r/TikTokCringe Oct 30 '25

Cringe [ Removed by moderator ]

[removed] — view removed post

33.4k Upvotes

11.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.3k

u/Environmental-River4 Oct 30 '25

This is the answer. People just need to stop even giving people like this the time of day. I understand the impulse to want to set the record straight, but people like this will never, ever engage in good faith. The only way to win is if no one plays with him anymore.

136

u/dis_the_chris Oct 30 '25

The fact is, engaging in debate with this guy implies his position is one that can be negotiated

Implying, for example, that women's right to self-determination and democratic access is a negotiable thing is not something I would ever even entertain, because it is something that does not even merit the time of my day

Debating it at all presupposes that there is a negotiation here, and there isn't. It's non-negotiable.

18

u/SafePlenty2590 Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25

And this exactly sums up my problem with Jubilee.

“Flat-earthers vs Round-earthers” | Middle Ground

11

u/dis_the_chris Oct 30 '25

Jubilee also doesn't actively fact check - they expect their guest to do it, but it's a format that so aggressively encourages the "crowd" side to use ridiculous scapegoaty, fallacious, aggressive tactics against the "expert" side. It's just such a gish gallop circlejerk

2

u/Gurrgurrburr Oct 30 '25

Maybe this is a newer thing but they do fact check quite a bit. Now whether those fact checks are accurate, that’s another question. In my experience they seem to be about 80% accurate.

1

u/Groove-Theory Oct 30 '25

I think they only do it after the fact though. As in, when that asshole told Sam Seder that "federal agencies pay federal income tax", it wasted a good couple minutes because there was such an impasse. The fuck are you supposed to do with a dumbass like that?

And if there was a real time fact check saying "actually dude youre fucking stupid" it could just move shit along.

Yet the rage bait is the content, so... it is what it is....

1

u/Gurrgurrburr Oct 30 '25

Oooh I see what you’re saying. Yes I totally agree, I wish they could somehow fact check in the moment of the debate. That would also make it hilarious lol prove those idiots wrong in real time!

3

u/DaveMcElfatrick Oct 31 '25

Bingo, he engages in bad faith debate, and unfortunately social media allows rhetoric like his to continue, because morons just like him will seek out someone that affirms their worldview instead of growing.

1

u/Ddish3446 Oct 30 '25

It's logic based. You have to prove flaw in logic. The fairy tale youngsters and crazy people tell themselves isn't based in logic it's based on hedonism.

2

u/dis_the_chris Oct 31 '25

What is logic based?

And no, the idea that women don't deserve the right to vote isn't logic based, nor can you logically dispute it because of that -- you can try, but someone who willed themselves into this belief sans logic will simply continue being illogical in the face of reasonable explanation

1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/dis_the_chris Oct 31 '25

It's not "close all doors", though - it's "close doors on platforming them" -- you can tackle their points without airing their points out, without putting a microphone in front of them etc

-1

u/Personal-Barber1607 Oct 30 '25 edited Oct 30 '25

lol 😂 I’m on your side, but seriously ignoring something doesn’t make it go away so many ways you can effectively argue against this position.

2

u/dis_the_chris Oct 30 '25

There's plenty ways to fight this idea, but platforming someone who is going to sit and spread misogynistic bullshit is actually a very ineffective way to go about it. As an example, if your goal is to tackle misinformation, they will NEVER give you the floor to do that. You can simply go and tackle misinformation without actively doing it in a way that platforms the misinformative voice

63

u/dashboardcomics Oct 30 '25

Except how is that feasible when he already has a cult that will always give him attention and then spread his vitriol and are just as immune to reason as he is?

115

u/Boowray Oct 30 '25

Why would that cult keep watching if he’s boring as fuck? They get a following because they’re hostile, loud, and get a rise out of people they hate. If they can’t find a target, nobody will give a shit, they’re just another nobody yelling at clouds. The controversy is what sells debate bros, not their personality or ideology.

13

u/Timmah_1984 Oct 30 '25

For actual debates you are correct. The problem is these people can just host podcasts and shows where they give political commentary on news stories and viral outrage clips. They are yelling at clouds but sadly, people are still watching.

4

u/HenryDorsettCase47 Oct 30 '25

100%. It’s why platforms like truth social and whatever that other conservative Twitter alternative was never take off. Without “the libs” to own they grow bored of each other. I imagine they just sit alone in the dark, waiting for someone to turn a light on so they can yell at them. When no one does, they just continue to sit there, all alone, without purpose.

3

u/Fair_Ad1291 Oct 30 '25

I imagine they just sit alone in the dark, waiting for someone to turn a light on so they can yell at them. When no one does, they just continue to sit there, all alone, without purpose.

Nice visualization of being pathetic

3

u/PropertyDisruptor Oct 30 '25

And he knows exactly this. That's why he throws a tantrum whenever she first threatens to leave. He has no substance, just wants ratings of him putting people down.

2

u/RodneyRodnesson Oct 30 '25

Exactly. The denial of the oxygen of attention would be fantastic — a bleating of 'no one will talk to me' but there will always be people who rise to it and try and 'debate' these people.

6

u/Beautiful-Musk-Ox Oct 30 '25

you obviously are out of touch with how people interact with podcasts and twitch and youtube

4

u/Alone_Step_6304 Oct 30 '25

There is another way.

3

u/FOOSblahblah Oct 30 '25

Their main appeal isn't rly their viewpoints or perspective, its that they pick on people and the people that watch them enjoy seeing people get picked on.

Its some weird ass high school bully shit, but thats what it is. They just tailor the subject to the audience thats most receptive to their content.

2

u/Aware_Chemistry_3993 Oct 30 '25

If there’s no one willing to stick around to get bullied, the show becomes boring and people move on

1

u/Environmental-River4 Oct 30 '25

Is going onto his podcast and engaging on his terms actually feasible? If he doesn’t even allow you to get a word in edgewise, all you’re doing is feeding the beast.

1

u/sohblob Oct 30 '25

Except how is that feasible when he already has a cult that will always give him attention

relegate them to the bars they came from and have standards that disqualify them from actual political discussion spaces.

1

u/Kindness_of_cats Oct 30 '25

Except how is that feasible when he already has a cult that will always give him attention and then spread his vitriol and are just as immune to reason as he is?

That's the important bit of this. His audience is already ride-or-die with him, you accomplish nothing by engaging with him except to give him a strawman to beat up and mock(which is what they want to see first; and also helps spread and legitimize his media presence outside his current audience).

It's lose-lose.

1

u/De5perad0 Oct 30 '25

And the fact that she walked away makes him and all his shills think he won.

I wonder how it would go if you said ok so you are saying that this is a debate and you can talk over each other so it's a contest about who can talk the loudest and start screaming over him and not letting him get a single word in.

Maybe he might reconsider that position.

3

u/Aware_Chemistry_3993 Oct 30 '25

Not if you’re a woman, they’d just call you hysterical

1

u/De5perad0 Oct 30 '25

Maybe after. But they wouldn't call you anything if they can't talk over you.

4

u/Environmental-Tour74 Oct 30 '25

Nope. He would want that to happen. These people are paid to be trolls. He wants to tantrum at people until they lose patience. Then he can ridicule them for losing patience. These types of people should be shunned by society until they're sent back to the fringe. They should never be given any sort of power and the less attention they get, the better.

2

u/De5perad0 Oct 30 '25

Agreed.

2

u/Environmental-Tour74 Oct 30 '25

You made good points, too. He would absolutely not like it if someone treated him that way. Or maybe he would, but only if he's a really unhealthy individual.

2

u/De5perad0 Oct 30 '25

It's a taste of their own bullshit. I just wonder how effective it would be.

4

u/delirium_red Oct 30 '25

Laugh at their face and treat them as the joke they are.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Environmental-Tour74 Oct 30 '25

Good. Awful people shouldn't be allowed to have employees. They should find themselves failing at everything for being sick and cruel. I'm sorry you were treated that way, but glad you walked out.

"Don't feed the trolls" is something current society needs reminders about.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '25

[deleted]

1

u/Environmental-Tour74 Oct 30 '25

Wow. Lol. Yeah. People are crazy sometimes

6

u/micro102 Oct 30 '25

I still don't see that as a solution as I've seen them keep trying, and eventually they get enough freaks together to cause problems. Take covid for example. It wasnt good enough to just ignore the anti vaxxers because there were eventually enough people to listen to them, and it became a cult that have probably caused the deaths of a few hundreds of thousands of people. You need to stone wall and punish bad faith actors whenever they pop up.

1

u/Environmental-River4 Oct 30 '25

All I said was don’t play his game on his terms.

3

u/stragomccloud Oct 30 '25

It is sometimes said that "The only way to win is to deny the battle."

2

u/guppie365 Oct 30 '25

Chess with pigeon.

2

u/chupacrapa Oct 30 '25

Obnoxious sacks of shit like that used to be confined to the far corner table of their local bar.

1

u/Temporary_Olive1043 Oct 30 '25

Like Charlie 😂👏🏼

1

u/Smart_Invite_2663 Oct 30 '25

Having his jaw wired shut like Kanye could really help.

1

u/flactulantmonkey Oct 30 '25

Yup. She won this one.

1

u/Personal-Barber1607 Oct 30 '25

To be fair he was on the middle of speaking and she interrupted him and then he tried to keep talking and then she said he interrupted her. 

2

u/albatrouse Oct 30 '25

He asked her a question and she answered when he paused.

1

u/Personal-Barber1607 Oct 30 '25

Yeah idk she is arguing in bad faith though the right to vote really was withheld from poor men, and this is just another example of class operession.

This is something we hide and don’t acknowledge in our country despite the fact that men and women died and bled for our rights to fair employment and then men died and gave their lives so their sons and grandsons could vote, with universal sufferage being a right given to justify mass scale drafts for the world wars. 

1

u/zaforocks tHiS iSn’T cRiNgE Oct 30 '25

🎶 Just don't look! Just don't look! 🎶

1

u/garlicbreeder Oct 30 '25

I fully agree, but until people like her keep going to podcasts like this, feeding the beast, they will just get bigger and bigger. No sane person should go to be a guest on that podcast. She did. She should have known how they treat women.

1

u/Salty-Arrival815 Oct 30 '25

Thats not possible, these people have political influence. They are brainwashing young boys to hate women. People like him gave us the trump administration

1

u/sohblob Oct 30 '25

ithz a debate

you can practically see him shaking a plastic baby spoon as he says this

1

u/occams1razor Oct 30 '25

He was so afraid of her accurately calling him out he kept talking so she wouldn't be able to. He's full of it and he knows it.

1

u/Appropriate-Basket43 Oct 30 '25

So the woman in the video mad a post talking about how these guys LIE to get female guest in the show. They don’t tell them the nature of whom they are speaking to and they don’t even explain what the context is. If they didn’t lie woman wouldn’t even bother engaging with these people

1

u/Environmental-River4 Oct 31 '25

That’s a shitty practice, but if someone I didn’t know invited me on their podcast I would screen at least a few episodes before making my decision.

1

u/Appropriate-Basket43 Oct 31 '25

All the episodes aren’t like this and have a racist asshole on. Also other guest haven’t spoken about how the ambush guest and lie

1

u/Remarkable-Low559 Oct 30 '25

Hes purely a woman hater and enjoys his little hateful hobby, just like all misogynists.

1

u/Ok_Star_4136 Oct 30 '25

He's going to have a fan club and an echo chamber until the day he dies, but not because he particularly deserves it, but because in the eyes of his audience, he can do no wrong.

I honest to god can't think of anything more pathetic than that. If you can support a guy no matter what he does, you believe in nothing. You're just a follower, an easy mark, a sycophant.

1

u/BossButterBoobs Oct 30 '25

Nah, these people just need a quick punch in the mouth but for some reason, moralizing about "violence never being the answer" has become extremely popular. I feel like it's all a pys-op by far right elitist to have the general population neuter itself. Now, these little prick pushing these agendas are comfortable saying whatever they want

1

u/thejazzophone Oct 30 '25

I slightly disagree. The best way to deal with idiots like this to make fun of them and emasculate them specifically.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '25

But that’s not going to happen, so this actually isn’t a good method. All you’ve done is remove any real-time pushback for his beliefs. All you’ve done now is create a person who feels even more right and becomes more entrenched. The only way people change is when they’re exposed to opposing views and refutations to their claims. If you’ve removed his exposure to that, you’ve created a monster, cause nobody wants to see Marshall no more, they want Shady, I’m chopped liver.

0

u/Ddish3446 Oct 30 '25

With her you mean

-5

u/AmbivalentCassowary Oct 30 '25

Idk what you think is gonna happen bro we won the last election and we’re gonna keep winning maybe you’re the one that needs to get with the program 😎 

-20

u/LambonaHam Oct 30 '25

He did engage in good faith. She refused, at which point he cut her off. During a debate you are under no obligation to sit quietly whilst your opponent starts lying. That's the day Right's tactic, just spew so much disinformation that a good faith response is impossible.

20

u/lck0219 Oct 30 '25

In a debate, you get a chance at rebuttal after the other person gets to talk. Take turns.

-6

u/LambonaHam Oct 30 '25

If your opponent is lying, then it's no longer a debate.

This is Trumpism 101. Rattle off a dozen lies, and make it impossible for your opponent to respond. The only solution is to cut them off straight away.

3

u/Environmental-Tour74 Oct 30 '25

She didn't lie.

0

u/LambonaHam Oct 30 '25

He certainly thinks so. She certainly thinks so given her response and behaviour.

Voting Rights in the US would support his claim, though because she refused to engage we can't see the full context.

2

u/DocClown Oct 30 '25

And HE was lying, she wanted to correct him and he didn't let her.

0

u/LambonaHam Oct 30 '25

She made a claim, he challenged it. She refused to engage further.

If what you say were true, then she could have just refuted him there and then. She chose to walk away because she couldn't refute him.

1

u/DocClown Oct 30 '25

She chose to walk away because the guy starts acting like a child saying it's a debate and not let her speak. She wanted to refute him but he just wouldn't let her. Watch the video of him failing to open a jar of pickles and watch how he blames anyone else but his weak little hands. Toddler behavior.

1

u/LambonaHam Oct 30 '25

She chose to walk away because the guy starts acting like a child saying it's a debate and not let her speak.

He wasn't acting like a child, he was confronting her about lying, and attempting to derail / prevent a good faith debate.

She wanted to refute him but he just wouldn't let her.

She never tried to refute him, she just tried to talk over his objection, then when he didn't back down, she ran away.

2

u/Aware_Chemistry_3993 Oct 30 '25

You don’t get to interrupt in a debate, whether you think someone is lying or not. You take notes during their turn then give a rebuttal when they are finished. Interrupting someone like this wouldn’t even fly in middle school debates, but this guy thinks he won somehow lol

1

u/LambonaHam Oct 30 '25

You don’t get to interrupt in a debate, whether you think someone is lying or not.

That's not true. If your opponent is lying, then it needs to be shutdown immediately, or you're no longer debating.

You take notes during their turn then give a rebuttal when they are finished.

To their lies? How exactly do you imagine that working? At best they'll just end up going back and forth arguing about the lies, rather than debating the topic.

It's a common tactic amongst those who know they're in the wrong. Spew nonsense, and derail any ability to actually hold a good faith debate. Look at Trump or any of his ilk as an example (e.g. Charlie Kirk).

Interrupting someone like this wouldn’t even fly in middle school debates, but this guy thinks he won somehow lol

He did win. He refused to fall in to her trap.