Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 2:56 pm
The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.
Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.
I also like what you say about the word 'attack.' When someone doesn't like your viewpoint, it's easier to characterize your view as an 'attack' than to counter it with a logical argument or to simply give the dissenting view the respect it deserves.
I've seen people with a lot of wisdom express an opinion only to be told by others that they said it in an unkind way, or in other words was an 'attack.' And I've seen such a person have to apologize for their tone and so forth, and have their valid opinion completely lost in the whole discussion.
I see that a lot. There's a whole set of techniques for doing that. Recently, I have been looking at the "who do you think doesn't know" approach.
Who do you think doesn't know X? If you say 2+2=4, it looks like this: Who do you think doesn't know 2+2=4?
Sometimes I have been tempted to start a thread about techniques for creating a fight, making noise, and derailing a conversation to take it off topic. It's a good way to get lots of attention. And sometimes likes. It's a bad way to discuss anything.
Back to this thread: I think it should be possible to openly disagree with Charlie Kirk or Turning Point or Erica Kirk without attacking them. I don't think people who do that should be attacked. I don't think we should spend energy telling people what to think of other forum participants.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 9:17 am
I would like to choose who speaks at my funeral. Or have someone close to me choose speakers close to my heart.
Charlie was not planning on dying. Someone very close chose who spoke at his funeral. Charlie and his wife do not have the issue of blending politics and faith, so she chose people from both. The funeral seemed to speak to many who attended and watched. It may not be your bag, but it was right for her and those she sought to comfort.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 9:17 am
I would like to choose who speaks at my funeral. Or have someone close to me choose speakers close to my heart.
Charlie was not planning on dying. Someone very close chose who spoke at his funeral. Charlie and his wife do not have the issue of blending politics and faith, so she chose people from both. The funeral seemed to speak to many who attended and watched. It may not be your bag, but it was right for her and those she sought to comfort.
HIs wife certainly doesn't need to seek approval first from people who (a) dislike Trump, (b) disliked her late husband's political views, and then (c) disliked his friends who spoke at his funeral.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Jan 08, 2026 9:17 am
I would like to choose who speaks at my funeral. Or have someone close to me choose speakers close to my heart.
Charlie was not planning on dying. Someone very close chose who spoke at his funeral. Charlie and his wife do not have the issue of blending politics and faith, so she chose people from both. The funeral seemed to speak to many who attended and watched. It may not be your bag, but it was right for her and those she sought to comfort.
Sure. But that's about his funeral.
On an Anabaptist forum, we are in a place governed by a different set of beliefs, and various people here will have different takes on the mix of politics and religion that Kirk represented. It's almost impossible to separate them, as the funeral showed, and as Kirk himself demonstrated when he urged ministers and other Christian leaders to be more politically active.
I think it would be inappropriate for Anabaptists to insist on speaking at Kirk's funeral. I think it would be inappropriate to treat MN under the same rules as that funeral. MN is a place where we can express our beliefs and talk about how our faith informs these same issues. MN is not Charlie Kirk's funeral.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
barnhart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 09, 2026 9:57 am
That was a funeral?
I'm not sure what the best word is. Do you have a suggestion?
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
