[flagged]
If we are to listen to Charlie Kirk, then we must acknowledge that his death was merely a freak accident, and the price of freedom in this country. We should do what Charlie would want us to do, and move on.
Also, Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a bigot. His bad faith debate shtick was a vehicle for accelerating his racist views, which he was very successful at, and the only reason anyone wants to name this center after him is to glorify him as a martyr to that cause, in other words, for the sake of white supremacist propaganda. The party very much wants Charlie Kirk to be their Horst Wessel. That's what this is about, it's a grift.
Negative reaction to this isn't due to anyone having an "allergy to even bad faith debate" (which, itself, and ironically, is exactly the kind of bad faith debate we're discussing) but because reasonable people don't want to see buildings named after neo-Nazi shitposters.
Still, I find it hard to get past the fact that: he was killed because of what he believed, not because he endangered anyone, not in self defense. Can you not see the connection to this center?
You know exactly what I'm talking about, you're just feigning ignorance and I'm not interested in playing the game.
>Can you not see the connection to this center?
There is no connection beyond white supremacists wanting to turn someone who was, at best, a mid-level right-wing influencer into a martyr for their beliefs in order to normalize those beliefs and galvanize hatred and retribution against their enemies. Which they tried to do but it all burned out in a few days of right-wing hate speech on Twitter.
But if you're looking for a political activist killed for their beliefs, there are plenty to choose from - MLK Jr., Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Manuel "Tortuguita" Terán, Sean Kealiher, Joe Hill, Yanar Mohammed, Muhsin Hendricks, Harvey Milk, and others. People who actually tried to advance the freedom of actually oppressed groups, instead of the grudges of white men.
I'm not responding further to this thread. I'll give you whatever gotcha reply you have at the ready and bid you good night.
Ironically this is a "bad faith shtick." You made a claim that has no basis in reality and failed to back it up. Charlie Kirk was many thing, but a neo-Nazi he was not.
Also there's this: https://www.imdb.com/news/ni63814717/
In the sense that it doesn't work? Well it definitely works, gender affirming care like TRT helps men all the time. Breast implants help women after breast cancer related mastectomies. Vaginoplasty also commonly helps traumatic rape victims, too.
Or, do you mean debunked as in debunked in helping people with gender dysphoria? Because that's wrong too, we know that gender affirming care leads to less suicide in that population.
Because suicide is so rare and the number of people receiving gender affirming care is so low it is nearly impossible to get population sizes to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in suicide.
We can instead show a statistically significant reduction in depression, anxiety, and suicidal thinking. In every other medical context this is used as a strong shorthand for "reduces suicides." It is completely reasonable here as well.
At some point you need to understand this is why 95% of the population disagrees with your side.
Good luck! I will stop responding here because you seem ill-equipped to form a substantive argument.
But okay. Imagine that in this circumstance it really is the case that gender affirming care doesn't reduce suicide rates (rather than this just being difficult to collect data about). It merely reduces depression and anxiety and suicidal ideation in people. Oh no. That still sounds good to me.
Also, you pulled the 95% number directly out of your asshole. Most people don't give a shit if someone gets hormones prescribed by a doctor. You care for reasons that are unclear and you have failed to explain. I'm guessing because they're stupid reasons, and you know it, and you don't want to embarrass yourself so you figure you can just not say anything and hope nobody notices.
It is so incredibly rich to be talking about a "substantitive argument" when you haven't even brought AN argument. You just said "uh it don't work" and "durr people don't like this" and then refused to elaborate further.
Yes, you should stop responding because obviously you are far out of your depth and liable to humiliate yourself.