Crockett Destroys Patel

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

I meant the whole site. Going back years. Hate to burst the bubble but lots of petty people here. 

You joined at the end of covid.  You don’t use big words just big font.   Not the same thing

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You joined at the end of covid.  You don’t use big words just big font. 

It’s hard to say big words with his mask still on. 

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It’s hard to say big words with his mask still on. 

Hey is she "towing" the line? 

[wrestlingguy]

13 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

People on this thread site have mocked me for using big words. 

People get offended when they feel they are being spoken down to. Yes I see the irony in speaking down to you in an attempt to educate you about speaking down to people. 

When perceiving to be spoken down to an emotional response can happen and you may no longer be listening for the purpose of understanding, but waiting for you chance to interject the nature of your perceived offense. 

So it can be beneficial in certain circumstances to dumb things down. For example, visiting a doctor. There is a tiny chance someone could understand what doctor is saying if things are not dumbed down at least a bit. 

If you're not as upset with doctors dumbing things down, which is way more impactful on your life, than a politician you should ask yourself why you care? 

Is it just a way for you to flex your rage at a political party, an opinion, or a person from a particular group? 
 

To answer your question, no they are not ‘too’ dumb. That’s how she feels is a productive way to communicate. Sorry that makes you mad. 
have asked yourself why you’re so mad?

Are you an AI bot? Why are all your posts in a different font?

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

Hey is she "towing" the line? 

Not with his mask on he’s  not 

[1032004]

18 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Dylan roof must not have had a lot of followers on social media huh? 

Are you making light of a racist murderer that senselessly killed 9 people?

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, wrestlingguy said:

Are you an AI bot? Why are all your posts in a different font?

He has no thoughts of his own.  He’s Trying to sound smart is all. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

10 minutes ago, mspart said:

Do you feel it would be a productive way for you to communicate in that way?   Why or why not?

mspart

If I were a politician, with access to more and detailed information than all but about 500 people have seen and I was talking to a constituent, dumbing things down to make a point would be beneficial for both of us depending on the subject. Them to understand a potentially complex issue and me not wasting my time, getting a good sound bite for a video to put out to the social medias. 

 

As a coach, we often have to dumb things down for younger or less experienced athletes. Watching their eyes glaze over when you try to explain how I think of a situation can be disconcerting for both us. They may feel dumb or feel I think they are, for not being able to follow a topic that is currently over their head. 

 

Would we ever condemn a coach for explaining something two different ways to two athletes at vastly different skill/experience levels? Of course not. We do these things on the fly all the time. Something doesn't land quite right we pivot and try a different tactic. Anything to get the message through and in a constructive way. 

 

Y'all seem like you just look for things to get mad at. But seeing how riled up your leaders keep you. Being in the red seems like your idle position these days. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, 1032004 said:

Are you making light of a racist murderer that senselessly killed 9 people?

Nah I’m making fun of you for saying people that don’t have a lot of followers aren’t popular enough to know whom they are.  Are you really that slow ? 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

If I were a politician, with access to more and detailed information than all but about 500 people have seen and I was talking to a constituent, dumbing things down to make a point would be beneficial for both of us depending on the subject. Them to understand a potentially complex issue and me not wasting my time, getting a good sound bite for a video to put out to the social medias. 

 

As a coach, we often have to dumb things down for younger or less experienced athletes. Watching their eyes glaze over when you try to explain how I think of a situation can be disconcerting for both us. They may feel dumb or feel I think they are, for not being able to follow a topic that is currently over their head. 

 

Would we ever condemn a coach for explaining something two different ways to two athletes at vastly different skill/experience levels? Of course not. We do these things on the fly all the time. Something doesn't land quite right we pivot and try a different tactic. Anything to get the message through and in a constructive way. 

 

Y'all seem like you just look for things to get mad at. But seeing how riled up your leaders keep you. Being in the red seems like your idle position these days. 

1. Intellectual flattening erodes nuance and critical thinking.
   When one systematically oversimplifies complex topics, one risks degrading the audience’s capacity to grapple with ambiguity, evaluate trade-offs, and understand complications. What may be efficient in the short term becomes impoverishing long term: the audience internalizes a model in which issues are binary, reductive, or laced with black-and-white moral overtones, rather than multivalent, contingent, subject to empirical uncertainty.

2. Manipulative potential and rhetorical distortion.
   “Dumbing down” isn’t just pedagogically neutral. It can serve as a rhetorical device that strips away qualification, caveats, and complexity so that one’s message becomes more palatable or emotionally resonant—but also more misleading. Constituents may be misled or misinformed (even if well intended), because they lack access to the underlying subtleties. Simplification for sound bites can become distortion for persuasion.

3. Undermining of democratic agency.
   Democracy presumes that citizens are capable of making informed judgments, that they can understand complexities of policy, trade-offs, unintended consequences. If political discourse is persistently simplified, then the citizenry may become passive consumers of pre-packaged ideas rather than active, thoughtful participants. This threatens authentic consent, accountability, and informed decision-making.

4. Educational hypocrisy and inconsistency.
   If coaches or politicians sometimes “dumb things down,” it may be defensible in certain contexts, but if it becomes routine, it reveals a disinterest in fostering growth, a tendency to condescend rather than elevate. In coaching, the goal is to bring athletes up to a higher level—not simply to make them temporarily feel good or “understandable.” In politics, likewise, the goal should (ideally) be to elevate public understanding.

5. Loss of trust when oversimplification is exposed.
   When simplifications are later revealed to have omitted important facts, or when their implications turn out to be false, credibility suffers. Constituents may feel deceived, manipulated, or infantilized. A reputation gains value when the communicator shows both respect for the audience’s capacity and willingness to engage honestly with complexity.

6. Alternative: tiered communication rather than permanent dumbing down.
   Rather than permanently “dumbing down,” a more sustainable strategy is to layer communication: use simple, relatable explanations as entry points, but also provide access to more elaborate expositions for those who want or need them. In coaching, this might be giving a simple metaphor first, then a more technical breakdown. In politics, this might mean having sound bites, but also policy documents, town halls, written materials. That preserves integrity, fosters learning, and respects the intelligence of the audience.

---

Conclusion:

While there is merit in tailoring language and complexity to match an audience’s background (to avoid confusion, disengagement, or inefficiency), there remains a moral and intellectual duty to preserve truth, nuance, and opportunity for growth. Overreliance on simplified frames or sound bites may secure short-term clarity or popularity, but risk longer-term damage to collective understanding, trust, and democratic health.

[ThreePointTakedown]

11 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You joined at the end of covid.  You don’t use big words just big font.   Not the same thing

Haha, thank you for the flattery and the gaslighting. Trying to tell me my lived experience. Not surprised tho. Conceding a point is rare regardless of how obvious. 
Better luck next time. 

[wrestlingguy]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

 

If I were a politician, with access to more and detailed information than all but about 500 people have seen and I was talking to a constituent, dumbing things down to make a point would be beneficial for both of us depending on the subject. Them to understand a potentially complex issue and me not wasting my time, getting a good sound bite for a video to put out to the social medias. 

 

As a coach, we often have to dumb things down for younger or less experienced athletes. Watching their eyes glaze over when you try to explain how I think of a situation can be disconcerting for both us. They may feel dumb or feel I think they are, for not being able to follow a topic that is currently over their head. 

 

Would we ever condemn a coach for explaining something two different ways to two athletes at vastly different skill/experience levels? Of course not. We do these things on the fly all the time. Something doesn't land quite right we pivot and try a different tactic. Anything to get the message through and in a constructive way. 

 

Y'all seem like you just look for things to get mad at. But seeing how riled up your leaders keep you. Being in the red seems like your idle position these days. 

It took you 4 paragraphs to explain why you try to talk down to people? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think?

[ThreePointTakedown]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

 

1. Intellectual flattening erodes nuance and critical thinking.
   When one systematically oversimplifies complex topics, one risks degrading the audience’s capacity to grapple with ambiguity, evaluate trade-offs, and understand complications. What may be efficient in the short term becomes impoverishing long term: the audience internalizes a model in which issues are binary, reductive, or laced with black-and-white moral overtones, rather than multivalent, contingent, subject to empirical uncertainty.

2. Manipulative potential and rhetorical distortion.
   “Dumbing down” isn’t just pedagogically neutral. It can serve as a rhetorical device that strips away qualification, caveats, and complexity so that one’s message becomes more palatable or emotionally resonant—but also more misleading. Constituents may be misled or misinformed (even if well intended), because they lack access to the underlying subtleties. Simplification for sound bites can become distortion for persuasion.

3. Undermining of democratic agency.
   Democracy presumes that citizens are capable of making informed judgments, that they can understand complexities of policy, trade-offs, unintended consequences. If political discourse is persistently simplified, then the citizenry may become passive consumers of pre-packaged ideas rather than active, thoughtful participants. This threatens authentic consent, accountability, and informed decision-making.

4. Educational hypocrisy and inconsistency.
   If coaches or politicians sometimes “dumb things down,” it may be defensible in certain contexts, but if it becomes routine, it reveals a disinterest in fostering growth, a tendency to condescend rather than elevate. In coaching, the goal is to bring athletes up to a higher level—not simply to make them temporarily feel good or “understandable.” In politics, likewise, the goal should (ideally) be to elevate public understanding.

5. Loss of trust when oversimplification is exposed.
   When simplifications are later revealed to have omitted important facts, or when their implications turn out to be false, credibility suffers. Constituents may feel deceived, manipulated, or infantilized. A reputation gains value when the communicator shows both respect for the audience’s capacity and willingness to engage honestly with complexity.

6. Alternative: tiered communication rather than permanent dumbing down.
   Rather than permanently “dumbing down,” a more sustainable strategy is to layer communication: use simple, relatable explanations as entry points, but also provide access to more elaborate expositions for those who want or need them. In coaching, this might be giving a simple metaphor first, then a more technical breakdown. In politics, this might mean having sound bites, but also policy documents, town halls, written materials. That preserves integrity, fosters learning, and respects the intelligence of the audience.

---

Conclusion:

While there is merit in tailoring language and complexity to match an audience’s background (to avoid confusion, disengagement, or inefficiency), there remains a moral and intellectual duty to preserve truth, nuance, and opportunity for growth. Overreliance on simplified frames or sound bites may secure short-term clarity or popularity, but risk longer-term damage to collective understanding, trust, and democratic health.

So your conclusion is that there is nothing wrong or harmful. 
Because at no point did you prove any of the aforementioned points. 
Present evidence JC does any of these things frequently enough to rise to a harmful or unproductive level. 
Seems she got all your attention. 

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

It took you 4 paragraphs to explain why you try to talk down to people? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think?

Maybe instead of asking why I “talk down” to people, you should consider whether it’s coming from a mix of trying to be precise and careful — not from assuming I know more. If the tone feels off, I can adjust it, but being challenged doesn’t automatically make someone less smart. Let’s keep this about the ideas, not about who sounds smarter.

[ThreePointTakedown]

10 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

Are you an AI bot? Why are all your posts in a different font?

My. Name. Is. Neo!

[wrestlingguy]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Maybe instead of asking why I “talk down” to people, you should consider whether it’s coming from a mix of trying to be precise and careful — not from assuming I know more. If the tone feels off, I can adjust it, but being challenged doesn’t automatically make someone less smart. Let’s keep this about the ideas, not about who sounds smarter.

I was asking TPT.

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

So your conclusion is that there is nothing wrong or harmful. 
Because at no point did you prove any of the aforementioned points. 
Present evidence JC does any of these things frequently enough to rise to a harmful or unproductive level. 
Seems she got all your attention. 

It’s morally reprehensible for a highly educated African American woman to deliberately adopt a “ghetto” speech or persona to pander for the black vote, because it undercuts the dignity and intelligence of her own community — the African American community has made real, measurable gains in education (for example, nearly 27–30 percent of Black adults over 25 hold at least a bachelor’s degree, with Black women often outpacing men in attainment.

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

It took you 4 paragraphs to explain why you try to talk down to people? Maybe you aren't as smart as you think?

Honor system, without going back. 
If you actually read the post, can you roughly breakdown my explanation? 
 

Then tell me why I would wrong with that approach? 

Edited 2 hours ago by ThreePointTakedown
You

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, Caveira said:

It’s morally reprehensible for a highly educated African American woman to deliberately adopt a “ghetto” speech or persona to pander for the black vote, because it undercuts the dignity and intelligence of her own community — the African American community has made real, measurable gains in education (for example, nearly 27–30 percent of Black adults over 25 hold at least a bachelor’s degree, with Black women often outpacing men in attainment.

Imagine if a white private high school liberal college educated person talked like they were from the hood like Jc does.  

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Imagine if a white private high school liberal college educated person talked like they were from the hood like Jc does.  

Imagine if a republican pretended to be an Indian.  

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Imagine if a white private high school liberal college educated person talked like they were from the hood like Jc does.  

Imagine saying you were arrested on the porch with a black family during a civil rights protest……. And were lying about that?

 

 

[1032004]

19 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Nah I’m making fun of you for saying people that don’t have a lot of followers aren’t popular enough to know whom they are.  Are you really that slow ? 

Uh, most murderers don’t have many followers before becoming murders.  Gaining notoriety is often a reason they become murderers.  Thomas Crooks being one possible example.

The follower discussion was more about comments people make.  With 300+ million people in the country, you can find a couple hundred people saying just about anything.  But there are really very few that anyone has ever heard of that said despicable things about Kirk’s death.  And Jimmy Kimmel is not among them.  Of course his fame is why him being cancelled is such a big story, verifying that follower count does matter.

[Caveira]

4 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Uh, most murderers don’t have many followers before becoming murders.  Gaining notoriety is often a reason they become murderers.  Thomas Crooks being one possible example.

The follower discussion was more about comments people make.  With 300+ million people in the country, you can find a couple hundred people saying just about anything.  But there are really very few that anyone has ever heard of that said despicable things about Kirk’s death.  And Jimmy Kimmel is not among them.  Of course his fame is why him being cancelled is such a big story, verifying that follower count does matter.

Not even this lady?

Or nurse ratchett?

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Caveira

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Uh, most murderers don’t have many followers before becoming murders.  Gaining notoriety is often a reason they become murderers.  Thomas Crooks being one possible example.

The follower discussion was more about comments people make.  With 300+ million people in the country, you can find a couple hundred people saying just about anything.  But there are really very few that anyone has ever heard of that said despicable things about Kirk’s death.  And Jimmy Kimmel is not among them.  Of course his fame is why him being cancelled is such a big story, verifying that follower count does matter.

Most teachers and /or professors don’t have a lot of followers yet they’re major influencers.  Quite a few stories out there right now. 

[1032004]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Not even this lady?

 

Not even that lady what?  Is she famous?