[darkmighty]

Not just lower the temperature. Talk to each other, and listen carefully, in a civilized manner. Prefer to listen carefully first, then speak. Bring, and stick to, facts as much as possible, and focus on policy and real-world outcomes rather than politics.

[anonymousiam]

That's exactly what Kirk did. He was always polite and open to dialog. Many people didn't like what they heard, but it wasn't because it was mean or wrong -- it was because it challenged their ideologies.

I think Charlie Kirk thought he was safe because he was a good person. He didn't provoke political division, he tried to reconcile it.

R.I.P.

[smt88]

I wish this hadn't happened, but let's not rewrite history with our eulogies.

> Many people didn't like what they heard, but it wasn't because it was mean or wrong

He was often wrong, as most people are, and he often doubled down on it. For example, he repeatedly lied about the 2020 election being stolen.

> He didn't provoke political division, he tried to reconcile it.

He paid for people to attack the capitol on January 6 and advocated for Joe Biden to be given the death penalty[1]. He repeatedly tried to frame "the left" for things they didn't do or didn't even happen, and said things like "prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people" (verbatim quote from his podcast).

He was extremely, intentionally divisive.

1. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...

[anonymousiam]

You could benefit by doing further research on Charlie Kirk, and on the 2020 election. Citing Media Matters will not increase your credibility.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-matters/

There is much to question about the 2020 election, and much of the evidence is now gone.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1742670648433090764.html

What was divisive were the attacks and mockery of Kirk, not the man himself. I noticed that Comedy Central has now pulled their "Charlie Kirk" episode.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/television/202...

[smt88]

The link I gave was just direct quotes with attribution. The publication's bias was just in choosing to write that article at all.

Also please skip the "there is much to question" nonsense. The conspiracy theorists had dozens of days in court and ended up with losses, fines, dismissal, and jail time because they couldn't provide proof.

It would also be very strange for people to partially steal an election, allowing their opponents to take statewide offices in states like Georgia where the vote split between parties.

[tracker1]

The irony in this statement as it's exactly what Charlie Kirk himself tried to bring to the table. Even if you don't agree with his positions, he was always calm and rational even in opposition to pure appeals to emotion.

This is a sad, sad day.

[darkmighty]

Reply to dead comment below: (by nmz)

Keep trying. It's all you can do. Also, you can't expect everyone to accept your facts. A few % of the population are going to be nutjobs (specially when there are various propaganda networks around which compound it), and that's fine, thankfully I think they aren't majority.