The folks at FIRE noted today that “we’re in the cancel culture phase” of the Kirk tragedy news cycle, where any seemingly insensitive comment will attract an online mob seeking vengeance.
"That MSNBC fired the contributor, Matthew Dowd, tells you all you need to know about the network’s commitment to robust debate."
I disagree. In the immediate aftermath of Kirk's murder, Dowd made some legitimate comments that were hard to hear. His summary firing was an emotional reaction that was short-sighted. He has apologized multiple times. I hope (after some cooling off time) he will be reinstated.
“Bad people with bad ideas did get elected and are abusing the power of the Federal Government.” So if Charley believed in Arnn’s book, why didn’t he recognize Arnn’s warning instead of espousing it?
Thank you for this very informational article. I would like to have known a little bit more about his connection to Maga and the possible falling out with them.
Once people take a long hard look into our schools they’ll understand how we became such a mess. Listen to whistleblowing teachers at WhiteChalkCrime.com and EndTeacherAbuse.org and give these teachers a voice since schools produced citizens before they began to produce lost souls who’d buy into Trump.
Our schools have so many answers for reporters who’ll investigate!
Unfortunately I never had to listen to a single speech or interview in its entirety to know this. His views were so amplified as to become mainstream. While I’m relieved the assailant has been captured and as expected they are not one of his typical scapegoats, it’s chilling the person who murdered him is from a group that believes his ideology wasn’t extreme enough. I wonder how that vacuum gets filled. The legislators chomping at the bit reverted to Pharisees praying on the corner of the digital town square for may yet be converted to Charlie’s gentler ways.
All these wingnuts’ words and platforms can stay far far away from my son. We’ve had enough from the periphery.
Maybe it’s because (and those of us in the trenches) who had anything to do with the Tea Party knew this a long time ago: They had no true ideology, they were liars and they were an Astroturf entity in the pay of corporate interests. They never really believed what they said… They just parroted whatever their overlords told them to parrot. There was no there there, Ryan. That’s why liberals like me are so furious now. They never was a “there there” and yet media people like you in the acted as if there was and treated them seriously.
Character, compassion, decency, and other virtues are essential. We recognized that we possessed these qualities, whereas our opponents did not. Unfortunately, the media failed to grasp this distinction. This misconception has contributed to our current situation, as the media assumed we were equivalent to our opponents — or rather that our opponents were the same as WE were. However, we are not equal; while we may be idealistic (a terrible sin to hardened Pols and media thinkers like you), we were not driven by a desire for power and lacking in a moral compass. And THAT is why we are so furious at you all now — as you sit in exile away from YOUR corporate overlords in media.
I don’t think you will “like” my comment, but I hope you think about it as much as you seem to have thought about the empty and hypocritical “philosophy” of the tragically assassinated young man, struck down, perhaps, by one of the monsters created by MAGA. RIP Charlie. His compatriots should be learning humility and compassion from his senseless death. It seems obvious they are not.
Thank you Ryan, well said and it needed to be said unapologetically! Speaking accurately doesn't mean condoning violence, and it's ridiculous that's up for debate. MSNBC, once again, got it egregiously wrong-damned ridiculous.
Matt Taibbi writes that both the stoning remark are the reverse of Kirk’s point, and that the antisemitism remark referred to in the NYT obit had to be retracted.
Absolutely on point!
Amen!
"That MSNBC fired the contributor, Matthew Dowd, tells you all you need to know about the network’s commitment to robust debate."
I disagree. In the immediate aftermath of Kirk's murder, Dowd made some legitimate comments that were hard to hear. His summary firing was an emotional reaction that was short-sighted. He has apologized multiple times. I hope (after some cooling off time) he will be reinstated.
“Bad people with bad ideas did get elected and are abusing the power of the Federal Government.” So if Charley believed in Arnn’s book, why didn’t he recognize Arnn’s warning instead of espousing it?
Without an unhinged social media would he really been able to get to where he was in terms of popularity?
Thank you for this very informational article. I would like to have known a little bit more about his connection to Maga and the possible falling out with them.
Once people take a long hard look into our schools they’ll understand how we became such a mess. Listen to whistleblowing teachers at WhiteChalkCrime.com and EndTeacherAbuse.org and give these teachers a voice since schools produced citizens before they began to produce lost souls who’d buy into Trump.
Our schools have so many answers for reporters who’ll investigate!
Unfortunately I never had to listen to a single speech or interview in its entirety to know this. His views were so amplified as to become mainstream. While I’m relieved the assailant has been captured and as expected they are not one of his typical scapegoats, it’s chilling the person who murdered him is from a group that believes his ideology wasn’t extreme enough. I wonder how that vacuum gets filled. The legislators chomping at the bit reverted to Pharisees praying on the corner of the digital town square for may yet be converted to Charlie’s gentler ways.
All these wingnuts’ words and platforms can stay far far away from my son. We’ve had enough from the periphery.
Maybe it’s because (and those of us in the trenches) who had anything to do with the Tea Party knew this a long time ago: They had no true ideology, they were liars and they were an Astroturf entity in the pay of corporate interests. They never really believed what they said… They just parroted whatever their overlords told them to parrot. There was no there there, Ryan. That’s why liberals like me are so furious now. They never was a “there there” and yet media people like you in the acted as if there was and treated them seriously.
Character, compassion, decency, and other virtues are essential. We recognized that we possessed these qualities, whereas our opponents did not. Unfortunately, the media failed to grasp this distinction. This misconception has contributed to our current situation, as the media assumed we were equivalent to our opponents — or rather that our opponents were the same as WE were. However, we are not equal; while we may be idealistic (a terrible sin to hardened Pols and media thinkers like you), we were not driven by a desire for power and lacking in a moral compass. And THAT is why we are so furious at you all now — as you sit in exile away from YOUR corporate overlords in media.
I don’t think you will “like” my comment, but I hope you think about it as much as you seem to have thought about the empty and hypocritical “philosophy” of the tragically assassinated young man, struck down, perhaps, by one of the monsters created by MAGA. RIP Charlie. His compatriots should be learning humility and compassion from his senseless death. It seems obvious they are not.
This was an excellent and concise summary of the Right, of which I am
not a part, therefore the transmogrification timeline was enlightening
Thank you Ryan, well said and it needed to be said unapologetically! Speaking accurately doesn't mean condoning violence, and it's ridiculous that's up for debate. MSNBC, once again, got it egregiously wrong-damned ridiculous.
Succinct. Very well written. On the nose analysis. Thank you for your clarity.
Incredibly well explained! Couldn't agree more.
Matt Taibbi writes that both the stoning remark are the reverse of Kirk’s point, and that the antisemitism remark referred to in the NYT obit had to be retracted.