I am sure some of it is virtue signaling, or at least people restraining themselves from saying what they really think to not be cancelled or whatever. Prominent figures do still need to worry about censoring themselves so they maintain their platform, or at the very least that they aren’t easily strawmanned by taking them out of context.
But I think most of it is sincere anyway. You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn’t mean you want them to be publicly gunned down. Because even if they behave in such a way that befits some sort of karmic retribution, you recognize a punishment can be overly cruel and not justified by the associated “crime”.
And honestly, you could even coldheartedly criticise the strategy of it. Killing someone like this makes them a martyr and gives them and their cause a great deal of public sympathy. They are immediately cemented in the public consciousness and forever added as a historical figure instead of simply becoming forgettable when their influence wanes. Before this, me and my friends would probably recognize the name Charlie Kirk but wouldn’t know much else about him. But now it’s given everything he’s said a lot more attention to us and others and made it harder to be able to criticize things he said that really do deserve a lot of criticism.
In the political commentary I’ve listened to, it’s like there’s a feeling of winning on a technicality, or by cheating, or something similar. You did not beat him in the marketplace of ideas and have been robbed of the opportunity of ever doing so. If it is indeed a victory, then it is a hollow one.
You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn’t mean you want them to be publicly gunned down.
No, no, no. Stop this. He was a horrible person, I’m glad he was gunned down, and he deserved to be gunned down.
I am sure some of it is virtue signaling, or at least people restraining themselves from saying what they really think to not be cancelled or whatever. Prominent figures do still need to worry about censoring themselves so they maintain their platform, or at the very least that they aren’t easily strawmanned by taking them out of context.
But I think most of it is sincere anyway. You can dislike someone, even think the world would be a better place without them in it, and still feel bad about them suffering a tragedy. You probably know someone who is annoying to interact with, but that doesn’t mean you want them to be publicly gunned down. Because even if they behave in such a way that befits some sort of karmic retribution, you recognize a punishment can be overly cruel and not justified by the associated “crime”.
And honestly, you could even coldheartedly criticise the strategy of it. Killing someone like this makes them a martyr and gives them and their cause a great deal of public sympathy. They are immediately cemented in the public consciousness and forever added as a historical figure instead of simply becoming forgettable when their influence wanes. Before this, me and my friends would probably recognize the name Charlie Kirk but wouldn’t know much else about him. But now it’s given everything he’s said a lot more attention to us and others and made it harder to be able to criticize things he said that really do deserve a lot of criticism.
In the political commentary I’ve listened to, it’s like there’s a feeling of winning on a technicality, or by cheating, or something similar. You did not beat him in the marketplace of ideas and have been robbed of the opportunity of ever doing so. If it is indeed a victory, then it is a hollow one.
No, no, no. Stop this. He was a horrible person, I’m glad he was gunned down, and he deserved to be gunned down.