Hi Sun,
I disagree with your post on so many fronts.
I am all for gun rights. So your post is out of context. Ok, I'll concede this was a bad assumption based on what you stated. No problem there, and it's really irrelevant to the larger point anyway.
The problem with Kirk and others like him is twofold:
(1) they make their living off of destroying the society by taking an absolutist position that defies all common sense. The more extreme the position, the more fame and money they make at the expense of the society. Again, I don't really follow Charlie Kirk, but based on the few interviews I've seen, I'd have to disagree with this. Sure, he had his views on things, but from what I saw, he was open and welcomed debate, and was willing to defend his positions and give his reasoning. He did not shut down opposing viewpoints. I think we're all stronger when we have open debate and can decide our own positions for ourselves, instead of having someone else do it for us. I could argue that your position here is absolutist, in that you label his positions as extreme. There are many, many people who would disagree with you.
(2) They lack empathy and human decency. When you give a speech after a mass shooting that boils down to "oh well, shit happens, it's ok for you to lose a child so that there are no checks on how fast, how many, and what type of guns anyone can have regardless of their mental health or violence history," then it is absolutely karma to receive no sympathy when the person himself is a victim of shooting. I find this very judgemental, and again, absolutist. This is your opinion, not a fact. And there are many, many facts that would demonstrate Charlie Kirk's empathy and decency. I took a look at the clip you posted, and I would not describe your paraphrase above as accurate at all. I didn't see him reference anything about what type of checks should or should not be in place. Maybe he's done that elsewhere- I don't know and don't really care, as again, this is not relevant to the central point of my objection to your post. Sure, he could have shown more sympathy, but that is hardly deserving of a death sentence.
You stated that we should not just denounce this act of violence, and implied that instead there was some lesson to be learned from it (i.e., the consequences reference). I think that reasoning is horribly unsound, and if you think people should learn to be afraid of being shot in cold blood for expressing their (non-violent) views, then I think you're sending a terrible message. By that reasoning, if someone who was very vocal and outspoken and objected to any gun ownership were to be mugged and stabbed to death because they didn't have a gun to protect themselves, we could also call it Karma. I doubt you'd be recommending that post and talking about how we should be connecting the deceased's views to the consequences. I hope we would all agree that person did not deserve that death and simply pass it off as Karma. This was the consequence of a very sick person, not any kind of rational feedback from which we should be learning how we should behave/express ourselves to avoid a fitting fate.
Why do you think this not fair? Why do you think that a person who never showed sympathy for the gun victims is entitled to sympathy when it happens to him? And this is really the crux of my objection, and I'm dumbfounded I'm having to explain this to you. I know you are a very intelligent person, and to think that there are many other people like you who really have this line of thinking is depressing.
Have you really put your question in context? There is nothing close to fair about being murdered for expressing your non-violent views. You may disagree with those views, but I'm unaware of any views expressed that would even come close to justifying your line of thinking. And again, I really did not follow Charlie Kirk, but I'm not sure I'm willing to accept your statement that he never showed any sympathy for the gun victims based on your one outtake posted. In fact, I would seriously doubt that's true.
Now Sun, I haven't seen you show any sympathy for Charlie Kirk here, so by your own reasoning, if you were to be shot in cold blood, you would not be entitled to any sympathy. Do I have that right? |
