morality (obviously not religion in the case of Shapiro). I'd encourage you to actually watch his show after the shooting in Minneapolis and the two shows he has done since the Kirk assassination. He talks about spirituality and good vs evil the same way Kirk or Shapiro would. Fuentes also looks for civil debate. He's been trying to debate both of them for years and neither would because they know what it would mean for them.

Quote:

---

I also find it funny that you think I am in the "trust the GOP" camp. Anyone that has followed me for the decades I have been on this site knows I like effective leaders that talk about actual solutions and have a plan to implement them, I like results. That's why I was such a big DeSantis guy. That's why I have countless threads getting into the minutia of who we have in leadership.

---

My comment about the GOP was mostly meant to reflect Kirk and Shapiro's solutions being different from Fuentes'. DeSantis was promising but has been weirdly obsessed with Israel as a state governor.

Quote:

---

If you want to trust in a guy like Fuentes go for it but know that there is no one else the Left would like more as the face of the GOP and conservatives than him. He is not a serious person.

---

The right could do way worse. We've been doing way worse for a long time. You say he's not a serious person, but you don't really know the first thing about him other than what leftist rags and Con, Inc. have told you.

---

I've watched plenty of Fuentes, as I said he reminded me a lot of David Duke. They both can sound very reasonable and elicit conservative talking points. They talk about morality and religion. Then they get into blaming Jews and minorities. Then they start attacking other conservatives and act as though they are the wise ones. Once again they talk about pain and get you riled up and talk about before you know it you are spending all of your time and effort attacking conservatives in a purity test. Of course the great joke there is to think of someone like Fuentes as pure and righteous.

Kirk and Shapiro look at the GOP as the party they can take over and they basically have in a way. It takes time though and there are political realities to face for serious people. That is why Fuentes is not serious. He doesn't have any clue about how to actually produce political change and he isn't even trying to. You do that by building coalitions, something Fuentes will never be able to do even if he wanted to which he doesn't.

Hey but that's a journey you need to figure out on your own. God Bless. Make not mistake though if you think someone like Fuentes and his type that have 80% of the country that despise them is the path forward you should really consider the political reality of that.

---

Blaming Jews and minorities for what? He doesn't blame them for anything and everything. I can assure you I'm not walking around in my daily life cursing the Jews because I don't have a bigger house or something... Everybody talks about pain. It's strange to act like no other commentator is saying "this person/politician is doing something harmful." By that standard it would be dangerous to point out that George Soros (or should I use a non-Jew) is doing harm to this country. Criticism directed at conservatives is to generally try to appeal to their logical thinking skills in order to possibly change their mind. Unfortunately, for many, it just turns them in to lefties that shout ad hominems. Do you want him/me only talking about how evil democrats are? There are plenty of people doing that.

You first have to change hearts and minds, especially when you are as young as he and his followers are. He's still only 27. He has a daily show where he is explaining his views. And what if he wanted to build a coalition with Kirk or Shapiro? Those people wouldn't talk to him. Who would you recommend him building his coalition with? You say you know what his beliefs and goals are because you watch him. So who is a good person for him to team up with? I'm sure there's not one person you can name who he hasn't explained his major, deal-breaking disagreement with them.

Citing 80% of this country's population doesn't mean that much to me lol. Also those people can't factually explain their problems with Fuentes. I still don't think you've done an adequate job. You just said "blaming Jews and minorities" in your first paragraph as a catch-all. That has no substance.

The country needs people like him if we are going to be a prosperous nation. We need to be America First. We need to turn the immigration faucet off. We need to lock up criminals. We need to make this a country based on Christian principles. We need Christ.

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

---

ah, the self-appointed hall monitors of the dying internet polemics subculture. they don't have much to offer but bad sociology stapled to proof-texted lutheranism. tbh you'd be better off just listening to fuentes.

---

When it comes to theology and it's relevance to modern culture? There is no one better. Their Septuagint series is one of the greatest pieces of modern theological research I have ever seen.

Rapier108 said:

---

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Mahler isn't actually Lutheran. He was excommunicated.

---

Mahler is a Hitler loving piece of ***** This is the guy that "Stone Choir" took his user name from.

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/confronting-hate/meet-the-hitler-loving-podcaster-whos-teaching-young-christian-men-to-hate-in-the-name-of-god

---

That interview was hilarious, he was woefully unprepared for Mahler to the point where he has no response around 80% of the time beyond a sputtering mess. It's why he had to add his commentary after the interview.

Can't get into good college because DEI.

Can't get into law school because DEI.

Can't get a good corporate job because DEI.

Can't get a government job because affirmative action.

Can't get a tech job because H1B.

Can't get a trade job because illegals.

Can't even flip… https://t.co/JP2XE0gytk

— John Carter (@martianwyrdlord) September 17, 2025

If you want to know why Fuentes' following is exploding now? This is why.

The future has been stolen from whites and now they are very angry at that fact. No amount of conservative hand-wringing will ever walk this back.

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

---

ah, the self-appointed hall monitors of the dying internet polemics subculture. they don't have much to offer but bad sociology stapled to proof-texted lutheranism. tbh you'd be better off just listening to fuentes.

---

When it comes to theology and its relevance to modern culture? There is no one better. Their Septuagint series is one of the greatest pieces of modern theological research I have ever seen.

---

please. if by "greatest modern theological research" you mean reading greek aloud on a podcast and then straining it through culture-war talking points, sure, they've mastered that particular circus act.

podcasters waving flashcards falls well short of serious scholarship. recycling arguments already refuted centuries ago for a midlife crisis podcast bro audience is just tedious posturing.

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Quote:

---

There's a difference between debate/socratic discussions with college kids, and legitimizing a discussion with/giving a platform to someone who has shown themselves to be fundamentally dishonest and bigoted, as Charlie explained.

---

Explain how. He had no problem debating bigoted college kids, so that fails.

Quote:

---

I have never, for even half a second believed that to be true for Fuentes.

---

Nobody cares.

Quote:

---

ETA: Charlie didn't debate people to make them look like idiots. In fact, the opposite being true is exactly why he became so politically influential/powerful.

---

That's exactly my point. He could gain tons of more people, particularly young people, to his cause if he debated Fuentes and came out on top.

---

Kind of reminds me of one time when I saw David Duke back in the day do some shows. He could sound very reasonable and knew how to hit the emotional conservative hot buttons. There is evil on the right as well and people that will gladly manipulate you if you let them. It's a basic sales tactic of talking about pain points to someone enough that eventually they will agree with just about any solution that they think will help without really examining the solution because they are focused on the pain. I hope you eventually see that.

---

When you put it that way you can argue Ben Shapiro is manipulating people and Charlie Kirk was manipulating people. Everybody with a platform is attempting some small form of manipulation by convincing people their positions are correct.

I'm sure you don't know what Nick Fuentes' solutions are. If we continue to vote for Republicans everything will get better.

---

---

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro don't try to blame the Jews for everything and don't encourage harassment if not outright violence against their opponents.

---

Neither does Fuentes. You'd know that if you watched his show instead of believing everything you're told from people who also don't watch the show. He also doesn't encourage violence. He encourages his followers to go their events and ask difficult questions.

Quote:

---

Kirk and Shapiro are filled with solutions and ways to fix problems, they don't just spend all their time trying to get people wound up. They also look for civil debate and polite discussion with their opponents.

---

Their solutions, so much as they differ(ed) from Fuentes', are to vote for the GOP. Other than that, Fuentes says basically the same stuff about religion and morality (obviously not religion in the case of Shapiro). I'd encourage you to actually watch his show after the shooting in Minneapolis and the two shows he has done since the Kirk assassination. He talks about spirituality and good vs evil the same way Kirk or Shapiro would. Fuentes also looks for civil debate. He's been trying to debate both of them for years and neither would because they know what it would mean for them.

Quote:

---

I also find it funny that you think I am in the "trust the GOP" camp. Anyone that has followed me for the decades I have been on this site knows I like effective leaders that talk about actual solutions and have a plan to implement them, I like results. That's why I was such a big DeSantis guy. That's why I have countless threads getting into the minutia of who we have in leadership.

---

My comment about the GOP was mostly meant to reflect Kirk and Shapiro's solutions being different from Fuentes'. DeSantis was promising but has been weirdly obsessed with Israel as a state governor.

Quote:

---

If you want to trust in a guy like Fuentes go for it but know that there is no one else the Left would like more as the face of the GOP and conservatives than him. He is not a serious person.

---

The right could do way worse. We've been doing way worse for a long time. You say he's not a serious person, but you don't really know the first thing about him other than what leftist rags and Con, Inc. have told you.

---

I've watched plenty of Fuentes, as I said he reminded me a lot of David Duke. They both can sound very reasonable and elicit conservative talking points. They talk about morality and religion. Then they get into blaming Jews and minorities. Then they start attacking other conservatives and act as though they are the wise ones. Once again they talk about pain and get you riled up and talk about before you know it you are spending all of your time and effort attacking conservatives in a purity test. Of course the great joke there is to think of someone like Fuentes as pure and righteous.

Kirk and Shapiro look at the GOP as the party they can take over and they basically have in a way. It takes time though and there are political realities to face for serious people. That is why Fuentes is not serious. He doesn't have any clue about how to actually produce political change and he isn't even trying to. You do that by building coalitions, something Fuentes will never be able to do even if he wanted to which he doesn't.

Hey but that's a journey you need to figure out on your own. God Bless. Make not mistake though if you think someone like Fuentes and his type that have 80% of the country that despise them is the path forward you should really consider the political reality of that.

---

Blaming Jews and minorities for what? He doesn't blame them for anything and everything. I can assure you I'm not walking around in my daily life cursing the Jews because I don't have a bigger house or something... Everybody talks about pain. It's strange to act like no other commentator is saying "this person/politician is doing something harmful." By that standard it would be dangerous to point out that George Soros (or should I use a non-Jew) is doing harm to this country. Criticism directed at conservatives is to generally try to appeal to their logical thinking skills in order to possibly change their mind. Unfortunately, for many, it just turns them in to lefties that shout ad hominems. Do you want him/me only talking about how evil democrats are? There are plenty of people doing that.

You first have to change hearts and minds, especially when you are as young as he and his followers are. He's still only 27. He has a daily show where he is explaining his views. And what if he wanted to build a coalition with Kirk or Shapiro? Those people wouldn't talk to him. Who would you recommend him building his coalition with? You say you know what his beliefs and goals are because you watch him. So who is a good person for him to team up with? I'm sure there's not one person you can name who he hasn't explained his major, deal-breaking disagreement with them.

Citing 80% of this country's population doesn't mean that much to me lol. Also those people can't factually explain their problems with Fuentes. I still don't think you've done an adequate job. You just said "blaming Jews and minorities" in your first paragraph as a catch-all. That has no substance.

The country needs people like him if we are going to be a prosperous nation. We need to be America First. We need to turn the immigration faucet off. We need to lock up criminals. We need to make this a country based on Christian principles. We need Christ.

---

Soros isn't really even a Jew. He was born a Jew, collaborated with the Nazis during WWII, and is an atheist. He's pretty much a Bond villain.

If you don't think Fuentes crass attitude towards Jews and minorities is a serious problem that's something I guess you just need to figure out. Like I said, David Duke was convincing as hell too so long as you gave him the benefit of the doubt. Damn near became Governor of Louisiana and he actually did quite well in some of his debates.

Not arguing that Fuentes says many things I agree with or that he can't be convincing. He also repels people and comes across terribly beyond his viewpoints. I get the attraction I just know better, I hope you figure it out as well.

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

---

ah, the self-appointed hall monitors of the dying internet polemics subculture. they don't have much to offer but bad sociology stapled to proof-texted lutheranism. tbh you'd be better off just listening to fuentes.

---

When it comes to theology and its relevance to modern culture? There is no one better. Their Septuagint series is one of the greatest pieces of modern theological research I have ever seen.

---

please. if by "greatest modern theological research" you mean reading greek aloud on a podcast and then straining it through culture-war talking points, sure, they've mastered that particular circus act.

podcasters waving flashcards falls well short of serious scholarship. recycling arguments already refuted centuries ago for a midlife crisis podcast bro audience is just tedious posturing.

---

You clearly listened to none of it if that's what you think they did. They reference no culture war aspects at all. They went into the history of the LXX, the history of the church going back to the early church up through the Protestant Reformation. Then they systematically broke down the OT and NT to show why the LXX should be used as the sole source for the OT.

For example, there are only 7 total verses in the NT that reference the ancient Hebrew and all of these refer to the original Ancient Hebrew text that was used by the LXX and not to the rabbinic Hebrew that came later. Every other quote or reference in the NT is to the LXX.

The entire 8 part series was about the translations of the Bible and why we have been using the incorrect reference text for the creation of Bibles globally and how that came to be.

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

---

ah, the self-appointed hall monitors of the dying internet polemics subculture. they don't have much to offer but bad sociology stapled to proof-texted lutheranism. tbh you'd be better off just listening to fuentes.

---

When it comes to theology and its relevance to modern culture? There is no one better. Their Septuagint series is one of the greatest pieces of modern theological research I have ever seen.

---

please. if by "greatest modern theological research" you mean reading greek aloud on a podcast and then straining it through culture-war talking points, sure, they've mastered that particular circus act.

podcasters waving flashcards falls well short of serious scholarship. recycling arguments already refuted centuries ago for a midlife crisis podcast bro audience is just tedious posturing.

---

You clearly listened to none of it if that's what you think they did. They reference no culture war aspects at all. They went into the history of the LXX, the history of the church going back to the early church up through the Protestant Reformation. Then they systematically broke down the OT and NT to show why the LXX should be used as the sole source for the OT.

For example, there are only 7 total verses in the NT that reference the ancient Hebrew and all of these refer to the original Ancient Hebrew text that was used by the LXX and not to the rabbinic Hebrew that came later. Every other quote or reference in the NT is to the LXX.

The entire 8 part series was about the translations of the Bible and why we have been using the incorrect reference text for the creation of Bibles globally and how that came to be.

---

and yet, for all the grand claims of "systematically breaking down" scripture, what you're really celebrating is theological dilettantism with a mic. the church has debated canon, text families, and translation philosophy for two millennia, the idea that a couple of content creators have suddenly cracked the code is laughable.

your example about the nt "only" referencing the hebrew in seven places? that's not an original finding, it's been known and hashed out in biblical studies for ages. reducing the complexity of textual history to a scoreboard between "ancient hebrew" and "rabbinic hebrew" is the kind of simplification that only works on an audience untrained in the subject.

it's a rehash, dressed up for a niche culture-war subculture that thinks rediscovering what scholars already know makes them bold truth-tellers.

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

This in a nutshell is part of the real divide. It is the ruling generation's fault (and narrative setters actually in control have been more than 80% left) that the youth are being driven to dabble in more extreme and frisky precedents that at least did deal effectively with lawlessness and Marxism. Its the near impotence of the prior that forces this.

But know this-- many of GenX do not scold your wanting the country back. They fear for your prospects in such an obviously anti-Western, and yes, anti-white, political and press block that only now is finally getting some direct removals.

They only question just what past lessons are being taken up. They do not side with the go-along-get-along either.

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

Kirk was very much a Boomer Con. Young people liked him because he went to the young people, but there's a reason older people liked him too. He was a middle of the road, Republican Party man.

He also didn't hammer the groypers at all, unless you consider ad hominem and straw men to be hammering them. TPUSA could never adequately answer how an*l sex helps the conservative movement. They couldn't answer how America's foreign policy wasn't Israel-first and not America first. He couldn't answer how allowing millions of legal immigrants to take the high quality jobs was America first.

Thinking who came out on top in the groyper wars says a lot about that person. The TPUSA people were made to look like fools, despite having weeks advance knowing these questions would be asked.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them.

---

Yeah I'd also like specific examples of weak arguments.

Are you trying to say you openly cop to being racist?

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Are you trying to say you openly cop to being racist?

---

"Racist" and "anti-semitism" have different meanings to each person using those words.

You're a racist to somebody to the left of you.

Good point

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

For instance?

Kvetch said:

---

Keyno said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Seems like you have a bigger problem with the style over (most of) the substance. That's probably generational. It's bothersome to the younger generations that the older generations have completely failed us and then scold us when we say we want our country back.

Hopefully the younger right wingers will be ready to effectively wield power. The older generations have been completely ineffective, if not intentionally evil.

---

I don't like the style but there are plenty of effective people that I don't like their style. What I don't have much respect for is people that try to use their style to overcome weakness in arguments. That's less relevant though, what is relevant is that if you have a bad message and you present it in a way that turns all but a very small minority of people off who that's not effective.

We have lots of effective and intelligent voices in the conservative movement who are actually getting things done. Charlie was one of them and Charlie would hammer Groypers like Fuentes and send them packing. Or is liking guys like Kirk an "older generations" thing? I brought up Duke because he was very much like Fuentes 25 years ago in watching him. I've seen the show before.

Like I said, I hope you figure it out along your journey.

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

His arguments are based in logic and fact in the same way Andrew Tate's are based in logic of fact. One kernel of truth surrounded by garbage.

---

And that is the glaring contradiction with anyone claiming that they support "market place of ideas", or the so called "debate me" bros. "Facts don't care about your feelings". Even Kirk's "prove me wrong" slogan. If Fuentes is so off base and incorrect, it would be EASY for anyone to defeat him in a debate. Not only would it be easy, it would destroy his credibility and potentially end his career. But none of these people will debate him. It's both because he is a skilled debater, and he has the truth on his side.

Keyno said:

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

fuentes is a carnival act. he leans on sophomoric whataboutisms, willful misreadings of history, and the kind of contrived syllogisms that collapse under the weight of a freshman seminar question. serious thinkers don't engage because there's nothing to engage with.

Yes I did.

His growth in popularity and subscription is massive..... I think he had a 900K stream the other night on Rumble and X simultaneously.

The left made this happen by killing Kirk who opposed the fringe thinking/statements of Fuentes ... .and Fuentes is capitalizing on it by aligning himself with Kirk's values and saying 'See what they did? We tried the nice guy approach' (paraphrasing).

He is saying a lot of the right things and expressing outrage in a way that reaches people - but I am greatly concerned that he truly has white supremacist tendencies. But his associations/friendships with Kanye, Myron, and the Tate Brothers are noted......

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

fuentes is a carnival act. he leans on sophomoric whataboutisms, willful misreadings of history, and the kind of contrived syllogisms that collapse under the weight of a freshman seminar question. serious thinkers don't engage because there's nothing to engage with.

---

You discount him as a carnival act....

He has an extremely high IQ level. Serious thinkers don't engage?

You are not paying attention. Serious thinkers who wont engage only invalidate their own claims when they are not willing to have their views scrutinized.

Serious thinkers are going to have to engage. Seriously.

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

fuentes is a carnival act. he leans on sophomoric whataboutisms, willful misreadings of history, and the kind of contrived syllogisms that collapse under the weight of a freshman seminar question. serious thinkers don't engage because there's nothing to engage with.

---

Not an excuse, many of these debate guys like Shapiro, Steven Crowder, etc regularly debate the most low IQ liberal freakshows. Kirk famously did this as well. They will/would debate the most low IQ, insane liberals all the time, because liberals are easy to beat in open debate. They refuse Fuentes because they know they would lose.

serious thinkers don't legitimize mid-tier provocateurs, and refusing to wrestle with his shtick doesn't weaken their case. it shows they recognize what he is: a niche internet personality selling smugness to an audience that mistakes contrarian noise for insight.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

The reason that nobody will debate Fuentes is actually because his arguments are backed by logic and fact, and the liberal world order consensus has no answer for them. Charlie famously refused to debate Fuentes

---

fuentes is a carnival act. he leans on sophomoric whataboutisms, willful misreadings of history, and the kind of contrived syllogisms that collapse under the weight of a freshman seminar question. serious thinkers don't engage because there's nothing to engage with.

---

You discount him as a carnival act....

He has an extremely high IQ level. Serious thinkers don't engage?

You are not paying attention. Serious thinkers who wont engage only invalidate their own claims when they are not willing to have their views scrutinized.

Serious thinkers are going to have to engage. Seriously.

---

This. It is the catch-22. Anything else looks like Left marginalization by emotion rather the argument. What is so damn tragic is Charlie Kirk was effectively making the case for the approach `not so rightward' --- and look what happened. There is peculiar feature in our discourse that gives a mulligan to commmunism and is unilateral against harsher right. That's not going to work. The dichotomy is too obvious. And again, they killed gratuitously -- and here refer to the hate lies put about Kirk beforehand as much as the deed -- the one saying should use reason. Its hard to see why more don't see where this leads.

shapiro, crowder, and kirk lined up easy targets to content farm. the point is entertainment, not debate.

fuentes is left out because engaging him has no upside. giving him a stage proves nothing and just helps him sell the illusion that he matters.

TheEternalOptimist said:

---

Yes I did.

His growth in popularity and subscription is massive..... I think he had a 900K stream the other night on Rumble and X simultaneously.

The left made this happen by killing Kirk who opposed the fringe thinking/statements of Fuentes ... .and Fuentes is capitalizing on it by aligning himself with Kirk's values and saying 'See what they did? We tried the nice guy approach' (paraphrasing).

He is saying a lot of the right things and expressing outrage in a way that reaches people - but I am greatly concerned that he truly has white supremacist tendencies. But his associations/friendships with Kanye, Myron, and the Tate Brothers are noted......

---

Watch any appearance by him on someone else's YouTube channel. He's almost always asked if he's a white supremacist and he says no. Then he explains what he does believe and why.

Old McDonald said:

---

shapiro, crowder, and kirk lined up easy targets to content farm. the point is entertainment, not debate.

fuentes is left out because engaging him has no upside. giving him a stage proves nothing and just helps him sell the illusion that he matters.

---

I agree with the bold absolutely. I don't necessarily blame them for refusing to debate. I would also refuse to do something which I know would go badly for me.

Old McDonald said:

---

shapiro, crowder, and kirk lined up easy targets to content farm. the point is entertainment, not debate.

fuentes is left out because engaging him has no upside. giving him a stage proves nothing and just helps him sell the illusion that he matters.

---

But they said the point was debate. So they are proven to be liars/grifters.

Of course there is upside. You could successfully debate him and make him look stupid to his followers. You could gain followers with your superior arguments. The problem is the groypers made Con, Inc. look stupid at all their own events. They don't have superior arguments, so they know they can't be successful in a debate. In that sense, there is no upside.

These people pretend they're for open debate then won't do perhaps what would be the most important right wing debate in recent history. Don't be surprised when your sincerity and/or intelligence is then questioned.

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Stone Choir said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

difficult to believe someone who views nick fuentes as moderate has a solid pulse on the state of conservatism

---

I said he's moderate in comparison to his followers not to general conservatism.

---

what is your view of nick fuentes?

---

I don't care much for him because he's never really matured beyond what he was in 2017. I'm a married man with kids, what he has to say has little relevance to me. Hence the reason I pay more attention to the Christian nationalist side like Joel Webbon, Stone Choir (Woe and Corey Mahler), etc.

---

ah, the self-appointed hall monitors of the dying internet polemics subculture. they don't have much to offer but bad sociology stapled to proof-texted lutheranism. tbh you'd be better off just listening to fuentes.

---

When it comes to theology and its relevance to modern culture? There is no one better. Their Septuagint series is one of the greatest pieces of modern theological research I have ever seen.

---

please. if by "greatest modern theological research" you mean reading greek aloud on a podcast and then straining it through culture-war talking points, sure, they've mastered that particular circus act.

podcasters waving flashcards falls well short of serious scholarship. recycling arguments already refuted centuries ago for a midlife crisis podcast bro audience is just tedious posturing.

---

You clearly listened to none of it if that's what you think they did. They reference no culture war aspects at all. They went into the history of the LXX, the history of the church going back to the early church up through the Protestant Reformation. Then they systematically broke down the OT and NT to show why the LXX should be used as the sole source for the OT.

For example, there are only 7 total verses in the NT that reference the ancient Hebrew and all of these refer to the original Ancient Hebrew text that was used by the LXX and not to the rabbinic Hebrew that came later. Every other quote or reference in the NT is to the LXX.

The entire 8 part series was about the translations of the Bible and why we have been using the incorrect reference text for the creation of Bibles globally and how that came to be.

---

and yet, for all the grand claims of "systematically breaking down" scripture, what you're really celebrating is theological dilettantism with a mic. the church has debated canon, text families, and translation philosophy for two millennia, the idea that a couple of content creators have suddenly cracked the code is laughable.

your example about the nt "only" referencing the hebrew in seven places? that's not an original finding, it's been known and hashed out in biblical studies for ages. reducing the complexity of textual history to a scoreboard between "ancient hebrew" and "rabbinic hebrew" is the kind of simplification that only works on an audience untrained in the subject.

it's a rehash, dressed up for a niche culture-war subculture that thinks rediscovering what scholars already know makes them bold truth-tellers.

---

They didn't crack the code, this is an issue that has come up repeatedly through the history of the church. Here is one mention of the exact same issue from 248 AD.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-africanus2.html

There have been numerous scholars that have mentioned the problems with the usage of the rabbinic text for thousands of years.

Nicholas Donin in 1200s, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1400s, and many more.

Stone Choir repeatedly made the point that this is not new information at all, it was just something the church seemingly forgot beginning with Jerome's creation of the Vulgate.

The early church solely used the LXX as its text. It never once referred to any Hebrew until Jerome made a mistake with the Latin Vulgate. I understand he needed to create a Latin Bible because Greek usage was dying in the West but he should have translated the LXX and should never have gone to the rabbis to translate ancient Hebrew.

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

shapiro, crowder, and kirk lined up easy targets to content farm. the point is entertainment, not debate.

fuentes is left out because engaging him has no upside. giving him a stage proves nothing and just helps him sell the illusion that he matters.

---

I agree with the bold absolutely. I don't necessarily blame them for refusing to debate. I would also refuse to do something which I know would go badly for me.

---

it's not fear, just basic hygiene. no one volunteers to swim in sewage just to prove they can hold their breath.

Stonegateag85 said:

---

Are you trying to say you openly cop to being racist?

---

Yes