zlacker

[return to "Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah"]
1. loughn+Bg1[view] [source] 2025-09-11 02:37:24
>>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?

◧◩
2. latexr+H22[view] [source] 2025-09-11 10:51:10
>>loughn+Bg1
Feels like your second paragraph negates the first. That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual, using the backdrop of college campuses to lend legitimacy to his divisive ideas. That is not what college campuses are for, and it is not a debate.

I’m not American, I never heard of this guy before. But I saw the video of the last moments and it’s a telling snippet. He was incredibly dismissive in his answers which were vague and devoid of information, while being clearly rage bait meant to be cheered on by his base.

◧◩◪
3. matheu+Mp4[view] [source] 2025-09-12 06:24:17
>>latexr+H22
> That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual

I'm not convinced political debates are good for anything else. Most people believe in things without really thinking about them. Especially politics.

If you stop and actually reason this stuff out, you're going to reach some deeply disturbing conclusions which border on wrongthink. If you try to spread the nuggets of truth you discovered, you just fail miserably at first. People will not be convinced.

They probably won't really refute you either. Maybe it's because you're right, maybe it's because they didn't even think about what you said and just responded emotionally, there's no way to know for sure because trying to test ideas in debates just doesn't work with the vast majority of human beings.

If you insist on this path, people start thinking you're acting superior to them with your unconventional ideas. At some point you start getting flagged and downvoted on sight. Then you start getting personally called out. Labeled as some "extremist". Maybe one day you become such a nuisance authorities actually knock on your door and arrest you. Maybe your ideas offend someone so much they assassinate you.

So I don't blame this guy at all for debating like a politician. If he debated seriously and won, would his opponents revise their entire belief systems and start following his logical footsteps? Of course not.

[go to top]