4 ms·

It is a performance that appears as a debate.

by password54321 1y ago

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
        [flagged]
        password54321 1y ago
        What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make. If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't. This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing.
        lern_too_spel 1y ago
        The problem in his argument is not that there is objective morality. It's that whatever strain of Christianity he belongs to today is the source of objective morality.
        nailer 1y ago
        > What part is the Socratic method? This part: > A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?". > B) yes, and now you have conceded. Yes, it makes the person look silly because the only answer that seems correct is yes, because there is obviously objective evil.
        password54321 1y ago
        If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious?
        nailer 1y ago
        > If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral.
    - cman1444 1y ago
      Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds". It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate.
      - jennyholzer 1y ago
        Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals.
        yostrovs 1y ago
        [flagged]
        cman1444 1y ago
        Of course there are instances of this on both sides. Kirk was just a prominent example of this on the right. I'm not sure books or blogs are a good example of this though. While they may contain lies or disingenuous talking points, they are quite different from the type of "debating" Kirk partook in on college campuses. Specifically, that strategy is characterized by speaking quickly and finding "gotcha" moments that play well on social media and short form video like reels or tiktok. Written material can still be harmful of course, but I feel that it lacks a certain infectious, viral aspect to it that is so politically divisive these days.
    - antisthenes 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - yostrovs 1y ago
        [flagged]
        antisthenes 1y ago
        Thank you.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    The Chomsky-Ali G debate is also worth watching. For other reasons perhaps. There are better and worse debates but I question the validity of an argument about the quality of debates of someone who likely got shot for a political argument. At least his argument seemed to hit some spot. (I don't know a single one, didn't even know the victim).
    - password54321 1y ago
      Getting killed over politics is not an index for "debate" quality. Giving someone such credit because they died is nonsense.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - diogenescynic 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - tirant 1y ago
    Are you expecting that all debates reach the level of a Chomsky-Foucault debate and to discard anyone below it? Are you even able to meet that level yourself? This is non-sense. Obviously we all would love to reach that level of knowledge, introspection and speaking capability of Chomsky/Foucault, but it is absurd to expect it at all times.
    - password54321 1y ago
      It is not just about quality but how they are fundamentally different. One appears to be a debate the other is a debate. The person who got flagged made the same point which I responded to.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  Yes when one political party is using his death as an opportunity to manufacture a martyr for free speech. If they are going to say, "we need more people like him," then we are right to critically assess who he was.
loughnane 1y ago
I agree with that. As I said elsewhere it's a shame that we don't get better. If you compare it with the more sober, reflectful sort (eg russell vs copleston on the existence of God [0]) you can see how far we've fallen. Nevertheless, his killing I think will make us slide even further. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpADrtr85iM&pp=ygUlYmVydHJhbmQgcnVzc2VsIGRvZXMgZ29kIGV4aXN0IGRlYmF0ZQ%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpADrtr85iM&pp=ygUlYmVydHJhb...
whackernews 1y ago
Sure. Our own mainstream media is very guilty of doing the same things with regard to editing down reality for the sakes of entertainment or pushing an agenda. I guess one admirable difference, to offer him some defence, is he is an appproachable guy. Literally. If you so disired you could go and view his debates or even debate him yourself. He has the right to make himself look good on his own channel.
- password54321 1y ago
  He was only approachable as long as you were feeding him content. Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour.
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    >Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour. Are you claiming Kirk was just shilling, as was imagined about Ann Coulter[0]? (Very NSFW). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_12j-sPO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_12j-sPO4
stronglikedan 1y ago
Every debate is a performance, so of course it was.
- loughnane 1y ago
  Not true. You can debate in private in a way where two people are searching for truth. The sad thing is if people debate like it’s a performance when it’s not.
selfmodruntime 1y ago
Not really.

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
      [flagged]
      - password54321 1y ago
        What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make. If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't. This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing.
        lern_too_spel 1y ago
        The problem in his argument is not that there is objective morality. It's that whatever strain of Christianity he belongs to today is the source of objective morality.
        nailer 1y ago
        > What part is the Socratic method? This part: > A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?". > B) yes, and now you have conceded. Yes, it makes the person look silly because the only answer that seems correct is yes, because there is obviously objective evil.
        password54321 1y ago
        If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious?
        nailer 1y ago
        > If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral.
  - cman1444 1y ago
    Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds". It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate.
    - jennyholzer 1y ago
      Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals.
      - yostrovs 1y ago
        [flagged]
        cman1444 1y ago
        Of course there are instances of this on both sides. Kirk was just a prominent example of this on the right. I'm not sure books or blogs are a good example of this though. While they may contain lies or disingenuous talking points, they are quite different from the type of "debating" Kirk partook in on college campuses. Specifically, that strategy is characterized by speaking quickly and finding "gotcha" moments that play well on social media and short form video like reels or tiktok. Written material can still be harmful of course, but I feel that it lacks a certain infectious, viral aspect to it that is so politically divisive these days.
  - antisthenes 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - yostrovs 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - antisthenes 1y ago
        Thank you.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  The Chomsky-Ali G debate is also worth watching. For other reasons perhaps. There are better and worse debates but I question the validity of an argument about the quality of debates of someone who likely got shot for a political argument. At least his argument seemed to hit some spot. (I don't know a single one, didn't even know the victim).
  - password54321 1y ago
    Getting killed over politics is not an index for "debate" quality. Giving someone such credit because they died is nonsense.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- diogenescynic 1y ago
  [flagged]
- tirant 1y ago
  Are you expecting that all debates reach the level of a Chomsky-Foucault debate and to discard anyone below it? Are you even able to meet that level yourself? This is non-sense. Obviously we all would love to reach that level of knowledge, introspection and speaking capability of Chomsky/Foucault, but it is absurd to expect it at all times.
  - password54321 1y ago
    It is not just about quality but how they are fundamentally different. One appears to be a debate the other is a debate. The person who got flagged made the same point which I responded to.
Forgeties79 1y ago
Yes when one political party is using his death as an opportunity to manufacture a martyr for free speech. If they are going to say, "we need more people like him," then we are right to critically assess who he was.

loughnane 1y ago

I agree with that. As I said elsewhere it's a shame that we don't get better. If you compare it with the more sober, reflectful sort (eg russell vs copleston on the existence of God [0]) you can see how far we've fallen. Nevertheless, his killing I think will make us slide even further. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpADrtr85iM&pp=ygUlYmVydHJhbmQgcnVzc2VsIGRvZXMgZ29kIGV4aXN0IGRlYmF0ZQ%3D%3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpADrtr85iM&pp=ygUlYmVydHJhb...

whackernews 1y ago

Sure. Our own mainstream media is very guilty of doing the same things with regard to editing down reality for the sakes of entertainment or pushing an agenda. I guess one admirable difference, to offer him some defence, is he is an appproachable guy. Literally. If you so disired you could go and view his debates or even debate him yourself. He has the right to make himself look good on his own channel.

password54321 1y ago
He was only approachable as long as you were feeding him content. Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour.
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  >Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour. Are you claiming Kirk was just shilling, as was imagined about Ann Coulter[0]? (Very NSFW). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_12j-sPO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_12j-sPO4

stronglikedan 1y ago

Every debate is a performance, so of course it was.

loughnane 1y ago
Not true. You can debate in private in a way where two people are searching for truth. The sad thing is if people debate like it’s a performance when it’s not.

selfmodruntime 1y ago

Not really.