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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
Great piece, Gabe!
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?
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.