I hate being angry, but I am really angry right now…

Out of respect, I will try to stay off the posts where people are advocating empathy for the death of a man who was hateful and not empathetic in life. Charlie Kirk didn’t attain sainthood by losing his life in the same way so many others already had because of his beliefs.

You can ask me not to "celebrate" a death, and I’m truly not doing that. But you cannot tell me how to feel about it. A man whose hateful rhetoric often endangered the lives of people like me is now silent. His was just one voice, and his message is certainly still out there, but I’m not going to pretend to shed any tears or lose any sleep.

And to say that this endangers my freedom of speech, well, that ship has probably long sailed. There are plenty of martyrs already on my side of the aisle, usually courtesy of gun-nuts like this fellow. And I have no doubt that the president will take advantage of this situation, regardless of who the gunman turns out to be, to divide us even further.

And we’re very divided. Pretending to make nice will not change that; we already know, being "the bigger person" was seen as weakness in Kirk’s camp. 😞

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SW-User

This is my take on Kirk since his murder. Honestly, the only thing I can say is that his death was horrific, and I wouldn’t wish it on anybody. At all. Not even him. I knew of the guy but didn’t really listen to much of what he had to say, and what little I did hear sounded abhorrent, granted, from short clips without full context. Even so, sometimes those clips reveal enough to understand the tone and priorities of his messaging. Sometimes the short clip is the context.

After listening to podcasts reflecting on Kirk, I’ve come away with the view that he is, to many young white Americans, what MLK, Malcolm X, and the Black Panthers were to African Americans. I’m not claiming he is the same, just that that’s how some people see him. That’s their perspective, not mine. I see him more as a white supremacist (and I don't like using terms like these easily) who believed DEI programs took opportunities from white people. He couldn’t even frame it in a fair way, if he believed DEI hires took from qualified candidates, he never acknowledged that it could disadvantage talented minorities, particularly Black Americans.

What I find extremely difficult to square is that the same people who lionize Kirk have listened to him disparage MLK’s legacy, showing no regard for how it makes Black Americans feel, yet expect sympathy from those very people now. MLK wasn’t speaking about theory or grievance, he was living a harsh reality. He marched and faced vitriol in a system that denied him and his people basic human rights. He had no political power, only the moral weight of his voice, a hope, and a dream. Kirk, by contrast, debated college students and could leave college to actively help his favored candidate get elected. These are not even close. All Kirk delivered were hot takes on screen and college campuses, whereas MLK faced real oppression.

It is cruel in the extreme to expect empathy from those to whom you have given none. I condemn Kirk’s death fully, but people aligned with Charlie have no right to demand empathy from people Kirk afforded none to. And now the right calls the left demons for cheering (and cheering a death is awful), but let’s not pretend conservatives don’t celebrate death when it suits them, like the U.S. strike on a Venezuelan boat, justified by claims (not evidence) that the victims were drug traffickers, with Vance saying he didn’t care if the act broke international law. Perhaps the right should take the mote out of their own eyes first.

Moral consistency matters.