Assassins, Blame Games, and American Politics
Earlier today, American right-wing activist and media personality Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a gunman while speaking at a Utah university. I'm not a huge fan of the guy. He was a state supremacist with a christian nationalist vision for society. Nonetheless, assassinating him is reprehensible, and suggests a dark turn for the escalating political divisions in America.
Some people seem to think the jugular hit was deliberate. Allegedly, the shooter was about 200 yards (180 meters) from Kirk. I suspect the shot was aimed at his head or torso, and the shooter almost missed entirely rather than scoring a deliberate neck shot. Details are all up in the air and subject to change, so there really isn't room yet for detailed armchair analysis. That' isn't even my main concern, though.
This tragedy is hot on the heels of the Annunciation Catholic Church shooting where a psychopath attacked a religious school. Setting aside various conspiracy theories about the events, there were two assassination attempts against Donald Trump during his most recent presidential campaign, and before that, two ricin-tainted letters. There was also a notable congressional baseball shooting where a man targeted a team of Republican congresscritters practicing for an annual game between members of the two parties.
It's not just leftist lunatics committing politically-motivated terrorist acts. The nutjob who apparently broke into the Pelosi home a couple years ago was allegedly mentally unstable and suckered in by Q-anon nonsense, for example. However, it appears, at least on a cursory examination of events over the past decade, that the American left is far more willing to use violence against those who disagree with their views.
It's possible my data set is incomplete, of course, and both parties eagerly use official violence and threats of violence through government. However, more importantly, this reveals the violence inherent in the system. I know, I know, time to cite the Monty Python sketch...
But the fact remains that politics is violence wearing a mask of representation while driving wedges between people in civil society. The tug-of-war over political power is spreading more and more violence everywhere it reaches, and hatred is rampant on all sides. Some people snap. I see victim-blaming, hoplophobic fearmongering, demands for more surveillance and so forth, all of which creates even more division. I see Kirk's political enemies celebrating his death and condemning anyone else who dares condemn the act. The people who denounce perceived hate speech in others are the first to spew the most openly vile invective.
I contend free speech requires accepting the right of people with whom I deeply disagree to speak, too. The best weapon against bad ideas is public discourse, not bullets. I also contend that the violence of some does not justify campaigns to regulate and disarm others. The best defense against immediate credible threats of bodily harm is a weapon, and advances in technology are not the exclusive domain of government actors.
Anyway, this is another rambling attempt to sort my first impressions and what I see as deeper concerns beneath the superficial reports and web2 social media bickering. Maybe once there is more concrete information, and I've had a good night's sleep, I'll decide to take another look at this whole thing.
I agree that politics and rhetoric are driving a wedge in society and we all need to respect one another’s views. I think it’s one of our biggest societal problems today, and my personal opinion is that our president leads the pack in creating that divide.
On the topic of right-wing vs. left-wing perpetrators of gun violence, it’s quite easy today to get your answer with Google AI.
Here’s the prompt I used:
Have there been more acts of gun violence perpetrated by left-wing or right-wing Americans?
And here’s a screenshot of the top of the resulting info:
I really distrust AI aggregation and synopses. It doesn't think, it regurgitates words based on its training data. So many violent people are just called "right-wing" without a definition of terms. It's become a meaningless label. Hell, the Democrats are basically authoritarian center right according to a lot of analysts.
Don't forget that a lot of incidents are incited by agents provocateur, too, from finding the dumbest kid in the mosque to encourage a "bomb threat" they can bust all the way to orchestrating the government kidnapping plot. And there are all kinds of rumors surrounding everything from January 7th to the Oklahoma City bombings where... Irregularities... suggest we aren't getting the whole story.
I don't like it, but I consider attacks against controversial mouthpieces to be a HUGE step up from attacks against schools. If only all psychos could be as discerning.
How is assassinating people over political disagreements progress? How is this in any way connected to school shootings?
I didn't say it was progress, or that it was connected to schools shootings, I said that I personally consider them to be a step up. We could say more justified, if you prefer. It is however taking all the media attention away from a school shooting that also happened, and I think that the school shooting victims are far more deserving of our attention.
I don't condone political violence, but I do think that people who make a living from stoking controversy should understand that people are likely to react violently. Charlie Kirk knew that every day, he put himself and his family in danger, and he decided that it was an acceptable trade off for fame and influence. All public figures must make this choice.
Nothing you said makes no sense. There is a massive gulf between saying controversial or even deliberately offensive things, and shooting people for saying those things. This is victim-blaming, not cause-and-effect. He is no less a victim of senseless violence than the Catholic kids shot in Minnesota.
There is a massive gulf between getting shot because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and getting shot because you made your living saying things that deliberately piss people off.
He isn't a victim of senseless violence at all, he was a victim of deliberate violence, likely predicated by his own controversial opinions.
That's a lot like saying a woman was "asking for it" because of what she wears. Controversial opinions and political activism do not justify violence, full stop.
That's quite a leap, since I'm not justifying violence, or saying that Chuck was 'asking for it'. I would love to live in a world where people do not react violently to words, but there is no place on this earth where that world exists. As a comedian, I say a lot of things that piss people off. As a thinker, I understand that means some people are going to try kicking my ass. I didn't say it was justified, I said it was to be expected.
Since you wanted to compare this to rape... you know who gets raped a lot? Prostitutes. It's not right, but they know someone is going to try it. They aren't even pissing half the country off, they're just quietly giving people something they want.
I'm not condoning violence, I'm condemning celebrity worship. People like Charlie Kirk, but without the audience, get murdered for their words all the time. I didn't see an RIP for a single one of them on your timeline.
People with platforms like Charlie Kirk are fueling the division in this country, and they're doing it knowingly, for profit. Forgive me if I don't mourn with you, but I like to look on the bright side of things, and the bright side of this is that it might actually de-escalate some of the tension in the political sphere.
I apologize if there seems to be a lot of vitriol in my replies. That has absolutely nothing to do with you, and everything to do with my fatigue at seeing people from both sides lose their minds over this.
Great post about something so contentious to so many.
I didn't like him myself, but equally, I don't think he deserves to be shot dead in front of his family.
It saddens me how this will cause further divide. As someone who classifies themselves as far left and pro non-violence, it is a shame that so many say the "Far Left" are violent when so many of us just want peace and equality for everyone.
Regardless its going to be a bumpy few months!
Many on the "far right" also value peace and oppose the neo-nazis and police state BS associated with "the right" in mainstream discourse, instead valuing market exchange, property rights, and traditional values. The internet magnifies the malcontents on all sides, and some tak the online words into real-world actions. We're trapped in a world where the false dichotomy of partisan politics is used by some to harm others.
For lack of a better term, I am a Christian Anarchist. I reject the legitimacy of political institutions, which places me on "the left," but I personally favor market exchange and historic Christian theology, which although often in opposition to arbitrary political authority, is still associated with "the right."
Yeah man, dark days...
I am gravely concerned about the way celebrations of assassinating and activist and a CEO and the attempted assassinations of Trump could lead to harsh "reprisals" from the more unhinged on the right, leading to open civil war. We also have the looming problem of military occupation of our cities under the excuse of "immigration enforcement." We have a naked police state, and the only reason our "opposition party" seems upset is because they're enforcing deportation orders instead of COVID lockdowns. Libido Dominandi is rampant.
It is almost as though life would be far more peaceful if people with similar values lived together geographically and put a little bit of space between themselves and those those do not believe something completely different...
I'm not even sure that's necessary. People used to think you couldn't even have Catholics and Protestants in the same community in parts of the world, to say nothing of other religions, but remove political entanglements and the conflicts fade.
Indeed. But I have heard of a philosophy of "Good fences make for good neighbours."
And that is to say that there should exist a fundamental concept of boundaries and rights. I have my home, my zone, my life. I should be allowed to live it a certain way... my way... When people believe that they can trespass into that, I should be able to say NO.
So... I should have "fences" and if I respect your fences and you respect mine, then we can believe in completely different things and still get along.
It gets easier when the values are very different, so the space between is wider.
Catholics and Protestants of a certain culture and upbringing may learn to set their weapons down and learn to debate and live and let live. But some would destroy both. Should this be tolerated?
I am usually on both sides of a debate. For example, I am both an LGBTQ ally and an LGBTQ homophobe, depending on who you speak to and what we are speaking about. I just neither accept nor reject the whole thing, wholesale or follow one directive. I need to weigh up and use my brain for each interaction or situation.
Another example is the abortion debate. I disagree and agree with certain things from both sides of that argument.
So yeah... I would agree and disagree with certain things that Charlie Kirk has to say. Some things I agree on, Leftists would lable me as a Right-wing conservative. But other things I believe in, then Charlie would have rejected me based on his own beliefs and ideologies.
Bottom line... as long as our fences were well established, we continue to debate without fear... because there is respect.
This assassination has no respect, it has no honour. Those who celebrate it have no honour and have no SELF-respect. They are celebrating the death of a person willing to talk with anyone... would they rather have mobs of people killing their kind in the street?
Anyway... sorry for the ramble... I am sure this had all bee said a million times already and none of it is particularly new.
It's the classic sphere of authority defined by life, liberty, and property. Fences, and other physical or metaphorical barriers, define where we cannot rightfully trespass against others and where they cannot rughtfully trespass against us.
The American left says silence is violence, and speech they dislike is hate speech, and therefore also violence, and many celebrate the assassination of a man who was arguing against their ideology. The left as we know it here is dead to me. So is the right, for innumerable other reasons.