I have no words

“Today, a young man was murdered in cold blood while expressing his political views. It happened on a college campus, where the open exchange of opposing ideas should be sacrosanct. Violence and vitriol must be purged from the public square. Members of other political parties are not our enemies; they are our fellow citizens. May God bless Charlie Kirk and his family, and may God guide America toward civility.” – George W. Bush

Much like Anna, I’m having a hard time ginning up sympathy for the deceased. Should he have been murdered? No. But he peddled in lies, racism, and discriminatory content. The killer should be condemned and prosecuted but I won’t idolize someone who demonized others for existing.

Yeah, let’s listen to George W. Bush, one of the world’s greatest war criminals, and what he has to say about “purging” violence from our public spaces.

As for Charlie Kirk, well, those who live by the sword die by the sword. If you sign up to be a Goebbels type figure in the fourth reich and get paid to encourage violence against the most vulnerable kinds of people, then don’t be surprised if you end up catching a bullet in the jugular.

I don’t celebrate his death, but I don’t mourn him either. Nor am I moved by all of this hand-wringing over killing people over “differences in opinion”.

People are missing the point, the fourth reich is already here, they’ve already declared war on us, they’re already killing and imprisoning people, and when one guy has the guts to fight back, hand-wringing over whether he should’ve done that or not is useless.

Get out of this Weimar Republic mindset.

Anna and others are spot on. Where is the outrage, where are the church statements by name of all the other victims of political violence? A congresswoman was shot in front of her family on her doorstep, where was the outrage? The calls to war to avenge her, the bland statements about her being a wife, a mother, a daughter? It’s disgusting. He shouldn’t have been shot, but that doesn’t change he was a garbage person who was as responsible for his fate as anyone else.

I was once an adjunct at UVU. Beautiful campus, great students, I’m so sad they’ve been forced into this horrible situation. But I’m also now a community college professor in the northeast; and this morning I looked over my highly diverse student body of immigrants, refugees, people of color, LGBTQ persons, Muslims, Palestinians, etc., and heaved a sigh of relief that there is one less hate-filled monster in the world actively working to exterminate them and make their lives as miserable as possible.

Seriously, he was in the middle of spreading a flagrant lie about transgender mass-shooters when he took that bullet to the jugular. He has straight-up said that kids getting killed in school-shootings is an acceptable trade-off for unrestricted gun rights. He openly hated the word empathy. I don’t condone murder because I don’t condone *any* murder, but make no mistake here: if you had been the one murdered, he would have gloated over your death.

OP may not have words, and I fully understand. Killing is bad. I was not a Charlie Kirk fan in his life, and I cannot become one in his death, but still I condemn his murder. I will respectfully allow those to mourn who wish to do so. Thoughts and prayers…

Meanwhile, maybe the scripture has some words that might work for some people:

Ezekiel 24

17 Forbear to cry, make no mourning for the dead, bind the tire of thine head upon thee, and put on thy shoes upon thy feet, and cover not thy lips, and eat not the bread of men.

Life goes on.

I note the following words from the Church’s statement: “We also pray that we may treat one another with greater kindness, compassion and goodness.” I wish Charlie had heard these words before he died.

I also note further words from the statement: “For members of the Church, we reaffirm the Savior’s teaching and admonition is to love our neighbor.” I wonder why this last sentence was restricted to Church members — maybe the Church is trying to limit its counsel to its own members? In the Church’s abortion statement, it also limits its counsel to own members, but it seems Church members erringly try to apply it to non-members as well.

As I said over at BCC: we have to be careful not to confuse Kirk’s aversion to certain ideas with hatred towards people who subscribe to those ideas.

Charlie Kirk was a little too far to the right for me and way too far to the right for most of you here. Even so, my guess is that his wife would say that he didn’t hate anyone per se. What he hated was what he believed to be the misrepresentation of facts by the mainstream media and damaging leftist policies.

Charlie Kirk was a devout Christian–he knew the two Great Commandments. And so my hope is that we can give him the benefit of the doubt–without relinquishing our own beliefs–at let the Great Judge pass final judgment on his personal character.

Jack, Kirk was a hater through and through. Even if he didn’t explicitly say, “I hate this person or those people,” it was clearly implied in many of his comments. Some examples:

“Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.”

“America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank: large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America.”

“We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.”

“If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”

His followers most clearly derived deep hatred of liberals and Democrats from his words. He made America worse.

Jack: “we have to be careful not to confuse Kirk’s aversion to certain ideas with hatred towards people who subscribe to those ideas.

Charlie Kirk was a little too far to the right for me and way too far to the right for most of you here”

Are you for real bro?

Kirk made a career out of saying that black people are inferior sub-humans with a natural predisposition to violence and that they were better off as slaves. And that is just a “little bit too far to the right” for you? The guy who has the same politics as Jefferson Davis is a little too far right for you?

As the kids today would say: “bruh”

Being an open white supremacist isn’t just “aversion to certain ideas”, it’s actual hatred. The guy’s job was to spew hatred out in public settings and inspire violence towards other people.

This isn’t just “a difference of opinion” as A Disciple says. It’s not even just “words”. Kirk’s “words” were intended to inspire violence, and these “words” were given a prominent stage and a megaphone and paid for by right wing donors. At this stage these aren’t just “words” anymore, they’re weapons. The “pen is mightier than the sword” and all that.

And don’t even pretend like the right wing believes that rhetoric =/= violence. They’re having literal mental meltdowns over protest movements and what they perceive to be “cultural marxism” in schools and universities and going on book-ban rampages. They clearly also believe that words can be weapons.

Brad & Chris & others,

Do you support blasphemy laws or otherwise laws that criminalize the expression of certain ideas? Yes or No?

How do you reconcile that certain ideas you consider “vile and repulsive” a great number of Americans find agreeable? Do you want tens of millions of Americans jailed? Do you have in mind some other punishment or coercion to stop people from holding the ideas you declare to be “vile and repulsive”? I would greatly appreciate consideration of this question. What do you think should happen to “vile and repulsive” people? Who decides who is “vile and repulsive” and unwelcome to speak?

I am not trying to “own” anyone. I am trying to understand how American society can remain a pluralistic society where a diversity of opinions are held and people are free to express ideas and not be equated to assassins, historical villains and murderers.

A Disciple,

It’s actually quite easy. We call balls and strikes.

If someone says terrible things, we call them terrible things. If someone says good things, we call them good things. If we disagree on what is a good thing vs what is a terrible thing, then you call it as you see it and I’ll do the same. I personally don’t care about your views on the things/people Charlie Kirk denigrated; I’m good with my view. Similarly, some like pineapple on their pizza and some don’t. I feel no need to persuade the opposing view. Why does everyone need to agree with you?

I do not understand the need for MAGA to somehow want to force all of us to mourn Charlie Kirk’s death. I never met him and I was not his target consumer. I hate murder and so I mourn the fact that I live in a country where money is more important than murder. I support legislation to reduce murder. Similarly, there are roughly 15,000 drunk driving incidents per year that result in loss of life. I don’t know anyone personally impacted by such so I don’t mourn those individual deaths. And I mourn the fact that as a society we cannot trust people to know their limits before they drive. And I support legislation that reduces the number of drunk driving incidents. If that’s not the empathy you support, then by all means you do you. Tell me how long you mourned Melissa Hortman’s death and perhaps we can start a conversation about how long someone should mourn Charlie Kirk’s death.

Otherwise I’m not interested in cancelling or jailing or criminalizing those that say terrible things. I suspect that you know this already, since no one with my political stripes is supporting legislation to do such things.

I wasn’t alive in the 1940’s but I’m guessing a lot of people didn’t cry when they found out Hitler was no longer alive so I would imagine we all draw the line somewhere. Seems you think he deserved thoughts and prayers. As Eva Peron said, don’t cry for me.

It is simply a fact that an unwell person without access to a gun cannot shoot someone. Perhaps this is the death that finally makes enough Americans want to stop murder. But I doubt it.

Comment three so my last and I’ll bow out:

If you want to know how the members of this community view speech, just read the blog and comments. We share ideas and call out good and bad ideas and comments. Occasionally a comment is deleted but generally not. Never have we reported comments to ICE of DOJ or the FBI. Never have we called for violence against anyone. We can up or down vote.

We are living our values. The receipts are here.

I don’t know anyone significant in the Democratic Party or among leading liberal voices who support blasphemy laws. This seems to be part of the liberal boogeyman made up in right-wing circles.

However speech that is threatening, libelous, slanderous, defamatory, and makes false accusations is already illegal. A lot of speech I hear in right-wing circles seems borderline defamatory and seems to incite violence. I really don’t hear borderline defamatory or inciting speech by leading liberal voices. I just don’t.

I find a lot of speech vile and repulsive because it seems to incite hatred and spread lies. With some of this speech there is probable cause for threats, defamation, and false accusations. But a lot of this speech is in the legal grey area.

Who decides? Lawmakers who make laws and their constituents who communicate with them. The judicial system then interprets those laws and tries them before specific cases and upon specific defendants. I often hear this question from right-wing free speech absolutists that since we supposedly can’t decide what is true or good speech, we have to accept all of it, and by all of it, they mean only far-right speech, never jihadism or far-left communism/Marxism, which they often want to criminalize. But in this case, A Disciple is deliberately ignoring the question of jihadist speech since it is inconvenient for him.

Who decides is a dumb question. Laws and the justice system. We all know that.

America already is a pluralistic society with lots of ideas. The biggest threat right now is government crackdowns on liberal and leftist speech. In fact, just go listen to what is being said in the right-wing echosphere. Many leading voices, including Trump himself, seem to want to criminalize criticism of Trump and MAGA figures. Right-wing speech is flourishing more than it ever has, even to the point of getting away with stochastic terrorism, threats, and defamatory lies. This fact alone refutes everything that A Disciple has been saying and angling at.

There’s been a pivot in messaging from the right today. After learning that the shooter came from a good conservative Christian home, and was not a “blue haired trans liberal with a septum piercing” as they seemed to expect, they’re now saying that he must have been radicalized during the 1 semester he spent at college. At Utah State. In Utah. I guess if they can’t use the tragedy to push the anti-trans agenda, at least they can get some anti-intellectualism in.

Even Spencer Cox, who I generally respect despite disagreeing on most policies, contributed to the misinformation. One of the bullet casings they found had been inscribed with “catch this fascist”. On its face, that could point to a left leaning agenda, but in the context of the other bullet inscriptions and what we know about the shooter’s personal life it’s clear that he is much more likely to be a Nick Fuentes acolyte (groyper). That community also calls Kirk a fascist (for being not far right enough) and had as much or more enmity toward Kirk as the left. They’re also more steeped in violent rhetoric. Despite this context, Cox mused during a press release that he didn’t know the shooters motives but “‘catch this fascist’ speaks for itself.” In this environment where even high profile leaders on the right (fox news, Nancy mace, Trump himself) are escalating the situation and calling for vengeance it’s more important than ever that reasonable people get the facts right to prevent more violence.

A, most Americans are ignorant to most of what goes on around them. They aren’t centrists, per se, just uninformed for the most part. They have no idea about what economic policy is good, for instance. That being the case we rely heavily on informed voters who organize and political leaders to guide the country, not the people/will of the people at large. Getting things done and implementing good policy requires fighting for and standing for principles and getting voters’ attention. The fact of the matter is that in a large picture I and many liberals and Democrats ARE centrists who are trying to fight against Trump and MAGA yanking the country to an extreme right position. There is no far left in the US in any significant statistical sense. There is a far right, which is extreme and dangerous. So there is no “both sides.”

The centrism you preach is spineless and clueless. And also actually right-wing. Saying there’s no hate speech gives you away. Your comment seems absolutely clueless about the state of free speech in the country. Democrats and liberals aren’t overreacting to reasoned ideas that are slightly different from Democrats’ points of view, as you seem to suggest, and just need to cede a little ground and voila! Kumbaya! They’re responding to poisonous lies, false accusations, insane demonizations, violations of the Constitution, and criminal ideas and actions that threaten to drive the country off the cliff. If you can’t realize that you’re asleep at the wheel. Free speech was flourishing to its greatest point ever, everywhere in the US, including the government, universities, media, the work place, etc., by many metrics, until Trump. He has used the power of the presidency to intimidate media, tech, business, and government from criticizing him, telling the truth, and holding him and his cronies accountable.

Oh, and on another note, more and more it is seeming that the shooter Tyler Robinson was none other than an extreme right-winger influenced by white supremacist rhetoric that deemed Charlie Kirk too soft. Already right-wingers are starting to back off from their blame the libruhls schtick. A lot of egg in a lot of faces if this emerges to be the case.

“Some of my favorite clips of Charlie Kirk were when he encouraged his audiences to study what the Left had to say.”

These are heavily cherry-picked out-of-context clips that he used to create his leftist boogeyman strawman. Kirk did not fairly characterize the left in any way. He was not a deep thinker. He was a provocateur.

“I’d love to see more influencers on the Left do something similar.”

That’s most of what they do. React and respond to commentary on the right, but in a much deeper and more accurate level than Kirk. It’s like you don’t even watch what liberal commentators say and yet you have an opinion about them? Grand.

“See what Dave Rubin had to say on whether he thought Kirk was homophobic”

Oh wow, Dave Rubin, a real paragon of virtue who sold himself to Russian money. Kirk was homophobic to the bone. He hated trans people so much he could barely contain himself. Transphobia was part of his core identity.

For those who keep whining that this blog has stopped being about Mormonism and is now political, well, now that we have the shooter, he is a good Mormon boy from St George Utah. So coming right back to Mormonism, what the hell are kids learning at church now? Certainly not living peacefully. Oh, I know about the religious climate this guy lives in. Half the year, I live 10 miles from this guy. So, I know the mindset at church. Sieg Heil Trump.

Of course, some of us were suspecting that this shooter will also turn out to be Republican, conservative, Trump supporting, gun loving nut case. And I should add, belongs to a conservative religion and thinks of Trump as the new prophet. Oh, we were right! The shooter supports the very guy he shot. It is the Trump followers in most cases doing the shooting, whether the victim is Democrat or Trumpicon the shooter is a Trumpicon. Because it is the far right screaming all the violence, so of course the shooters doing the violence are listening. This was not someone listening to Berni Sanders, AOC, or California’s wicked communist Governor.

I will make one final comment.

First, I am blown away by the kindness, civility, and willingness to appreciate arguments with which you do not agree that has been exhibited on this thread.

Second, your perception aside, I consider free speech to be the absolute foundation of our republic. I do not believe in cancel culture, I abhor the Republican authoritarians who want to ban people from social media for their comments about Kirk’s assassination or limit access to websites, I oppose any attempt to limit the discussion of opinions–even, and especially, those that are controversial, and I despise anyone who wants to police or censor language on both sides of the political divide.

Third, the Supreme Court (not just the current iteration) has consistently ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech. There may be speech that offends you, there may be speech that hurts people’s feelings, and there may be speech with which you disagree. None of those categories can be legally banned or censored. That does not meant that there are no repercussions or consequences for one’s speech; it just means that all should be accorded the freedom of speech without any limitation or interference from government. And in terms of personal interactions, the childhood maxim about “sticks and stones” is applicable.

Fourth, for the historically illiterate (or, to give the benefit of the doubt, those focused myopically on the present), the aggregation of power and authority to the executive branch–and the simultaneous evisceration and impotence of Congress–predates the current administration. Indeed, these power shifts have been on-going since the Founding, accelerated at the outset of the 20th century, became even more problematic during the Cold War, and have created a constitutional crisis over the past three decades under both parties. To suggest that this situation is a result of Trump and the GOP since 2016 or 2024 demonstrates a complete and utter lack of understanding of the realities of the U.S. government over time. One need only look at the TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama, and Biden administrations (to name a few) to realize that Trump is only the latest chief executive to stretch the boundaries of presidential power.

Fifth, it might behoove people to pause before definitively characterizing the motives, political ideology, and influences of the person who killed Kirk. Many commentators on the right did so reflexively in the immediate aftermath; several commentators here have done so since the person’s name, religious upbringing, and family information was released. Additional details have come out today that complicate the picture further. Nobody truly has the full story yet, so drawing any meaningful conclusions is totally premature.

Sixth, the fact that a plea for civility was characterized above as “spineless and clueless” says everything you need to know about our polarized culture and society. For many, only a full-throated, unyielding, and aggressive public stance is acceptable. Compromise and understanding have been rejected and those advocating for such disdained. Those attitudes only feed the rage and myopia that dominates so much of the current political discourse. And the condescension and elitism displayed above is curious for anyone who purports to follow the Savior.

Seventh, since when did an observation or opinion become “whining?”

Eighth, and finally (although I could go on), this discussion highlights the fallacious binary thinking that too many Americans have about contemporary politics. To consider the choice between the progressive left or the MAGA right (or woke vs. fascists or some other similar formulation) ignores about 80% of the public and their views. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean that they automatically and axiomatically agree with your political opponents. This kind of reductionist approach to political and socio-cultural issues–which is perhaps most prevalent online–damages our civil society to an unfathomable degree. For those like me who have liberal, libertarian, conservative, and even anarchist beliefs depending on the issue, that makes the current political moment painful, problematic, and distressing. I have never voted for Donald Trump, but I do not consider those who did to be unworthy of my time or their ideas too extreme to debate. The same holds true for those who reject capitalism, voted for Kamala Harris, or embrace extremely progressive ideals. That is how a pluralistic society should function. But I guess it is comforting for some to be so self-assured in their righteousness that they can ignore any ideas that fall outside of their own as unequivocally wrong.

Regardless of what follows, I am done.

Chadwick wrote “Can you give me two examples?”

I’ll give you one. The rest are pretty much all variations of the one. Just up above Brad D/John W quoted him saying “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.”

Context of that podcast: United/DEI pilot controversy.

Charlie: You wanna go thought crime? Like I’m sorry. If I see a black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’
Jack: You wouldn’t have done that before.
Charlie: That’s not an immediate — That not who I am. That’s not what I believe!

That specific issue is not even a hypothetical. It’s real. My father-in-law worked as a pilot for a separate airline. One of their employees, a black man, wasn’t flying to their standards. When they attempted to fire him, he threatened a discrimination lawsuit, so they kept him on out of fear. A couple of weeks later he and his co-pilot died from pilot error. Gratefully, they were only carrying cargo. I think the majority of fault lies with the airline, but I don’t think government programs and pressure helped either.

The point isn’t that Charlie feared black pilots innately for who they were, he feared programs that, in the end, discouraged hiring people for their merits or encouraged hiring with the lack thereof. I don’t think Charlie Kirk would care if all United Pilots were black if they were all qualified.

Interestingly enough, the friend who showed me this proper context was rejected from pharmacy school the first time applying despite being in the 95ht percentile on the PCAT, a 3.8 GPA, and years of on-the-job experience. A former employer, who was good friends with the dean, found out “off the record” that the school had already met their quota of white females. Luckily, she made it into a private school. I’ll take a 95th percentiler over a quota checkbox any day.

Brad D/John W wrote: It’s like you don’t even watch what liberal commentators say and yet you have an opinion about them? Grand.

Totally got me figured out Brad. What am I to do? Is that somewhat akin to the way you talk at other commenters about the way they really are and not so much about what they say at face value?

“And I highly doubt that A Disciple, A, Eli, and others beating the free speech drum actually believe in free speech. You believe in conservative victimhood and conservative supremacy.”

Keep believing that. I honestly think that attitude is a huge reason undecideds move away from liberalism the last election. Am I mistaken in thinking you believe free speech means free promotion of all ideas? I never said that. I don’t think ideas should be actively suppressed. I have no problem with an idea being drowned out by a superior one, but I think it should be kept alive if for no other reason than to remind us why it doesn’t work. Keep up that good work. 😉

Chris Robison,

I look at some of the testimonials of people who have been changed for the better by him and I can’t help but feel he did more good than harm. Again, I didn’t always like his tactics, nor did I always agree with him. You do bring up some good points about his debates.

“I don’t know that you know your crowd here (going out on a limb here) if you think most people watch either of those outlets for facts.”

Sorry, I was more or less trying to say “Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum . .” I also thought the lack of legislative spine was somewhat implied and I’m sorry I didn’t make that clearer.

“I find the hardest thing about facts is getting them past the identity politics bouncer in each of us.”

I fight that bouncer almost daily. I’ve often wondered the same of bloggers and frequent commenters on this blog, and I’ve not been convinced they’ve made it past, but maybe their bouncer has more street smarts than mine.

Eli

I’m confused where the interview ends and where your two cents begins. It appears you give Mr Kirk a pass because he says that’s not who he is and you believe him despite him saying that’s exactly who he is!

You cite a united policy to train a diverse work force. If they all receive the same training, why are only the black pilots bad at their jobs? That only makes sense if you think black people can’t complete the training. Which is racist!

Then either you or him, it’s hard to tell, gives an example of one bad pilot who happen to be black and seem to think that makes it ok to force that story onto every black pilot. The problem with not finishing university course studies is that you never complete a statistics course. One example of a black pilot making a mistake doesn’t make all black pilots bad at their jobs. And it seems, though again it’s hard to tell, that this is your example and Mr Kirk gave no examples to support his claim! So is his fear based on race or evidence?

Without information to back me up, I’m willing to go out on a limb and bet that white pilots make mistakes and sometimes white pilots aren’t qualified. But Mr Kirk didn’t mention being afraid of white pilots. Neither did you.

It is possible that not seeing the racism, context and all, is your failing. The context did nothing to change the result. It’s racist.

“When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.”

Chadwick,

Apologies for not being clearer. Please let me try again. Kirk’s arguments, however poorly worded they might be, aren’t at all about race. They’re about unwanted government overreach.

If you needed a surgery, and your choice was between two recently graduated med students, and you were able to find out one graduated top of his class, while the other the lowest, which one would you choose? It’s a no brainer, right? Would it matter to you whether either of them were black or white? Of course not.

Is it reasonable to assume outside influences and circumstances could affect how you perform in your training? I tend to think so. My cousin went to dental school, and had a job with his dad waiting for him when he graduated. He essentially admitted to going for some of the bare minimum standards in some of his classes because he felt confident his dad could fill him in later. He then went on to botch some of his earliest procedures. Arguably, he went to a crappy school, but I can’t help but think he would have studied a little better if his dad and a guaranteed job wasn’t part of the equation. Not all graduates are equal in their abilities.

Charlie Kirk was making the case that government laws and assistance adversely promotes a similar behavior in those it tries to help, regardless of their race. I’ll fully admit that’s difficult to study, quantify, and express, but it doesn’t change the obvious fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with race.

And yes, I do tend to take people at their word, perhaps to a fault. Charlie Kirk said he wasn’t a racist. But actions also speak louder than words. Candace Cameron, a black woman, was once regularly a part of his organization and someone he frequently confided in while courting his wife. She referred to him as her best friend.

I think a small amount of suspicion is healthy, but if you want to insist he was still a racist, that’s a transition into a level of cynicism that does make me start to question one’s ability to healthily integrate into society.

Brad D./John W. wrote: “Eli, you go out of your way to defend right-wing racism, homophobia, and authoritarianism with very disingenuous and poor argumentation. I highly question your commitment to free speech and so-called libertarian values.”

After all these years Brad, it now just seems you repeat this for your own comfort. And if I didn’t make it clear before, let me do it now. All suppression of speech is bad, whether from Trump, Biden, or Obama. Happy? Probably not.

Vajra2,

My FIL is a good man. A very good man. I don’t associate with racists (that I know of), but if I had to rank everyone I know by how “not racist” they are, he’d probably win.

“Knowing that women outperform men academically, do you support college admissions based on academic performance alone? You, know that “merit’ thing?”

I though I made that absolutely clear. Yes, absolutely.

As an FYi, it has been and is illegal to hire someone less qualified based on their race, sex etc. A boogie man with perhaps a very, very rare exception. Racists cling to this boogie man. DEI, affirmative action, critical race. They don’t understand a lick of it. Or are intentionally lying. Stop being played and educated yourselves.

Vajra2,

What an awkwardly ridiculous request. Am I to expect the same standard of proof from you for all future and past comments, or does this go back to me taking people at their word, possibly even to a fault, and in turn expecting the same from someone like you? See what I said to Chadwick on cynicism please.

I see no evidence of racism whatsoever in anything I have written, and I find it very unreasonable to go ahead and assume that’s where the “fruits” of my words are rooted, to the point of making it difficult to take you seriously in the future.

When I look at Charlie and his efforts to reason with people, I think I understand a little better his frustration at times.

Maybe as part of “alternative facts,” we are seeing the sanitizing of Charlie Kirk — indeed, maybe the fastest way to make a MAGA angry today seems to be to honestly and truthfully quote some of what Charlie Kirk actually said. It is amazing (and scary) to watch. I regret the murder and hope that due process is applied to the alleged shooter. May God save our republic.

Brad D./John W.

Humor me a minute. If we were to gather a few thousand random Americans, had them read everything you’ve written here over the years, and everything I’ve written over the years, then asked them kindly to choose who of us exuded the most amount of “hate,” who would “win” that contest? I’m pretty sure you would hands down. Absent certain subject matter, I don’t know that I’ve written anything I’d be ashamed to have my kids read, especially knowing where I come from. I don’t think I could say the same in your position. Heck, if one were to put a large, randomized selection of Charlie Kirk’s words, put them on paper, and showed your words and his to a few thousand random Americans who had no idea who he was, I think you still might win that contest.

Did I mention he lacked tact and engaged in excess hyperbole? That doesn’t make him a racist. I’m also willing learn and find faults in his arguments on adverse government overreach, but the original assertion I responded to was that he was racist. I don’t think the evidence supports that.

I’ve not been afraid to criticize Trump in past comments (he was not the subject of this post), and I’m under no illusion any of those criticisms have been to your satisfaction. I also haven’t commented on as many of the political posts as I used to. To my knowledge, the worst I’ve ever seen you write about Biden as either Brad or John is that he was old. If that doesn’t speak more to identity politics, I don’t know what does.

And please, humor me a little more. What is your answer? What do you propose? To the casual observer, it looks like your strategy is to repeatedly attempt to call someone a racist, misogynist, homophobic fascist until they go away, cower in submission and admission of everything wrong with their position, start name calling, or otherwise implode. But what’s your solution? I don’t know that I’ve read anything that could truly be called constructive from you all these years, though I’d love to be proven wrong. Is finding a way to get along still worthwhile in your mind, or are conservatives just too far gone? I’m genuinely curious at this point.

Eli,

“If you needed a surgery, and your choice was between two recently graduated med students, and you were able to find out one graduated top of his class, while the other the lowest, which one would you choose? It’s a no brainer, right? Would it matter to you whether either of them were black or white? Of course not.”

So much to unpack in such a short paragraph.

1. Not sure how important grades are if both doctors met the standard to graduate. 2. Also not sure how relevant grades are after residency anyway. 3. As they say, C’s get degrees. 4. Not sure hospitals hire new MDs, hand them a pair of scrubs and crocs, and let them loose in the OR. I’m guessing my surgery would either be performed or supervised by someone with experience. 5. I’ve never asked my doctor, dentist, lawyer, accountant (yes I’m a corporate CPA and I have a personal accountant), or plumber if they graduated summa or cum laude.

And the most important: 6. As much as I don’t find your comparison to hold water, Mr. Kirk didn’t use your hypothetical. He didn’t differentiate based on grades. He chose race.

You are welcome to keep claiming you don’t see the racism. I believe you. I see it. I cannot force you to see it. It is what it is.

Lastly, I have no idea what the full house actor, who is not black, has to do with Mr. Kirk.

Brad D, why the name calling? You called Eli a feckless coward. I thought that name calling wasn’t allowed here. Even if it is, you should be able to make your point with civility, but you don’t. You belittle people who don’t agree with you, or it at least appears you do, resorting to inventive and ad hominen attacks.

Welcome to the discussion, Georgis. Would love to hear your input on the senseless murder of Charlie Kirk, Kirk’s legacy as a provocateur who spread hatred and incited violence and even once called for the execution of Biden, and how Trump and MAGA are aggressively politicizing the tragedy in order to crack down on free speech. Or did you just come on here to make a single jab at me because you have an axe to grind?

And for the record, Eli’s comments are perfectly reasonable to me.

So I just went down the Candace Owen’s rabbit hole. Flat earther, holocaust denier, thinks marginalized people are whiny crybabies. So, she seems fun.

Yesterday, Tucker Carlson accused Trump’s regime of using Charlie Kirk’s shooting as a pretext to abolish the First Amendment and Nazify the country.

Yeah, that Tucker Carlson, formerly of Fox News Entertainment. I haven’t always agreed with Tucker Carlson, but here I think he’s right.

“This incident has exposed the entire underbelly of the MAGA movement. They don’t advocate for us but for themselves.”

The thing is it isn’t going to benefit the MAGA “movement”. It won’t be too long before they start discovering that they were tools in Trump’s arsenal. When he’s fully skewed voting into GOP safe districts with everyone else disenfranchised with his power complete he’ll turn on them like he has so many time with his public “allies”. The heel will come down on everyone who isn’t an oligarch that he continues to need.

There must be some sort of a dopamine effect of invoking the “uber left” and raging at them in all caps. Inasmuch as belief in the existence of the “uber left” or “radical left” in the US exists, there can be no reasoned dialogue. Inasmuch as obsession about “both sides” (similarly a non-existent entity) exists, there can be no reasoned dialogue.

The aftermath of the Kirk shooting has clearly revealed the breakdown and dangerous anger of MAGA and most right-wing adjacents.