- He would have been banned quickly.
- He would have quit because he couldn’t handle a real debate.
- He would have stayed and become the subject of multiple Pit threads.
- He would have won us over with his brilliance.
- Other
0
voters
All depends on how he responds to warnings. He’d have gotten several sooner or later. Up to him as to whether he modified his ways.
I think he would remain active and unbanned, but frequently Pitted.
I haven’t seen enough of his “debates” to be any kind of expert, but I don’t think he would have found online back-and-forth to be satisfying. With in-person interactions he somewhat relied on seeming like “the calm guy,” and that tactic might not have translated to the screen.
After multiple threads, I think he would be banned for playing out the long line.
He also was damn quick with a comeback, spouting data that may or may not have been true. That tactic certainly would not have translated to the Dope.
Yeah. In-person, the game is ‘dominate, even if you’re making stuff up.’ And ‘making stuff up’ is not well-received in serious online venues such as this one.
Which is just what his last words were. He was asked about mass shootings, and his comeback was something like “are we including gang shootings?”
“This was the story of Howard Beale Charlie Kirk: The first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings logical fallacies.”
Yeah–always change the subject to one that advances your position (in this case, Kirk reminding people that Gangs = non-whites, and they are bad and dangerous!)
Just as a few seconds before the interchange you mention, someone had asked about ‘trans shooters’:
About 20 minutes in, a young audience member stepped up to the microphone to try to do just that.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” he asked.
“Too many,” Kirk quipped. The crowd clapped and cheered.
“Too many” of course implying a substantial number. Complete hogwash–but it fit Kirk’s political stance.
This, it would depend how badly he wanted to post here.
His opinion on trans people, for example, would get him banned. He didn’t believe that they were the gender they identified as, and taking that position here is a bannable offense. So the question is, would he say “I want to debate these liberals badly enough to do it by their rules”, or would he say “let me become a free speech Martyr” or whatever?
And if he relies on the conversation moving faster than the other person can think, I expect that not to work well on a message board where people have time to compose their replies.
Which is exactly what he did.
That and he’s exploiting a group of people (college students) that feel very passionately about things, but don’t have the experience to defend those things. From the handful of very short clips I’ve seen of him (and that South Park episode), the people he’s talking to don’t know to demand he back up his statements. They don’t know to keep him on topic. They don’t know how to call out fallacies, if they even recognize them.
Also, from what I understand, what he’s publishing is edited in his favor.
I wonder if he’d get different results debating grad students.
Kirk is the type who would’ve racked up a bunch of warnings early on, and then learned how to work the system to his advantage like some of our other longer-running conservative trolls. In particular the rule against calling out lies would serve him exquisitely well.
However, Kirk used his Twitter preference to gin up controversy to spread his name far and wide, and then used in-person engagements to cultivate the more tame youth-pastor debate-lord persona that got him in with the evangelical types. I don’t think SDMB would give him the volume or type of engagement needed to feed that particular grift.
Kirk wouldn’t have adhered to the rules of all-Lefty, all-the-time that this board demands of its users so he would be banned pretty swiftly–whether he deserved it or not. There is no longer any room for arguing against Leftist politics here. Tis a shame.
He could have been nothing but a gentleman and followed all the rules yet he still would have been ushered out real quick-like.
To which the only calm, rational response is:
Huh?
Curious that you didn’t say 'There is no longer any room for arguing for Rightist politics here."
Tis a shame.
To be translated as: “People can’t lie and misrepresent things around here. That fucking sucks, because that’s all the right has remaining to it.”
I don’t believe Kirk would consider coming here because he could not manipulate his words by later editing them. By this, I mean Kirk would record his college “debates” and then work his magic in the editing room. The altered versions were designed to go viral, that miraculously reveal Kirk as a skillful and knowledgeable debater while his opponents appear uninformed and misguided. That approach is more difficult in a forum setting.
I agree. In my opinion, if he were posting on today’s version of the board, he would have tripped too many of the boards’ circuit breakers and ended up banned. The board of years past, however, was far more tolerant, and perhaps the posters were too, and we often maintained those kinds of discussions—I know because I was often on his side of many such debates back then. If he could have stuck around, he might have developed a better grasp of genuine debate than he showed in his final days. In those days, even topics like trans issues were explored more deeply than today, when many have grown weary of threads that almost always end the same way.