6 ms·

"Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate." So are we in agreement that you were wrong? If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example o

"Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate." So are we in agreement that you were wrong? If you had said "Paul never played the drums" then the example of the song is pretty relevant, wouldn't you say?

jrflowers 1y ago
The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”. Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.
- duckdriver 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jrflowers 1y ago
    I just don’t think you have the gotcha that you insist that you do here. You keep quoting the first sentence of what I wrote as if that is all that I wrote. You’re kind of trying to use the same rhetorical trick on what I wrote as you’re attempting to do with Charlie Kirk’s performances: selecting context. “Well what if I only read a fraction of what you wrote? Or deliberately misunderstood it? What if I simply failed to understand a very simple point? That would make you look foolish indeed!” isn’t a cheat code to being correct. Out of curiosity can you quote the sentence that came immediately after the one you’ve repeated and respond to that? It’s not very long, just a little over 20 words, so complexity shouldn’t be a big issue. If not I’m going to have to end this discussion. The shoddy reasoning and leaps to victory are getting tediously close to “owning the libs“ rigmarole, which is profoundly empty and, frankly, boring.
    - duckdriver 1y ago
      I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it. Quote it in reply and I will respond. Quoting you and responding to you is not a cheap gotcha. You need to take responsibility for your words. You said those things, and you have not retracted them. To your point, this is what you seem to expect of Charlie Kirk. You were welcome at any point to say "Ok I exaggerated a bit with that sentence, fair enough -- he's been in some real debates. My main point was XYZ and I'd like to discuss that." You have not done this, even now. I welcome you to accept the draft language I was forced to write on your behalf.
      - jrflowers 1y ago
        > I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said? Here is the entirety of my first post (because context matters!), which was clear, and I have further clarified over the course of this discussion. I have italicized the sentence I would like you to address. >We can say that killing people is bad without making stuff up about the victims. >Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate. He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. He happened to sometimes structure his performances to kind of look like good-faith debate, but pretending that the owning-the-libs displays are the same thing as actual discussion does everyone a disservice. You are also welcome to _additionally_ address my further clarifying statements, such as: > The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc. And > Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater
        duckdriver 1y ago
        > This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said? Where did I obligate myself to respond to your entire comment? I quoted specifically what I wanted to reply to. There is nothing invalid about that. Notice how I didn’t respond to those other comments you made along the way, because that was not the component of your statement that I engaged you on. Hence your need to list them all in your last comment. At no point did I infer anything about “what I thought you said” in your original comment because I stayed precisely on the topic that I intended to address. You are demanding an increase in the scope of the discussion as if it’s something you’re owed. I will give it to you, but there is nothing illegitimate about rebutting a single component of your post. I cited the scope I wanted to address repeatedly and yet you are outraged that I wouldn’t implicitly expand the scope. I notice you have yet to retract this false statement in the way that I recommended, shame on you. You are the one making stuff up about the victim. > He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. I largely disagree. Yes, there was a level of theatrics to his schtick, but in the scheme of what the theatrics might have been, it really did just boil down to a guy with a microphone having discussions/debates/arguments with whoever wanted to come along. Call it a performance if you want — anything public becomes a performance by this definition. This is also the nature of the media ecosystem we live in — views are important, so his titles and framing are spicy and oriented to firing up his base. It’s called marketing. Don’t clutch your pearls so hard — you seem like a person experienced in the ways of the world. I’m not familiar with all his claims — perhaps I would disagree with many of them and I’m happy to condemn the ones that I think are irresponsible. People are rarely “all good” or “all bad.” This is a large part of what motivated me to dispute your extremely black-and-white statement about how he had never been in a real debate. It’s possible for much of your criticism to be true AND for him to have engaged in many serious debates and exchanges of ideas, and for his legacy to reflect that. You seem to place a large emphasis on race baiting in the comments you listed, so I’ll take that on as an example. One of his most well known race related statements is “If I see a black pilot, boy I hope he’s qualified.” If you can find a way to get past the performative title, in the video below he addresses a black student who challenges him on this. To call this discussion race baiting would be highly inaccurate. I understand throwing video links at people is not a great way to make an argument, but you’ve already invested significant time in this conversation and the discussion is about his content and statements, so I feel this is valid. This is another, separate example of him having a legitimate discussion and exchange of ideas that is not at all accurately summarized by your criticism of him, even if other statements and speeches from him may very well be correctly described that way. There are many other examples beyond just these 2 that I have now cited. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGIZ8CzLbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGIZ8CzLbA

jrflowers 1y ago

The statement “Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater” is not disproven by “well I saw him not do that for a few minutes once”. Your point seems to be that if you simply ignore almost everything he ever said, then a short clip proves that he was serious about good faith debate. I’m not entirely sure why those few minutes of footage count more than the hundreds of hours of the race baiting and knowingly spreading falsehoods, but I kind of have to assume that that contention is motivated reasoning bore from a desire to claim some sort of victory or gotcha. Unfortunately, the only way that what you’ve said proves my point incorrect is if you failed or refused to read or understand what I wrote. That’s not really a win though, that’s just misinterpretation.

duckdriver 1y ago
[flagged]
- jrflowers 1y ago
  I just don’t think you have the gotcha that you insist that you do here. You keep quoting the first sentence of what I wrote as if that is all that I wrote. You’re kind of trying to use the same rhetorical trick on what I wrote as you’re attempting to do with Charlie Kirk’s performances: selecting context. “Well what if I only read a fraction of what you wrote? Or deliberately misunderstood it? What if I simply failed to understand a very simple point? That would make you look foolish indeed!” isn’t a cheat code to being correct. Out of curiosity can you quote the sentence that came immediately after the one you’ve repeated and respond to that? It’s not very long, just a little over 20 words, so complexity shouldn’t be a big issue. If not I’m going to have to end this discussion. The shoddy reasoning and leaps to victory are getting tediously close to “owning the libs“ rigmarole, which is profoundly empty and, frankly, boring.
  - duckdriver 1y ago
    I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it. Quote it in reply and I will respond. Quoting you and responding to you is not a cheap gotcha. You need to take responsibility for your words. You said those things, and you have not retracted them. To your point, this is what you seem to expect of Charlie Kirk. You were welcome at any point to say "Ok I exaggerated a bit with that sentence, fair enough -- he's been in some real debates. My main point was XYZ and I'd like to discuss that." You have not done this, even now. I welcome you to accept the draft language I was forced to write on your behalf.
    - jrflowers 1y ago
      > I cannot quote it -- it appears to be flagged so I cannot view it This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said? Here is the entirety of my first post (because context matters!), which was clear, and I have further clarified over the course of this discussion. I have italicized the sentence I would like you to address. >We can say that killing people is bad without making stuff up about the victims. >Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate. He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. He happened to sometimes structure his performances to kind of look like good-faith debate, but pretending that the owning-the-libs displays are the same thing as actual discussion does everyone a disservice. You are also welcome to _additionally_ address my further clarifying statements, such as: > The race baiting and conspiracy theories will be what Charlie Kirk is remembered for because that’s what he did constantly. There’s a whole section of his Wikipedia covering the falsehoods he spread about covid, election fraud, H1N1, human trafficking, protests in France etc. And > Charlie Kirk’s many documented years race baiting and knowingly spreading false conspiracy theories disqualified him as being considered someone to be taken seriously as a good-faith debater
      - duckdriver 1y ago
        > This entire time you’ve been arguing about something I said that you couldn’t even read? Like every point you’ve made was based off of what you thought I said? Where did I obligate myself to respond to your entire comment? I quoted specifically what I wanted to reply to. There is nothing invalid about that. Notice how I didn’t respond to those other comments you made along the way, because that was not the component of your statement that I engaged you on. Hence your need to list them all in your last comment. At no point did I infer anything about “what I thought you said” in your original comment because I stayed precisely on the topic that I intended to address. You are demanding an increase in the scope of the discussion as if it’s something you’re owed. I will give it to you, but there is nothing illegitimate about rebutting a single component of your post. I cited the scope I wanted to address repeatedly and yet you are outraged that I wouldn’t implicitly expand the scope. I notice you have yet to retract this false statement in the way that I recommended, shame on you. You are the one making stuff up about the victim. > He was a performer that found a niche in race baiting and spreading conspiracy theories, which is what his legacy will be. I largely disagree. Yes, there was a level of theatrics to his schtick, but in the scheme of what the theatrics might have been, it really did just boil down to a guy with a microphone having discussions/debates/arguments with whoever wanted to come along. Call it a performance if you want — anything public becomes a performance by this definition. This is also the nature of the media ecosystem we live in — views are important, so his titles and framing are spicy and oriented to firing up his base. It’s called marketing. Don’t clutch your pearls so hard — you seem like a person experienced in the ways of the world. I’m not familiar with all his claims — perhaps I would disagree with many of them and I’m happy to condemn the ones that I think are irresponsible. People are rarely “all good” or “all bad.” This is a large part of what motivated me to dispute your extremely black-and-white statement about how he had never been in a real debate. It’s possible for much of your criticism to be true AND for him to have engaged in many serious debates and exchanges of ideas, and for his legacy to reflect that. You seem to place a large emphasis on race baiting in the comments you listed, so I’ll take that on as an example. One of his most well known race related statements is “If I see a black pilot, boy I hope he’s qualified.” If you can find a way to get past the performative title, in the video below he addresses a black student who challenges him on this. To call this discussion race baiting would be highly inaccurate. I understand throwing video links at people is not a great way to make an argument, but you’ve already invested significant time in this conversation and the discussion is about his content and statements, so I feel this is valid. This is another, separate example of him having a legitimate discussion and exchange of ideas that is not at all accurately summarized by your criticism of him, even if other statements and speeches from him may very well be correctly described that way. There are many other examples beyond just these 2 that I have now cited. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGIZ8CzLbA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtGIZ8CzLbA