zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow

>>vik0+66
I saw his videos occasionally on youtube/facebook. I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration most of the time, though I thought some of his other arguments on other topics were thought provoking at least, and I also thought it was cool that he always had an open mic for anyone that wanted to debate him. Seemed like he had an encyclopedic memory when it came to things like SCOTUS cases or historical events.

>>umvi+SF
Charlie didn't debate so much as followed a script and steered you towards his gotcha questions to create content for his show.

He recently went to Cambridge Univ and debated a student who actual knew his routine. It didn't go well for him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A

>>ourman+ZZ
Instead of linking to a one-sided reframing of the debate, here's the actual debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvIktYig9Y

It seems to be a healthy debate for both sides.

>>toomim+sc1
That's a link to Charlie's own post of the debate.

It seems to be a healthy debate to someone who doesn't know Charlie's logical fallacies and scripted style.

>>ourman+md1
I watched the start of the debate, having never heard of Charlie before the shooting. His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on your career one.

>>tim333+eQ1
> His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on you career one.

Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations. Some want to be doctors, nurses, chefs, electricians, plumbers, or artists. Saying that women should get married and raise lots of children denies those aspirations, and says to me that those who ascribe to that model have no consideration for women as human beings. Let women pursue their own definition of happiness rather than prescribing one for them.

>>dcuthb+n72
> Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations.

No. They are right. When you survey people, most women are happier working for their children rather than their boss. Most women feeling that way doesn't preclude other women feeling differently. Not does it prescribing a definition of happiness for women that want to work for their boss.

>>nailer+Rq2
Happiness is not a single metric you can use to determine what is best. The most rewarding lives are ones where you can sacrifice for something meaningful to you. Sacrificing to have a rewarding, independent life without children may not be the easiest life, but it’s definitely not an any way inferior to a “happier” one raising kids. Because of this, that statistic, even if accurate, doesn’t matter. And doesn’t suggest that anyone should go raise a family.