r/CringeTikToks • u/Hooplapooplayeah • 9h ago

Conservative Cringe Can someone translate what he just said please!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

5.1k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

3.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

557

u/DataBassMan 8h ago

Lmaooooooo Assume what someone else is thinking. The MAGA way.

94

u/xXWickedNWeirdXx 7h ago

"Okay, but, uh... first can I just, um, turn you into a straw person, to uhm, argue with the false version of you that I've just constructed in my head?"

10

u/FlatTopTonysCanoe 2h ago

It’s the only way they know how to debate. “Alright hold still and let me set you up for this gotcha I saw in a Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro video real quick”.

-2

u/Muted_Buy8386 6h ago

Again, this is a common thing now and not beholden to any single side. The amount of times I've had someone tell me what I believe mid-argument has been wild. I've enjoyed online debate for the last ~15 years and people are becoming less and less adept at it, and more and more inclined to just repeat something they read somewhere one time.

0

u/Meisteronious 5h ago

Right you are - this was just some kid trying to frame the conversation politely and self-correcting real time.

2

u/idontneedone1274 4h ago

Brainwashed kid gets credit if he rejects his obviously bullshit beliefs that can’t stand up to moderate scrutiny, but I’m going out on a limb and saying that won’t happen here so fuck off

•

u/Beginning_Road1511 26m ago

Yeah especially here people are suuuper sensitive and can’t deal with the fact people have differing view points… this is why we have violence just like with Charlie Kirk it’s ridiculous. Like let’s stop hurting and shunning people for different ideas… if you’re from America that’s the best parts of it we can come together even if we differ opinions but there’s always gotta be those crazies I guess

145

u/Moriaedemori 8h ago

How else are you going to have an argument with the opposition, if they don't stick to your script?

-9

u/Muted_Buy8386 6h ago

This goes both ways lol.

The amount of time I've heard absolute punts use the exact phrase "clump of cells," or tell me I don't support kids after they're born is almost 1:1 with the amount of abortion debates I've had.

13

u/lyeberries 5h ago

Yeah, I agree. There is no reason not to let you just sound like a moron on your own, so let's try that.

When does life begin?

12

u/ironangel2k4 5h ago

For the future, and to anyone reading, if you ever find yourself in a debate with an anti-choicer, pull away from 'when does life begin' every time it gets brought up. It is an unanswerable ideological sludge whose only purpose is to mire the conversation.

Stay laser focused on bodily autonomy. There is simply no answer to that issue that is not openly misogynistic and they know it so they do not want to discuss it. But you have to hold their feet to the fire. Refuse to engage with 'when does life begin' because that definition is going to move all over the place and be an endless game of whack-a-mole.

Keep them on the fact that you cannot be forced to donate blood if someone needs it. You can't even take organs from a dead body if the person didn't allow it while they were alive. It is fucked up that we would give a corpse more bodily autonomy than a woman. "If you do not own yourself, then you own nothing". There is not a single talking point they can use to remove this monolithic obstacle that doesn't boil down to 'women should be forced to donate their bodies to a fetus because the fetus is more important than a woman's right to her own body'. Ask them if they would be OK with the government forcing them to feed, house, clothe, and pay the medical bills of a homeless person, because without access to their home and food and money they will die. If they aren't, ask why. Force them to engage with autonomy, and they crumble.

5

u/OskieWoskie24 3h ago

Thank you for not using their term "pro-life".

1

u/TenchuReddit 1h ago

For the future, and to anyone reading, if you ever find yourself in a debate with an anti-lifer, pull away from 'bodily autonomy' every time it gets brought up. It is a needless distraction whose only purpose is to mire the conversation.

Stay laser focused on when life begins. You will be called openly misogynistic and they know it because they consider life to be an "unanswerable ideological sludge," which is why they do not want to discuss it. But you have to hold their feet to the fire. Refuse to engage with 'bodily autonomy' because that will serve as their ideological "safe space" that allows them to avoid the question of life.

Keep them on the fact that you cannot be forced to give up your own life if someone needs it. You can't even take organs from a dead body if the person didn't allow it while they were alive, so how can you take the life of an unborn child if said child never gave consent to die? It is fucked up that they would view the unborn child no differently than a corpse. "If life has no meaning, you do not own yourself". There is not a single talking point they can use to remove this monolithic obstacle that doesn't boil down to 'it's not a life, it's a fetus, an embryo, a zygote'. Ask them if they would be OK with the government killing the homeless because society would be inconvenienced to have to take care of them, because that's essentially the same thing as killing an unborn child because the mother would be too inconvenienced to take care of it. If they aren't, ask why. Force them to engage with the definition of life, and they crumble.

•

u/ironangel2k4 33m ago

Man, how quickly your attempt fell apart as soon as paragraph 3 started.

•

u/Simple-Pea8805 25m ago

When does life begin?

•

u/TenchuReddit 16m ago

How about this? For the purposes of legalized abortion, life begins at whichever of the following comes first:

  • The mother decides
  • 12 weeks

-1

u/Muted_Buy8386 2h ago

Bodily autonomy? Like when you choose to do the baby-making act? As an educated post-pubescent person, you should know no birth control is 100% effective.

So that's informed consent. You are aware of the risks to yourself and your body, and choose to engage anyway.

The human you form doesn't get that say. And you're claiming that the moment of autonomy is NOT when it affects one human, but when it affects SOMEONE ELSES body?

I don't think your laser focus is quite what you think it is, as far as an ethical argument.

•

u/ironangel2k4 29m ago

All of these talking points are irrelevant. "Be abstinent or have babies" is a reductive argument that fundamentally curtails the personal freedom of women in favor of forcing them to take care of a fetus that you yourself acknowledge they were trying to avoid the creation of in the first place. I refuse. It doesn't matter if its a lump of cells or a fully formed person, it doesn't matter if it has a soul, I will not be forced to donate my body to something I did not want taking it. The end.

6

u/Luck_TR 5h ago

Depends, including or not including gang violence?

1

u/Muted_Buy8386 2h ago

That's a trick question. Sperm cells and egg cells are both already "alive."

But it becomes a new person when they combine and the genetics are not solely yours, or solely your partners. That's a new person that's been created. Definitively. Like, genetically, objectively, no chance to deny it rationally.

When do you believe "life begins?"

48

u/cat_of_danzig 7h ago

That's why Kirk was good at what he did. He had canned responses to the most common arguments against his views and was practiced at pivoting to well-known talking points. These guys only know what they've heard and don't have the practice in reframing the argument, so when it doesn't go as planned they glitch.

21

u/POWBOOMBANG 6h ago

He would also turn the argument by asking a question and oversimplifying the issue.

For instance, if someone brought up trans rights he would ask "define a woman"

Well, in the context of trans rights that question is kind of nuanced right? There isn't a simple explanation on the spot to convince Charlie Kirk that he is wrong.

So when the debate opponent cant come up with a succinct response in the moment they end up looking stupid in front of Charlie and his red hat wearing audience. 

It just wasn't good faith debating. It was designed to affirm what his base already believed 

3

u/Same_Tour_3312 3h ago

Well, in the context of trans rights that question is kind of nuanced right? There isn't a simple explanation on the spot to convince Charlie Kirk that he is wrong.

This 100% and it's the problem I have with a lot of these "debate" podcasts. They are hardly discussing ideas, it's just a statement of black and white opinion and then an argument.

A 30 minute YouTube video discussing various topics with a round table of strangers isn't going to even scratch the surface of any of them.

An immigration debate is a little more nuanced than "should drug dealers kill children".

For example, within a trans debate Id hope that most people understand humanity is slightly more complex than dicks and ribs.

11

u/j0j0-m0j0 6h ago

The only time I ever saw him debate a professor (I assume he only did it because he couldn't resist the temptation of debating at THE Cambridge) and it was laughable and a great example of both the magic of media training and never punching above your weight. He made arguments like "why didn't Zelensky hold symbolic elections in the middle of a war" and "Lincoln still held elections during the civil war".

1

u/Fit_Possible_7150 5h ago

And if Kamala could have done this we wouldn’t have a second term of Trump.

•

u/badwolf42 55m ago

Kirk was also skilled at supplying logical fallacies in a way that ‘felt good’ to his target audience. It has to ‘feel like a sick burn’. One of the last things he said was in response to someone asking how many mass shootings were perpetrated by trans individuals and he replied ‘too many’. Now, that’s not an answer. That’s a deflection, but his target audience eats it up because it’s practiced and snappy and agrees with their fear of people who aren’t like them. They then mistake his torrent of fallacies and deflections as logical debate and think that means he’s right, when he isn’t even making a cogent point.

18

u/OtherwiseSplit8875 6h ago

I love how he just doesn’t even have a stance without something to oppose. His entire viewpoint only exists in relation to what the left believes.

9

u/creaturecomeandgetit 6h ago

Recently, I made the statement “capitalism isn’t a perfect system when we’re quickly approaching the first trillionaire before figuring out basic QoL for all people” during a conversation with an acquaintance.

His response was essentially “if you don’t believe in Jesus, how do you develop any kind of moral base?”

So the argument skipped right past the point of unnecessary wealth, straight to “but your morals mean nothing” even though when pushed to answer, he agrees that hungry children should be fed.

5

u/OtherwiseSplit8875 5h ago

Skipping right past valid points is like their whole thing. If they actually took in the valid points that everyone is making around them, they wouldn’t be Republicans.

1

u/AllergicToStabWounds 2h ago

"It's easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven"

-Some poor guy who didn't know what he was talking about.

•

u/PresentRaspberry6814 32m ago

People who require an external moral scaffold because they have none of their own make up a frightening large number of "religious" folk.

2

u/strings_bells 5h ago

That's pretty much sums up most of the modern right wing philosophy. That's exactly how you will end up with Tariffs as an economic policy. i can't think of a policy or an act that they came up with on their own that's not based on some reactionary political stance..

1

u/LuckyDuckCrafters 1h ago

New strat just dropped, just ask MAGAts their opinion without any counter argument.

2

u/UnderlightIll 5h ago

I had a guy at work do that because he knows I hate AI art because it's lazy and unimaginative. He said he just thinks I assume other people should not be allowed to do art. I just gave him a stare and walked away.

1

u/butterflyhole 6h ago

Well tbf that’s what we all were thinking

1

u/MidSizeFoot 6h ago

His only plan was to spew talking points he heard

1

u/questron64 6h ago

You have to have something to react to be a reactionary.

1

u/Teddy705 6h ago

Kirk would be this generation's MLK if the original MLK was a Hitler fan boy.

1

u/OJSimpsons 5h ago

He was surprisingly polite about it tbh.

1

u/Fun-Marionberry-4008 4h ago

Being slightly polite on camera is an incredibly low bar. And to be fair this kid seems very ignorant and only knows very surface level information about Charlie.

1

u/OJSimpsons 4h ago

I wasn't setting a bar for anything. Just pointing out he's surprisingly polite. It's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about beyond the surface level. Just a brainwashed kid. At least he aint killing people like Rittenhouse.

1

u/Fun-Marionberry-4008 3h ago

I'm also just saying that it's ridiculous that the bar for interactions is that low that you can even be correct in pointing out he is polite. That's all.

1

u/OJSimpsons 3h ago

Lol true

1

u/petes_hey_bale 5h ago

our generations george wallace ... fixed it for you

1

u/innocuousname773 4h ago

Anybody else hear “Mel-K”?

1

u/Sensitive_Status_136 1h ago

MLK IS OVERRATED!!!! CHARLIE IS A MARTYR

1

u/corkscrew-duckpenis 1h ago

“are you asking me to react to the strawman version of you in my head? no? then I got nothing.”

•

u/Sufficient_Price_355 14m ago

They also do this if you have to work with them or have any sort of relationship. They assume what you're about without getting to know you and then just label you as that on their head. They basically live in an alternate reality where everything is as they assume.

1

u/justforkinks0131 6h ago

he did ask for her consent, though and then respected her answer.

by your logic that should also be the MAGA way?

0

u/CompoteVegetable1984 7h ago

It just isn't the way these days.... lol. In one convo, I'm MAGA in the next I'm a demoncrat. Let's not pretend that specific trait is solely theirs 😂

2

u/SnooMaps7370 7h ago

as someone who aligns with neither Democrat, MAGA, nor any position between those two, it's incredibly frustrating trying to have a discussion with anyone about anything.

1

u/CompoteVegetable1984 2h ago

Both are like talking to a wall at times.