LogFAQs > #986422666

DnDer posted...

Only a handful of people who openly supported the murder of Heather Heyer ever saw consequences for it.

None of the Republicans who openly called for violence against trans people... amended: openly called for hate crimes to be committed against trans people before footage of the shooter was even released aren't facing consequences.

People don't get fired for laughing at Rittenhouse's murder victims, but there sure seem to be public consequences for calling him a quite supremacist when he hangs out with white supremacist militias and flashing white supremacist signs.

Kilmeade keeps his job for talking about murdering homeless people with a fake apology.

And do you think this is a good thing? Do you think those people should get away without consequence for saying those things?

If not, why are you suggesting that this is different?

DnDer posted...

Keyword, I think, in his argument is "simply."

Charlie Kirk wasn't the guy at the water cooler making an off-color joke about black people. His views weren't just reprehensible, they served as a call to action and to violence.

There's noxious and then there's actively leveraging and influencing the administration to harm trans people and genocide Palestinians, in two examples.

I don't think there's a disconnect for anyone in looking at the scale of his words and views, and then recognizing the impact they have on his followers and policy that directly affects people.

It's not "simply noxious views," because it's incitement to political violence using (among other things) the levers of power.

That's my read, if it's worth anything.

I don't disagree. But I think we can all agree that's not a justification to murder him.

And I'll point out that if you consider Charlie Kirk's great sin to be inciting violence against those different from him, it's not a great look to be celebrating violence done to him.

DnDer posted...

Because going high when they've gone low has been a consistently losing proposition?

So what advantage do you think "going low" is going to confer on the left if the gloves are removed?

DnDer posted...

Also, half of the "mocking" I've seen on other social media amounts to speaking truth to power/punching up, and doing it with some sarcasm on their tongue.

My comments in this thread are restricted solely to Gretchen Felker-Martin and the comments she made, as posted in the OP. Others have been fired for far more mild commentary, and I do have a problem with those firings because I don't believe they were in poor taste or constituted celebrating political violence.

To be clear, I am not for a minute saying that Charlie Kirk is beyond criticism and that any negative statements about him should be grounds for dismissal; quite the contrary, I think it is perfectly reasonable to have a frank discussion on why his views were so vile and why he had a hand in the conditions that led to his killing by stirring up anger and hatred in the US. But, as I've said several times, you can do that without mocking or celebrating his killing.