Returned EA commenter jdkazoo (Welcome back, Professor!) has correctly pointed out that it is unfair and illogical to cite individual social media users expressing glee or satisfaction at the assassination of Charlie Kirk as representative of the Axis (“the resistance”/Democrats/ left-based mainstream media—aka. journalists generally) as a whole.
That is sage advice and undoubtedly true. However, those reactions—and the entire alternate “X” where progressive fled to avoid having to defend their cant is teeming with them—are still significant and should not be ignored because:
1. A disturbing number of these ghouls are teachers. A teacher who endorses violence as a political weapon is not trustworthy to teach the young. Firing them (or not hiring them in the first place) is not a breach of free speech. They can still say what ever stupid thing they want pr post it on social media, but some beliefs forfeit responsible trust. Endorsing political assassination and the murder of one’s political adversaries is one of them.
2. The fact that so many of these murder-fans appear to be within the mainstream of today’s warped Left is ominous, and shows how thoroughly the totalitarian drift of progressives has infested the general public through decades of indoctrination.
3. Public servants similarly should forfeit their jobs and careers in the public sector when the feel it is appropriate to endorse assassination as a legitimate political tool.
4. Posting such views on social media is also astoundingly stupid. What do these idiots think will be the reactions to these posts?
5. Yet the fact that so many do feel safe and confident in posting sentiments like (as an example) this…
…. by Nicole Gallagher-Kiner, a DA in Montana, tells us how far and deep the radical Left’s indoctrination has reached. And yes, she should be fired, impeached, whatever it takes.
Ethics Alarms 
It is possible because they live in such a bubble. Someone raised in an urban area, attending public school, university and back to the urban life can live in a world free of interaction with a single intelligent conservative. Their world view is unchallenged. No doubt there are those in real life and on social media that disagree with their views, but any conservative in those circles is under constant threat of ostracization if they speak up.
Because they’re never confronted over even the worst of their views, they never realized how far out of acceptable conduct they are.
They also very likely formed their opinions on Charlie Kirk without ever actually knowing anything accurate about them. They either never, ever watched a single video clip, or only watched ones curated by those demonizing him.
Trump’s election has unhinged them. Their world view doesn’t tolerate a place where Trump can actually be a democratically elected president. They can’t have rational thought or discussion about politics because they can’t square why a majority of the voters elected him.
I saw an insightful social media post by a progressive (aimed at other progressives) trying to make the point that not everyone agrees with them and to be careful what you post. After a lot of blowback, he responded “post whatever you want, but I’ve never heard of anyone being promoted because of a social media post and lots fired because of one.”
Not only is this going to get them fired, but it’s going to be a huge detriment to trying to get another job. People are pissed, and they’re not going to ignore those posting videos like this. The odds of landing a new job will be small, and if they do, it likely is short until they’re doxed again.
“Because they’re never confronted over even the worst of their views, they never realized how far out of acceptable conduct they are.”
Never being confronted/challenged also leads one to believe their views are irrevocably irrefutable.
PWS
I’ll point out that far more of the left considers political violence acceptable than the right is racist. Yet it doesn’t stop the left from constantly crowing from the rooftops about how racist the right is, does it? Yeah, I know… whataboutism…
But the reality is we have a FAR worse problem with way too many of the left being OK with violence. And this isn’t new, it is just that we had a reasonably reduced presence from 1980 to now. I have a now passed on relative that was the head of the San Fransisco police bomb squad in the 60’s. The anti-war left was planting bombs like mad back then. He claimed it was happening multiple times a week in the late 1960’s.
I won’t deny that there are racists in on the right. But they’re mostly ostracized. I’ll also point out there are plenty of racists on the left. When you count anti-white racists, the left leaning racists outnumber the right leaning ones easily.
I don’t know anyone personally who is a racist. I knew some in high school, many decades ago and I did not and still do not associate with them. But I do know plenty of what I thought were stable democrats who seem OK with it. I had a close relative state “perhaps we would have been better off if the guy in Butler didn’t miss.” Shocking. Just shocking. Firstly that they find political assassination OK, and secondly because there is the very real risk of putting the USA on a path to something resembling the Norther Ireland troubles. Trump being shot, the fandom of Luigi Mangioni, and now the killing of Charlie Kirk is a troubling trend.
The premise that it is wrong to demonize the entire left is accurate. I believe we need to recognize the individuality and not make a presumption. But I’ll also point out that it is on the left to call out their own side. The same applies to the right. Criticism from their own side is absolutely more effective. Are you doing this:
If you’re not doing those, then you’re not really addressing the problem.
Dang, I wish I could edit comments. Proofreading failure on my part.
It needs the edit: But I do know plenty of what I thought were stable democrats who seem OK with political violence.
Further, it also demonstrates how this attitude isn’t just the purview of elite academia, vapid Hollywood denizens or extremist Far Left Soapbox Warriors with the loudest voices. It has filtered down into ordinary citizens who have been corrupted.
Further, in your example, it demonstrates the lack of critical thinking required of teachers. Charlie Kirk did not say any children deserved to die. He acknowledged the hard truth that respecting the Constitutional Rights of all citizens means that we must accept that there will be those who will abuse their liberties in order to cause harm. Just as there are those who abuse their First Amendment rights, there are those who abuse their Second Amendment rights, too. The Left’s solution for quite some time has been to call for eliminating or severely restricting those rights.
Yes, I’m pondering ready to post on this ridiculous illogical argument being advanced by people who should know better.
I accidentally posted this in the main comment thread, when I meant to reply directly to you. If you could delete the other post that would be great.
I didn’t follow Kirk close enough to know what specific statement they’re referencing, but I remember you posted something similar:
For the record, I agree, but I’m not surprised at all that people on the left hated Kirk for expressing the same sentiments.
Paul Harding posted this on Quora.
https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14
All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.
For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I’d catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I’d find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child’s bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I’d find out for sure whether a lab was there.
How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we’ve got some evidence, but it isn’t enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.
Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I’ll make the world safer for you. No question about it.
The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I’m allowed to do to you, what’s going to keep you safe from me?
Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.
That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me – that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven’t really thought through the consequences. I won’t argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.
Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.
Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.
Because some criminals get off because of breach of the 4th amendment against illegal search so we should discard the 4th amendment. Such logic is the hallmark of authoritarians
That was the thinking of the Clinton administration in 1994.
A disturbing number of these ghouls are teachers. A teacher who endorses violence as a political weapon is not trustworthy to teach the young.
Here in Boise, two teachers were fired for gloating over Charlie Kirk’s murder.
There was a vigil at the state capital. Some guy in pride colors showed up on a bike and started yelling “Fu*k Charlie Kirk.” This being Boise, he got his ass well and truly kicked before the police could intervene.
He said children deserved to die …
No, he didn’t. This is a problem peculiar to, and nearly universal, among progressives: they say what he said, rather than quoting what he said. His argument is that totalitarian societies disarm their citizens, whom they then kill in quantities orders of magnitude greater than what we suffer from wide ownership of guns.
Completely different. I absolutely cannot fathom that mind set.
Forgot to mention — one of the teachers was a woman, the other uses the pronoun “their”.
I’ll bet that all the people celebrating Charlies death belong to one or more of: female, gay, trans.
Link is broken.
Link is broken …
Trying again.
Works now!
Everything I’ve been trying to say about the Kirk shooting has been said better by a Republican. Here’s the governor of Utah, a great American patriot. (from NYT)
But Gov. Spencer Cox of Utah, a Republican, used his turn in the spotlight to make a full-throated appeal for the practice of forgiveness, urging the country to find a way to lower the political temperature in a deeply fraught moment.
“We can return violence with violence, we can return hate with hate, and that’s the problem with political violence — is it metastasizes,” Mr. Cox said. “Because we can always point the finger at the other side. And at some point, we have to find an off-ramp, or it’s going to get much, much worse.”
“History will dictate if this is a turning point for our country,” Mr. Cox continued, “but every single one of us gets to choose right now if this is a turning point for us.”
Mr. Cox’s impassioned remarks, delivered as the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, stood to the side, seemed in some ways to be a direct rebuke to language of vengeance that prominent members of his party, including President Trump, have used in the days following the shooting.
Republicans from the White House to Capitol Hill have blamed the left for the shooting of Mr. Kirk, an influential right-wing youth activist. They have vowed to find and shut down groups that have been critical of Mr. Kirk and his polarizing brand of politics. Some figures on the far-right have called for all-out war.
Mr. Cox’s plea drew a sharp contrast to Mr. Trump’s words on Fox News on Friday morning after he told the hosts that the suspected shooter was in custody.
“The radicals on the left are the problem,” Mr. Trump said, “and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.”
Mr. Cox, instead, put the blame on one person: The shooter.
“There is one person responsible for what happened here and that person is now in custody and will be charged soon and will be held accountable,” he said.
He also cast the intensely politicized response to the shooting, which was filmed and posted to social media and has been viewed countless times, as the outgrowth of a broader problem in society, though not one confined to either political party.
“Social media,” he said, “is a cancer on our society right now. And I would encourage people to log off, turn off, touch grass, hug a family member.”
Mr. Cox also drew on what he said were the words of Mr. Kirk himself, before asking young people — the group with whom Mr. Kirk, who was 31, connected so easily — to find a way out of the cycle of political violence that some experts warn the assassination could inflame.
“He said, ‘Always forgive your enemies, nothing annoys them so much,’” Mr. Cox said.
“To my young friends out there, you are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage. It feels like rage is the only option but through those words, we have a reminder that we can choose a different path,” he added.
“Your generation has an opportunity to build a culture that is very different than what we are suffering through right now,” he said.
Mr. Cox’s turn at the mic was consistent with his approach to politics, one that has earned him admiration from moderate groups while grating on many Republicans in his deeply conservative state. A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he has long worked to encourage people to tone down political rhetoric and made an initiative called “Disagree Better” a hallmark of his tenure as governor.
And you conveniently left out progressives who called me and other like me Nazis. You forgot that Senate Minority leader claimed we are in a war or others who said the time has come to take up arms against the Trump regime. People like you are the ones who poison young minds in the class room. Your talking points and fine comments about Gov. Cox help deflect any moral responsibility so many who share your political perspectives have had in showing the attitudes of young minds. There is no point in debate with you when you are blind to your own culpability .
Hi Chris–I didn’t provide a laundry list of wrongs by leaders of the right or the left, or by their myriad followers. The behaviors you identify–anyone advocating violence–or demonizing the opposition, dehumanizing the other side–earns my condemnation. I don’t know how you can know what happens in my classroom. At one point in my career, I was asked to be the faculty sponsor of the College Republicans, and the next semester by the College Democrats. I said yes to both. I’ve written strong letters of recommendation and helped employ or get into grad school both hard core conservative Republicans and folks far to the left of the Dems. It’s my job. I’m far from perfect, and I’ve made mistakes in the classroom in many ways. But I don’t deliberately discriminate, or allow viewpoints to be shut down or mocked. But you’ve never met me. It isn’t a good idea to make wild speculation about how someone else does their job, based on a few blog posts. I don’t know your profession, but even if I did, I don’t think I have nearly enough data to say anything about how you behave. I have some idea about how you argue, though.
I do get what you’re saying. And you’re right to say it.
But the proof is in the pudding. There is not a large contingent of people on the right who think Newsom, or Buttigieg, or Kamala Harris is an existential threat to anything. There isn’t a large contingent of people on the right who think that political violence is justifiable or that someone who was killed in cold blood shouldn’t have been killed “but I totally understand it because that guy killed others by denying claims.”
I have personally heard a frighteningly large number of otherwise reasonable people say these things, in real life and on the Internet. At a less frightening level, look at who unfriends (or won’t date( others because of their political views–it leans heavily toward liberals.
Maybe the crazies on the right just can’t convince the rank and file. Maybe because the right is counter-culture right now that we’re just more likely to reject what people in authority tell us to think. But for whatever reason, the demagoguery on the left is working, and it really doesn’t seem to be working on the right.
Yes, it’s our job to change what we can–ourselves. Cox couldn’t have said it better. But at the same time, it needs to be yelled loud and repeatedly that what is happening on the left is scary, and it’s because of the rhetoric being used at all levels and unceasingly in the media–that Trump is evil, that his supporters are anything other than people who have different views on public policy, and that democracy hangs by a thread.
I didn’t follow Kirk close enough to know what specific statement they’re referencing, but I remember you posted something similar:
For the record, I agree, but I’m not surprised at all that left hated Kirk for expressing the same sentiments.
Oh-oh.
Now you’ve done it: I’ll have to go into hiding.
1, I’m re-posting this.
2. Gee, I wonder if Kirk read EA?
Some interesting, if one-sided, proposals. If they were meant to apply to a teacher who posts “Kill Pelosi” or who supported the attack on her husband, or who were at J6 with a “Hang Mike Pence” sign…I’d be more inclined to support them. Rules about violent speech must be content neutral, and only concerned with the violent advocacy. I’m still very hesitant to have them, because even teachers deserve private lives and free speech, but if we are going to have them, let’s make sure they punish rightwing violent fanatics and leftwing violent fanatics equally.
But remember–Kirk endorsed some “hero” bailing out the rightwing nut job who attacked Pelosi. Should that speech be subject to your draconian proposals? Which gets to the real problems with policing violent speech by government action–enforcement is quite a challenge. Defining violent speech, defining satire, being neutral in the application–all very very hard to do.
I don’t think they are proposals. No allowing teachers to teach kids when they are avowed supporters of murder, political bias and law breaking is just common sense. Nor did I suggest the government should police violent speech.
I wasn’t a fan of Kirk: he was a demagogue, but a talented organizer and activist, and his work returning some political balance to universities was important and beneficial. His dumb comment about the guy who attacked Pelosi’s husband would be sufficient to justify an organization, law firm or company firing him, and maybe even the government, though that’s a closer call.But he wasn’t advocating criminal conduct, as paying someone’s bail isn’t a crime.
I’m struggling to find audio, but he called for someone to bail him out so that they could ask questions and find out and reveal what was really going on. That’s a bit different from actually approving of his actions. Even that was supposedly non-seriously, but since I can’t find the audio I’m not going to trust that. I’m leery of being tricked by Schrodinger’s Douchebag.
In my opinion, the government should not and, in fact, cannot lawfully police violent speech. The limitations on the First Amendment as articulated in SCOTUS jurisprudence are far to narrow for that, and the exception for so-called “fighting words” seems toothless given the most recent rulings. Threats are, of course, actionable, but dancing on the grave of another manifestly is not, at least by the government.
I think the right way to police violent rhetoric is to call it out. I generally oppose “cancel culture,” but when someone deliberately posts something stupid that casts disrepute upon their employer by association, they can hardly complain if they are freed up for other opportunities by dint of their carelessness or stupidity.
No one is forcing anyone to opine about anything. The old, “Better to remain silent and thought a fool…” quote comes to mind.
There is not one person alive, right, left, or center who has not said something that they shouldn’t have, or advocated a ridiculous position. That’s what apologies are for, and if offered sincerely, I think we should accept them. Case in point is Steven King. Right now is just a really bad time to make stupid, careless mistakes on social media. Nobody is in a forgiving mood.
Through the 14th amendment, the 1st applies down to EVERY political subdivision of government. University professors and public school teachers benefit from protections of the 1st amendment. Yet here we see the professors and teachers who made celebratory posts or videos getting fired. That’s an anecdotal observation on my part, but it does look like they’re all being terminated when it makes the public.
I also note the federal government is going after people who’ve made such statements. There have been announcement by multiple cabinet members that anyone under them is to be terminated.
Just because they’re terminated now doesn’t mean it is permanent. They may use an administrative law judge to get their job back. But the right is pissed and I don’t think they’re going to let this publicity die if those employees do get their job back. For that matter, I don’t think they’re ever working again in any kind of job that’s amiable to public pressure.
One angle I’ve heard used as justification for termination is that any conservative also at their place of employment is in reasonable fear of anyone celebrating Kirk’s death. Anyone who celebrates is clearly an advocate of killing those on the right, and when your coworker demonstrates that they want you dead, that is absolutely a hostile working environment.
I agree with most of what Jack writes here, however I would like to question fist paragraph:
“Returned EA commenter jdkazoo (Welcome back, Professor!) has correctly pointed out that it is unfair and illogical to cite individual social media users expressing glee or satisfaction at the assassination of Charlie Kirk as representative of the Axis (“the resistance”/Democrats/ left-based mainstream media—aka. journalists generally) as a whole.”
The late Charlie Kirk pointed out in May that about half of the left is comfortable with political violence against Donald Trump and Elon Musk; I have linked the actual tweet in two previous posts. I would agree with Jack if this were one one percent; in that case we can say that the violent lunatics are only a fringe. The problem is that it is about half of the left. Should we not pin this on the Democrat party?
What about Tim Walz disgusting remarks last week, making jokes about the rumors about the death of Donald Trump. This guy could have been a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Given the statements of prominent Democrats, the gaslighting, the whataboutism, the two-sides-ism I get the impression that the Democrats, the Axis, and the mainstream just do not care. There is zero evidence of soul searching and repentance.
The overwhelming number of social media posts cheering on Charlie Kirk’s death is further evidence that this sick mindset is not that of a tiny fringe.
And then the following video shows up in my feed. What the fuck is wrong with those people? They should be glad to still be alive!
I do not think the Democrats know how late it is. The assassination of Charlie Kirk could be an event similar to the shots fired at Ford Sumter in 1861.
I disagree with the intial premise that it is illogical and unfair to attribute some responsibilty to the left , democrts, axis, etc, etc.
In my mind its logic is found in an analogy with a medical diagnosis of cancer. One looks for signs and symptoms of a pathology. If they inidcate the presnece of a progresive disease than one look for its point of origin and search for where it has metastasized, it is then that teatment can been planned.
The behaviors of these “ghouls” are teh symptoms and signs of a severely progressive disease. Its origin is indeen the extreme rhetoric of the left- media and political figures have repeatedly called for confrontation,e ven in theri so called “omedy” The metastasis is whole for the body politic on the left.
I hold the late night hosts, the pundits, the entertianers, the tik tokers -all who have called for violence responsible for this morbity of society.
Just in case anyone thinks some of these might be borderline, I recommend viewing the video embedded in this news article: https://idahodispatch.com/west-ada-fires-meridian-school-employee-for-charlie-kirk-death-celebration-video/
They accuse Kirk of hate. This is HATE. The sheer joy at the death of a man is deep seated hate.
To my woe, I watched that video. Purely performative nonsense, played out in hopes that she will get views and likes. I see this so often, and not just for politics.
What people will not do for public accolades. I hope her happiness will be a great comfort to her and family (if she has one) while she is searching for employment somewhere.
Also, anyone dumb enough to do this deserves to be unemployed until they figure out how to act like an actual adult.
Here’s some information on political violence trends since 2020:
https://govfacts.org/analysis/is-political-violence-rising-in-america/
The quantitative data present a mixed picture, with hate crimes increasing since 2020 and threats against public officials sharply increasing, while violence by organized extremist groups is on the decline since 2020.
Drivers of political violence include Affective Polarization, Incendiary Rhetoric, and DIgital Acceleration.
Along with social media, gaming websites and YT videos are part of the “digital acceleration.” Apparently some of the symbols and phrases Tyler Robison engraved on the shell cases are popular among gamers and/or drawn from Internet memes / trolling culture.
Don’t know if this is the correct place for a nomination but I’d like for EA to recognize Robison’s parents for doing the right thing and notifying authorities as soon as they realized their son was the one responsible.
It must be particularly wrenching for parents (who are registered Republicans, according to the Salt Lake Tribune article I read) to realize their son had committed such a heinous act.
It does seem that they immediately alerted authorities. For which I feel they deserve ethics heroes recognition. There will no doubt be endless heartache ahead for them….
Agreed. Will do.
Yes, agreed. His father is / was a county deputy sheriff where they live. That just adds extra difficulty in him understanding what went wrong.
I’m sure he’s thinking of the fact that if the FBI is on the way, and it may be a very violent entry. It is not hyperbole to say that it was the friend of the president that was murdered, and the president is out for blood. His son very easily could be killed, or treated very harshly. Dad could be charged, and no doubt his house messed up pretty good. Taking him in avoids all of that.
That said, he has to know his son almost certainly to never, ever be free again. That his son is likely to be executed at the hands of the state of Utah or the US government. But at the same time, he would recognize that’s the inevitable outcome unless his son is killed by law enforcement.