I'm reading "The Debate Style That Propelled Charlie Kirk’s Movement" and I'm using my last gift link of the month so you can see the analysis, the many examples, and the video clips.
Key attributes of Kirk's debate style, as perceived by the experts:
• repetition... He debated hundreds of people and learned how to shape conversation — and where to drop in canned audience pleasers....
• he often discouraged heckling. By making space for opposing viewpoints, he enhanced his image as a defender of free speech while centering his own argument....
• asking opponents to define a term... he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed....
• using the other person’s own words to prove your point....
• trying to “trivialize” his opponent as an out-of-touch member of the elite, while “increasing his own ethos” as the defender of regular, working-class people....
• trying to overwhelm his opponent with... “sensory overload.”...
• calmly and methodically overwhelming his opponent with a litany of memorized talking points delivered at high speed....
It shouldn't be that hard to use these techniques, but it is incredibly hard to endure long sessions where you deploy them over and over and all the while maintain a cool, sweet demeanor and seem to enjoy the experience and to care about the various characters who step up to fight with you. There was immense charisma in the light that has gone out.
పోస్ట్లు
175 కామెంట్లు:
What does "sensory overload" mean? Sensory and emotional overload are terms used by parents of children with autism. Is the NY Times implying that Mr. Kirk was debating retards?
NYT: How do we get the dogs to eat our shitty tasting dog food? We asked our ‘experts’…
Is the NY Times implying that Mr. Kirk was debating retards?
Yes.
They are all so lost, desperately seeking the key to gaining control of the narrative but never considering it’s their terrible policies…
Welp, since the NYT said so, I have changed my mind, toothpaste brand and underwear about everything.
It's easy to ignore hate and be a nice guy. Take disagreement as an opportunity to restate what has already been said. And without any religion about it.
Don’t misunderstand, never interrupt the enemy makeing a mistake and all…
And what is the purpose of the article? Why such an interested focus, why an appeal to the 'experts'? Is it to answer their private questions as to why Charlie Kirk seems to be a prolonged story on the newsfront, or is it to disassemble his stature, explain it in a way that diminishes his achievement and dissipates its power? Sounds like they're trying to trivialize it by breaking it down into mechanical tricks. What for? Why not use the same unsparing analysis on, say, AOC or Ilhan Omar, let's see what's behind their shtick, shall we?
I didn't follow Kirk or his movement, but was aware of it. I had no idea of its size or scope. No doubt the conservative movement is doing its best to keep the story alive and make the most of his murder. What is the NYT's interest in the story, one wonders?
They’re trying to reverse engineer and provide a blueprint to copy…as if that will work..
This is why I avoid the NYT and other JournoListic publications and broadcasts as if they are the plague visited upon a captured audience with urbane reflection and translyrical pride.
The religion claim is an appeal to authority in addition to whatever you're arguing, so worthy of mocking.
"making them appear uninformed" - hilarious. NYT is assuming (correctly no doubt) that none of its readers have ever heard a Charlie Kirk debate. Highlighting grossly uninformed leftists was almost the whole point of his gig.
They're debating... debunking Charlie in death. How Kimmel of them. #CivilityBullshit
Deploying this set of skills, along with a considerable body of knowledge, is almost unheard of among politicians or academics. In fiction or a movie, not I'm sure in reality, this would be a clear case of Harrison Bergeron: the elite wanted him dead because he was too good.
"asking opponents to define a term... he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed."
"Appear" uninformed? Sounds like the debate "experts" are making excuses for the other side. If you can't define your terms, you are just one more LLM spewing stuff you heard somewhere.
Religion refers to a behavioral protocol or model. Faith to a logical domain of trust in God, mortal gods, and/or self.
they come unarmed to a debate, so then they have to retreat to blue sky,
“ asking opponents to define a term... he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed....”
Wasn’t Kirk’s point in most cases that they were actually misinformed by media and academia?
Another Gorillas in the Mist take from our coastal elites, studying the mysterious ways of those curious creatures known as Conservatives.
Ethics is a relative state of principles. #HateLovesAbortion
Someone in their side’s war room is discovering how powerful Kirk is now, seeing the interest in new TPUSA chapters…everywhere. Somebody needs to do…something. Anything. Get the ‘experts’!
I did listen to a couple of his podcasts and he does say a lot of stupid stuff. Like he said the flyover during the Alaska summit was intended to scare Putin. I’m sure he was shaking in his boots after walking down the red carpet.
I’ve seen a few college videos where the student admonishes Kirk for debating lesser skilled people. They weren’t wrong. Kirk practiced his craft continuously. Kudos to all who stepped up to the microphone.
Tyrus on Gutfeld, on the night:
You know, this has been difficult because i feel bad because I didn't like what Charlie was doing. Um I'm not a religious person. And I find and unfortunately in my life experiences and and that most people that put God in front of them were full of it and dangerous.
the irony is that many of the lead universities on both sides of the atlantic were chartered to train clergy, now we see how they have reared up a new priesthood, like the oxford union president,
rhhardin said...
The religion claim is an appeal to authority in addition to whatever you're arguing, so worthy of mocking.
You are just as religious as Charlie Kirk. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.
their hymnal is often the Times and or MSNBC, a vacuous authority,
jim5301 said...
I did listen to a couple of his podcasts and he does say a lot of stupid stuff. Like he said the flyover during the Alaska summit was intended to scare Putin. I’m sure he was shaking in his boots after walking down the red carpet.
I am curious what a genius like you thinks the flyover was intended to accomplish.
He went to schools, colleges and universities didn’t he? The places where debating should be part of the curricula, even to a lesser extent. Regardless, people in academia should understand the debate process.
Asking your opponent to define terms is perfectly acceptable. Looking at some of the ‘debates’ it’s clear that they cannot do the basics.
So he got very good at something he did hundreds of times, why am I not paying the NYT for this type of insight?
Debating people who never heard a different point of view is shooting fish in a barrel. The better question is why these kids never heard other views and perhaps even debated them in college prior to Charlie Kirk?
The NY Times could treat this as a learning moment, but they don't. I wonder what they were looking for in this review of Kirk's debating style, the article has the feel of a misfire.
the media often holds the coats or the pillows for the dems, but JD Vance, cut through with great aplomb
the left still has the template of inherit the wind when the yokel always is at a disadvantage to the so called sophisticated outsider,
"hard-line message" --sounds judgey
The debate format is becoming increasingly popular and there are many people debating many things.
The reason that the NYTs is trying to downplay debate is because leftists are too stupid to understand or use logic on that level. It is why they are college students taking education or gender studies majors in the first place.
There are no “good” debaters on the left who could stand up to Kirk. He embarrassed them in places like Oxford union. That is why their President cheered when Kirk was killed. He debated Kirk in person and got destroyed and humiliated.
“ I’ve seen a few college videos where the student admonishes Kirk for debating lesser skilled people.”
At some point in one’s professional career one will get run over rhetorically and the person who did it won’t care about feelings.
Charlie Kirk gave them a valuable life experience for free amd with no repercussions.
So the left had to kill him.
"Doug. Everyone was terrified of Doug. ...What did he do? He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire."
Charlie was an authentic threat to certified expert domimion, mortal gods whose fear progresses in his death as their followers' faith and the viability of their religion(s) are tested and found brittle.
oh yes the piranha bros, nee the krays,
Wait. You mean the NYT found no Kirk Racist, Homophobic, Hitler salutes?
Reminds me of when the NYT recounted Florida 2000 Election votes and found Bush still won.
#LoveTrumpsHate
#HateLovesAbortion
Reconcile or Pro-Choice.
TosaGuy said...
So he got very good at something he did hundreds of times, why am I not paying the NYT for this type of insight?
Debating people who never heard a different point of view is shooting fish in a barrel. The better question is why these kids never heard other views and perhaps even debated them in college prior to Charlie Kirk?
The million dollar question.
What is becoming clear from the increasing use of debate as a medium is that Christians and people on the right have a lot more experience defending their positions and the secularists and leftists don't spend a lot of time thinking about why they support something.
Planned Patricianhood (PP)? Say it ain't so, Joe. No pun intended. Maybe, baby, a fetus... feature of the modern family. Sequester the thought.
In short, our all-star panel of experts concluded Mr. Kirk excelled at talking.
Yeah. Charlie learned all these techniques at the many debate classes he took at university. It couldn’t have been that his opponents were ignorant, uninformed and nasty. Right? /s
Oh no, the NYT's"...admonishes Kirk for debating lesser skilled people. "
First of all the lesser skilled people stepped up to the mike because they thought they had brilliant, compelling arguments. Do you think Kirk selected them?
Secondly, would you have had Kirk listen to these "lesser skilled" people and then declare them too stupid to talk and dismiss them?
And, yes, a LOT on the left are "lesser skilled". For example I've heard lefties turn the 3/5 compromise on its head. They had NO clue the slave states wanted slaves to be counted 100% to enhance the power of the slave owning states. The non-slave states said no. It was a huge sticking point on ratifying the Constitution. The compromise was the 3/5 rule.
Charlie Kirk worked primarily in the town hall format. The few clips I have see left me with the feeling I was watching a magic trick.
I’m always suspicious of that format. Bill Clinton was its great innovator in U.S. politics. It’s very easy to plant audience members with preplanned questions.
If all the questions are plants, it becomes obvious, but some amount of seeding can make you look better than you are.
I have watched a fair amount of Kirk’s work. Although I am broadly speaking on his side, I wasn’t a huge fan. Mostly he was debating the sophomores, the “wise fools” who haven’t truly examined their beliefs, they’d adopted them whole cloth as markers of a new personality constructed to distinguish themselves as “not regular, normal, boring middle class drones like all the others.” To say, as does the Times, “he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed” is a joke. They mostly were uninformed, sometimes absurdly so. All Kirk did was poke a finger through bluster and prejudice and reveal the fact that these weren’t smart, capable, admirable students seeking an honest discussion that will advance the truth. They were ideological dimwits whose failure to wear brown shirts was due solely to their ignorance of its meaning.
It sounds like a variant on the Socratic method, as used by half the professors in the country. It can indeed be persuasive, so of course it's "not good" when executed by a conservative!
I'd like to see this analysis applied to Steven Crowder's "Change My Mind" series. He invented the modern concept of a conservative spreading the word on college campuses. Crowder was rated as highly empathetic by some observer -- they said he sincerely wants others to be okay and believe "the right things."
"They weren't fair debates - he had facts and common sense on his side!"
All of which is unacceptable to the terrorist-democratic Antifa-thug left.
One flew over the cuckoos' nest and the clucks are all aflutter.
Bring on the expert! Gag me.
When I watched Charlie Kirk debate the young skulls full of mush on colleges campuses, one thing stood out. The students approached the microphone full of vim, vigor and being self-assured (okay three things). That held for mere moments until they crumbled or stormed off.
“Charlie learned all these techniques at the many debate classes he took at university.“
Charlie didn’t go to college.
Let Bank wrote" Charlie Kirk worked primarily in the town hall format. The few clips I have see left me with the feeling I was watching a magic trick.
Yes. It is the magic of logical empiricism. That is something that has been lost by the Democrat Left for at least 2 generations.
It could be the academy of liberal seances, but they are in contrast infamous for grading either harshly or on a curve that is a lesson in nothing but secular pride and profit.
Kirk: "Before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act... about 24% of Black children were born without a father. Now it’s upwards of 70%.”"
NYT: Studies by the federal government and nonprofit groups show that slightly less than half of Black children live without a father at home as of 2023, and historically that number has not risen above about 65 percent. It also does not account for fathers who do not live with their children — after a divorce, for instance — but may otherwise be a regular presence in their lives.
But because his opponent was unable to fact check Mr. Kirk in real time, she was forced to concede and debate in a framework that was no longer grounded in reality."
🤦🏽♂️
Just read a New Republic article linked to in this morning's Real Clear Politics that compares Kirk to James Dean. It spends a lot more time on James Dean than Charlie Kirk but is a clear attempt to downplay the significance of the reaction to his death. Among other things, it portrays the Kirk reaction as a purely top-down cynical ploy to co-opt it for nefarious political purposes. And that take comes from a James Dean biographer, so I'm sure you can take it to the bank. Now, I'm not that good at predictions, especially about the future (to paraphrase Samuel Goldwyn - among others) so I won't speculate about Charlies Kirks legacy 6 months, 6 years, or 6 decades into the future, but I know a cynical political ploy to downplay his legacy when I see one.
The left cannot argue at all. They use lies and vicious slurs.
They refuse to debate most of the time. This is why the left find it so easy to locate and groom 20-something angry boys to be their assassins.
rehajm said...
"They are all so lost, desperately seeking the key to gaining control of the narrative but never considering it’s their terrible policies…"
Like I said. A cargo cult.
well the New Republic is a garbage publication despite change of ownership
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Charlie Kirk worked primarily in the town hall format. The few clips I have see left me with the feeling I was watching a magic trick.
That is because you are stupid and cannot think for yourself.
What Kirk taught the world is that leftists believe what they believe because they were indoctrinated by leftists in education and they were too stupid to escape that indoctrination.
Barry Dauphin said...
"hard-line message" --sounds judgey
-----------------------------------------------------------
That phrase certainly caught my attention, as well. So sadly predictable from the NYT.
Lem's NYT excerpt was arguing oranges to Kirk's apples. While in my estimation the so-called "Great Society" programs not the Civil Rights Act were the relevant policy catalyst, Kirk was advocating marriage, not cohabitation as a solution to "illegitimacy."
AI Overview
In modern government statistics, the term "illegitimacy" is no longer used. Data on children born outside of marriage is instead tracked using neutral, descriptive terms like "nonmarital births" or "births to unmarried women".
The shift in terminology reflects a broader change in law and social attitudes, as the historical legal disabilities associated with being born "illegitimate" have been abolished in the U.S. and many other Western countries.
Since 1965, birth rates to unmarried women have risen significantly across all major racial groups, but the trend and levels differ. While the rate of nonmarital births to Black women was already high in the mid-1960s, it continued to increase sharply for decades before stabilizing or declining slightly in the 1990s. For white women, nonmarital birth rates were very low in 1965 but experienced a dramatic surge through the late 1980s and beyond, as seen in the Brookings Institute article and Child Trends report.
Trends by Race
Black Women: In 1965, about 24% of Black infants were born to single mothers. This rate continued to climb, reaching approximately 64% by 1990. While the trend has shown some stabilization or even slight declines in the most recent period, the rate of nonmarital births for Black women remained significantly high.
White Women: The percentage of nonmarital births to white women was very low in 1965 (3.1%) but increased dramatically to 18% by 1990. The Brookings Institute article indicates the rate roughly doubled between 1965 and 1985, and the Child Trends report shows this trend continued.
Hispanic Women: The rate for Hispanic women also rose, increasing significantly from 1990 to 2016, as noted by Child Trends. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also reported an increase in nonmarital birth rates for Hispanic women between 2002 and 2006.
Asian and Pacific Islander Women: The rate of births to unmarried women among Asian and Pacific Islander women was the lowest of the major groups.
Debating reminds me of cross-examination, in that each requires a set of skills that can be taught and then necessarily honed through experience and practice.
Most trial lawyers can get decent at it. Few excel.
’The few clips I have see left me with the feeling I was watching a magic trick.’
Apparently sequential thought appears as magic to a dullard.
jim5301 said...
I did listen to a couple of his podcasts and he does say a lot of stupid stuff. Like he said the flyover during the Alaska summit was intended to scare Putin. I’m sure he was shaking in his boots after walking down the red carpet.
********
Ya think maybe Trump was reminding Putin that the Russkis have NOTHING like the B-2 or F-35's, not even close? And that those planes helped end Iran's nuclear ambitions?
YA THINK?
Lem, "Born without a father" and "live without a father at home" are two different things.
• asking opponents to define a term... he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed....
• using the other person’s own words to prove your point....
This should be common to anyone willing to debate at all. Except for the making them appear uninformed, because you are that when you are uninformed. It doesn't really have to do with your opponent. I think the hidden part here is the effort to redefine words and then act as it was always the meaning and/or not being informed of the long-held definition. For instance, the term "gain of function".
a foundational part of civilization ignored, charles murray another combative debater, noted this phenomenon appearing among white working class in his last book
Charley brought students to conservatism because he was right as well as lucid on most issues, not because of his debating style. I have watched many of his sessions on YouTube. His questions made his opponents look ignorant because they were ignorant. I notice the execrable NYT isn’t taking comments. I wonder why. Krauhammer was right and wrong. We do think lefties are stupid, but we also think they are evil. This is a veiled hit piece.
So, Charlie was referring to illegitimate births, which are a first-order forcing of social distress and equivocal inclusion. Unfortunately, this has been a progressive condition, and especially for black fathers since the toxic aftermath of Great Society affirmative action with DEIst tones. Welfare programs have an insidious, corrosive effect on individuals and couples. The reductive value of humann life in a liberal culture in the woke of planned parenthood only served to exacerbate this climate change. The indulgence of labor and environmental arbitrage aided and abetted the degradation. DEIsm (e.g. institutional, systemic racism, sexism, etc), too. Unsafe and progressive, indeed. #HateLovesAbortion
The opening line were they try to subtly smear Kirk by the use of arguing rather than debating sets the tone. "Charlie Kirk may be best remembered for arguing in public." Kirk was 31 when murdered, some of these clips are eight years old. He was 23 when he lost his cool during a debate with Cenk, a man 25 years his senior. I believe Kirk began doing these college debates when he was just 19.To regularly do public speaking from the age of 18 and have so few bad clips for media to attack is quite remarkable.
"Debate videos are now a widespread source of entertainment and information, particularly for members of Gen Z and Generation Alpha." This actually gives me hope for the future. If they were being exposed to differing viewpoints at school, in movies, and in traditional journalism then debate videos would not be a social media phenomena.
em Vibe Bandit (9:27am):
Was Kirk lying or were the two statistics based on different definitions? If (hypothetically) 30% of black kids are living with their own actual father, the one who contributed half of their DNA, and another 20% are living with "a father" who is not the father, a stepfather or mom's current boyfriend, someone who is no relation to them but does share the rent and some of the child-rearing duties, then there's no contradiction. In that (hypothetical) case, the only liar would be the one claiming that the two are measuring the same thing and calling Kirk a liar.
Establishing common ground terms. What is a woman? Perplexing. What is a fetus if not a technical term-of-art used by liberals to socially distance themselves from Progressive Choices. Perhaps a womb farm where babies are gestated or a sperm bank where deposits are made. What is a woman, they bray and make hay.
I'd like to point out that Charlie Kirk's primary goal was not to "own the Libs" but to bring individuals to Redemption through a close and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I wonder what experts would call the technique of waiting until your opponent is killed by leftists before engaging them in a debate, which is clearly what the Times is doing in hit jobs (pardon the pun) like these.
Charlie Kirk's primary goal was not to "own the Libs" but to bring individuals to Redemption through a close and personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Yes, his positions were only perceived as political through a religious lense and ideological blinders.
You are just as religious as Charlie Kirk. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.
Think of phenomenology as sociology. Here's a test for you. First, does it strike you as correct, and second is it therefore religious. Goffman on apology.
``A further illustration of the difference between ritual concerns and substantive ones comes from occasions of accident in which the carelessness of one individual is seen as causing injury or death to another. Here there may be no way at all to compensate the offended, and no punishment may be prescribed. All that the offend[er] can do is say he is sorry. And this expression itself may be relatively little open to gradation. The fact - at least in our society - is that a very limited set of ritual enactments are available for contrite offenders. Whether one runs over another's sentence, time, dog, or body, one is more or less reduced to saying some variant of ``I'm sorry.'' The variation in degree of anguish expressed by the apologizer seems a poor reflection of the variation in loss possible to the offended. In any case, while the original infraction may be quite substantive in its consequence, the remedial work, however vociferous, is in these cases still largely expressive. And there is a logic to this. After an offense has occurred, the job of the offender is to show that it was not a fair expression of his attitude, or, when it evidently was, to show that he has changed his attitude to the rule that was violated. In the latter case, his job is to show that whatever happened before, he now has a right relationship - a pious attitude - to the rule in question, _and this is a matter of indicating a relationship, not compensating a loss_''
_Relations in Public_ ``Remedial Interchanges'' p.117-118
The NYT should analyzed the debate performances of the students next. In the clips I have seen the students don't debate at all, they assert and are overwhelned when opposed. They aren't bad debaters losing to a good one; they aren't people slow at thinking on their feet. Instead they are unaware of the possible talking points of the opposition, unable to think on their feet, reliant on insults, and dependent on appeals to an authority they know in advance Charlie Kirk would not accept. i.e., the liberal consensus.
(I'm still trying to find a video of the debate at the Oxford Union so I don't know if Kirk ever faced a real debater. I hear he won there.)
A few things.
Why such an interested focus, why an appeal to the 'experts'? Is it to answer their private questions as to why Charlie Kirk seems to be a prolonged story on the newsfront, or is it to disassemble his stature, explain it in a way that diminishes his achievement and dissipates its power? Sounds like they're trying to trivialize it by breaking it down into mechanical tricks.
Well, because of course they couldn't acknowledge that he might be correct.
With regard to "a father in the home" - quite a bit different from "THIS PARTICULAR child's father in the home, innit? The data are very clear on the heightened risks of abuse to children from stepfathers or boyfriends of their mother who are not their father. It's interesting that the NYT doesn't clarify what it means by "a father in the home." As someone said above, it's a cargo cult.
I heard a snippet of a Kirk appearance in which the college kid was berating him for debating "kids" when he was a 31yo man. His response was to ask if this young woman in her 20s voted. She said that of course she does; so he told her he was just a voter talking with another voter. What a respectful and non-manipulative way to answer her. He could have gone for the easy "points" (as the NYT of course implies was always his goal) by pointing out that he was a college dropout and therefore presumably less prepared for intellectual combat than she. Or he could have pointed out that he was perfectly willing to and frequently did welcome professors to the mic.
he did, thats why his debate associate wanted to kill him,
rhhardin said...
You are just as religious as Charlie Kirk. Your lack of self awareness is astounding.
Think of phenomenology as sociology. Here's a test for you. First, does it strike you as correct, and second is it therefore religious. Goffman on apology.
"Apology" = Filibuster.
Where did life begin?
What normative principles do you have to build a moral framework?
What is the source of your belief?
Secular Humanists are really bad at this.
"asking opponents to define a term... he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed...."
There is no appearing to it- it is flat out ignorance if you can't define a term you just used in a debate. Taking all of that verbiage together, the NYTimes "appears" to believe Kirk's debate opponents and the paper's own dedicated readers are idiots.
A public debate is not about how a speaker defeats an opponent and causes that person to change his mind.
It is about bringing ideas to the audience and having them consider them and open their minds.
That is why the left killed Charlie Kirk.
I think the trouble is that you're unable to read. There's nothing valuable in the Goffman?
They aren't bad debaters losing to a good one; they aren't people slow at thinking on their feet. Instead they are unaware of the possible talking points of the opposition, unable to think on their feet, reliant on insults, and dependent on appeals to an authority they know in advance Charlie Kirk would not accept. i.e., the liberal consensus.
This is so key. The students - and professors - apparently really believed, as they stepped up the mic, that their bumper sticker slogans were arguments. Unanswerable ones, at that.
Earlier today I referenced the stupid yard signs, and in particular mentioned the "Love is love" line. Every time I pass one of those, I say aloud some variation of, "But is it, though? We're talking about sex, right? The right to engage in a sexual relationship with whomever you choose? What if the 'whomever' is a child? Or your child? Or your dog? Is that also 'love' in exactly the same sense as love between two consenting adult humans?"
I'm obviously not debating. I'm the old (wo)man yelling into the sky. But the people who put up those signs would obviously not think "love is love" without implicit definition of terms as they want the terms defined - and at the same time they'd think I was cheating to demand that it be explicit.
Origins are usually points of confusion of use and mention, which makes it impossible to reason backwards through them. That makes them a workable origin.
Do all the critics of Charlie saying he had an advantage over unprepared college kids not realize that every one of those kids are being taught by much older people than Charlie in a very unbalanced power dynamic. At least with Charlie they could disagree without risking their GPA.
Kirk was an educator to a receptive audience. NYT is a director firmly esconced in ivory towers recirculating rarefied air of past privilege.
With the NY Times, it is always worth trying to divine the reason for the article. So far, I have 2 possibilities:
1) This is how Charlie Kirk kicked our asses
2) This is why silencing him was sort of justified
3) The possibility that liberals should adopt the same tactics in debates
#3 seems the least likely.
There's nothing valuable in the Goffman?
Sticking my nose in - honestly, I don't see a lot. What is it that you find so valuable? It just says that the offender can either BE or ACT reformed, if the offending act was deliberate, or else try to convince the offended through the apology that the act was unintentional and therefore doesn't really require apology. None of that speaks to morals, per se; it's just a utilitarian means to lubricate rough human interactions.
"There was immense charisma in the light that has gone out." Indeed. The combination of skill and charisma made him intolerable to the left. Hence the threats, and ultimately the assassination
He also wiped the smirk, snark off more sophisticated facades. Don't hate his Anthropogenic Intelligence (AI) with an endearing human interface.
... with a "charismatic" human interface. Exactly.
It’s very easy to plant audience members with preplanned questions
Insinuating that Kirk was a Democrat is dirty pool.
rhhardin said...
I think the trouble is that you're unable to read. There's nothing valuable in the Goffman?
No.
He is just trying to justify a moral framework absent Objective normative principles. He is justifying your soap opera morality.
He is trying to balance the feelings of 2 people who disagree about something. These people think the "Golden Rule" treat others as you wanted to be treated" is a good principle to base morality on.
They can't deal with the sadomasochist. It is crap. It is level 3 morality. Congratulations you grew up from "I don't want to get hit" to "lets all be nice to each other." That is the basis for socialism which boils down to "you have lots of snacks lets share snacks."
Give me some normative principles for your moral framework.
Give me some basis for believing something can be created from nothing.
they stand on quicksand no one nothing endures,
Charlie and Erika have always asserted a focus on faithful union of man and woman with children under God as the foundation of a viable society and national community.
overwhelming his opponent with a litany of memorized talking points delivered at high speed
That's a lot of fancy words to keep from saying "used supporting facts."
He used the Socratic Method is all. That's a well understood and accepted method of debating. A little difficult to see the inferences they're trying to draw out of it.
"asking opponents to define a term... he could score easy points by making them appear uninformed ..."
No, no, no, no, no.
He asked opponents to define a term... so he could score easy points by revealing them to BE uninformed."
It wasn't an appearance of ignorance. It was the actual fact of it.
The left CANNOT WIN a debate on any issue. Therefore they can brook no debate. They cannot win elections on these issues.
So they will just murder you instead.
What you are witnessing is a guerilla war that the Democrat Party is executing against the United States of America and it's way past time for Donald Trump to activate our military against them.
Rehjam said NYT: How do we get the dogs to eat our shitty tasting dog food? We asked our ‘experts’…
Since the dogs are the ultimate experts on what makes good tasting dog food..... I wonder what the dogs have to say about that?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
"Charlie Kirk worked primarily in the town hall format. The few clips I have see left me with the feeling I was watching a magic trick."
Perception ain't reality.
Great. Now do Jimmy Kimmel.
Bring in retired talk show hosts to examine content, tone, techniques and other hallmarks of each show to determine why he has a small audience, doesn't bring in much advertising revenue, has a large staff and manages to stay on the air while losing millions of dollars.
I don’t understand the need to criticize Kirk’s style and what he was doing. The outcomes for those listening or debating were positive. They might be persuaded to be more open-minded, questioning or even come around to his way of thinking. They might walk away recognizing they need to think more deeply about why they held their views. They might be completely unpersuaded and work to become a better advocate for their views. They might have agreed with him all along and learned some ways to hone their skills at expressing their views. What is so bad about a guy engaging college students in a way they seem to not get in class?
Not one leftist will ever watch Charlie Kirk in context or in total. Why? The fake reality leftists build for themselves - makes them very comfortable.
And what is the purpose of the article?
If you engage the left on their rhetoric this week, they will come out and tell you. Their current goal is to ensure Charlie Kirk's death does not make him a martyr for the Right. They have destroyed his body and now they must destroy his reputation.
To do this, they are arguing:
(a) that his words went beyond what normal people might believe and into the territory whereby they (and therefore he) must be disavowed.
It is not just, for instance, that Kirk held disagreeable views—that he was pro-life, that he believed in public executions, or that he rejected the separation of church and state. It’s that Kirk reveled in open bigotry. -- TA-NEHISI COATES, Vanity Fair
But now that people of all political persuasions are viewing clip after clip of Charlie both being nice to and then overwhelming his opponents, they've added:
(b) that his debate style was more responsible for seeming to best opponents than his facts or ideas. What they need you to see in those videos is not truth overwhelming fiction, or facts overwhelming lies, but right-wing style overwhelming left-wing substance in an unfair fight. (see article above)
@Tosa Guy who said "Debating people who never heard a different point of view is shooting fish in a barrel. The better question is why these kids never heard other views and perhaps even debated them in college prior to Charlie Kirk?"
Exactly. I was on the debate team in college, long ago back when you actually learned things. Had the ability to do critical thinking and NOT just parrot words spoon fed to you.
The prep for honing your debating skills, was to have practice debates where you were required to debate for the "side/viewpoint" that you didn't agree with. For example Vietnam war...justified or not? If you were on the NOT side, then you had to argue the Yes side.
It meant research of each side, understanding both sides, making reasoned arguments based on not your emotions or feelings. Instead being prepared to counter any argument from the opposition side and bolster the argument from your side. Lots of research!!!
You were graded on being prepared...ready for the counters and able to rebut the arguments. Winning your side was good...but the skills gain gave you a better grade.
I was elected captain in the last year. My husband doesn't dare argue with me. (lol kidding...kind of)
Leave it to the NYT to make it sound nefarious to let your opponent speak and to ask him to define his terms.
One thing they don't mention was that Charlie Kirk was extremely well educated and informed on facts. He constantly impressed me when he brought important facts into a debate with stunning detail.
Their current goal is to ensure Charlie Kirk's death does not make him a martyr for the Right. They have destroyed his body and now they must destroy his reputation.
This is exactly right. I've been friends with a guy for 50 years who is a big-time lefty and he forwarded me this article for precisely the reason you stated. He also forwarded another NYT article earlier in the week that was informing me Kirk is a bigot because reasons. I explained to him that Kirk has so much video out there that I can hear what Kirk said and did in his own words and that I don't need the NYT to guide me in how to think about Kirk. I also suggested to my friend that he didn't need the NYT to guide his thinking either, but that's obviously not the case. Sigh.
If you watch Charlie's debates, you will see his opponents almost never have facts because they didn't think they needed them. In fact, as pointed out, they didn't even bring definitions.
He inverted the progressive paradigm: repeat key, untrue talking points over and over until people believe they are true. He repeated key, true talking points over and over until people could see the light. How do I know the difference. Progressives brook no debate; Chalie was happy to debate.
I also suggested to my friend that he didn't need the NYT to guide his thinking either, but that's obviously not the case.
Yes, I have a friend who essentially said, "If Ta-Nehisi Coates believes it (about Charlie Kirk), that's good enough for me."
Hard line message means anything that liberals don't agree with.
Jamie: An [old] woman with a spirit forever young. A mature state worth striving for, sharing.
Their current goal is to ensure Charlie Kirk's death does not make him a martyr for the Right.
See also, from the previous Althouse post:
Brooks speaks of the danger that "many Republicans" will use Kirk to establish that "their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible.
What an absurd article. The fact-checking of Charlie Kirk. Kirk would say this but x-burts say it was wrong. Of course the paraphrasing of Kirk sets up a straw man, and the "fact checks" are usually just someone else's opinion presents as true due to their "authority".
The following NYT appeal to x-burts is supposed to knockdown Kirk's claim that the vast majority of poor people aren't violent. And therefore poverty doesn't cause violent crime.
"There is in fact extensive research suggesting a strong correlative relationship between poverty and crime. Studies show that relationship holds across demographic lines, and also that systemic inequities in the judicial system contribute to racial disparities in homicide rates".
Notice how the NYT's uses the word "correlation". Not causation. In fact, there's also a massive correlation between being a young black man and violent crime. Is correlation causation?
And yes, "Studies may show that relationship holds across demographic lines". But it simply begs the question, why do 95 percent of poor people NOT commit violent crime.
On another level, Kirk's debates were a criticism of US universities, which fail to prepare their students with a broad education and the primary skills of the liberal arts. And of course a criticism of the faculty of these universities. Kirk could only rarely attract a professor to argue with him, this is not surprising. A professor has too much to lose in such a contest, and I bet most of them knew they were outgunned. There must be an unspoken knowledge among the professoriate that they are frauds.
Say his name! Empathize. Sympatize. Politicize.
Oh, wait. Don't.
Neutralize.
as perceived by the experts:
As perceived by the experts employed by the Democratic Party.
"It’s very easy to plant audience members with preplanned questions"
*****************
On college campuses? You think students wouldn't recognize an outside agitator, or a "plant"?
Or a conservative student offering stupid prog tropes so Charlie could play whack-a-mole knocking them down?
They would recognize that in a heartbeat---unless you think students are really stupid. Do you have any examples where that actually happened?
"If Ta-Nehisi Coates believes it (about Charlie Kirk), that's good enough for me."
And unfortunately, we have lots of NPCs who are willing to accept the Ta-Nehisi microchip.
I also loved the cheap shot of "Kirk used the same lines". Well duh. He spoke to hundreds of people every year. Its like saying "Comedian X used the same jokes in his Las Vegas act".
I'm sure there are exceptions and no doubt Law Professors are better than most. But in in general, Professors make poor debaters. Most of them are long-winded and used to lecturing to students who are hanging on their every word. They aren't used to being challenged or engaging in a back and forth with a well informed adult.
"A public debate is not about how a speaker defeats an opponent and causes that person to change his mind.
It is about bringing ideas to the audience and having them consider them and open their minds."
I was going to say this, TosaGuy got there first.
As far as Kirk debating unprepared opponents, well- I've watched a number of his videos and it appeared to me that he didn't choose who to debate, his opponents volunteered.
Maybe the question people should be asking is- why didn't better prepared opponents step up to the mic?
EAB said...
I don’t understand the need to criticize Kirk’s style and what he was doing. The outcomes for those listening or debating were positive. They might be persuaded to be more open-minded, questioning or even come around to his way of thinking. They might walk away recognizing they need to think more deeply about why they held their views. They might be completely unpersuaded and work to become a better advocate for their views. They might have agreed with him all along and learned some ways to hone their skills at expressing their views. What is so bad about a guy engaging college students in a way they seem to not get in class?
This should be obvious by now.
Leftists are evil people who indoctrinate kids and anyone who threatens that indoctrination is going to be attacked.
It is what they do. Their ideology is taking people's stuff by force and giving it to (themselves)other people.
The answer was literally streaming in the wind, a wicked solution, an unequivocal retort: sit down and shut up forevermore... quoth the craven.
Now imagine how those same experts would characterize Obama at a campaign event.
Yes, I'm going to be "that guy" who raises "whataboutism". If it seems likely that you apply certain standards or language selectively, then you are likely disingenuous in your arguments. When the left criticizes "whataboutism", it is trying to deflect the obvious flaws and dishonesty in their arguments.
Tennessee Coates is a nasty character who showed animus even in the aftermath of September 11th, against Fire fighters who perished he's like Chris Rock's parodied nationalist for real, of course he was a johnny appleseed of this proto nihilism even before Coates, the Atlantic made it possible,
before Hank Rogers, Kendi, the gospel of self hate,
It's been said elsewhere, but again, the reason Charlie Kirk is still being attacked and criticized so much is that he was effective.
"Is the NY Times implying that Mr. Kirk was debating retards?"
The NYT editors are too ill-educated to realize that, but that's is exactly what is implied.
: “ Brooks speaks of the danger that "many Republicans" will use Kirk to establish that "their opponents are irredeemably evil and that anything that causes them suffering is permissible.”
All the left did was assassinate Charlie Kirk, murder children at mass, ambush ICE agents, target conservative Supreme Court justices, assassinate Jews in front of the Israeli embassy, firebomb a Jewish governor, attempt to burn senior citizens alive in Colorado, and try to kill a presidential candidate twice.
So no reason for the right to think the left is evil at all? Carry on lefties.
except for that, they have shown themselves to be very peaceful
"It sounds like a variant on the Socratic method, as used by half the professors in the country."
Enigma gives academia far too much credit. Barely 10% know anything about Socrates and his role in Plato's writings, the rest are sophists.
Like Socrates, Charlie Kirk gently but decisively exposed the left's hypocrisy and wickedness, and like henpecked Athenian before him, was murdered for it.
Brooks seems to think all then left does is listen to NPR and write strongly worded letters to a printed newspaper. He has zero clue about the young online left and their direct roots with the violent leftist movements of the 1960s and 1970s.
he doesn't think hes just one of Carlos Slims chimps
When you have talent and a message, and can exhibit it every day, you'll leave a mark.
Has the NYT ever done a rhetorical analysis of other public figures debating styles? Would it even be worth it, since so many are just parroting the party line and relying on innuendos? Maybe the most significant thing in all this was that Kirk was willing to debate opponents, rather than attack or dismiss them.
If the percentage of African-American children growing up without fathers in the house went from 24% to 64% that's a significant rise (no kidding). Kirk's citing earlier figures and getting them a bit wrong, but that doesn't affect the truth of an indictment of the Great Society (though he should have left the Civil Rights Act out of his argument). Claiming that Kirk takes the debate into fantasyland because he's a little off on the percentage and a little behind the times in his figures is the kind of nitpicking that makes "fact checking" laughable.
It is my fervent hope that the left leaning will learn to debate like Charles Kirk, Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles.
"Like he said the flyover during the Alaska summit was intended to scare Putin."
How is this stupid? A lot of people believe this, and not all of them are idiots. I guess it can seem stupid if you believe that Donald Trump is a Putin puppet, and that so he was showing his boss the stuff he now controls, but actually, that is a pretty stupid take.
Two things, Trump is an American first, and he wants to remind Putin that we are not without military means.
Second: Russia is not America's enemy, no matter how much Europeans want us to think so.
Russia is Ukraine's enemy, but Ukraine fought against our side in WWII, and has never really been anything to the US but a source of trouble and election interference. Russia sold us Alaska, and helped us to defeat the Nazis.
Russia sold us Alaska, and helped us to defeat the Nazis.
The USSR helped us defeat the Nazis solely because it was an existential threat for them. The Russian Empire sold us Alaska just after the Civil War. Placed against the backdrop of ~50 years of pointing thousands of thermonuclear weapons on a hair trigger at each other, I don't find your 2 examples particularly compelling. Russia is now, as the USSR was 30 years ago, a geopolitical adversary that sees it to her advantage to reduce US hegemony. Russia is absolutely not a friend, nor would I consider them an enemy at the current time. 'Adversary' seems perfectly adequate and accurate.
I get that Achilles. Although I’d probably use the term tribal. That’s my family. Kirk’s views were dangerous.
I think the trouble is that you're unable to read. There's nothing valuable in the Goffman?
No.
He is just trying to justify a moral framework absent Objective normative principles. He is justifying your soap opera morality.
Goffman is definitely not about morality. He's about reporting what we actually do and the rules that are implied by it. That is, rules we follow without knowing that there's a rule.
It's like descriptive grammar, rules for what sounds wrong, which are rules that you won't actually know but nevertheless follow. As opposed to prescriptive grammar, which is what you learn at school. Stuff you lose points for not following.
The analogy to morality and religion respectively is nice.
What do you think Goffman got wrong about apologies?
Lem the Vibe Bandit: Kirk: "Before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act... about 24% of Black children were born without a father. Now it’s upwards of 70%.”
NYT: Studies by the federal government and nonprofit groups show that slightly less than half of Black children live without a father at home as of 2023, and historically that number has not risen above about 65 percent. It also does not account for fathers who do not live with their children — after a divorce, for instance — but may otherwise be a regular presence in their lives.
What Kirk meant was the percentage of black children whose *biological"* father lives in the home. Studies show it matters.
I just tried to find that number. No surprise, Google has bad amnesia. But if memory serves, it is about 20%.
And the last sentence is just tendentious quibbling.,
Milton Friedman was also very good at calmly dismantling the arguments of his adversaries with facts and logic. We’ve all seen the videos, such as his appearance on Merv Griffin. Fortunately no one shot and killed him. Different time.
The left bank of charles said
Charlie Kirk worked primarily in the town hall format. The few clips I have see left me with the feeling I was watching a magic trick.
I’m always suspicious of that format. Bill Clinton was its great innovator in U.S. politics. It’s very easy to plant audience members with preplanned questions.
If all the questions are plants, it becomes obvious, but some amount of seeding can make you look better than you are.
I see your copium stock is abundant.
Always distrust charisma. It is nothing but manipulation. I get no sense that he cared about the people he disagreed with. He had an act that was extremely polished and profitable for him. He should still be with us, but let's not idolize him.
I did listen to a couple of his podcasts and he does say a lot of stupid stuff.
If all he said was stupid stuff, your side wouldn't have felt the need to kill him.
NYT- Experts find Charlie Kirk’s debate reputation was just a parlor trick.
"Ukraine fought against our side in WWII"? Bzzzzzt! Utterly false. Ukraine was in fact a constituent republic (=enslaved colony) of the USSR, and only fought on Hitler's side as long as the rest of the USSR fought on Hitler's side (1939-41), which was before the US joined the Allies. The percentage of Ukrainians killed in the war was much higher than the percentage of Russians, though not as high as the percentage of Belarusians. (Not surprising: both republics were entirely occupied by the Nazis, but only a small percentage of Russia.)
Zelenskyy's own grandfather was a colonel in the Red Army. I looked it up some months ago, and found that the number of Ukrainians in the Waffen SS was less than the number of Dutchmen, and from a much larger population. Yet no one calls the Dutch Nazis. Odd, isn't it?
As for Alaska, Russian propagandists openly talk about taking it back, and many Russians believe that it was only leased, as Hong Kong was from China by the UK, and that the lease has expired, so it's rightfully theirs. Needless to say, this belief is utterly false, and encouraged by the Putin regime.
Why does Jaq lie?
"Before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act... about 24% of Black children were born without a father. Now it’s upwards of 70%.”
The 70% have fathers too, but the fathers are irresponsible, absent/not living where the child is, and out on the hunt for more opportunities to create even more young ones that taxpayers are forced to take responsibility for.
They’ll have their day, when The Man comes around.
They're trying to figure out what made Kirk so good at what he did. "How can we have our own progressive Charlie Kirk?" Since his death I've watched several videos of Kirk defending his views. He was excellent. And he was gracious and respectful.
I can just imagine the "experts" NYT has on speed-dial.
Everybody is free to try doing the Charley thing. The NYT just gave you a how to manual. Now go get 'em.
I guess bullshit experts are still technically experts.
The problem with a "progressive" Charlie Kirk is the same as a "progressive" Joe Rogan, progressivism doesn't respond well to pointed questions. You can have scripted shows like Colbert, where he gets off his zingers, and mugs for the camera, and then you cut away. But Colbert could never stand up to an extended show of "what about...." Neither could Jimmy Kimmel. His whole "The Charlie Kirk shooter was MAGA" thing would have fallen apart in about two minutes. His real role is to inject disinformation into the conversation, and disinformation is very fragile until it can take root with endless repetition.
First, they tried to replicate Rogan. Now, they're desperate to deconstruct and replicate Charlie, posthumously. Dudes, dudettes, let it go, the optics are tarred and you're feathered.
In fact the, well what we call "the left" because they hide their actual believes, which are crypto-fascist, but "the left" tries to suppress debate by calling pointed questions "whataboutism."
The actual international left is rooting for Donald Trump to succeed, because together, we have a common enemy in these globalists.
"How can we have our own progressive Charlie Kirk?"
Might be a challenge for the left- Charlie was gracious and respectful.
"Before passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act... about 24% of Black children were born without a father. Now it’s upwards of 70%.”
Your comment is a cop-out and highly debatable -- especially in light of Kirk's comments about race in recent years (e.g. "If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified").
Whether Kirk was just pandering to his audience or genuinely believed these ideas is also beside the point. He absolutely pandered to racial prejudice.
Also, it is one thing to say that the Civil Rights Act was the wrong remedy, however, if you actually disagree with the remedy, I can't think of a lamer answer than "we should just be nicer to each other and see everyone as human beings". The damage caused by segregation and racially biased enforcement of laws happened over the course of generations and did significant harm. You can't just tell people to "be nicer" and expect for the wrong to be corrected.
A large part of the reason that there has been a generational shift in attitudes, is precisely because government action forcibly removed barriers of separation. The fact that people started going to de-segregated schools and encountered people of different races, broke down prejudices over time. In other fields, as well, there are numerous examples of state policy effectively ending de facto affirmative action programs for white mediocrities like Kirk. This is the real source of tension for people like Kirk. The issue isn't that he wanted people to compete on a level playing field. He obviously didn't, unless the standard of competition is that the mass of population should "compete for financial support from a handful of reactionary billionaires". This is an idea that is opposed to democracy and genuine meritocracy.
"How can we have our own progressive Charlie Kirk?"
You can't. That's because Charlie was something you can never be. Honest.
James K said...
"Milton Friedman was also very good at calmly dismantling the arguments of his adversaries with facts and logic. We’ve all seen the videos, such as his appearance on Merv Griffin. Fortunately no one shot and killed him. Different time."
That made me think of Ayn Rand's numerous public appearances and interviews. She was nowhere near as polite as Charlie Kirk, but still she was able to speak in public. It's all but impossible to imagine her giving a lecture at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston today. The simple mention of her name is still enough to induce fits of apoplexy among lefties.
A different time, indeed.
The NYT feels it necessary to reassure its readers that Charlie Kirk was no big deal. Don't believe your lying eyes if you catch one of those You Tube debates and think that Charlie Kirk is something worthy.......I don't think that Kirk's big accomplishment was winning the debates, but rather how he presented himself in debate. He was an advertisement for his faith and core beliefs. The NYT believes that if you scratch the surface off a Christian conservative, you'll find a Jerry Falwell. If you don't, then you're not scratching hard enough.......I think Charlie Kirk was the real deal. He was who he professed to be.
The NYT is just jealous of a murdered man. Not a good look. Who do they have? David French, Nicholas Kristoff, Charles Blow, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Michelle Goldberg, Brett Stevens, Jamelle Bowens, Ross Douthat? Gail Collins, the inexplicable walking Ambien pill? Great gods, they have no moral nor intellectual compasses.
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.