Key points:
- Charlie Kirk, a divisive figure, was assassinated at a Utah university event.
- Law enforcement has not announced a motive for the killing, and a manhunt is underway.
- Leaders across the political spectrum condemned the killing and urged calm.
Charlie Kirk was a charismatic but divisive figure. His rhetoric often inflamed more than it enlightened. But political violence is a dangerous sword. I have been warning for some time of the danger of this moment, and now it is starting to come to pass.
There is always a danger in both-sides narratives, but the reality here is that there is now a real danger that extremists on both sides will further destabilize American democracy. I see danger in the right’s reaction to point the fingers at the left for this and the left’s reaction, at least for some, to basically argue that what he reaped is what he sowed.
It’s important to remember, as we move forward, that we don’t actually know why this happened and, until we do, speculation about motives and finger-pointing are not particularly helpful.
The facts we have so far are stark and sobering.
Kirk, 31, was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University, with authorities saying the gunman fired from a distance and that an initial person of interest was later released without charges.
Law enforcement has not announced a motive as of this writing, and a manhunt remains underway.
These are the details that matter most in the near term: a public political figure was assassinated at a campus event; the investigation is active; and leaders across the spectrum have condemned the killing.
Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement that captured, in plain language, what our guiding norm should be. “We should all feel a deep sense of grief and outrage at the terrible violence that took place in Utah today. Charlie Kirk’s murder is sick and reprehensible, and our thoughts are with his family, children, and loved ones.
“I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.
“The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence. Honest disagreement makes us stronger; violence only drives us further apart and corrodes the values at the heart of this nation.”
The American Civil Liberties Union’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero, said it simply and directly: “There is never any place for violence in our politics. The only way to work out differences in a democracy is to work them out together — peacefully through our political system. The ACLU condemns this horrific act and extends its sympathies to the family of Charlie Kirk.”
The Legal Defense Fund’s president and director-counsel, Janai Nelson, was equally blunt about the broader trend line: “Today’s fatal attack on Charlie Kirk is a horrific and appalling marker of escalating violence in the public sphere. In a healthy democracy, we must be able to debate, argue, and disagree without resorting to violence. Political violence is never acceptable, but tragically, it has become increasingly common in our society. Whatever our differences, we must never lose sight of our shared humanity.”
The LDF condemns “Mr. Kirk’s killing and all political violence in the strongest possible terms, and we share our sincere condolences with Mr. Kirk’s family. We hope that this tragic event, along with the politically-motivated killings of Minnesota State House Leader Melissa Hortman and her husband, and the brutal attack on Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife earlier this year, will encourage dialogue across ideological and other differences about how to solve the escalating political violence and violent rhetoric in our country.”
Even as many officials urged de-escalation, some of the immediate online reaction vaulted in the opposite direction. The rhetoric that followed Kirk’s murder shows how quickly a tragedy becomes raw material for more rage.
“This is a war, this is a war, this is a war,” Alex Jones said on a livestream.
Elon Musk posted, “The Left is the party of murder.”
Stewart Rhodes said, “I’m going to be rebuilding the Oath Keepers, and we will be doing protection again,” and urged invoking the Insurrection Act.
Representative Anna Paulina Luna wrote, “EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS,” and Chaya Raichik posted, “THIS IS WAR.” These are not ambiguous phrases; they are explicit calls to frame political conflict as warfare and to assign collective blame to enemies.
The same surging rhetoric was not confined to fringe platforms. It was echoed by mainstream figures and elected officials who blamed “leftwing political violence,” declared that “the gloves are off,” and called for RICO investigations into donors and nonprofit networks perceived as aligned with the left. The pattern is depressingly familiar: a horrific act occurs; motive is still unknown; and, within minutes, a chorus turns that uncertainty into certainty, then certainty into a mandate for retaliation. That cycle, too often, is the point.
At the same time, leaders across the spectrum — including past and present national officials — issued statements of grief and solidarity, urging calm and condemning political violence.
The throughline in those reactions is that we cannot let violence become the new language of politics. In other words: meeting the moment requires refusing to weaponize it.
If you’ve followed this site’s coverage, you know we have wrestled with Kirk’s campus appearances in Davis and beyond.
In March 2023, I described the free speech conundrum his events posed — that certain speaker tours are designed as much to provoke as to persuade, testing the boundaries of campus policy and community tolerance.
When protesters and supporters clashed in April 2025 ahead of a UC Davis student event, we covered the combustible dynamic such events can trigger.
And I’ve argued that, while free speech must be defended, we should not fall for the “victim” playbook sometimes deployed around these tours. That local history is not an aside; it is a reminder that the ecosystems around political celebrity — on the left and the right — often create the kindling that bad actors can exploit.
None of that justifies violence. But it does clarify the stakes.
If we permit politics to become dramaturgy for a culture war in which every escalation is license for the next, democracy erodes. The “war” framing does not just rally the faithful; it recasts neighbors as enemies and elections as existential battles that cannot be lost without catastrophe.
When that logic hardens, violence becomes thinkable. We have seen this pattern in smaller pulses for years: threats against election workers, swatting of public officials, assaults at school board meetings.
Now we are seeing high-profile political assassinations and near-misses land one after another on the body politic. At some point, a polity either interrupts that feedback loop, or the loop defines the polity.
Meeting this moment means drawing hard red lines that are not contingent on whether we like the speaker or the cause. It means resisting the urge to instrumentalize tragedy as a cudgel against ideological opponents, especially when the facts are still emerging.
It means that leaders, influencers and everyday citizens reject collective blame, apocalyptic talk and blanket dehumanization. It means that platforms — and those who command the largest audiences on them — treat their megaphones as responsibilities, not accelerants. It also means acknowledging that when prominent voices insist “war is here,” some listeners will believe them — and a small fraction will act accordingly.
That is why quotes like the ones above matter.
“This is a war” is not a metaphor in the hands of people actively calling for mobilization or punishment.
“The Left is the party of murder” is not an argument about policy; it is a permission structure for retaliation.
“EVERY DAMN ONE OF YOU WHO CALLED US FASCISTS DID THIS” is not a lament; it is a sweeping accusation that transforms critics into perpetrators. If you tell millions of people that the other side is an enemy combatant, some small number will decide to behave like soldiers. There is nothing hypothetical about that risk.
It is also why Newsom’s language and the ACLU and LDF statements — and many others like them — are not performative.
The norm they articulate is the only defensible one in a democracy: that the line between heated debate and violence must not be crossed, and when it is crossed, we condemn the act without equivocation and without turning condemnation into a new weapon.
The point is not to flatten political differences or demand civility for its own sake. It is to insist that words and votes, not bullets, are how we resolve disputes. When we keep to that forum, we create space to protect speakers we dislike and to contest ideas we think are harmful — both of which are essential in a free society.
There will be arguments in the coming days about security at campus events, the role of firearms and access, the obligations of hosts and sponsors, and the precautions public institutions should take when controversial speakers come to town. Those are valid, concrete debates.
There will also be a second set of arguments about blame — an attempt to construct a causal chain from rhetoric to action that will land, with grim certainty, on the enemies people already had. That second set should be handled with care, because its goal, more often than not, is to cash in political chips, not to reduce risk.
We should also be clear about something else: refusing to weaponize a murder is not the same as forgetting.
Kirk’s critics, myself included, can and should continue to examine the politics he championed. His statements on guns, his rhetoric about opponents, his organizing strategies — none of that is erased by this tragedy.
But the appropriate forum for those debates remains the same one Governor Newsom invoked: words, not violence. When we keep to that forum, we create space to protect speakers we dislike and to contest ideas we think are harmful — both of which are essential in a free society.
What does it mean, practically, to meet the moment? It means that leaders of all parties denounce language that invites vengeance, even when it comes from their allies. It means calling out “war” talk wherever it surfaces and refusing to launder it through official channels as “just strong rhetoric.”
It means that media, including this outlet, document the escalation without amplifying it gratuitously. It means encouraging platforms to enforce their own policies against incitement — consistently. And it means asking ordinary citizens to resist the dopamine hit of rage posting, especially in the first hours of a developing story, when rumors sprint faster than facts.
This is a grief-filled moment. A young spouse is widowed; two children have lost their father; a community is traumatized. When the grief curdles into rage, there are plenty of actors prepared to harvest that rage.
We each have a role in starving that market. If we fail to do so, if we indulge the vocabulary of war and the fantasy of cleansing violence, we will get more of it.
If we succeed, we may yet protect the possibility of a politics that is, to borrow Newsom’s words, “spirited discourse” in service of a common life — and that possibility is worth defending.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
The political left in the country needs to back off their hatred and vile commentary. Trump is not a fascist, or Hitler or Mussolini. Legislators telling their supporters to confront conservatives in gas stations, restaurants and department stores. This is what leads to violence and most of the recent violence is coming from leftist extremists.
Sadly Keith completely missed the point of the piece
Re: “most of the recent violence is coming from leftist extremists.”
“Although political violence has been perpetrated on behalf of a wide range of political ideologies, it is unclear whether there are systematic differences between ideologies in the use of violence to pursue a political cause. Prior research on this topic is scarce and mostly restricted to self-reported measures or less extreme forms of political aggression. Moreover, it has generally focused on respondents in Western countries and has been limited to either comparisons of the supporters of left-wing and right-wing causes or examinations of only Islamist extremism. In this research we address these gaps by comparing the use of political violence by left-wing, right-wing, and Islamist extremists in the United States and worldwide using two unique datasets that cover real-world examples of politically motivated, violent behaviors. Across both datasets, we find that radical acts perpetrated by individuals associated with left-wing causes are less likely to be violent. In the United States, we find no difference between the level of violence perpetrated by right-wing and Islamist extremists. However, differences in violence emerge on the global level, with Islamist extremists being more likely than right-wing extremists to engage in more violent acts.”
https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/comparison-political-violence-left-wing-right-wing-and-islamist-extremists-united
The point I was trying to make in my piece is that the problem of political violence is escalating and that while you can argue one side or another in any individual case, the systemic issue is one of escalation and polarization and until that can be addressed, the danger of escalation and more and more violence will continue. The next shot may well be fired in response to this incident, and then another, then another.
I’ve never understood the hate that the left had for Charlie Kirk. He was always polite and never vile. He welcomed debate and never backed downed from questions. Sure, you might not agree with his views but as far as I know he was always civil. Sure there are probably a few instances where he might have said things that were controversial, but overall Kirk was a good person. His killer just made Charlie Kirk a martyr.
I suppose I could post a few of his statements that might explain it, but that would defeat my purpose today.
Like I said, there are probably a few statements out there. That can be said of almost anyone, including you and I where someone else might find what we said or thought totally offensive due to the political views.
A few? We could spend all day arguing over this, actually we can’t since I’m about to leave, but is there a path forward that doesn’t head down the road toward prolonged political violence?
“but is there a path forward that doesn’t head down the road toward prolonged political violence?”
Nope. Not anymore.
I thought Gavin did a pretty decent job – no complaints. That he knew and respected Kirk had bearing. I usually don’t agree with a word out of Gaavy’s mouth, but credit is due.
I do wish to recommend the words of the Governor of Utah:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4bWrNKBok4
The governor of Utah did the job that the president of the United States is supposed to do in these situations.
I just watched a video where Office Depot employees in Michigan refused to print Charlie Kirk posters for a vigil the customer had ordered saying they don’t print propaganda. WTF?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2KK6eJ8buY
It’s being reported at least one of the employees were fired.
KO say, “Office Depot employees in Michigan refused to print Charlie Kirk posters for a vigil”
I bet if they sent in someone an hour later with a poster for an imaginary “Kill the Jews” rally, that employee would have printed it.
Not political my arse. Not THEIR politics more like. I worked for years for Kinko’s back in my hometown — a company populated by what I’d consider a pretty far-left crowd by the standards of the late 70’s to early 80’s — and never once were we instructed to examine the political content of what we were printing.
Talk about the potential for escalation, a printing business with left leaning employees that refuse to make Charlie Kirk vigil posters due to their political views.
I’ve watched a few Charlie Kirk videos since he was killed. The description I’ve heard doesn’t match what I’ve seen in the videos.
In other words, I didn’t find him to be full of hatred or vitriol. I found him to be well-practiced in debate and logic (albeit with some assumptions that could be challenged by an equally well-practiced opponent). In other words, he was intelligent, and was very capable of putting forth logical arguments (and asking pointed questions which sometimes exposed a lack of logic in counter-arguments). Most of those who stepped up to debate him on campuses weren’t as capable of doing so (though there were a few who put forth logical counter-points).
Obviously, he didn’t deserve the hatred directed at him, from what I’ve seen at least.
The situation does remind me a little of the hatred directed at Beth Bourne, though Charlie Kirk was more-able to remain cool and emotionally detached from the arguments. (In other words, I haven’t seen ANY video debates where Charlie Kirk was upset or angry.)
“I didn’t find him to be full of hatred or vitriol. I found him to be well-practiced in debate and logic (albeit with some assumptions that could be challenged by an equally well-practiced opponent). In other words, he was intelligent, and was very capable of putting forth logical arguments (and asking pointed questions which sometimes exposed a lack of logic in counter-arguments). Most of those who stepped up to debate him on campuses weren’t as capable of doing so (though there were a few who put forth logical counter-points).”
Ron, I think that’s why the left hated Charlie Kirk. They couldn’t debate him so they made him into some kind of evil villain that he wasn’t. I saw several videos of him on college campuses engaging students and he would ask anyone that disagrees with him to step to the front of the line. He was almost always polite but he didn’t back down and it often came down to his questioners becoming unglued.
Or maybe it was his words…
“I can’t stand empathy. I think empathy is a made-up, New Age term that … it does a lot of damage, but it is very effective when it comes to politics.”
“I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
“If you believe in something, you need to have the courage to fight for those ideas – not run away from them or try and silence them.”
“Socialism cannot survive when people are free to think for themselves, and America will never be a socialist country.”
“We have to tell our babies to stop crying.”
“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death … That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I think it’s worth it.”
“The Left is the party of murder.”
“White Privilege is a Racist Lie.”
“I think empathy is a made up New Age term that causes a lot of damage.”
“We’ve allowed too many anti-America people to move here.”
“The Democratic Party is an existential threat to our birthright.”
“Critical Race Theory is nothing but Marxism dressed up in woke clothes.”
“Mandatory vaccine mandates are medical apartheid.”
“The mask science is very questionable.”
“An armed citizenry is the last line of defense against tyranny.”
“Universities today are islands of totalitarianism.”
“We’re in a spiritual war for the soul of America.”
“Young conservatives are the most persecuted group in America today.”
“We are the resistance against woke tyranny.”
I read many of those comments and find no problem with them.
Some of the other comments are just snippets of what he said and if you were to do some research you would find the full statement to be much less offensive.
I’m troubled that you find no problem with them… moreover, the issue is not whether you find a problem with them, but whether other people do.
“the issue is not whether you find a problem with them, but whether other people do.”
So what are you saying here David? So what if other people found some of his statements troubling. I find some of your opinions troubling just as you are troubled by some of my views. That’s called free speech.
No one’s views are acceptable to everyone.
No Keith, the point is that you are attempting to explain why the left hated Charlie Kirk – ” I think that’s why the left hated Charlie Kirk. They couldn’t debate him so they made him into some kind of evil villain that he wasn’t” – not why you don’t hate Charlie Kirk.
I’ll just reply with how someone responded to me on another thread this morning:
David M. Greenwald says:
September 14, 2025 at 7:49 am
You don’t say
If you’re saying I’m stating something obvious, then I agree but where does that leave your initial comment?
KO say: “I read many of those comments and find no problem with them.”
I wouldn’t put it that way personally. I’d say ‘I disagree with some of them and agree with others’. I also believe that in this list like so many circulating around that many of these are snippets taken out of context to have a more smearing effect on Charlie Kirk.
DG: “I’m troubled that you find no problem with them…”
You’re troubled that another person has different political views than you? I find THAT troubling.
DG say, “the issue is not whether you find a problem with them, but whether other people do.”
How is that the issue? The only issue is open dialog, something the far-left wishes to quash when they disagree with a coming speaker. I went to the Charlie Kirk event in Davis because this outlet said the Proud Boys would probably be there stirring up violence, and the far-left groups were saying this speaker had ideas that were too dangerous to allow him to speak on campus. So I went to see the Proud Boys vs. Anti-Fascists (AF). The Proud Boys never showed. Until the announcement by the far-left about the ‘dangerous’ speaker, the event was expected to be small, but the publicity given online caused the event to have to be moved to the Rec Hall.
What did happen is about 75 AF’s with masks and umbrellas threw eggs and water bottles at about 100 cops in full riot gear and tried to interfere with the line of people going in. When the far-left umbrella blob were near me I saw people I recognized, even through masks, including a few involved in Davis government and politics (not City Council or staff, and no, I’m not naming names). The blob eventually went north. I wasn’t intending on going in, but with the clash over I walked to the door and asked how one would have gotten in. The cops just said, “go in”. No ticket, no fee.
To be clear, I’d never heard of Charlie Kirk before, until the far-left elevated his status that week by saying not to see him, which of course made me curious. It was a weird atmosphere with signs for Kirk, a bunch of people mostly supporters I’d say, some Turning Point students from UCD with T-shirts who looked mostly like a bunch of computer nerds. Kirk spent the first few minutes talking about how a local TV station and Gary May had said untrue things about him and his legal team was considering suing (that was true that the statements were untrue: the TV station retracted, Gary May did not that I am aware of). Then he said (approx), ‘I don’t have a speech, I just want to answer you questions and have a debate with you, and I’d like those who disagree with me to come to the front of the line’.
Any of the people fighting the cops outside (because they like to fight cops?) could have come in and debated with him. Instead, part way through, we heard the yelling of a mob, cops running north in the Rec Hall, and then the sounds of bangs and glass shattering. This is the now-famous video of the Rec Hall doors being caved-in. I could see the same signs in that video as were with the crowd challenging the cops in riot gear.
I was surprised that the ‘talk’ was just debate. Kirk didn’t seem to be a particularly ‘dangerous’ speaker. Certainly much more grounded than Milo Yinopolous, who came across a bit unhinged. He struck me as a 1970’s-style Christian conservative with a bit outdated idea for the 2020s, but very strong in his convictions. He was smart, polite, listened to everyone, was a bit self-righteously evangelically smarmy at times, tried to find areas of agreement and pointed those out, stated his ideas in response to speakers, and stated where he and they disagreed.
He believed in working through issues through open debate not violence. I know some reading this will say his words were violence and he believed in gun rights. That’s not a point of view I share about what the word ‘violence’ means — and I urge you to think this through regarding his being labeled as ‘dangerous’. Think of all the *real* far-right gun nuts you can find online with machine gun videos and acidic vitriol towards leftist ideas and people. THOSE are the dangerous conservatives we all need to be concerned about. And guess who has been ‘woken up’ by Charlie Kirk’s murder. Not just those who followed Kirk and believed in conservative ideas and talking things out in debate, but also the wacko armed wing-nut crowd who believes this is the start of the War against the left. THOSE are who I consider dangerous, not Turning Point college students.
Kirk’s Q&A session at the Rec Hall can be found at the link below. I’m sure you’ll disagree with some of what he said, as do I. But an in-context talk is much more of a sample of who someone is and what they believe than cherry-picking a bunch of statements, many out-of-context, from a persons entire career, and stating none of the reasonable things he also said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm1f7Xxmdgc
And I shouldn’t have to say it, but no one should die for having a career of peacefully stating their ideas and beliefs and debating people who disagree. If that becomes the norm, and it may, we are all F’d. And especially the far-left is F’d. Because the far-right has a lot more guns, and they know how to use them. And they are angry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Political_positions_and_activities
David, I skimmed through all of the citations above attributed to Charlie Kirk, and found them purposefully provocative – but not hateful.
In other words, they appear to be an invitation to debate by Charlie Kirk. Any one of those statements could be followed by, “what did you mean by that”? Followed by a lot of back-and-forth.
None of them are a call to violence in regard to disagreement. There’s a reason Newsom and Bill Maher were willing to discuss issues with Charlie Kirk (other than political ambition on the part of Newsom).
Of course, one could potentially say the same thing regarding comments from others that he deserved to be killed. (But I personally find those type of comments MORE offensive, and not intended to provoke a “debate”.)
I saw the actual video of Kirk getting shot, which shows what ACTUAL political hatred and violence looks like in real life. And yet, a large number of people apparently support it (as they did when the CEO of United Healthcare was murdered).
“purposefully provocative ”
There you have your explanation.
It’s not an explanation regarding the reason that some are celebrating his murder.
It’s not as if Charlie Kirk was calling for the extermination of anyone else.
I would venture to say that anyone who believes that it was “ok” that he was killed have their own problems outside of anything that Kirk elicited.
Yeap. But there appears to be a surprisingly-large number of people who “have their own problems”, as you say.
Hard to know actual numbers, they may just be vocal and noticeable.
But yes, this gets to my concern about the radicalizes of the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum
What do you suppose the larger impact of that will be (since most people aren’t getting killed or sent to a gulag as a result of political views)?
(That’s an “honest” question. Do you think, for example, that this is why someone like Trump was elected?)
If I had to guess – 95% of Americans aren’t deeply involved with, or committed to any of that type of extremism.
They’re more concerned with their own lives, and don’t see any imminent threat to themselves from politics.
I had to drive on I-80 last night, and that actually did cause me some fear regarding losing my life (or at a minimum, my vehicle).
And as I was passing by Lagoon Valley being filled with more ugly and traffic-inducing sprawl, I couldn’t help but think that people in general are nuts.
DG say, “this gets to my concern about the radicalizes of the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum”
On that we agree. Thank you, social media . . . and your Al Gore Rhythms.
This morning I ran across this and it’s so true:
Charlie Kirk never used hate speech.
He used speech they hated.
Regardless of one’s views, it’s pretty concerning to see employers firing employees in regard to opinions expressed on social media (which have nothing to do with job performance).
This is having a chilling effect on free speech. Personally, I’d have more respect for any employer which has a policy of non-interference with free speech (during non-work hours).
What does someone’s opinion have to do with flying a plane? (One of the examples in the article below.)
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/after-kirk-s-killing-a-growing-chorus-of-21047639.php
The problem occurs when opinions impact one’s work – especially for a captive audience (e.g., teachers, professors, etc.).
I’m not sure if a manager in a private corporation can essentially “force” an employee to have the same opinions as their own.
Scott Wiener says: “Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die. Also Charlie Kirk was a vile bigot who did immeasurable harm to so many people by normalizing dehumanization. Yes, having debates on college campuses is a good thing. But dehumanizing people — & persuading others to do so — is horrific,” Wiener wrote in a Monday post on X.
(Actually, it sounds like Scott Wiener is saying that Charlie Kirk deserved to die, despite the introductory sentence. Maybe Scott Wiener should stick to dehumanizing those labeled as NIMBYs, instead.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-state-sen-scott-wiener-labels-charlie-kirk-a-vile-bigot-who-normalized-dehumanization/ar-AA1MDXeF?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=c6edb6ac198c45e08f5fce3504ad38c1&ei=13
We had the same quote from Wiener a few days ago
Is that right?
To be fair, Scott Wiener DID say that he didn’t deserve to die. So I guess we should just take him at his word, regarding that.
I was just looking up the word “bigot” (but lost the source before coming back to post it in regard to religion). But I did find this portion of the definition:
“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Does that mean that I (along with you and Scott Wiener) are “bigots” regarding housing? :-)
In any case, I keep hearing what an awful person Charlie Kirk was, but haven’t found anything other than debates which are more-respectful than some of what I’ve seen and experienced on the Vanguard. (Well, except for the people who started screaming at, or threatening Charlie Kirk during those debates.)
Maybe there’s something out there I haven’t seen so far.
In any case, I don’t think that this incident will cause further mass escalation (so I probably have a different prediction than you, regarding that).
It seems to me both things can be true – you can believe someone to be horrible and yet not believe they deserve to be killed.
Honestly, when someone says that another person is “a vile bigot who did immeasurable harm to so many people by normalizing dehumanization”, I’m somewhat skeptical regarding any qualifiers.
(I’ve seen lots of comments like Scott Wiener’s, which causes the same reaction for me, at least. Then again, maybe some believe that Hitler didn’t deserve to die either, despite – well, you know.)
But it does surprise me when so many seem to say things like it’s “too bad” that the attempted assassination of Trump failed, or that it was good that “Mr. Handsome” killed the CEO of United Healthcare.
Or locally, when a professor at UCD said that cops should be killed, and that it’s easier when their backs are turned.
Truth be told, I’m seeing some of this same type of hatred and violence directed at Beth Bourne, to a lesser degree. And no one from the “tolerant” side denounces it.
Part of that is you are reading your own bias into things – for example, Wiener doesn’t believe in the death penalty, therefore he does not believe vile bigot equates to deserving death.
Ah – so Hitler could have been around for a couple more decades, if he surrendered to Scott Wiener at least.
And that Scott Wiener is not one to do something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly1cPYSqgR4
In any case, if Hitler was around long enough, that would have made for an even more-entertaining “Geraldo” show (compared to the time when his nose met a flying chair). And yes, a part of me was rooting for the chair. (At least Jerry Springer understood what his own show was presenting.)
I had a feeling you were going there, so I’ll simply state, it’d immaterial since Kirk isn’t Hitler.
True, but Scott Wiener apparently is Ghandi. Maybe they should put a statue of Wiener in Davis’ Central Park (or outside of city hall).
Maybe with a copy of the bible (new state laws) in one hand, and evil NIMBYs gathered around his feet trying to tear those documents from his hands.
But I will say that you’re no Geraldo (and yes, that’s a compliment – except for
That one I didn’t anticipate
Is Charlie Kirk: This Generation’s Martin Luther King Jr.?
https://medium.com/@jonrobertquinn/charlie-kirk-this-generations-martin-luther-king-jr-8987fa6ee0b8