OK, that's all fair, and I understand all of it.

I can't tell you whether it was 'that sad of a death', I'm afraid - one of the ways I cope with the abject horror at all the suffering that exists is by convincing myself that suffering is a binary state, and cannot be ranked. That's something I choose to believe to my own sanity. It could be desconstructed in multiple ways.

I just know that I am better to other humans and animals, in terms of my own actions, where I don't think of a death as 'more' or 'less' sad. For me, personally (and this is not a judgement about anyone else, or an implication it would lead anyone else to such thoughts) I would find it to be an incredibly slippery ethical slope. It's a stance, in a semi-Kierkegaardian way, that I choose to take. I would rather not rank suffering.

> Ugly people are ugly, and nasty people are nasty. Don't get it twisted, real life is not a fairy tale. The cause and effect is reversed.

Ditto, I'm extremely handsome, so I can't go around posting about people being ugly. That's not in the secret code they give insanely good looking / handsome guys, and most of us follow to this day.. I guess you didn't get taken out of lessons for those classes? (I jest - I'm a conventionally ugly man.)

> I don't know, it seems like he pretty much just rattled off standard talking points from the conservative playbook. My perspective is the opposite, the takeaway is that he wasn't that controversial or meaningful or deeply effective.

> The tragedy is not that his life's work was cut short, it's just that his life's work was not that important in the first place. It's inevitable that we all kick the bucket one day, what matters is how we spend our time.

On that second one, that's a question of my ethical preference not to speak about people in certain ways so soon after their passing. Again, no judgement, and I'm not saying one position is more moral than the other. In fact, the only thing I'll say against Kirk for a little while in public is that many Christians don't believe it's humanity's job to do the judging.

Purely politically, yes, I strongly disagree with both his beliefs and methods. It's hard for me to know how much I'll mind when people shit-talk my politics when I eventually die. Again, I'm sorry, I'm arguing from emotion here - I just prefer not to for a little while. I don't know what that might feel like. I'm sure you can infer my political beliefs (and if you despise them, you are welcome at my funeral, should I beat you there - it might be a learning experience for me).

> That's also what makes the killing so strange to me. He was a rather inconsequential figure, so the idea that someone would be driven to madness over him is pretty unusual and speaks to some sickness.

This part is, genuinely, fascinating, and what I'm interested in and happy to talk about personally.

While two of the 'great American assassinations' (MLK, Malcolm X) of the 20th Century weren't serving politicians, I don't think it's unfair to say that Kirk was not a man who cast a similar image in the popular imagination.

I'm speaking completely in media-theory, star-theory terms, here.

You're right: it's deeply deeply strange.

We have been on a trajectory for some time where the idea of what I think is best described as 'divine right to celebrity' has been in a process of entropy. There are lots of theories about that, but I don't buy the 'we have more access to them, so they have to be more authentic' argument which seems to be most common.

(Personally, I believe that it's due to the increasing secularisation of the West; no matter how good an actor is, it must have been so much easier to understand Marilyn Monroe as an Athena than it is for us today to understand Sydney Sweeney the same, despite them sharing other archetypical qualities. It wasn't many years before Monroe's time that the audience's primary consumption of the feminine image would be as religious figure. I am not saying one mode is better or worse; I am saying that the context around "seeing a human image" has changed drastically in the West, and I believe this is overly discounted by many.)

This is important, and strange, I think, because Kirk's death is the crystallisation of this. His imagine is described as an 'icon' but is entirely divorced from the idea of an 'icon'. He is described as 'political' but was not a politician. I could go on, and I thought the image on Fox News of Trump announcing they'd caught a possible perm - looking for all the world like he belonged on the sofa - was one of the perfect images of the Trump campaign. Trump is by nature a pundit more than he is a politician, and I think he'd be the first to say as much. He would be a perfect president of the US if all that job entailed was sitting on a sofa being [charming/off-colour/a mix].

None of this, either, is a value judgement. You cannot force meaning onto star images. I don't think most politicians understand that. I think most people see their images in a fairly accurate way, and agree or disagree with the idea that they should be politicians based on that.

But it is a very very important to understand that:

- When the media treats the assassination of (forgive me if I'm wrong) a man who was essentially in charge of a big youth club and YouTube channel the same way they would the killing of a very, very important politician, this is new.

- When other world leaders phone in condolences for the same guy, this is new.

- When his body will be displayed in the Rotunda(?) this is extremely new ground for a man of his profession.

Utah is a death-penalty state. Assuming no inside job, if a killer knew that and still chose the Utah date, on a literal list of tour dates, this means that the killer sees this person's image as of high importance.

Because you really can just take a shot at anyone you like, really.

To choose a guy who is, functionally, a vlogger (right?) is new. And while I'm not saying the killer is of sound mind, or not of gainful employment by other parties, they are still a person who consumes news media and made this decision.

I think that had the assassination weapon been a drone, people would understand so much more how new this is. It's totally, totally new ground. I think it shows how completely meaningless the old ideals and images of the Anglo-American sphere are becoming, and I think it points to why it often seems like different people are looking at America, or the world, from completely different planets.

(NB - I know we killed John Lennon, which is somewhat analogous. But at least Charlie Kirk pretended to listen to and debate people, whereas I don't remember seeing any videos of Lennon showing any empathy to his audience prior to some of his contributions to the later Beatles stuff, eg White Album. If only Lennon had been carrying a copy of the record when he was shot. Not that the vinyl would have stopped a bullet, but there would, at least, be one fewer copy of it in circulation. I'm only joking - and mostly because I want people to understand that despite what I said above, I do think it's fine at a point - I do quite like that album. It's really useful, for example, if someone asks you which Beatles album you think Charlie Kirk was most akin to, because they're both basically about as bad as it gets.)