Then to say that it allowed the right to see him as he saw himself. Again, why is this a good thing?
Charlie Kirk and the broader right see themselves as heroes saving the world from communists, gays, women, and people of colour. This incorrect vision of themselves should not be supported.

This is also the "nice" way to eradicate trans people. Saying that sports is what changed his mind, when in fact its more
If all these dem's truly only care about sports why open your mouths now when trans people are on the precipice of eradication. That is unless you also support their eradication.

But where would the entertainment be? Not only do these media companies not want to do it, it is bad business practice for them to have a professor on to give a lecture, instead of a fitness guru who's claim to fame is entertainingly yelling at fat people.
The entire media system has to be reformed.

Looking forward to the talk! Do you know if you are going to do a talk in Sydney by any chance?

This is all bad faith but designed to seem reasonable. Even "Educational attainment is partly in the genes" is to push his IQ bullshit. Even if true, poor eyesight can be from genes but as Stephen Jay Gould says if you can buy glasses to fix it, why talk about it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wcS...

amazingly fucked up that the NYT is uncritically publishing the claim, “Race has some biological reality.”

that is, definitionally, racism. textbook.

And as everything humans do is stories and art, what does this then say about how they view news, history, politics? It results in amusing ourselves to death becoming "a trivial culture" that has no ability to resist lies and propaganda because the we lack the ability to analyze what they spout.

It is an interaction with art/stories on a purely aesthetic level, requiring the user to extract and discard the message and intent behind films and only focus on the shiny front. There isn't even interest in asking the AI tool to place the images in the world of Studio Ghibli, like the forests.