An argument for why we should worry more about the murder of Charlie Kirk is that it is destabilizing to society and democracy, and will likely lead to more violence. So, it’s more consequential for everyone.
An argument for why we should worry more about the murders of kids in schools is that these change the “calculus” of who we are as a society, namely into one where innocent kids go to school to learn and get killed for no reason, and for the most part Americans have become “fine with that”. It turns us into a dystopian society in my view.
Overall, I think that if political assassinations don’t increase exponentially, I’m more worried about what the murders of kids in schools have done to our society.
The fact that as a society we even consider the murder of a neo-fascist to be more important than the murder of innocent children shows how dysfunctional our society is. There was a school shooting on the day Kirk died and nobody cared.
As the parent of a kindergartner I feel it all puts him in roughly the same amount of danger. I guess if Kirk’s murder really is a tipping point for our country, it adds the additional concern of what will happen to him after his parents are arrested/killed.
Yeah, it might be worth worrying about more. Not because Charlie Kirk was a good person (spoiler alert: he wasn’t), but because there’s a serious potential for retaliatory violence from the Right against people from the Left. This could be how Civil War 2.0 kicks off…. although Civil War is probably overstating it. An ongoing low intensity conflict, like The Troubles in Northern Ireland is what I think is more likely.
Damn right we do. Unless you can show us that murdered school children openly incite what happens to them the way Kirk openly incited what happened to him, then the former is much worse than the latter. To dare to compare the two is a total rewrite of reality.
The murder of the kids is worse, but the murder of Kirk is more worrisome, because it may destabilize our democracy in a way that the murder of the kids won’t do.
It’s more worrying in that we don’t want to be a country that legitimizes political violence against people we disagree with, regardless of their position. Otherwise then it’s simply a matter of might makes right.
I don’t know. In the last few years, we have had no less than three school shootings close enough to affect my husband’s job (clinical psychologist.) One of the kids killed at MSU was my cousin’s cousin. And with regard to mass shootings targeting children, I was one banal decision away from bringing my husband and son to the site of a mass shooting at a local splash pad. My boss and her daughter discussed meeting there. I just happened to suggest we all meet at a different, adjacent park that day because my son at the time hated being splashed. The shooting took place shortly before we left that park.
I understand the statistical odds are low, but perhaps so is the generalized political violence. I’m landing at “both are really really bad."
The “retaliatory” violence? That totally ignores all the happened before that the right wanted us to disregard, as if all was hunky dory before Kirk was assassinated but that this might become some sort of turning point. The right was going to do what they have done in the past, are doing now and will continue to do in the future, and pretending that this would have been alleviated if only Kirk had not been shot is nothing but desperate denialism.
This post is hidden due to abuse of the quote function. Please do not respond to it.
Summary
Saying someone brought it on himself is amazingly low.
Maybe public speakers should have the language police approve their words before they will be allowed to say it.
The question wasn’t, “who deserved it more?" The question as I read it is which has the worst fallout?
School shootings endanger children.
Political violence endangers children.
The former has low statistical odds of killing any given child. Is political violence killing of children going to eventually dwarf the number of children killed in mass shootings? I don’t know. But I won’t be surprised to see a lot of overlap.
Saying that the shooting of school children can be covered by “thoughts and prayers” then conveniently disregarded by the right, then bemoaning the shooting of someone that openly espoused that belief, is political violence.
Whatever you quoted, it is not contained in the original post by @Czarcasm. This is an abuse of our rule to not alter the words of an original poster within the quote function. If it was an inadvertent error, then you should have contacted a moderator to fix it. No warning this time, but don’t do this again.
School shootings are completely unacceptable. Children should be 100% safe in school. I don’t understand how people are okay with school shootings being routine in our society. We know who has the power to stop them, and we know why they refuse to do it, and that needs to change. I guess other things are more important to people when they vote.
What Trump hypocritically said yesterday about the Kirk shooting: ““It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree,” Trump said. “For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now.”
What Trump said about yet another in a long line of school shootings, this time in Denver: “…………”.