Good thoughts, as always! Words do matter! And in this day and age, ever more true! We can either tone down a situation, or escalate it. It is good, many times to engage in thoughts, but there are times, where it may be best to hold our tongue, and remain silent. Better yet, to use words to bring people together, not to isolate. Of course, no one deserves to be murdered for their words, but we are living in times where mental health and guns, quite often, go together. Just as words matter, so do people. Spread love, not hate. Sending you hugs and love. ❤️Zeta
I generally find these weekly words educational and inspiring. This one not so much. Sure Mr. Kirk's Q&A was being used to push his agenda, many of the left do the same. And sure he used some hurtful phrases but so do partisans on the Left. Rather than replacement many partisans on the left use words that are just as offensive in this day and age such as settler or racist on a regular basis.
I followed Charlie Kirk only tangentially, so can't comment on just how hateful or prejudiced he was or wasn't. But by commenting on his death in this manner I'm afraid you are stepping into the same divide your comments are warning us against. Spotlighting a problem on both sides of the debate around the words of this recently murdered man I don't believe is helpful.
Thanks for writing, Neal. I take your comment and hear you. I think I disagree on what I say as an equivocation between Kirk and those on the far left. For example, while I have more common ground with someone like Hasan Piker, I always find his approach abrasive and offensive. So I would say the same thing about him. We are rewarding people for all the wrong reasons it seems.
The real issue I was trying to highlight was the delicate matter of lionizing people like Kirk posthumously. I think he tried to frame his approach as one of civility and high level discourse but I think he took advantage of kids by cherry picking statistics and demeaning people. I spent a lot of time over the years watching his videos and I don't believe he practiced in good faith. I feel like it's possible to say his murder for his words was reprehensible and we can still authentically sift through his work in life, as we should do for anyone, and be honest in our assessments of him.
Good thoughts, as always! Words do matter! And in this day and age, ever more true! We can either tone down a situation, or escalate it. It is good, many times to engage in thoughts, but there are times, where it may be best to hold our tongue, and remain silent. Better yet, to use words to bring people together, not to isolate. Of course, no one deserves to be murdered for their words, but we are living in times where mental health and guns, quite often, go together. Just as words matter, so do people. Spread love, not hate. Sending you hugs and love. ❤️Zeta
I generally find these weekly words educational and inspiring. This one not so much. Sure Mr. Kirk's Q&A was being used to push his agenda, many of the left do the same. And sure he used some hurtful phrases but so do partisans on the Left. Rather than replacement many partisans on the left use words that are just as offensive in this day and age such as settler or racist on a regular basis.
I followed Charlie Kirk only tangentially, so can't comment on just how hateful or prejudiced he was or wasn't. But by commenting on his death in this manner I'm afraid you are stepping into the same divide your comments are warning us against. Spotlighting a problem on both sides of the debate around the words of this recently murdered man I don't believe is helpful.
Thanks for writing, Neal. I take your comment and hear you. I think I disagree on what I say as an equivocation between Kirk and those on the far left. For example, while I have more common ground with someone like Hasan Piker, I always find his approach abrasive and offensive. So I would say the same thing about him. We are rewarding people for all the wrong reasons it seems.
The real issue I was trying to highlight was the delicate matter of lionizing people like Kirk posthumously. I think he tried to frame his approach as one of civility and high level discourse but I think he took advantage of kids by cherry picking statistics and demeaning people. I spent a lot of time over the years watching his videos and I don't believe he practiced in good faith. I feel like it's possible to say his murder for his words was reprehensible and we can still authentically sift through his work in life, as we should do for anyone, and be honest in our assessments of him.
As always, thanks for reading.
And thanks for your words week after week. Shana Tova
well said