duckdriver

5 ms·

1.
by duckdriver 1y ago
The right does not have a monopoly on hateful, violent people/rhetoric. The idea that they do is a soothing story people on the left like to tell themselves. I don’t defend those things he said, or those things hateful rightwing thing
2.
by duckdriver 1y ago
> Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'? No, because he WAS reaching across an intellectual divide. Would be curious to your reply to hnewsenjoyer's comment, as it captures my though
3.
by duckdriver 1y ago
It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith. This is a convenient scapegoat for you to ignore strong counterarguments, since all it takes to dismiss the speaker is their "lack of good faith." With your brilliant reas
4.
by duckdriver 1y ago
There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available. Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted t
5.
by duckdriver 1y ago
> imagined a version They were your words, not mine. Run from them if you want. He was obviously involved in many real debates, and it shouldn't be hard for you to acknowledge that. I even drafted the language for you to clarify
6.
by duckdriver 1y ago
Fair enough, I retract the second part. It was out of line. I'll modify it to: No surprise you object to someone of opposing views going onto campuses for exchanges of ideas.
7.
by 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 s
8.
by 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
9.
by duckdriver 1y ago
You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here.
10.
by duckdriver 1y ago
So now you want to pretend that "constructive conversation" doesn't refer to Kirk's debates, but rather our exchange? When you have to change the terms of the discussion, it's because your argument is weak.
11.
by duckdriver 1y ago
"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?
12.
by duckdriver 1y ago
I shared a video of a legitimate discussion with you. There are many others like it. You obviously only care about defending your tribe and its positions. Goodbye.
13.
by duckdriver 1y ago
You are being obviously disingenuous considering I provided you with a specific debate in another comment where he was respectful and constructive and you proceeded to blithely ignored the fact that it completely contradicts your argument.
14.
by duckdriver 1y ago
Very nice "no true scotsman" fallacy. The summarized exchange between you and me: Y: "He was never involved in real debate" M: "Here's a real debate" Y: "ah, well, nevertheless"
15.
by duckdriver 1y ago
The fact that you stuff words in my mouth is actually more revealing than anything at all. I cited a video that supported my argument. You then make a complete straw man.
16.
by duckdriver 1y ago
If you've seen this and you don't understand why people think he modeled constructive conversation, I think that says a lot more about you
17.
by duckdriver 1y ago
Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation. The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in co
18.
by duckdriver 1y ago
Thank you for posting this. I accidentally saw the video and found it extraordinarily disturbing. Appreciate the advice, seriously.
19.
by duckdriver 1y ago
For those unfamiliar, "Arguments as Soldiers" is a great way to think about this dynamic. https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers
20.
by duckdriver 1y ago
This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion. I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took
21.
by duckdriver 1y ago
This is untrue. There are many cases of his debate where he acknowledged strong points made by his counterpart and commended them on the quality of their argument. You may have seen one of the many "own the libs" style edits of h
22.
by duckdriver 1y ago
It's unlikely that you're actually familiar with his work. There are many examples of videos like the one below, and if you'd seen any of them, you would absolutely understand why people think this. https://www.you
23.
by duckdriver 1y ago
He's not, actually. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constr
24.
by duckdriver 1y ago
> Charlie Kirk was never involved in real debate. This is untrue. You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. But to say he never partic