Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[FireDragon76]

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

Yeah, they are performing stunts meant to look more dangerous or harmful than they actually are, and that takes skill. Some of the most skilled pro wrestlers, in fact, often don't work as the biggest stars, and that's because pro-wrestling is about selling drama, and sometimes the drama has less to to do with technical ability, and more about the wider context the wrestler is performing in.

That's related to my point about Kirk. He often chose debate topics that were emotionally charged and which were guaranteed to produce drama- that's what he was paid to do. That's not demonstration of intellectual depth or ability necessarily, just a result of the "kayfabe". It's easy to miss the little intellectual sleight-of-hands or self-contradictions that Kirk engaged in when he got cornered, for instance, which is sort of like how the pro-wrestling kayfabe works. Pro wrestlers know not just how to perform wrestling techniques in a technical sense, but what wrestling techniques will look convincing and contribute to the overall narrative being told.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah, they are performing stunts meant to look more dangerous or harmful than they actually are, and that takes skill. Some of the most skilled pro wrestlers, in fact, often don't work as the biggest stars, and that's because pro-wrestling is about selling drama, and sometimes the drama has less to to do with technical ability, and more about the wider context the wrestler is performing in.

That's related to my point about Kirk. He often chose debate topics that were emotionally charged and which were guaranteed to produce drama- that's what he was paid to do. That's not demonstration of intellectual depth or ability necessarily, just a result of the "kayfabe". It's easy to miss the little intellectual sleight-of-hands or self-contradictions that Kirk engaged in when he got cornered, for instance, which is sort of like how the pro-wrestling kayfabe works. Pro wrestlers know not just how to perform wrestling techniques in a technical sense, but what wrestling techniques will look convincing and contribute to the overall narrative being told.

But he started his own PAC when he was 18 and grew it into what it is today, you can't do that by being stupid or faking it.

 

[Nithavela]

Is there any footage of evidence for Kirk ever being convinced of a counterpoint during one of his debates?

Still wondering about this. If you are doing public arguments, but never on record for conceding a point, you are not holding a conversation. You are not even debating. You are just dunking on people.

The only way this can impress is if one holds the opinion that the opponent obviously is wrong all the time and "their guy" is always correct. I'm getting this impression from many people on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[BPPLEE]

Still wondering about this. If you are doing public arguments, but never on record for conceding a point, you are not holding a conversation. You are not even debating. You are just dunking on people.

The only way this can impress is if one holds the opinion that the opponent obviously is wrong all the time and "their guy" is always correct. I'm getting this impression from many people on both sides of the political spectrum.

I've seen him find things that he and his opponent could agree on

 

[Nithavela]

I've seen him find things that he and his opponent could agree on

Not what I've been asking about.

I'm asking about Kirk saying something along the line of "Alright, you convinced me, the thing I said isn't quite logical, something else seems more likely". I'm not expecting him to change his entire worldview, but a significant step from his point of view.

 

[BPPLEE]

He didn't go to college therefore he couldn't be brilliant, right?

 

[Bradskii]

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

You can correct me if I've missed it, but I don't think anyone in this thread had accused him of being stupid. From my point of view I have only pointed out his failings as a debater. For example, Laurance Krauss and Jordan Peterson are both very intelligent guys but dismal debaters (both used as examples only and not to be used as a comparison regarding intelligence with Kirk).

 

[Bradskii]

He didn't go to college therefore he couldn't be brilliant, right?

I'm bemused why you think that the two things are necessarily connected.

 

[Bradskii]

Still wondering about this. If you are doing public arguments, but never on record for conceding a point, you are not holding a conversation. You are not even debating. You are just dunking on people.

A good debater, or at least one where you want to win over some of those with whom you disagree, will always concede a point. A good debater will actually look for the opportunity to concede one. Especially if the audience has applauded it.

'Yes, I have to agree with everyone. That was a good point that you made. And well put if I may say so'.

Not one that drastically undermines one's position but one that can be accepted in a way that causes no real problems but allows people to see you as being fair and reasonable. And it takes the wind out of your opponents sails.

Is that being underhand? Weeell, it's debate technique. Just like a good magician will intentionally fumble a part of the buildup to a trick to show that he or she is fallible. Making the final denouement that much more impressive. Other things he should have done would be no gotchas - he relied on them all the time. Look relaxed - he rarely did with the longer form student debates. Don't (literally) look down your nose at your opponent - he often came across as haughty. Keep it friendly - he was invariably antagonistic. And play the ball. Not the man (or woman) - a fault he often made

As I said, Kirk wasn't good enough at what he did to appreciate these little 'tricks of the trade'.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But he started his own PAC when he was 18 and grew it into what it is today, you can't do that by being stupid or faking it.

Nobody has said he was stupid. Pretty much all of his detractors in here have acknowledged his skill at this sort of debate theater. His zeal and ability to build an organization and a brand are not in question.

What we’re saying is that this is not the same as putting forward thoughtful, accurate arguments in a debate.

If you can’t tell the difference, that’s on you.

He didn't go to college therefore he couldn't be brilliant, right?

The only two people in this thread to say anything of the sort are you and, IIRC, @Chesterton.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm bemused why you think that the two things are necessarily connected.

I don't

 

[BPPLEE]

You can correct me if I've missed it, but I don't think anyone in this thread had accused him of being stupid. From my point of view I have only pointed out his failings as a debater. For example, Laurance Krauss and Jordan Peterson are both very intelligent guys but dismal debaters (both used as examples only and not to be used as a comparison regarding intelligence with Kirk).

Agreed about Peterson. He writes boring books too

 

[BPPLEE]

Nobody has said he was stupid. Pretty much all of his detractors in here have acknowledged his skill at this sort of debate theater. His zeal and ability to build an organization and a brand are not in question.

What we’re saying is that this is not the same as putting forward thoughtful, accurate arguments in a debate.

If you can’t tell the difference, that’s on you.

The only two people in this thread to say anything of the sort are you and, IIRC, @Chesterton.

It's not that I can't tell the difference it's that I disagree

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It really sounds like he's never watched the guy holding court on campuses.

Klein is entirely accurate. Charlie Kirk spoke to anyone who wished to talk to him. That's the way you do it.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

He traveled somewhere with a chair and two microphones. Doesn't exactly require billionaire backers.

 

[Bradskii]

Klein is entirely accurate. Charlie Kirk spoke to anyone who wished to talk to him. That's the way you do it.

For 'spoke to' read 'held court'.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

For 'spoke to' read 'held court'.

No, he just spoke to the students, if they wished to do so. It wasn't compulsory. No one had to attend if he didn't want to do so. Completely voluntary.

 

[Bradskii]

No, he just spoke to the students, if they wished to do so. It wasn't compulsory. No one had to attend if he didn't want to do so. Completely voluntary.

No-one has said otherwise.