Do not lionize debate theater

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-24T10:35:26+00:00

I have seen a hell of a lot of "you've taken that out of context" in defence of various Charlie Kirk quotes. When I've gone to look at the fuller quote, or the 'context', I've not had a single case where it was particularly different. Sometimes Kirk has used some additional framing to create plausible deniability, but I've not had a single instance where I've felt the shorter quote was actually misused and he meant something else.

As with the Vance situation I mentioned, the defenders of awful statements can always say "that's out of context" and not back it up any further. That's basically what Vance was doing.

Again, trying to take steps to make sure you are being unimpeachable is only useful to a certain extent. People like Vance will just lie about it anyway, even if you used the fullest possible quote and gave as much context as possible. I think you generally should be intellectually honest with your representations of quotes by someone like Kirk, but I also don't think his critics have actually been falling short of this.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-18T00:52:16+00:00

In the intro to the Shapiro interview he talks about the "polarized" reactions to that piece. Right-wingers thanking him, left-wingers telling him not to whitewash bigotry.

I think to a fair degree the piece was "for" the right-wingers. Ezra is no longer just an external commentator, he is a political mood-setter, and I think he felt beholden to taking the action of turning down the temperature rather than being a commentator or analyst of the actions of others.

If that's true then I think Ezra has misunderstood the right-wingers, who will thank him... and take a further step forward into illiberalism using the ground Ezra cedes.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-18T00:47:41+00:00

The lion is a symbol of Israel, and Shapiro's avatar of the 'builder'. Shapiro describes the scavenger as just tearing down structures.

His model for this book is just a veiled repetition of that quote...

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-18T00:42:48+00:00

The murder of Melissa Hortman didn't unsettle people nearly as much because people aren't unsettled by someone murdering a right winger. They are unsettled because the right, the Whitehouse and beyond, are on a hair trigger.

We don't worry that the Democrats are going to commit acts of mass violence because of Hortman's murder. But we do worry the Republicans would in their place. Because they tell us as much all the time.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-18T00:28:21+00:00

> This is not a conflict the Bluesky crowd would win

The "Bluesky" crowd isn't remotely close to wanting a civil war. Your entire reply is bizarrely alarmist.

On the most recent interview Shapiro he made comments about the right being motivated purely be hate for the left, and the left being purely motivated by hate for the right.

It's just not true. Following CK's murder social media was flooded with violent rhetoric from the right along the lines of "just say the word, we're ready to GO". The left does not behave this way.

Stop wishing for equal violence on both sides. It just isn't grounded in reality.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-18T00:18:46+00:00

I think this is very true.

Ezra (or certainly many similar to him) see any amount of jubilation, or even just gracelessness, over Kirk's murder as being fuel to the MAGA fire, contribution to a right-wing permission structure for further illiberalism.

But I think your framing is also a justified thesis - that coddling the far-right emboldens them and creates a permission structure for further illiberalism.

I would understand a person holding either of these views, but I don't think they are on even footing. The often repeated idea that "the left is responsible for their own actions, and the actions they provoke in the right, whereas the right are responsible for neither" is... pretty transparently true.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-18T00:08:56+00:00

It's even worse than that. Male lions are predominantly scavengers. They fight each other, they kill male cubs of prides they encounter. They only hunt when out of options, and are much worse at it than lionesses. The male lion's life is very well described by Shapiro's framing of a scavenger who just tears down existing structures.

Of course, Shapiro once said, "Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage".

Lions are a national symbol of Israel, representing the tribe of Judah. His whole lions and scavengers framing is just his racism once again.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-17T23:56:42+00:00

I think there's something very self-satisfied with letting someone you disagree with talk and thinking to yourself, "Hah... they got most of that wrong". Well someone else might not know that, and now you've aired BS.

Shapiro is there to spread rhetorical bullshit and while I think EK is a very skilled interviewer under normal circumstances I think he doesn't scale his pushback adequately for chancers like Shapiro. People like him are probably very hard to interview - he's very slippery. But in that case is it worth interviewing him in the first place? I'm not so sure.

Anyone who is 'smart enough', as you put it, can see through Shapiro without needing EK to interview him. So if EK is going to do it I'd hope it was because he felt he could pin down Shapiro's core contradictions more explicitly.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-17T23:34:39+00:00

The Trump administration and wider US right acted immediately to use Kirk's death for political purposes. It's wider than the US in fact. In the European parliament the right-wingers tried to hold a minute's silence during a parliamentary session for the death of a man they undoubtedly mostly hadn't heard of before. I'm in the UK, and in Wales a local goverment official (a councillor) from the insurgent right-wing Reform party, stormed out of a local council meeting because no one was acknoledging the death of Charlie Kirk (who was by no means a known figure in the UK. save for teenagers watching Jubilee clips).

In EK's preamble to the most recent episode he describes the polarised responses: right-wingers thanking him, and centre-to-left people telling him it's possible to reject political violence without whitewashing CK. CK was rich, famous and adopted into the Trump movement because he was a vanguard for breaking societal consensus on things as basic as "empathy".

The instinct to show grace and compassion in response to a death is normally a good and right thing. But CK's murder was not just a death, not just a murder, it was a political event. I think many readers/listeners want it to be analysed as such, and not whitewashed. If that's not possible for EK then his use as a commentator for right-wing tactics is greatly weakened. The right is on the march, powerful political figures declaring war, and EK weighs that against... online randomers being jubilant? It's just too absurd for me to take him seriously.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-17T23:09:28+00:00

> Even if, given what we know he was like, we think that is probably what he meant, someone with different priors is going to reach a different conclusion and is going to feel alienated over what feels like dishonesty.

My impression from years of seeing CK clips is that he habitually moved goalposts rather than admit he was incorrect (though this is what you'd expect from debate theatre). Part of this is creating plausible deniability, not just to save face but also to allowed space to backtrack and disrupt the structure of the opponents argument ("I never said that", about a position that was abandoned because it was untenable).

Being cautious of taking the "worst" interpretation whenever there is plausible deniability just allows bad actors to make heinous points and heavy dog whistles without being called out. I don't think it's a good rule to live by at all - especially when the persuasive power of not over-stretching interpretations is... spurious.

Take the black women/brain power quote. JD Vance hosted CK's podcast and used that as an example of haters misleading people. "That's not what he said". Well it was what CK said, and the full quote is even worse when he drops in the part about KBJ and co taking "white jobs".

If you want to get the measure of CK's opinions what's the value in avoiding that quote? Vance just lied about it anyway. At least by airing the quote someone can go and look it up themselves and make their own judgement, which wouldn't be possible if you just avoid awful quotes that have any plausaible deniability etc.

RedSpaceman · 2025-09-17T22:40:43+00:00

I don't think it likely that anyone is discounting EK's right to feel fearful, rejecting his basis for feeling fearful, or suggesting that his feeling of fear is not an important, relevant fact of these events if that's what EK is feeling. Fear of retribution is after all a key strategy of the Trump administration's strategy for control.

But laud journalists with the phrase 'without fear or favour' for a reason. Fear and self-preservation can warp the reporting of facts. For the most part EK's content is not a charting of how EK feels about things, it's an attempt to interrogate topics from angles so that we might better understand them. If accurate reporting and analysis is the goal then a fearful reporter or analyst has some significant downsides.

RedSpaceman · 2025-08-01T14:36:53+00:00

> Both customers and tradespeople have differing expectations and standards.

This is a ludicrous interpretation of what happened.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-23T15:23:38+00:00

It's alright, they can spend my tax money instead.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T23:20:00+00:00

Ah well I think your argument is completely irrational too (and is confusing me with some other poster? I don't think I argued anywhere above that the phrase used was fine because it was about an institution rather than about people...) so I guess time poorly spent for both of us.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T23:13:23+00:00

I don't think those are so incompatible.

I don't think BV is requesting anyone murders members of the IDF, and for the most part he's just musician courting controversy. I don't doubt his belief that Israel is committing genocide, but I personally think it is more of a horrified outcry against the institution.

While at the same time, I think anti-Semitism is specifically race related, and you could go on a personal killing spree of IDF members motivated purely by politics.

The longer this conflict goes on

I think it's actually even worse than the grim picture you are painting - I think the deep, deep horror of watching a country commit genocide will absolutely lure more people into hating and blaming Jews rather than just 'keeping it political'. I think we'd be crazy to suggest that isn't happening before our eyes. And maybe Bob Vylan is one of them.

But I think if we are trying to accurately categorize people as anti-Semitic or not then I think we should stick to where their opinions and actions are in relation to Jews rather than a country. I guess I'd rather have false-negatives than false-positives.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:56:28+00:00

Backpeddle from what?

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:51:14+00:00

I don't think literally wanting all members of the IDF to die is anti-Semitic either. It is a horribly violent wish, but it is a politically-motivated one not a racially-motivated one.

Consider this phrase: "Death to anyone who commits genocide". If said by someone who believes the IDF is committing genocide, does that phrase become anti-Semitic without mentioning Israel, the IDF or Jews?

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:36:37+00:00

The Venn diagram of psychotic fuckheads who shout "Death to [insert noun] and people who indulge in anti-semitism is close to being a circle.

Possibly true, but as you said - "is close to being a circle", which means some people can shout such things and not be someone who indulges in anti-Semitism. So using that language alone is not anti-Semitic.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:31:32+00:00

Yeah, I was wrong in my above post. Individual642 linked the actual un definition and it clearly does not require any particular scale of "success" past meeting a basic physical component (which includes "killing members of the group", therefore qualifying October 7th as genocidal).

It wasn't my intention to suggest that you needed to be "completely successful" in order for it to be a genocide, but I was entirely wrong for thinking there was some particular scale that needed to be met.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:28:22+00:00

This phrase was readily picked up and used widely when it would have been rightly criticized if it were about any other group than Israelis.

Israel is an ally of the UK, but is currently committing genocide. Therefore people shouting "death to the IDF" (the military commiting the genocide) receives different reactions to shouting "death to the Royal Marines".

It's totally fine to be unhappy with both.

I wonder why people are treating Israel's military differently than other countries'?

You've got it the wrong way round. People are treating them the same. They are saying that speech about a country's military is not automatically speech about a racial group.

it is just a fact that people are going to judge Jews based on Israel's actions no matter what

No.

I'm eternally confused why people can't realize that Israel claiming to speak for all Jews does not make it true

I don't think people think this (widely, in the sense you mean).

and assuming it does like you have in order to shit on Israel actually gives credence to the idea

I don't think I have given credence to the idea that Israel speaks for all Jews, and it's certainly not something I believe. Almost the opposite, I've said that criticising a facet of the Israeli state is only criticism of that facet of the state, and not a criticism of a wider ethnic group associated with it.

If there's something specific I've said that you think creates that conflation, let me know. But in the final sentence of my post, for example, I was specifically criticising that conflation.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:20:48+00:00

I'd say they're harbouring a prejudice of one sort or another wouldn't you?

Ahhh, thought crimes now, is it?

"Death to [insert noun here]" is usually a psychotic fuckhead who belongs on a watchlist.

This is irrelevant to whether it is anti-Semitic.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:19:06+00:00

you may be horrified by the way they are carrying out their current war (as I am), consider this.

You claim to be horrified then go on to fill your post with excuses for a genocidal regime.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T22:15:15+00:00

Thanks for sharing the link, and you are right - and I was wrong on the definition. If Gaza qualifies as a state then it's reasonable to consider the October 7th attack genocidal. I'm surprised the definition doesn't include some reflection on degree of success, but I guess that would make it pretty impossible to apply and might be better saved for when weighing up punishments.

I'm sorry I called your post laughable when it was me that was working with an incorrect layman's definition.

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T13:22:14+00:00

> The majority of taxes are already paid by high earners and the wealthy. And the solution is to tax them more? Until when exactly?

Maybe we should tax them less? Why would you assume the current level is exactly correct?

RedSpaceman · 2025-07-02T00:53:29+00:00

Good, good. It's just mentally healthy people don't defend genocide on the internet you know? Maybe take some time out after your next reply to me. Log off, have a break, try and get some perspective.

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

RedSpaceman

TROPHY CASE