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

[canpakes]

Personally, I would be careful in saying I align myself with anyone. I think it is much better to align with correct principles.

All in all, this entire post was excellent, but these two sentences really need to be taken to heart by more Americans.

[Kishkumen]

Oh, and I still want to know whether you align with those sentiments from Charlie Kirk, especially the ones about Black people, Ceeboo. I am hoping you don't agree with Charlie Kirk's insulting and false ideas about Black people. It is very troubling that he returned to the topic numerous times to share the same insulting and false nonsense about Black people. So, I don't think we can dismiss this as a topic he never said much about. I think his views are crystal clear.

This is not to say that we don't know people in our personal lives who may have really stinky opinions but are still our loved ones. Bigotry is very human. We can still love the people in our lives who have bigoted views and mourn their deaths. I know that I have, do, and will. Love is complicated like that.

[Kishkumen]

All in all, this entire post was excellent, but these two sentences really need to be taken to heart by more Americans.

Indeed! When people tell me that I have to defend a politician, I think, "Nonsense!" Tell me the principles the politician represents, and I will happily tell you whether I agree with those principles or not. Right now, the most important principles, where our priorities should be:

Does the person support free and fair elections?

Does this person uphold and follow the Constitution?

Does this person value the scientific method and align with bona fide experts in scientific fields they are not personally expert in (through traditional training)?

Does this person's economic policy make sense and provide for the well-being and opportunities of as many Americans as possible?

Does this person follow the law?

Does this person exhibit respect and care for other human beings?

We can set aside all of the nonsensical ideological garbage that political parties trade in. Some or perhaps many of those things can be overlooked. But such fundamentals as these should not be overlooked. We all rely on them and neglect them to our collective peril.

[ceeboo]

I gotta say, Ceeboo, it really bugs me when you emotionally flip out.

My apologies - don't take it personally. The entire Kirk assassination (as well as all the unbelievably disturbing things I have seen posted all over social media since) has put me in a very bad mental place. This has impacted me much more than I would have guessed.

For what it's worth, you are on the list (a list that's not very long these days) of board members here that I will communicate with. So, take that how you wish.

(No caps and no exclamation points in this entire post)

[Kishkumen]

My apologies - don't take it personally. The entire Kirk assassination (as well as all the unbelievably disturbing things I have seen posted all over social media since) has put me in a very bad mental place. This has impacted me much more than I would have guessed.

For what it's worth, you are on the list (a list that's not very long these days)) of board members here that I will communicate with. So, take that how you wish.

(No caps and no exclamation points in this entire post)

Well, thank goodness. I am sorry that you are going through this emotional shock. I wish we could play this all back and somehow prevent Charlie's death. Anyone who says otherwise is mad. You have my sincere sympathies. We should all be on the team of "would that Charlie had not been cruelly murdered."

[Whiskey]

Is that why he was assassinated? Are you saying that you know more about this than the rest of us do? What is your evidence for saying that hatred drove this act?

To be among the many people who are still pretending that we don't know why Charlie was assassinated is very troubling. It is completely absurd. And, it is very dangerous to the entire country.

What is my evidence? F me!

Un Freaking Believable!

Ceeboo, you nailed it. Have you ever cracked open Apologetics 101? What Kish is running here is Apologetics 99 — the remedial class where the trick is to ask inane, insane questions, not to learn anything, but to strut superiority. The formula is simple: no matter how you answer, the questioner gets to twist it, declare you wrong, and pat themselves on the back as “correct.”

Notice too — Kishkumen isn’t actually taking a stand of his own. The only real position on offer is the apologist one: that your stand is easily dismissed, disproven, or crap-on. That’s the refuge. Stay out of the arena, keep your own views vague, and posture as the arbiter who never risks being wrong.

It’s not strength, it’s theater. The question isn’t about evidence, it’s about setting the board so you can’t win. That’s the play every time. And it’s exactly the sort of dodge that keeps Team Amazing Shot congratulating itself while the common sense world just shakes its head.

[Whiskey]

Indeed! When people tell me that I have to defend a politician, I think, "Nonsense!" Tell me the principles the politician represents, and I will happily tell you whether I agree with those principles or not.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nonsense indeed. Fortunately, this ain't a trial and you ain't a judge. Standing for nothing more than judgment is clever though. It frees you up to twist everything in your favor.

[Kishkumen]

Ceeboo, you nailed it. Have you ever cracked open Apologetics 101? What Kish is running here is Apologetics 99 — the remedial class where the trick is to ask inane, insane questions, not to learn anything, but to strut superiority. The formula is simple: no matter how you answer, the questioner gets to twist it, declare you wrong, and pat themselves on the back as “correct.”

Notice too — Kishkumen isn’t actually taking a stand of his own. The only real position on offer is the apologist one: that your stand is easily dismissed, disproven, or crap-on. That’s the refuge. Stay out of the arena, keep your own views vague, and posture as the arbiter who never risks being wrong.

It’s not strength, it’s theater. The question isn’t about evidence, it’s about setting the board so you can’t win. That’s the play every time. And it’s exactly the sort of dodge that keeps Team Amazing Shot congratulating itself while the common sense world just shakes its head.

Try to keep up with the conversation. Your agenda is showing.

[Kishkumen]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nonsense indeed. Fortunately, this ain't a trial and you ain't a judge. Standing for nothing more than judgment is clever though. It frees you up to twist everything in your favor.

Your post is irrelevant.

[Whiskey]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Nonsense indeed. Fortunately, this ain't a trial and you ain't a judge. Standing for nothing more than judgment is clever though. It frees you up to twist everything in your favor.

Your post is irrelevant.

Oh, that’s rich. First it’s “try to keep up,” then it’s “irrelevant.” That’s the whole dodge distilled: don’t answer, don’t risk a stand, just slap a label on the critique and stroll off like you’ve won by default.

But here’s the thing, Professor — if I’m “irrelevant,” why are you still circling back? Why waste breath on something beneath notice? Because you know it isn’t irrelevant. It’s the one breach your apologist wall can’t handle: someone pointing out that the guard's role here is never committing, except to commit that someone else must be wrong. Oh, and you are all experts on fascism, LOL.

That’s not debate. That’s not even theater. It’s karaoke in the shower. And the track? “Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead.” Belt it out, lather up, whatever, its yours and you can wash it as fast as you want — just don’t kid yourself. You’re not the Wizard. You’re the guy fogging up the mirror.