Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
Posts: 14
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

people on the left believe that trump is literally running a fourth reich, that he's going to run a third term, that there is a "trans genocide", etc. they've gone totally hysterical. and they viewed charlie kirk as his general, and one of them acted accordingly

If he does or doesn't run for a third term, that doesn't change the fact that he has repeatedly made comments about doing so, sometimes while calling them "jokes." Given his history of making inflammatory statements and then hiding behind the word "joke," I don't think people are obligated to treat those statements as meaningless. Especially when he has a massive political following that can interpret those comments as signals about what is acceptable or desirable.

Trump does like to provoke weak people. It's fun. Weak people vote for weak shit. "Stop using gas, everyone should be queer, take all that money away from rich people, my body my choice ( hurry get an abortion, go go go, we'll celebrate )"

 

It also doesn't change the massive division and hostility his politics have helped create.

Your programmer speak through your trusted news sources. 

 

 

And you don't have to believe there is literally a "trans genocide" to acknowledge that anti-trans rhetoric and discriminatory policies have increased. There has been a growing effort to portray trans people as a social or political threat and to normalize hostility toward them.

Trans people are made to be hostile. Liberal lawmakers wrote laws that pass transgenders as their preference. They can do that it's fine, but it's silly to play along. Men destroying women in women's sports, men using the ladies room. There was a case where a bikini waxer refused to wax some dude's genitals and I think she was charged for discrimination. 

Men don't give a fuck if a woman enters the men's room, but women feel violated when men do. Even when we're somewhat being forced to accept "gender dysphoria".

It's also sick to give children puberty blockers and encourage them to get gender affirming surgery, which often comes with a ton of regret.  

Dragqueens dirty dancing to children. Giveng him money. 

 

Look at this one, as a homosexual you'll be aroused, 

Some of those little boys are getting a boner watching this without even knowing why. I know cause I was once a child too except I was hot for the french lady with the legs in a wine commercial. 

So yeah. There is no agenda to kill transgenders, there is an agenda to normalize adult content in kindergarten and rob women of their identity and sports. It's indecent stuff, most of us are straight, there's no reason to groom children to be queer then grow up regretting mutilating themselves cause they were told it's more fun to be glittery and fabulous. 

And while obviously not every individual Trump supporter necessarily hates trans people, I think it's equally dishonest to pretend that this is just some tiny fringe phenomenon.

What people hate are crossed boundaries. No one wants to make believe until someone changes their mind. 

Look at Legga. Transitioned 4 times. People around him had to, "Oh yes sir... you're a Mrs. now ? Okay Ms....Wait, you're a dude again ? Yes sir right away....Wait, you changed again. Yes ma'am. Today Legga is a Father again.  

Those people that follow along stupid beyond belief and lead astray. Sure they think their being nice and inclusive but what they're doing is appeasing mental illness. A disorder. It is a disorder. "I'm trapped in the wrong body" Yeah, that's a disorder.  

 

A substantial part of Trump's political coalition openly embraces anti-trans rhetoric, and the broader movement has made hostility toward trans people considerably more socially acceptable. That's what normalization means. You don't need literally every person in a political movement to hate a group for that movement to contribute to normalizing hatred of that group.

Yes, some people will resent them. What else would you expect ?

As I always said, the day a transgender dominates a men sport, it's the women who'll be beating their drums and celebrating, and you know who I mean when I say women right ? The dickless ones. 

 

So dismissing all of this as "the left being hysterical" is just as reductive as claiming that every Trump supporter is preparing for a Fourth Reich. There are exaggerated claims on the left, but that doesn't make every concern underlying those claims imaginary.

 Left is hysterical. The radical ones. You see them having tantrums, screaming into their cameras. 

The most racism toward white people, are from white people, as there are more white people in general, but it's always them. 

I'll tell you from now, when you divide people, each division has its own set of echo chambers. The left wing eco chambers are cancerous from the things they complain about and call for and cry about. It's never anything prosperous, just wanting more of what they already have to a point where they'll invade the liberties of others who don't play that.  

Posts: 1303
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

I think you're conflating several different things here. Someone can disagree with specific policies concerning trans people without that automatically meaning they hate trans people. But that's not really all you're doing here. You're going considerably further than simply saying "I don't think trans women should compete in women's sports" or "I don't think this particular material is appropriate for children."

You're saying trans people are "stupid beyond belief," that people who accommodate them are "appeasing mental illness," that resentment toward them is something you should expect, and that trans people collectively are essentially a threat to women's identity and children. That's precisely the sort of general hostility I was talking about.

And no, I don't think all concern about anti-trans hostility is based on the claim that there is literally a "trans genocide." Those are separate claims. You can reject the genocide rhetoric while still acknowledging that anti-trans discrimination and hostility exist and have become more normalized.

There are literally people who have celebrated Brianna Ghey's murder because she was transgender. Her murder itself also wasn't simply some random example invented by liberals. The sentencing judge found that hostility toward Brianna because of her transgender identity was a secondary motive in the murder, and described the perpetrators' messages about her as transphobic and dehumanizing. Obviously that doesn't mean every person who criticizes transgender politics wants trans people murdered, but it makes the claim that concern about anti-trans hostility is simply left-wing hysteria rather difficult to defend.

The same distinction applies to Trump. I don't have to believe that Trump is literally establishing a Fourth Reich to think his rhetoric can be dangerous. If someone repeatedly makes comments about violating term limits and then calls them jokes, people are not irrational for taking the possibility seriously, especially when the person has a massive political following. Calling something a joke doesn't automatically make its political implications disappear.

And the fact that some people on the left make ridiculous claims doesn't establish that everything they are concerned about is ridiculous. "The left exaggerates some threats" and "there is no meaningful increase in anti-trans hostility" are completely different propositions.

As for the specific examples you listed, they should be argued individually. If you think a particular policy regarding sports is unfair to women, argue that. If you think a particular medical intervention is inappropriate for minors, argue that. If you think a particular drag performance is inappropriate for children, argue that. None of those arguments logically establish that trans people as a category deserve hostility or that hostility toward them is simply an inevitable and justified response.

That's ultimately the problem with your "crossed boundaries" explanation. A boundary violation by an individual doesn't make hostility toward an entire demographic reasonable. Otherwise you can construct the same argument against virtually any group by collecting enough examples of controversial behavior from some of its members. There are also people on the right who take legitimate disagreements over particular policies and turn them into broad contempt for an entire category of people. Both things can exist simultaneously. Pointing out one doesn't make the other disappear.

last edit on 8/19/2026 6:22:03 AM
Posts: 1073
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

I think you're conflating several different things here. Someone can disagree with specific policies concerning trans people without that automatically meaning they hate trans people.

There are drag queens and transgendered people I'm fine with. 

Boy George, Blair White. I know a homosexual that dressed in drag once. Found it cringe cause it wasn't pretty, but there you go. I don't like everything they're into it's not my taste, but I don't resent them, while some of them, I do. Not trying to be fair but that's fair.

And yes I make fun of them. Same with race, men, women. I'm very inclusive. It's not hatred though I do hate when boundaries are crossed.   

 

But that's not really all you're doing here. You're going considerably further than simply saying "I don't think trans women should compete in women's sports" or "I don't think this particular material is appropriate for children."

If the olympics were unisex, women wouldn't get a single medal. In sports women vs. Men. Guess who wins ?

Women are being robbed by men. I don't see any transgenders winning medals in the men's olympics. Men destroy women at sports.  

Men have larger bone density and muscle mass. We're stronger and faster. 

The announcer called it a race for 2nd place, cause they women got beat so bad.

He beat 2nd place by 7-8 seconds. Dude was halfway to the finish line before 2nd place started her final lap. 

I just showed you footage of men twerking for children. Some were half naked, some were in tights and heels spreading their legs at the spectators. That is perverted body language. Not a good look. It's not a strip club.  

 

You're saying trans people are "stupid beyond belief," that people who accommodate them are "appeasing mental illness," that resentment toward them is something you should expect, and that trans people collectively are essentially a threat to women's identity and children. That's precisely the sort of general hostility I was talking about.

I said people following the trans are stupid beyond belief. As in my last post I was pointing out how silly they are for following suit with a confused transitioner with multiple transitions.

This means, everytime a transitioner transitions, their supporters look dumb. It's pretentious. Legga's example is insane. If they guy came and said "I'm a she again" ya'll could jump and make believe  I'm staying put.  

 

And no, I don't think all concern about anti-trans hostility is based on the claim that there is literally a "trans genocide." Those are separate claims. You can reject the genocide rhetoric while still acknowledging that anti-trans discrimination and hostility exist and have become more normalized.

There's nothing special about, as you say "Anti trans hostility". White people get it more. Blacks, mexicans, straight people. Come to Canada, we're freaking out about smelly indians here. We don't have time for faggotry, we are the faggots. Fucking everyone gets hate. Plus what are trans people ? As low as 0.5% of the population. please. Acting like they even have the capacity to be hated than those who outnumber them and experience hatred all the same. 

 

There are literally people who have celebrated Brianna Ghey's murder because she was transgender.

I don't see any. Maybe if I search real hard I'll find it.

Gemini ?

Gemini said:
No, the public did not celebrate the death of Brianna Ghey. Instead, her murder in February 2023 led to widespread grief, outrage, and mass candlelight vigils across the United Kingdom in support of her family and the transgender community.

 That's great news.

Right wingers are better people.

.

.

.

 

Her murder itself also wasn't simply some random example invented by liberals. The sentencing judge found that hostility toward Brianna because of her transgender identity was a secondary motive in the murder, and described the perpetrators' messages about her as transphobic and dehumanizing. Obviously that doesn't mean every person who criticizes transgender politics wants trans people murdered, but it makes the claim that concern about anti-trans hostility is simply left-wing hysteria rather difficult to defend.

Like your last statement, this too seems fabricated, 

 

The same distinction applies to Trump. I don't have to believe that Trump is literally establishing a Fourth Reich to think his rhetoric can be dangerous. If someone repeatedly makes comments about violating term limits and then calls them jokes, people are not irrational for taking the possibility seriously, especially when the person has a massive political following. Calling something a joke doesn't automatically make its political implications disappear.

You hate Trump because you're prompted to. Plus there are people who like drama and being a victim. Many people today are ruined. 

Fake news is real, and Trump is awesome. Trump is saying, stay out of the women's room. get out of women's sports, and the people who complain the most about those things, ARE WOMEN. LOLOLOL. Guy wake up. 

 

And the fact that some people on the left make ridiculous claims doesn't establish that everything they are concerned about is ridiculous. "The left exaggerates some threats" and "there is no meaningful increase in anti-trans hostility" are completely different propositions.

The left make the most threats, sometimes, they even shoot and kill us. This is a Charlie Kirk thread btw. 

What's the good news and policy on the left ? Is it something we can all agree on cause no one is fighting over that, what does the left has that's so good ? Make it inclusive for everyone please. And I know about the baby killings, though the majority really doesn't care much for that, while most people are pro life, and most pro lifers are women. 

 

As for the specific examples you listed, they should be argued individually.

They are responses to what you said. You're really gonna start defending evidence of fake news, and drag queens twerking for children and men destroying women at sports, and men violating women's public washrooms eh ? 

There's no way you can understand what's best.  

 

If you think a particular policy regarding sports is unfair to women, argue that. If you think a particular medical intervention is inappropriate for minors, argue that. If you think a particular drag performance is inappropriate for children, argue that. None of those arguments logically establish that trans people as a category deserve hostility or that hostility toward them is simply an inevitable and justified response.

Does it annoy you how the right is able to take shit from the left and stack it with receipts while you cannot ?

I'm showcasing facts. You're the one already crying about proof, and now there's too much proof. You can argue anything you want, though I wouldn't defend any of that with a 10 foot pole. 

 

That's ultimately the problem with your "crossed boundaries" explanation. A boundary violation by an individual doesn't make hostility toward an entire demographic reasonable.

An individual isn't the case. We cases. 

 

Otherwise you can construct the same argument against virtually any group by collecting enough examples of controversial behavior from some of its members. There are also people on the right who take legitimate disagreements over particular policies and turn them into broad contempt for an entire category of people. Both things can exist simultaneously. Pointing out one doesn't make the other disappear.

 I have contempt for weakness, and stupidity, though I have been entertained by it before under glorious conditions. 

I think God hates it too. God hates stupid people and amazingly one side is less Godly in practice and in spirit. 

Posts: 1303
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

You're redefining "anti-trans hostility" as "wanting every trans person dead" and then pretending it barely exists because most examples don't meet that absurd definition. Hostility doesn't require advocating murder. You've called trans people "stupid beyond belief," described accommodating them as "appeasing mental illness," and said resentment toward them is to be expected. Those are hostile generalizations. "I make fun of everyone" doesn't change that. Your sports and bathroom examples don't establish the broader conclusion either. A dispute over eligibility in a particular competition doesn't justify hostility toward trans people generally. People can organize private leagues with whatever rules they want, and plenty of sports are already mixed-gender. Likewise, disputes over public bathrooms can be addressed through facility design, including unisex or private facilities. Access to a particular institution isn't an entitlement to discriminate against an entire demographic.

The drag examples have the same logical flaw. If a particular performance is inappropriate for children, that establishes something about that performance, not "the left" or trans people generally. Right-wing people can also behave inappropriately toward children, so selecting examples from one political side proves nothing about the other. The Brianna Ghey claim wasn't fabricated either. I never said the public celebrated her murder. I said some people did, which is a different claim. More importantly, the sentencing judge explicitly found that Eddie Ratcliffe was motivated in part by hostility toward Brianna because she was transgender. That's a judicial finding, not "fake news." You can reject "trans genocide" rhetoric without pretending anti-trans hostility doesn't exist.

"Right wingers are better people" is unsupported. Listing things you dislike about the left doesn't establish that. I consider many right-wing beliefs themselves backward, ignorant, personally antagonistic, or oppressive. And when I happen to reach a conclusion that overlaps with a right-wing position, that doesn't validate their reasoning. I've repeatedly found that even narrow agreement gets treated as a concession to their entire worldview and then used for personal attacks. Your "receipts" don't solve this either. A bad drag performance doesn't prove the left wants to groom children, a sporting dispute doesn't prove trans people collectively want to deprive women of their identity, and extreme claims about Trump don't prove every criticism of him is fabricated. Evidence has to establish the conclusion being drawn from it.

You complain about unfairness in popular sports yet glorify wealth. Epstein is an obvious example of extreme wealth and social status coexisting with horrific exploitation. Your appeal to suffering is also selective when you invoke unfairness and women's discomfort around trans people while saying you have "contempt for weakness and stupidity" and that resentment toward people you consider weak is expected. And invoking God adds nothing. There's no evidence that God exists, much less that God hates "stupid people" or favors your political side. The original point remains: Tryptamine is dismissing the left by selecting its most extreme claims. Some claims can be hysterical without making every concern underlying them imaginary. Your response repeatedly takes individual cases, attaches them to entire political or demographic groups, and treats that association as proof. That's not evidence. It's guilt by association.

last edit on 8/19/2026 2:06:31 PM
Posts: 1031
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?
Jada said: 

The tldr of it is that Candace came to debate facts, 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, ..

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

Candace cited for example the fact that Robinson's prints were the most degraded amongst all fingerprints on the gun. 

Her position was that there are too many suspicious things in the existing evidence, such that she thinks foul play is exceedingly likely.

I do think its weird that a gun shows up and Tyler Robinson's prints were the most degraded.

The point I was making is that despite how nutty Candace's views were she approached the debate by rooting her arguments in evidence. Clearly she doesnt know what shes talking about, but my main criticism of Andrew is that he completely failed to defend his own position or even attempt to discuss any evidence of his own at any length. In fact he refused to even define what was the evidence that convinced him, cause he was afraid of queries, which would show his ignorancd. 

 

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

Andrew went from agreeing that his position in the debate was going to be "there is overwhelming evidence that Tyler Robinson assassinated Charlie Kirk" to "im about 70%-30% sure that he did it" and by overwhelming evidence he means he just thinks personally that Tyler did it. He did it in like the first 5 minutes of his opening.

It was the most blatant bait and switch ive ever seen. Super lame. Then he cowardly never bothered to defend his position because he frankly isnt familiar enough with the whole event. Instead he just attacked Candace over some clips his team had prepared. It should've been someone who knows what they're talking about demolishing Candace by walking the viewers through the evidence.

 

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?

The objective shouldve been him laying out his own evidence and addressing Candace's. Yes Candace is never going to admit shes wrong, but the point is to convince the viewers and to educate people so they dont make stupid inferences.

 

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

That I agree, and the fact that Andrew did fumble the debate by essentially holding Candace to a standard he doesnt hold himself to and I think Candace demonstrated that. Andrew didn't offer any positive evidence himself or argue why its any better than what Candace presented.

And yes what Candace presented was not good enough to make her case. The problem with Andrew was that he apparently feared presenting any case at all. Go to the clip where hes asked one of his tweets that cited the evidence he found compelling - the footage of Tyler and a few other things. He then backtracks on it and refuses to cite any specific evidence. Instead he offers "its all the evidence". He refuses to defend his own thesis.

 

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

Yep

 

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 

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

That's my chief issue. We have a bunch of people who can speak to things like the physics of ballistics. People who've done this for 30 years. Invite those people.

 

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

It is the courtroom yes. But I think there is also a place for these things in the public discourse. I dont have as pessimistic a view as you seem to have with regard to public debate on important topics. I think that more public discourse is needed in legal matters, conspiracies, science, math, politics, religion, etc. Its imho much more productive than making the public discourse about... Celebrity gossip.

The experts need the public'a support to function and vice versa, we need experts. We funnel so much money into useless nonsense. Give it to people who do put their lives into public service instead, and promote that. 

 

... 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

You dont think itll create problems if we have all our experts not communicating to the public about what they're actually doing?

 

...Do you think that the elitist "experts only" argument...

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

Yeah we've come a full circle huh.

last edit on 8/19/2026 4:26:25 PM
Posts: 1303
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

When Hamas flew into Israel on the 7th? Yeah cause that's what happened and not decades long records of Israel invading Palestine. It's pretty picky when people only care about history when it's the 7th.

last edit on 8/19/2026 8:02:54 PM
Posts: 1073
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

When Hamas flew into Israel on the 7th? Yeah cause that's what happened and not decades long records of Israel invading Palestine. It's pretty picky when people only care about history when it's the 7th.

 You do realize Hamas are jihadists. 

If you, Dragoon, went Gaza and they knew you were a homosexual, they would execute you.

.

War is 2 conflicting governments for whatever reason. The citizens get caught up in the crossfire, and it ends up turning into the bandwagon effect.

Children in Gaza are taught from a young age to hate Jews. 

First short

 

Second short

.

.

.

If you know you know, and when you know, you won't support people who'd kill you too.

Posts: 1303
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

You're making the exact black-and-white assumption I'm criticizing. You take Hamas, then extrapolate its ideology and actions onto Gaza and Palestinians generally, and from there imply that Israel is the obvious alternative. Hamas is an organization. Gaza is a population of civilians, and Palestinians aren't synonymous with Hamas.

Your point about homosexuality doesn't establish anything about the history I was talking about either. Even if your claims about Hamas were completely accurate, "they would kill you, therefore they're the bad side and Israel/the West are the good side" is not a serious argument. It just replaces one question with another.

And the irony is that you've shown plenty of contempt yourself toward people you label "homosexual," so I don't find your sudden concern particularly convincing. But even leaving that aside, your argument still doesn't follow. Hamas's existence and ideology don't retroactively erase Israeli actions or the history preceding October 7.

Your feelings don't change the facts.

last edit on 8/19/2026 10:34:11 PM
Posts: 1073
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

You're making the exact black-and-white assumption I'm criticizing. You take Hamas, then extrapolate its ideology and actions onto Gaza and Palestinians generally, and from there imply that Israel is the obvious alternative. Hamas is an organization. Gaza is a population of civilians, and Palestinians aren't synonymous with Hamas.

Gemini, help him, I cannot be the one.

 

Gemini said:
Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni Islamist movement that originated in the Gaza Strip in December 1987. The group was founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and other members of the Muslim Brotherhood during the start of the first Palestinian uprising (intifada) against Israeli occupation.

 Hamas also kills their own people ( Palestinians ) by various means to maintain power. 

 

Your point about homosexuality doesn't establish anything about the history I was talking about either. Even if your claims about Hamas were completely accurate, "they would kill you, therefore they're the bad side and Israel/the West are the good side" is not a serious argument. It just replaces one question with another.

I'm not telling you who is good and bad. I'm showing you. 

The best place you can exist in the middle east is in Israel, where they won't kill you for being a fag.

 

And the irony is that you've shown plenty of contempt yourself toward people you label "homosexual," so I don't find your sudden concern particularly convincing. But even leaving that aside, your argument still doesn't follow. Hamas's existence and ideology don't retroactively erase Israeli actions or the history preceding October 7.

Your feelings don't change the facts.

"The 1948 War: Following the 1947 UN plan to partition the land, Israel declared independence in 1948. A coalition of Arab nations immediately attacked Israel. When the war ended, Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees were displaced into Gaza

On a side note Palestinians and Jews share deep common ancestry and are essentially closely related people.

.

.

 

Just because I'm not a homosexual, doesn't mean I have contempt for them as people. Though I do find homosexuality itself disgusting. 

I also do not believe in executing homosexuals. I know some of them, I used to live with 2 homosexuals and we all get along. The female one was yummy looking, I should've hit it when I had the chance, and I had a chance, cause bisexual and signals 

 

Posts: 4722
0 votes RE: What is the role of experts in today's world?

She's probably profited more than anyone off of Kirk's death.

Deeper investigations isn't entirely a bad thing but I think she was too bold with her theories and dug herself too deep to backtrack.

i would be less cynical if she didn't intentionally draw things out, and talk about how people need to tune in next week to see texts, and how she has evidence but won't reveal it. she milked this controversy for every dollar she could. on top of talking about astral projection too, and other nonsense i didn't bring up here

This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.