I found Charlie Kirk popularity interesting. Not for his religion infused political positions, but rather for his public event style. He claimed and perhaps really believed in open public debate. But I found his “Prove me wrong” setups to be trickery and a rehash of the Burden of Proof fallacy trap. His events struck me as modern revival camp meetings for the faithful rather than a forum for serious debate. Weak-minded and ill-prepared opponents, not recognizing the one-sided nature of the events, were tempted to engage but easily dispatched. IMHO, his traveling salvation show did little to actually advance constructive public policy debate with skeptics. But it did make him famous and wealthy!
All I can say is BS. He had a set of principles, highly intelligent, and the courage to go on campus when other conservatives avoided it. I believe his most challenging moment was at Oxford. To state he only faced Weak-minded and ill-prepared opponents is false.
I wasn't critical of your post or John's response because you have a different opinion. I respect that. I am pointing out that he went on very hostile environments to debate his positions. Including Oxford college and Bill Maher's podcast. I shouldn't call Bill Mahers podcast hostile as they had a very long excellent discussion about their opinions. I simple corrected the fact that he did face very intelligent people.
Bernie brought up an excellent point and it raises a question. And I should add why I like listening to Bernie and reading his pieces. He looks at the world through journalistic eyes. I performed a deep search if Charlie was ever interviewed by what I would call the mainstream media, and I can't find one instance. One would think that even before his death he was worthy of it. Maybe he was requested but he denied being interviewed or was it media bias because they saw him as a radical nutcase? We will probably never know. But Bernie made me think about it.
I performed a deep search on Bernie's question with several AI platforms, and I could not find any instance where Charlie Kirk was asked a Gotcha-Question whereby he reversed his position or even had to take pause before answering. I followed Charlie as he was an extremely interesting young man. Agree with him or not, he was brilliant, self-educated, and read over 100 books a year.
Bernie asked a great question. One would think from how often Charlie was interviewed and videotaped and with the thousands of his enemies online, as well as our friends like Bernie's dinner dates who believe they are supper intelligent, you would find many gotcha moments.
Many comedians will not go on college campuses today. Most conservative speakers won't because they know the dangers. Charlie had the courage to do so. Even if you hate the guy you have to recognize this courage. There's no doubt in my mind he was aware of it and his security team was most likely warning him about it.
By the way, I am a Charlie Kirk Fan! And not for the reasons many would assume.
The savage death of Charlie Kirk and the disgusting aftermath should stand as a warning that we're all targets of well-orchestrated media manipulation--from the right and the left. Images of insane, outspoken radicals. Interviews with nutcases who can't intelligently express why or what they're protesting or believe in. Stories are heavily weighted to fit the media's narrative du jour. It has abandoned its original mission: Seeking truth and holding power accountable. It does neither. These days, it seems the goal is to promote divisiveness. And it seems to be working, unfortunately.
Until last Thursday I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. I am a Christian; some would say a fundamentalist Christian. I voted for President Trump, but like all people in office I like some of the things he does and dislike others. I am especially skeptical of people who blend Christian beliefs with pollical beliefs. I believe that a person's Christian beliefs should control their world view but one should not use scripture as a hammer to pummel people who think differently. One does not show the love of Christ when doing so. Not knowing much about Mr. Kirk your statement that some of his opinions where controversial even to Christians I was disappointed that you did not give an example.
I sadly agree with both of you that this tragic assassination won’t ratchet down the political discourse. I thought the Vietnam War was divisive, but this seems a lot worse. Or maybe it’s just because there wasn’t social media. At any rate. This goes back to leadership and accountability. Leadership at the tv networks in being more balanced, and Leadership with the Prez and within both Party’s in Congress in calming things down. Accountability means consequences. And with politicians, nobody is above the law, as long as it only applies to the opposing Party. Without stronger, morally and ethically principled, leadership and accountability, there is no hope of breaking this cycle.
Yes, I have the same question re: Mr. Kirks extremist statements - in contrast to his merely mainline conservative politics - moderating as a result of his engagement and even friendship with political opponents.
He was 31 at his death, and he's been at this since at least 19 years-old. I know little about Mr. Kirk, but I've been informed that his views have not moderated since that young age. Due to my family and education, I have been politically aware almost from the time I could speak. Yet, from the age of 19 through 31 and even beyond, my politics evolved and matured a lot.
A lot of this might depend on Kirk's motivations. If he was moved primarily by financial gain, publicity or adulation, his views might have been in a deep freeze.
Okay, good. Aside from the fact that "hate speech" is a left-wing concept, members of the Trump administration are currently endorsing the federal prosecution of people for exercising their First Amendment rights. That's why I asked.
I found Charlie Kirk popularity interesting. Not for his religion infused political positions, but rather for his public event style. He claimed and perhaps really believed in open public debate. But I found his “Prove me wrong” setups to be trickery and a rehash of the Burden of Proof fallacy trap. His events struck me as modern revival camp meetings for the faithful rather than a forum for serious debate. Weak-minded and ill-prepared opponents, not recognizing the one-sided nature of the events, were tempted to engage but easily dispatched. IMHO, his traveling salvation show did little to actually advance constructive public policy debate with skeptics. But it did make him famous and wealthy!
I pretty much agree with all of that.
All I can say is BS. He had a set of principles, highly intelligent, and the courage to go on campus when other conservatives avoided it. I believe his most challenging moment was at Oxford. To state he only faced Weak-minded and ill-prepared opponents is false.
Obviously, many saw Charlie Kirk differently than me!
I wasn't critical of your post or John's response because you have a different opinion. I respect that. I am pointing out that he went on very hostile environments to debate his positions. Including Oxford college and Bill Maher's podcast. I shouldn't call Bill Mahers podcast hostile as they had a very long excellent discussion about their opinions. I simple corrected the fact that he did face very intelligent people.
Bernie brought up an excellent point and it raises a question. And I should add why I like listening to Bernie and reading his pieces. He looks at the world through journalistic eyes. I performed a deep search if Charlie was ever interviewed by what I would call the mainstream media, and I can't find one instance. One would think that even before his death he was worthy of it. Maybe he was requested but he denied being interviewed or was it media bias because they saw him as a radical nutcase? We will probably never know. But Bernie made me think about it.
Ok John, a lot going on in the world and nationally then Trump hits us with the bizarre comment below. Where is this man’s priorities?
“get rid of that ridiculous looking new Kickoff Rule,” adding that “it’s at least as dangerous as the ‘normal’ kickoff, and looks like hell.”
I performed a deep search on Bernie's question with several AI platforms, and I could not find any instance where Charlie Kirk was asked a Gotcha-Question whereby he reversed his position or even had to take pause before answering. I followed Charlie as he was an extremely interesting young man. Agree with him or not, he was brilliant, self-educated, and read over 100 books a year.
Bernie asked a great question. One would think from how often Charlie was interviewed and videotaped and with the thousands of his enemies online, as well as our friends like Bernie's dinner dates who believe they are supper intelligent, you would find many gotcha moments.
Many comedians will not go on college campuses today. Most conservative speakers won't because they know the dangers. Charlie had the courage to do so. Even if you hate the guy you have to recognize this courage. There's no doubt in my mind he was aware of it and his security team was most likely warning him about it.
By the way, I am a Charlie Kirk Fan! And not for the reasons many would assume.
Many of Charlie Kirk fans will keep it going.. He will not be forgotten.
The savage death of Charlie Kirk and the disgusting aftermath should stand as a warning that we're all targets of well-orchestrated media manipulation--from the right and the left. Images of insane, outspoken radicals. Interviews with nutcases who can't intelligently express why or what they're protesting or believe in. Stories are heavily weighted to fit the media's narrative du jour. It has abandoned its original mission: Seeking truth and holding power accountable. It does neither. These days, it seems the goal is to promote divisiveness. And it seems to be working, unfortunately.
well said.
Until last Thursday I had never heard of Charlie Kirk. I am a Christian; some would say a fundamentalist Christian. I voted for President Trump, but like all people in office I like some of the things he does and dislike others. I am especially skeptical of people who blend Christian beliefs with pollical beliefs. I believe that a person's Christian beliefs should control their world view but one should not use scripture as a hammer to pummel people who think differently. One does not show the love of Christ when doing so. Not knowing much about Mr. Kirk your statement that some of his opinions where controversial even to Christians I was disappointed that you did not give an example.
I sadly agree with both of you that this tragic assassination won’t ratchet down the political discourse. I thought the Vietnam War was divisive, but this seems a lot worse. Or maybe it’s just because there wasn’t social media. At any rate. This goes back to leadership and accountability. Leadership at the tv networks in being more balanced, and Leadership with the Prez and within both Party’s in Congress in calming things down. Accountability means consequences. And with politicians, nobody is above the law, as long as it only applies to the opposing Party. Without stronger, morally and ethically principled, leadership and accountability, there is no hope of breaking this cycle.
Yes, I have the same question re: Mr. Kirks extremist statements - in contrast to his merely mainline conservative politics - moderating as a result of his engagement and even friendship with political opponents.
He was 31 at his death, and he's been at this since at least 19 years-old. I know little about Mr. Kirk, but I've been informed that his views have not moderated since that young age. Due to my family and education, I have been politically aware almost from the time I could speak. Yet, from the age of 19 through 31 and even beyond, my politics evolved and matured a lot.
A lot of this might depend on Kirk's motivations. If he was moved primarily by financial gain, publicity or adulation, his views might have been in a deep freeze.
Respondents, tell me the lies that Charlie Kirk made, and I will respond to those lies.
There is a lot of hate out there. Let them keep it to themselves.
Hate speech will be accountable!
Hate speech from now on will be accountable.
How will hate speech be accountable?
By calling those people out. Not condoning their hate speech.
Okay, good. Aside from the fact that "hate speech" is a left-wing concept, members of the Trump administration are currently endorsing the federal prosecution of people for exercising their First Amendment rights. That's why I asked.
Individuals hating should not be acceptable When speaking through the media.
Trump says hateful things all the time. Should he be held accountable?
If president Trump Replying
No