5 ms·

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

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.
    - tacitusarc 1y ago
      It’s definitely contrived, and Jubilee for sure seems to make clickbait-y videos. I don’t particularly fault them for it, it seems to be the arena they are playing in. But I do think they are fairly neutral, and they get people who disagree to talk to each other, and I appreciate that. I watched another video of theirs where it was inverted, with many conservative students debating one liberal pundit, and of course the students did worse- they’re just a bunch of kids. But good to be exposed to another point of view. Best of luck on your hedges and roof! That sounds far more worthwhile than watching that video.
  - komali2 1y ago
    Jubilee does cut their videos just so you're aware. I've never heard of them ever releasing a full uncut version. They have good editors, it's hard to tell. They'll snip entire participant segments.
- rigrassm 1y ago
  Not op but I've seen the video they referenced and their account is accurate from what I remember and the whole debate is shown (it's actually a long video). There were preselected topics with time limits for each one. The way they picked who was up was a bit odd with them basically racing to the chair but the ones not up there could vote to stop the current debaters turn and let someone else take over. It was definitely interesting. In that production he was pretty engaged and most of the time seemed to be putting out relevant, thought out responses. That's not to say there weren't any gotcha responses being thrown around but IIRC (it's been a while) it was coming from both sides of the debate. IIRC, there was some one of the debaters was actually more ,than Kirk (provided I'm not mixing up videos, healthy distrust for my memory lol).
zug_zug 1y ago
[flagged]
- WorkerBee28474 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - thephyber 1y ago
    No, Kirk used the same debate bro tactics about people who were very informed and nuanced about the biological facts. Forest Valkai has explained this ad nauseum. Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips. He ran into plenty of college students who tried the thing you described, but he was equally dismissive of the people who knew more than him on the subject.
    - WorkerBee28474 1y ago
      > Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips Marshall McLuhan would like a word with you
  - bccdee 1y ago
    It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. If I ask you, "what is an adult," there's no simple and rigorous answer to that question. You can say, "you're an adult when everyone agrees you're an adult," but that's a bit circular, and it risks making you sound dumb. Or you could get into different cultural ideas of adulthood, what happens when someone who's an adult in one culture enters a different culture where they're considered a child, the role that legal systems plays in establishing an age of majority, the social agreements that give that legal system the power to enforce certain rules based on that age, and so forth. But that's not going to come over very well in a snappy debate video where the other guy gets to edit the footage of whatever you say. If a progressive were running the debate, they would never ask a question like, "what is a woman." They don't care that Republicans think trans women are men. They'd ask, "why should your conception of womanhood be used to determine who gets put in a women's jail when putting transgender women in male prisons measurably increases prison violence?" "What is a woman" is a nebulous cultural question with no real importance compared to the actual lives and freedoms of transgender women.
bushbaba 1y ago
Agreed. He was respectful of differing opinion, and encouraged diversity of thought. All Americans, from the left and right, should view this as a Fundimental aspect of a healthy democracy. We don't always need to agree, but if we cannot talk we are no longer an Nation.
aredox 1y ago
[flagged]
- account42 1y ago
  How many transgender mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount and not "too many"?
  - aredox 1y ago
    [flagged]

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.
  - tacitusarc 1y ago
    It’s definitely contrived, and Jubilee for sure seems to make clickbait-y videos. I don’t particularly fault them for it, it seems to be the arena they are playing in. But I do think they are fairly neutral, and they get people who disagree to talk to each other, and I appreciate that. I watched another video of theirs where it was inverted, with many conservative students debating one liberal pundit, and of course the students did worse- they’re just a bunch of kids. But good to be exposed to another point of view. Best of luck on your hedges and roof! That sounds far more worthwhile than watching that video.
- komali2 1y ago
  Jubilee does cut their videos just so you're aware. I've never heard of them ever releasing a full uncut version. They have good editors, it's hard to tell. They'll snip entire participant segments.
rigrassm 1y ago
Not op but I've seen the video they referenced and their account is accurate from what I remember and the whole debate is shown (it's actually a long video). There were preselected topics with time limits for each one. The way they picked who was up was a bit odd with them basically racing to the chair but the ones not up there could vote to stop the current debaters turn and let someone else take over. It was definitely interesting. In that production he was pretty engaged and most of the time seemed to be putting out relevant, thought out responses. That's not to say there weren't any gotcha responses being thrown around but IIRC (it's been a while) it was coming from both sides of the debate. IIRC, there was some one of the debaters was actually more ,than Kirk (provided I'm not mixing up videos, healthy distrust for my memory lol).

zug_zug 1y ago

[flagged]

WorkerBee28474 1y ago
[flagged]
- thephyber 1y ago
  No, Kirk used the same debate bro tactics about people who were very informed and nuanced about the biological facts. Forest Valkai has explained this ad nauseum. Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips. He ran into plenty of college students who tried the thing you described, but he was equally dismissive of the people who knew more than him on the subject.
  - WorkerBee28474 1y ago
    > Kirk was bad faith because he tried to distill a complicated, nuanced argument into TikTok clips Marshall McLuhan would like a word with you
- bccdee 1y ago
  It's bad faith because womanhood, like (for instance) adulthood, is a social construct. If I ask you, "what is an adult," there's no simple and rigorous answer to that question. You can say, "you're an adult when everyone agrees you're an adult," but that's a bit circular, and it risks making you sound dumb. Or you could get into different cultural ideas of adulthood, what happens when someone who's an adult in one culture enters a different culture where they're considered a child, the role that legal systems plays in establishing an age of majority, the social agreements that give that legal system the power to enforce certain rules based on that age, and so forth. But that's not going to come over very well in a snappy debate video where the other guy gets to edit the footage of whatever you say. If a progressive were running the debate, they would never ask a question like, "what is a woman." They don't care that Republicans think trans women are men. They'd ask, "why should your conception of womanhood be used to determine who gets put in a women's jail when putting transgender women in male prisons measurably increases prison violence?" "What is a woman" is a nebulous cultural question with no real importance compared to the actual lives and freedoms of transgender women.

bushbaba 1y ago

Agreed. He was respectful of differing opinion, and encouraged diversity of thought. All Americans, from the left and right, should view this as a Fundimental aspect of a healthy democracy. We don't always need to agree, but if we cannot talk we are no longer an Nation.

aredox 1y ago

[flagged]

account42 1y ago
How many transgender mass shooters would you consider to be an acceptable amount and not "too many"?
- aredox 1y ago
  [flagged]