I have to wonder how long this story will last? It feels like the Trump assassination attempt was eons ago. What about the politicians in Minnesota? It all feels very dust in the digital wind.
There's about 6 or 7 dead AfD Germans, who are totally screwing up the entire "vote by mail" thing (apparently in Germany, if you vote for someone who's dead, your vote is invalid and cancelled).
And did you just forget about the Anthrax?
Maybe I'd be willing to listen, if this was the first time anyone had done politically motivated violence. Perhaps if the President of Tanzania hadn't tested dogsh!t for covid19 (and shown the tests say "it's covid19"), he'd still be alive. The assassination of the Haiti president was American-made violence too.
I do want to say, I appreciate you giving it the ol' college try. Trying to be funny about someone's death, right after, is... difficult.
"Let's ask Charlie... Charlie? Charlie?!"
"Um, Charlie's dead."
"He can't be dead, he was 31. You -don't die- when you're thirty one."
"It was a bullet."
"Bullets kill teenagers, everyone knows that."
Sigh. Poorly written comedy about someone's death (where the focus is not "haha, he died", of course). Presented for mockery and improvement.
This nails the heart of it. Civilization is supposed to mean we argue with ballots and bad memes, not bullets. Kirk’s death isn’t just a family tragedy, it’s a civic regression. Like someone just yanked us back to the “might makes right” era, when the local warlord settled disputes with a hot poker and a grudge.
The shooter didn’t just silence a man. They hijacked the process by which we get to decide whose terrible ideas win airtime. That’s the real horror show. Once violence becomes the shortcut, the rest of us are back to guarding our sad little peasant pots and shoes from brigands.
Blessed be the ones who can hate a man’s rhetoric and still know democracy collapses when we let violence edit the script.
1) I’m only peripherally aware of Kirk’s work but that’s not going to stop me from critiquing it, this is social media after all! I find a lot of the focus has been on Kirk’s political positions, but that feels misguided. Ezra Klein just wrote a pretty decent editorial lauding components of Kirk’s work. I disagree. To my peripherally aware knowledge, Kirk’s legacy is the tactics of his approach not the policies or arguments. He was an agitator and he did it under false pretenses. He “staged debates” but the purpose was to own the opposition and distort their argument, Lincoln or Douglas he was not. And I can’t escape the feeling that these tactics will likely have far more to do with the motive of his killing than the actual political substance of his arguments.
2) I’m not sure that characterizing political progress as movement away from the strong or violent is fully accurate. Certainly, it is true in the early stages of a society or civilization, but I increasingly think that the larger that separation gets the more removed from “reality” and “getting things done” its leaders become. The violent and strong have important perspective, it’s just not good for that to be the only perspective/voice. And even if you don’t think that is true, they are the group least likely to accept not having a place at the table.
3) Regardless of all of this, it’s just a sad, senseless crime.
“ To my peripherally aware knowledge, Kirk’s legacy is the tactics of his approach not the policies or arguments. He was an agitator and he did it under false pretenses. He “staged debates” but the purpose was to own the opposition and distort their argument, Lincoln or Douglas he was not. And I can’t escape the feeling that these tactics will likely have far more to do with the motive of his killing than the actual political substance of his arguments.”
WOW. Anyone who has ever made a political argument in public better look out, I guess.
I can’t tell if this is satire, as it’s an exact example of the sorts of tactics I’m talking about, but one of three things clearly happened: I didn’t make my point as cleanly as I thought, you are intentionally misrepresenting my point through reductionism to make it morally indefensible or you just didn’t understand my point.
In the spirit of taking my own medicine, I’ll assume the first in good faith.
Your characterization of my argument or the outcome of my argument is not a position I would defend myself (nor do I imagine any sane person would). Of course I believe that anyone should feel entitled to share their political message in public using any legal and non-violent tactics they decide. However, engaging in certain forms of discourse or propaganda indisputably raises the emotional stakes. Which does not in any way indicate that an individual who engages in that behavior deserved it or “had it coming.” But mature societies, and mature thinkers, are able to transition between assumptions at the individual level and assumptions at the collective level. Right now, our political discourse is littered with bad actors whose entire argument is premised on misrepresenting the beliefs of their opponents. My perception is that Charlie Kirk was one of those people. He was far from the only one (this is a true both sides issue) and it doesn’t justify the actions of the shooter in any context, but if we are serious about reducing the likelihood of political violence, which I am, we have to get serious about the behaviors which create an environment in which it is more likely.
I have to wonder how long this story will last? It feels like the Trump assassination attempt was eons ago. What about the politicians in Minnesota? It all feels very dust in the digital wind.
There's about 6 or 7 dead AfD Germans, who are totally screwing up the entire "vote by mail" thing (apparently in Germany, if you vote for someone who's dead, your vote is invalid and cancelled).
And did you just forget about the Anthrax?
Maybe I'd be willing to listen, if this was the first time anyone had done politically motivated violence. Perhaps if the President of Tanzania hadn't tested dogsh!t for covid19 (and shown the tests say "it's covid19"), he'd still be alive. The assassination of the Haiti president was American-made violence too.
I do want to say, I appreciate you giving it the ol' college try. Trying to be funny about someone's death, right after, is... difficult.
"Let's ask Charlie... Charlie? Charlie?!"
"Um, Charlie's dead."
"He can't be dead, he was 31. You -don't die- when you're thirty one."
"It was a bullet."
"Bullets kill teenagers, everyone knows that."
Sigh. Poorly written comedy about someone's death (where the focus is not "haha, he died", of course). Presented for mockery and improvement.
This nails the heart of it. Civilization is supposed to mean we argue with ballots and bad memes, not bullets. Kirk’s death isn’t just a family tragedy, it’s a civic regression. Like someone just yanked us back to the “might makes right” era, when the local warlord settled disputes with a hot poker and a grudge.
The shooter didn’t just silence a man. They hijacked the process by which we get to decide whose terrible ideas win airtime. That’s the real horror show. Once violence becomes the shortcut, the rest of us are back to guarding our sad little peasant pots and shoes from brigands.
Blessed be the ones who can hate a man’s rhetoric and still know democracy collapses when we let violence edit the script.
I appreciate your rewriting of Leviathan for modern audiences.
Excellent piece, Jeff. A few thoughts:
1) I’m only peripherally aware of Kirk’s work but that’s not going to stop me from critiquing it, this is social media after all! I find a lot of the focus has been on Kirk’s political positions, but that feels misguided. Ezra Klein just wrote a pretty decent editorial lauding components of Kirk’s work. I disagree. To my peripherally aware knowledge, Kirk’s legacy is the tactics of his approach not the policies or arguments. He was an agitator and he did it under false pretenses. He “staged debates” but the purpose was to own the opposition and distort their argument, Lincoln or Douglas he was not. And I can’t escape the feeling that these tactics will likely have far more to do with the motive of his killing than the actual political substance of his arguments.
2) I’m not sure that characterizing political progress as movement away from the strong or violent is fully accurate. Certainly, it is true in the early stages of a society or civilization, but I increasingly think that the larger that separation gets the more removed from “reality” and “getting things done” its leaders become. The violent and strong have important perspective, it’s just not good for that to be the only perspective/voice. And even if you don’t think that is true, they are the group least likely to accept not having a place at the table.
3) Regardless of all of this, it’s just a sad, senseless crime.
“ To my peripherally aware knowledge, Kirk’s legacy is the tactics of his approach not the policies or arguments. He was an agitator and he did it under false pretenses. He “staged debates” but the purpose was to own the opposition and distort their argument, Lincoln or Douglas he was not. And I can’t escape the feeling that these tactics will likely have far more to do with the motive of his killing than the actual political substance of his arguments.”
WOW. Anyone who has ever made a political argument in public better look out, I guess.
I can’t tell if this is satire, as it’s an exact example of the sorts of tactics I’m talking about, but one of three things clearly happened: I didn’t make my point as cleanly as I thought, you are intentionally misrepresenting my point through reductionism to make it morally indefensible or you just didn’t understand my point.
In the spirit of taking my own medicine, I’ll assume the first in good faith.
Your characterization of my argument or the outcome of my argument is not a position I would defend myself (nor do I imagine any sane person would). Of course I believe that anyone should feel entitled to share their political message in public using any legal and non-violent tactics they decide. However, engaging in certain forms of discourse or propaganda indisputably raises the emotional stakes. Which does not in any way indicate that an individual who engages in that behavior deserved it or “had it coming.” But mature societies, and mature thinkers, are able to transition between assumptions at the individual level and assumptions at the collective level. Right now, our political discourse is littered with bad actors whose entire argument is premised on misrepresenting the beliefs of their opponents. My perception is that Charlie Kirk was one of those people. He was far from the only one (this is a true both sides issue) and it doesn’t justify the actions of the shooter in any context, but if we are serious about reducing the likelihood of political violence, which I am, we have to get serious about the behaviors which create an environment in which it is more likely.
Oh my god, they killed Charlie, you bastards!
^lacking in empathy and naive.
Nice blog post Jeff.
Lots of people get killed (shot or otherwise) in our country everyday.
Many in the right place at the wrong time while not being well known.
I hear them cry out: "hold my beer."