zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor.

I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.

That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?

>>loughn+Bg1
It is a performance that appears as a debate.

>>passwo+OQ1
Is that relevant? Could be said about any public debate or speaker.

>>raxxor+XQ1
Of course it couldn't. Go and compare these two. You may as well compare fruit loops to wagyu beef.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g ("Charlie Kirk Hands Out L's")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 ("Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice")

>>passwo+AS1
Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles.

>>yostro+Xd2
Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds".

It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate.

>>cman14+Ag2
Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans

The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals.