Kirk has argued that the “positives far outweigh the negatives” and that gun deaths are similar to automobile fatalities, which, to him, are an accepted consequence of a “moral good”. OH TOO SOON?
Your article seems to blur tragedy with political point-scoring, and that feels wrong to me. It is possible to utterly reject Charlie Kirk’s politics while still condemning his murder without hedging. Treating his death as merely an ideological event dehumanizes both him and the conversation around political violence. We should be able to mourn the man, criticize his views, and oppose violence all at once without this kind of moral contortion.
Hmm. Thanks for the comment. I don't think there's any moral contortion here. I think I very clearly condemn violence, regret his murder, and empathize with his family, and I'm certainly not the one blaming an ideology or political actor for what happened. I simply don't think we should allow his legacy to be whitewashed and used to score political points by the right, which is already happening.
I understand your point about not wanting his legacy whitewashed, but describing him in terms like “reactionary demagogue” and claiming he “died with hate speech on his lips” crosses into exactly the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric you’re saying we should avoid.
I'm appalled at the flags being lowered. When did this become the norm for purveyors of hate speech? After all, that's what he did for a living. Shame on Shapiro.
I know very little about Charlie Kirk...and from what you've described about him in your article it sounds like he died the same way he lived his life. I don't have much else to say about this...
I do feel sorry for his family. For him, not so much. as they say: "Live by the sword, die by the sword". Well, that's valid for guns too.
Even before they know who committed the crime, they accuse the left, as usual without a scintilla of evidence. for all we know, maybe he fooled with his wife? That is just as valid as a total invention.
Kirk has argued that the “positives far outweigh the negatives” and that gun deaths are similar to automobile fatalities, which, to him, are an accepted consequence of a “moral good”. OH TOO SOON?
Your article seems to blur tragedy with political point-scoring, and that feels wrong to me. It is possible to utterly reject Charlie Kirk’s politics while still condemning his murder without hedging. Treating his death as merely an ideological event dehumanizes both him and the conversation around political violence. We should be able to mourn the man, criticize his views, and oppose violence all at once without this kind of moral contortion.
Hmm. Thanks for the comment. I don't think there's any moral contortion here. I think I very clearly condemn violence, regret his murder, and empathize with his family, and I'm certainly not the one blaming an ideology or political actor for what happened. I simply don't think we should allow his legacy to be whitewashed and used to score political points by the right, which is already happening.
I understand your point about not wanting his legacy whitewashed, but describing him in terms like “reactionary demagogue” and claiming he “died with hate speech on his lips” crosses into exactly the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric you’re saying we should avoid.
I'm appalled at the flags being lowered. When did this become the norm for purveyors of hate speech? After all, that's what he did for a living. Shame on Shapiro.
I know very little about Charlie Kirk...and from what you've described about him in your article it sounds like he died the same way he lived his life. I don't have much else to say about this...
I do feel sorry for his family. For him, not so much. as they say: "Live by the sword, die by the sword". Well, that's valid for guns too.
Even before they know who committed the crime, they accuse the left, as usual without a scintilla of evidence. for all we know, maybe he fooled with his wife? That is just as valid as a total invention.
Thankyou