Nicely written as always, Randy. In this case, I got the sense that you tried hard enough to avoid the caricatures of Charlie Kirk’s positions so commonplace among those whose views he argued against. Think of how uncharitably an opposing partisan might mischaracterize positions you’ve expressed on, for example, immigration policy or I’ve expressed on, for example, how meritocracy benefits minorities. To pick just one of the points on which you criticized Kirk—the secondary effects of Great Society policies on black families (you phrased it differently, or I should say, “positioned” it)—he seems to be to have followed very closely the statistical record adduced by economist Thomas Sowell, to whom it would be difficult to attribute racial animus. I am not questioning your conclusions but rather asking whether any search for understanding (versus partisan advocacy) is not better served by “steel-manning” the contrary position instead of “straw-manning” it?
Frank, thanks for your helpful insights. The distinction between steel-manning and straw-manning is a good one. Of course "the straw man" is one of the logical fallacies. I had hoped that I had portrayed Charlie Kirk as a strong character and not a straw effigy. He deserves more than that.
Nicely written as always, Randy. In this case, I got the sense that you tried hard enough to avoid the caricatures of Charlie Kirk’s positions so commonplace among those whose views he argued against. Think of how uncharitably an opposing partisan might mischaracterize positions you’ve expressed on, for example, immigration policy or I’ve expressed on, for example, how meritocracy benefits minorities. To pick just one of the points on which you criticized Kirk—the secondary effects of Great Society policies on black families (you phrased it differently, or I should say, “positioned” it)—he seems to be to have followed very closely the statistical record adduced by economist Thomas Sowell, to whom it would be difficult to attribute racial animus. I am not questioning your conclusions but rather asking whether any search for understanding (versus partisan advocacy) is not better served by “steel-manning” the contrary position instead of “straw-manning” it?
Frank, thanks for your helpful insights. The distinction between steel-manning and straw-manning is a good one. Of course "the straw man" is one of the logical fallacies. I had hoped that I had portrayed Charlie Kirk as a strong character and not a straw effigy. He deserves more than that.
I meant to say “didn’t try hard enough.”
Very thorough. Thanks for the breakdown, great work!