Kirk did not make a good faith effort to discuss issues. He was not moron, but this Wolfe guy is trying to imply that he was.
Both Kirk and Louder with Crowder had more than 5 million subscribers on youtube. They were/are very successful with their debate a student content. As such they have high status in the political "debate bro" world.
This means the status bias for cultural transmission operates in their favor. There is also in-group bias, meaning information from same tribe is transmitted more easily. Then there is direct bias*, in which the information that has the most benefit/makes the most sense in the mind of the recipient is transmitted.
Consider the situation from the perspective of Red students. Kirk gets points for status and being Red team. His opponent lacks status and is not Red so he has zero points. Even if he wins the debate and gains the direct bias, Kirk still wins 2:1 and the Red student is unmoved. Kirk faces little risk of losing Red students even if he loses.
Now consider things from a Blue student perspective. Kirk gets a point for status and his opponent one for being Blue. So, its 1-1. If Kirk wins the debate Kirk wins 2-1 and moves the Blue student a bit, his way. If his opponent wins, the Blue students Blueness is unchanged.
Hence Kirk has an opportunity to shift a Blue student redder with no risk of losing red. So, it's all gain. That is why he did it from an ideological standpoint and his 5+ million subscribers provides a monetary reason. It is business and propaganda tool, not a good faith effort to debate issues.
If Kirk wanted to make a good faith effort, he would stage debates with blue high-status debaters. These can be quite profitable too, but riskier, because if you lose the debate, you can lose supporters.
For more on cultural transmission and the biases see this post
So...lock up social media posters for "misinformation" and "hate speech?" That sounds familiar, and not just from the UK. The slope is slippery. We are born with civil rights. They are not a gift to be revoked.
I am heart broken to lose my friend Charlie, but a fascist right wing police state finally makes fascism bi-partisan. Maybe only the people who directly called for violence and/or murder.
Lock up? Not at all. That is precisely what I oppose.
Social pressure is the appropriate level of response. It's severe enough to matter, democratic, and doesn't involve the government, which preserves free speech.
No. Arrest and punish the criminals. If our elected leaders won't do their jobs, it's on us to get rid of them. It's not fascist to enforce laws that prohibit such violence. It is, however, just like some governments to try to punish responsible gun owners because some lunatic kills with a gun. I understand that it is tempting to outlaw 'hate speech.' Certainly the cries of Nazi and Hitler from the left have incited violence. The solution is to render them politically irrelevant via elections, not censor speech. Every act and reaction makes this more likely, as more see it for what it is and are repulsed.
That approach in the US led to arrest, incarceration and solitary confinement for over 1,000 peaceful protesters from 1/6. It was justified with a massive Karen shriek of "INSURRECTION!!!!" and no proof of any crime beyond trespassing. They actually made up/re-interpreted old laws to justify twenty year sentences for trespassing and throwing small objects.
In the UK, today, about 35 white people are arrested every day for "hate speech" on social media.
So, how does hope for a better tomorrow prevail without fascist incarceration and violence? We rehumanize everyone: Charlie Kirk was an amazing father, family man and friend. He saved and changed lives. Tell stories about good people helping others and the insults become punchlines. The Swamp smear goons become powerless.
Excellent essay.
Yeah, I was a bit surprised it happened, but I certainly didn't ask *why* it had happened.
Kirk did not make a good faith effort to discuss issues. He was not moron, but this Wolfe guy is trying to imply that he was.
Both Kirk and Louder with Crowder had more than 5 million subscribers on youtube. They were/are very successful with their debate a student content. As such they have high status in the political "debate bro" world.
This means the status bias for cultural transmission operates in their favor. There is also in-group bias, meaning information from same tribe is transmitted more easily. Then there is direct bias*, in which the information that has the most benefit/makes the most sense in the mind of the recipient is transmitted.
Consider the situation from the perspective of Red students. Kirk gets points for status and being Red team. His opponent lacks status and is not Red so he has zero points. Even if he wins the debate and gains the direct bias, Kirk still wins 2:1 and the Red student is unmoved. Kirk faces little risk of losing Red students even if he loses.
Now consider things from a Blue student perspective. Kirk gets a point for status and his opponent one for being Blue. So, its 1-1. If Kirk wins the debate Kirk wins 2-1 and moves the Blue student a bit, his way. If his opponent wins, the Blue students Blueness is unchanged.
Hence Kirk has an opportunity to shift a Blue student redder with no risk of losing red. So, it's all gain. That is why he did it from an ideological standpoint and his 5+ million subscribers provides a monetary reason. It is business and propaganda tool, not a good faith effort to debate issues.
If Kirk wanted to make a good faith effort, he would stage debates with blue high-status debaters. These can be quite profitable too, but riskier, because if you lose the debate, you can lose supporters.
For more on cultural transmission and the biases see this post
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/how-cultural-evolution-works
*The effectiveness of direct bias scales with intelligence. Hence it is largely inoperative to low-IQ people.
Great argument in favor of consequences.
"This male has neither the guts nor the skill to do his own killing."
He clearly has an abundance of guts.
So...lock up social media posters for "misinformation" and "hate speech?" That sounds familiar, and not just from the UK. The slope is slippery. We are born with civil rights. They are not a gift to be revoked.
I am heart broken to lose my friend Charlie, but a fascist right wing police state finally makes fascism bi-partisan. Maybe only the people who directly called for violence and/or murder.
Lock up? Not at all. That is precisely what I oppose.
Social pressure is the appropriate level of response. It's severe enough to matter, democratic, and doesn't involve the government, which preserves free speech.
No. Arrest and punish the criminals. If our elected leaders won't do their jobs, it's on us to get rid of them. It's not fascist to enforce laws that prohibit such violence. It is, however, just like some governments to try to punish responsible gun owners because some lunatic kills with a gun. I understand that it is tempting to outlaw 'hate speech.' Certainly the cries of Nazi and Hitler from the left have incited violence. The solution is to render them politically irrelevant via elections, not censor speech. Every act and reaction makes this more likely, as more see it for what it is and are repulsed.
This is precisely the perspective that has failed.
The marketplace of ideas is an ongoing process, not something that happens once every four years.
That approach in the US led to arrest, incarceration and solitary confinement for over 1,000 peaceful protesters from 1/6. It was justified with a massive Karen shriek of "INSURRECTION!!!!" and no proof of any crime beyond trespassing. They actually made up/re-interpreted old laws to justify twenty year sentences for trespassing and throwing small objects.
In the UK, today, about 35 white people are arrested every day for "hate speech" on social media.
So, how does hope for a better tomorrow prevail without fascist incarceration and violence? We rehumanize everyone: Charlie Kirk was an amazing father, family man and friend. He saved and changed lives. Tell stories about good people helping others and the insults become punchlines. The Swamp smear goons become powerless.
Thank you for clarifying.