Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I believe we had a watershed moment with Charlie's assassination, and I think the ensuing public debate is, not surprisingly, focusing on the wrong conversations.
This isn't the first time we've seen the intersection of social media and violence, but this instance seems to have struck a chord in a uniquely resonant way. Across the political spectrum, we've all been burned out by the algorithm turning these platforms into weapons of rage. I wonder if the post-COVID era represents a new chapter where this feels even more elevated than before.
With the dumpster fire raging in the background, we now see (by video and online, of course) a shooting by someone radicalized by the aforementioned platforms. I think the country is thinking, "Something's gotta change."
What's insidious about this dynamic is that we are carrying around these rage machines in our phones. We have instant and constant access to this filth.
We did this to ourselves. (I think corporations behind these platforms are benefiting at our expense, but that's another post.)
-----------
I think both the left and the right are getting one thing wrong about the issue.
On the left, the argument most seem to be going with is that Charlie was spewing hate speech, therefore...and that's where it goes off the rails. It's unclear whether this was an argument for Charlie to be arrested or whether his killing was justified.
On the right, people seem to be confusing the country's reaction to the shooting with their own support for Charlie's activism: He was a partisan figure whose legacy will be debated for years.
----------
My take, so far:
This is the first social media assassination. The broad reaction by the nation leans toward free speech (no matter how controversial) being better than violence. Charlie's record and rhetoric are fair game for criticism. Generally, we shouldn't cancel people for their attacks on Charlie.
This might be wishful thinking, but maybe we take steps to revisit our relationship with social media for our sanity's sake.
Discussion (22)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
He would agree. But we must avoid equating disagreements, even fundamental ones, with hatred.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I mostly agree, however...
a) Please define "we". Please define "cancel".
I don't have the ability to fire anybody, and I'm not famous enough to persuade anybody else to fire someone.
All I can do is express my disagreement with something somebody has said and/or refrain from associating with them in the future.
Is expressing disagreement and/or refraining from association the same thing as "cancelling"?
e.g. I've got a cousin who cornered me at a family gathering demanding to know what I thought of Jordan Peterson. I replied that I generally hadn't given Jordan Peterson very much thought at all one way or the other. The cousin got really upset and went on a rant about the evils of Jordan Peterson. I now have little-to-no desire to spend any time with that cousin if it means there will be a high likelihood that I'll have to endure more rants that I really don't care about. Am I "cancelling" my cousin?
(Aside: In reality I tell my cousin, “it’s my day off. I’m not discussing politics. If you wanna discuss politics please make an appointment to meet me at my office during business hours. They have never taken me up on the offer.”)
b) Please define "attack". As far as I'm concerned, the only person that attacked Charlie Kirk was the shooter. Everybody else is merely expressing an opinion about Charlie Kirk. I suppose if Charlie Kirk had survived then some of the claims made about him could arguably be considered defamation, but one cannot defame a dead person under US law so those claims are merely opinions.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
A lot of people (including me) disagreed with Charlie Kirk on many issues but were still devastated by his murder.
I think cancelling people for just attacking Charlie is wrong, but openly celebrating murder is a line I don't think people should cross.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
As with Covid, I think the reaction to the event was the real watershed moment. Most "normies" didn't know who Charlie Kirk was. But they saw a man murdered, and were shocked to learn how many of their fellow Americans openly cheered in celebration of his death. Not fringe elements, but main stream commentators, public figures, and even friends and neighbors. In the wake of that, millions started pulling up Charlie Kirk videos, and learning that the man on whose grave so many were dancing was not Hitler. He was calm, polite, and calling for honest and open discussion. And yet the cheers and jeers continued, with increasing calls for more blood: "Who shall we kill next?"
It's quite a jolt to suddenly realize you're not living in the world you thought you were. The cheerers and jeerers are forcing non-political types to take sides. That will be their downfall.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I can't bring myself to call for cancellations, but when they happen my schadenfreude starts to kick in. I don't much care for revenge but it is possible that some people only gain empathy through personal experience.
Maybe the left will change their ways out of a spirit of fair play.
I mean it could happen.
You're seeing five of 22 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.