You're far from the only account doing this, of course, but (perhaps due to randomness) I've noticed several places you've done it in this thread, in contradiction of both https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203452 and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
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 participated in real debate shows you haven't adequately found information outside your filter bubble. There are many examples like the one below
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"
I don’t know how to explain this to you more clearly, but for an analogy, Paul McCartney played the drums on Back in the USSR but do you expect people to post “drumming is dead” when he passes?
Or another analogy: If you read an 800 page book about the superiority of white people, and in that book the author spent three pages talking about how much better they are at surfing than nonwhite people, is the book about surfing? If the book got really popular does that make the author a famous surfer who is famous for surfing?
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?
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.
You said that, not me. No one forced you to lie. Now you deploy the motte and bailey fallacy, retreating to "A large amount of his debating was race-baiting, etc." That's fine, you can make that argument. But it's not what you started with, and it's not what I was responding to you about.
Ezra Klein put it well. Charlie was doing politics the way you're supposed to. He challenged people's ideas, allowed them to challenge his. He did not live up to this in all, or perhaps even most, of his exchanges, but examples of this are everywhere. You only have to release your grip on your hatred of him for them to be obvious.
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.
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.
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
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 obviously 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.
Oh ok. I kind of figured that. You saw a sentence that you didn’t like and then imagined that it meant something that you could refute and ran with it.
I’m kind of confused why you’re posting to other human beings on here though. If you want to have imaginary sparring battles where you get to dictate what the other party means, there are some extremely popular chat bots that you can talk to.
Enjoy this link and have a nice day! https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/short-history-turn...
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 your argument to be about what you claim to want, but your ego seems to be standing in the way of embracing it.
I responded to what you asked me to, and then you tucked tail. Very disappointing. Nevertheless, I will add a final thought here.
Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he makes, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy.
There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative.
There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements.
You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
EDIT ADDENDUM That link doesn’t prove what you want it to. The first two bullets establish 2 people fired from TPUSA for being racist. Later there's a bullet there where an attendee of a conference said racist things. Like, really? That's the best you've got?
The whole “he knew bad people” style of rhetoric just doesn’t work anymore. I honestly expected to find much worse in that link — you convinced me that TPUSA and Kirk were less racist than I thought the record might show. The fact that you think that link is a slam dunk shows just how remarkably warping the tribal mentality is for clarity of thought.
I'll make a basic comparison of the different attributes and provide an explanation, then go into more detail into the other factors that determine the outcome of the fight and post the result!
STRENGTH: Superman 7/10 Goku is strong, VERY strong and probably has enough striking power to put some serious hurt on the Solar System's mass, but Superman just has much better lifting feats and even shatters the boundaries of SPACE/TIME fighting another Superman. Shits cray yo.
DURABILIY: Superman 9/10 Though Goku can take up to 8 times the punishment that SSJ1 can take casually, Superman has just had some RIDICULOUS showings of durability, such as surviving 50 Supernovas when weakened, fucking the earth up upon impact when weakened, and surviving the SOURCE WALL explosion.
ENERGY PROJECTION: Goku 6/10 Goku takes this one. Ki attacks are extremely versatile and have a large edge of Superman's heat vision. The only reason this is close is due to Supe's beyond supernova temperatures in his heat vision and can even match Absolute Zero.
SPEED: Goku 6/10 Though Superman completely out-classes Goku in travel speed and can even phase through attacks, most of these have a bit of an acceleration thing going on, even for a bit of a second. Goku seems to be doing his much quicker and using his speed in a much more practical way. This is a bit of a toss-up however, as both of their speeds are ridiculous, and this was the hardest deciding factor for me. If someone heavily disagrees, feel free to argue with me!
SKILL: Goku 6.5/10 Superman has much more experience, fighting for 1000+ years and all that, but Goku seems to have martial arts skills that don't even make any sense. His ability to copy moves as soon as he sees them (I could never find a scan for this?) gives him the hard edge on this one.
OTHER FACTORS: Now time for the miscellaneous factors included in this. Both of them are pretty 2 dimensional fighters, so most of the fight might be considered with the above stats but I will also include this. Goku has versatile moves such as the Solar Flare and the Instant Transmission, while Superman has Freeze Breath, Super Senses, Infinite Mass Punch and Phase Punches.
Solar Flare - Would the Solar Flare work on Superman? It's strange, because Superman shouldn't likely be able to be blinded by light right? He stays in the Sun sometimes, which is pretty much a giant ball of blinding light, not to mention his heat vision. But does the Solar Flare work in a different way? It is never stated to work anyway besides a bright light, so it most likely wont. Instant Transmission - This is the most controversial. Goku can teleport anywhere instantly and this would likely give him a massive speed advantage, but unless they are fighting on a battle-field specifically with Ki in it, Goku can't use it. Since Superman doesn't have Ki, he can't teleport to him, and if they are fighting on a battle-field without anyone with Ki around, then he can't use it to surprise Supes or get out of the way of an attack. Freeze Breath - Probably not. Goku should be able to easily get out of it. Super Senses - Since Goku cannot use IT and will likely not be hiding from Superman, Supes does not have to use these to track him down. It could provide a possibility for Superman to analyze Goku's body structure and weakpoints? Infinite Mass Punch - Extremely powerful, but Goku might be able to tank it enough, especially if they are fighting at FTL. If they do, it might provide a gigantic boost to Superman's punching power, but his IMP works a bit different than the Flash's from what Ive seen. Someone care to correct me? I also tried to look up the mass of a white dwarf and one says it is 1.4 solar masses? If this is true then Supes is essentially able to hit Goku with a force of a Solar System each hit? Since there are so many questions, I'll just say Goku can tank it. Phase Punches - Assuming that Supes hits Goku with a phase punch (or even chooses to do so), it could be fatal if he strikes in the right place. Supes could also use it to dodge Goku's larger beams or harder hits if he so chooses. Goku likely has no resistance to this beyond Ki shields. Healing Factor - Supes has a healing factor. He once had his throat slipped opeb by WW's tiara and it came back to normal after 10 or 20 seconds. This helps his durability A LOT. FINAL VERDICT: It's a close fight, but there are many variables I am not quite sure of.
I understand the impulse to be polite about the deceased, but the guy (for just one example) -in the middle of the January wildfires in Los Angeles- took to his audience to say that the destruction that the fires caused was due to a lack of white firefighters. That is both deeply disrespectful and completely false. And entirely on-brand. https://www.rawstory.com/charlie-kirk-white-men/
GP said Charlie Kirk was respectful during debates. You tried to deny this, not by showing one of his college debates, but by taking out of context what he said on one of his shows.
If you actually watched his debates, you wouldn't have said that. https://www.youtube.com/@RealCharlieKirk/videos
This is absolutely correct.
You just linked to a YouTube channel. Which totally-not-performance legitimate debate do you recommend? ”Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee“ or is “Charlie Kirk Crushes Woke Lies at Michigan State” a better place to start?
Sorry if I sound sarcastic, I’m not. If you had to pick between Versus The Wokies and Crushes Woke Lies which would you suggest best showcases how his debates were not performances meant to inflame but rather reasoned, dispassionate discussion?
I found the thing you said couldn't be found and you said "whatever, I'm still right."
They’re both pretty long, and I’m not going to spend four hours watching Charlie Kirk performances, so if you could tell me which is a better example of his legitimate debate style I would appreciate that.
Which is a better example of reasoned discussion: Crushes Woke Lies or Versus The Wokies?
Its been dead since like 2016. When you try to talk to "certain" people and they basically either say all the factual reporting is fake because its all from liberal media, or they pull falsehoods out of the blue like they are facts.
Just listen to any Joe Rogan podcast where he talks about the vaccine.