I have only watched this from afar (Sweden), but it seems weird that the people that are the loudest about their outrage are the same people that mocked Nancy Pelosi after the attack on her husband (she wasn't at home).
Even Charlie Kirk himself said a Patriot should bail the man out.
I don't condone the attack on Charlie Kirk. I think political violence in a liberal democracy is a bad thing. However, to me it seems like a lot of people wouldn't have minded much if the dead husband and father of 2 would have been on the other team. From what I have seen about the divisive discourse of Charlie Kirk, I am not sure Charlie Kirk would have minded much himself.
Searching twitter about the murder of Melissa Horton or attack of Pelosi, and you will find republican lawmakers spreading misinformation about it and even mocking the victims or making fun of the attacks. These people should not be in the business of lawmaking. They believe in nothing except their own team winning no matter what.
> I have only watched this from afar (Sweden), but it seems weird that the people that are the loudest about their outrage are the same people that mocked Nancy Pelosi after the attack on her husband (she wasn't at home).
I don't think that's true. I think you're getting a biased sample.
It's certainly true that the right is being loud, but that is to be expected. What is different, this time, is that this man was assassinated while engaged in an almost platonically pure act of free speech. He was literally killed for expressing an opinion in a public square, and it happened from the left, so there's broad-based recognition that something is wrong. Right now, the only faction that isn't being loudly critical of this act is the extreme (mostly younger, online) left.
That is not to say that the other incidents you're citing are any less wrong, or that you won't find crass commentary about poltical violence on all sides of the political spectrum. No political party is above the fray, but Caesar's wife must be above reproach. The left has made an identity out of being liberal, and being liberal, originally, means being broad-minded and tolerant [1]. This is a fundamental violation of that principle. I think it's easy to over-generalize from the actions of a single individual, but when you add in the fact that the assassin was quoting reddit memes, and couple the giddy celebration on bluesky...it's hard to ignore the cultural trend.
I personally identify as classically liberal, I have very little in common with Kirk's politics, and I'm horrified by the assassination. This is a throwback to a form of violent reactionary protest that the US hasn't really had to deal with since the 1960s, and for the first time in my recollection, it's coming from "my side" of the political spectrum. We need to exorcise this demon.
[1] To be completely clear and pedantic: I am not suggesting that the right is not liberal in the classical sense, nor am I implying that they should strive for anything less. I'm just making an argument about perception and self-identity. For better or worse, the US political left has self-labeled as "liberal", and dresses up and cosplays in the image of an educated, erudite elite. To have members of that tribe resort to violence to suppress speech -- to celebrate that violence -- is a wholesale rejection of the fundamental tenets of the identity itself.
Something I’m coming to realize about the free press is it’s really designed to make the world make sense. To tell a narrative the fits a certain world view.
And I remember when I studied the columbine shootings; what I learned is how broken those shooters brains were. That I think on some level, I imagined a rational anger directed at their classmates, and not the bizzare rantings of a confused adolescent (which of course they were)
So we of course don’t want to introduce the concept of groypers, or 4chan meme culture or the bizarre rantings of a broken mind that probably led to this tragedy, and instead use this opportunity as to continue to perpetuate this neat story that justifies everyone’s priors.
- We do not know the motivation of the shooter, but charlie had violent enemies who claimed he wasn't fascist enough, just like he had violent enemies who claimed he was fascist.
- We do not know the alignment of the shooter, but we have at least as much evidence that he was right-wing as we do that he was left-wing.
- There is not a consensus that condemnation for fascist rhetoric was false, but we do have a nonzero, nonmajority of people claiming there is.
- We do not know if charlie was "good" or "innocent", but I personally feel that this violence was a bad idea, and feel bad that his family is suffering through it. Also, he clearly had friends who are hurting, too.
I have only watched this from afar (Sweden), but it seems weird that the people that are the loudest about their outrage are the same people that mocked Nancy Pelosi after the attack on her husband (she wasn't at home).
Even Charlie Kirk himself said a Patriot should bail the man out.
I don't condone the attack on Charlie Kirk. I think political violence in a liberal democracy is a bad thing. However, to me it seems like a lot of people wouldn't have minded much if the dead husband and father of 2 would have been on the other team. From what I have seen about the divisive discourse of Charlie Kirk, I am not sure Charlie Kirk would have minded much himself.
Searching twitter about the murder of Melissa Horton or attack of Pelosi, and you will find republican lawmakers spreading misinformation about it and even mocking the victims or making fun of the attacks. These people should not be in the business of lawmaking. They believe in nothing except their own team winning no matter what.
> I have only watched this from afar (Sweden), but it seems weird that the people that are the loudest about their outrage are the same people that mocked Nancy Pelosi after the attack on her husband (she wasn't at home).
I don't think that's true. I think you're getting a biased sample.
It's certainly true that the right is being loud, but that is to be expected. What is different, this time, is that this man was assassinated while engaged in an almost platonically pure act of free speech. He was literally killed for expressing an opinion in a public square, and it happened from the left, so there's broad-based recognition that something is wrong. Right now, the only faction that isn't being loudly critical of this act is the extreme (mostly younger, online) left.
That is not to say that the other incidents you're citing are any less wrong, or that you won't find crass commentary about poltical violence on all sides of the political spectrum. No political party is above the fray, but Caesar's wife must be above reproach. The left has made an identity out of being liberal, and being liberal, originally, means being broad-minded and tolerant [1]. This is a fundamental violation of that principle. I think it's easy to over-generalize from the actions of a single individual, but when you add in the fact that the assassin was quoting reddit memes, and couple the giddy celebration on bluesky...it's hard to ignore the cultural trend.
I personally identify as classically liberal, I have very little in common with Kirk's politics, and I'm horrified by the assassination. This is a throwback to a form of violent reactionary protest that the US hasn't really had to deal with since the 1960s, and for the first time in my recollection, it's coming from "my side" of the political spectrum. We need to exorcise this demon.
[1] To be completely clear and pedantic: I am not suggesting that the right is not liberal in the classical sense, nor am I implying that they should strive for anything less. I'm just making an argument about perception and self-identity. For better or worse, the US political left has self-labeled as "liberal", and dresses up and cosplays in the image of an educated, erudite elite. To have members of that tribe resort to violence to suppress speech -- to celebrate that violence -- is a wholesale rejection of the fundamental tenets of the identity itself.
[dead]
Something I’m coming to realize about the free press is it’s really designed to make the world make sense. To tell a narrative the fits a certain world view.
And I remember when I studied the columbine shootings; what I learned is how broken those shooters brains were. That I think on some level, I imagined a rational anger directed at their classmates, and not the bizzare rantings of a confused adolescent (which of course they were)
So we of course don’t want to introduce the concept of groypers, or 4chan meme culture or the bizarre rantings of a broken mind that probably led to this tragedy, and instead use this opportunity as to continue to perpetuate this neat story that justifies everyone’s priors.
Absolutely ridiculous to write a piece like this about a fascist heading a media empire
Can we please tone down the rhetoric, falsely accusing people of being fascists radicalized someone and got a good, innocent man murdered this week.
Please do not spread disinformation here.
- We do not know the motivation of the shooter, but charlie had violent enemies who claimed he wasn't fascist enough, just like he had violent enemies who claimed he was fascist.
- We do not know the alignment of the shooter, but we have at least as much evidence that he was right-wing as we do that he was left-wing.
- There is not a consensus that condemnation for fascist rhetoric was false, but we do have a nonzero, nonmajority of people claiming there is.
- We do not know if charlie was "good" or "innocent", but I personally feel that this violence was a bad idea, and feel bad that his family is suffering through it. Also, he clearly had friends who are hurting, too.
[dead]