Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Leo B Watkins's avatar

I recently learned who Charlie Kirk was. Hand to God, I always thought that meme of a guy sitting under a tent with coffee demanding to be proved wrong was just that, an internet meme.

And somehow, I lived my life in blissful ignorance up until a week or so ago with that illusion.

Though I admit, I was not exactly shocked when I learned otherwise. A millionaire paid a fast talking young man to show up on college campuses and to "debate" students there, and selectively publicized the results when he "won".

After hearing the moaning, threats, and wailing from those who typically claim their form of humor is Andrew Dice Clay, Richard Pryor, etc. I figured I'd go on an find out what all the fuss was about, if we were going to use Air Force Two to move the guy, have a national day of mourning on par with 9/11, and were giving out pink slips to any public entities who were not immediately publicly rending their clothes and covering their heads in ashes.

What I found, in the limited amount of time that I looked, was a guy using some pretty weak methods against children, then when they were unsuccessful in convincing him to change his mind, counting that as having "won".

I also noticed that some of the givens he was using made it pretty much impossible for him to lose. You had to take it as a given that his chosen version and interpretation of his Bible was the basis of the debate. If I got to set that up as the parameters, rather than peer reviewed studies, I believe I could win most arguments too. Or at least never have to claim defeat.

I'd say that summarizes reality tv in a nutshell.

Likewise, the conclusion given in this article seems similarly preordained. If you had pre-determined that was what you would find.

Yes, I suppose if you stand at Montpelier, on a certain corner, and maintain your focus on a certain symbolic building - you can ignore both the promise of a future of hope, and the reality of a cruel present - if doing so allows you to maintain that focusing on that chosen symbol is all that matters - and therefore there is no need for you to either face the realities of the present, nor plan for the future.

Never to find a value worth committing to nor defending in the present, because all are guilty.

It's a safe path.

I note that when chastising Democrats for "identity politics", another term I had to look up, it turns out to be when people identify themselves as individuals, rather than merely obedient cogs of the state. Not quite sure how that is harmful, though apparently, like the late Mr Kirk, Mr Davis takes it as a given that it is harmful and on par with the current active Republican efforts to wage war on Democrats, erase anything which does not support a monolithic, Republican approved history of our nation.

How the two are truly the same, is beyond me.

I guess its equivalent to the skill of being able to go to a slave labor camp, not hear the cries of the slaves, ignoring the policies you're also enacting to enslave and disinherit others who owned title to the land before you, while gazing upon a temple of dreams built by the hands of those you own.

Or coming to that temple centuries later, and using that vision to justify minimizing the harms being done in its name in our own time.

Again, I'm afraid I lack the vision. Upon reflection, not sure I want it......

Expand full comment

No posts