5 ms·

The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living

The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor. I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of. That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?

thephyber 1y ago
[flagged]
- dinkumthinkum 1y ago
  [flagged]
- ETH_start 1y ago
  If you have a certain argument to a certain talking point, then you're always going to repeat that same argument whenever that talking point emerges. There's nothing bad faith about that. These kinds of arguments get repetitive so you're going to see people repeat the same points. As for the value of debate, even bad debate is better than nothing. Sometimes it feels like there's nothing being gained from it, but if you question people who have engaged in a lot of debates, you find that they're much more informed after the debates — even very acrimonious debates, where both sides are just trying to defeat the other side — than they were before it. A society needs people to communicate, for it to progress in its ability to effectively coordinate on complex social issues, and that process of communication is not going to be without warts, given how complex these social issues are, and how high the stakes are for a great number of people. Societies which embrace civil discourse and protect free speech are far better off for it. This killing strikes at the heart of a civil society.
  - thephyber 1y ago
    Charlie Kirk’s “certain argument” was “what is a woman?”. He would gish gallop weak and fallacious arguments to pretend like his definition was valuable (it wasn’t) and he would steam roll the nuanced definitions provided by his interlocutors. And no, bad debate isn’t necessarily valuable and that dichotomy doesn’t get us anywhere. Kirk was not the only person doing valuable debates. He was a propagandist with a façade of debater. Medhi Hasan is an eminently more honest and more skilled debater. Destiny is decent (although he does streaming debates for a living, so he gets a little too “debate bro” for my taste). Matt Dillahunty and some of his crowd are more informed and charitable than Kirk was. We should be encouraging young minds to seek out honest interlocutors, not ones that sate their “dunking” appetites. I’m not arguing for killing and your framing is not valuable. I’m arguing that Kirk was not a good role model for the kind of debate where people might actually learn facts.
    - ETH_start 1y ago
      Regarding even bad debate being better than no debate, I used to believe the same, then realized how much progress had been made in the process of low-quality arguments between 'heels dug in' interlocutors. It was like the inverse of a frog slowly being boiled. Alas, we can agree to disagree.
    - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
      But the question "what is a woman" is trying to get at finding this honesty. Even many allegedly highly educated professors respond to that with the answer "anyone that feels like one," which is an absurd and and demands the obvious response "but what is that thing?" Simply because a position can be correctly assailed with such a blunt question does not mean the criticism is not valid. Of course, it doesn't.
      - thephyber 1y ago
        The professors are likely willing to differentiate between biological sex and gender. Kirk purposefully conflated the two to suit his debate needs.
- loughnane 1y ago
  Yeah, I agree. It's a poverty of ours that he's the most prominent "debater" we've seen. Ideally we'd have a few dozen folks, maybe even a whole culture that debates. That way I think it'd be harder for grifters to gain a huge following through slick edits and rhetorical tricks. Nonetheless I think his killing will have more of a chilling effect on debate of any sort, though I'd like to proven wrong and see a more trend of more sober, thoughtful debate take hold.
- tacitusarc 1y ago
  I have not seen much of him, but I did watch a video from Jubilee where he was debating a bunch of people. In that instance, I have to say I saw no indication of bath faith; to the contrary, he seemed to listen very carefully, and would use the most charitable interpretation of what people were saying. I’d heard a lot of negative things about him, so I was actually impressed. I might not have agreed with him, but he was genuine and respectful. I think his death is truly a tragedy. I worry about how this will further radicalize the right, and the chilling effect it will have on already chilled discourse.
  - defrost 1y ago
    > but I did watch a video from Jubilee where he was debating a bunch of people. Full, uncut video, or video edited and hosted by Kirk on his youtube channel? I ask in good faith, I've seen him stumbling about badly in UK debating clubs where debate is an art form and I've seen "debates" on his channels that appear to have numerous edits.
    - tacitusarc 1y ago
      I saw the video on the Jubilee channel- so far as I’m aware it is full and uncut. I have not seen any videos from his channel, I wasn’t aware he had one though obviously in retrospect it is unsurprising. I found it: https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=N9dU3r4DxJzK1a2i https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=N9dU3r4DxJzK1a2i Perhaps if you watch it you’ll have a different impression than I did.
      - defrost 1y ago
        First thoughts, having never been aware of this whole "20 X Vs 1 of Y" Jubilee format before are that; * this seems highly contrived, and * "Now Casting 55+ year old Trump supporters for an upcoming SURROUNDED video" (on the home page) supports that notion. This isn't the format of Buckley V. Vidal (perhaps the start of the end of intellectual debate in the US) and nor is it a debate in the sense of equal time, three rounds (case, defense, conclusion), etc. I've moved on to looking at: The Problem with Jubilee’s Political Debate Videos - https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-political-debate-videos/ https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-po... The ‘one voice against 20 extremists’ format is designed to monetise hate - https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-one-voice-against-20-extremists-format-is-designed-to-monetise-hate https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-on... which at a first rapid skim appear to flesh out many of the initial issues and feelings that I have. Right now I have hedges to trim and a roof to tin so it'll be many hours before I can watch an hour and half contrived 'battle' and take notes .. but I will give it a shot. Thanks for the link.
- jalapenos 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - thephyber 1y ago
    I’ll leave this here in case someone else forgets how terrible Kirk’s content was: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk
cosmicgadget 1y ago
I read an account of the "debate" immediately preceding his murder, it was quips and dodges. If that's at all representative of his conduct, he actively hurt the national dialogue by convincing people that that's what a debate looks like.
- dnissley 1y ago
  how would you steelman his position?
  - beeflet 1y ago
    I wouldn't. It's a position selected specifically to troll immature leftist college students and score youtube views.
    - qcnguy 1y ago
      Steelmanning that position, though, would go like this. The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind. Good debate makes good viewing, which is why debates have audiences. And young people in particular tend to be impressionable because they don't have a lifetime of commitment to one position. So if you want to engage people politically via debate, then university campuses are a good place to do that and thus - to someone extraordinarily uncharitable - any such debate could be described as "trolling immature leftist college students to score YouTube views". The same activity done by an academic would be described as "presenting the youth with mind-expanding dialogue", and they'd be doing it to score tuition fees, but nobody would quibble with that phrasing.
      - camgunz 1y ago
        > The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind. Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together. Unless you're very, very careful and good faith, and your counterpart is very, very careful and good faith, debates are a race to the bottom of psychological manipulation. They're not contests of facts; there's no way to objectively score them; they're not good ways for participants or bystanders to learn. Facially, they're theater. But a system's purpose is what it does, and these performances serve as a venue/foundation to hone/push messaging. You'll almost never see right-wing "debaters" go up against "big" left-wing names like an Ezra Klein or Destiny (Ben Shapiro is kind of the exception, but he's far more conciliatory with someone like Klein--he did do one with Destiny, it went pretty badly for him, so it of course became a one-time thing). Kirk et al lose--they lose frequently! You rarely see it because they have far bigger megaphones than their victorious rivals. But have these (many) losses changed their views? No. Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together.
jalapenos 1y ago
I think that's the point. The kind of individual who shoots someone for saying things he doesn't like is a narcissist. Ideas anger narcissists because if they are counter to what they already believe, they are a personal affront, and if they cannot reason the challenge away because - quite simply, they're wrong and the other person is right - it creates a great anger in them. And narcissism is prevailing in our culture currently. People far prefer to call the other side bad, stupid, etc, rather than introspect and consider that maybe you're not that smart, and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness. The problem of course is that the only way opposing narcissists can overcome each other is by force. So there'll be less argument, and more go-straight-to violence.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Can you explain your argument further? I don't think it makes much sense, and I think you would struggle to find actual sources blaming narcissism outside your own conjecture. A world where pugilism prevails over debate would look markedly different. I doubt Kirk would bother holding events if any of what you said was fundamentally true about politics.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness. I have coworkers lying low so they don't get deported from the country. And many were born here. I beyond exhausted of this "both sides" narrative as if I need any introspection on the prospect of "maybe we should exile people based on skin color".
  - MisterMower 1y ago
    If here is the US and they were born here, they are citizens, no? Why would they be worried about deportation?
password54321 1y ago
It is a performance that appears as a debate.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  Is that relevant? Could be said about any public debate or speaker.
  - password54321 1y ago
    Of course it couldn't. Go and compare these two. You may as well compare fruit loops to wagyu beef. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g ("Charlie Kirk Hands Out L's") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 ("Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice")
    - yostrovs 1y ago
      Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles.
      - password54321 1y ago
        It is like comparing a mediocre magician who is ok at giving an illusion of a debate that gets a reaction from an audience vs people who give thought provoking points. A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?". The whole point is you either answer A) no, and get a reaction from the audience for looking bad cause hitler or B) yes, and now you have conceded. It amounts to a party trick.
        nailer 1y ago
latexr 1y ago
Feels like your second paragraph negates the first. That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual, using the backdrop of college campuses to lend legitimacy to his divisive ideas. That is not what college campuses are for, and it is not a debate. I’m not American, I never heard of this guy before. But I saw the video of the last moments and it’s a telling snippet. He was incredibly dismissive in his answers which were vague and devoid of information, while being clearly rage bait meant to be cheered on by his base.
- loughnane 1y ago
  As I've said in a few other comments, I agree it's a poor "debate". But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere. I hope for better, but I can't help but think his killing doesn't help.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere. Why can't we strive for a proper environment and expel those who don't want to foster it? Schools are not entitled to give "equal platform" to unequal ideas.
    - daveidol 1y ago
      What is an “unequal” idea?
      - LordDragonfang 1y ago
        They pretty clearly meant "ideas", plural, which are pairwise not equal to each other in some metric (presumably,merit).
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  He didn't deserve to die but I don't like how racist rhetoric somehow became honest political discussion. The elevation of racist ideology to being just another political opinion deserving of respect worries me.
jake_brake 1y ago
[flagged]
- selfmodruntime 1y ago
  How so? He was a man with opinions you disagree with. I did too. That does not make him evil.
  - Gud 1y ago
    No, but his opinions did. Honestly he was a despicable man. Doesn’t mean I support his murder.
kiitos 1y ago
> Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of. no he didn't, and this is absolutely self-evident, he trolled and victim-blamed and had no interest in talking to anyone about any kind of idea

thephyber 1y ago

[flagged]

dinkumthinkum 1y ago
[flagged]
ETH_start 1y ago
If you have a certain argument to a certain talking point, then you're always going to repeat that same argument whenever that talking point emerges. There's nothing bad faith about that. These kinds of arguments get repetitive so you're going to see people repeat the same points. As for the value of debate, even bad debate is better than nothing. Sometimes it feels like there's nothing being gained from it, but if you question people who have engaged in a lot of debates, you find that they're much more informed after the debates — even very acrimonious debates, where both sides are just trying to defeat the other side — than they were before it. A society needs people to communicate, for it to progress in its ability to effectively coordinate on complex social issues, and that process of communication is not going to be without warts, given how complex these social issues are, and how high the stakes are for a great number of people. Societies which embrace civil discourse and protect free speech are far better off for it. This killing strikes at the heart of a civil society.
- thephyber 1y ago
  Charlie Kirk’s “certain argument” was “what is a woman?”. He would gish gallop weak and fallacious arguments to pretend like his definition was valuable (it wasn’t) and he would steam roll the nuanced definitions provided by his interlocutors. And no, bad debate isn’t necessarily valuable and that dichotomy doesn’t get us anywhere. Kirk was not the only person doing valuable debates. He was a propagandist with a façade of debater. Medhi Hasan is an eminently more honest and more skilled debater. Destiny is decent (although he does streaming debates for a living, so he gets a little too “debate bro” for my taste). Matt Dillahunty and some of his crowd are more informed and charitable than Kirk was. We should be encouraging young minds to seek out honest interlocutors, not ones that sate their “dunking” appetites. I’m not arguing for killing and your framing is not valuable. I’m arguing that Kirk was not a good role model for the kind of debate where people might actually learn facts.
  - ETH_start 1y ago
    Regarding even bad debate being better than no debate, I used to believe the same, then realized how much progress had been made in the process of low-quality arguments between 'heels dug in' interlocutors. It was like the inverse of a frog slowly being boiled. Alas, we can agree to disagree.
  - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
    But the question "what is a woman" is trying to get at finding this honesty. Even many allegedly highly educated professors respond to that with the answer "anyone that feels like one," which is an absurd and and demands the obvious response "but what is that thing?" Simply because a position can be correctly assailed with such a blunt question does not mean the criticism is not valid. Of course, it doesn't.
    - thephyber 1y ago
      The professors are likely willing to differentiate between biological sex and gender. Kirk purposefully conflated the two to suit his debate needs.
loughnane 1y ago
Yeah, I agree. It's a poverty of ours that he's the most prominent "debater" we've seen. Ideally we'd have a few dozen folks, maybe even a whole culture that debates. That way I think it'd be harder for grifters to gain a huge following through slick edits and rhetorical tricks. Nonetheless I think his killing will have more of a chilling effect on debate of any sort, though I'd like to proven wrong and see a more trend of more sober, thoughtful debate take hold.
tacitusarc 1y ago
I have not seen much of him, but I did watch a video from Jubilee where he was debating a bunch of people. In that instance, I have to say I saw no indication of bath faith; to the contrary, he seemed to listen very carefully, and would use the most charitable interpretation of what people were saying. I’d heard a lot of negative things about him, so I was actually impressed. I might not have agreed with him, but he was genuine and respectful. I think his death is truly a tragedy. I worry about how this will further radicalize the right, and the chilling effect it will have on already chilled discourse.
- defrost 1y ago
  > but I did watch a video from Jubilee where he was debating a bunch of people. Full, uncut video, or video edited and hosted by Kirk on his youtube channel? I ask in good faith, I've seen him stumbling about badly in UK debating clubs where debate is an art form and I've seen "debates" on his channels that appear to have numerous edits.
  - tacitusarc 1y ago
    I saw the video on the Jubilee channel- so far as I’m aware it is full and uncut. I have not seen any videos from his channel, I wasn’t aware he had one though obviously in retrospect it is unsurprising. I found it: https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=N9dU3r4DxJzK1a2i https://youtu.be/WV29R1M25n8?si=N9dU3r4DxJzK1a2i Perhaps if you watch it you’ll have a different impression than I did.
    - defrost 1y ago
      First thoughts, having never been aware of this whole "20 X Vs 1 of Y" Jubilee format before are that; * this seems highly contrived, and * "Now Casting 55+ year old Trump supporters for an upcoming SURROUNDED video" (on the home page) supports that notion. This isn't the format of Buckley V. Vidal (perhaps the start of the end of intellectual debate in the US) and nor is it a debate in the sense of equal time, three rounds (case, defense, conclusion), etc. I've moved on to looking at: The Problem with Jubilee’s Political Debate Videos - https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-political-debate-videos/ https://fhspost.com/10276/forum/the-problem-with-jubilees-po... The ‘one voice against 20 extremists’ format is designed to monetise hate - https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-one-voice-against-20-extremists-format-is-designed-to-monetise-hate https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/the-on... which at a first rapid skim appear to flesh out many of the initial issues and feelings that I have. Right now I have hedges to trim and a roof to tin so it'll be many hours before I can watch an hour and half contrived 'battle' and take notes .. but I will give it a shot. Thanks for the link.
jalapenos 1y ago
[flagged]
- thephyber 1y ago
  I’ll leave this here in case someone else forgets how terrible Kirk’s content was: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk

cosmicgadget 1y ago

I read an account of the "debate" immediately preceding his murder, it was quips and dodges. If that's at all representative of his conduct, he actively hurt the national dialogue by convincing people that that's what a debate looks like.

dnissley 1y ago
how would you steelman his position?
- beeflet 1y ago
  I wouldn't. It's a position selected specifically to troll immature leftist college students and score youtube views.
  - qcnguy 1y ago
    Steelmanning that position, though, would go like this. The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind. Good debate makes good viewing, which is why debates have audiences. And young people in particular tend to be impressionable because they don't have a lifetime of commitment to one position. So if you want to engage people politically via debate, then university campuses are a good place to do that and thus - to someone extraordinarily uncharitable - any such debate could be described as "trolling immature leftist college students to score YouTube views". The same activity done by an academic would be described as "presenting the youth with mind-expanding dialogue", and they'd be doing it to score tuition fees, but nobody would quibble with that phrasing.
    - camgunz 1y ago
      > The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind. Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together. Unless you're very, very careful and good faith, and your counterpart is very, very careful and good faith, debates are a race to the bottom of psychological manipulation. They're not contests of facts; there's no way to objectively score them; they're not good ways for participants or bystanders to learn. Facially, they're theater. But a system's purpose is what it does, and these performances serve as a venue/foundation to hone/push messaging. You'll almost never see right-wing "debaters" go up against "big" left-wing names like an Ezra Klein or Destiny (Ben Shapiro is kind of the exception, but he's far more conciliatory with someone like Klein--he did do one with Destiny, it went pretty badly for him, so it of course became a one-time thing). Kirk et al lose--they lose frequently! You rarely see it because they have far bigger megaphones than their victorious rivals. But have these (many) losses changed their views? No. Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together.

jalapenos 1y ago

I think that's the point. The kind of individual who shoots someone for saying things he doesn't like is a narcissist. Ideas anger narcissists because if they are counter to what they already believe, they are a personal affront, and if they cannot reason the challenge away because - quite simply, they're wrong and the other person is right - it creates a great anger in them. And narcissism is prevailing in our culture currently. People far prefer to call the other side bad, stupid, etc, rather than introspect and consider that maybe you're not that smart, and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness. The problem of course is that the only way opposing narcissists can overcome each other is by force. So there'll be less argument, and more go-straight-to violence.

bigyabai 1y ago
Can you explain your argument further? I don't think it makes much sense, and I think you would struggle to find actual sources blaming narcissism outside your own conjecture. A world where pugilism prevails over debate would look markedly different. I doubt Kirk would bother holding events if any of what you said was fundamentally true about politics.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
>and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness. I have coworkers lying low so they don't get deported from the country. And many were born here. I beyond exhausted of this "both sides" narrative as if I need any introspection on the prospect of "maybe we should exile people based on skin color".
- MisterMower 1y ago
  If here is the US and they were born here, they are citizens, no? Why would they be worried about deportation?

password54321 1y ago

It is a performance that appears as a debate.

raxxorraxor 1y ago
Is that relevant? Could be said about any public debate or speaker.
- password54321 1y ago
  Of course it couldn't. Go and compare these two. You may as well compare fruit loops to wagyu beef. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g ("Charlie Kirk Hands Out L's") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 ("Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice")
  - yostrovs 1y ago
    Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles.
    - password54321 1y ago
      It is like comparing a mediocre magician who is ok at giving an illusion of a debate that gets a reaction from an audience vs people who give thought provoking points. A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?". The whole point is you either answer A) no, and get a reaction from the audience for looking bad cause hitler or B) yes, and now you have conceded. It amounts to a party trick.
      - nailer 1y ago

latexr 1y ago

Feels like your second paragraph negates the first. That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual, using the backdrop of college campuses to lend legitimacy to his divisive ideas. That is not what college campuses are for, and it is not a debate. I’m not American, I never heard of this guy before. But I saw the video of the last moments and it’s a telling snippet. He was incredibly dismissive in his answers which were vague and devoid of information, while being clearly rage bait meant to be cheered on by his base.

loughnane 1y ago
As I've said in a few other comments, I agree it's a poor "debate". But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere. I hope for better, but I can't help but think his killing doesn't help.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere. Why can't we strive for a proper environment and expel those who don't want to foster it? Schools are not entitled to give "equal platform" to unequal ideas.
  - daveidol 1y ago
    What is an “unequal” idea?
    - LordDragonfang 1y ago
      They pretty clearly meant "ideas", plural, which are pairwise not equal to each other in some metric (presumably,merit).
2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
He didn't deserve to die but I don't like how racist rhetoric somehow became honest political discussion. The elevation of racist ideology to being just another political opinion deserving of respect worries me.

jake_brake 1y ago

[flagged]

selfmodruntime 1y ago
How so? He was a man with opinions you disagree with. I did too. That does not make him evil.
- Gud 1y ago
  No, but his opinions did. Honestly he was a despicable man. Doesn’t mean I support his murder.

kiitos 1y ago

> Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of. no he didn't, and this is absolutely self-evident, he trolled and victim-blamed and had no interest in talking to anyone about any kind of idea