6 ms·

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

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.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        password54321 1y ago
        Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality. You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes. If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic.
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.

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.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        password54321 1y ago
        Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality. You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes. If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic.

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.