Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[Bradskii]

That makes him even better. If he'd been asked about the same things dozens of times, then the people who stepped up to the mic would have known his responses and could have come up with something to counter him.

He spent his working life prepping for these 3 minute party tricks. Fine tuning them. The students didn't spend anytime prepping for a Q and A that was going to take no longer than waiting for the lights to change. But select a group of students, tell them they have 10 minutes on the subject of their choice and they certainly do prep. And you can see how badly he handled that.

 

[Chesterton]

He spent his working life prepping for these 3 minute party tricks. Fine tuning them. The students didn't spend anytime prepping for a Q and A that was going to take no longer than waiting for the lights to change. But select a group of students, tell them they have 10 minutes on the subject of their choice and they certainly do prep. And you can see how badly he handled that.

Party tricks? Like he was a magician? The more you try to denigrate him the more you compliment him.

 

[Bradskii]

Party tricks? Like he was a magician? The more you try to denigrate him the more you compliment him.

You know what a magician does? He tries to convince you that he can do something clever without you knowing how he does it. I'm afraid that doesn't describe Kirk. It was all too easy to see what he was trying to do. There was no subtlety. No sleight of hand. Strictly second rate.

 

[FireDragon76]

You know what a magician does? He tries to convince you that he can do something clever without you knowing how he does it. I'm afraid that doesn't describe Kirk. It was all too easy to see what he was trying to do. There was no subtlety. No sleight of hand. Strictly second rate.

His job wasn't to convince the average person, but to confuse the vulnerable, the naive, and unprepared. That's what his bililionaire backers paid him to do. It's a shrewd strategy if you want to hold on to your political power, I suppose. It acts as a hedge. The point is that if people are confused enough, they will simply revert to the status quo, which by default benefits entrenched interests.

 

[BPPLEE]

His job wasn't to convince the average person, but to confuse the vulnerable, the naive, and unprepared. That's what his bililionaire backers paid him to do. It's a shrewd strategy if you want to hold on to your political power, I suppose. It acts as a hedge. The point is that if people are confused enough, they will simply revert to the status quo, which by default benefits entrenched interests.

Yeah the colleges are entrenched with right wingers aren't they?

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah the colleges are entrenched with right wingers aren't they?

The setting is a college, but the money interested that paid for Kirk's performance were focused on the broader political and cultural milieu. They like having their fingers in all the pies, not just one.

 

[BPPLEE]

You know what a magician does? He tries to convince you that he can do something clever without you knowing how he does it. I'm afraid that doesn't describe Kirk. It was all too easy to see what he was trying to do. There was no subtlety. No sleight of hand. Strictly second rate.

I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything, I'm not a fan of Christian Nationalism but he was obviously a brilliant young man with an exceptional memory and your posts seem to attempt to reduce him to a fake doing cheap parlor tricks

 

[iluvatar5150]

I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything, I'm not a fan of Christian Nationalism but he was obviously a brilliant young man with an exceptional memory and your posts seem to attempt to reduce him to a fake doing cheap parlor tricks

If he had been “brilliant,” his debates and other commentary would have been a lot more insightful and interesting to listen to. He was good at what he did, sure, but that’s not what “brilliant” sounds like.

 

[FireDragon76]

I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything, I'm not a fan of Christian Nationalism but he was obviously a brilliant young man with an exceptional memory and your posts seem to attempt to reduce him to a fake doing cheap parlor tricks

Charlie Kirk was an intellectual in exactly the same way pro-westlers are genuine competitors. The point isn't to have actual perspectives with any depth or salience, but to sell a narrative to potential audiences that if they were to entertain with any seriousness, would serve as a brake on any kind of critical thought. In that sense, it's an intellectual blackpill or kayfabe.

 

[BPPLEE]

If he had been “brilliant,” his debates and other commentary would have been a lot more insightful and interesting to listen to. He was good at what he did, sure, but that’s not what “brilliant” sounds like.

Sounds like someone is blinded by their bias

 

[BPPLEE]

Charlie Kirk was an intellectual in exactly the same way pro-westlers are genuine competitors. The point isn't to have actual perspectives with any depth or salience, but to sell a narrative to potential audiences that if they were to entertain with any seriousness, would serve as a brake on any kind of critical thought. In that sense, it's an intellectual blackpill or kayfabe.

Even pro wrestlers are gifted athletes, just because it's predetermined who will win doesn't mean it's easy. Try fighting one of them.

Brock Lesnar - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Kirk could clean the floor in a debate with the self designated geniuses on this forum

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything, I'm not a fan of Christian Nationalism but he was obviously a brilliant young man with an exceptional memory and your posts seem to attempt to reduce him to a fake doing cheap parlor tricks

I spend more time than I perhaps should watching online debates. Scientific, political, religious, philosophical, economic, sport...you name it and I'm up for it. Even if it's someone I don't agree with trying to put over a point I've heard many times before, I'm interested in how they do it. I enjoy picking apart the technique. And I'll mentally award someone a win even if I don't agree with what they've said. They just did it better than the opposition.

Ask me for a list of my top debaters and it'll include people on the right like Chris Christie and Ben Shapiro. It would never even enter my head to even think about Kirk.

 

[BPPLEE]

 

[iluvatar5150]

Sounds like someone is blinded by their bias

No, what I’m “blinded” by is my media diet that’s mostly podcasts of smart people, typically subject matter experts, talking to each other.

There are intelligent, thoughtful conservative thinkers and commentators out there. That you guys aren’t familiar with them and get taken in by low-quality showmen like Kirk isn’t our fault.

 

[FireDragon76]

Even pro wrestlers are gifted athletes, just because it's predetermined who will win doesn't mean it's easy. Try fighting one of them.
This post comes across as arrogant and hateful

Certainly: I said they aren't competitors, I didn't imply they weren't athletes.

What's really problematic is to suggest that violence settles matters of truth and righteousness, which is exactly where the logic of your objection seems to lead. My point isn't that pro wrestlers aren't physically incapable of hurting people, it's that their place is to perform. Their ability to hurt other people isn't directly related to their role in pro wrestling. Their role, like Kirk's was, is to be persuasive and fluent enough to get people to feel entertained or engaged.

 

[BPPLEE]

I spend more time than I perhaps should watching online debates. Scientific, political, religious, philosophical, economic, sport...you name it and I'm up for it. Even if it's someone I don't agree with trying to put over a point I've heard many times before, I'm interested in how they do it. I enjoy picking apart the technique. And I'll mentally award someone a win even if I don't agree with what they've said. They just did it better than the opposition.

Ask me for a list of my top debaters and it'll include people on the right like Chris Christie and Ben Shapiro. It would never even enter my head to even think about Kirk.

I don't know how you find time to post

 

[BPPLEE]

Certainly: I said they aren't competitors, I didn't imply they weren't athletes.

What's really problematic is to suggest that violence settles matters of truth and righteousness, which is exactly where the logic of your objection seems to lead. My point isn't that pro wrestlers aren't physically incapable of hurting people, it's that their place is to perform. Their ability to hurt other people isn't directly related to their role in pro wrestling. Their role, like Kirk's was, is to be persuasive and fluent enough to get people to feel entertained or engaged.

I'm not advocating violence just asserting it takes skill to be a professional wrestler or to do what Kirk did.
I edited my post, I apologize for saying your post was arrogant

 

[BPPLEE]

No, what I’m “blinded” by is my media diet that’s mostly podcasts of smart people, typically subject matter experts, talking to each other.

There are intelligent, thoughtful conservative thinkers and commentators out there. That you guys aren’t familiar with them and get taken in by low-quality showmen like Kirk isn’t our fault.

You guys doesn't refer to me, I'm not a Kirk follower but I have seen enough of him to recognize that he was good at what he did and he had an amazing memory.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You guys doesn't refer to me, I'm not a Kirk follower but I have seen enough of him to recognize that he was a brilliant young man who was good at what he did.

He was certainly good at what he did (playing to the crowd, being entertaining), but "brilliant" is a pretty big stretch.

 

[BPPLEE]

He was certainly good at what he did (playing to the crowd, being entertaining), but "brilliant" is a pretty big stretch.

An 18 year old that can start his own PAC and grow it like he did doesn't get there by being stupid