I kinda feel like Klein’s normalization and rehabilitation is more likely to encourage violence than it is to stop it.
“Look at what they did to our perfect innocent baby boy.”
Plenty of easily findable links if you have a genuine interest in learning. For example.
One of the biggest shared meme of Kirk is how he died in the middle of dismissing the impact of mass shootings. Like right in the middle. Not to mention his views that society needs to accept wide scale shootings as just the price of allowing unrestricted gun ownership.
Given this context (without even going into the conspiracy circles that MAGA has descended into), he was clearly at peace with this happening to others and fought against measures to control it. All deserve to be brought up now…while we also condemn his murder.
I just want to summarize, this event is a tool to highlight hypocrisy. We shouldn’t allow it to pass without bringing it up.
What I’m saying is this: the response to an assassination here has been 3 pit threads, and even here in mpsims several of the posts are, essentially “well, you live by the sword…”
I’ll say again: kirks tacit espousing of violence was despicable. I’d rather not become him.
I think it’s a bit late to stop the violence, but any perception of those on the left dancing on his grave is not going to help. As we’d expect, RW media is already leaning heavily into this being a left wing activist, based on all the same evidence as the stolen election.
That piece does not confirm any of the things listed.
It does disprove a claim I saw on Twitter, though, that his last words were saying gang violence does not count. What he actually asked was a reasonable question:
I googled what he said about Paul Pelosi, and found an article where he called for “some amazing patriot” to bail out the attacker and question him, apparently because he didn’t believe official explanations, and subscribed to some kind of conspiracy. That’s not at all the same as endorsing or excusing the attack.
Saying a person would be a hero for freeing the attacker is not excusing. Ok.
Klein is an out of date liberal with a double standard and an assumption of good faith from his opponent. A dipshit mainstream democrat. Pretending that everything is normal and that oh we’ll just win the next election and everyone is acting in good faith and things are fine is exactly the attitude that let us get to this point. I don’t know the guy, so this a genuine question as well as a rhetorical point: did he have any sanctimonious calls to reason and good faith after Paul Pelosi or those Minnesota senators were politically assassinated? Or is it just when professional hate-stirrers on the right get killed that we must suddenly take a stand against political violence?
He sounds like a typical democrat, the sort that republicans love – pretend that bipartisan efforts make sense, that we’re all good faith actors who want the best for everyone, pre-complying with fascism, criticizing their own more than the fascists. That we can rectify the current situation by using the same failing strategy democrats have used for the last 30 years.
Fuck him and fuck the media that’s obviously going to ignore all the hateful, violent rhetoric as well as political violent on the right as they all admonish the “violent radical dangerous left.” I’m not even saying he’s wrong about the dangers of political violence, but he ignored a lot of right wing violence to wait to make sure he could save his masterpiece of admonishment against anti-fascist violence.
What a stupid question on his part – the question was about mass shootings, why would gang violence mass shootings not count? Kirk was obviously saying that it doesn’t count.
He wasn’t saying that gang violence didn’t count. He was trying to drag gang violence into the argument to deflect from the large quantity of right-wing mass shooters, just as he was focusing on the (five!) trans shooters rather than the literally hundreds of non-trans ones.
Yep, add noise (“gangs”) to disrupt the argument and it’s impact.
Ah, I see what you mean. Could be!
That is a terrible analogy that gives the bullshit stolen election claims credibility, since Kirk was actually killed, whereas the 2020 election was not stolen.
Because people deliberately mislead about what they’re saying when they mean mass shootings. They often say “the US has X mass shootings every day/week/month/year!” and when they do so, they try to invoke random spree shootings of innocent random people like Sandy Hook or something. They’re trying to give the impress that the US has 10 Sandy Hooks a week. But the reality is that two gangs shooting it out also qualifies as a mass shooting and it’s obviously nowhere near as sympathetic as a monster shooting up little kids. It’s reasonable to make that distinction, I think, if your opposition is trying to make it sound like “mass shooting” means “people killing random uninvolved innocent people”
If you’re trying to make an pro-gun-regulations point, it makes sense to lump them together, of course. I don’t know what the questioner had in mind.
To me, it’s less than it’s less sympathetic (to Kirk and his followers it very well might be) so much as it’s a different problem. Both are bad things to have happen, both are signs of a rot in society that needs to be addressed through reform, but the root causes and necessary actions are very different in the two different cases.
I’d agree with Kirk that a distinction should be made, but probably for different reasons than him. But of all the things to criticize Kirk for, it seems like a relatively minor point.
Honestly, same thing for the “empathy” line, since he does go on to explain that he prefers sympathy. That’s not to say that I agree with the specific distinction he makes between the two, or that I think he’s right about empathy vs sympathy - I think he’s wrong, and both are valuable for different reasons, and the line between them isn’t drawn quite where he implies it is - but people use that line to imply he was saying “caring about other people is bad” and that’s clearly not accurate.
If you want to undermine your own point, why not go all the way and lump in all “mass casualty events”? Big car accident? Throw those numbers in too, might as well.
Are there people here that want there to be a spiral of violence? Kirk should have condemned violence and so should we.
That ship has sailed - three months ago targeted assassinations hit Democratic members of the Minnesota legislature, within the past year there have been two notable assassination attempts on Donald Trump, somewhere between 5-9 people died as a result of the attack on the US Capitol in January 2021, eleven people were murdered in Pittsburgh as a result of fearmongering around immigration, I could go on, but the point is:
The cycle of violence is already here, and people in political power got there by feeding it. They are going to continue doing that.
I must say, gang shootings are not encapsulated and isolated away from the public. They are every bit of a public health hazard as other mass shootings even if you consider that the intended targets are other criminals too. Kirk clearly brought it up to minimize and deflect an incoming argument.
It wasn’t really an analogy it was just a long winded way of saying “making shit up”.
MSNBC has fired Matthew Dowd for making the following statement about Kirk:
Yes, thank you. It’s common to equivocate between the “spree killing, often of strangers and sometimes politically motivated” type of shooting, and the far more common “gang member shoots at rival gang member(s), and also hits random bystanders” type. Obviously both are bad, but they are different problems, and it’s almost always reasonable to distinguish between them.
A hero for bailing out a criminal, and as they saw it, getting to the bottom of what happened. Is bail bad now? There are bail projects in many parts of America to raise money to free criminals who can’t afford bail. I daresay many conservatives disapprove of this, but it’s not the same as saying someone would be a hero for breaking him out of jail, or that the guy himself is a hero.
Charlie Kirk does seem to have had some repugnant views, but I have not yet seen any evidence that he endorsed political violence, and I have now seen evidence that various things he said were reported (or maybe remembered) in a misleading way.