← Back to context

Comment by thomastjeffery

5 months ago

> when that opinion is that they are glad Charlie Kirk was murdered for expressing his opinions.

You are conflating the expression of an opinion with the opinion itself.

Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for. I don't find it hypocritical to draw attention to that irony. I do, however, find it hypocritical to fire someone for expressing dissent about the opinions of a man who literally became famous for directly asking random people in public to enter into arguments with him.

> Generally, the point people are getting fired for making is that the very circumstances of Charlie Kirk's murder are precisely the circumstances he advocated for.

He never advocated murdering people over political disagreements. He disagreed with banning guns, but even the people who advocate banning guns don’t usually openly advocate banning bolt action hunting rifles.

The sentiment here is to cheer and laugh at a premeditated murder. If you want to rationalize it, whatever. It’s no use trying to have a discussion with someone who cheers and laughs at a man getting murdered for having discussions.

  • You're right that he didn't cheer on political assassination.

    He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males. A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one.

    And to be very, very clear: ambivalence at his departure from earth is not equal to ambivalence of the manner.

    I was happy Rush Limbaugh died of skin cancer. I was not happy Charlie Kirk died of murder.

    • > He merely intimated that trans people's lives are less valuable than others and that black people and women are incapable of intellectual equality with whites and males.

      False.

      > A debate about whether that is an indirect encouragement to violence is a valid one.

      Lying about what other people say and mischaracterizing those statements as an incitement to violence is itself an incitement to violence. Stop lying and stop inciting violence!

      3 replies →

  • He said that school deaths are worth it to uphold our 2nd amendment rights. So the irony is extremely thick here.

    • That's the same tradeoff we make with all civil rights.

      Lots of people criticized Donald Trump's proposal of a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on", and rightfully so in my opinion. Do you think the irony would be thick if some of those people were murdered by Muslim terrorists?