There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available.

Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted them and was paid for them, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy.

There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. Did Charlie Kirk build a business around it with clickbait titles about "owning the libs?" Yep. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative.

There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements.

You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.

▲

dudefeliciano 3 days ago | parent [-]

> we have to talk to each other.

yes, the conversations need to be honest and on equal footing. Not rage/click-bait to further divide society, which is exactly what Kirk did. His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".

> There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.).

Qanon, January sixth, Pizzagate, Plandemic, Birther and other conspiracy theories, the attacks on democrat politicians, the rhetoric around George Floyds murder and BLM, the rage against black athletes doing something as simple as taking a knee. See a pattern? Hell Trump's own words and those of his cabinet are radicalized rhetoric, so I really don't know what to tell you when you say "the left rejects dialogue and is violent". "The left" has tried for years to explain the world via fact checking and educational content, lots of good that has done!

> “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.”

Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion. His whole career was based on "prove me wrong", an obvious challenge to prove that he is right, and nothing can sway him. Give me one time where he changed his mind through dialogue. Even when shown a dolphin foetus and mistook it for human, he did not accept that he was wrong.

So yea, excuse me if I don't think you are arguing in good faith, just like i don't think Charlie Kirk ever was.

▲

duckdriver 3 days ago | parent [-]

It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith. This is a convenient scapegoat for you to ignore strong counterarguments, since all it takes to dismiss the speaker is their "lack of good faith." With your brilliant reasoning, after all, how could anyone of good faith disagree?

> His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".

There are many counterexamples to this. If you're arguing in such good faith, you should explore those.

> lots of good that has done!

Even this is a good example of what I'm talking about. It sounds like you're giving up on dialogue, which is precisely my point. Don't give up on it. Commend those who seek it.

> fact checking

Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious, if you have the good faith to look.

> Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion

You may be correct, but that doesn't even matter. The proposition that no one was swayed by his dialogue would be outrageous, and I doubt you would make such an argument. So even if he would never change his mind, he's still contributing to dialogue.

I asked you before -- What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?

▲

dudefeliciano 3 days ago | parent [-]

> It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith.

I gave you about 10 examples of "the right" being unhinged, violent and espousing radical rhetoric. You conveniently ignored all of them and continue claiming it's "the left" that does not want dialogue. That is bad faith.

> There are many counterexamples to this.

I am really not about to waste my time going through that dreck. If you have examples i'll have a look.

> Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious,

Again, going to need sources. Is "get out of your bubble" the constructive discourse you were mentioning earlier?

> What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?

That I do not know, people have been radicalized by insane conspiracy theories over the last 10 - 15 years that I don't think much can be done to help them at this point.

Just for context, here some constructive statements from Charlie Kirk:

- If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.

- Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.

- Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.

- The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.

- The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.

- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.

	▲	duckdriver 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The right does not have a monopoly on hateful, violent people/rhetoric. The idea that they do is a soothing story people on the left like to tell themselves. I don’t defend those things he said, or those things hateful rightwing things you cited. The fact that you think of them as a response to “look at this bad thing on the left” is very telling. The existence of bad things on the right have no bearing on the observation that there are bad things on the left. You should think more deeply about what to do about all those Americans who agree with Charlie Kirk. “Force them to change their minds” is not an option available to you. I encourage you to read the thread you jumped in on, which begins with the example you asked for. The first comment you responded to, which perhaps you stopped reading partially through, explains my position, and it’s not “Charlie Kirk is the good guy here.” You don’t have to like him, you can disagree with everything he thinks, but he was doing politics the right way: through debate and discussion. Classifying that as somehow invalid is an attempt to insulate yourself from challenges to your worldview.