Your criticism of him is valid - I have seen him steer the conversation away and use different tactics. What I mean by good faith is that most of the people he debated were not plants. When I think of debate, I think of political debates and legal debates to a jury --- and the rules of what you can get away with are expansive.
He was absolutely a Theocrat at heart. To his credit, I believe he embodied the most mainstream Christian orthodoxy politics of anyone since Jerry Falwell, perhaps even surpassing him. His style of cafeteria Christianity allowed him to be a political chameleon and talk out of both sides of his mouth often. He would put on the hellfire and damnation mask when it suited him, and then put on the hippie Jesus mask when it didn't. Something many cynical, bad faith actors often do. His beliefs were clearly only held onto as long as they were convenient for him (see Epstein).
Probably one of the only good faith things he ever did was actually not use plants. But of course that is spoiled by the fact he basically went after the softest targets he could and used selective editing to misrepresent everything. The rules and good faith are two very different things.
This is fair - we just use the term good faith amongst lawyers as basically SOP. My ideas on a fair or good faith debate are likely very jaded having been a trial lawyer for so long. I have seen and expect most of the things that Kirk does in his debates, and they are similar to what we see in Presidential debates the last dozen years or so. Kirk was no saint in my opinion, he was a provocateur and said things for reactions -- but he was better than most of the ones out there in 2025.
I actually don't believe him to be a provocateur. At least not a conventional one. Milo Yiannopoulos? Ann Coulter? Laura Loomer? Michelle Malkin? Those are people who just lash out for attention. They say stupid **** that beggars belief for profit. That's a provocateur. Charlie was not a provocateur via his thoughts or ideas, IMO. If anything, he was a provocateur in his behavior. Hat tip to Steven Crowder who also does stupid **** for attention, too, albeit way stupider.
related The Left’s Vast Lack of Knowledge Charlie Kirk’s murder demonstrates how the credentialed class keeps itself ignorant. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-lef...5?st=8kmf5i&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink gift link excerpt: The day after Kirk was killed, the New York Times ran a story headlined “Where Charlie Kirk Stood on Key Political Issues.” The authors pieced together quotations manifestly taken from websites unfriendly to Kirk and made no attempt to convey the context or intended point of the various reproduced assertions. A section on antisemitism made Kirk, who’d been dead less than a day, sound like a Jew-hater of the 1930s. A day later the Times issued a correction: “An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an antisemitic statement that Charlie Kirk had made on an episode of his podcast. He was quoting a statement from a post on social media and went on to critique it. It was not his own statement.” Six Times employees worked on the story—two named in the byline, four more mentioned as contributors at the end. None, evidently, bothered to wonder how such a person as they described could also be a ferocious proponent of the Jewish state and the Jewish people. The thought process seems to have been: Kirk was a right-winger, right-wingers by definition hold retrograde opinions, so an antisemite Kirk surely was. Progressive commentators insisting, days after his assassination, that his killer was a Republican—the indefatigably mistaken Laurence Tribe is one—leaned on a similar sort of syllogism. A columnist at the Washington Post, meanwhile, was let go this week after (among other things) posting a quotation of Kirk, the sentence slightly rewritten to make it look as if he were claiming black women generally aren’t as smart as whites. Kirk expressed his views abrasively, but common sense and love of country should have told the columnist that the exponent of such a view wouldn’t attract a mass following in 21st-century America. I choose to think she didn’t doctor the line deliberately. more at the link
Let's look at this video. Besides, putting a homophobe in his place, he states his belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is his right to believe that. Many people do still believe that, including many Muslim Americans. You or I may not agree with it, but it doesn't make it an inherently hateful or wrong belief. He then goes on to say that we don't live in a Theocracy, seemingly implying that we shouldn't. I have no idea if this is performative or if the kid is a plant, but Kirk's position here is not anti-gay. On the contrary, it is very anti-homophobic bigot.
Watch every video those quotes originated from, in full. You called it out, you do the research. I've seen enough Kirk content over the years he couldn't be further from the awful things people are saying about him.
Im sorry but if you really wanted anyone to engage with this type of article(Not talking to you but the author of this piece), you would be self aware enough to understand that republicans or right wingers have absolutely no right to be talking about the moral high ground here. Kirk said a bunch of bad ****. For any time he may have been 'misquoted' he as a lot of other quotes that are not great.
There is never any good faith on here...no one on the right wants to engage. I TRIED. But they dont want to. There is no serious conversations here because one side is intellectually dishonest.
that's a fair comment, and I agree that some folks on the right are just as guilty about mischaracterizing their opponents' positions at times. On the other hand, author Swaim is describing the two greatest newspapers in the country, if not the world. These papers set the standard for reporting--or at least they used to set the standard. These are institutions that should not fail at the most basic of journalistic tasks. And these are indeed institutions that represent "the left," so I think there's merit to Swaim's argument.
i read the full context of his comment about being scared to fly on a plane piloted by a black person. he seems to be arguing that they are DEI hires who are unqualified and only got hired because they are black and that white people were passed over for the job to give it to someone who is not qualified. this is a false premise. no matter the skin color, everyone has to pass the same standards to be a pilot. and i didnt see any evidence that black pilots were given jobs that more qualified white pilots were trying to get. if that happened i agree that it would be wrong, but i found no evidence of that happening. can you point me to any credible sources discussing white pilots being passed over for under qualified black pilots? i see no evidence that DEI hires affect airline safety, but if you have any sources id be happy to read them. i did read that only 4% of pilots are black, while black people make up roughly 14% of the population. we currently have a shortage of pilots and mechanics and air traffic controllers and its only going to get worse. i dont think its a bad thing to have programs that make it easier for black people to get their foot in the door as long as they arent taking anything away from others, which i dont see any evidence of.
What tipped me off also was the fact not a single emoji was used. Zoomers sometimes communicate only in emojis. It couldn't be more fake.
charlie kirk wouldnt fly with these guys but i would https://www.bermudareal.com/meet-th...history-flying-together-for-the-same-airline/ Meet the Black Twin Pilots Making History, Flying Together For The Same Airline BlackNews.com: Nationwide — African American twin brothers, Jamil and Jalal Paul, turned their childhood dream into reality by becoming pilots for United Airlines. From their first flight at age four to now inspiring young passengers, they continue to break barriers in aviation. The identical twins grew up in New Jersey and first discovered their love for flying on a family trip from Newark to Miami. Today, they are based in Houston and fly side by side at 30,000 feet, a bond they always hoped to share. “The goal was to always do life together in some form or fashion,” Jalal told Fox 26 Houston. “To be a flight crew four times over and have it impact others, we didn’t expect that either.” Their success carries weight in an industry where representation remains rare. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than four percent of commercial pilots in the country are Black. That reality motivates the Paul brothers to be visible role models for the next generation of aviators. Jamil says he often steps into the cabin to connect with passengers before takeoff. He shared: “I want [young passengers] to know what’s possible. They’ll hear my voice when we’re in the air and when we land, and when they see me, they can say, ‘That’s who was flying the plane.’” The brothers recall wishing they had mentors who looked like them. Now, they take on that role themselves, hoping to make aviation dreams feel more attainable. “When someone who does tell you that you’ll be a great pilot, it’s more digestible,” Jalal said. Earlier this summer, they surprised their father with a Father’s Day flight along the same Newark-to-Miami route that first inspired them. Expecting to meet his sons for lunch, he boarded the plane unaware they were in the cockpit. A video captured their emotional announcement from the flight deck, calling it an “absolute honor” to fly with their dad onboard.
