I have a nice little trick for it: when you go to a funeral of a person in your family, or close to your family, who was an asshole, I bet you won't be saying to other people "yeah, sad, very sad. But, please remember, he was an asshole". Right? I would not -- not the time, nor the place.
Yes, Kirk is not a family (probably not yours, and definitely not mine), but the same standard of being polite and reasonable person should apply.
I'm curious how standard this "standard" is, did you (and the rest of America) mourn the death of Osama bin Laden? Did you express condolences to his family and try to remember him by the positive things he did in life?
Perhaps I missed the part where Charlie Kirk organized a group of guys to hijack a bunch of planes with civilians on board, and then crash them into buildings.
On a serious note, if you cannot see a difference between these two, I have no idea what to say.
How much before it's okay to party on the streets after learning about their death?
Clearly there's a difference in magnitude between Kirk and bin Laden, but both were merchants of hate and violence, so where's the line?
If people are whitewashing his history then it's to be expected that other people will speak out to set the record straight. That's how free speech works and trying to silence it on the basis of "decorum" is dishonest and manipulative.
To answer this question, we would have to first agree on the term "hate", and what does it mean to be a "merchant of hate". Then, we examine the evidence, and arrive to the conclusion.
So, what is "hate"? What is "merchant of hate"? Why Kirk, in your view, was one?
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-...
Are you really this unfamiliar with his work? Because if you agree with his ideology then just be honest and say that, don't try to drag people into these quasi-intellectual debates about what constitutes hate.
Can you provide me a link to a source where he calls for a violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s"?
The article you provided does not prove it at all. Instead, they take something he said, and provide an interpretation of it that fits their narrative. Alternative interpretation, which is way more likely given what he said, is that man today are not as decisive w.r.t. matters of what he considers "right" and "wrong", i.e., letting transwoman compete in woman sports.
You can take these six words (i.e., "like in the 1950s and 60s") out of almost a minute monologue, and make your own interpretation (it's a free country after all). However, if your goal is to show me that he was calling for violence, then you kind of failed, because he did not do it there. If there is a video or an article where he did so, please share, I would like to learn more.
So far, I do not see hate towards minorities or transgender people.
That's alright, reality is what you make it, it's a free country after all.
I hope you realize how ironic this statement of yours is
You can't claim that things are being taken out of context when you can't possibly come up with context where his statements mean anything other than a call to violence when context is added.
There are HUNDREDS of these statements, but your idea of a debate seems to be declaring complete ignorance over the unambiguous meaning of most of these statements and declaring victory when the other person realizes what stripes you're really wearing and backs out.
Just to make a point, I think people like him should do what Hitler did in the end. What do I mean by this? I guess you'll never know.
>You can't claim that things are being taken out of context when you can't possibly come up with context where his statements mean anything other than a call to violence when context is added.
It's all from the bigot's playbook, as Sartre observed:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre
Keep that in mind. Your blood pressure will thank you.
We live in a time where accusing someone of engaging in bad faith is against the guidelines, expressing an opinion that the world is better off with a hateful figure being dead is inhumane and shameful, and such opinions are to be forcibly repressed if one is to be allowed to participate in discussion.
My blood pressure isn't affected by individual bad actors, but our bizarre society where it's acceptable to sow hatred and incite violence as long as you dress up nice and speak in a polite, coded language. If Hitler was simply a top-level advisor and never issued a direct order he would be hailed as a peaceful debate person by the same people who now smugly use "humanity" as a stick to beat those who actually have it.
I would upvote you, but my ability to do so has been taken away without an explanation.
However, calling for violence is not what I've heard there. You, of course, are entitled to your own interpretation. Just do not expect others to agree.
If you were trans in the 1950s and 60s you were persecuted, criminalized, physically brutalized by society who viewed you as a freak, pathologized and involuntarily institutionalized in places where they tortured you with hormonal drugs, chemical castration, electroshock "therapy", and lobotomies that permanently harmed people beyond recognition and killed them. I'll repeat - against their will.
To say that trans people need to be treated like they were in the 1950s and 60s is a coded, but unambiguous call to violence. There's no interpretation that you can possibly come up with that's favorable or peaceful for that group.
I don't expect you to agree because I know that you're not engaging honestly, nor is anyone else who's painting Kirk as a peaceful figure.
That is not a fair characterization of what they are doing, no. (Besides which, "glorification" is subjective. People thinking Kirk was a virtuous person because of things they consider virtuous but you don't, is not "false".)
> These comments obviously aren't directed at the family but the news publications and media's handling of his passing.
None of the example comments I have been shown reference supposed news or media bias. Many of them have straight up described the murder as a good or morally just action. Some have even expressed a desire for the same to happen to others in Kirk's orbit.