To express yourself is an open invitation to others to respond with their expression of speech. That is called discussion, debate, and communication. Freedom of Speech is a transaction between people.
How you speak, with anger or calmly, respectfully or hatefully, sets the tone of the conversation. The first speaker has the first responsibility to set the tone. The responding speaker also has the responsibility to respond respectfully and calmly, whether or not the first speaker is calm or respectful. But an ugly tone of communication is mainly the responsibility of the first speaker.
I'll venture to say that this piece on political violence and free speech is some of the most important writing you've ever published, Gabe. Powerful in its own right, given the content, this entry also perfectly encapsulates your fact-based, hyper-rational approach to politics and the American experiment, which gives me hope. Kudos!
Thanks, as usual, for providing a level head in a sea of uncertainty. Having done public polling for a few years to put myself through school, I can attest that most of the 1% likely did not understand the question. The common reasons for this include linguistic challenges, hearing difficulties, and some sort of mental deficiency which prevents a meaningful understanding and/or response to the question.
Let me start by saying that I find Charlie Kirk’s murder just like all murders are inexcusable.
Two questions:
1. Why is political violence different from non political violence. Seems to me both are inexcusable. Violence of any kind has ever solved anything.
2. Why is Charlie Kirk’s murder considered political violence? He was a political activist and a media personality, a public figure to some, not a politician. Why is his murder more important than another?
It was political because even though Kirk didn't hold public office he was an outspoken advocate of a particular political persuasion and he was assassinated in a very public way. Yes, I agree that any murder is a tragedy but there is something especially chilling about the murder of a public figure who is killed for his or her opinion. It damages the public sphere and stifles free speech and debate.
Free speech should have been used prolifically against the single most obnoxious Attorney General to ever appear before Congress. I will as JP suggested above, use due respect and not debase Bondi with crude, but sentimental descriptions of her persona. Here is the truth; she lied, she was rude, she has an audience of one in mind, when she does protest so beautifully with her long nails, bleached hair, and perfectly made up eyes. Come on democrats, at least demand a modicum of respect from this shell of a woman, who has zero character.
You forgot the no smile There is no point in character assassination and yelling It doesn't accomplish a thing Sometimes are quiet respectful words are an eye opener
OTOH, if only one out of 200 Americans thinks that political assassination is justifiable, that's tens of thousands too many. Our pool of potential lone wolves overfloweth...
Not even most of the insane Magas have the stomach for the political violence that would come from an American civil war these days. Most people in general are all talk. Its the abuses of ICE that worry me most. Those are the psychopaths capable of violence we need to watch out for.
Gabe, great piece! I'd love to forward this to friends and relatives who border on MAGA political views. But having attempted constructive dialog with most of them before (not trying to convince them of anything) I've only received a rash of Bondi-esque comments and aggressive, evasive rebuttals.
Free speech only seems to work within an educated populace. I find that if we remain in our silos relative to the perspectives we ingest, we only fight, or hold back our opinions to avoid the fight. I liked JP Blickenstaff's comments here. I wonder where the "forum" for respectful discussion exists?
The algorhythms feed me too many bicycle racing posts and then too many gardening posts (or too many "conflict entrepreneurial" posts). If we are not vigilant we become "siloed" and not capable of viable discussion. I miss the town square, the coffee shop and the walkable community. Your piece here shows how wrong we can all be.
The outcry about Kimmel’s initial innuendo that Kirk’s assassin was a right wing advocate should have come from his peers, his audience and his employers. The concept of “more speech” as I understand it would require them to condemn the comments as inappropriate, inaccurate and disrespectful. Americans may love the concept of free speech but they have not yet mastered the art.
I would agree partially with the inappropriate but I would say it was more insensitive I don't think they were inaccurate and disrespectful They really had nothing to do with Kirk but inappropriate and inaccurate reactions, including the right
To express yourself is an open invitation to others to respond with their expression of speech. That is called discussion, debate, and communication. Freedom of Speech is a transaction between people.
How you speak, with anger or calmly, respectfully or hatefully, sets the tone of the conversation. The first speaker has the first responsibility to set the tone. The responding speaker also has the responsibility to respond respectfully and calmly, whether or not the first speaker is calm or respectful. But an ugly tone of communication is mainly the responsibility of the first speaker.
Freedom of Speech comes with the Duty to Respect.
I'll venture to say that this piece on political violence and free speech is some of the most important writing you've ever published, Gabe. Powerful in its own right, given the content, this entry also perfectly encapsulates your fact-based, hyper-rational approach to politics and the American experiment, which gives me hope. Kudos!
Thanks, as usual, for providing a level head in a sea of uncertainty. Having done public polling for a few years to put myself through school, I can attest that most of the 1% likely did not understand the question. The common reasons for this include linguistic challenges, hearing difficulties, and some sort of mental deficiency which prevents a meaningful understanding and/or response to the question.
Gabe,
Let me start by saying that I find Charlie Kirk’s murder just like all murders are inexcusable.
Two questions:
1. Why is political violence different from non political violence. Seems to me both are inexcusable. Violence of any kind has ever solved anything.
2. Why is Charlie Kirk’s murder considered political violence? He was a political activist and a media personality, a public figure to some, not a politician. Why is his murder more important than another?
It was political because even though Kirk didn't hold public office he was an outspoken advocate of a particular political persuasion and he was assassinated in a very public way. Yes, I agree that any murder is a tragedy but there is something especially chilling about the murder of a public figure who is killed for his or her opinion. It damages the public sphere and stifles free speech and debate.
Free speech should have been used prolifically against the single most obnoxious Attorney General to ever appear before Congress. I will as JP suggested above, use due respect and not debase Bondi with crude, but sentimental descriptions of her persona. Here is the truth; she lied, she was rude, she has an audience of one in mind, when she does protest so beautifully with her long nails, bleached hair, and perfectly made up eyes. Come on democrats, at least demand a modicum of respect from this shell of a woman, who has zero character.
You forgot the no smile There is no point in character assassination and yelling It doesn't accomplish a thing Sometimes are quiet respectful words are an eye opener
OTOH, if only one out of 200 Americans thinks that political assassination is justifiable, that's tens of thousands too many. Our pool of potential lone wolves overfloweth...
Not even most of the insane Magas have the stomach for the political violence that would come from an American civil war these days. Most people in general are all talk. Its the abuses of ICE that worry me most. Those are the psychopaths capable of violence we need to watch out for.
Please write on the anti fascist executive order.
Gabe, great piece! I'd love to forward this to friends and relatives who border on MAGA political views. But having attempted constructive dialog with most of them before (not trying to convince them of anything) I've only received a rash of Bondi-esque comments and aggressive, evasive rebuttals.
Free speech only seems to work within an educated populace. I find that if we remain in our silos relative to the perspectives we ingest, we only fight, or hold back our opinions to avoid the fight. I liked JP Blickenstaff's comments here. I wonder where the "forum" for respectful discussion exists?
The algorhythms feed me too many bicycle racing posts and then too many gardening posts (or too many "conflict entrepreneurial" posts). If we are not vigilant we become "siloed" and not capable of viable discussion. I miss the town square, the coffee shop and the walkable community. Your piece here shows how wrong we can all be.
Thanks Gabe
The outcry about Kimmel’s initial innuendo that Kirk’s assassin was a right wing advocate should have come from his peers, his audience and his employers. The concept of “more speech” as I understand it would require them to condemn the comments as inappropriate, inaccurate and disrespectful. Americans may love the concept of free speech but they have not yet mastered the art.
Roemary,
I would agree partially with the inappropriate but I would say it was more insensitive I don't think they were inaccurate and disrespectful They really had nothing to do with Kirk but inappropriate and inaccurate reactions, including the right
Great piece, Gabe!