Update: It occurs to me that because I only vaguely knew who Charlie Kirk was, it is possible that the people of the left my age may not have heard of him before this week. Now that I think of their comments, there was usually reference to one of the 3-4 out-of-context quotes that made the headlines in the last few days. I used the word disquieting below. This is one step worse, but the best word is not occurring to me. But now really...really...why say anything?
************
People who felt positively about Charlie Kirk want to say something positive, or inspiring, or constructive about him. That makes sense. That's what we do when people die, not just famous people.
I understand that people who make their livings giving political opinions think they are obligated to tell everyone what they think about Charlie Kirk even if it's negative. They aren't obligated, but I can see why inertia would make them reflexively just say something. I am growing tired of the repeated "I don't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but he did spread hate..." But. Content providers. They think they hae to say something.
But I don't understand why everyday people feel like they need to go on Facebook or TikTok and say anything negative about him, however much they disagreed with him. Why say anything at all, or at least - save it for later. I say this because I have seen people who I know personally, who would think of themselves not only as nice people but much nicer than average (though they likely wouldn't say that). Being nice has been part of what they have shown to the world for 40, 50, 60 years. Years ago I would have agreed with them that they were much nicer than I was* - and I would have agreed with them on that until recently.
It is dangerous to assume that the terrible examples that the left and the right take to show the world how terrible Those Others are represent the general reality. Out of 350,000,000 people there are going to be some terrible ones of all kinds. But these are not cherry-picked worst case examples. These are people I know. In one case it is a person I will worship with tomorrow morning. And of course my brother and cousins are prominent among them.
It is just disquieting to read people immediately saying "I'm sorry about what happened to him but!...but!...but!...oh, and it is terrible about his wife and children." I went looking at my usual sites and I do not see the same about the deaths of people they disagreed with. In one case a writer had something very critical of Jimmy Carter just before his death, but said as good as he could after.
Say it later. You are just showing how quietly consumed by hate** you are, unable to contain yourself. I don't worry that you will cheer if it somehow came to be my turn, but I am pretty sure now that you will shrug.
*Okay, maybe only half of them.
**Given the update above, maybe it's more virtue signalling
5 comments:
He wasn't on my radar, and I'd bet that for many of those I've read who justify his murder, he wasn't on theirs either. But their tribal news sources told them everything they need to know, true or "truthy."
You can't be the first one to stop clapping.
There are reports of death that leave me thinking almost nothing but "that's good news"---Hamas leadership, for instance, or some hideous fugitive who committed suicide by cop. I sometimes indulge in some crowing, but I try to nip it in the bud. These are people whose death clearly marks an end to their ability to maim or kill more victims: genuine, not metaphorical, violence. I'm still responsible for not indulging in joy in their suffering.
I hope I would not have a similar reaction to someone whose only crime was to hold repulsive opinions. When a prominent leftist dies, I try hard to keep my lip zipped. It's not the time for me to point out the deceased's flaws. I can be politely silent while others eulogize. In the unlikely event of someone goading me to express an opinion, I'd probably take refuge in something like "Now's not the time," or else to dig deep and think of something positive to say, if only to acknowledge how many people admired him. I also try to imagine how I'd feel about hearing the kind of snark I'm tempted to utter, if I had valued and admired the deceased.
Sometimes the pressure to say something awful pops out in my frustration over a ridiculous obit, such as the NYT's famous "austere religious scholar" headline.
But that would be upset at the Times, not the man, at least in the moment.
Post a Comment