This is amazing. Thank you Jon for always having the right words. By the night of the shooting, I realized for my own mental health, I could not go on social media, but I appreciate this type of dialogue.
Really excellent piece, Jon, I’m in total agreement. The primary issue we have to deal with in America is the constant messaging we receive online that politics must be an “us” vs. “them,” or that the only thing that matters is victory over your ideological opponents by any means necessary—even violence. In this regard, I think the MAGA movement warrants more critique than any movement or party on the left, but the left isn’t blameless at all, especially after the gross response of glee and satisfaction to Kirk’s death. I’m hoping everyone learns to take a step back and see that we’re all being poisoned by the same venomous messaging, from both sides of the aisle.
It’d be nice for the right to consider their own rhetoric.
From a right wing perspective, your article appears to absolve the left of guilt, and blame Trump and Kirk and the right. I am sure you did not mean for it to come across that way. But it did.
I applaud your desire to build bridges and create peace. But this bridge falls short, as it only digs into one side.
Thanks for reading, Chris. You're pointing to something I haven't figured out how to do well yet — namely, dig into the problems on both sides without implying that I believe both sides share the exact same measure of guilt. I'm at a loss as to how to do it right.
In this instance, I left it at "Musk and Trump and plenty of their opponents" because I didn't see anyone on the left *who has anywhere near the same level of power* that Musk and Trump currently have say anything remotely as incendiary as what they said. Obama's response was compassionate, Sander's response was compassionate, AOC's response was compassionate, Buttigieg's response was compassionate, Newsom's response was compassionate, and on and on. I could have easily missed a response that was as incendiary as Musk's and Trump's from a major player on the left, but I didn't see one — just incendiary stuff from random left-leaning social media accounts that barely hold any political power right now at all alongside the glut of incendiary stuff from immensely powerful people on the right.
By limiting dem. comments to post-assassination you fail to find incendiary language.
But for Kirk, you used examples pre-assassination, by necessity.
If you were to expand your search you’d find similar language on the left.
I was initially disgusted by Trump, and shocked when he got elected in 2016. But what made me a supporter was when I began looking into some of the accusations made about him, and found they were lies. “Very fine people,” is one example.
Trump and his supporters have been ceaselessly compared to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists. It should not surprise us when leftist begin treating those on the right as if that were true.
I pray for peace. And hope for unity. But unity can only happen on the foundation of truth. The desire of many to cling to popular lies makes peace difficult.
Yes, true, there are many pre-assassination examples of incendiary language from left-leaning sources, including YouTube titles titles that similarly use "destroy" and "crush" and "cook" and de-humanize their opponents. My inclusion of Kirk on that front stemmed from a desire to temper the unrestrained hagiography I was seeing in my circles, but I worried as I wrote it that it was a distracting tangent. It might have been!
Edited to add: And yes, many accusations against Trump have been overstated and even false. But many — including many of the most weighty accusations, such as the accusation that his name appears throughout the Epstein files — appear to be true.
This is amazing. Thank you Jon for always having the right words. By the night of the shooting, I realized for my own mental health, I could not go on social media, but I appreciate this type of dialogue.
Thanks for saying this, Cynthia! I appreciate it
Really excellent piece, Jon, I’m in total agreement. The primary issue we have to deal with in America is the constant messaging we receive online that politics must be an “us” vs. “them,” or that the only thing that matters is victory over your ideological opponents by any means necessary—even violence. In this regard, I think the MAGA movement warrants more critique than any movement or party on the left, but the left isn’t blameless at all, especially after the gross response of glee and satisfaction to Kirk’s death. I’m hoping everyone learns to take a step back and see that we’re all being poisoned by the same venomous messaging, from both sides of the aisle.
It’d be nice for the right to consider their own rhetoric.
From a right wing perspective, your article appears to absolve the left of guilt, and blame Trump and Kirk and the right. I am sure you did not mean for it to come across that way. But it did.
I applaud your desire to build bridges and create peace. But this bridge falls short, as it only digs into one side.
Thanks for reading, Chris. You're pointing to something I haven't figured out how to do well yet — namely, dig into the problems on both sides without implying that I believe both sides share the exact same measure of guilt. I'm at a loss as to how to do it right.
In this instance, I left it at "Musk and Trump and plenty of their opponents" because I didn't see anyone on the left *who has anywhere near the same level of power* that Musk and Trump currently have say anything remotely as incendiary as what they said. Obama's response was compassionate, Sander's response was compassionate, AOC's response was compassionate, Buttigieg's response was compassionate, Newsom's response was compassionate, and on and on. I could have easily missed a response that was as incendiary as Musk's and Trump's from a major player on the left, but I didn't see one — just incendiary stuff from random left-leaning social media accounts that barely hold any political power right now at all alongside the glut of incendiary stuff from immensely powerful people on the right.
By limiting dem. comments to post-assassination you fail to find incendiary language.
But for Kirk, you used examples pre-assassination, by necessity.
If you were to expand your search you’d find similar language on the left.
I was initially disgusted by Trump, and shocked when he got elected in 2016. But what made me a supporter was when I began looking into some of the accusations made about him, and found they were lies. “Very fine people,” is one example.
Trump and his supporters have been ceaselessly compared to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists. It should not surprise us when leftist begin treating those on the right as if that were true.
I pray for peace. And hope for unity. But unity can only happen on the foundation of truth. The desire of many to cling to popular lies makes peace difficult.
Yes, true, there are many pre-assassination examples of incendiary language from left-leaning sources, including YouTube titles titles that similarly use "destroy" and "crush" and "cook" and de-humanize their opponents. My inclusion of Kirk on that front stemmed from a desire to temper the unrestrained hagiography I was seeing in my circles, but I worried as I wrote it that it was a distracting tangent. It might have been!
Edited to add: And yes, many accusations against Trump have been overstated and even false. But many — including many of the most weighty accusations, such as the accusation that his name appears throughout the Epstein files — appear to be true.