[reliabilityguy]

> I think ideally we all should be mature enough to both mourn the loss of a human and also acknowledge who they really were.

I have a nice little trick for it: when you go to a funeral of a person in your family, or close to your family, who was an asshole, I bet you won't be saying to other people "yeah, sad, very sad. But, please remember, he was an asshole". Right? I would not -- not the time, nor the place.

Yes, Kirk is not a family (probably not yours, and definitely not mine), but the same standard of being polite and reasonable person should apply.

[AnEro]

These people aren't at a funeral, they are online, responding to false glorifications of him. These comments obviously aren't directed at the family but the news publications and media's handling of his passing. If that's not the appropriate space for that criticism when/where is it? Just after the public not ever knowing their real action's in life have moved on with a false glorified image of the person, move on and aren't paying attention anymore?

[zahlman]

> responding to false glorifications of him

That is not a fair characterization of what they are doing, no. (Besides which, "glorification" is subjective. People thinking Kirk was a virtuous person because of things they consider virtuous but you don't, is not "false".)

> These comments obviously aren't directed at the family but the news publications and media's handling of his passing.

None of the example comments I have been shown reference supposed news or media bias. Many of them have straight up described the murder as a good or morally just action. Some have even expressed a desire for the same to happen to others in Kirk's orbit.

[twixfel]

We aren't at his funeral and he's a public figure. It was Voltaire who said "We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only truth". I tend to agree. He's a public figure, he's fair game to criticise. He didn't magically become a good guy by virtue of having been murdered. If I were somehow at his funeral, I'd absolutely show respect and not mention all the weird and nasty as fuck shit he said.

[dns_snek]

> the same standard of being polite and reasonable person should apply.

I'm curious how standard this "standard" is, did you (and the rest of America) mourn the death of Osama bin Laden? Did you express condolences to his family and try to remember him by the positive things he did in life?

[reliabilityguy]

> I'm curious how standard this "standard" is, did you (and the rest of America) mourn the death of Osama bin Laden? Did you express condolences to his family and try to remember him by the positive things he did in life?

Perhaps I missed the part where Charlie Kirk organized a group of guys to hijack a bunch of planes with civilians on board, and then crash them into buildings.

On a serious note, if you cannot see a difference between these two, I have no idea what to say.

[dns_snek]

Let me be more specific, how much division, hatred, pain, and violence does a person have to be responsible for before it's socially acceptable to express an opinion that the world is better off without them?

How much before it's okay to party on the streets after learning about their death?

Clearly there's a difference in magnitude between Kirk and bin Laden, but both were merchants of hate and violence, so where's the line?

If people are whitewashing his history then it's to be expected that other people will speak out to set the record straight. That's how free speech works and trying to silence it on the basis of "decorum" is dishonest and manipulative.

[reliabilityguy]

> Clearly there's a difference in magnitude between Kirk and bin Laden, but both were merchants of hate and violence, so where's the line?

To answer this question, we would have to first agree on the term "hate", and what does it mean to be a "merchant of hate". Then, we examine the evidence, and arrive to the conclusion.

So, what is "hate"? What is "merchant of hate"? Why Kirk, in your view, was one?

[dns_snek]

Hate is calling for violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s".

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-...

Are you really this unfamiliar with his work? Because if you agree with his ideology then just be honest and say that, don't try to drag people into these quasi-intellectual debates about what constitutes hate.

[reliabilityguy]

> Hate is calling for violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s".

Can you provide me a link to a source where he calls for a violence against transgender people and other minorities "like in the 1950s and 60s"?

The article you provided does not prove it at all. Instead, they take something he said, and provide an interpretation of it that fits their narrative. Alternative interpretation, which is way more likely given what he said, is that man today are not as decisive w.r.t. matters of what he considers "right" and "wrong", i.e., letting transwoman compete in woman sports.

You can take these six words (i.e., "like in the 1950s and 60s") out of almost a minute monologue, and make your own interpretation (it's a free country after all). However, if your goal is to show me that he was calling for violence, then you kind of failed, because he did not do it there. If there is a video or an article where he did so, please share, I would like to learn more.

So far, I do not see hate towards minorities or transgender people.