₦airaland Forum

THEDEEPSIGHT:
It is absolutely understandable for people in bondage to "behave better" than free men. Because bound people have no choice. Their behaviour will always be "better" especially in the eyes of the master.

So they were behaving better because they have no choice. Bondage is what was making them behave better?
You sound more of a racist than Charlie.

bemeruca:
His emotions are everywhere

By the way, it is human to have emotions especially against injustice and malevolence. Those very passions are the root of the inspiration of all freedom fighters throughout history. Therefore you waste your time thinking that you insult me in this matter by calling me emotional. Every right thinking and sober human should be emotional about subjects like this.

@ cococandy on behalf of human beings and gentlemen of respect, accept my apologies for the utterance of the barbarian slave.

bemeruca:
So they were behaving better because they have no choice. Bondage is what was making them behave better?
You sound more of a racist than Charlie.

The point is of course that a bound man's behavior is always pleasing to he who bound him.
I am not surprised that you missed my inverted commas around the words "behaving better."

THEDEEPSIGHT:
By the way, it is human to have emotions especially against injustice and malevolence. Those very passions are the root of the inspiration of all freedom fighters throughout history. Therefore you waste your time thinking that you insult me in this matter by calling me emotional. Every right thinking and sober human should be emotional about subjects like this.

@ cococandy on behalf of human beings and gentlemen of respect, accept my apologies for the utterance of the barbarian slave.

When Charlie called that era and Jim Crow evil in your own post, was it enough for you to know that he does not support it?

Why do you want to label everything racist instead of understanding the arguments or point?

Where did he say that era was good for them or that they were better with Jim Crow? It is an argument you just made making you the racist you accused Kirk of.

bemeruca:
When Charlie called that era and Jim Crow evil in your own post, was it enough for you to know that he does not support it?

Why do you want to label everything racist instead of understanding the arguments or point?

Where did he say that era was good for them or that they were better with Jim Crow?

The bold question. Here is your answer -

-------------
KIRK – “When blacks in America did not have the same rights, they have today, they were less murderous, there were less break-ins – why is that?”
Questioner – “Are you trying to say that blacks thrive under subjugation?”
KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”

------------
The bold in the red above answers you verbatim.

THEDEEPSIGHT:
The point is of course that a bound man's behavior is always pleasing to he who bound him.
I am not surprised that you missed my inverted commas around the words "behaving better."

I saw your inverted commas. But e no save the argument.

Kirk was talkin about measurable outcomes like crime, break ins, family struct.

You changed “better outcomes” into “pleasing to the master.”
That is you dodging.

If you think his data is wrong, challenge the data.

If you think his causation is wrong, challenge the causation.

But saying “a bound man’s behaviour is pleasing to the one who bound him” does not answer the question.

Nobody here said Black people were better off under Jim Crow. kir called that era bad and evil.

The issue is whether some specific social indicators were better then than later. Those are not the same claim.

You are mixing moral status with social indicators. Black Americans were morally and legally worse off under Jim Crow.

Bottom line is:

Black people were better off under Jim Crow is false

Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true

Charlie was arguing the second point. You keep pretending he argued the first. That is the dishonesty.

bemeruca:
Nobody here said Black people were better off under Jim Crow.

Argue with Kirk, not me -

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”

Bottom line is:

Black people were better off under Jim Crow is false

Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true

Charlie was arguing the second point. You keep pretending he argued the first. That is the dishonesty.

You are amending what he said. As a loyal follower, you are refining it for him. In red above are his words. He clearly said blacks were better off in the 40s, word for word, even in his clarification.

basilico:
Do you know who led the onslaught against Clarence Thomas nomination. It was the then Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Joe Biden.

To be honest I didn't recall that bit of history but thanks for the reminder. Speaking of political history and former Senator/Preso J. B.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_v00iGJCLY?si=g3grHcLgB9fMOLfm

bemeruca:
Bottom line is:

Black people were better off under Jim Crow is false

Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true

Charlie was arguing the second point. You keep pretending he argued the first. That is the dishonesty.

Please, which data shows that blacks had better outcomes in the 1940s?

You are talking about a period before 1964 where.

1. Blacks did not have rights
2. Blacks could be and were rejected from jobs based on racial discrimination, legally.
3. Blacks could not vote.
4. Segregation against Blacks was real.

So blacks could not build wealth or own banks. Even when they tried to build wealth in 1921, there was the Tulsa race massacre where black businesses and neighbourhoods were shot up by racist people.

You and Charlie Kirk have some anti-black bias.

Too bad he was shot before he could explain that ?
Good for you because you have no further clarification from him , therefore he is racist.
I find this in bad taste, why bring up this particular one.
Charlie used to make his case then invite questions no matter how unpalatable.

DeepSight:
I was watching a Youtube show on Charlie Kirk / Erika Kirk. Came across some of his utterances again.

I had to sit back and wonder, befuddled, how people argue that this man was not racist.

His words - verbatim -

KIRK – “When blacks in America did not have the same rights they have today, they were less murderous, there were less break-ins – why is that?”

QUESTIONER – “Are you trying to say that blacks thrive under subjugation?”

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”


How do the likes of raumdeuter, bemeruca, tctrills, TV01, basilico and company wish to spin this.

cc: Ishilove (I copy you because you once claimed to me he was not racist I believe), Ijebos, cococandy

PS: This specific exchange took place during a live event at Utah Valley University (UVU) in Orem, Utah, on September 10, 2025, just before he was shot.

DeepSight:
Argue with Kirk, not me -

KIRK - “No, I am not, I am asking you the question, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s. It was bad, it was evil, but what happened, something changed.”


You are amending what he said. As a loyal follower, you are refining it for him. In red above are his words. He clearly said blacks were better off in the 40s, word for word, even in his clarification.

No, I am not amending anything. I am providing the context.

The question being discussed was crime and behaviour.

Kirk said:
There were less break-ins, less murderous, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

So “better” refers to the specific data he was discussing. crime/social outcomes, not Black people were better off overall under Jim Crow.

You are deliberately changing the meaning of better here.

If I say, Nigeria’s railway system was better in the 1960s, nobody serious thinks I mean Nigerians were better off under colonialism. It means that specific thing being discussed was better.

Kirk even immediately said the era was bad and evil. So how can you honestly claim he meant Black people were better off under that evil system?

The fair criticism is: “Kirk should have phrased it more carefully.” Fine like is said before, provocative words != racism

The dishonest criticism is: “Kirk said Black people were better off oppressed.” He did not. He said some data points were better in that era, while also calling the era evil.

Oga move on from this agend. tctrills have explained to you and you are still burying your head in the sand.

I beg to make it worse.
Deepsight knows when blacks had no freedom they couldn't commit crimes. They couldn't travel everywhere for instance.

What deepsight wants you to conclude is that Charlie Kirk wishes blacks were enslaved again because they can't handle freedom.

bemeruca:
Because what he said is the truth.

In the 40s when blacks have less right, they managed to not Kill each other and value family. This is true until welfare programs that attacked the family structure began.

I have been making such arguments long before Charlie. Call me a racist too.

Na why we no they move forward. Na blame and hatred for the truth we Sabi. See South Africa.

If you watch the debate with context you will get the full gist of his argument not what a race baiter deepsight feeds you with.

basilico:
Too bad he was shot before he could explain that ?
Good for you because you have no further clarification from him , therefore he is racist.
I find this in bad taste, why bring up this particular one.
Charlie used to make his case then invite questions no matter how unpalatable.

He provided a clarification right there and it was terrible. In his clarification he said blacks were better off in the 40s.

DeepSight:
He provided a clarification right there and it was terrible. In his clarification he said blacks were better off in the 40s.

Wrong.

That's your bad understanding

GracieX3:
Please, which data shows that blacks had better outcomes in the 1940s?

You are talking about a period before 1964 where.

1. Blacks did not have rights
2. Blacks could be and were rejected from jobs based on racial discrimination, legally.
3. Blacks could not vote.
4. Segregation against Blacks was real.

So blacks could not build wealth or own banks. Even when they tried to build wealth in 1921, there was the Tulsa race massacre where black businesses and neighbourhoods were shot up by racist people.

You and Charlie Kirk have some anti-black bias.

Another dishonest post.

Read this discussion in full before you chime in

bemeruca:
If he wants it that's his business. Why are you pained?

Bro is my talking about your idol upsetting you?

bemeruca:
No, I am not amending anything. I am providing the context.

The question being discussed was crime and behaviour.

Kirk said:
There were less break-ins, less murderous, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

So “better” refers to the specific data he was discussing. crime/social outcomes, not Black people were better off overall under Jim Crow.

You are deliberately changing the meaning of better here.

If I say, Nigeria’s railway system was better in the 1960s, nobody serious thinks I mean Nigerians were better off under colonialism. It means that specific thing being discussed was better.

Kirk even immediately said the era was bad and evil. So how can you honestly claim he meant Black people were better off under that evil system?

The fair criticism is: “Kirk should have phrased it more carefully.” Fine like is said before, provocative words != racism

The dishonest criticism is: “Kirk said Black people were better off oppressed.” He did not. He said some data points were better in that era, while also calling the era evil.

Oga move on from this agend.

You did amend what he said. You in fact comepletely changed it. Adding the words "some" and maybe" are a huge change.

What he said -

"they were better in the 40s"

What you said he said -

" Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true "

These are completely different and anyone can see the massive difference.

Besides, you are not a baby - do I have to explain to you that when he says people were better behaved when they had less rights, he is drawing a link between having less rights and better behavior?

tctrills have explained to you and you are still burying your head in the sand.

I have no respect for his intellect, self respect, or moral compass.

GracieX3:
Please, which data shows that blacks had better outcomes in the 1940s?

You are talking about a period before 1964 where.

1. Blacks did not have rights
2. Blacks could be and were rejected from jobs based on racial discrimination, legally.
3. Blacks could not vote.
4. Segregation against Blacks was real.

So blacks could not build wealth or own banks. Even when they tried to build wealth in 1921, there was the Tulsa race massacre where black businesses and neighbourhoods were shot up by racist people.

You and Charlie Kirk have some anti-black bias.

Thank you for this. But bemeruca and tctrills say its cool since they committed less crimes. Oh, if your hands are tied of course you will do less overall including less crimes, for sure.

I want to imagine these people have no idea of the horrible things black people faced during that time. But they do. They just are too deeply enslaved to care.

These people are repulsive and do not deserve to exist. They lack any humanity whatsoever.

DeepSight:
You did amend what he said. You in fact comepletely changed it. Adding the words "some" and maybe" are a huge change.

What he said -

"they were better in the 40s"

What you said he said -

" Some Black social indicators were better in the 1940s than later decades. maybe true "

These are completely different and anyone can see the massive difference.

Besides, you are not a baby - do I have to explain to you that when he says people were better behaved when they had less rights, he is drawing a link between having less rights and better behavior?



I have no respect for his intellect, self respect, or moral compass.

You are still isolating one phrase from the subject being discussed.

Kirk did not start with oh, Black people were better off in the 1940s as a general statement.

He started with specific claims: less murder, less break-ins, etc. Then he said the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

In context, the word better refers to the data points he just mentioned. That is not an amendment; that is basic reading comprehension. Don't let LordReed give you that infection.

If I say: In the 1980s, Port Harcourt had less robbery, less murder, less drug abuse the city was better then, you do not automatically assume i mean every single thing about life was better. You understand I meant better on the issue being discussed.

bemeruca:
Kirk said:
There were less break-ins, less murderous, the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

So “better” refers to the specific data he was discussing. crime/social outcomes, not Black people were better off overall under Jim Crow.

As usual, Charlie Kirk and his defenders twist statistics to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

In the 1940s, burglariesand homicides dropped GENERALLY in the USA because of the draft and industrialisation at the time.

Charlie kirk had no point talking about outcomes for black people in 1940s. He is a racist

bemeruca:
Because what he said is the truth.

In the 40s when blacks have less right, they managed to not Kill each other and value family. This is true until welfare programs that attacked the family structure began.

I have been making such arguments long before Charlie. Call me a racist too.

Na why we no they move forward. Na blame and hatred for the truth we Sabi. See South Africa.

If you watch the debate with context you will get the full gist of his argument not what a race baiter deepsight feeds you with.

So what is your proposal?

That the reforms that happened beyond the 1960’s should be rolled back and blacks revert to the times of extreme racism, just to retain certain metrics?

What is your point? If you’re not delusional, please tell me what point you’re trying to make.

It’s seems we have to curse and blame the folks who fought for the rights of blacks, all for shameless people like you to bad mouth the efforts.

You’re a disgrace.

GracieX3:
As usual, Charlie Kirk and his defenders twist statistics to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

In the 1940s, burglariesand homicides dropped GENERALLY in the USA because of the draft and industrialisation at the time.

Charlie kirk had no point talking about outcomes for black people in 1940s. He is a racist

See the problem with this people. You are comparing 1940 to another Jim crow era. Kirk was comparing then to now. It shows you have no clue what we are talking about.

Wahala

THEDEEPSIGHT:
If you offered anything beyond insults I would more than welcome and discuss.

You are the one who began the emotional blackmail, so dont pretend to be insulted. I know you too well; you are a pro in hypocrisy. I gave you a response, and you began to cry that I should be ashamed of myself for not condemning Charlie. Oga, this doesn't work on me, you of all people should know that by now.
I dont shame you for your views, no matter how foolish they are, so do not try it with me.

DeepSight:
Thank you for this. But bemeruca and tctrills say its cool since they committed less crimes. Oh, if your hands are tied of course you will do less overall including less crimes, for sure.

I want to imagine these people have no idea of the horrible things black people faced during that time. But they do. They just are too deeply enslaved to care.

These people are repulsive and do not deserve to exist. They lack any humanity whatsoever.

Don't mind the Oreos (term for self hating blacks who are white on the inside).

There was generally less burglaries and murders for everyone in the USA at the time. Nothing special for black people. They are twisting facts to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

They lack any empathy

bemeruca:
You are still isolating one phrase from the subject being discussed.

Kirk did not start with oh, Black people were better off in the 1940s as a general statement.

He started with specific claims: less murder, less break-ins, etc. Then he said the data shows they were actually better in the 1940s.

In context, the word better refers to the data points he just mentioned. That is not an amendment; that is basic reading comprehension. Don't let LordReed give you that infection.

If I say: In the 1980s, Port Harcourt had less robbery, less murder, less drug abuse the city was better then, you do not automatically assume i mean every single thing about life was better. You understand I meant better on the issue being discussed.

If you truly want full context you should also factor in the fact that he said less murder and less break ins "before they had equal rights. Therefore in context, he was tying "better behavior" to having less rights.

When asked if he is saying suppression is good for them, he says no, its evil, but goes ahead to affirm that they were better under that suppression.

What do you think he was driving at?

Any half wit can see what he was saying. Especially given that this is the same man who argued that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake.
Thats real context for u.

DeepSight:
He provided a clarification right there and it was terrible. In his clarification he said blacks were better off in the 40s.

You have concluded that Kirk said that life was better off for black people in ALL metrics in the 1940s.

You are 100% wrong ,that's not what he meant.

GracieX3:
Don't mind the Oreos (term for self hating blacks who are white on the inside).

There was generally less burglaries and murders for everyone in the USA at the time. Nothing special for black people. They are twisting facts to propagate their anti-black propaganda.

But of course!

They lack any empathy

And basic self respect.

basilico:
You have concluded that Kirk said that life was better off for black people in ALL metrics in the 1940s.

You are 100% wrong ,that's not what he meant.

It doesnt have to be saying in all metrics. He did say better, simpliciter though. That does not have to be all metrics.
In context, he was saying that they behaved better when given less rights. And therefore suggesting that they deserve less rights.

bayelsaowei:
So what is your proposal?

That the reforms that happened beyond the 1960’s should be rolled back and blacks revert to the times of extreme racism, just to retain certain metrics?

What is your point? If you’re not delusional, please tell me what point you’re trying to make.

It’s seems we have to curse and blame the folks who fought for the rights of blacks, all for shameless people like you to bad mouth the efforts.

You’re a disgrace.

My proposa is not to roll back rights. My proposal is to stop pretending civil rights and social outcomes are the same issue.

Civil rights fix legal injustice. It did not automatically fix crime, family breakdown, urban poverty, bad schools, drugs, or cultural decay.

The question is not should Blacks go back to Jim Crow? Of course not.

The question is: after legal discrimination was reduced, why some indicators get worse instead of better?

That question is not anti-Black. It is the kind of question you ask if you actually care about solving the problem.

The hip hop culture promotes a lot of what is wrong with the black community. Obama talked about Fatherless homes.

Be here and pretend like there is nothing to talk about while you call people disgrace for no reason.

Don't understand what kirk was talking about, just go along and call him a racist because it makes you feel good.

tctrills:
You are the one who began the emotional blackmail, so dont pretend to be insulted. I know you too well; you are a pro in hypocrisy. I gave you a response, and you began to cry that I should be ashamed of myself for not condemning Charlie. Oga, this doesn't work on me, you of all people should know that by now.
I dont shame you for your views, no matter how foolish they are, so do not try it with me.

You dont deserve to exist.