Steve Bennett
@stephenpbennett.bsky.social
There's no debate. It's inarguable. The fact that you're still trying to argue it is just a pathetic attempt to save face. It's straight out of the douchebag handbook.
September 12, 2025 at 4:02 PM
There's no debate. It's inarguable. The fact that you're still trying to argue it is just a pathetic attempt to save face. It's straight out of the douchebag handbook.
You're minus on block here, dude.
September 12, 2025 at 4:00 PM
You're minus on block here, dude.
And you can find out it's wrong from the audio of the conversation and question. The audio which proves that what you read as Kirk agreeing with children witnessing executions was totally outside of that context. Newsweek was wrong, and your defense of them was equally wrong.
September 12, 2025 at 3:58 PM
And you can find out it's wrong from the audio of the conversation and question. The audio which proves that what you read as Kirk agreeing with children witnessing executions was totally outside of that context. Newsweek was wrong, and your defense of them was equally wrong.
You attempted to Talmudic reading of the article to prove that the headline was not misleading. That he did explicitly suggest what you claimed he suggested. You retreated from suggesting to agreeing with someone else's statement. However that was also wrong.
September 12, 2025 at 3:57 PM
You attempted to Talmudic reading of the article to prove that the headline was not misleading. That he did explicitly suggest what you claimed he suggested. You retreated from suggesting to agreeing with someone else's statement. However that was also wrong.
Wrong. I started by saying if you read the article you would see that the headline and screenshot that you shared originally was misleading. That nowhere in the article did it quote Charlie Kirk saying what the headline purports him saying.
September 12, 2025 at 3:56 PM
Wrong. I started by saying if you read the article you would see that the headline and screenshot that you shared originally was misleading. That nowhere in the article did it quote Charlie Kirk saying what the headline purports him saying.
Good one. The telltale sign of a loser. The meaningless lol haha. Where's the gif?
You lost Samhain. It's not the first loss and won't be your last. Just be better next time.
Think harder, read more, look deeper. You can get better, but you have to make the effort.
You lost Samhain. It's not the first loss and won't be your last. Just be better next time.
Think harder, read more, look deeper. You can get better, but you have to make the effort.
September 12, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Good one. The telltale sign of a loser. The meaningless lol haha. Where's the gif?
You lost Samhain. It's not the first loss and won't be your last. Just be better next time.
Think harder, read more, look deeper. You can get better, but you have to make the effort.
You lost Samhain. It's not the first loss and won't be your last. Just be better next time.
Think harder, read more, look deeper. You can get better, but you have to make the effort.
Go listen to it again. The age thing is an aside, one where Kirk never suggests that children should be forced to watch, and then the part you construe as him agreeing is later once they've moved on from children. In other words, the headline is inaccurate.
September 12, 2025 at 11:13 AM
Go listen to it again. The age thing is an aside, one where Kirk never suggests that children should be forced to watch, and then the part you construe as him agreeing is later once they've moved on from children. In other words, the headline is inaccurate.
The quote is accurate in so far as those are the words spoken. When he says will crime go down how can anyone be against this, it has nothing to do with children. The context is only on the death penalty in public. It's why the article is so cagily written. You remain incorrect. Save your prayers.
September 12, 2025 at 10:02 AM
The quote is accurate in so far as those are the words spoken. When he says will crime go down how can anyone be against this, it has nothing to do with children. The context is only on the death penalty in public. It's why the article is so cagily written. You remain incorrect. Save your prayers.
I wasn't proven wrong. Quite the contrary. Here's the fucking episode. Starts at 49:45. Give it a listen, dog. Your prayers have not been answered
omny.fm/shows/the-ch...
omny.fm/shows/the-ch...
THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 33 — The Big Fani Whammy? Kill Pedos? U.S. Food vs. The World? - The Charlie Kirk Show
In this week’s ThoughtCrime, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Tyler Bowyer, and Blake Neff engage with many compelling questions, including:
-Should pedophiles get the death penalty?
-Is Fani Willis's...
omny.fm
September 12, 2025 at 1:34 AM
I wasn't proven wrong. Quite the contrary. Here's the fucking episode. Starts at 49:45. Give it a listen, dog. Your prayers have not been answered
omny.fm/shows/the-ch...
omny.fm/shows/the-ch...
It's not a debate. You're a dumb loser. I neither expect nor accept any retort.
September 11, 2025 at 10:51 PM
It's not a debate. You're a dumb loser. I neither expect nor accept any retort.
I'm not very familiar with his work. Wasn't a big fan. But I also don't assume that gang violence just means black people. I guess you do, which goes hand in hand with you being an awful shit head. And a bit of a moron if I'm being honest.
September 11, 2025 at 10:34 PM
I'm not very familiar with his work. Wasn't a big fan. But I also don't assume that gang violence just means black people. I guess you do, which goes hand in hand with you being an awful shit head. And a bit of a moron if I'm being honest.
I'm not debating. I was pointing out how the headline misleads a nice woman who didn't want his kids to see him murdered. I also said you were a dumb loser piece of shit who says at the end to mean the end of an unstated section of an article. These are not debatable points.
September 11, 2025 at 10:33 PM
I'm not debating. I was pointing out how the headline misleads a nice woman who didn't want his kids to see him murdered. I also said you were a dumb loser piece of shit who says at the end to mean the end of an unstated section of an article. These are not debatable points.
You also wrote this. I'm assuming when someone says gang violence you just picture black people? Weird thought to have for such a normal smart person.
September 11, 2025 at 10:27 PM
You also wrote this. I'm assuming when someone says gang violence you just picture black people? Weird thought to have for such a normal smart person.
First of all, that's not the end of the article. Do you know what the word end means? If so, it's not clear from this exchange. Also not clear, intentionally, what is being implied there. That is not at all proof of him agreeing with children watching executions.
September 11, 2025 at 10:25 PM
First of all, that's not the end of the article. Do you know what the word end means? If so, it's not clear from this exchange. Also not clear, intentionally, what is being implied there. That is not at all proof of him agreeing with children watching executions.
No but you're good at this, trust me. You're fucking awesome at Internet shit. Find a good gif now, quickly please.
September 11, 2025 at 10:19 PM
No but you're good at this, trust me. You're fucking awesome at Internet shit. Find a good gif now, quickly please.
Here's the end of the article shit for brains.
September 11, 2025 at 10:18 PM
Here's the end of the article shit for brains.
That's because your life is completely lacking in meaningful joy. Cause you're a dumb loser.
September 11, 2025 at 10:10 PM
That's because your life is completely lacking in meaningful joy. Cause you're a dumb loser.
He asked it and someone said something and he maybe did or didn't agree, it didn't say. Slam dunk. I win. Here's a gif. Here's a screenshot of the headline, you can't read.
What a stupid loser argument and asshole way of behaving. You suck at this.
What a stupid loser argument and asshole way of behaving. You suck at this.
September 11, 2025 at 10:06 PM
He asked it and someone said something and he maybe did or didn't agree, it didn't say. Slam dunk. I win. Here's a gif. Here's a screenshot of the headline, you can't read.
What a stupid loser argument and asshole way of behaving. You suck at this.
What a stupid loser argument and asshole way of behaving. You suck at this.
You can stop replying you know. You're bad at this.
September 11, 2025 at 9:54 PM
You can stop replying you know. You're bad at this.
They are when there's no mention of his agreeing or suggesting.
September 11, 2025 at 9:43 PM
They are when there's no mention of his agreeing or suggesting.
That would make for a great headline too. They probably just decided to leave out all the really bad quotes of him saying it straight up. To be nice.
September 11, 2025 at 9:33 PM
That would make for a great headline too. They probably just decided to leave out all the really bad quotes of him saying it straight up. To be nice.
No that's implied by Newsweek. It's not quoted. They quote his less famous co-host. Surely it would be stronger to quote Kirk who is the subject of the headline.
But you didn't read this article before you posted it and that was the point of it. It's for dumbos. And it worked on you.
But you didn't read this article before you posted it and that was the point of it. It's for dumbos. And it worked on you.
September 11, 2025 at 9:13 PM
No that's implied by Newsweek. It's not quoted. They quote his less famous co-host. Surely it would be stronger to quote Kirk who is the subject of the headline.
But you didn't read this article before you posted it and that was the point of it. It's for dumbos. And it worked on you.
But you didn't read this article before you posted it and that was the point of it. It's for dumbos. And it worked on you.
Yeah that's an important clarification. Because he said at what age. It was a question. One he did not answer. For all you know his answer was 21. He does not suggest children, someone else does. An accurate headline could have read alluded to. But suggests means he said it.
September 11, 2025 at 8:39 PM
Yeah that's an important clarification. Because he said at what age. It was a question. One he did not answer. For all you know his answer was 21. He does not suggest children, someone else does. An accurate headline could have read alluded to. But suggests means he said it.
I'm not sure what the second part of this means about deserving. I think there's a difference between someone being tried and convicted and executed and someone being murdered. I'd say I'm with the extremely vast majority of people in making that distinction.
September 11, 2025 at 8:37 PM
I'm not sure what the second part of this means about deserving. I think there's a difference between someone being tried and convicted and executed and someone being murdered. I'd say I'm with the extremely vast majority of people in making that distinction.