Charlie Kirk Shot

[Praxis+Theodicy]

This is not scary.

What is scary is that we live in an environment where we have assassins targeting people like Trump or Charlie Kirk for their political views.

I agree; the assassinations (and attempts) are incredibly scary too. I think there are hundreds, if not thousands, or people who are not just sad, but scared as a result of this assassination. They align themselves with Turning Point USA's ideology/religion, and see the architect of their religion murdered because he boldly preached it. That is enough to make anyone frightened. I'm sure the disciples of Jesus felt similarly when Jesus was arrested (see Peter's actions in denying Christ... certainly fear was a motivating factor!).

Scary is a subjective term. I was referring to the sources of power giving reverence for a citizen preacher... that is what was scary to me (subjective), because that preacher spread a religion that operates against my own allegiances. I don't much mind Charlie Kirk an the religion he founded at 19 (or 18, whenever it was). But when those with the power over life and death begin to revere that religion, I get uneasy. I had a lot of Christian friends in a former church slowly converting to that religion, and that made me sad, but it didn't make me scared, because the power of the Turning Point religion is in words emotions, in persuasive media. They never had the power to send soldiers to my city in order to promote their ideological religion on me or my neighbors. Ideologies that persuade my brothers and sisters to adopt a different faith make me sad. But real power showing loyalty to that religion makes me scared.

[Grace]

Wow. This is pretty scary. When in American history have the officials in the highest seats of power wielded the power of the government apparatus to this extent to revere a partisan pundit? It must be a big honor to his family to see the most powerful people on the planet gather their power together to honor him. Charlie wasn't a politician, or a soldier, or in any way representative of America in any way, and they still go out of their way to give him overwhelming honor. He was essentially just a preacher/apologist for a certain political ideology. Remarkable statement to give this much honor to an ideological advocate.

In other words, Charlie Kirk's wife and two little children do not deserve their beloved husband and father being honored by their friend, who also is the Vice President, simply because people disagreed with him. There now is a young widow and two little children who had their husband and father brutally assassinated, and we are quibbling over how this 31-year-old man had his life horrifically snuffed out, is being honored !?!?

First it was the insinuation of blaming the victim for his own murder, and now, that he deserves less honor than what he is getting.

I think Robert's advice was timely. Now is not the time to diminish this assassinated person, and those who are inclined to do so....just shut up.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

In other words...

First it was the insinuation of blaming the victim for his own murder...

I realized that I have spent several months on this forum without this happening, and now it's happening a great deal. Instead of engaging together, there are people here who cannot engage unless they purposefully reframe what others are saying. It seems like this is almost always done to make things more divisive and hostile and emotionally charged.

Twice now people have engaged with things I DIDN'T say (and quite frankly, never even conceived of). It's like I come in saying "I'm happy that it's my birthday" and someone says "In OTHER WORDS, you believe life begins at birth and not conception, why are you pro-abortion?!?!?!". You're responding to ME, but what you're actually responding to is YOUR OWN WORDS that you imagine me saying. I never said those things, and never thought them, they weren't even on my radar. I feel like I'm being used like a puppet to say things that aren't in my mind, heart, or tongue. Yes, the ideas you accuse me of saying are divisive, I agree. But why bring them up? I didn't say them, no one else here said them. What is the point of this? Why quote someone, then say "So what you're really saying is THIS, and that makes me mad!" I never said "THIS", but what I really said wasn't enough to get emotionally charged over, so it has to be substituted with something else. What is the end goal here?

If you heard people saying those things on another part of the internet, engage with the people who said those words. I want to acknowledge that you are probably rightfully upset at things being said about this event. I suspect you've seen people online or irl who have said the things you imagine me to be saying, and I don't want to discount your feelings against those things being said. I just don't appreciate being made into the mouthpiece puppet for those things you hear others saying.

I realize that I have been opted out of the "politics" forum, and that's where a lot of that discussion (and users who use this tactic habitually) are mostly contained. It seems to me a tactic that never has the result of meaningful, empathetic discussion, and almost always ends up in divisiveness and embitterment.

I guess all I can ask is "Could you please stop doing that?"

[JohnL]

I full on agree with your observations about reframing and distorting another’s words. That’s not discussion and it’s not being open to learning anything. Around here we call it “hit and run” talk instead of honest exchange. Charlie Kirk tried to stop the hit and run talk by encouraging others to form real thinking habits instead of just responding with shallow knee jerk commentary from their favorite political or religious agenda. He tried to model how to do that and as usual sound byters took a lot out of context.

If something hits me wrong I let the other person know and give them a chance to apologize or reframe their own words. That’s called communication.

I only knew about Mr Kirk in passing. I don’t do the podcast thing. After he was assassinated I started watching his videos and listening to what he was saying for myself (instead of some commentator who’s pushing an agenda). He never advocated hate. He was always kind in his responses. I don’t agree with every single one of his talking points but I came away respecting his ability to research and intelligently defend those points while being open to hearing the views of others. I believe that’s the reason so many international leaders expressed their sorrow over his death.

In other words...

First it was the insinuation of blaming the victim for his own murder...

I realized that I have spent several months on this forum without this happening, and now it's happening a great deal. Instead of engaging together, there are people here who cannot engage unless they purposefully reframe what others are saying. It seems like this is almost always done to make things more divisive and hostile and emotionally charged.

Twice now people have engaged with things I DIDN'T say (and quite frankly, never even conceived of). It's like I come in saying "I'm happy that it's my birthday" and someone says "In OTHER WORDS, you believe life begins at birth and not conception, why are you pro-abortion?!?!?!". You're responding to ME, but what you're actually responding to is YOUR OWN WORDS that you imagine me saying. I never said those things, and never thought them, they weren't even on my radar. I feel like I'm being used like a puppet to say things that aren't in my mind, heart, or tongue. Yes, the ideas you accuse me of saying are divisive, I agree. But why bring them up? I didn't say them, no one else here said them. What is the point of this? Why quote someone, then say "So what you're really saying is THIS, and that makes me mad!" I never said "THIS", but what I really said wasn't enough to get emotionally charged over, so it has to be substituted with something else. What is the end goal here?

If you heard people saying those things on another part of the internet, engage with the people who said those words. I want to acknowledge that you are probably rightfully upset at things being said about this event. I suspect you've seen people online or irl who have said the things you imagine me to be saying, and I don't want to discount your feelings against those things being said. I just don't appreciate being made into the mouthpiece puppet for those things you hear others saying.

I realize that I have been opted out of the "politics" forum, and that's where a lot of that discussion (and users who use this tactic habitually) are mostly contained. It seems to me a tactic that never has the result of meaningful, empathetic discussion, and almost always ends up in divisiveness and embitterment.

I guess all I can ask is "Could you please stop doing that?"

[mike]

The suspected shooter, a Tyler Robinson, is in custody. He was apparently turned in by his father, who recognized him from the photos released by law enforcement.

[JohnH]

This is not scary.

What is scary is that we live in an environment where we have assassins targeting people like Trump or Charlie Kirk for their political views.

I agree; the assassinations (and attempts) are incredibly scary too. I think there are hundreds, if not thousands, or people who are not just sad, but scared as a result of this assassination. They align themselves with Turning Point USA's ideology/religion, and see the architect of their religion murdered because he boldly preached it. That is enough to make anyone frightened. I'm sure the disciples of Jesus felt similarly when Jesus was arrested (see Peter's actions in denying Christ... certainly fear was a motivating factor!).

Scary is a subjective term. I was referring to the sources of power giving reverence for a citizen preacher... that is what was scary to me (subjective), because that preacher spread a religion that operates against my own allegiances. I don't much mind Charlie Kirk an the religion he founded at 19 (or 18, whenever it was). But when those with the power over life and death begin to revere that religion, I get uneasy. I had a lot of Christian friends in a former church slowly converting to that religion, and that made me sad, but it didn't make me scared, because the power of the Turning Point religion is in words emotions, in persuasive media. They never had the power to send soldiers to my city in order to promote their ideological religion on me or my neighbors. Ideologies that persuade my brothers and sisters to adopt a different faith make me sad. But real power showing loyalty to that religion makes me scared.

Charlie Kirk’s religion was Roman Catholicism.

His job was a political commentator who expressed political views.

[ohio jones]

I only knew about Mr Kirk in passing. I don’t do the podcast thing. After he was assassinated I started watching his videos and listening to what he was saying for myself (instead of some commentator who’s pushing an agenda). He never advocated hate. He was always kind in his responses.

Do you really mean to make a blanket statement about all of his content, or did you actually watch all of it in two days?

I'm not saying he was ever hateful or unkind; I don't know that he was. But "never" and "always" are forceful words to use about someone you're unfamiliar with.

[ohio jones]

Charlie Kirk’s religion was Roman Catholicism.

I've seen reports that his home church was Godspeak Calvary Chapel of Newbury Park, CA. I don't think they are Catholic. Would it be accurate to describe his religion as Christian Nationalism?

[JohnL]

I only knew about Mr Kirk in passing. I don’t do the podcast thing. After he was assassinated I started watching his videos and listening to what he was saying for myself (instead of some commentator who’s pushing an agenda). He never advocated hate. He was always kind in his responses.

Do you really mean to make a blanket statement about all of his content, or did you actually watch all of it in two days?

I'm not saying he was ever hateful or unkind; I don't know that he was. But "never" and "always" are forceful words to use about someone you're unfamiliar with.

Do you intentionally target and nitpick my comments repeatedly or are you doing this to everyone here?

Read my comment again, this time slowly. It was not a blanket statement. I shared my experience of his videos.

[barnhart]

I have sharp critiques of some Mr. Kirk's theology, philosophy and methodology however this doesn't seem to me to be the time for such things. If someone wants to resurface this thread in a year or maybe six months, that would be different.

For now I will say he seemed to be a man of action who liked to engage in conversation with people who disliked him. In those ways I would like to be more like him.