The murder of Charlie Kirk was sad. It is also sad to see the misspent tributes cropping up like weeds, to a figure who advocated for an exclusionary vision of not just America, but of a wider world that would forbid and cast out human beings narrowly considered deviant, or simply unacceptable—to their particular community—which deems itself the arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil. A community that tries to impose on others, who are actually a majority, the stale and ancient dictums contained in a chaotic and contradictory collection of writings of desert pastoralists living in a tiny portion of the earth many, many centuries ago. Those in this community are able, without shame, to meld the greed of the Gilded Age to carefully selected passages from these murky ancient ramblings to justify further levels of exclusion and cruelty.
The murder of Charlie Kirk was sad, as is any other murder. It was neither sadder nor more heinous than any other murder, and it does not deserve any greater level of mourning than any other murder.
I’m not convinced that Charlie Kirk was truly committed to open and free discourse. Such a commitment would mean a person is open to changing or amending their position on being confronted with convincing arguments. I think he was more supremely self-confident and eager to bowl over opponents or challengers with the depth of his convictions and details he amassed in support of them (not without a strong dose of confirmation bias). His shtick was more performance than debate. Did he ever change a position? Admit he was wrong? Maybe he did. I’ve only skimmed a few of his podcasts and clips.
