The loss of life of Charlie Kirk reignited heated discussions about political speech in America, particularly the worth of arguing with individuals you disagree with.
One firm, Jubilee Media, has tapped into that sentiment and has been going viral on YouTube these final couple of years with its high-energy and high-drama — and sure, gimmicky — debate exhibits the place one individual faces off towards a giant group of people that disagree with them. (Kirk himself made an look on a Jubilee present in 2024: “Can 25 Liberal Faculty College students Outsmart 1 Conservative?”)
Jason Y. Lee says he based the corporate to foster debates and construct empathy in a polarized nation. However critics argue that a few of Jubilee’s content material may very well be categorized extra as voyeuristic clickbait than high-minded discourse. One present has ladies arranging themselves primarily based on perceived attractiveness and males rearranging them; one other includes blindfolded guessing video games about which participant is Black or white.
Extra just lately, Mehdi Hasan — writer and founding father of his personal media firm, Zeteo, and former host of his personal MSNBC present — appeared on Jubilee’s flagship debate present, Surrounded. His episode was known as “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Proper Conservatives,” and that too made waves.
Hasan mentioned he was ready to vigorously defend his views, one thing he’s grow to be recognized for through the years. However when he confirmed up, he wasn’t anticipating among the featured debaters to overtly name for his deportation (Hasan is a US citizen initially from England) — or for one to proudly declare himself a fascist. The episode provided uncommon perception into the promise and perils of political debate, how we observe politics within the age of algorithms, and the worth — and limits — of participating with these you essentially disagree with.
As we speak, Defined co-host Noel King spoke with Mehdi Hasan about his look on Surrounded — and what it taught him about this charged political second.
Beneath is an excerpt of their dialog, edited for size and readability. There’s far more within the full podcast, so take heed to As we speak, Defined wherever you get podcasts, together with Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
The place did you study to debate?
The place did I study to debate? I believe across the dinner desk. My household may be very disputatious. The Hasans are recognized for having robust views. There was numerous debate across the kitchen desk, the eating desk, political, social, cultural, spiritual.
We deliberate to do a present on the Jubilee debates and the argument about whether or not they’re of worth or not. And we known as you since you appeared in considered one of these debates that went very viral, after which Charlie Kirk was assassinated in Utah and many individuals mentioned Charlie Kirk was doing it proper. He was exhibiting up; he was debating individuals he disagreed with. That’s the best approach to do politics. Do you agree with that?
No, I don’t consider that Charlie Kirk was working towards politics the best method, to cite former Vox boss, now New York Occasions columnist, Ezra Klein, a very good buddy of mine. I completely disagree with Ezra on that piece he wrote. I do have so as to add the usual caveat as a result of Fox retains clipping a few of us on the not noted of context.
Clearly [Kirk] shouldn’t have been killed. Clearly, all of us condemn his homicide. Clearly, a political assassination in response to speech you don’t like is unacceptable in America and really scary.
However in the event you’re asking me in regards to the content material of what Charlie Kirk mentioned when he was alive, it was terrible, it was horrific, it was reactionary, it was bigoted. This concept that he was some type of Socratic debater attempting to get to the reality? No, he wasn’t. He was doing a “Show Me Flawed” tour through the years the place he and Ben Shapiro and others go to varsity campuses, discover some man with blue hair who says one thing provocative after which dunk throughout him, after which clip it up and go viral after which have a YouTube video saying, “Charlie Kirk/Ben Shapiro destroys school scholar.”
All proper. What about Jubilee?
So Jubilee’s a little bit bit completely different. Jubilee claims to be nonpartisan; they are saying that they’re attempting to get individuals from all sides to get in a room collectively. I imply, on paper what they’re aspiring to is at minimal impartial, if not good. What turns up on YouTube just isn’t essentially at all times the case.
Inform me why you determined to go on Surrounded.
There have been a number of causes. One is, as I say, I like a very good argument and 20 to 1 — these are good odds. I’ll take these odds. The concept of going into the lion’s den and debating a bunch of people that disagree with me, I believed can be enjoyable.
Quantity two, I spoke to my good buddy Sam Seder from the Majority Report who had carried out a Jubilee, and he advised me that it’s price doing. It does even have worth — you’ll attain an entire new viewers. And folks like my daughter and my nieces and others we’re saying, “Oh yeah, Jubilee, we all know Jubilee, all the children watch Jubilee.”
And it’s superb since I did Jubilee what number of youthful individuals at the moment are coming as much as me on the street versus older individuals as a result of they acknowledge me from that circle debate present. So it was an opportunity to succeed in a brand new viewers. That was quantity two.
And quantity three, it appeared like numerous right-wingers have been dominating that house. Previous to me occurring Jubilee, all of the top-rated individuals who had carried out Jubilee on YouTube with essentially the most views had been Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Candace Owens, Michael Knowles. That was the lean of YouTube and Jubilee. And I believed, nicely, really, perhaps individuals like me and Sam Seder can attempt to give a special perspective.
What occurred was the craziest two hours of my skilled life as a journalist. I used to be not anticipating — and perhaps I ought to have been — the type of individuals I sat throughout. I’d watched numerous Jubilees. I’d watched Sam Seder’s present. I knew there have been a few individuals who got here and mentioned white supremacist issues and far-right issues and dumb issues. However I didn’t anticipate one after one other individual to be telling me to my face that I ought to go away the nation, that I’m not an actual American. “I’m a proud fascist,” one individual advised me very early on within the debate.
What? Usually, individuals wanna deny the f-word. We spent the final week with Republicans up in arms that anybody would name them fascists, and the way that’s what led to the loss of life of Charlie Kirk. And but right here I used to be sitting in a warehouse with a bunch of younger, primarily white individuals saying proudly, sure, we’re fascists, we’re racist.
How can we debate fascists? Ought to an individual debate fascists?
No. And that’s why I mentioned on the time, in the event you watch that clip, about midway via the dialog, I mentioned, “What are we doing right here? I don’t debate fascists.” And all the right-wingers watching within the circle, they bought very upset as a result of Jubilee then moved this man out. And so lots of them spent the subsequent two hours, each time they got here as much as the chair to debate me, they might say, “Oh, you’re banning individuals you don’t agree with.”
And I used to be like, “That’s not what it’s. I don’t debate fascists as a result of fascists don’t consider in democracy. They don’t consider in debate. They don’t consider in my equal price as a human being. So why would I debate such individuals?”
Fascism at its core is an anti-democratic, authoritarian, and sure, very violent ideology. So, no, I don’t consider there’s worth to debating fascists. And if I’d recognized that individuals can be sitting down dismissing the Holocaust or saying, “I’m a fascist,” or saying the nation was constructed for white individuals or no matter it’s, I might not have gone on that present, or I might’ve mentioned, “Get different individuals.”
Look, I come from a proud anti-fascist custom on the left the place you don’t platform fascists, you don’t indulge them, you don’t meet them midway. You defeat fascism by defeating the ideology, by providing one thing higher and by being truthful.
You recognize, an individual who appreciated your look on Surrounded would possibly say, these fascist-y sorts are on the market. They’re influencing younger individuals in an actual method. Not less than you confirmed up and gave them a run for his or her cash.
That’s the silver lining. I suppose you might argue if — and that is gonna make me sound very egomaniacal and conceited, so I apologize upfront — I suppose individuals may say, in the event you’re gonna debate fascists, would possibly as nicely be somebody who’s good at debating. And that’s what I’m recognized for doing. So it’s higher me than another person who goes on and will get their ass handed to them.
So in that sense, I get it, however the counterargument I get as nicely, numerous my critics had been saying to me: “Simply by occurring, you legitimize them simply by occurring. You amplified them simply by occurring. You gave them credibility and respectability. They had been in a position to clip up their clips and put it on-line and say, ‘Look, look, look, we personal this mainstream journalist. We advised them to get the F out of our nation.’ ”
Do you suppose you modified anybody’s thoughts by showing on Surrounded?
Actually not in that room. No. And that wasn’t the purpose.
What’s the purpose in debating if to not change minds?
So my purpose is to not change my opponent’s thoughts. Very hardly ever can you modify your opponent’s thoughts. My purpose is to vary the individuals watching. If you’re debating on stage, as I’ve carried out, or whether or not you’re debating on YouTube and 10 or 11 or 12 million individuals now have watched that Surrounded present, you might be hoping that in that 11 or 12 million individuals, there are a handful of people who find themselves actually open-minded, actually unbiased individuals.
Most individuals are partisans, whether or not they wish to admit so or not, however you hope that you simply discovered some unbiased people to go, “Hmm, that’s a very good level that I hadn’t heard earlier than, that’s a very good statistic that I wasn’t conscious of, that’s a great way of framing the difficulty.” And, look, individuals have reached out to me through the years. I’ve spent the final yr and a half doing nonstop debates. I’ve carried out numerous debating about Gaza, one other very polarizing challenge, and other people have reached out to me, and I’ve had messages from individuals saying, “I’ve switched my positions on this challenge.”
