Walter Kirn Quotes

The level of discourse in this country is falling to a depth that cannot be sustained.

There is a difference between constructive criticism and criticism that is hateful. I can criticize America, but in a way that shows that I want to improve America and its democracy.

The goal of any worthwhile and effective journal of opinion analysis in navigating what is an increasingly tribal and divisive period in American history should be to promote real debate. That does not mean retreating to our corners and pretending that, if we ignore the perspectives we don't like, they will magically go away.

What I want is a clash of ideas, not opinions.

Additional problems are the offspring of poor decisions. When inquiry and advocacy are combined, the goal is no longer 'to win the argument', but to find the best argument.

Public discourse requires making an argument for a point of view, not having an argument - as in having a fight.

I think we should be very clear on this. You know, this country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment... It was the idea that people could talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues. It wasn't founded on the idea that someone would get struck by a divine inspiration and know everything right from wrong. I mean, people who founded this country had religion, they had strong beliefs, but they believed in reason, in dialogue, in civil discourse. We can't lose that in this country. We've got to get it back.

I think people are kind of tired of the really amped-up rhetoric that passes for a lot of political dialogue, and they appreciate the fact that that's not the way we are participating in this process.

Normally, at a debate or a town hall, I would be quick to say to someone, 'That was rude,' or, 'We're going to try to keep it civil here,' or, 'Let's not have personal attacks.'

If you let things devolve into a shouting match, then it's really difficult to have a discussion, a serious discussion.

I think you can be in disagreement with a president you support without being disrespectful or nasty or snide.

I don't believe that using inflammatory rhetoric on either side of a debate is productive.

There is a way to disagree with someone, but it doesn't have to be threatening.

One of the hallmarks of higher education and of democracy is the ability to converse with people with whom we disagree.

Listen, talk, be respectful of people - and make sure that you have openness to where people are coming from. And you don't do anything that is unnecessarily antagonistic, that is only going to make you feel good because you've done it.

I don't like to listen to the unthoughtful criticism. When we have thoughtful criticism, I love it.

Come now. let us reason together.

When permitted to listen to alternative opinions and engage in substantive debate, people have been known to change their minds. It can happen.

I am passionate about truth and passionate about clarity, and I don't regard myself as particularly militant or aggressive. I simply wish to discuss what is true and to listen to evidence and put evidence forward to other people and have a sensible, sane, moderated argument.

I should be able to express moral views on social issues without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach ‘tolerance’ that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

How can a reason which hates God be called sound?

There are too many people who imagine that there is something sophisticated about always believing the best of those who hate your country, and the worst of those who defend it.

I'm not going to engage in that kind of hateful rhetoric anymore. I just can't use those harsh terms. I cannot and I will not and I encourage even my friends slash enemy on the left in the Democrat, liberal world that we have got to be civil to each other.

Skepsis. I am a true skeptic, born under the noble sign of skepsis, the sign of the man who knows that all astrology is absolutely and without reservation the bullest of bullsh*t that ever there was. It is a senseless delusion that does not even have the benefit of being harmless fun. It is a harmful bore. Harmful to the human spirit, harmful to the dignity and wonder of the real universe and the real power of the mind to think for itself. I hate astrology with a fervor that is almost frightening. - Stephen Fry (when asked what sign he would be if he could create his own zodiac)

Edward Snowden's real "crime" is that he demonstrated how knowledge can be used to empower people, to get them to think as critically engaged citizens rather than assume that knowledge and education are merely about the learning of skills - a reductive concept that substitutes training for education and reinforces the flight from reason and the goose-stepping reflexes of an authoritarian mindset.