3 ms·

I'm oddly impressed by your initial paragraph and knowledge of history. Because it's indeed completely accurate. Few are aware that the Hitler weaponized 'victi

I'm oddly impressed by your initial paragraph and knowledge of history. Because it's indeed completely accurate. Few are aware that the Hitler weaponized 'victimhood culture' to an extreme degree. But I'm quite confused by your conclusion, at least if you're implying what I assume you are. Charlie Kirk's entire schtick was giving people a loud platform to speak where he'd engage with them in complete civility, letting them go on monologues, and debating in a completely respectful fashion - avoiding the typical trappings of ad hominem, strawman, and so on. It was actual real debate, not the news stuff where people just scream over each other. Then he'd post the entire thing, unedited, online. Everything he was doing was literally about as much of the the opposite of fascism as you could possibly get. You know the paradox of tolerance certainly. In it, who do you think Popper was talking about? The people happy to openly engage and debate anybody in a fair and respectful fashion? Or the people shrieking for censorship, denouncing debate, demanding people not be heard, and then going on to start murdering people over their views? ---- "But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols." ----

immibis 1y ago
Why did Charlie Kirk only ever win debates against 19-year-old college students studying things other than politics? Have you actually watched any of these debates? He "wins" the debates not by being right, but by being the loudest and most prepared with his incorrectness. This doesn't prove anything except that humans are influenced by factors other than truth. When he accidentally debates someone who is on the side of truth and knows how to debate, he gets thoroughly trounced. My previous comment was not a setup then conclusion. It was a response to two different things in the same comment.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  Even "losing" debates doesn't matter in this age. He just makes a highlight reel of whatever makes him look good to his audience. They won't ever venture out and see the full context. We have so much information conviniently accessible, but we underestimated human apathy once again.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Here [1] is a link to his channel. His most promoted (and highly viewed content) is just endless full length and unedited debates. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      You say most highly viewed content. I then click on "popular" and then I see 6-10 minute edited videos, and the 30+ minute ones are highlight reels. I see thr regular videos top out at 10m. I click on shorts and they top out at 32m. His most popular non-short just misses the top 10 videos when compared with the shorts. And then all this is on YouTube. I bet his Facebook or Instagram has much higher viewed content. So I'm not convinced.
      - somenameforme 1y ago
        Click on the longer videos. The overwhelming majority are literally unedited footage of him debating people. Even the shorter clips are complete and unedited. The most popular video [1] is of the girl who shows up and tries her hardest to troll and insult him. Here [2] is the in-context segment. It is literally the exact same thing, but just with her 'segment' snipped out of the series of debates. The only out of context clips are when people are trying to misrepresent him, the things he says, or the way that he generally behaves towards the people he debates/discusses with. For instance the widely disseminated clip where he speaks against the term empathy, which is edited to remove the clip and subsequent context where he talks about it being exploited and abused, and much preferring the term sympathy - which he feels is less susceptible to exploitation. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk [2] - https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349 https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349
- somenameforme 1y ago
  I'd strongly encourage actually checking out his debates. There often is no real 'winner' or 'loser', but mostly just an exchange of views and perspectives. Sometimes people change their views, most often they don't. Often times one or both parties walks away with a bit more knowledge. Here [1] is a debate between him and a professor (amongst 3 that showed up during just that event) that's on almost on our exact topic. The professor's argument was weak and his behavior quite undignified. The professor "lost" but it's not really the point or purpose of the debate. For instance here's another [2] (from the same campus tour) where not only was the crowd was much more for the professor, but the professor also formulated a far more viable argument, got Charlie flustered and made him say some things that certainly made his argument look foolish. Charlie "lost" that one, but again it's not really the point or purpose. I'd also add that Charlie still posted it, unedited. This is how an Open Society, the sort Karl Popper spoke of, should work. [1] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 [2] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448

immibis 1y ago

Why did Charlie Kirk only ever win debates against 19-year-old college students studying things other than politics? Have you actually watched any of these debates? He "wins" the debates not by being right, but by being the loudest and most prepared with his incorrectness. This doesn't prove anything except that humans are influenced by factors other than truth. When he accidentally debates someone who is on the side of truth and knows how to debate, he gets thoroughly trounced. My previous comment was not a setup then conclusion. It was a response to two different things in the same comment.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
Even "losing" debates doesn't matter in this age. He just makes a highlight reel of whatever makes him look good to his audience. They won't ever venture out and see the full context. We have so much information conviniently accessible, but we underestimated human apathy once again.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  Here [1] is a link to his channel. His most promoted (and highly viewed content) is just endless full length and unedited debates. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    You say most highly viewed content. I then click on "popular" and then I see 6-10 minute edited videos, and the 30+ minute ones are highlight reels. I see thr regular videos top out at 10m. I click on shorts and they top out at 32m. His most popular non-short just misses the top 10 videos when compared with the shorts. And then all this is on YouTube. I bet his Facebook or Instagram has much higher viewed content. So I'm not convinced.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      Click on the longer videos. The overwhelming majority are literally unedited footage of him debating people. Even the shorter clips are complete and unedited. The most popular video [1] is of the girl who shows up and tries her hardest to troll and insult him. Here [2] is the in-context segment. It is literally the exact same thing, but just with her 'segment' snipped out of the series of debates. The only out of context clips are when people are trying to misrepresent him, the things he says, or the way that he generally behaves towards the people he debates/discusses with. For instance the widely disseminated clip where he speaks against the term empathy, which is edited to remove the clip and subsequent context where he talks about it being exploited and abused, and much preferring the term sympathy - which he feels is less susceptible to exploitation. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk4Nkmfgxzk [2] - https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349 https://youtu.be/U_BY2ENwPyA?t=349
somenameforme 1y ago
I'd strongly encourage actually checking out his debates. There often is no real 'winner' or 'loser', but mostly just an exchange of views and perspectives. Sometimes people change their views, most often they don't. Often times one or both parties walks away with a bit more knowledge. Here [1] is a debate between him and a professor (amongst 3 that showed up during just that event) that's on almost on our exact topic. The professor's argument was weak and his behavior quite undignified. The professor "lost" but it's not really the point or purpose of the debate. For instance here's another [2] (from the same campus tour) where not only was the crowd was much more for the professor, but the professor also formulated a far more viable argument, got Charlie flustered and made him say some things that certainly made his argument look foolish. Charlie "lost" that one, but again it's not really the point or purpose. I'd also add that Charlie still posted it, unedited. This is how an Open Society, the sort Karl Popper spoke of, should work. [1] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=644 [2] - https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448 https://youtu.be/5NSdCvbhDnM?t=2448