Thank you for writing this. I've been struggling the past two days with an undercurrent of fear from these horrible events, also from the tribalism I see happening around me. I've seen friends of mine post on social media about how they "aren't mourning" and some imply that if you publicly show any feelings of grief or compassion for Charlie and his family then you are on "the other side"...or worse. Reading through this practice to bring warmth and compassion into my heart and then extend to others has been very settling. I will be returning to this many times to spread more compassion today and going forward.
Though one could rationalize violence through hormones and neurotransmitters in our brain, as well as the archaic history of humanity, we may forget to point out how violent discourse stimulates more violence. Kirk's actions and discourse are examples of the normalization of hate discourse, which can only be expected to attract violence. A white supremacist who says that a few deaths are acceptable if they preserve the American way of life, and who clearly offended many in the society he lived in, is one of the strongest factors contributing to his own assassination.
Yes, I find Charlie Kirk’s ideas very abhorrent. But I don’t see him as evil, just deluded and afraid. He feels threatened by all that’s diverse and different. We don’t have to agree with his ideas, but we can leave it at that rather than building walls of hate. We can hate the ideas rather than the person; otherwise, we become part of the problem rather than the solution.
In this instance, I wasn’t even aware of Charlie Kirk’s existence until I learned that he’d been shot. Since then I’ve read some of the appalling (to me) things he’s said, specifically about the necessity of accepting some gun deaths to preserve our 2nd amendment rights, and about how empathy is a made-up “woke” concept.
I’m not glad he was killed, but I found those statements and the huge influence he seemed to have, frightening and destructive.
The internet has been flooded with mis/dis-information since at least 2011, and now the federal agencies that monitor and warm about this have been disbanded. It almost seems like this is a strategy by both foreign and domestic actors to disrupt and divide our culture. How to protect against this? Cort suggests that we must intentionally practice rewiring our prejudicial notions with feelings of compassion. Perhaps, we also must narrow our circle of external influence input despite the addictive nature of these online feeds. Maybe this reminds us to be especially mindful of what we allow to occupy our screen time. Gassho, J.
Thank you for writing this. I've been struggling the past two days with an undercurrent of fear from these horrible events, also from the tribalism I see happening around me. I've seen friends of mine post on social media about how they "aren't mourning" and some imply that if you publicly show any feelings of grief or compassion for Charlie and his family then you are on "the other side"...or worse. Reading through this practice to bring warmth and compassion into my heart and then extend to others has been very settling. I will be returning to this many times to spread more compassion today and going forward.
Though one could rationalize violence through hormones and neurotransmitters in our brain, as well as the archaic history of humanity, we may forget to point out how violent discourse stimulates more violence. Kirk's actions and discourse are examples of the normalization of hate discourse, which can only be expected to attract violence. A white supremacist who says that a few deaths are acceptable if they preserve the American way of life, and who clearly offended many in the society he lived in, is one of the strongest factors contributing to his own assassination.
Yes, I find Charlie Kirk’s ideas very abhorrent. But I don’t see him as evil, just deluded and afraid. He feels threatened by all that’s diverse and different. We don’t have to agree with his ideas, but we can leave it at that rather than building walls of hate. We can hate the ideas rather than the person; otherwise, we become part of the problem rather than the solution.
Well, this is the first time I've seen Charlie Kirk's reasoning characterized as "thoughtfulness." Here is a link to his own words: https://open.substack.com/pub/zeteo/p/charlie-kirk-in-his-own-words?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
This is a tall order for me!
In this instance, I wasn’t even aware of Charlie Kirk’s existence until I learned that he’d been shot. Since then I’ve read some of the appalling (to me) things he’s said, specifically about the necessity of accepting some gun deaths to preserve our 2nd amendment rights, and about how empathy is a made-up “woke” concept.
I’m not glad he was killed, but I found those statements and the huge influence he seemed to have, frightening and destructive.
It’s a challenging paradox to live with.
The internet has been flooded with mis/dis-information since at least 2011, and now the federal agencies that monitor and warm about this have been disbanded. It almost seems like this is a strategy by both foreign and domestic actors to disrupt and divide our culture. How to protect against this? Cort suggests that we must intentionally practice rewiring our prejudicial notions with feelings of compassion. Perhaps, we also must narrow our circle of external influence input despite the addictive nature of these online feeds. Maybe this reminds us to be especially mindful of what we allow to occupy our screen time. Gassho, J.
And then there’s this:
I’m trying to share a piece posted on fb about Charlie Kirk written by a woman named Candice Benbow, but I guess Substack doesn’t permit that.
Expresses my thoughts about the paradox and living an ethical life pretty well.
ME
WE
(((❤️)))
☸️🆓️