Charlie Kirk Shot
-
One thing that I wish could be emphasized is that assassinations - whether done by pro-right or pro-left - shooting a Minnesota politician, a couple of young people working for the Israeli embassy or Charlie Kirk - typically don't do much or anything to further the cause - most often, it does the opposite. In the case of Charlie Kirk, while he said some things which I might characterize as ill-considered, I appreciate that he seemed to be willing to engage in dialogue with people who disagreed with him. That's something i think we need more of - and silencing someone who was willing to do that - is particularly sad. If he disagreed with Kirk, prepare a compelling argument and go to the rally - and argue the points - destroy the message, not the messenger.
-
Yeah true. I've watched clips of Charlie for a few years now, there's often someone saying "why do you need to film everything?" and he often replies its for his safety, because he often hears threats during his events. And yes, agree with him or not, he was engaging in the purest form of free speech and having dialogue with those he disagreed with.
-
I read a book about a woman who was the chief information officer for the Westboro Baptist Church. She was related to the founder and enjoyed the slogans - had definitely bathed in the Kool-Aid of her group. She was in charge of their social media strategies, "winning" the on-line battles - until she encountered a few folks who ignored the slogans and challenged her - engaged her in honest discussion. It took a bit of patience and effort, but over time, she recognized them less as "the enemy" and more as thoughtful people. She left the Church - and family - and to her credit, the book explained a bit of how Westboro became what it is - and how she sees the world now through different eyes.
I could have seen someone wanting to execute Christopher Hitchens because he clearly was leading people away from salvation. Justifying violence comes easy when you're sure of the righteousness of your cause - saving souls, saving lives, fighting hatred, etc.
-
Obviously too categorical a claim, but directionally true in many cases. I used to write pretty extensively here about the perils and evils of self righteousness, because it's the most obvious human failing one can see just by looking around. A more advanced branch of those thoughts would recognize how adaptive mindless slaughter can be for the cognitive genes that control us, but we needed a mode of mind that allowed for that mindless slaughter while turning around with that very same mind and being generous, cooperative humans with our tribe. Thus the dissonance. It's baked into humans.
-
One is reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s line from Gulag Archipelago that Jordan Peterson loves to quote - the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but right through every human heart.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
@jon-nyc said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
He is the founder and CEO of The Federalist.
Yeah… But in all fairness? Charlie was very likely a personal friend to him. One thing that I’ve learned a lot about over the last couple of days is just how active Kirk was in building the weird hodgepodge alliance of conservatives supporting Trump. He was evidently the guy that brought Shapiro and The Daily Wire to the fold, had much influence with The Federalist. The description I keep hearing is coalition builder. So this is quite a bit more personal for a lot of these guys…
-
Interesting that the story about the casings having trans focused messaging was erroneous - and much like some of the erroneous 9/11 stories from back in the day, it helps to wait a bit to react to verified information. I'm as goofy as the next person in wanting to pick up and run with something that fits my world view, so I understand why it happens and how a mob can feed on such red meat. It's human nature. Hopefully, when the dolphins evolve and take over the world, they'll do better.
@kluurs said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Interesting that the story about the casings having trans focused messaging was erroneous -
One of the casings was etched “Notices Bulge, OwO, what’s this?” That’s actually a furry/trans joke. So the reports were kinda accurate.
-
@kluurs said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Interesting that the story about the casings having trans focused messaging was erroneous -
One of the casings was etched “Notices Bulge, OwO, what’s this?” That’s actually a furry/trans joke. So the reports were kinda accurate.
@LuFins-Dad said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@kluurs said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Interesting that the story about the casings having trans focused messaging was erroneous -
One of the casings was etched “Notices Bulge, OwO, what’s this?” That’s actually a furry/trans joke. So the reports were kinda accurate.
When I had asked AI the meaning it referenced it as a furry meme. If there's more to it, I'm unaware.
Shooter ruined his life, his family's, Kirk's and horribly...Kirk's wife and two children - and for the hatred he alleged to be fighting.
-
One is reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s line from Gulag Archipelago that Jordan Peterson loves to quote - the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but right through every human heart.
@jon-nyc said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
One is reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s line from Gulag Archipelago that Jordan Peterson loves to quote - the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but right through every human heart.
So, he's saying it's subjective or arbitrary?
-
@jon-nyc said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
One is reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s line from Gulag Archipelago that Jordan Peterson loves to quote - the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but right through every human heart.
So, he's saying it's subjective or arbitrary?
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@jon-nyc said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
One is reminded of Solzhenitsyn’s line from Gulag Archipelago that Jordan Peterson loves to quote - the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, but right through every human heart.
So, he's saying it's subjective or arbitrary?
Not even close.
-
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Eh ... "every human heart" seems pretty subjective, pretty arbitrary.
Every? Nothing subjective there. 100%. Each and every single one. Nothing arbitrary, that is an absolute.
The Brad
-
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Eh ... "every human heart" seems pretty subjective, pretty arbitrary.
Every? Nothing subjective there. 100%. Each and every single one. Nothing arbitrary, that is an absolute.
@LuFins-Dad said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Eh ... "every human heart" seems pretty subjective, pretty arbitrary.
Every? Nothing subjective there. 100%. Each and every single one. Nothing arbitrary, that is an absolute.
How is it not subjective or arbitrary when different human hearts decide differently on whether something is good or evil? Heck, even the same human heart can decide differently on whether the same thing is good or evil at different times.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Eh ... "every human heart" seems pretty subjective, pretty arbitrary.
Every? Nothing subjective there. 100%. Each and every single one. Nothing arbitrary, that is an absolute.
How is it not subjective or arbitrary when different human hearts decide differently on whether something is good or evil? Heck, even the same human heart can decide differently on whether the same thing is good or evil at different times.
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@LuFins-Dad said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Eh ... "every human heart" seems pretty subjective, pretty arbitrary.
Every? Nothing subjective there. 100%. Each and every single one. Nothing arbitrary, that is an absolute.
How is it not subjective or arbitrary when different human hearts decide differently on whether something is good or evil? Heck, even the same human heart can decide differently on whether the same thing is good or evil at different times.
But it’s not subjective that every human heart draws that line. And it’s also not subjective that every human has crossed that line in their own hearts in both directions.
The Brad
-
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@LuFins-Dad said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
@Axtremus said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
Eh ... "every human heart" seems pretty subjective, pretty arbitrary.
Every? Nothing subjective there. 100%. Each and every single one. Nothing arbitrary, that is an absolute.
How is it not subjective or arbitrary when different human hearts decide differently on whether something is good or evil? Heck, even the same human heart can decide differently on whether the same thing is good or evil at different times.
But it’s not subjective that every human heart draws that line. And it’s also not subjective that every human has crossed that line in their own hearts in both directions.
@LuFins-Dad said in Charlie Kirk Shot:
But it’s not subjective that every human heart draws that line.
Subjective or not, the statement above is likely false -- e.g., one can easily argues that a human in deep coma or with insufficient neurological development draw no line.
And it’s also not subjective that every human has crossed that line in their own hearts in both directions.
Yet many, if not every, draws that line subjectively/arbitrarily.
