An Op-Ed by Wang Chung: Charlie Kirk’s Toxic Legacy of Hatred and Division

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Political violence, like the murder of Charlie Kirk, is unequivocally wrong and must be condemned. It is possible to express this condemnation and honor the grief felt by some, while also acknowledging Kirk's history of promoting division, racism, bigotry and hatred.

This is a time for both compassion and honesty. We can respect the mourning process without shying away from a critical examination of Kirk's horrible legacy. His influence, built on a foundation of bigotry and reactionary rage/anger, contributed to a climate of social and cultural violence, causing real pain, violence and division.

While no single person can resolve these issues, we must actively work to de-escalate the situation and strongly condemn all forms of political violence, and just as strongly, we must reject the hatred, fearmongering, and bigotry of people like Charlie Kirk that fuels it.

So now that we've established that the system is broken, our leader is clueless, and any plan of reconciliation with the left and right is a fantasy, the only question left is: What are we having for lunch? And with that, I'll leave you good folks to ponder our collective future. Happy thoughts!

Post moved to appropriate forum- Xen

[Whiskey]

Political violence, like the murder of Charlie Kirk, is unequivocally wrong and must be condemned. It is possible to express this condemnation and honor the grief felt by some, while also acknowledging Kirk's history of promoting division, racism, bigotry and hatred.

This is a time for both compassion and honesty. We can respect the mourning process without shying away from a critical examination of Kirk's horrible legacy. His influence, built on a foundation of bigotry and reactionary rage/anger, contributed to a climate of social and cultural violence, causing real pain, violence and division.

While no single person can resolve these issues, we must actively work to de-escalate the situation and strongly condemn all forms of political violence, and just as strongly, we must reject the hatred, fearmongering, and bigotry of people like Charlie Kirk that fuels it.

So now that we've established that the system is broken, our leader is clueless, and any plan of reconciliation with the left and right is a fantasy, the only question left is: What are we having for lunch? And with that, I'll leave you good folks to ponder our collective future. Happy thoughts!

This is merely a clueless, uninformed, and tribal take on the assassination, the state of things, and of Charlie Kirk. Wrapping a murder in caveats about “division” and “legacy” is just another way of excusing it by implication. It’s not compassion, it’s moral relativism — a bit of self-soothing loathe disguised as insight. And it does not represent the informed Mormon or ex-Mormon communities as a whole, who are more than capable of condemning violence without laundering it through petty partisanship in a partisan, protected, silo-like venue.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Political violence, like the murder of Charlie Kirk, is unequivocally wrong and must be condemned. It is possible to express this condemnation and honor the grief felt by some, while also acknowledging Kirk's history of promoting division, racism, bigotry and hatred.

This is a time for both compassion and honesty. We can respect the mourning process without shying away from a critical examination of Kirk's horrible legacy. His influence, built on a foundation of bigotry and reactionary rage/anger, contributed to a climate of social and cultural violence, causing real pain, violence and division.

While no single person can resolve these issues, we must actively work to de-escalate the situation and strongly condemn all forms of political violence, and just as strongly, we must reject the hatred, fearmongering, and bigotry of people like Charlie Kirk that fuels it.

So now that we've established that the system is broken, our leader is clueless, and any plan of reconciliation with the left and right is a fantasy, the only question left is: What are we having for lunch? And with that, I'll leave you good folks to ponder our collective future. Happy thoughts!

This is merely a clueless, uninformed, and tribal take on the assassination, the state of things, and of Charlie Kirk. Wrapping a murder in caveats about “division” and “legacy” is just another way of excusing it by implication. It’s not compassion, it’s moral relativism — a bit of self-soothing loathe disguised as insight. And it does not represent the informed Mormon or ex-Mormon communities as a whole, who are more than capable of condemning violence without laundering it through petty partisanship in a partisan, protected, silo-like venue.

Well, aren't you just a font of righteous indignation. The intellectual gymnastics required to simultaneously decry "moral relativism" while insisting that only your community's take on this issue is valid are truly a sight to behold. It's a real shame that the rest of us, who are apparently too clueless to condemn violence without "laundering it through petty partisanship," don't have the benefit of your enlightened insight.

[Philo Sofee]

This is merely a clueless, uninformed, and tribal take on the assassination, the state of things, and of Charlie Kirk. Wrapping a murder in caveats about “division” and “legacy” is just another way of excusing it by implication. It’s not compassion, it’s moral relativism — a bit of self-soothing loathe disguised as insight. And it does not represent the informed Mormon or ex-Mormon communities as a whole, who are more than capable of condemning violence without laundering it through petty partisanship in a partisan, protected, silo-like venue.

Well, aren't you just a font of righteous indignation. The intellectual gymnastics required to simultaneously decry "moral relativism" while insisting that only your community's take on this issue is valid are truly a sight to behold. It's a real shame that the rest of us, who are apparently too clueless to condemn violence without "laundering it through petty partisanship," don't have the benefit of your enlightened insight.

Is the Hound dog in disguise?!

[Whiskey]

This is merely a clueless, uninformed, and tribal take on the assassination, the state of things, and of Charlie Kirk. Wrapping a murder in caveats about “division” and “legacy” is just another way of excusing it by implication. It’s not compassion, it’s moral relativism — a bit of self-soothing loathe disguised as insight. And it does not represent the informed Mormon or ex-Mormon communities as a whole, who are more than capable of condemning violence without laundering it through petty partisanship in a partisan, protected, silo-like venue.

Well, aren't you just a font of righteous indignation. The intellectual gymnastics required to simultaneously decry "moral relativism" while insisting that only your community's take on this issue is valid are truly a sight to behold. It's a real shame that the rest of us, who are apparently too clueless to condemn violence without "laundering it through petty partisanship," don't have the benefit of your enlightened insight.

Mock all you like, but nothing in your reply changes the substance. Dressing up an assassination with caveats about “division” and “legacy” is still laundering violence through partisanship. That’s not enlightened nuance, it’s just tribal comfort food.

And spare me the “gymnastics” bit — there’s nothing complex about it. Condemning violence outright while refusing to excuse it with partisan qualifiers is the simplest moral position there is. That’s just calling balls and strikes, acknowledging there’s a man on first, and keeping track of the outs. The fact that it feels exotic here says more about a silo than it does about me.

[Whiskey]

Well, aren't you just a font of righteous indignation. The intellectual gymnastics required to simultaneously decry "moral relativism" while insisting that only your community's take on this issue is valid are truly a sight to behold. It's a real shame that the rest of us, who are apparently too clueless to condemn violence without "laundering it through petty partisanship," don't have the benefit of your enlightened insight.

Is the Hound dog in disguise?!

Why so quick to call me someone I’m not? If I were the Hound, the words would stand on their own — and since I’m not, the mistake says more about the guesser than the target. It’s a snap judgment you can’t defend, and that’s the damning part. Mistaking the umpire for a player doesn’t change the strike count.

[Chap]

Dressing up an assassination with caveats about “division” and “legacy” is still laundering violence through partisanship.

My view on the murder of Kirk is twofold:

1. It was wrong to murder him. Quite apart from the fact murdering people is in general a bad thing for society, the murder of people on political grounds threatens the survival of democracy.

2. As a result of his murder, I have reviewed a number of examples of what he put online, and my initial impression is that I not only disagree strongly with many of the views I have seen him express, but I also feel that his conviction that he was right led him to 'debate' in ways which were neither open nor fair.

In the two statements made above, taken together, am I in your view "laundering violence through partisanship"? If so, kindly explain how.

[Whiskey]

Dressing up an assassination with caveats about “division” and “legacy” is still laundering violence through partisanship.

My view on the murder of Kirk is twofold:

1. It was wrong to murder him. Quite apart from the fact murdering people is in general a bad thing for society, the murder of people on political grounds threatens the survival of democracy.

2. As a result of his murder, I have reviewed a number of examples of what he put online, and my initial impression is that I not only disagree strongly with many of the views I have seen him express, but I also feel that his conviction that he was right led him to 'debate' in ways which were neither open nor fair.

In the two statements made above, taken together, am I in your view "laundering violence through partisanship"? If so, kindly explain how.

Not necessarily, Chap. Your first point is a clean moral judgment: political murder is wrong, full stop. That’s not laundering. The laundering happens when condemnation is tied to partisanship so tightly that the caveats start to soften the verdict. “Murder is wrong, but…” is the move Wang Chung made.

Take me and Kirk: we could not be further apart on abortion. Well — not exactly true. Kirk and “Karen” are equally authoritarian on abortion, just with opposite authoritarian conclusions. And yet, my disagreement with him — and my distaste for his debate style — don’t lead me to conclude that his death is some kind of blessing, soothing away his so-called "hateful" or even so-called “Nazi”-adjacent nonsense — which, let’s be honest, is the flimsiest rhetorical crutch in the playbook.

That’s the line. You can oppose his ideas with everything you’ve got, but the moment you start wrapping his murder in partisan qualifiers, you’re not condemning violence anymore. You’re laundering it.

[Chap]

My view on the murder of Kirk is twofold:

1. It was wrong to murder him. Quite apart from the fact murdering people is in general a bad thing for society, the murder of people on political grounds threatens the survival of democracy.

2. As a result of his murder, I have reviewed a number of examples of what he put online, and my initial impression is that I not only disagree strongly with many of the views I have seen him express, but I also feel that his conviction that he was right led him to 'debate' in ways which were neither open nor fair.

In the two statements made above, taken together, am I in your view "laundering violence through partisanship"? If so, kindly explain how.

Not necessarily, Chap. Your first point is a clean moral judgment: political murder is wrong, full stop. That’s not laundering. The laundering happens when condemnation is tied to partisanship so tightly that the caveats start to soften the verdict. “Murder is wrong, but…” is the move Wang Chung made.

Take me and Kirk: we could not be further apart on abortion. Well — not exactly true. Kirk and “Karen” are equally authoritarian on abortion, just with opposite authoritarian conclusions. And yet, my disagreement with him — and my distaste for his debate style — don’t lead me to conclude that his death is some kind of blessing, soothing away his so-called "hateful" or even so-called “Nazi”-adjacent nonsense — which, let’s be honest, is the flimsiest rhetorical crutch in the playbook.

That’s the line. You can oppose his ideas with everything you’ve got, but the moment you start wrapping his murder in partisan qualifiers, you’re not condemning violence anymore. You’re laundering it.

So if I had said:

"It was wrong to murder him. Quite apart from the fact murdering people is in general a bad thing for society, the murder of people on political grounds threatens the survival of democracy, but as a result of his murder, I have reviewed a number of examples of what he put online, and my initial impression is that I not only disagree strongly with many of the views I have seen him express, but I also feel that his conviction that he was right led him to 'debate' in ways which were neither open nor fair."

Then since:

The laundering happens when condemnation is tied to partisanship so tightly that the caveats start to soften the verdict. “Murder is wrong, but…” is the move Wang Chung made.

I would have been "laundering"? Goodness, how very subtle you are! I really need to watch my step when you are around.

[Whiskey]

Not necessarily, Chap. Your first point is a clean moral judgment: political murder is wrong, full stop. That’s not laundering. The laundering happens when condemnation is tied to partisanship so tightly that the caveats start to soften the verdict. “Murder is wrong, but…” is the move Wang Chung made.

Take me and Kirk: we could not be further apart on abortion. Well — not exactly true. Kirk and “Karen” are equally authoritarian on abortion, just with opposite authoritarian conclusions. And yet, my disagreement with him — and my distaste for his debate style — don’t lead me to conclude that his death is some kind of blessing, soothing away his so-called "hateful" or even so-called “Nazi”-adjacent nonsense — which, let’s be honest, is the flimsiest rhetorical crutch in the playbook.

That’s the line. You can oppose his ideas with everything you’ve got, but the moment you start wrapping his murder in partisan qualifiers, you’re not condemning violence anymore. You’re laundering it.

So if I had said:

"It was wrong to murder him. Quite apart from the fact murdering people is in general a bad thing for society, the murder of people on political grounds threatens the survival of democracy, but as a result of his murder, I have reviewed a number of examples of what he put online, and my initial impression is that I not only disagree strongly with many of the views I have seen him express, but I also feel that his conviction that he was right led him to 'debate' in ways which were neither open nor fair."

Then since:

The laundering happens when condemnation is tied to partisanship so tightly that the caveats start to soften the verdict. “Murder is wrong, but…” is the move Wang Chung made.

I would have been "laundering"? Goodness, how very subtle you are! I really need to watch my step when you are around.

"Step on a crack...."

Thanks, Chap.