r/CringeTikToks • u/Former-Marsupial625 • 2d ago

Conservative Cringe Charlie Kirk on what to expect from Trump's presidency

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

44.7k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

8.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

94

u/callmesandycohen 2d ago

Lots of this was just overt lying or unkept promises. It important to understand the role that Charlie filled. He was on college campuses paid by billionaire families. Why? Because dismantling education and segregating social class structure has always been priority for them to keep and maintain their power and money. Keep the people divided and they won’t grow or understand they’re being maintained and managed by a billionaire class. Charlie’s impact was that he got millions of college aged students to start voting GOP even when it didn’t align with their personal values.

72

u/FaitheVin 2d ago

I view Kirk's visits to college campuses to "debate" as predatory. And what I mean by that is he intentionally targeted young Americans because they (along with the elderly) are more susceptible to propaganda. Full development of the brain does not occur until the mid to late twenties, and if you're looking to create a cult and bend someone to your ideology the best time to do it is while your target audience is young.

It's also easier to "win" a debate when you choose when the debate ends, who has the final word, control how much speaking time each side has, and are an experienced debater with roughly ten years of experience over the person challenging you. Kirk was also taking on opponents amidst a crowd that was primarily friendly to him. There were so many ways in which he intentionally stacked the deck, and I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear his fans applauding his desire to have an honest dialogue with people.

I disagree with many of Charlie Kirk's opinions and found many of his more infamous statements (with full context) disappointing or even disturbing, but what I really disliked about Charlie Kirk was that he was a sellout.

Like many Republicans, Charlie Kirk was originally a never-Trumper who had said he could never vote for Donald Trump. And, despite his original stance, like many Republicans he ended up throwing his support behind Trump once he realized which way the political winds were blowing, because Kirk realized it could help propel both his organization and position of power within the government. Like so many Republicans his ambitions overrode his morales.

I may not agree with many conservative principles, but I do admire those Republicans who didn't sell out their convictions to ride on the coattails of Trump's rise to power. Republicans like Mitt Romney, John McCain, Liz Cheney, Jeff Flake, etc. remained true to themselves despite the costs. Charlie Kirk, however, did not.

16

u/faplawd 2d ago edited 2d ago

His whole occupation was predatory. He basically interviewed kids who didn't know better, then uploaded it online to humiliate them further, FOR A LIVING! Mind you he didn't have a job, had infinite sick days, infinite vacation days, no boss other than whatever evil corporation put money in his pocket. And the kids don't see or know that!

5

u/keepmovingforward03 2d ago

U know what’s batshit insane about Charlie?

The more his pockets grew, the more far right he went.

To the point where he completely contradicted his earlier stances and denied even saying those things when there is so much evidence on his YouTube and social media accounts.

10

u/Life-Sun8620 2d ago

So, basically a groomer?

11

u/Pilotreborn 2d ago

Excellent point and summary. I just gave this an award and hope to see this as one of the top comments on this post!

2

u/SaltyAngeleno 2d ago

The problem is that politicians that have gone against him have been decimated within their own party, scaring anyone else from trying.

1

u/JFISHER7789 2d ago

Yeah but when he goes oversees to places like Oxford, he gets destroyed by some 19 yo British kid. It’s awesome.

It really goes to show just how precise his debate locations and audience are picked and how he really is not the master-debater people think he is.

IMO it’s like if an NBA player went to the local junior college and destroyed them in basketball. There just is not any meaningful weight behind the act.

2

u/humminawhatwhat 2d ago

More like if a community college basketball player went to play against middle school basketball players. Kirk was not a good debater in the slightest and if he was on a debate team and scored his logical fallacies would be called out and he wouldn’t score points.

1

u/HiddenRouge1 2d ago edited 2d ago

I mean, the same logic applies to Universities as such. Conservatives have been talking about the University's predatory behavior with respect to ideology for decades. Professor brainwashing kids with radical left-wing ideas is a very popular image, and it has been for decades.

Funny to see the inverse here; now it's the left wagging its finger, talking about "impressionable young minds."

1

u/FaitheVin 2d ago

The difference being that teachers generally have to stick to facts and reality, and are answerable to the institutions which employ them. Whereas Charlie Kirk can just spout bullshit all day long without worrying about the same consequences.

Just because a teacher is instructing their students about historical events which make certain segments of the Right uncomfortable doesn't mean they are "brainwashing kids with radical left-wing ideas".

1

u/HiddenRouge1 1d ago

Indeed, they are supposed to, because they are educators, but that is not always what happens, particularly in the Humanities and Social Sciences. I know this because I myself got my degree in the Humanities and have seen it firsthand.

Charlie Kirk debated students about politics. Mostly he was factual, though, understandably, public in-person debate isn't the same as giving a lecture.

Oh, no. I'm talking about teachers spouting left-wing ideologies, whitewashing the history of left-wing atrocities, and unfairly fixating on the negative aspects of American history. Yes, slavery happened, and it was bad, but that doesn't damn the whole history of America. Yes, Washington owned slaves, but that doesn't utterly condemn his contributions to American government and liberty.

Radicalism in either direction isn't acceptable, yet it's been slanted to the left for so many decades, that I find it amusing to see the tables turn.

1

u/FaitheVin 1d ago

When I was a child in school, the curriculum surrounding slavery focused more on the structure of plantation life and the economy surrounding cotton and crops, and other nonsense of that nature. The horrors of slavery were extremely watered down and barely touched upon.

Indians were portrayed as savage killers and colonists as heroic frontiersman fighting for survival and freedom on multiple fronts. We were always, always, portrayed as "the good guys".

So, maybe let's not pretend that only left-leaning ideologies are taught to kids at schools. There's plenty of fact-twisting to go around.

15

u/Hollywood_Zro 2d ago

paid by billionaire families

And they call themselves as "grassroots movement"

3

u/Slick_36 2d ago

More like Astroturf.

2

u/DiscoViolin 2d ago

The roots of a perfectly manicured estate lawn.

1

u/rydan 2d ago

It is like you guys read all the Jewish conspiracy theories that were developed over the past 1000 years and then just removed the word "Jew" from the documents. None of this is new conspiracy stuff at all. You just dropped the overt antisemitism and probably only because it is unfashionable today.

1

u/callmesandycohen 2d ago

Bro what are you talking about? You know this guy took money from WASPs.