The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.

I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.

American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.

Part of the problem is that many claim violence has been done ... with words, and in so doing they incite actual violence. If we want violence to stop then we need to:

- talk to each other about politics (as we used to) so as to moderate each other's opinions

- stop exaggerating moles into mountains.

May we actually do this.

> But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.

could you give some examples of good, civil conversations he's had with people he strongly opposed? I'd like watch them. I think it's a skill we all need to cultivate.

I agree with you. There should not be sides in the American political system. Yet here we are, because the people we elect seem to want to create a boogeyman in the other "side" and blame all of society's problems on them. Maybe that's just a reflection on American society.

And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.

I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:

- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"

- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."

- "While I'm not a fan..."

Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.

There is only one "side", and they're die-hard. The left is a rag-tag group of misfits who simply don't identify as conservative for one reason or another, which is part of the reason it's so hard for the democratic establishment to find a message that resonates with such a varied and untethered group.

So no, no one is talking about "sideS." A single, cohesive group of people has been building an unearned narrative of persecution and victimhood as a pretext to lash out at and antagonize every person who isn't them.

treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what

I don't understand this. Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time. And the better team that day wins - enjoy and go home. What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?

For those unfamiliar, "Arguments as Soldiers" is a great way to think about this dynamic.

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers

It’s also stupid to be talking about “sides” when we don’t even have a handle on the shooter.

It could be a random crazy person, a Democrat, Trump supporter pissed off that Kirk was trying to help Trump move past the Epstein stuff or any number of in-betweens.

And you can knock off the white washing of Kirk’s political life. In recent memory, he has advocated for military occupation of US cities, making children watch public executions, and eschewed the idea of empathy. This “well, he said it in calm voice” handwaving is spineless.

[flagged]

[flagged]