5 ms·

There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy in the different treatment of the killings of Melissa Hortman (and husband) and Charlie Kirk.

Tadpole9181 1y ago
Yesterday, Fox News advocated "involuntary lethal injection" for innocent homeless people (that post has been flagged and [dead] already). They certainly won't be fired. The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing and the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. It's just ridiculous how brazen it is at this point.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > Yesterday, Fox News No, one specific show host. > for innocent homeless people No, specifically for those who are mentally ill, and only if they refuse help. Still abhorrent, but also unrelated. > The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. > Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault Shootings are the fault of the shooter and no other person. We did not find out that the shooter is conservative. This is speculation, and many of the initial bases for this speculation were quite spurious. > because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing As far as I can tell, nobody has said anything remotely like this. > the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it.
  - TimorousBestie 1y ago
    > No, one specific show host. In his role as a spokesperson of the network, at a performance he has not yet been censured for, afaik. Until Fox puts out a response, he represents them. > I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. Jesse Watters called for vengeance and retribution on The Five, said that liberals are “at war with us.” GP is a reasonable rephrasing. > The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it. Use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency positively for once? He’s the least powerless person in the country. No president before has ever wielded the power and authority he does.
    - Tadpole9181 1y ago
      I appreciate you responding on my behalf, thank you.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > In his role as a spokesperson of the network Prior to being fired, was Dowd a "spokesperson of MSNBC"? I don't think so, and I don't think this is a fair way to characterize Kilmeade either. > GP is a reasonable rephrasing. I'm not really convinced. > Use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency positively for once? It beggars belief that this would lead to de-escalation from Trump's opponents. In fact, I've seen him take a conciliatory tone before, only to get decontextualized and further vilified.
      - TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > Prior to being fired, was Dowd a "spokesperson of MSNBC"? During the 24ish hours it took MSNBC to fire him and issue a public statement, yes. This isn’t rocket science. > I'm not really convinced. Your double standard in this matter is evident.
        zahlman 1y ago
        > During the 24ish hours it took MSNBC to fire him and issue a public statement, yes. I disagree, and don't understand your basis for the claim. > Your double standard in this matter is evident. I don't know what you're talking about.
CMay 1y ago
To be fair, Charlie Kirk was probably much higher profile than Hortman. Charlie traveled the nation widely, visited other countries and had online influence outside of his in-person visits. You could say many entertainers and politicians do that too, so what makes him special? I've heard Charlie's efforts changed the outcomes of elections. Despite some views being unpopular, the overall promotion of face to face debate is seen as generally healthy. He probably lost his temper or cool too much, and in that sense there have been more tactful or calm debaters, but at least he tried in very unwelcoming territory. No disrespect to any school shooting victims or the Hortmans, but just objectively, Charlie both seems and is evidenced by the internet reaction to be higher profile and of higher concern for the national conversation in respect to the individual event. That's without even mentioning just how public the footage of the killing was comparatively or that his wife and children watched it happen in person. It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death. It's clear to me that he was an imperfect messenger, but he had the energy and the will which he did not waste.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  > It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death I'm no expert on him, but that doesn't ring true to me. Here's some things that he said that don't seem to agree with your view: > We must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty... We need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment - Charlie Kirk > Gun control, like vaccines and masks, is focused on making people feel ‘safe’ by taking freedoms away from others. Don’t fall for it - Charlie Kirk I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards. Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump. Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil. (I've noticed that he had anti-gay views which he justified by using parts of the Old Testament, but in my view that is denying the sacrifice of Christ which was to put an end to the old beliefs of a vengeful God and instead usher in an empathic world view of welcoming and providing for the poor and homeless)
phendrenad2 1y ago
Yeah, it's weird. I suspect that if someone celebrated the deaths of the Hortmans, the very people celebrating the death of Kirk would be very upset.

Tadpole9181 1y ago

Yesterday, Fox News advocated "involuntary lethal injection" for innocent homeless people (that post has been flagged and [dead] already). They certainly won't be fired. The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing and the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. It's just ridiculous how brazen it is at this point.

zahlman 1y ago
> Yesterday, Fox News No, one specific show host. > for innocent homeless people No, specifically for those who are mentally ill, and only if they refuse help. Still abhorrent, but also unrelated. > The day Kirk died, Fox was quite literally calling for war. I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. > Then when we found out it was a conservative shooter, it's still the left's fault Shootings are the fault of the shooter and no other person. We did not find out that the shooter is conservative. This is speculation, and many of the initial bases for this speculation were quite spurious. > because them not mourning Kirk is worse than the killing As far as I can tell, nobody has said anything remotely like this. > the President says he "couldn't care less" about bridging the divide between Americans. The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > No, one specific show host. In his role as a spokesperson of the network, at a performance he has not yet been censured for, afaik. Until Fox puts out a response, he represents them. > I legitimately have no idea what you're referring to. Jesse Watters called for vengeance and retribution on The Five, said that liberals are “at war with us.” GP is a reasonable rephrasing. > The political divide. And it's not clear what he could in principle do about it. Use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency positively for once? He’s the least powerless person in the country. No president before has ever wielded the power and authority he does.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    I appreciate you responding on my behalf, thank you.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    > In his role as a spokesperson of the network Prior to being fired, was Dowd a "spokesperson of MSNBC"? I don't think so, and I don't think this is a fair way to characterize Kilmeade either. > GP is a reasonable rephrasing. I'm not really convinced. > Use the “bully pulpit” of the presidency positively for once? It beggars belief that this would lead to de-escalation from Trump's opponents. In fact, I've seen him take a conciliatory tone before, only to get decontextualized and further vilified.
    - TimorousBestie 1y ago
      > Prior to being fired, was Dowd a "spokesperson of MSNBC"? During the 24ish hours it took MSNBC to fire him and issue a public statement, yes. This isn’t rocket science. > I'm not really convinced. Your double standard in this matter is evident.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > During the 24ish hours it took MSNBC to fire him and issue a public statement, yes. I disagree, and don't understand your basis for the claim. > Your double standard in this matter is evident. I don't know what you're talking about.

CMay 1y ago

To be fair, Charlie Kirk was probably much higher profile than Hortman. Charlie traveled the nation widely, visited other countries and had online influence outside of his in-person visits. You could say many entertainers and politicians do that too, so what makes him special? I've heard Charlie's efforts changed the outcomes of elections. Despite some views being unpopular, the overall promotion of face to face debate is seen as generally healthy. He probably lost his temper or cool too much, and in that sense there have been more tactful or calm debaters, but at least he tried in very unwelcoming territory. No disrespect to any school shooting victims or the Hortmans, but just objectively, Charlie both seems and is evidenced by the internet reaction to be higher profile and of higher concern for the national conversation in respect to the individual event. That's without even mentioning just how public the footage of the killing was comparatively or that his wife and children watched it happen in person. It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death. It's clear to me that he was an imperfect messenger, but he had the energy and the will which he did not waste.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
> It's also worth mentioning that he was fundamentally opposing the exact thing that killed him. He wanted to promote life and suppress death I'm no expert on him, but that doesn't ring true to me. Here's some things that he said that don't seem to agree with your view: > We must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty... We need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment - Charlie Kirk > Gun control, like vaccines and masks, is focused on making people feel ‘safe’ by taking freedoms away from others. Don’t fall for it - Charlie Kirk I got the impression that his "debates" were designed to be highly asymmetric with himself being thoroughly prepared and going up against young people who weren't experienced debaters. The format was also designed so that there would not be enough time for the audience to fact check the various untruths that Kirk would put forwards. Despite people describing him as not endorsing violence, he did seem to call for violence against out-groups such as potential immigrants and he advocated for the January 6th violent attack on the Capitol - I think he arranged for a bus load of people to go to fight for Trump. Personally, I find his racist and sexist views abhorrent and his twisting of Christianity into a hateful, cruel doctrine. His dislike of the word "empathy" is a clear red flag for being thoroughly evil. (I've noticed that he had anti-gay views which he justified by using parts of the Old Testament, but in my view that is denying the sacrifice of Christ which was to put an end to the old beliefs of a vengeful God and instead usher in an empathic world view of welcoming and providing for the poor and homeless)

phendrenad2 1y ago

Yeah, it's weird. I suspect that if someone celebrated the deaths of the Hortmans, the very people celebrating the death of Kirk would be very upset.