Ezra Klein: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way

[RocksInMyHead]

Question: What happens when enough people claim that some person is a fascist Hitlerian threat (because their subculture deems that sort of claim appropriate) even though within the broader culture the person is well within the pale of common opinion?

Answer: Charlie Kirk ends up with a bullet in his neck that is engraved with sayings such as, "Hey fascist! Catch!"

Considering the number of times Trump and his people called Harris and Democrats in general fascists, Marxists, enemies of the people, and evil over the course of the past year and a half, that doesn't track. Most Americans hadn't even heard of Charlie Kirk before his assassination, let alone that people were calling him a fascist.

 

[Bradskii]

Thanks for proving my point. It's very similar to saying, "Kirk was Hitler, and that's why he had to die."

Saying that Kirk was on the far right is very similar to saying that he had to die? That's not even in the same neighbourhood as a reasonable statement.

Perhaps he would have to die if he were Hitler, but the claim that Kirk was Hitler is just a lie.

Well, yeah. He was simply someone on the right who had worked out how to make a living from it by pretending to debate with students.

 

[Bradskii]

Attempting to accelerate change by leveraging the old Comenius philosophy of "allow me to teach a child until they're 7, and I will show you the man" has not been well-received.

That's where I see a major distinction between the earlier forms of gay advocacy vs. the modern forms of LGBTQ activism.

People don't accept concepts like gay marriage because of any activism. They accept it because they were told by some that it meant the end of western civilisation! That the sky was going to fall! That society would crumble! And then...it didn't.

People thought 'Hey, life just goes as it always did. So Dave in accounts got married to Pete and...nothing changed. Everything is just the same. We were lied to'.

 

[Bradskii]

Considering the number of times Trump and his people called Harris and Democrats in general fascists, Marxists, enemies of the people, and evil over the course of the past year and a half, that doesn't track. Most Americans hadn't even heard of Charlie Kirk before his assassination, let alone that people were calling him a fascist.

I knew of Kirk because I spend some time watching debates online. But I only had to watch him once or twice to realise that there wasn't much worth paying attention to.

 

[zippy2006]

Trump and his people called Harris and Democrats in general fascists

Do you have real examples of this? I found a single instance of Trump calling Harris a fascist, and it was in response to her calling him a fascist.

Marxists, enemies of the people, and evil

It is a false equivalence to compare these terms to "Hitler." You're reaching.

 

[Bradskii]

For all of human history violence is justified against the outsider, and so if you can convince enough people that someone is an outsider ("extremist") then violence will follow of its own accord.

A line from the Life of Brian keeps popping up in my head whenever Kirk is mentioned. 'He's not a far right extremist. He's just a very naughty boy'.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Do you have real examples of this?

Here's a supercut with a 4 examples (I think one or two might be repeats from above): Marco Foster (@marco.foster) on Threads

Note that these go back to August of 2024.

I found a single instance of Trump calling Harris a fascist, and it was in response to her calling him a fascist.

Why he called her a fascist (and that's only one of the examples I posted) isn't relevant if your argument is that calling people fascists results in violence. "She called me a fascist, but she's the real fascist!" is still inflammatory.

It is a false equivalence to compare these terms to "Hitler." You're reaching.

Did I make that comparison? No, I did not.

We're talking about inflammatory rhetoric in general that might drive people to violence. It's not like "Hitler" is a magic word that turns human beings murderous.

 

[zippy2006]

Why he called her a fascist (and that's only one of the examples I posted) isn't relevant if your argument is that calling people fascists results in violence. "She called me a fascist, but she's the real fascist!" is still inflammatory.

That's a bit like pointing to a shooting and ignoring the fact that it was done in self defense. Or pointing to "theft" and ignoring the fact that it was the judge fining a thief.

 

[zippy2006]

I read your 2nd pp like 3 times and Im still not confident I know what you were getting at.

My original point had to do with Ezra Klein's monologue, which was in many ways an assessment of the act of murdering Kirk. Klein's analysis is good, but the deeper level has to bring in the Overton window and the fact that Kirk was murdered because of his extremely mainstream views on trans. Many societies throughout history would not follow Ezra's division of violence and politics, but they would all find a person who murders someone because they hold to a mainstream view deeply problematic. Someone who murders someone because of an opinion that 68% of the population also holds is just a wild threat to the societal wellbeing. They are a sociopath in the etymological sense. The only spot where Klein came close to the Overton window argument was at 6:33. What I have been doing in more recent posts is looking at the causes that lead to that sort of sociopathic disregard for the Overton window.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's a bit like pointing to a shooting and ignoring the fact that it was done in self defense. Or pointing to "theft" and ignoring the fact that it was the judge fining a thief.

And now you're reaching.

Why is it necessary to call someone a fascist in the process of defending yourself from being called a fascist?

Do you care to address the rest of my post, btw? As I said, even if we discount the time he called Harris a fascist when addressing the fact that she had called him one, that only accounts for one of my examples - and (afaik) at least a couple of the other ones were from well before she did so.

 

[zippy2006]

Why is it necessary to call someone a fascist in the process of defending yourself from being called a fascist?

It need not be necessary, but an argument against killing and an argument against self-defense-killing are not the same thing.

As to your general point, I agree that Trump is part of the problem when it comes to inflammatory rhetoric. But I don't think he is part of the problem of artificially and intentionally shifting the Overton window in the same way that news reporters and others are. This is because it is commonly understood that Trump engages in rhetoric and excess, whereas a news reporter or someone of that vocational type is in a different situation. So you would do better with someone like Tucker Carlson than Donald Trump.

But I see a lot more people on the ground saying and believing that Trump is Hitler than that Biden or Harris is Hitler, and I infer that the problem is worse on the left than the right. I think there are some on the right who are a problem in the same way, such as Tucker.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It need not be necessary, but an argument against killing and an argument against self-defense-killing are not the same thing.

How does calling someone a fascist defend you from them calling you a fascist? The "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument rarely maintains any sort of credibility past 2nd grade. Like I said, you're really reaching.

As to your general point, I agree that Trump is part of the problem when it comes to inflammatory rhetoric. But I don't think he is part of the problem of artificially and intentionally shifting the Overton window in the same way that news reporters and others are. This is because it is commonly understood that Trump engages in rhetoric and excess, whereas a news reporter or someone of that vocational type is in a different situation. So you would do better with someone like Tucker Carlson than Donald Trump.

This wasn't what I was talking about at all. I suggest re-reading my post.

 

[durangodawood]

The point is that when many lies are told about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, some will believe the lies.

Lies about "what is acceptable"? This is an odd notion to be. Its not lies about:
-what a person is doing
-what a person has done
-actual effects of that on other people.

Instead its a lie about what the median considers ok? Lying about a sociological fact? Well... ok.

A truthful person will treat a common opinion with the respect that a common opinion deserves,

That is completely and totally wrong. Reality is not a popularity contest. This is elementary.

and will not pretend that a common opinion is an extreme opinion that must be met with violence.

They can assert that a common opinion is wrong and should be opposed.
I agree that they cannot recommend violence to oppose opinion.

A liar will treat a common opinion as if it is an extreme opinion in order to cause harm to the person promoting it. For all of human history violence is justified against the outsider, and so if you can convince enough people that someone is an outsider ("extremist") then violence will follow of its own accord.

We certainly have seen people in the highest places label the political opposition as "extreme" and even "evil". I agree that these labels can be destructive. People should desist and stick with facts, and oppose wrongs via peaceful political and cultural means.

 

[zippy2006]

That is completely and totally wrong. Reality is not a popularity contest. This is elementary.

A common opinion deserves the respect of a common opinion. Interesting that you would attempt to disagree with a tautology, no?

This is why the opinion, "Donald Trump should be president" gained respect after 2016 and especially after 2024: because at those times the opinion was shown to be commonly held. The threat, "I am going to kill anyone who supports Donald Trump," should become increasingly rare in times like November 2016 or November 2024, given that it is not reasonable to threaten to murder half of the U.S. population. Similarly, when an opinion is widely held it is less likely to be grossly mistaken.

We certainly have seen people in the highest places label the political opposition as "extreme" and even "evil". I agree that these labels can be destructive. People should desist and stick with facts...

But what does it mean to "stick with the facts" when you are talking about labels of "extreme" and "evil"? Unless there is some descriptive "fact" about what is "extreme" or "evil" that can be known without adverting to the Overton window, then wouldn't you agree that the responsible person must not speak in a way that grossly distorts the Overton window?

Your position is as flat-footed as Klein's. You want a cessation of labels like "extreme" or "evil." Ezra wants a cessation on politically-motivated violence. I am asking for neither. If someone is evil according to the Overton window, then I think they can be responsibly called evil. If someone pops up and murders millions of Jews and starts a world war then they can be responsibly called "Hitler," and they can be assassinated. But if someone thinks men cannot become women then they can't be responsibly castigated as a far right extremist, because the Overton window does not allow it. It's just a lie to call a position extreme which is not extreme.

 

[zippy2006]

How does calling someone a fascist defend you from them calling you a fascist?

Responding in kind is different than initiating. Go think on that fact for awhile.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Responding in kind is different than initiating. Go think on that fact for awhile.

Again, not in relation to your argument that calling people fascists gets people killed.

But if you think that not being the one to "start it" makes it all okay, as far as I can tell, the first time that Harris called Trump a fascist was October 2024. Several of the clips I posted of Trump calling her a fascist were from August 2024. So, perhaps Harris was the one responding in kind?

 

[durangodawood]

A common opinion deserves the respect of a common opinion. Interesting that you would attempt to disagree with a tautology, no?

You snuck in an extra assertion to your tautology: that common opinion deserves respect just because its common. Reality deserves respect. People deserve the presumption of respectability imo. Opinions are not entitled to respect. They have to earn it.

...... Similarly, when an opinion is widely held it is less likely to be grossly mistaken.

Could be. But thats not the same as being knowably correct. Again, reality is not a popularity contest. Opinions have to bow down to facts. Fact doesnt kneel before opinion, no matter how popular.

But what does it mean to "stick with the facts" when you are talking about labels of "extreme" and "evil"? Unless there is some descriptive "fact" about what is "extreme" or "evil" that can be known without adverting to the Overton window, then wouldn't you agree that the responsible person must not speak in a way that grossly distorts the Overton window?

I dont defend labeling political opposition generally as "evil". "Extreme" otoh is a matter of sociological fact. But I dont find it useful because, as I noted earlier, reality is not a popularity contest. Sometimes the median is really wrong about things.

Your position is as flat-footed as Klein's. You want a cessation of labels like "extreme" or "evil." Ezra wants a cessation on politically-motivated violence. I am asking for neither. If someone is evil according to the Overton window, then I think they can be responsibly called evil. If someone pops up and murders millions of Jews and starts a world war then they can be responsibly called "Hitler," and they can be assassinated. But if someone thinks men cannot become women then they can't be responsibly castigated as a far right extremist, because the Overton window does not allow it. It's just a lie to call a position extreme which is not extreme.

I only want people to lay off "extreme" when its false, as it obviously is when its applied to the half the country that opposes you. "Stick with facts" I think I said. Obviously the median-ish isnt "extreme". Thats just a matter of sociological fact thats easy to acknowledge. I might even concede that the median is more correct than the extremes most of the time. But, for sure, sometimes it isnt.

 

[zippy2006]

You snuck in an extra assertion to your tautology: that common opinion deserves respect just because its common. Reality deserves respect. People deserve the presumption of respectability imo. Opinions are not entitled to respect. They have to earn it.

So one should not give an opinion which is held by 90% of the population a millimeter more respect than an opinion which is held by 1% of the population? Should scientific consensus be given no more respect than conspiracy theories? Put away your emotional knee-jerk reactions for a moment and let your reason guide.

You don't seem to appreciate what we are discussing. Instead you are aiming to wildly contradict whatever you can, like a boxer with no plan.

Take the question yourself that Klein and I have attempted to answer: What did Tyler Robinson do wrong, at the most fundamental level? Try to answer that question instead of just randomly contradicting your interlocutor. Try to think through the issue at stake instead of reducing everything I say to the most ridiculous interpretation possible.

 

[Pommer]

People don't accept concepts like gay marriage because of any activism. They accept it because they were told by some that it meant the end of western civilisation! That the sky was going to fall! That society would crumble! And then...it didn't.

People thought 'Hey, life just goes as it always did. So Dave in accounts got married to Pete and...nothing changed. Everything is just the same. We were lied to'.

And yet Dave & Pete are the evidence that it’s all just going to heck! (Somehow)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Who is demanding it to be done next month? Does the schools really put any other demands on the students than that they should treat their fellow student and teachers the same regardless of gender identity or sexuality? No disparaging remarks or slurs, everybody need to be prepared to cooperate with each other. Isn't that why most laws determining acceptable interactions with people depending on sexuality or with gender non-conforming expressions and identities are anti-discriminatory laws?

The entities who were trying to enforce new pronoun rules and suggest that rules needed to be changed to allow for biological males to compete in women's leagues, and use women's changing facilities.

While the "by next month" was a big of "exaggeration for effect" (similar to if a person says "I need this done 5 minutes ago" to highlight urgency).

Large-scale activism in the name of "inclusion" started to get a lot of national visibility by the early to mid 2010s. By the mid-late 2010s we saw states turning that into policy.


Things like rules suggesting that people have to abstain from slurs are very different than rules themed after "you have to let me do what I want, and if you question it, that's discrimination"