The men's marathon has been decided by a fraction of a second.
Its fascinating how despite representing a range of different countries and having moved to those countries at different times in their lives and under differing cricumstances, a quick wikipedia look at the top 10, the majority come from Ethiopia or Eritrea.
I bet with further inspection they come from the Great Rift Valley or have family history there.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
John Podhoretz posted - on the social media Harris abjures - a thread along quite similar lines. Also highly recommended (which I don't often do for his stuff). https://x.com/jpodhoretz/status/1966474548762607694
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
He was a guy who had no other job than debating politics at a student level. He dropped out of college after one year, to become a full time rock star political activist.
When you're in permanent debate mode, and have been for your entire adult life, you're going to say some stupid stuff.
Another example (and again, I don't believe he was a racist like a Fuentes or a Miller):
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
He was a guy who had no other job than debating politics at a student level. He dropped out of college after one year, to become a full time rock star political activist.
When you're in permanent debate mode, and have been for your entire adult life, you're going to say some stupid stuff.
Another example (and again, I don't believe he was a racist like a Fuentes or a Miller):
He called it debating, anyway. A couple of analogies of why that's not entirely right.
(This isn't mine, but I can't find the link right now to credit it.) He was a standup comic working a crowd. He did it as a job, of course he was going to come off best against inexperienced people having a go. Especially in social media clips. (God, we're naive in assuming that a 1 minute clip is reflective of anything but the editing process.)
Or he was a chess master doing a simultaneous display against all comers. Looks impressive, but not that difficult for the master player, because they're so much more experienced than their challengers.
If it weren't politics, we'd perhaps recognise the sideshow hustle aspect better.
(And once more with feeling, there are people with horrible opinions with sneaky ways of playing the debate game across the board, even people I agree with. And none of them deserve to be shot for it.)
We must enjoy our freedom to speak before it is taken away
That is not what the debate in the US is about.
It is not about freedom of speech; it is about control of speech. I have the right to say what I want; you do not have the right to say what you want.
And you know what? We do not have full freedom of speech. And neither should we. But the limits put on speech should be slight, carefully designed and only catch the most egregious speech. A bit like here on PB.
General observation, nothing more boring than a drunk prodding one metaphorically or actually in the chest. Thankfully my staff have instructions to remove my devices after I’ve taken the fifth.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
So basically - what I'm saying has no basis nor foundation and but that doesn't stop me from peddling it as truth.
We need to call people out who do that because otherwise these statements are generating voters (and to a less extent election results) deciding on "facts" that are utter lies..
Morning to all, especially Blanche who seems to have had a good night.
I see the papers are after Starmer again and projecting a groundswell against him from the left. At the same time, the MSM are having a go at Khan about something that can't be mentioned (or proven) .So much for the honourable profession of journalism where wordsmiths would actually go out and check facts (and maggots)
Apparently President Trump told Kirk to drop the antisemitic stuff or he'd be disowned.
There is a paradox, that seems not uncommon in the USA, of some right wing antisemites being supporters of the Zionist project. Charles Kirk seems to have been in this category.
A key individual who can be labelled in this way was Lord Arthur Balfour. He was keen to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK and as PM brought in the Aliens Act of 1905. At the same time, he was sympathetic to Chaim Weizmann (to whom he was introduced by a prominent Manchester Zionist Charles Dreyfus in 1905) and the Zionist cause. His name will forever live on as author of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, written when he was foreign secretary.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
Isn’t that the general problem, a retreat from objective truth (or attempts to get close to it) while advancing ‘my’ version of the truth, aka truthiness. Vance greasily justifying lies about immigrants eating cats by saying they demonstrated a greater truth is just one example.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
Isn’t that the general problem, a retreat from objective truth (or attempts to get close to it) to ‘my’ version of the truth, aka truthiness. Vance greasily justifying lies about immigrants eating cats by saying they demonstrated a greater truth is just one example.
It's more blatant now, but hasn't it always been like that? One of the foundational rules of debating club is that you should be able to effectively argue the case for anything, objective truth be damned.
The blatant aspect is crucially important, because it's sometimes able to suggest that the whole *principle* of accuracy is no longer essential. This can have ramifications all over the place.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
Isn’t that the general problem, a retreat from objective truth (or attempts to get close to it) to ‘my’ version of the truth, aka truthiness. Vance greasily justifying lies about immigrants eating cats by saying they demonstrated a greater truth is just one example.
It's more blatant now, but hasn't it always been like that? One of the foundational rules of debating club is that you should be able to effectively argue the case for anything, objective truth be damned.
I don't think it's just more blatant - the end results are also a lot more obvious because the common base of current affairs knowledge we had for 100 years (say from 1900 to 2000ish) has disappeared.
Previously most people's news came from the Sun / Mirror / Mail / Express and you knew what was published and that the news was 95% or so correct. That just isn't the case in social media, people's"facts" are common from stories that you haven't seen that don't have any basis in what actually happened - all they see is the version of the story an algorithm has decided is most likely to generate engagement seconds with that person (probably by triggering them).
Social media is a curse, but sadly there's a longer history of political violence in America that predates it.
The 1960s had assassinations and attempted assassinations that were also extremely unpleasant - and I believe the 1968 Democratic Convention was a particular low point.
I personally struggle to see the real value the US gets from the second amendment, but then again I'm not American.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
So basically - what I'm saying has no basis nor foundation and but that doesn't stop me from peddling it as truth.
We need to call people out who do that because otherwise these statements are generating voters (and to a less extent election results) deciding on "facts" that are utter lies..
In theory, the guardrail against telling untruths is that you are less likely to be believed next time. It's why 'charisma' is powerful and horribly dangerous in politics- it helps you make people believe you, no matter how wrong you are.
That guardrail isn't working right now, that's for sure. Whether that's a recent development (the technology of charisma has just got too powerful?) or it's always been that way and society has just been hopelessly naive, I don't know.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
Isn’t that the general problem, a retreat from objective truth (or attempts to get close to it) while advancing ‘my’ version of the truth, aka truthiness. Vance greasily justifying lies about immigrants eating cats by saying they demonstrated a greater truth is just one example.
Exactly. Colbert nailed it twenty years ago with his piece on truthiness. The problem has only worsened since then, though.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
Isn’t that the general problem, a retreat from objective truth (or attempts to get close to it) to ‘my’ version of the truth, aka truthiness. Vance greasily justifying lies about immigrants eating cats by saying they demonstrated a greater truth is just one example.
It's more blatant now, but hasn't it always been like that? One of the foundational rules of debating club is that you should be able to effectively argue the case for anything, objective truth be damned.
Maybe so, but now it seems elevated from an exercise for smartypants at good universities to an absolute virtue, or a business model especially in the United States of Grifting.
I really want a Charlie Kirk hater to post a video clip of Charlie being vile or hateful
I wasn't a big fan, but I'd seen a few clips of his videos. He seemed intelligent and friendly, but rather self assured and too Christian for my liking
Since his death I've seen more videos than I could ever watch. But where I have watched he was never hateful, or in any other way vile
He has a self or Jesus assured arrogance that he's right, but he's also kind and friendly to everyone he debates
I struggle to understand how he could have possibly inspired such deadly hatred
I am not a Kirk hater. His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
The thing that really annoyed me about Charlie Kirk was that - after demonising transgender people as mass shooters - he was asked how many school shooters had been transgender, and he replied:
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
He was a guy who had no other job than debating politics at a student level. He dropped out of college after one year, to become a full time rock star political activist.
When you're in permanent debate mode, and have been for your entire adult life, you're going to say some stupid stuff.
Another example (and again, I don't believe he was a racist like a Fuentes or a Miller):
He called it debating, anyway. A couple of analogies of why that's not entirely right.
(This isn't mine, but I can't find the link right now to credit it.) He was a standup comic working a crowd. He did it as a job, of course he was going to come off best against inexperienced people having a go. Especially in social media clips. (God, we're naive in assuming that a 1 minute clip is reflective of anything but the editing process.)
Or he was a chess master doing a simultaneous display against all comers. Looks impressive, but not that difficult for the master player, because they're so much more experienced than their challengers.
If it weren't politics, we'd perhaps recognise the sideshow hustle aspect better.
(And once more with feeling, there are people with horrible opinions with sneaky ways of playing the debate game across the board, even people I agree with. And none of them deserve to be shot for it.)
The point of debate is to understand the perspectives of the other side so you can come to a decision that is as fair and reasoned as possible.
Even when it's binary you can at least acknowledge the points the other side has, and thus maintain a level of mutual respect and consent and thus have a stable democracy.
We must enjoy our freedom to speak before it is taken away
That is not what the debate in the US is about.
It is not about freedom of speech; it is about control of speech. I have the right to say what I want; you do not have the right to say what you want.
And you know what? We do not have full freedom of speech. And neither should we. But the limits put on speech should be slight, carefully designed and only catch the most egregious speech. A bit like here on PB.
This is the crucial observation. The people foaming on about free speech do not want free speech for people they disagree with.
Comments
I bet with further inspection they come from the Great Rift Valley or have family history there.
https://samharris.substack.com/p/we-are-losing-the-information-war
His politics were very far from mine, but I don't think he was a genuinely evil man in the manner of a Trump or Miller.
And while you characterisation if him isn't a million miles from the truth, it's also wrong to pretend that he was the kind of right wing paragon some describe.
For example.
Charlie Kirk: Joe Biden should be “put in prison and/or given the death penalty for crimes against America”
https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-joe-biden-should-be-put-prison-andor-given-death-penalty-crimes-against
Too Many
He wasn't interested in the truth. He was interested in pushing his angle.
John Podhoretz posted - on the social media Harris abjures - a thread along quite similar lines. Also highly recommended (which I don't often do for his stuff).
https://x.com/jpodhoretz/status/1966474548762607694
He dropped out of college after one year, to become a full time rock star political activist.
When you're in permanent debate mode, and have been for your entire adult life, you're going to say some stupid stuff.
Another example (and again, I don't believe he was a racist like a Fuentes or a Miller):
Charlie Kirk once said prominent Black women didn't have 'brain processing power' to be taken seriously
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-170000805.html
(This isn't mine, but I can't find the link right now to credit it.) He was a standup comic working a crowd. He did it as a job, of course he was going to come off best against inexperienced people having a go. Especially in social media clips. (God, we're naive in assuming that a 1 minute clip is reflective of anything but the editing process.)
Or he was a chess master doing a simultaneous display against all comers. Looks impressive, but not that difficult for the master player, because they're so much more experienced than their challengers.
If it weren't politics, we'd perhaps recognise the sideshow hustle aspect better.
(And once more with feeling, there are people with horrible opinions with sneaky ways of playing the debate game across the board, even people I agree with. And none of them deserve to be shot for it.)
It is not about freedom of speech; it is about control of speech. I have the right to say what I want; you do not have the right to say what you want.
And you know what? We do not have full freedom of speech. And neither should we. But the limits put on speech should be slight, carefully designed and only catch the most egregious speech. A bit like here on PB.
We need to call people out who do that because otherwise these statements are generating voters (and to a less extent election results) deciding on "facts" that are utter lies..
I see the papers are after Starmer again and projecting a groundswell against him from the left. At the same time, the MSM are having a go at Khan about something that can't be mentioned (or proven) .So much for the honourable profession of journalism where wordsmiths would actually go out and check facts (and maggots)
A key individual who can be labelled in this way was Lord Arthur Balfour. He was keen to restrict Jewish immigration to the UK and as PM brought in the Aliens Act of 1905. At the same time, he was sympathetic to Chaim Weizmann (to whom he was introduced by a prominent Manchester Zionist Charles Dreyfus in 1905) and the Zionist cause. His name will forever live on as author of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, written when he was foreign secretary.
The blatant aspect is crucially important, because it's sometimes able to suggest that the whole *principle* of accuracy is no longer essential. This can have ramifications all over the place.
Previously most people's news came from the Sun / Mirror / Mail / Express and you knew what was published and that the news was 95% or so correct. That just isn't the case in social media, people's"facts" are common from stories that you haven't seen that don't have any basis in what actually happened - all they see is the version of the story an algorithm has decided is most likely to generate engagement seconds with that person (probably by triggering them).
The 1960s had assassinations and attempted assassinations that were also extremely unpleasant - and I believe the 1968 Democratic Convention was a particular low point.
I personally struggle to see the real value the US gets from the second amendment, but then again I'm not American.
That guardrail isn't working right now, that's for sure. Whether that's a recent development (the technology of charisma has just got too powerful?) or it's always been that way and society has just been hopelessly naive, I don't know.
Even when it's binary you can at least acknowledge the points the other side has, and thus maintain a level of mutual respect and consent and thus have a stable democracy.