Can I just say, I was talking (and thinking) very carelessly upthread @4.05 on Charlie Kirk. For clarity's sake, I have no idea whether or not Kirk's influence was "malevolent", since I have no idea what his real wishes were. I do not necessarily take his Christianity at face value, and not only for the excellent reasons lj gives immediately above. But there is nonetheless no doubt in my mind that his influence was malign, and despite the undoubted tragedy of his murder, and the terrible and understandable grief of his family, it is somewhat sickening to see the rightwing glorification of this deeply problematic person. He might have changed for the better, as bc seems to suggest was a possibility, but he might also have changed for the worse. Murder and political violence are a curse wherever they occur, and neither their perpetrators nor their victims need by glorified in order to condemn them.
2025-09-26 16:05:35
You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.
2025-09-25 18:56:57
bc's point about AOC taking Kirk's comments (presumably that's what bc meant by "things"?) out of context reminds me. I think it was wonkie who said on another thread that she was going to counter people saying that Kirk had not said the things he is quoted as saying by showing video of him actually saying them. A compilation of that kind of thing would be enormously useful, particularly with brief lead-ins and what follows. Does anybody know if something like that exists? In any case, it would be interesting to hear anything substantiating that Melissa Hortman ever said, did or proposed anything that could be realistically compared to the many things we have evidence of Kirk saying or believing.
2025-09-25 13:36:04
AOC's response seems pretty good to me. I wonder what bc makes of it...
2025-09-22 17:26:42
Funnily enough, I only posted that last Klein/Shapiro piece for the preamble about the reaction to Klein's last piece! I didn't even read the Shapiro stuff - I barely knew of his existence until he was interviewed by Andrew Neil, one of our best known rightwing journalists (and ex-editor of the Sunday Times), fearsome and respected enough that BoJo refused to be interviewed by him the last time he ran, and saw Shapiro (obviously completely unaware of who Neil was and his background) responding to his proper questioning by calling him a leftwinger! Andrew Neil merely chuckled and moved on. But it was such an astonishing exhibition of ignorance and arrogance (Shapiro hadn't even bothered to look up who was interviewing him), and such an example of the tendency of these people immediately and brainlessly to label anyone who disagrees with them "leftwing", that I lost any interest in ever hearing anything else from him again. However, I suppose this phenomenon is now so widespread in the US that journalists can't just decide to boycott any politician or commentator who displays it.
2025-09-21 22:31:38
And since Ezra Klein talks today about the reaction to that piece, here is his latest on that:
Since lj mentions it, and we are not far from the end of the month and I still have 8 free gift articles left, this is the relevant Ezra Klein piece that Ta Nehisi Coates was addressing:
Can I just say, I was talking (and thinking) very carelessly upthread @4.05 on Charlie Kirk. For clarity's sake, I have no idea whether or not Kirk's influence was "malevolent", since I have no idea what his real wishes were. I do not necessarily take his Christianity at face value, and not only for the excellent reasons lj gives immediately above. But there is nonetheless no doubt in my mind that his influence was malign, and despite the undoubted tragedy of his murder, and the terrible and understandable grief of his family, it is somewhat sickening to see the rightwing glorification of this deeply problematic person. He might have changed for the better, as bc seems to suggest was a possibility, but he might also have changed for the worse. Murder and political violence are a curse wherever they occur, and neither their perpetrators nor their victims need by glorified in order to condemn them.
You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.
bc's point about AOC taking Kirk's comments (presumably that's what bc meant by "things"?) out of context reminds me. I think it was wonkie who said on another thread that she was going to counter people saying that Kirk had not said the things he is quoted as saying by showing video of him actually saying them. A compilation of that kind of thing would be enormously useful, particularly with brief lead-ins and what follows. Does anybody know if something like that exists? In any case, it would be interesting to hear anything substantiating that Melissa Hortman ever said, did or proposed anything that could be realistically compared to the many things we have evidence of Kirk saying or believing.
AOC's response seems pretty good to me. I wonder what bc makes of it...
Funnily enough, I only posted that last Klein/Shapiro piece for the preamble about the reaction to Klein's last piece! I didn't even read the Shapiro stuff - I barely knew of his existence until he was interviewed by Andrew Neil, one of our best known rightwing journalists (and ex-editor of the Sunday Times), fearsome and respected enough that BoJo refused to be interviewed by him the last time he ran, and saw Shapiro (obviously completely unaware of who Neil was and his background) responding to his proper questioning by calling him a leftwinger! Andrew Neil merely chuckled and moved on. But it was such an astonishing exhibition of ignorance and arrogance (Shapiro hadn't even bothered to look up who was interviewing him), and such an example of the tendency of these people immediately and brainlessly to label anyone who disagrees with them "leftwing", that I lost any interest in ever hearing anything else from him again. However, I suppose this phenomenon is now so widespread in the US that journalists can't just decide to boycott any politician or commentator who displays it.
And since Ezra Klein talks today about the reaction to that piece, here is his latest on that:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-ben-shapiro.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nk8.DjGX.vndkpD-Jytfn&smid=url-share
Since lj mentions it, and we are not far from the end of the month and I still have 8 free gift articles left, this is the relevant Ezra Klein piece that Ta Nehisi Coates was addressing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nU8.Vndl.HW2nTIeTvTs-&smid=url-share