Sociopath Community

I guess experts and especially complex topics are not entertaining, and often operate at a level that is difficult to parse without the right domain knowledge, but they used to have people try to break those down and promote complex ideas to the public [1].

Maybe we need something like that. Joe Rogan has managed to do it with some of his podcasts.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JJB2q8ufAgk&pp=ygUNaGlsYXJ5IHB1dG5hbQ%3D%3D

I saw the debate coming and it's been on my feed. 

These days I don't pay mind to a lot of media. Debates between Owens and Wilson. Nah. I find them both very neggy so I expect the debate to be some egotistical slug fest.

Inside job ? Possibly. Kirk would've became the President of the United States, very powerful people would've wanted him dead, the guy is MAGA. America's choice. The same people who hate him are the same people who hate Trump, and Trump, I believe is up to 6 assassination attempts, by, I don't know, the radical left. DNC's future is comprised of unpopular people that don't inspire masses, and no one will be shooting at them. That's how it's been.

Inside job or not, it wouldn't surprise me. Conspiracy, or conspiracy theory. No real difference. What side it's coming from is clear though. 

Expertds and specialists should be training and proof reading AI responses to perfect all AI models to give good expert and specialist responses. Live not for oursevles, live for the future to come... this is the meaning of nietzsches ubmbermensch.

Spatial Mind said: 

These days I don't pay mind to a lot of media. Debates between Owens and Wilson. Nah. I find them both very neggy so I expect the debate to be some egotistical slug fest. Inside job? Possibly. Kirk would've became the President of the United States, very powerful people would've wanted him dead, the guy is MAGA. America's choice. The same people who hate him are the same people who hate Trump, and Trump, I believe is up to 6 assassination attempts, by, I don't know, the radical left. DNC's future is comprised of unpopular people that don't inspire masses, and no one will be shooting at them. That's how it's been.

Inside job or not, it wouldn't surprise me. Conspiracy, or conspiracy theory. No real difference. What side it's coming from is clear though. 

“Inside job” isn't supported by the fact that Kirk was politically influential or MAGA. That's just a motive you are imagining. Likewise, Trump's documented assassination attempts don't establish that they were carried out by “the radical left,” much less that they were connected to Kirk's killing. The FBI investigated the Butler shooting as an assassination attempt and initially said the shooter appeared to have acted alone, while the current Kirk case is proceeding against an identified defendant.

“Conspiracy or conspiracy theory, no real difference” is also nonsense. The entire distinction is whether there's evidence that the alleged coordination actually occurred. Saying “it wouldn't surprise me” is not evidence of an inside job. It's just saying you're already willing to believe one without establishing it.

What is the role of experts in today's world?

To sell you something. 

feral said: 

Expertds and specialists should be training and proof reading AI responses to perfect all AI models to give good expert and specialist responses. Live not for oursevles, live for the future to come... this is the meaning of nietzsches ubmbermensch.

 For example:

I can answer this from general knowledge, though I should note that my training data has a cutoff before August 2026, so I don't know if anything significant has happened to him recently.

Charlie Kirk is a conservative political activist and media personality. He's known for:

Founding Turning Point USA — a youth-focused conservative organization that recruits college students and organizes activism
Media presence — he hosts a podcast and appears regularly on conservative outlets
Campus activism — he's been visible in campus political organizing and debates
Younger conservative demographic — he's part of a generation of right-wing figures who appeal to Gen Z and younger millennials
He's prominent in conservative circles, so he gets attention from political media and from people who follow right-wing movements. That's why references to him show up in debates or political discussions.

However, I should flag something about your original post: You mentioned a debate about whether "Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk" — if that's accurate, this would be an extraordinary claim (suggesting Kirk was actually killed). That seems unlikely to be a real, widely-discussed event. It's possible:

The debate title was hyperbolic or joking
There's confusion about what the debate actually covered
I'm misunderstanding what you're describing
Could you clarify what the actual subject of that debate was? That would help me give you more useful context about why it might have been framed around Kirk.

Claude still has no fucking clue this guy is even dead. Is he dead?

Fixing this seems more important to me than platforming experts about it as the podcasters will be getting their information from AI.

Jada said: 

The too long didn't read of it is that Candace came to debate facts, primarily to cast doubt on the footage/witness statements/fingerprints on the gun, but overclaimed the strength of the evidence in favor of Tyler being framed. Andrew came to just meta debate, didn't prepare any facts, and refused to defend his own position. Both watered down their claims and didn't stick to anything substantive.

brother...candace came to debate facts? she literally said herself she has no definitive proof of anything, she came to "ask questions". because her and ian carrol and everyone grifting off this shit making a fortune are "just asking questions". when the debate was able to get into facts, like when andrew brought up that tyler robinson said to look at the footage and you'll see it was him, she denied this and asked for a fact-check, and got instantly refuted. idk if you're new to this, but candace owens has spent every day since charlie kirk's death milking every drop out of this udder, talking about time travelers, and that charlie kirk told her shit in dreams. oh i'll show you more texts, tune in next week

when andrew asks her for the positive proof that israel killed charlie kirk, she says her positive proof is that israel positively did it, lol. out of curiosity, how do you think andrew watered down his claims

that this is the level of critical analysis just goes to show how cooked people are. and that's not me stanning andrew either, he fumbled this debate by not understanding the objective. he was in there talking about "positive evidence"...you think that concept means anything to candace? she can't even pronounce "gibraltar" or "monstrosity". she says "montrocity"—this is a person who doesn't even understand that the "monstrous" is derived from "monster". serious problem on the right wing right now where the schizo retard Q-anon types have become totally emboldened and self-assured. to the point where hasan piker is now praising candace, because even though he says he thinks tyler robinson did it, she's doing them all a great favor by currying the attention away from leftist radicals

The debate format would've allowed them to present evidence, so I was expecting footage and pictures within the limitations of what they could show and then a deep-dive, but instead they just presented clips of each other so they could attack random tweets each made, plus what some random dudes said about the shooting. PBD as the mod just let it become a train wreck. The YouTube comments are basically fanboy comments with even less substance about how Owen wrecked Wilson and vice versa, I'm guessing mostly bots or people who live in the matrix.

it was very unstructured, yeah

The reason its a train wreck is because these people are just podcast bros with no real knowledge and they get platformed. The whole thing is run on ads which makes the experience of watching one of these psychotic. They talk about the murder of Charlie Kirk and the podcast will have repercussions to the legal case and its just wild to hear ads about penile medicine or w/e in-between the breaks. 

well that's candace's debate where after she gets paid 300k to do it, she also runs ads during it. because the most important thing when talking about your dear friend's death is that you interject ads revenue into it. but that being said, relevant information such as the legal aspects or the physics of ballistics were not at play

I think we need to get better at getting experts platformed in these debates. Theres a place for debate bros in the same way that Im supportive of high school students learning to discuss politics or to have scientific debate, but Ive seen a strange turn in the last 5 years where these debate bros have become _the_ people everyone listens to.

the courtroom is where that will happen. but unfortunately, people like candace and tucker carlson have cynically hijacked this conversation, and actually impeded the ability of the right to prosecute this form of left-wing extremism, which the left has no issue doing to the right

A cynical part of me thinks that they're doing it for the clicks but a more optimistic part of me feels like it's good that these sort of difficult topics have become a part of public discourse. However, I am fascinated that in the last 5 years there's been a loss of trust in the government institutions and in those people who've spent their entire lives working, say, prosecutors in criminal law, or working as police officers. Why are we apparentlu not promoting those people at all? Why is Candace Owen and Andrew Wilson the ones having "the big debate"? 

because no one wants to listen to some random uncharasmatic normie, it is what it is

...Do you think that the elitist "experts only" argument overused by the left to push their agenda has inadvertedly destroyed the public trust in... People who are genuinely informed on these topics? 

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nPhCKwJ6ye8&pp=ygUdQ2FuZGFjZSBvd2VuIGFuZCBjaGFybG9lIGtpcms%3D

it used to be that the only way you could get good information was underground journalists and characters, because the mainstream was totally corrupt. but now the underground has been totally poisoned by conspiratorial thinkers who everyone just believes in out of a misguided sense of rejecting the mainstream, specifically post october 7th when hamas flew into israel

Spatial Mind said: 

These days I don't pay mind to a lot of media. Debates between Owens and Wilson. Nah. I find them both very neggy so I expect the debate to be some egotistical slug fest.

it was a bit of a sass fest

Inside job ? Possibly. Kirk would've became the President of the United States, very powerful people would've wanted him dead, the guy is MAGA. America's choice. The same people who hate him are the same people who hate Trump, and Trump, I believe is up to 6 assassination attempts, by, I don't know, the radical left. DNC's future is comprised of unpopular people that don't inspire masses, and no one will be shooting at them. That's how it's been.

Inside job or not, it wouldn't surprise me. Conspiracy, or conspiracy theory. No real difference. What side it's coming from is clear though. 

when they say "inside job", they are really talking about israel. except that kirk was a zionist till the day he died, and a few texts candace said didn't change that, see his letter to netanyahu on how to turn around israel's image: https://www.scribd.com/document/924955773/Kirk-Letter. dude was always on their team and that's where a lot of TPUSA's money came from

Tryptamine said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

These days I don't pay mind to a lot of media. Debates between Owens and Wilson. Nah. I find them both very neggy so I expect the debate to be some egotistical slug fest.

it was a bit of a sass fest

Inside job ? Possibly. Kirk would've became the President of the United States, very powerful people would've wanted him dead, the guy is MAGA. America's choice. The same people who hate him are the same people who hate Trump, and Trump, I believe is up to 6 assassination attempts, by, I don't know, the radical left. DNC's future is comprised of unpopular people that don't inspire masses, and no one will be shooting at them. That's how it's been.

Inside job or not, it wouldn't surprise me. Conspiracy, or conspiracy theory. No real difference. What side it's coming from is clear though. 

when they say "inside job", they are really talking about israel. except that kirk was a zionist till the day he died, and a few texts candace said didn't change that, see his letter to netanyahu on how to turn around israel's image: https://www.scribd.com/document/924955773/Kirk-Letter. dude was always on their team and that's where a lot of TPUSA's money came from

 That debate is over 3 hours long. Tried to watch some clips and I'm watching 2 people argue about the Charlie Kirk assassination. Owens would have no way of knowing for sure what happened, it's all theory. Though her argument seems to call for more investigations.

I recall she's smeared Erika Kirk in the past, as though she had something to do with the death of her Husband. 

Not sure but I hear Wilson paid Owens $300,000 to debate her, and at a glance I'm seeing how Wilson got destroyed though analysts give it to Wilson for Owens failure to provide and evidence to her theories. 

Whole thing is dumb. I often say arguing theory isn't worthwhile, cause it's a theory. An uncertainty. No one should be certain of any theory and go as far as to argue it as fact. 

.

.

.

Tyler Robinson killed Kirk. While he's likely to get the death penalty I don't see him or his boyfriend pointing any fingers to any outside courses. 

Kirk had high intelligence, made the very Universities look stupid cause he was a drop out, who rose to fame and became a multi millionaire by various means. That fucker would've ran for president and still hand out MAGA hats.

He was hated for rarely ever losing a debate, like almost never, and when he did lose he'd adopt and remain humble or agree. The ones who hated Kirk were the NPC types. Woke and Godless. While not everyone will like Christianity there's no arguing spiritual practices promote good outcomes. Christ never said to hate faggots. 

Religious, Conservative, High Intelligence. To many he was an invincible enemy by their standard. People celebrated when Kirk died. Very sick people. In the whole power struggle when those people win elections, the country degenerates into foolishness and becomes weaker.

If Tyler Robinson never did it, someone else would've. 

- Christ

- Gandi 

- Lincoln 

- MLK

- Malcolm X

- JFK

- Kirk

Not going to name every martyr but you get the point. It's always 1 side that says fuck that shit and they kill positive messaging. The future generations will look back and see Kirk to be wise beyond everyone he surrounded himself with and how many of our society were filled with dummies.