Just for the record: I don't feel any personal sadness for Charlie Kirk or mourn his death the way I would mourn the death of someone I knew.
Because I didn't know Charlie Kirk. I didn't even recognize his name in the news, and when I saw his face I thought "oh it's the small face meme guy." That's literally all I knew him from.
Further, it looks like he was the kind of guy I'd fucking hate. So, ignoring all other factors, I would just think: Good riddance. (His wife and kids? Oh they'll be fine; he left them millions.)
If I felt personal sadness for every person murdered on the planet every day, I'd be paralyzed with sadness and wouldn't be able to think of anything else.
However, the phenomenon of Kirk's killing and the widespread reactions to it are what upset me, because of what it says about the state of political discourse and society.
As far as I can tell, he was trying to engage people in debate, and didn't peddle violence or advocated for the dismantling of democracy. For example, regarding Jan 6th, it seems like he was drawing a distinction between non-violent protesters and those who did behave criminally and violently.
He was partaking in the liberal democratic process of exercising free speech trying to change people's minds when he was shot. The symbolic meaning of this is harrowing to me.
I think I'll continue some of my thoughts in a blog post...
Because I didn't know Charlie Kirk. I didn't even recognize his name in the news, and when I saw his face I thought "oh it's the small face meme guy." That's literally all I knew him from.
Further, it looks like he was the kind of guy I'd fucking hate. So, ignoring all other factors, I would just think: Good riddance. (His wife and kids? Oh they'll be fine; he left them millions.)
If I felt personal sadness for every person murdered on the planet every day, I'd be paralyzed with sadness and wouldn't be able to think of anything else.
However, the phenomenon of Kirk's killing and the widespread reactions to it are what upset me, because of what it says about the state of political discourse and society.
As far as I can tell, he was trying to engage people in debate, and didn't peddle violence or advocated for the dismantling of democracy. For example, regarding Jan 6th, it seems like he was drawing a distinction between non-violent protesters and those who did behave criminally and violently.
He was partaking in the liberal democratic process of exercising free speech trying to change people's minds when he was shot. The symbolic meaning of this is harrowing to me.
I think I'll continue some of my thoughts in a blog post...
ひげ
@taylan something about your post stuck out to me. About his kids and family being fine because he left them millions. It's not just about the money. The kids are now growing up with a single parent unless she decides to remarry. They all have to live knowing what happened to their husband and father. That's something that a lot of money can't just make disappear.
@beardalaxy @taylan It's the kind of thing I think only someone who hasn't lost a parent could say.
@pettanko @beardalaxy (& tagging in @sim who criticized the same part of my post)
The kids are apparently 1 and 3 years old. I'm not an expert in neurological development, but from all I know, both should be too young to have developed a deeper relationship with him, so this is unlikely to have a significant direct negative effect on them. Certainly not the baby, and probably neither the toddler, though it may depend on how much negative emotion is carried over to them from other people, like the mother.
As for their future: I don't think growing up without a father in the the household has any inherent negative outcomes. These are most likely to be the result of correlated issues, like households broken by poverty, fighting, and so on. A single mom with lots of money and connections is very different from a single mom who has to work full time with no good connections.
So, without knowing many details about them, I would assume the mother and kids will be financially stable and have a big powerful community supporting them. Those are excellent conditions for growing up healthy. I would expect that the killing of their father will merely be an interesting tale they can tell their peers as they grow older.
But it all depends on the people surrounding them. My main concern would be the risk of the family becoming bitter and vengeful towards "leftists" (or whatever) and one of them eventually continuing the cycle of violence.
The kids are apparently 1 and 3 years old. I'm not an expert in neurological development, but from all I know, both should be too young to have developed a deeper relationship with him, so this is unlikely to have a significant direct negative effect on them. Certainly not the baby, and probably neither the toddler, though it may depend on how much negative emotion is carried over to them from other people, like the mother.
As for their future: I don't think growing up without a father in the the household has any inherent negative outcomes. These are most likely to be the result of correlated issues, like households broken by poverty, fighting, and so on. A single mom with lots of money and connections is very different from a single mom who has to work full time with no good connections.
So, without knowing many details about them, I would assume the mother and kids will be financially stable and have a big powerful community supporting them. Those are excellent conditions for growing up healthy. I would expect that the killing of their father will merely be an interesting tale they can tell their peers as they grow older.
But it all depends on the people surrounding them. My main concern would be the risk of the family becoming bitter and vengeful towards "leftists" (or whatever) and one of them eventually continuing the cycle of violence.
