,
15 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Let’s examine how in his new @FoxNews op-ed @charliekirk11 of Turning Point USA labels @justinamash a “sophist” but ends up practicing sophistry himself. A thread 1/ foxnews.com/opinion/charli…
As a reminder the common definition of sophistry is “the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.” (Sophists OTOH are key players to rhetorical theory. Read up on Gorgias for one, don’t Plato’s word for it) 2/
After bashing Amash for his tweet thread about impeaching Trump, saying no “genuine” Republican would “turn on” Trump with all his policy wins (🤔), Kirk quotes the Michigan rep’s conclusions and methods tweets. 3/
Then comes Kirk’s first criticism: “What is the congressman talking about? There is absolutely nothing in his tweets to examine as a matter of substance.” Kirk adds Amash tweets “bold – but unsupported – assertions.” 4/
Now Fox published Kirk op-ed today and either could have edited it in light of a second tweet thread by Amash yesterday that did more work on obstruction and impeachment - and answers one question Kirk asks in his op-ed. But sophistry... 5/
Then Kirk asks: “Is Amash really trying to claim that the Mueller report...” will lead to impeachment? Yes he really claims that. Because Mueller debunks Kirk’s lie about report I edited out: “which shows no underlying criminality of any sort by the president...” sophistry 6/
Kirk claims Amash “invented a fact about the handling of the Mueller report...” Here Barr’s deliberately misrepresenting Mueller report. But this isn’t a fact but an opinion. Shared by many smart people, with strong evidence. So why does Kirk say otherwise? Sophistry. 7/
Kirk claims Amash created a fact Mueller & his 3/27 letter to Barr doesn’t support. Kirk wrote that letter “does not make any accusation of misrepresentation by Barr.” Kirk lies Why? Sophistry. Mueller wrote Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance...” 8/
Amash makes ethos appeal - he has read report “carefully and completely,” read other docs/testimony, debated w/ staff. And so he positions himself well. But Kirk just doesn’t like his opinion. So Kirk deliberately goes sophist when Amash says “few” MOCs have read report.9/
Kirk asks: “How exactly does the congressman know that others haven’t read the report? Did his staff survey other House members?” Hey! @washingtonpost just released a survey of MOCs... 10/ washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/…
Kirk’s ? seems reasonable & Post answers it. (60/92 chairs read full report, 25 declined to say. In both parties.) But why is Kirk’s ? sophistic? He knows Amash - libertarian like Kirk - makes ethos move. But Kirk automatically distrusts it because it isn’t his opinion. 12/
Finally there is Kirk’s sophistry on Amash’s claims about partisanship. Kirk deliberately mischaracterizes them. Amash writes: “When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.” 13/
While Amash is clearly calling out his own party - the Republicans and sycophants like Kirk - Kirk writes: “So if [Amash] is attacking House Democrats for partisanship – a valid criticism – how does that lead him attack President Trump?...” 14/
Kirk then writes his clearest sophistic line, ironically ending this quote with the label itself for Amash: “While I acknowledge that there is hyper-partisanship in our country today, the congressman’s statement is nonsensical and irrelevant in the context of impeachment.” 15/
Kirk is the only nonsensical one here. “Sophisticated” as he is. But sadly he is relevant to many people... people who put Trump above the law, their party, the Constitution, and our country. End/
