Are you happy with the state/province/country you live in?

[Max Rockatansky]

Milo Yiannopoulos is another name I wasn't familiar with.  I think that I might be onto something with most of my knowledge of these types of people coming directly from this forum.  I don't know how (or why) I would come across knowledge of media figures like this in my day-to-day life. 

Kayne West of course is someone I heard of.  Suffice to say he once had far more of a reach with some of his songs and Reality TV.  Gold Digger was once a favorite song of my older brother in the early 2000s.

[webny99]

If a person was actively promoting or condoning violence against others and/or government policies that lead to widespread deterioration in public health or economic conditions

That second clause seems pretty subjective to me. Who decides whether or not that's the case?

[Molandfreak]

I think part of this is due to the fact that we live such separate lives nowadays.  We get into the car in the garage, pull out and drive to work, then get off work and do the same thing in reverse.  We don't spend time at our neighbor's house, we don't join bowling leagues or quilting groups, we don't go the mall with our friends, we don't have block parties, we don't attend church or civil organization meetings, we live a lot more of our lives behind glass than our parents and grandparents did.  And what this means is that we're not rubbing shoulders with people who are different from us.  We're no longer forced to respect or tolerate or even listen to anyone we don't agree with.  Our worldview is now filtered through talking heads on YouTube, and the algorithm makes sure that that worldview just keeps getting more and more warped as time goes on.

Taking a step back here and relating it to what @TheHighwayMan3561 said earlier, actions really do speak louder than words and it is important to make time to spend with friends in real life. There is really nothing that can replace genuine interactions in person. I was delighted that TheHighwayMan3561 could make it to my 30th birthday party earlier this year and meet some of my IRL friends. We all had a great time.

Not that it is a cure-all for this type of feeling like you just don't belong in this world. At various times in my life, I have wondered if the people in my life really care about me in the same way I care about them. I could go on and on explaining the impact most of the folks in my life have had on me, but at certain points it has become apparent that various folks who have had that impact on me could barely string together a few adjectives describing me, followed by various things that I do instead of as an entire person. I really don't know the answer to this problem, either, since I have always known that you shouldn't do things purely to get something in return. Friendships that turn out to only be surface-level really punch me in the gut, though.

[DTComposer]

I'd say I am 93% happy with living in the Bay Area. I've lived here more than anywhere else in my life (ages 7-18, summers during college, and the last 11 years, so 22+ years in total), and even when I was living in Santa Barbara or Long Beach, my family was still here, so I was visiting on the regular - so it's my hometown, and there's a strong sense of familiarity/nostalgia that certainly colors my opinion.

(there's also a strong sense of history, as my mother's side of the family came to the Bay Area in the 1940s, my father's side in the 1900s, and my stepfather's side in the 1880s)

That said, it's very nearly a perfect climate for my taste (I wish it was a touch colder during the winters). It's one of the few markets in the country where I can make the kind of living I do in the industry I work in (no, it's not tech). My immediate family is all 15 minutes or less from me. I have easy access to world-class culture and dining. I love the diversity of both the people and the geography (both urban and natural). I can be at beaches, rolling hills, or redwood forests in under an hour, or deserts or alpine mountains within a few hours. I have early-20th-century walkable Main Street downtowns and huge successful suburban shopping malls within minutes of my home.

The narrative of San Francisco being an urban dystopia is wildly blown out of proportion - I worked for eight years in the Civic Center neighborhood (Tenderloin-adjacent), so I saw the good, the bad, and the ugly first-hand, watched it get worse, then watched it get better. It's nowhere near what the national perception is.

The housing market is crazy - if we hadn't gotten in (and refinanced) when we did it would be a lot harder to be here. The cost of living is high, to be sure. We are comfortable in the sense that we're not panicked about paying bills, but not much beyond that.

All of this said, as we creep towards retirement age/kid goes to college age, we've talked about other places we'd like to go, and we have a list of places we adore - some big, some small, many outside of California - so the Bay Area isn't necessarily our forever home. But for what our needs are at this moment in time, I feel we'd be hard-pressed to do better than the Bay Area.

[kphoger]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

If a person was actively promoting or condoning violence against others and/or government policies that lead to widespread deterioration in public health or economic conditions

That second clause seems pretty subjective to me. Who decides whether or not that's the case?

This is exactly what I was pondering while filling the dishwasher.  It seems like no stretch at all to expand "actively promoting government policies that lead to widespread deterioration in public health or economic conditions" to include everybody who encourages people to vote for a given political party, if you believe that that party's policies will lead to such deterioration.  The lady who came to my driveway the other day encouraging me to vote for a given political candidate:  if she were shot dead in the street, would you not be sorry just because you think the candidate she was canvassing for might promote the deterioration of economic conditions?  It's a very slippery slope to stand on.

Taking a step back here and relating it to what @TheHighwayMan3561 said earlier, actions really do speak louder than words and it is important to make time to spend with friends in real life. There is really nothing that can replace genuine interactions in person. I was delighted that TheHighwayMan3561 could make it to my 30th birthday party earlier this year and meet some of my IRL friends. We all had a great time.

Not that it is a cure-all for this type of feeling like you just don't belong in this world. At various times in my life, I have wondered if the people in my life really care about me in the same way I care about them. I could go on and on explaining the impact most of the folks in my life have had on me, but at certain points it has become apparent that various folks who have had that impact on me could barely string together a few adjectives describing me, followed by various things that I do instead of as an entire person. I really don't know the answer to this problem, either, since I have always known that you shouldn't do things purely to get something in return. Friendships that turn out to only be surface-level really punch me in the gut, though.

I'm sure it's no secret that I have a moral objection to... well, to certain things that are simmering under the surface of this conversation so far.  But it makes me feel awful to hear of such inner pain and longing.  Especially the notion that one doesn't even have a place in the world.  To anyone reading this, no matter what stripe, I just want you to know that I believe with my whole heart that you matter.  Your life is not an accident or a mistake, your hopes and dreams are valuable, your feelings and struggles are important, and the world would be an emptier place without you.

[Molandfreak]

I hope it isn't a controversial statement to say that I will not be mourning the passing of David Duke when he dies (which is a day that may be coming soon, since he is 75). Why should I? To me, he is nothing more than an awful human who has repeated the same lies that make it harder for my sister-in-law to simply navigate the world peacefully as a Jewish woman. Whatever positive experiences the people who are directly in his life have had with him are completely irrelevant to me, because his entire public persona is being a fucking nazi.

Does this mean that I directly condone an action taken threatening his life? No. Does my position make me just as immoral as a potential threat to him? I personally don't see it that way, but you do you. We all have our tolerance level of monsters. Even Charles Manson didn't technically kill anyone, and rightfully very few people are mourning his loss.

[Dough4872]

The main thing I like about living outside of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania is that I'm near a lot of other places I can travel to. However, I dislike the rough weather at times, particularly in winter, along with the typical big-city problems in Philadelphia such as crime and urban decay.

[Roadgeekteen]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

[Rothman]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Who's celebrating in this thread?  Who are you talking to?

[Roadgeekteen]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Who's celebrating in this thread?  Who are you talking to?

Maybe people in this thread aren't celebrating, but plenty of people on the internet were either celebrating or showing a distinct lack of empathy blatantly. You aren't convincing anyone to join your political cause that way. 

[Molandfreak]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Who's celebrating in this thread?  Who are you talking to?

Maybe people in this thread aren't celebrating, but plenty of people on the internet were either celebrating or showing a distinct lack of empathy blatantly. You aren't convincing anyone to join your political cause that way. 

The difference is pretty trivial to the fine folks over at exposingcharliesmurderers.com too.

[Rothman]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

[Roadgeekteen]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Who's celebrating in this thread?  Who are you talking to?

Maybe people in this thread aren't celebrating, but plenty of people on the internet were either celebrating or showing a distinct lack of empathy blatantly. You aren't convincing anyone to join your political cause that way. 

The difference is pretty trivial to the fine folks over at exposingcharliesmurderers.com too.

This crap would happen no matter what side's prominent activist died. People are crazy now adays.

[webny99]

We all have our tolerance level definition of monsters.

FTFY. You cited two examples that most people would agree with you on, but in other cases, there's clear disagreement. Of course, the fact that everyone can't even agree on something that basic speaks very poorly of the current state of political partisanship in the US.

[Roadgeekteen]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

As always, there can be an middle ground between "This man is the second coming of Christ" and "This person is literally Hitler". People don't realize this.

[Rothman]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Who's celebrating in this thread?  Who are you talking to?

Maybe people in this thread aren't celebrating, but plenty of people on the internet were either celebrating or showing a distinct lack of empathy blatantly. You aren't convincing anyone to join your political cause that way. 

So...who are you talking to when you say "you" then, if no one was celebrating in here?  Sort of strange wording.

(I know a lot of people have pointed out Charlie Kirk's own statements on empathy, where he said it was a "made-up, new age term" and that he couldn't "stand" the term.  It's a weird feeling as someone who sees at least some value in empathy (although I don't extend it as far as others, for better or for worse), seeing his followers throw the term around when he said it, but then, really, I think we should have empathy, and round and round we go.  Strangest feeling I've had in a discussion about a celebrity's death)

[Rothman]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

As always, there can be an middle ground between "This man is the second coming of Christ" and "This person is literally Hitler". People don't realize this.

Of course. One does not have to be Hitler to be found repugnant by someone...

[Roadgeekteen]

You don't have to mourn anyone's death, but you shouldn't be celebrating. It's in poor taste and doesn't make anything better. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything.

Who's celebrating in this thread?  Who are you talking to?

Maybe people in this thread aren't celebrating, but plenty of people on the internet were either celebrating or showing a distinct lack of empathy blatantly. You aren't convincing anyone to join your political cause that way. 

So...who are you talking to when you say "you" then, if no one was celebrating in here?  Sort of strange wording.

(I know a lot of people have pointed out Charlie Kirk's own statements on empathy, where he said it was a "made-up, new age term" and that he couldn't "stand" the term.  It's a weird feeling as someone who sees at least some value in empathy (although I don't extend it as far as others, for better or for worse), seeing his followers throw the term around when he said it, but then, really, I think we should have empathy, and round and round we go.  Strangest feeling I've had in a discussion about a celebrity's death)

I was talking in general to the world. And yes, Charlie Kirk said something dumb about empathy, but he was still a human being that we should still have empathy ourselves for. Although I do feel like right after his death is not the best time to be hashing out all of our political differences with him- simply keep standing up for your values if they conflict (or don't conflict) with his.

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

As always, there can be an middle ground between "This man is the second coming of Christ" and "This person is literally Hitler". People don't realize this.

Of course. One does not have to be Hitler to be found repugnant by someone...

My point is that even people that like him a lot or dislike him a lot would probably find points of both agreement and disagreement with him on some issues, he's neither perfect nor a caricature of evil.

[Molandfreak]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

As always, there can be an middle ground between "This man is the second coming of Christ" and "This person is literally Hitler". People don't realize this.

This is true. If you point out the fact that Dick Van Dyke cheated on his first wife, you are going to get hate for stating that fact. You can still like him as an actor, but many people don't simply for the fact that he did something immoral. Either perspective is completely fine.

[Roadgeekteen]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

As always, there can be an middle ground between "This man is the second coming of Christ" and "This person is literally Hitler". People don't realize this.

This is true. If you point out the fact that Dick Van Dyke cheated on his first wife, you are going to get hate for stating that fact. You can still like him as an actor, but many people don't simply for the fact that he did something immoral. Either perspective is completely fine.

Same thing with other lionized celebrities like Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and many others. Nuance is dying in today's frenzied society which needs to have clear heros and clear villans.

[Rothman]

There's a big difference between wishing someone was dead and not being sorry about their death. I don't wish anybody dead, but I'm not sorry about someone's death when they cause so much suffering.

There's a small difference.  It's the difference between handing the gun to someone and being glad someone else did.  It's not a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to advocating for his death.

Baloney.  It is a huge step from feeling no sorrow for someone's death to actually advocating for it.  Like others in here, I can totally condemn the murder of Charles Kirk while recognizing that some of his stated positions were repugnant to me on all sorts of levels and therefore can view his death through that lens:  I feel sorrow that our country has come to the point where its legal framework and culture has cultivated the kind of environment that in turn cultivates murderers while not revering who I view as the morally repugnant as a saint.  Eh, I suppose that is a type of mourning, which is simply different than how those friends of mine that have deemed Charlie Kirk one of the Lord's "good and faithful servants" are mourning him.

None of that says, "I wish he were dead" or "I wish someone would take him out," and the suggestion that it does is angering.

As always, there can be an middle ground between "This man is the second coming of Christ" and "This person is literally Hitler". People don't realize this.

This is true. If you point out the fact that Dick Van Dyke cheated on his first wife, you are going to get hate for stating that fact. You can still like him as an actor, but many people don't simply for the fact that he did something immoral. Either perspective is completely fine.

Same thing with other lionized celebrities like Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and many others. Nuance is dying in today's frenzied society which needs to have clear heros and clear villans.

There seems to be a difference between a celebrity that performed well and everyone enjoyed and their personal moral failings, rather than a celebrity or pundit where one's stated positions and moral failings can be intermingled due to the nature of their work.

It's not like Charlie Kirk's critics are running around saying that he cheated on his wife or had a gambling habit.  They're pointing out what Charlie Kirk said regarding The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a "huge mistake" saying that it turned the federal government into an "anti-white weapon" or that Martin Luther King, Jr. was "awful."  Whether or not one agrees with such statements, he put stuff out there as part of his job, not as a non-job-related personal statement on Facebook or whatnot.

Heck, take Martin Luther King, Jr. as more like Dick Van Dyke:  Sure, King was caught plagiarizing and wasn't faithful to his wife.  Still, the guy helped bring down Jim Crow as part of his job, so, for whatever cultural reason, we're more forgiving of that or leave it up to whatever eternal justice will be brought to bear upon him.

When your job is expressing your own personal opinions, it's a whole lot messier.

Then again, I grew up revering Bill Cosby, but when his deposition was leaked (I think to Rolling Stone) and contained the heinous evidence of his rapes, I can't stand to listen or watch any of his material now.

I suppose everyone has a threshold for what they'll tolerate from a performer's personal life before they write them off as repugnant...

[CoreySamson]

(I know a lot of people have pointed out Charlie Kirk's own statements on empathy, where he said it was a "made-up, new age term" and that he couldn't "stand" the term.  It's a weird feeling as someone who sees at least some value in empathy (although I don't extend it as far as others, for better or for worse), seeing his followers throw the term around when he said it, but then, really, I think we should have empathy, and round and round we go.  Strangest feeling I've had in a discussion about a celebrity's death)

Just wanted to point out that "the empathy quote" is taken out of context. Here is the full quote:

"The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, 'I feel your pain.' Instead, it is to say, 'You're actually not in pain.' So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

I think he was trying to make a distinction between empathy and sympathy/compassion (albeit fairly poorly IMO) and to highlight the use of "empathy" as a political buzzword. Was he trying to say that people should not care about the misfortunes of others in general (as many are using this quote to claim that he did)? I don't think so, based on his actions and other beliefs. Did he make a poorly-worded comment about a political situation? Yes. Does that poorly worded comment speak a lot about his character? I don't think it does. We all have off days as humans where we are not at our best. I think we tend to hold up political figures as though they are always at their best and brightest (I mean, we probably should, since they are the ones in leadership and influence), when in reality they have bad days and rough speaking outings like the rest of us.

And honestly, I don't think I could truly empathize with Charlie's death, because I haven't experienced something similar myself. But I can sympathize, and I can have compassion. I think there is a difference there.

[Rothman]

(I know a lot of people have pointed out Charlie Kirk's own statements on empathy, where he said it was a "made-up, new age term" and that he couldn't "stand" the term.  It's a weird feeling as someone who sees at least some value in empathy (although I don't extend it as far as others, for better or for worse), seeing his followers throw the term around when he said it, but then, really, I think we should have empathy, and round and round we go.  Strangest feeling I've had in a discussion about a celebrity's death)

Just wanted to point out that "the empathy quote" is taken out of context. Here is the full quote:

"The new communications strategy is not to do what Bill Clinton used to do, where he would say, 'I feel your pain.' Instead, it is to say, 'You're actually not in pain.' So let's just, little, very short clip. Bill Clinton in the 1990s. It was all about empathy and sympathy. I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."

I think he was trying to make a distinction between empathy and sympathy/compassion (albeit fairly poorly IMO) and to highlight the use of "empathy" as a political buzzword in the 90s. Was he trying to say that people should not care about the misfortunes of others in general (as many are using this quote to claim that he did)? I don't think so, based on his actions and other beliefs. Did he make a poorly-worded comment about a political situation? Yes. Does that poorly worded comment speak a lot about his character? I don't think it does. We all have off days as humans where we are not at our best. I think we tend to hold up political figures as though they are always at their best and brightest (I mean, we probably should, since they are the ones in leadership and influence), when in reality they have bad days and rough speaking outings like the rest of us.

The context is appreciated, but unfortunately, as it is with anyone out there on the public stage, whether pundit, politician or spokesperson, muddled quotes like this can be interpreted in all sorts of manners.  Just like one can point at the more Christian of Kirk's beliefs to buoy the position you put forward, they can also point at his less-than-empathetic beliefs as well to argue against it.

It's a mess.

[kphoger]

There seems to be a difference between a celebrity that performed well and everyone enjoyed and their personal moral failings, rather than a celebrity or pundit where one's stated positions and moral failings can be intermingled due to the nature of their work.

Actually, what I've heard the most from people (in person) about Kirk specifically is that he welcomed debate and treated the other side of the argument with a modicum of respect and open ears.  That is to say, not even getting into whether you agree with his positions or not, his format was a breath of fresh air in an environment where people seem less and less willing to even acknowledge that their opponent has as brain or an idea worth listening to.  In that regard, the praise I've been hearing for Kirk has been >50% about the manner in which he conducted his 'business' rather than the actual content of his message.  Unmingled, if you will.

Now, maybe you disagree with that assessment of his format and behavior, but the point remains that people are in fact talking about him in that way.  They're applauding his method of debate, even separate from the ideology of his arguments.

[Roadgeekteen]

There seems to be a difference between a celebrity that performed well and everyone enjoyed and their personal moral failings, rather than a celebrity or pundit where one's stated positions and moral failings can be intermingled due to the nature of their work.

Actually, what I've heard the most from people (in person) about Kirk specifically is that he welcomed debate and treated the other side of the argument with a modicum of respect and open ears.  That is to say, not even getting into whether you agree with his positions or not, his format was a breath of fresh air in an environment where people seem less and less willing to even acknowledge that their opponent has as brain or an idea worth listening to.  In that regard, the praise I've been hearing for Kirk has been >50% about the manner in which he conducted his 'business' rather than the actual content of his message.  Unmingled, if you will.

Now, maybe you disagree with that assessment of his format and behavior, but the point remains that people are in fact talking about him in that way.  They're applauding his method of debate, even separate from the ideology of his arguments.

Say what you want about Kirk but the possibility of someone like Nick Fuentes replacing him is terrifying.