Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

That's right. its much better to do this bit and be applauded by midwits than actually engage arguments.

The right has spent so much time looking leftward at all those idiots that they thought they were the smartest people on the planet. But you forgot to look rightward and see there are better arguments then your own. If iron sharpens iron, the right has been sharpening it's blade on PB&Js.

Provide examples that he isn't a serious thinker.

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

the point was never open debate, it was manufactured spectacle to flatter their audience. debating fuentes would not expose his weakness, it would amplify his profile, which is the only win he ever gets.

that you think it would be the "most important right wing debate in recent history" just shows how small the stage really is.

Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

More ad hominem with no substance.

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

the point was never open debate, it was manufactured spectacle to flatter their audience. debating fuentes would not expose his weakness, it would amplify his profile, which is the only win he ever gets.

that you think it would be the "most important right wing debate in recent history" just shows how small the stage really is.

---

Again, that's not what they claimed.

They had no problem amplifying leftist claims/profiles and knocking them down with ease.

How do y'all not see how these arguments fail so easily?

Stone Choir said:

---

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.

---

Aside:
Stone Choir is into all that? That's certainly striking. One can easily say the period from 350 to Justinian's time is one of the most crucial and critical for grasping the then one Church and the issues that would follow. Part of Jerome's error stemmed from the fact he was also engaged in outreach, and trying to understand differences of view, so its natural he would think you might go to remaining elements of the `source' to translate. But since Jamnia council, that had pitfalls.

Aside end, just had to comment on that.

i'll be happy to engage the merits of his arguments as soon as he, or any of his surrogates in this thread, produces an argument with merit. until then, there's nothing to debate

Old McDonald said:

---

i'll be happy to engage the merits of his arguments as soon as he, or any of his surrogates in this thread, produces an argument with merit. until then, there's nothing to debate

---

TLDR: I don't know anything about him.

Every time.

shack009 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

the point was never open debate, it was manufactured spectacle to flatter their audience. debating fuentes would not expose his weakness, it would amplify his profile, which is the only win he ever gets.

that you think it would be the "most important right wing debate in recent history" just shows how small the stage really is.

---

Again, that's not what they claimed.

They had no problem amplifying leftist claims/profiles and knocking them down with ease.

How do y'all not see how these arguments fail so easily?

---

they amplify leftist profiles because those "debates" are easy content, not because they believe in some sacred mission of open exchange. debating a clueless sophomore is low-risk, high-reward. debating fuentes is high-risk, no-reward. you don't "beat" him, you just give him oxygen.

titan 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:

---

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.

---

Aside:
Stone Choir is into all that? That's certainly striking. One can easily say the period from 350 to Justinian's time is one of the most crucial and critical for grasping the then one Church and the issues that would follow. Part of Jerome's error stemmed from the fact he was also engaged in outreach, and trying to understand differences of view, so its natural he would think you might go to remaining elements of the `source' to translate. But since Jamnia council, that had pitfalls.

Aside end, just had to comment on that.

---

Yes, they go deep into church history. They have an entire 3 hour episode where they go into all of the times where the church took one step away from the LXX or had a chance to use it but did not.

This is both a Catholic and Protestant issue. Luther, for example, hated Esther and wanted to remove it but ultimately kept it. If he had just used the LXX then he would have realized why it was a good book because Esther in the LXX is nothing like Esther in the rabbinic texts. The former mentions God more than 50 times while the latter never mentions God at all.

Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes all vary significantly. Further, the timelines in the LXX matchup far better with archeological timelines as well.

I could go on and on about the topic but they made an 8 part series about it that is around 20 hours long. The whole series is amazing.

Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

But they swim with deranged leftists regularly

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

This statement is just so off base I don't know where to begin. My 18 and 22 year old sons loved Kirk and it sure as hell wasn't because he was a "Boomer Con", they loved him because he spoke to them and took on the left and beat them over and over again with sound logical arguments. My sons loved how they could use Kirk and the points that he made to bring people who were on the Left over to his side. Kirk did more to shift the GOP to the right as anyone since Rush Limbaugh as well. I had my disagreements with Charlie btw and spoke about them here, personally I think he allowed his loyalty to Trump to eskew his conservative values for instance. Still no one is perfect and he did 1000x more good than ill.

Plenty of video out there of Kirk throwing groypers out of his events because he saw them as destructive to the conservative movement. Kirk also saw homosexuality as a sin but he saw everyone as a sinner except Jesus and he separated his religious beliefs from political reality. He knew if you won't work with anyone who doesn't meet your idea of sinfulness you will have no one and he spoke about how there were areas where people can disagree or not and still work together. The other issues also are complex and you are looking for purity tests.

If you think TPUSA looks like fools and groypers are seen as credible I mean that's fine, everyone gets an opinion. That said very few people agree with you and I'll pray for you. Guys like Fuentes are engaging and are great at stirring anger but it's kind of like how a lot of young men start with Andrew Tate and eventually move to Jordan Peterson, I hope you are one of them. It's telling to me that Fuentes is trying to use Charlie's death as a self promotion device, he is adept at trying to channel anger I will give him that.

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

the point was never open debate, it was manufactured spectacle to flatter their audience. debating fuentes would not expose his weakness, it would amplify his profile, which is the only win he ever gets.

that you think it would be the "most important right wing debate in recent history" just shows how small the stage really is.

---

Again, that's not what they claimed.

They had no problem amplifying leftist claims/profiles and knocking them down with ease.

How do y'all not see how these arguments fail so easily?

---

they amplify leftist profiles because those "debates" are easy content, not because they believe in some sacred mission of open exchange. debating a clueless sophomore is low-risk, high-reward. debating fuentes is high-risk, no-reward. you don't "beat" him, you just give him oxygen.

---

Im not sure why you're struggling with this so much. Con Inc. stated the purpose for these tours was open debate and marketplace of ideas.

You may be correct about their actual purpose. But that's not what was stated. Thus, they were proven to be liars/grifters in that regard.

shack009 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

the point was never open debate, it was manufactured spectacle to flatter their audience. debating fuentes would not expose his weakness, it would amplify his profile, which is the only win he ever gets.

that you think it would be the "most important right wing debate in recent history" just shows how small the stage really is.

---

Again, that's not what they claimed.

They had no problem amplifying leftist claims/profiles and knocking them down with ease.

How do y'all not see how these arguments fail so easily?

---

they amplify leftist profiles because those "debates" are easy content, not because they believe in some sacred mission of open exchange. debating a clueless sophomore is low-risk, high-reward. debating fuentes is high-risk, no-reward. you don't "beat" him, you just give him oxygen.

---

Im not sure why you're struggling with this so much. Con Inc. stated the purpose for these tours was open debate and marketplace of ideas.

You may be correct about their actual purpose. But that's not what was stated. Thus, they were proven to be liars/grifters in that regard.

---

on that we agree. fuentes' brand of provocation for profit is just a newer flavor of it.

Charlie Kirk was an actual Christian. He was charitable, spoke of God's grace and God's plan for all humans. He loved God with all his heart and he spread the gospel message at every stop he went to. His politics followed from (flowed from) his Faith. Loving God requires us to a) love others and b) speak the truth to them even if it means they are sometimes confronted with difficult messages. Love AND truth.

Fuentes isn't a Christian. At all. He hates certain people. So what he preaches is not aligned with God and not intended to unify people around a Savior who loves them and wants to show them the Grace of forgiveness.

aggie93 said:

---

shack009 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.

---

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.

---

This statement is just so off base I don't know where to begin. My 18 and 22 year old sons loved Kirk and it sure as hell wasn't because he was a "Boomer Con", they loved him because he spoke to them and took on the left and beat them over and over again with sound logical arguments. My sons loved how they could use Kirk and the points that he made to bring people who were on the Left over to his side. Kirk did more to shift the GOP to the right as anyone since Rush Limbaugh as well. I had my disagreements with Charlie btw and spoke about them here, personally I think he allowed his loyalty to Trump to eskew his conservative values for instance. Still no one is perfect and he did 1000x more good than ill.

Plenty of video out there of Kirk throwing groypers out of his events because he saw them as destructive to the conservative movement. Kirk also saw homosexuality as a sin but he saw everyone as a sinner except Jesus and he separated his religious beliefs from political reality. He knew if you won't work with anyone who doesn't meet your idea of sinfulness you will have no one and he spoke about how there were areas where people can disagree or not and still work together. The other issues also are complex and you are looking for purity tests.

If you think TPUSA looks like fools and groypers are seen as credible I mean that's fine, everyone gets an opinion. That said very few people agree with you and I'll pray for you. Guys like Fuentes are engaging and are great at stirring anger but it's kind of like how a lot of young men start with Andrew Tate and eventually move to Jordan Peterson, I hope you are one of them. It's telling to me that Fuentes is trying to use Charlie's death as a self promotion device, he is adept at trying to channel anger I will give him that.

---

Your last bolded sentence negates the first. He was a Party man who cared more about the GOP/Trump winning elections than he did about policies that help Americans or being a traditional conservative. Being party first with Israel-First foreign policy makes you a Boomer Con, along with name calling anybody further right than him.

Your kids will also be wholly unprepared to grapple with arguments that challenge their positions from the right. That's because of people like Charlie Kirk.

You say "purity test" but what it actually is is an important worldview that shapes someone's thoughts/actions that puts their core beliefs in conflict with your own. We aren't talking about disagreeing on the top marginal tax rate.

I think the Tates are abhorrent and I think Jordan Peterson is a great person for people, particularly young people, to take personal life advice from.

You love saying "stirring anger" as if it's some profound statement. It means nothing. Con, Inc. loves "stirring anger" against Democrats.

I appreciate the prayers, I'll take all I can get!

WestAustinAg said:

---

Charlie Kirk was an actual Christian. He was charitable, spoke of God's grace and God's plan for all humans. He loved God with all his heart and he spread the gospel message at every stop he went to. His politics followed from (flowed from) his Faith. Loving God requires us to a) love others and b) speak the truth to them even if it means they are sometimes confronted with difficult messages. Love AND truth.

Fuentes isn't a Christian. At all. He hates certain people. So what he preaches is not aligned with God and not intended to unify people around a Savior who loves them and wants to show them the Grace of forgiveness.

---

False, and he states as much quite often.

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

I still don't know who he is.

One raving nutcase chatting with another.

Keyno said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

---

Amusing short trailer. Absolutely scoffing at the Candace style model. And as Brand puts it, if he won't blame Israel, its absolutely not. Brand is hard to categorize, but know he has a large following too -- probably the phrase would use -- for those with some iconoclast bents already --- a crazier Rogan show? Kind of like it, frank? Really can't say. Have see a few of Brand's casts.

titan said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

---

Amusing short trailer. Absolutely scoffing at the Candace style model. And as Brand puts it, if he won't blame Israel, its absolutely not. Brand is hard to categorize, but know he has a large following too -- probably the phrase would use -- for those with some iconoclast bents already --- a crazier Rogan show? Kind of like it, frank? Really can't say. Have see a few of Brand's casts.

---

The discussion is up now (I don't think it's live). Brand really talks ALOT.

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

But they swim with deranged leftists regularly

---

because staging a dunk on a freshman socialist is easy content. sewage is still sewage, whether it's fuentes or a campus leftist.

Keyno said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

---

The strong message I got is that he's an anti-Semitic idiot!

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

---

The strong message I got is that he's an anti-Semitic idiot!

---

Clearly not watching. He has not said anything anti Semitic haha

Keyno said:

---

titan said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

---

Amusing short trailer. Absolutely scoffing at the Candace style model. And as Brand puts it, if he won't blame Israel, its absolutely not. Brand is hard to categorize, but know he has a large following too -- probably the phrase would use -- for those with some iconoclast bents already --- a crazier Rogan show? Kind of like it, frank? Really can't say. Have see a few of Brand's casts.

---

The discussion is up now (I don't think it's live). Brand really talks ALOT.

---

Brand uses street English and doesn't pull back from certain topics. It might be worthwhile to see what their push backs against one another reveal as actual stances. You see more in such than monologue podcasts -- its what makes Rogan entertaining and informative both. An exception is overly scripted and moderated debates. Those reveal little.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

posting cause i read earlier in this thread that no one listens to fuentes, or gives him the time of day, or something to that effect. Well heres russell brand and his 11M followers amplifying his voice. People aren't going to be able to ignore him much longer, especially if the trump admin can't secure any indictments against the radical left

Today’s show is a wild one, mate.

Join me and @NickJFuentes for a remarkable conversation on Rumble at 12pm CT.

See you there. pic.twitter.com/wOAxMK1UNY

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) September 18, 2025

---

Nick sending a strong message in this one

---

The strong message I got is that he's an anti-Semitic idiot!

---

The deprograming is hard, and never happens for many.

It's really comical seeing all the mudslinging and name-calling coming from people who despise the left for being mudslinging name-callers.

They don't realize they are having the same conversation that they have with leftists, only they're the leftists in this instance.

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

But they swim with deranged leftists regularly

---

because staging a dunk on a freshman socialist is easy content. sewage is still sewage, whether it's fuentes or a campus leftist.

---

Charlie Kirk debating Nick Fuentes would have been the most watched political stream of all time.

shack009 said:

---

It's really comical seeing all the mudslinging and name-calling coming from people who despise the left for being mudslinging name-callers.

They don't realize they are having the same conversation that they have with leftists, only they're the leftists in this instance.

---

Thats hilarious and accurate.

Stone Choir said:

---

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.

---

you're right that the lxx vs hebrew debate is ancient. origen's correspondence with africanus, jerome's prefaces to the vulgate, the humanist critiques in the renaissance, all of this has always been a live issue in textual history. but that's precisely why stone choir's treatment rings hollow.

serious scholarship doesn't flatten the problem into "jerome made a mistake." the vulgate was part of a broad westward linguistic shift, and jerome had access to hebrew manuscripts we don't. modern textual criticism balances septuagint witnesses, masoretic manuscripts, the dead sea scrolls, targums, and patristic citations. it's complex, scholarly work.

what stone choir offers instead is a polemical cartoon. they take this conversation and reduce it to a morality tale: the church "forgot" the lxx, jerome "betrayed" it, and only now are the enlightened podcasters reviving the true bible. that move betrays their hand. it's branding, not scholarship. by skipping the actual complexity, they reveal themselves as shams dressing up in scholarly language to impress an audience that doesn't know better.

shack009 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

But they swim with deranged leftists regularly

---

because staging a dunk on a freshman socialist is easy content. sewage is still sewage, whether it's fuentes or a campus leftist.

---

Charlie Kirk debating Nick Fuentes would have been the most watched political stream of all time.

---

not even close. a kirk vs. fuentes spat would pull numbers in the same league as a twitch drama stream. calling it "the most watched of all time" just shows how small the niche really is.

double post

Old McDonald said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

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.

---

But they swim with deranged leftists regularly

---

because staging a dunk on a freshman socialist is easy content. sewage is still sewage, whether it's fuentes or a campus leftist.

---

Charlie Kirk debating Nick Fuentes would have been the most watched political stream of all time.

---

not even close. a kirk vs. fuentes spat would pull numbers in the same league as a twitch drama stream. calling it "the most watched of all time" just shows how small the niche really is.

---

Yeah, that's why I said "political." I realize there are twitch streamers and gamers that get tens to hundreds of millions of views. But those are inconsequential.

A debate for the heart/future of the right wing would have been massive. Tens of millions of views within a month for sure.

the biggest political streams are presidential debates, state of the union addresses, and high-profile hearings, those involving the actual future of the country. kirk vs. fuentes was a niche quarrel inside the right, with appeal mostly to people already terminally online.