A Liberal Mourns Charlie Kirk: Reflections on Debate and Tolerance

I am a liberal and I mourn Charlie Kirk. I miss him. Yes, I disagreed with lots of his views, but I also think the world would be a much better place if there were more Charlie's in it. It's a privilege to have people in the world who you disagree with, who you strongly disagree with, people who offend you. This is how you learn, how you stress test your ideas, how you see how robust your beliefs are. And to quote Christopher Hitchens, >> don't take refuge in the false security of consensus. >> This is a value that liberals especially, the so-called side of tolerance should be embracing wholeheartedly. But instead, after the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, this is what we saw. >> Yes, he deserves to die and I hope he brings in hell. >> Live by the sword, die by the sword. I really don't want to hear everyone find out. I >> want you to remind yourself that it was God's plan. >> Rest in peace, Charlie. You piece of [�__�] Now, I've already made appearances on the radio and the TV to talk about my experience debating Charlie, my thoughts on him, on his death, um, and as much as his death fills me with sadness and shock, it's already uncovered something deeper, something sinister that with no exaggeration actually terrifies me. And that's what we're going to talk about in this video. So, I met Charlie Kirk in May when he came to the Cambridge Union. I was one of the students who debated him. Before then, I didn't really know much about him. I'd sort of just put him in the same camp as the likes of Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, these types of conservative religious American commentators. And from the way people around me described him, I was really expecting some sort of crazy right-wing radical nut. But when I debated him, he actually matched my respect. He really listened. we really got somewhere and we had a nice productive conversation. I did not see this hateful man that other people had warned me about. Now, what really shocked me was how his fans online responded. And okay, sure, his editing team did post a couple sort of out of context gotcha clips on his Instagram. Under these, I was met with quite quite a lot of distasteful comments about my hairstyle. Um, but when he posted the full video of our debate, total opposite there. I would there was overwhelming support from Charlie's fans in these comments. I saw a lot of comments expressing surprise that a liberal Charlie was debating was listening to him and meeting him with respect um and that they respected this and they thought I was thoughtful and also that the first time they've disagreed with Charlie that they've agreed with his opponent. And this illustrates a really fundamental aspect of human nature that if the mind can find an excuse to disregard to ignore a piece of information, an opinion that challenges your existing worldview, it's probably going to. Raising your voice, showing emotional reactivity, spewing pre-prepared statement after pre-prepared statement without listening to what your opponent's saying, this is just going to cause your opponent to believe that you don't have the confidence in your own case against them. Otherwise, you wouldn't be afraid to actually engage in open, honest, respectful debate. Many liberals will argue that if someone like Charlie Kirk is spreading hate and misinformation that they shouldn't be allowed to have a platform, that they should be silenced. The first point to make is that I've seen a lot of people calling Charlie racist, sexist, transphobic, etc., and very few people actually making a solid argument to back up those claims. Name calling is a very tempting way to dismiss people who you disagree with. But in actuality, it doesn't make them listen. It just wins praise and applause from people who already agree with you. If you actually want your opponents to think differently, then you have to treat them with respect, patience, and honesty. That is how you get them to listen to you. Make a good argument if you are that confident in your beliefs. I disagreed with Charlie on lots of topics, but I don't find him to be a hateful person. What about the cases where I do think someone's hateful or when maybe everyone can agree that someone is being hateful? Shouldn't they be silenced? U well, the answer is no. Hate does not spread like an indiscriminate virus infecting anyone it comes into contact with. It press on people who are already vulnerable, those suffering from frustration, loneliness, a loss of identity. Censoring speech doesn't cure these vulnerabilities. Instead, it drives hateful conversations underground where out of sight they become sharper, more radical, and more dangerous. In the short run, yes, censorship is probably going to slow the spread of hate, but it also stops it being exposed to challenge to opposition. Hate fers when it's hidden, and that is when it becomes truly destructive. Wouldn't you rather be able to see hate to track where it is to address it from the root causes? If we use the analogy of a pathogen, real immunity comes from education, from building strong communities, from teaching people critical thinking. Exposure builds herd immunity, resilience. Seeing other people's hateful ideas being broken down critically with argument reduces your chance of taking on hateful ideas. And in this analogy, censorship, well, that's the lockdown strategy. Yes, it temporarily slows and delays the spread, but it gives it more opportunity to mutate into something deadly. And what you don't want is a deadly pathogen in a population of very few resistant individuals. Yes, when hate becomes symptomatic, spilling out into violence, that is when we quarantine, where we come down with the law hard. But otherwise, let's allow society to strengthen its immune system, building resistance with debate, tackling ideas in the open. Instead of trying to silence hate, let's actually abolish the root problems that it feeds on. Now, if we think about that sentence, it's obvious why governments are so tempted towards censorship. Because the frustration, the loneliness, the resentment, the lack of identity that hate tends to feed on in most cases is going to come from problems in society that are caused by a government. Now, if a government has two options, put lots of effort into dealing with the root problems or just silence people who are complaining because a minority of them are complaining in a way that is hateful. You can see which they might appeal to. This is why we need to not allow governments to censor our speech. Despite efforts from some on the left to paint Charlie Kirk's killer as a right-wing Trump supporter, all evidence seems to suggest that Tyler Robinson was a liberal who killed Charlie Kirk because he didn't like his views. This is of course a heartbreaking horrific act of violence that does not paint a pretty picture for the tolerant left. However, I don't believe in itself this says anything particularly new about liberal ideology. Political violence is sadly all too common at both ends of the spectrum. What to me though is new and is deeply alarming is that the irony of carving hey fascist catch onto the casing of a bullet intended to kill a political opponent was not just lost on Charlie's assassin but also on many mainstream liberal individuals who mocked and celebrated Charlie's death. These are not extremists. These are mainstream left-leaning individuals who have otherwise been indoctrinated to believe that silencing your opposition is morally virtuous. You can even see videos where students literally moments after the bullet pierced Charlie's neck started jumping and cheering and celebrating. In reality, history has repeatedly proven that this type of violence doesn't prove your case. It actually just signals to your opposition that you don't have one to make. Tyler Robinson has only strengthened Charlie's image as a political hero and provided conservatives with one more reason to stay in an echo chamber of their own. This was made evident at the highest level of government when last week at Charlie Kirk's memorial service, Donald Trump said this. >> He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry. Erica, >> just take a moment to let that sit in. The actual president of the United States has openly said publicly that he hates his opponents and he doesn't want the best for them. That's half of America. Look, things are clearly not going well in America or even here in the UK where people are now arrested and thrown into prison just for liking or sharing other people's social media posts that someone might find offensive. As a liberal, my message is this. We need more Charlie Kirks in this world. We need more open debate. We need to embrace challenging and questioning our beliefs. In order to identify what is false, we've got to practice the ability to question and test what is true, even and especially when it makes you uncomfortable. And hey, if you disagree with me, we can always debate it out in the comments. Okay? And speaking of debate, check out this video where I break down and analyze my discussion with Charlie at the Cambridge Union about moral absolutism and relationships.