Quote (addone @ 17 Jan 2022 21:24)
Just watched some more, what a douchebag. Talks in a teenage whiny pitched voice, formulates a statement/question to Kirk with a smug face thinking I got him now. Kirk calmly starts giving facts and answers a few words in and Hasan is already interrupting you can immediately see "oh shit, that sounded better in my mind" moments.
Overall gives you a good representation for how the left argues vs the right. Left straight up cant deal with facts, they melt. Next
Hasan is a shitty debater who resorts to insults when he identifies tired old talking points, but does a shitty job of clearly identifying the issue with the talking point and jumps between different counters with an expectation that the audience will know what he is referencing/saying so he doesn't need to extrapolate and make the point more clearly. Kirk is pretty clearly more comfortable with the "debate" format and sticks to talking points without mixing them up or going off his script.
However, Kirk's points were pretty much always just repeating "Venezuela, USSR, North Korea" and attributing any failures of a state attempting to implement leftist policy to socialism while always disregarding any failure of a state under a capitalist system as a consequence of corporatism that he personally opposes. He never addresses how unfettered capitalism and the policies of removing regulations leads to the capitalist system naturally concentrating capital/power, using that concentrated capital to engage in regulatory capture, and that his small government without enforcement mechanisms has no means to prevent those things from happening.
Capitalist interests use paramilitary and covert forces to assassinate/overthrow government trying to nationalize resources? Oh well I don't personally support that, but I'll still ignore it and blame the state failures on socialism.
Similar policies succeed in Nordic states and you support it? Well I'll just say that is actually capitalism and ignore when you say "I support what they have."
Other countries find ways to implement healthcare systems with better outcomes, cheaper prices, and more equity? I'll just ignore it and say if we got rid of all regulations and completely privatized it it would be better because Lasik. Lets completely ignore how new technologies emerging, maturing, and becoming more widely available/affordable is hardly something that can only happen under a laissez faire capitalist organization of an economy.
Similarly he repeats the talking points of capitalism bringing people out of poverty, but ignoring how many of those people brought out of poverty in the 20th century were actually in China or the USSR. He attributes famines to socialism, when famines were common under every system in those locations for thousands of years. He never attributes the famines in places subjugated by imperial/capitalist countries/interests to capitalism. He attributes all technological advances and costs decreases to capitalism, as if those advances were impossible under any other system, happened only because of the capitalist structure of the economy.
I think there would probably be two other major points that he kept going to. First of these was attacking Hasan for liberal policy, relying on the audience to link liberalism with socialism when Hasan like pretty much any actual leftist regularly shits on liberals and has a deep ideological grounding critical of liberals. He brings up shitty liberal hell holes like Chicago, but ignores pretty much all other external factors or other examples of "liberal" places with much better outcomes. Then the other big point he was going back to was using Florida as an example, particularly with regard to the school system & school choice. This is pretty much an extension of the previous point where he is cherry picking examples and ignoring other factors (e.g. long term consequences of conservative tax cuts on public services, the way services are funded and how differing demographics would result in different outcomes, ignoring positive "liberal" examples).