The wrong tone, Caitlin, in my opinion. Charlie Kirk was not “a piece of shit”: nobody is, I venture to say. He is (was) one of millions of “nice people” who, for reasons of background, upbringing, education and personal “instincts,” has (had) abhorrent ideas. He also had a wife and two young children; are they also “pieces of shit” for, presumably, loving him? His repugnant ideas are (were) either a reflection of the ideas of millions of others or are reflected in them; are they all “pieces of shit”?
He is dead, he was assassinated, murdered. His appalling voice is still, to be followed, hardly without doubt, by others equally appalling—or even more so. But one can be completely opposed to someone’s ideas and actions while not condoning his assassination, while withholding, at least momentarily, one’s simplistic labeling of another human being, at least on a public forum. Privately we all call those we don’t like “pieces of shit,” while realizing that we may be so called ourselves. In private such reactions are understandable; in public one, I think, could be more circumspect.
Kirk, a man who would do/say anything and hurt anyone to attain power/money, is part of an elite group of psychopaths who will never give you, me or others that possess basic human empathy even a moment of respect. Kirk is on record expressing contempt for the very concept of empathy!
These people are the enemies of human dignity and as such deserve nothing but our disdain. You don't have to revel in the murder of these people, but neither do you need to lament it.
What an ineffective way to view life and the world. You can hold the belief that someone is a piece of shit and still believe in the sanctity of life. They are not mutually exclusive. Ego is what makes them seem opposed.
The wrong tone, Caitlin, in my opinion. Charlie Kirk was not “a piece of shit”: nobody is, I venture to say. He is (was) one of millions of “nice people” who, for reasons of background, upbringing, education and personal “instincts,” has (had) abhorrent ideas. He also had a wife and two young children; are they also “pieces of shit” for, presumably, loving him? His repugnant ideas are (were) either a reflection of the ideas of millions of others or are reflected in them; are they all “pieces of shit”?
He is dead, he was assassinated, murdered. His appalling voice is still, to be followed, hardly without doubt, by others equally appalling—or even more so. But one can be completely opposed to someone’s ideas and actions while not condoning his assassination, while withholding, at least momentarily, one’s simplistic labeling of another human being, at least on a public forum. Privately we all call those we don’t like “pieces of shit,” while realizing that we may be so called ourselves. In private such reactions are understandable; in public one, I think, could be more circumspect.
Kirk, a man who would do/say anything and hurt anyone to attain power/money, is part of an elite group of psychopaths who will never give you, me or others that possess basic human empathy even a moment of respect. Kirk is on record expressing contempt for the very concept of empathy!
These people are the enemies of human dignity and as such deserve nothing but our disdain. You don't have to revel in the murder of these people, but neither do you need to lament it.
What an ineffective way to view life and the world. You can hold the belief that someone is a piece of shit and still believe in the sanctity of life. They are not mutually exclusive. Ego is what makes them seem opposed.
Thank You, Eugene!