RIP Charlie Kirk

[Lota lota]

Group? You are part of the problem as well.

The shooter has blood on his or her hands. A society that allows this divide has blood on their hands. So unless by "group" you mean everyone, which you don't , you only add to the divide.

I'm just pointing out the facts. I'm not trying to divide anyone. There's a minority group of people that have been so brainwashed in this country that they feel the need to kill someone over something they've said. Charlie talked unsolicited. If you didn't like what he had to say, don't listen to it. If I don't like a song on the radio, I change the channel. It's disgusting what this country has turned into. We need Jesus more than ever.

 

[Lota lota]

I think there are quite a few parents on this forum who have had children deal with severe mental health challenges that would take issue with your characterization. I’m happy for you that you haven’t had to deal with anything that surpasses standard stress and sadness, but acting like it isn’t real sure hasn’t worked so far.

There is nothing "standard" about it. Everybody processes stress and sadness differently. It's what you do with it that matters. I'm not shitting on anyone's kids. We don't even know the age of the person that committed this act, but I'm willing to bet they didn't have the best upbringing. I've witnessed a lot of horrific things working in law enforcement, I've been in dark places, but I wasn't indoctrinated enough to kill a man for speaking his opinion.

 

[Irrelevant]

Interesting take. I'll just say over my lifetime i've felt a continual sense of societal decay. Perhaps, however, that's more the product of a growing awareness.

That feeling of decay is, I think, both intentional on the part of those making us aware and I think part of something ingrained in the human condition. Every generation always feels like things are getting worse. It's almost an absolute, of which there are very few in society. Yet by many, many factors, life is considerably better today than previously. Why do we, all of us, generally feel it's getting worse, despite data that shows otherwise, is beyond me. But I'm just as guilty.

 

[Lota lota]

I have a shitbag cousin. Montana and the world would truly be a better place if he died. I wouldn't cheer for it, but I'd shrug my shoulders and move on with my day. It would be one less woman beater, one less meth addict, one less burgler, and one less all around horrible human. He has never contributed a single positive thing to our family, society or the world. He had great parents. His sister is very smart, kind and successful. Some eggs just hatch rotten.

Got mixed up in the wrong crowd apparently.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Why do we, all of us, generally feel it's getting worse, despite data that shows otherwise, is beyond me. But I'm just as guilty.

I think the most unhealthy parts (trbalism, political violence, identity politics, etc) of being human are suppressed in a civilized society. We are living in a country where those things are magnified and glorified - and cant recognize it.

Its akin to having all of the "wealth" a family household could ever need but having no love. Its not tangible, so its hard to justify with numbers. But its not a healthy household - just like we arent a healthy country.

 

[SAJ-99]

Like @406dn, the first event comparison I had was JFK. After more consideration, I found it uncomfortable comparing the assassination of a sitting president with a social media influencer. The comparison, I think, reflects the messed up values we all have as a society. We have placed influencers and celebrities on pedestals and increased their importance to an inappropriate level, IMO.

To @Lota lota, I wonder if you know that Kirk was consulted by this administration on potential nominees to cabinet positions? So it wasn't just him talking and a person's ability to turn the channel. His number of followers gave him power. At some point his views and beliefs get lost in the need to build a narrative. The line between normal entertainment and politics is so blurry now I don't know where we go. I'm not optimistic given the number of times I hear "they" and "us" as the discussion takes place on this tragic event.

 

[jabber]

I'm optimistic that this tragic event will have a unifying effect on our country,....

I would like to think so also, kind of appropriate that today is 9/11, as I think only another event like that will bring us back together. This event only physically affected one person, from one side of the aisle. Not the catastrophic type of event that it would take.

 

[TOGIE]

Sorry Bret, but I take issue with your comment. Somewhere in middle school, we all learned about the single bloodiest American war... the Civil War, where we frickin' fought each other, brother against brother, father against son, often killing with GD bayonets. So to portray the current event/s as somehow deteriorating from a prior, higher, morally righteous societal position, I find it to be disengenuous. You live in a country that, I'll go out on a limb here, prides itself on political violence; your kids will live in that country, and your grandkids will live in that country. This isn't a one-off. We've literally had a steady stream of political violence for our entire existence as a country, often significantly worse that what we're seeing now. Does that make it right? Of course not. It's still a terrible act. But it's not new, it's the norm, and it's not going to go away.

And the reason I take a public stance against it is that any comments, from the media or others, that portray these tragedies as some form of societal decay from a previous "better" position, by default, alludes to a "new" or "worsening" problem, that then 100% feeds back into the hatred that we've been conditioned to have based on our perception of the problem. You can clearly see this on both sides, acting as a positive feedback loop of discontent and hatred.

Your comment is addressed to Nameless, so I won't try to necessarily defend or expand on his take by putting words in his mouth, but nonetheless...

I think we can choose the scope and context in which we want to analyze this and see great relevancy to both your points and what Nameless said.

The Civil War itself was war, not random acts of violence and if that's the point in history one chooses to measure from in the context of societal decay, you have a point. But if you choose to analyze on a more localized time frame of the curve, you could very much argue we're sliding backwards and from a different comparison point, and perhaps you could refer to that as temporally localized decay.

The Civil War was borne of differing political/economic ideologies and no doubt, while technically shooting at their fellow Americans, I'm sure it's fair to say that each side hated the other for the most part. I mean when you're willing to go to WAR over it, there has to be hate brewing.

When we have events like yesterday, and especially in this age of social media, it seems like when you look around online the hate, the vitriol, all characterized by cheering, hope for violent retribution etc is increasing. Maybe social media is just making it easier to notice, i dunno. But it sure feels that we're in an era where "hate" for the other side - other sides comprised of fellow human beings, fellow Americans, men, women, and children - is increasing. This hate sure seems rooted in opposing political ideology.

Now I'm not saying we're headed for another Civil War, but is that the direction we want our compass even remotely pointing?

 

[noharleyyet]

I would like to think so also, kind of appropriate that today is 9/11, as I think only another event like that will bring us back together. This event only physically affected one person, from one side of the aisle. Not the catastrophic type of event that it would take.

I'm thinking we're riding a crest of competing partisan vitriol with 24/7 bandwidth devouring scoreboards...metaphorically plagiarizing Oak's point.

 

[MTGomer]

Nancy Pelosi's husband had his skull fractured with a hammer.

Not to derail, but this doesn’t fall in the category as the rest.
Look at the body language from the body cam footage.
They knew each other. A late night drug fueled lovers quarrel isn’t political violence.

 

[SAJ-99]

The Civil War was borne of differing political/economic ideologies and no doubt, while technically shooting at their fellow Americans, I'm sure it's fair to say that each side hated the other for the most part. I mean when you're willing to go to WAR over it, there has to be hate brewing.

Here is a direct comparison

Elijah Parish Lovejoy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Redmt]

Like @406dn said, we have seen a lot of change and attitude. I'm only 2-3 years behind him. All I can do at this stage of my life is sit here in wonderment and shake my head. As we are looking forward to my first great grandsons 1st birthday on Saturday, I won't even want to speculate what he has in front of him. It's a very sad world that we all have created for him.

 

[Nameless Range]

Sorry Bret, but I take issue with your comment. Somewhere in middle school, we all learned about the single bloodiest American war... the Civil War, where we frickin' fought each other, brother against brother, father against son, often killing with GD bayonets. So to portray the current event/s as somehow deteriorating from a prior, higher, morally righteous societal position, I find it to be disengenuous. You live in a country that, I'll go out on a limb here, prides itself on political violence; your kids will live in that country, and your grandkids will live in that country. This isn't a one-off. We've literally had a steady stream of political violence for our entire existence as a country, often significantly worse that what we're seeing now. Does that make it right? Of course not. It's still a terrible act. But it's not new, it's the norm, and it's not going to go away.

And the reason I take a public stance against it is that any comments, from the media or others, that portray these tragedies as some form of societal decay from a previous "better" position, by default, alludes to a "new" or "worsening" problem, that then 100% feeds back into the hatred that we've been conditioned to have based on our perception of the problem. You can clearly see this on both sides, acting as a positive feedback loop of discontent and hatred.

I think you misinterpret me. You are absolutely right that we have a long violent history, and this doesn't stand out as a particularly violent or damaging act in and of itself. I'm not talking about the act. What seems new, to me in my 40+ years here, is the naked and widespread celebration of many Americans in regard to the death of their fellow Americans who are political enemies. For most of my life, that would've been far too taboo and regarded as fringe compared to the level I see today.

It's true that the internet is a disproportionate sample of the worst of us, and the worst within us, and then amplifies it. But I am sensing a normalization of this sentiment. I hope I am wrong about that. Folks are playing footsie with something they don't understand, and I do think it is an extension of what BigFin touched on - that many of a generation now equate words with violence, and feel the response was simply in kind.

Laws, the constitution - I don't think they are enough to hold us together. We have to have those cultural norms - and folks I know who I would've never guessed, basically acted like their team won yesterday. I think if that becomes acceptable and isn't shamed out of existence, it will take hold on both sides of the mental disorder that is partisanship, and chaos becomes more likely.

TLDR: Americans reacting to acts are far more dangerous than the acts themselves.

 

[Lota lota]

Like @406dn, the first event comparison I had was JFK. After more consideration, I found it uncomfortable comparing the assassination of a sitting president with a social media influencer. The comparison, I think, reflects the messed up values we all have as a society. We have placed influencers and celebrities on pedestals and increased their importance to an inappropriate level, IMO.

To @Lota lota, I wonder if you know that Kirk was consulted by this administration on potential nominees to cabinet positions? So it wasn't just him talking and a person's ability to turn the channel. His number of followers gave him power. At some point his views and beliefs get lost in the need to build a narrative. The line between normal entertainment and politics is so blurry now I don't know where we go. I'm not optimistic given the number of times I hear "they" and "us" as the discussion takes place on this tragic event.

I did know that, and there was talk about him potentially running for president one day. I don't think he was building a narrative, I think he honestly loved God, Family and Country more than anything and wanted to push that but his supporters devoured it because it was real. That's why he was so popular.

People don't like that anymore apparently.

 

[MTGomer]

Got mixed up in the wrong crowd apparently.

He didn’t. He was just born f’d up.

There was never a time where he was okay. Hard to explain. His sister is innocent to a fault. Almost like she was born with his share of decency.

 

[EKYHunter]

He didn’t. He was just born f’d up.

There was never a time where he was okay. Hard to explain. His sister is innocent to a fault. Almost like she was born with his share of decency.

Sadly, I know several families who could tell the same story.

 

[Tradewind]

I have some examples but not sure they'd be conducive to reasonable dialog on this forum. I'll try and be as PG as I can in explaining my choice of words earlier and leave it at this.

I've worked on farms, factories, fast food joints, grocery stores, ect from the time I was 12 and could only ride my bike or get picked up by a co-worker to get to my place of employment. I've noticed a big change in the corporate trainings and onboarding programs over my working life. It used to be skill based assessments that got you the job. Then you'd go through some basic harassment, safety, HazMat training and you were off to adding value to the company. Treat others like you want to be treated and add value. There was a change that occurred and I suddenly find myself in required annual trainings on topics I don't agree with or understand the value it brings to the skillset they're paying me to perform. Yeah I could just go somewhere else, but good luck finding a company that hasn't given into this model. It has been interesting to see much of that suddenly went away....

My wife ran college track for the UofM. She was a very dedicated athlete and excelled from the hard work she put into it. She had the second fastest time in Ohio history coming out of high school in the 800 meter. She has strong opinions on another example (I could go into more detail on but rather not) where an entire class of athletes are being asked to compromise their core values in the name of accepting others. I think forced is a reasonable choice of words but also understand that many don't see things from my perspective. So sorry to those I've offended, Just wanted to do a final reply to @jryoung. That'll be it on these political threads for me, already learned my lesson and should of kept to myself.

you find that no matter what you post or how eloquent you say it, someone will find a way to take offense, even if they have to twist your comments or nitpick your phraseology to get there, then get into a pissing match with you. Just the way key board warriors are. It definitely limits the participation. good luck.

 

[406dn]

Not to derail, but this doesn’t fall in the category as the rest.
Look at the body language from the body cam footage.
They knew each other. A late night drug fueled lovers quarrel isn’t political violence.

I'd call that a derail. We'll have to disagree about the motivation.

 

[jryoung]

I think forced is a reasonable choice of words but also understand that many don't see things from my perspective. So sorry to those I've offended, Just wanted to do a final reply to @jryoung. That'll be it on these political threads for me, already learned my lesson and should of kept to myself.

For the record, I'm not offended, and no you shouldn't have kept to yourself, that's the point of thoughtful discussion. Sharing perspective can provoke other to share or better understand they're own perspective....that's what it did for me.

 

[PoleX]

you find that no matter what you post or how eloquent you say it, someone will find a way to take offense, even if they have to twist your comments or nitpick your phraseology to get there, then get into a pissing match with you. Just the way key board warriors are. It definitely limits the participation. good luck.

Yeah, I don't think that was anyone's intention. I think that was a valid point honestly...I can go back and re-read my thoughts and point out some fault in it myself. Something I may not have written perfectly or doesn't represent the point I was trying to make. For example, Charlie kind of thrived on his responses to hot triggering topics which can almost be considered contrary to the point I was defending him on. It is likely that you either really liked him or didn't care for him.

I think it comes with participating in a public forum on a hot topic. Just have decided I can read to try and understand peoples POV's but rather stay out of the line of fire. I truly don't enjoy echo chambers, HT has a pretty diverse crowd it seems.