I'm guessing you missed the Cambridge debate?
Yes.
I'd watched it originally through the breakdown being made by 'Rationality Rules' during a binge of that channel, but after a tiny bit of it I went with watching the actual thing first without edits:
It exposes the differences between being a genuine debater, and that of a provocateur who tried to sell a 'best of' compilation as if that were the only thing going on.
She's employed a tactic called a Gish Gallop. Overwhelming ones opponent with various information and a lot of it. Another word for that would be nagging. The tone of her voice, the tempo of her speech and of course, reading her script on her phone.
Charlie stayed calm and asked questions to better understand where she's coming from, and made valid points, western women, at the loud ones are the most unhappy women, even though they have more than other women in the world. None of his responses, makes him, as you say, a provocateur.
England is what you would call a very progressive place, hence it's insanely high rate of violent crime and pending destruction, so of course their Universities would be loaded with woke people.
Fighting for women's rights in this day and age is beating a dead horse. As I say that some will see red and come charging the way you were wired to, but western women have it good. Just regularly unhappy and prone to regret later in life.
What's ironic about feminism... It requires male blessings so much, it demands it endlessly.
Charlie Kirk was not about truth, he was about cherry picking farmed reactions to skew a narrative.
That's your opinion along with the types of people you're aligned with.
Every Charlie Kirk event is recorded, and also the public records it from multiple angles. But I get it. You're upset that there aren't enough shorts of Charlie tolerating a nag, or something like that.
