Charlie Kirk Shot

[Szdfan]

But here are some facts:
24% of self-described liberals believe it is acceptable to be happy about the death of a political opponent.
3% self-described conservatives believe the same.
26% young liberals believe violence is justified against political opposition.
7% of young conservatives say the same.

I am not saying this is not so- but could you please site your source? Sadly these days we can find facts/percentages or statistics to say what we want so just wanted to know your source. Anymore I am having a difficult time believing many things on all sides of the picture because you can always find other sources that are the opposite.

The stats came from a speech JD Vance made yesterday. If you want more sources, I can attempt to search for them.
https://thehill.com/national-security/5 ... ence-poll/

Grace, thanks for sharing the poll. I went back and read through it too. The 24% number comes from the “very liberal” subgroup, not liberals overall. The poll showed 16% of liberals, 7% of moderates, and 4% of conservatives saying it’s acceptable to be happy about a public figure’s death. In the same way, the “26% of young liberals” number is accurate, but it’s from a smaller age bracket. So the overall numbers are lower than they can sound when we pull out the most extreme subgroup percentages.

I also want to note that the poll also found that 75% of all respondents said that violence was never justified.

[HondurasKeiser]

But here are some facts:
24% of self-described liberals believe it is acceptable to be happy about the death of a political opponent.
3% self-described conservatives believe the same.
26% young liberals believe violence is justified against political opposition.
7% of young conservatives say the same.

I am not saying this is not so- but could you please site your source? Sadly these days we can find facts/percentages or statistics to say what we want so just wanted to know your source. Anymore I am having a difficult time believing many things on all sides of the picture because you can always find other sources that are the opposite.

https://rankings.thefire.org/

[JohnH]

The question is which mainstream figures are influencing / teaching people on the fringes it’s OK to hold these views. That’s where change needs to happen.

In the right wing, thankfully, calling for violence is denounced and gets treated as unacceptable behavior and I imagine this will get even stricter after this tragic assassination. In my view this is a very good thing. It is very very bad when assassinations become acceptable.

[Jazman]

With all due respect, I can post many examples of retributive, apocalyptic, and violent rhetoric from conservatives in response to Kirk’s assassination. Some of it has even come from people I’ve interacted with before. But I’d rather not pollute this space with that toxicity.

I've avoided social media for that reason... too large of a portion of that space is filled with family/friends who are looking to a political movement dressed in some Christianize, for comfort/security/direction rather than the way of Jesus and therefore will be reflecting similar rhetoric to what you're seeing/hearing. I've chosen to keep those responses out of sight.

Church Sunday School, I did not share; stuck with listening; and I heard some good things; people wrestling with their emotions and feelings about the shooter and then coming around to hope/prayers that he repents and turns to Jesus; desires to forgive like Jesus, etc - But - I also heard a worrying amount of misinformation/mischaracterization (concerning Charlie Kirk's complexity), broad and slanderous assumptions about other Christians (Christians who rightly disagree with parts of CK's movement/message/approach), and simplistic understandings/assumptions about the big picture and context surrounding this event... (yeah most of our SS are group therapy sessions no matter what's going on, rather than Bible learning/teaching... not sure how I feel about that all the time.?.?)

I worry that some of that can give footholds to mislead us, emotionally draw us into things or directions that don't reflect Jesus or His Way. We need to pray for ourselves and others that the heat stirred up doesn't obscure Holy Spirit discernment...

[Southerner]

People who are making appreciative comments about Kirk's death on social media are getting fired or suspended.

Wouldn't CK have decried this? He was very concerned about free speech.

My parents made some strong statements about his death, particularly because they disagree w his views on immigration and his fusion of politics and Christianity. They shouldn't be censored for their beliefs.

[Southerner]

With all due respect, I can post many examples of retributive, apocalyptic, and violent rhetoric from conservatives in response to Kirk’s assassination. Some of it has even come from people I’ve interacted with before. But I’d rather not pollute this space with that toxicity.

Emotions are running high these days, and I can imagine that there are those who wish retributive, apocalyptic, and violent rhetoric against those who rejoiced at Kirk's death. However, ALL violent rhetoric needs to be condemned, whether conservative or liberal.

I have had numerous customers use really foul language about the left and how they are very angry about Kirk's death. We discussed Gabby Gifford's assassination attempt and how it was a wake up call for me at the time. Does anyone believe speaker Johnson's statement that "this is not who we are as a country"? I don't.

[Wesleyb]

With all due respect, I can post many examples of retributive, apocalyptic, and violent rhetoric from conservatives in response to Kirk’s assassination. Some of it has even come from people I’ve interacted with before. But I’d rather not pollute this space with that toxicity.

I've avoided social media for that reason... too large of a portion of that space is filled with family/friends who are looking to a political movement dressed in some Christianize, for comfort/security/direction rather than the way of Jesus and therefore will be reflecting similar rhetoric to what you're seeing/hearing. I've chosen to keep those responses out of sight.

Church Sunday School, I did not share; stuck with listening; and I heard some good things; people wrestling with their emotions and feelings about the shooter and then coming around to hope/prayers that he repents and turns to Jesus; desires to forgive like Jesus, etc - But - I also heard a worrying amount of misinformation/mischaracterization (concerning Charlie Kirk's complexity), broad and slanderous assumptions about other Christians (Christians who rightly disagree with parts of CK's movement/message/approach), and simplistic understandings/assumptions about the big picture and context surrounding this event... (yeah most of our SS are group therapy sessions no matter what's going on, rather than Bible learning/teaching... not sure how I feel about that all the time.?.?)

I worry that some of that can give footholds to mislead us, emotionally draw us into things or directions that don't reflect Jesus or His Way. We need to pray for ourselves and others that the heat stirred up doesn't obscure Holy Spirit discernment...

One thing to keep in mind is that it's quite likely outrage on both sides is not entirely a grassroots reaction. Sure, your friends and family are outraged, but they are largely reflecting what they have seen and heard. Where did it all start, who is amplifying it and who is deciding what they see or don't see on social media? There are multiple actors out there that can benefit from the division. I think I have seen more toxic comments from the right than the left, but I realize that's what the algorithms are pushing my way and may not accurately reflect the big picture.

[Signtist]

People who are making appreciative comments about Kirk's death on social media are getting fired or suspended.

Wouldn't CK have decried this? He was very concerned about free speech.

My parents made some strong statements about his death, particularly because they disagree w his views on immigration and his fusion of politics and Christianity. They shouldn't be censored for their beliefs.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. The above sounds very holy, but follow to it's logical end.

[Jazman]

What if we posted. or looked for or thought about the better angels responses that are out there? Like these:

This real pro-life/family, Christian conservative writer Michael Reneau: "If Americans do love each other less, we need something to teach and help us to love one another again, despite the furor. So now is precisely the time to keep repeating to ourselves the moral platitudes we should already know yet need to hear again and again. That murder is always evil. That Americans do have bonds that can transcend our real and consequential differences in everything from sexual mores to tax policy. And that feeding each other’s malice will only end in tragedy. As my friend Michael Wear has put it: “It is not just the act of violence but the spirit of violence that must be opposed. It is not just the action to harm another which must be opposed but the desire that harm would fall to another. If we do not have the courage to pursue a politics of love, our political heart will become consumed by hate.”
(I know The Dispatch is paywalled, but if you can get to 1 or a few of the columnists responses there, I think it would be worth the effort... this quote is from a piece chock full of Biblical/Christian profundity... "Reciting What's True to Defuse a Politics of Hate")

Or go read what Bernie Sanders said here: Video/transcript of press release.
Or some of the things Gov Cox of Utah said. There's actually a lot of people saying good things... maybe we could focus on those?
This is to myself as well as anyone.

[Southerner]

Does anyone on here know what level of security CK had regularly? Did he have a security detail or was there zero security his entire life? I noticed what appears to be guards in some of his "Prove Me Wrong" debate videos...were they hired by the university???