The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can’t distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes ‘literally Hitler,’ then we’ve lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.
My concern isn’t about protecting Kirk’s memory - it’s about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.
I agree that a comparison of Kirk to Hitler is not apt but it highlights my problem with your philosophy. There absolutely are some instances of political violence that should be celebrated (Hitler’s death). I think to ask questions is the right approach, or at least more right than loudly uncritically declaring your joy but in my mind the world will be a better place without Kirk in it.
As far as the violent left claims are concerned, we’ve already lost that battle. They believed those things without evidence previously and they’ll continue to whether we give them ammunition or not. Kirk never came to argue in good faith, he was a propaganda/hate mouthpiece. Look at how he responded when backed into a corner, he would never change his mind and that’s why I take umbrage with the characterization that he engaged in dialogue. He was a monologist who used his words as weapons.
At the end of the day though I think you’re right. The world can always use more empathy and empathetic people and we should strive for that but we’re also imperfect and missteps should be met with that same energy.
The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can’t distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes ‘literally Hitler,’ then we’ve lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.
My concern isn’t about protecting Kirk’s memory - it’s about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.
I agree that a comparison of Kirk to Hitler is not apt but it highlights my problem with your philosophy. There absolutely are some instances of political violence that should be celebrated (Hitler’s death). I think to ask questions is the right approach, or at least more right than loudly uncritically declaring your joy but in my mind the world will be a better place without Kirk in it.
As far as the violent left claims are concerned, we’ve already lost that battle. They believed those things without evidence previously and they’ll continue to whether we give them ammunition or not. Kirk never came to argue in good faith, he was a propaganda/hate mouthpiece. Look at how he responded when backed into a corner, he would never change his mind and that’s why I take umbrage with the characterization that he engaged in dialogue. He was a monologist who used his words as weapons.
At the end of the day though I think you’re right. The world can always use more empathy and empathetic people and we should strive for that but we’re also imperfect and missteps should be met with that same energy.