Now that you've made an effort to read what others have said about him, you might be surprised to actually hear him speak where you can enjoy context which is usually missing in others claims.Originally Posted by Rogar
Over the weekend the author Stephen King neglected due diligence prior to repeating claims he read online and had to issue an apology. https://www.usatoday.com/story/enter...k/86123212007/
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I was only vaguely aware of his existence until the murder. I don't keep up with the podcast/tiktok/social media/outrage farmer/snake-oil/crypto-bro/snake-oil hawkers/religious evangelist/trad-wife/... herds. I'm not saying Mr. Kirk was any/all of those categories, just that I lumped him into that overarching group of "things I don't bother with", and moved on with my life the first few times I heard of him.
I have been in public service, as an elected or appointed official, for decades now. I have had people make credible threats of violence against me and my colleagues. (I may have recounted some of these here in the past.). I have had to have law enforcement and security present at some meetings/hearings. In 2024 I had to hire my own private armed security during a particularly troublesome period here. I have carried a firearm continually during my service because of this, though that certainly wouldn't protect me from a situation like Mr. Kirk encountered.
Threats of violence, and actual violence, against elected and unelected officials, and their supporters and staff, is incredibly damaging to society, on many fronts. People need to calm the BLEEEP down and act in a civil fashion.
I am concerned about the reaction to, and use of, Kirk's assassination by people on all fronts. It is disgusting.
I will likely be stepping down from public service, and participation in most civic activities, as soon as my current term expires.
I can imagine all sort of untrue rumors are circulating about Kirk. I would just guess that among all the people who had never heard of him I actually tried to find a semi reputable source of his platform rather then resort to social medias, which is part of the problem in the first place and maybe the mistake King made. I think I can just let most of it go and move on. I did look up politifact. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/charlie-kirk/
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
In the vein of trying to find a good Charlie Kirk interview, I looked up a session Bill Maher did with him in recent years. It went well until they started getting into the weeds about the historical reality of the bible and then I had to bail because it was just too much theology.
Possibly related, I had two aggressive citizens accost me tonight, one from the left, one from the right.
One thought my fire department was "cooperating with ICE". One thought we were "not cooperating with ICE". Both were angry at this.
I pointed out that we weren't "cooperating" with anyone about our patient records. Something about HIPAA, confidentiality, and our desire that *anyone* in the community should be able to feel safe and secure in calling us for medical or other emergency services. Plus also, that's the federal, state, and county law.
But both folks wanted to turn it into some sort of political thing.
okay---back to the 60's: there was a fairly well-known RWNJ who had been a military officer until he was retired.(see photo) In civilian life, he then operated his own extremist organization. But one day, as he drove his 58 Chevy to the laundromat, a follower with a grievance shot the RWNJ dead with a rifle, while perched on the rooftop of the building. A clear-cut case of 1st degree murder, but the assassin only served nine years in prison. Yup.
Last edited by littlebittybobby; 9-16-25 at 5:30pm.
Me either. I note how certain spaces like Reddit or NextDoor seem to have purposely inflammatory questions or statements thrown in during fairly peaceful conversations. One doesn't even know anymore if they are AI generated or a real person. In any case, I am scaling back from all things social media/internet. Waste of time..."things I don't bother with",
Ezra Klein of the NYT recorded a discussion with Ben Shapiro several days before CK was killed. He didn't change anything about it, wanting it to be a record of how things were before CK was killed. It is very good. Highly recommended. It was a very civil discussion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/o...n-shapiro.html
It didn't take long for the finger pointing to start, and retribution seems to be more popular than toning things down, at least in some high up circles. the Cato institute, who I think is fairly well respected and more Libertarian than anything, did a comprehensive recent study on politically motivated violence.
Terrorism since 2020 paints a slightly different picture. Since January 1, 2020, terrorists have murdered 81 people in attacks on US soil that account for about 0.07 percent of all homicides during that time (estimated for 2025 so far). Right-wing terrorists account for over half of those murders, Islamists for 21 percent, left-wingers for 22 percent, and 1 percent had unknown or other motivations. There are not many politically motivated terrorist killings in the United States.
https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states
"what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver
I see a number of people have lost their jobs over publicly celebrating Charlie Kirk’s murder. It raises the question (for me, anyway) of whether that constitutes “cancel culture”. I’m generally a free speech absolutist, but I could see how an employer might not want to be associated with gloating over an assassination.
IÂ’m generally inclined to believe that if a personÂ’s views, however repugnant, have no direct connection to their function then attacking their livelihood doesnÂ’t seem justified. On the other hand, I could see firing an academic for endorsing a killing on campus as reasonable. Of course, thereÂ’s probably a genuine interest an employer might have a legitimate interest in not wanting their organization identified with positive views of murder. There may be a qualitative difference in taking joy in a killing and views on transgender athletes or reparations for slavery.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote