Karen Attiah says she was fired by the Washington Post over social media posts | Fox News
By: Hanna Panreck (Fox News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A left-wing columnist revealed in a Substack on Monday that she was fired by the Washington Post over social media posts amid the assassination of Charlie Kirk and the Colorado school shooting.
"On Bluesky, in the aftermath of the horrific shootings in Utah and Colorado, I condemned America's acceptance of political violence and criticized its ritualized responses — the hollow, cliched calls for 'thoughts and prayers' and 'this is not who we are' that normalize gun violence and absolve [W]hite perpetrators especially, while nothing is done to curb deaths," Karen Attiah wrote.
Kirk, a leading conservative activist, was assassinated at a campus event in Utah on Wednesday. That same day, a separate shooting at a Colorado school left two students injured and the assailant dead.
Attiah included multiple screenshots of her posts on Bluesky, including one that read, "Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for [W]hite men who espouse hatred and violence."
Karen Attiah, a former Washington Post editor and columnist, leads a discussion on Saudi hacking techniques at the Oslo Freedom Forum 2019 on May 28, 2019, in Oslo, Norway. (Julia Reinhart/Getty Images)
"My only direct reference to Kirk was one post— his own words on record," Attiah wrote on Substack.
In a post to her Bluesky account, Attiah wrote, "'Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a [W]hite person's slot'- Charlie Kirk."
Attiah appeared to reference a July 2023 remark made by Kirk during "The Charlie Kirk Show" about affirmative action in which he named Joy Reid, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee, according to Reuters, rather than speaking broadly about all Black women, as one viral X post suggested.
Attiah said she was fired for speaking out against political violence, "racial double standards" and America's "empathy towards guns."
"The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being 'unacceptable', 'gross misconduct' and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues — charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false. They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold," Attiah wrote in the post, where she included a 2019 photo of herself and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos.
Jeff Bezos, founder and executive chairman of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post, looks out into the crowd during the New York Times annual DealBook summit at Jazz at Lincoln Center on December 4, 2024, in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Attiah argued her former newspaper no longer reflected the people it serves in a diverse city, noting she was the last Black full-time opinion columnist on the Post's roster.
"What happened to me is part of a broader purge of Black voices from academia, business, government, and media — a historical pattern as dangerous as it is shameful — and tragic," she continued.
Attiah first joined the Post in 2014. A Washington Post spokesperson declined to comment on personnel matters.
The Post's Policies and Standards includes a section on social media that reads, "Post journalists should ensure that their activity on social media platforms would not make reasonable people question their editorial independence, nor make reasonable people question The Post's ability to cover issues fairly."
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Any use of the term MAGA will get you r comment deleted, and if you make justification for this assassination your comment will be deleted
Tags
Who is online
130 visitors
If you are celebrating this assassination, you are a piece of shit who is far worse than the person you are attacking. And as if the person wasn't fucking dumb enough, she pulls the race card, you should never be allowed near decent humans again, maybe a better job for you is spokesperson for the death cult we used to call the democratic party.
Where did she celebrate Kirks death? This is from the seed you posted:
I fail to see how her posting Kirk's own words was somehow "celebrating" his assassination. Were there other posts that weren't included that could legitimately be interpreted as celebrating his assassination? Or did you not actually read the seed you posted?
Sigh...............That statement was for everyone who is justifying this assassination.
This comment is a fucking lie, he never said it. here is a link to the actual statement. watch the Video and quit promoting lies.
Here is the quote.
Charlie Kirk once said prominent Black women didn't have 'brain processing power' to be taken seriously | Snopes.com
The entire Video is there, point out where he says Black Women, anywhere at all.
But you see, George. The lie has been repeated so many times, especially over the last week, that many leftists have no choice but to believe it. Their talking points have been given.
If you continue to repeat a lie after being shown the truth, you are no better than the original liar, and actually probably worse, because you know the truth.
Oh, I'm so sorry! The link you posted says the statement is true, and he mentions four black women as his examples of who "do not have the brain processing power" but because he didn't say "black women" and just named black women, then the quote is false?
It is SOOOOOOOOO fucking exhausting replying to such moronic drivel.
And where did she say that quote was to justify his assassination? Oh, that's what you're reading into it or what other rightwing media has concluded on their own, but hey! Who fucking cares? Or rather, what MAGA fucking cares? They don't and we all know it because they're useless simps with nothing but bitter anger over being treated the same as any minority group in America and they can't have that, they experienced privilege for FAR too long to be satisfied with anything less! /vomit
So why do you keep repeating the lie? You claim to know better but then go right back to it.
It doesn't.
And you know that.
I have seen the clip in question 2 or 3 times and posted about it a few days ago.
The idea that Kirk was talking about a tiny sample of black women and not all of them is hilarious.
I think what the asshole wanted to do was concentrate his attack on Sheila Jackson Lee, who talked about being an affirmative action recipient. But he was incompetent even by his own meager standard.
He ended up saying, at a minimum, that three accomplished black women , all of which graduated from fucking Harvard (two from Harvard Law School) "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
Does anyone on this fucking planet believe that if Kirk would say this about three Harvard graduates he wouldnt say it about any black woman who went to college ?
Kirk dropped out of college in his freshman year.
The defense of everything Kirk said, almost all of which is on video, is becoming pathetic.
A journalist who thinks relying on fake quotes to attack a murder victim is acceptable. That’s that state of left wing journalism at this point.
It's not a fake quote, one of you posted the snopes which says the quote is 100% True.
Context
Kirk was speaking on his show, "The Charlie Kirk Show," on July 13, 2023. He was talking specifically about television presenter Joy Reid; former first lady Michelle Obama; then-U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat from Texas; and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Charlie Kirk once said prominent Black women didn't have 'brain processing power' to be taken seriously | Snopes.com
So the only difference between what Attiah said 'Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a [W]hite person's slot' was that he named four black women and then said "You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously." speaking of those four black women.
Did Attiah misinterpret what he said? That his comment wasn't directed at black women? Is that really your argument? I mean, it's laughable on its face but okay, if that's the game of semantics you want to play I'll leave you to it.
How to say you are more willing to promote a lie than Listen to the actual video.
No, it didn't. Read what snopes said was true again and pay attention to what that is. Snopes said he was talking about four women, which he was. The liars say he was talking about all women.
Do you not know how subjects work in English sentences? Or can you not treat black woman as individuals, but only as a group who are all the same?
You honestly can't tell the difference between these two sentences?
Bill is dumb.
All white guys are dumb.
That's a tough look for you. It's legitimately shocking to me anyone would make the argument you just did publicly. It's impossible to come back from that.
Your attempt to be snide is moronic. You know as well as everyone else what Kirk meant and it was exactly how Attiah used it.
Your analogy is dumb. It does not represent what Kirk was saying in any way. He was NOT just commenting on the four women he used as an example, he was talking about affirmative action and only minorities like the four black women he cited, qualify for affirmative action.
I'm willing to hear your attempt at interpretation that makes Kirks comments exclusive to only those four women, but without serious mental contortions you cannot change it from what his message was which was 'Black women' or minority women or ANY woman who qualify (which are only minority groups) and would use affirmative action, by doing so proves they "do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a [W]hite person's slot'".
Trying to change his intent to mean something different is cute but it's pointless, you just make all conservatives look like intentionally obtuse bigots.
The other glaring bigoted statement there was his basic assumption that that "slot" was already a 'white persons' and thus had to be "stolen". White bigoted conservative trash from start to finish.
No, it isn't. The rest of us understand how subjects work in the English language and can differentiate between individuals and groups. I don't know if you can't do that or simply willing tell a lie for partisan reasons. I know you couldn't pay me to make such an egregious and bad faith misrepresentation of what someone wrote, I'd be way too embarrassed to be associated with it.
No different than someone saying Bill Cosby and Sean Combs are predators and a bad faith journalist twisting that into claiming the speaker meant "all black men are predators"
Keep it up if you want, but understand how completely and transparently dishonest your brazen attempt to change the meaning of a speaker's words to fit the preferred partisan narrative are.
m willing to hear your attempt at interpretation that makes Kirks comments exclusive to only those four women
The words he used to do that. It doesn't take an interpretation other than simply giving the words he used their natural meaning and not pretending you know some secret meaning.
No you're not. People who are willing to listen don't say shit like "White bigoted conservative trash from start to finish."
It's fascinating how you're getting all indignant about the idea that Affirmative Action might actually have done the very thing it was supposed to do.
It's also fascinating to listen to you pretend Justice Jackson is not a direct beneficiary of discriminatory practices when the president announced that ahead of time to great applause. It wasn't like it was ever a secret.
Well from what I've read and heard from Kirks past speeches /debates, i see not a problem in interpreting his conveyed meanings the same as DP, cause Kirk painted with a broad brush often, cause possibly besides a thick skull, so was his hair, but how dare, one have personal perceived unique perception, cause I recall recently a dawg gone conversation about whistling past the graveyard due to consequential, sometimes grave, were the decibels heard not by the herd, yet sometimes they did ring a bell while others claim there was not a sound, yet underground, seismic vibrations can be detected by most animals, without even listening....
You can believe whatever you want, and make any personal (keyword personal) assumptions about what he meant, but to claim he said something that he clearly did not shows a complete lack of integrity, and as a journalist that is all she has, and it’s gone.
I'm not even sure what conservatives are trying to argue or what interpretation they want us to draw instead of the obvious blatant one that most people with more than half a brain conclude after hearing his exact quote.
Do they think: "Oh, this guy isn't complaining about black women using affirmative action or accusing them of not "having the brain power to be taken seriously", he only meant those specific four women he cited as examples. Oh, and why would they be considered "examples" at all if his intent was to complain specifically about just those four black women? Please. This is beyond stupid.
Here is the full quote with full context:
How are we or any black women supposed to interpret that to mean anything other than "If you're a black woman, like the four mentioned, and you take advantage of affirmative action policies as they admitted to doing, then "Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
Defending his quote and his disgusting white nationalist Christian dominionist ideology is stupid unless you're a white nationalist Christian dominionist. Trying to twist logic so that his statement isn't racist is purely an exercise in futility.
I have read the entire quote over and over and nowhere does he say "all black women". He was obvioulsly talking about four specific black women.
To think otherwise is moronic
you seem to suggest you could remove "otherwise" , cause I don't know, but what did these four women have in common again ?
Well buy George, I thank you
The far left's approach has been consistent if nothing else. They rewrite, makeup and distort quotes and publish the fictional version to insult Kirk. When the evidence points to the assassin being a left winger, they just lie and say he's a right winger. There's really no need to pay attention to reality, they are more than happy to simply create a fictional alternate reality and tell each other that's the real one.
They are all idiots
Not realizing he was talking about 4 specific women and not all African American woman is partisan, and people with 3 digits in their IQ know the difference. This is an example of a racist talking about all women of color and not 4 specific women who were affirmative action recipients.
Here is someone specifically saying all African American women are too stupid to raise their children and need social workers to help them.
This is sad. Would Charlie Kirk ever ever say these three very accomplished black woman graduates of Harvard dont have the "brain processing power" and not think that all black women who benefited from AA dont have the brain processing power? The idea is absurd. He was using these particular black women as an example. Period. End of story.
Being absurd has become a default position for many right wing arguments.
Pathetic.
He specifically named them and explaind why he named them. Jumping from that to all black women is either ignorant or dishonest
Start this video a 17:15. It shows a more complete version of what Kirk was saying
This longer version fleshes out the blatant racism.
Sara Longwell , one of the podcast hosts, calls it "breathtaking in its racism" and it is. And you want to argue about whether he said "all black women" ?
There is no common ground to this stuff. We are in a war of ideas and ideals.
More than once in this video clip he refers to three black woman Harvard graduates as not very smart, in fact not smart enough to succeed without taking a white persons spot. Do you understand how insane that sounds? Probably not.
By the way, this is the credentials of Sheila Jackson Lee, the fourth woman and seemingly his initial main target
and college droptout Charlie Kirk has the gall to try and insult these people on the basis of intelligence ?
Let's don't pretend it would matter if you did. You're not interested.
It's telling that there is no question mark anywhere in that paragraph. But let me help you anyway with an example.
The valedictorian of my son's HS graduating class was a Somali girl. She got full scholarship offers to a host of schools, and settled on Yale. That's NOT an "affirmative action pick". That's a merit pick.
Ketanji Brown Jackson was chosen to the SCOTUS after President Biden said publicly that he would not consider candidates who were not black females. That's an "Affirmative Action Pick".
When Sheila Jackson Lee says: "I rise today as a clear recipient of affirmative action, particularly in higher education", she is admitting that she.... individually and specific to her..... received special treatment at the expense of another student.
And you want to argue about whether he said "all black women" ?
Yes. because he didn't and no honest person can claim he did. The fact that so many progressives are willing to defend a journalist who straight up lies about what Kirk said should bother you.
If there's one thing I thought would be pretty non-controversial among all Americans is that journalists should not fabricate quotes. Yet here we are.
Charlie Kirk has the gall to try and insult these people on the basis of intelligence ?
Sheila Jackson Lee thought Neil Armstrong planted a flag on Mars. Don't get over your skies.
Is Donald Trump intelligent? I can guarantee you he has said twenty times more stupid things than Sheila Jackson Lee ever did.
Charlie Kirk had a daily show and he said many many inflammatory and yes racist things. And you want to debate whether what he said was specific or general. It was specific to make a general point. People who cant see that need to go back to the drawing board.
The reek of desperation has overcome this seed, and beyond.
Who the fuck was Charlie Kirk to question the intelligence of three Harvard graduates ? Why did he do it? The clip is racist.
Because that literally is the difference between a racist statement or not.
It was specific to make a general point.
Yes, that people who takes "seats" or "jobs" because of affirmative action take them from more qualified people. Those women admitted they did that. That's the whole point of affirmative action. That you refuse to admit how it works on the ground is an issue you need to work through.
the fuck was Charlie Kirk to question the intelligence of three Harvard graduates
Harvard graduates are not deities and its perfectly acceptable to question their intelligence relative to their position.
Donald Trump is certainly much, much smarter than the average person. By any measure he qualifies as intelligent. Yet, you quite rightly, make fun of his intelligence. That doesn't make you racist or sexist. It's just recognition that Donald Trump isn't particularly smart when compared to some of the intellects that surround him.
In the clip Kirk says, more than once, that the black women he named were not intelligent enough to succeed without taking a white persons place. He stumbles around trying to be appropriately sarcastic about their alleged lack of intelligence. THAT is the sin of the clip, not whether he said "all black women" or "these black women".
Ridiculous. Kirk calls three Harvard graduates and a Yale graduate stupid.
You need to rethink your whole approach to these things.
How did Donald Trump get into the University of Pennsylvania?
So what? That's not unique.
George Bush graduated Yale AND Harvard and every progressive with a GED made fun of his intelligence. It's not a crime.
I have zero idea what kind of student Donald Trump was or what his test scores were. But what does that matter to you?. He graduated from an Ivy league school, which, per the standard you've articulated, means no one who hasn't graduated from an Ivy league school can criticize his intelligence, lest they be called a racist.
I am flabbergasted by your responses here.
NOT BECAUSE OF RACE.
how many results are on still on google 15 years later of progressives calling George Bush stupid or insulting his intelligence, do you think?
Exactly. Because it is not racist to insult someone's intelligence who graduated from Harvard or Yale. It has a long bipartisan tradition. Black women can get insulted just like white men. It's equality.
He insulted them because of their race.
If he said Michele Obama was stupid in the context of a comment on Obamacare maybe you would have a slight point. He said they are stupid because they couldnt make it without stealing a white persons spot. That is exactly why their later accomplishments matter.
Im not going to be like some others and debate this over the course of dozens of posts. I am right about this and you are wrong.
I would be if they started their argument in this universe. Listening to the MAGAverse's tired defense of Trump and rightwing conservatism and white nationalism is pointless because their starting point is in a realm I refuse to visit. Trump's colon is not a place I would choose to spend any time.
That's wonderful. One incredible student who happened to be from Somalia (so I guess she's black? And raised here? Not sure the story, but I'm sure its epic) is your anecdotal evidence that affirmative action isn't needed? The logic is astounding.
Were either of them saying they were any less of a great student than anyone else in the field? NO! They were saying that even being excellent, without affirmative action, MANY excellent minds and people have been kicked to the side by the legacy of racism in this country. Most minorities who have risen to the top in their field often admit that they had to be twice, three times, ten times better than their white competition in order to get those accolades and recognition even with affirmative action. Thankfully, some truly great people understood that Americas ingrained racism was actually keeping us back, it was cutting the tendons of an America that wanted to sprint forward. Which is why Democratic President Kennedy first enacted affirmative action for government contractors through Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and pushed for the civil rights and voting rights acts though neither were signed into law until after his assassination.
Sadly, now those same fuckwad bigots and their descendants who were trying to hobble our nation by continuing their policy of white affirmative action have their President in the Whitehouse and are once again trying to cut Americas tendons because they are SO fucking jealous of other people's success and feel that America isn't white, conservative or Christian enough for them. It's an America that doesn't look like them anymore and they're pissed. That's the only reason we have Trump and all of this bullshit. Americas problems are not because of affirmative action, they're not because of DEI, they're not because of the gays or transgender Americans, it's the fucking useless conservatives who refuse to grow the fuck up and accept that the world doesn't fucking revolve around them or their unproved religion.
Nah. That's just you not being interested.
Affirmative Action being unnecessary is a whole other set of obvious facts you won't want to hear.
Yes. That's what "recipient of Affirmative Action" means. If you were just as good as everyone else, you didn't get there because of Affirmative Action.
By "admit" you mean "claim". Just because they romanticize something doesn't make it true.
What is that policy, exactly? Do tell.
You're making some outrageously batshit claims here. Your evidence?
That's not why they're pissed.
No it isn't.
No, but those are easier problems to fix.
You post this entire paragraph and then suggest that other people need to grow up?
Glass houses. Stones. Etc.
Graduating from Harvard does not equate "brain power". Over the past several decades, it means indoctrination into left wing ideology, teaching them that all white people are racist and that they need to "resist" their whole lives.
Unfortunately, they took that indoctrination to heart and are considered world class idiots today.
So now you agree that he was only talking about three people, and not all black women.
I'm glad you are starting to turn the corner with this.
That was not the reality when all four of those women were given the opportunity to compete against their white counterparts through affirmative action. The claims that everything has been based on merit for all these decades is nothing short of dribbling horse shit out of the mouth. Anyone who believes that bullshit should have their heads examined. I will admit it has changed and gotten better and I'm fine with debating whether it's still necessary, but to say it was never necessary is just mind numbingly stupid and naive.
If you're really willing to debate anything, you're going to need to stop assuming people mean things they don't say.
Please cite me saying anything remotely like that.
Attiah also supported the firing of an New York Times editor for publishing an op-ed by senator cotton.
This sounds a lot like the "karma" the left is claiming Kirk asked for.
No sympathy for those that celebrate the demise of a fellow American.
Some folks are stooping lower than I ever thought they could go.
May I ask the thoughts of Brian Kilmeade? Do you believe he should have been fired, or at least suspended, and if not, why? Is his apology enough, sincere?
Did Bowd need to be fired as well? Stephen King backlash?
What if these statements were made say, a few weeks from now?
Wasn't familiar with him until I read your post, TBH. Having now seen his apology video, where he admits what he said, I don't think a temporary suspension would have been out of order.
That's a great point. I think most non-extremist Americans don't see Charlie Kirk as a saint. But there are accepted social norms surrounding how we deal with death, and some of those are greatly dependent upon the passage of time.
As in humor is tragedy plus time.
Something like that, yeah.
My dad used to tell me "You can be right, but you don't necessarily need to be it right now."
Denying it was not an option. A few million people watched him say it live, and it is on the video of the show. The good question is why it took him four days to apologize.
One of the presidents very top advisers (some people say he runs the administration) Stephen Miller, has gone on national tv two or three times since the killing and said that he was going to make sure leftist organizations are destroyed over the Kirk assassination.
Does your advice about how to respond to a death extend to Stephen Miller?
I'm not suggesting he attempted to deny it. I have yet to see the actual comments in question, and I don't care anyway. He said something stupid. He then apologized, which frankly puts him ahead of any of the women on The View. I don't intend to give him any more importance in my life than I already have.
As to why it took 4 days? Let's don't pretend like 4 days is a long time. Hopefully, he got with the network legal and PR people who coached him through what to say and... more importantly... what not to say.
We don't want him ending up like this guy:
Matthew Dowd was fired virtually on the spot for saying something less indefensible than what Kilmeade said.
Absolutely.
One of the reasons you despised Charlie Kirk so much is that he gave voice to a very large number of people. A great many of those people are young men, who embraced Kirk's message that they aren't actually toxic, they aren't actually to blame for shit they never had any control over, and they aren't wrong when they think some of this rhetoric they see on campus is utterly insane. He was one of the only voices telling them that they're not evil and they're going to be OK.
Young men are less cautious than the rest of us under the best of circumstances, and don't always understand how to make the best decisions. Kirk's murder has hit them especially hard, and that translates to anger.
The intelligent path here is to behave respectfully and somberly, allowing them time to process their pain and anger in a calm atmosphere. We need to be assuring them that they have a voice, that they are valuable, and that discretion is definitely the better part of valor.
Stoking them further, either by talking about retribution like Miller and Trump or by picking apart everything he ever said (which they will see as pissing on his grave) is about the dumbest thing we can do right now.
Charlie Kirk should not have been shot and killed because of things he said. No one should be killed over what they say in public debates or on You Tube shows.
Kirk made hundreds of videos. Hundreds. It is very easy to find him saying inflammatory things about race, and gender, and women, and Christian nationalism.
When he was killed there was a frenzy on the right to make him "St Charlie" and it still goes on. It has been floated that a statue of him should be erected on government grounds in DC.
That is a big reason why people began attacking him. He isn't worthy of government recognition.
It will be just as easy to find all of that a month from now, when heads are cooler.
Nobody outside the most devout left wingers gives a shit about any of that right now. Whether you intend it or not, bringing this up now is seen as rationalizing his murder.
I would say you guys need to tone it down for a while, but I know you won't. I literally don't think you could stop yourselves if you tried.
I get that this is a quasi religious situation, and that you guys believe you are in a righteous battle of good and evil.
FYI, the rest of America is hearing how Charlie's little girl ran to him because the gunshot scared her.
If you think for a nanosecond that people will look at that little girl and give a solitary fuck about some comment he made 3 years ago, you are completely out of your mind.
Whatever evil you think you're fighting is vastly overshadowed by the fact that these kids are now orphans. Whatever righteous ground you think you hold is not there right now.
I am concerned that some really, really stupid people will try to protest his funeral. If they're dumb enough to celebrate on TikTok, there is no telling how stupid they really are.
Don't talk about "right now". Minutes after he was killed , those on the right, including elected officials were calling for retribution against "the left'. Before anything was known about the killer, BECAUSE HE HADNT BEEN CAUGHT YET.
You have this misunderstanding that anyone cares what you think concerning someone rationalizing his murder.
Charlie Kirk was an extremist on the political right. How the hell is he having the nations flags lowered for him? A bill proposed to let him lie in honor in the Capitol building ? , when he was someone who approved of the riot that saw police fighting for their lives in that same capitol rotunda.
Yesterday Trump said that leftwing organizations will be stopped. Today Pam Bondi is talking about curtailing free speech for people who didnt like Kirk. A libertarian commentator called her "psychotic".
People are not going to wait three months to discuss these things.
Agree. Things move so fast now that you want to get your statement out but perhaps it should wait. And how long, who knows really?
And being honest, I didn't know of Mr. Kirk, not sure who he was or his tour. I'm still in a research mode on him, his wife and "movement". Everything I've seen so far are the normal 5 ~ 10 second liners and sound-bites, so either he's a highly respectable, saintly God or "Bull" Connor, Lucifer incarnate.
I do feel the wife's "private" casket-side pictures and such that have been shown are propaganda and staged for effect.
In a conversation about a guy who was killed for talking about things you don't like, you're going to tell somebody else what not to talk about?
You could not miss the point more completely.
That's utterly moronic. It's getting worse with every sentence.
One of us is reading the room. It isn't you.
I did say you wouldn't be able to stop yourselves.
I dunno how long, but I'm going to humbly suggest that "before the funeral" is probably too soon.
Yeah, I can see that. Media these days tends to make everything "all or nothing". Social media is worse.
Like you, I didn't really follow him.
The thing that has me concerned that this is more serious than a "simple assassination" is the conversations I've had over the weekend with guys my age (50s) who have kids (especially boys) in their teens, 20s and early 30s.
The tone has gone from one where they ignored the looney left and just let them shout at the sky and everything else to "if they shot Charlie, they'll just as happily shoot me and just as readily dance on my grave".
I admit I was quite surprised to hear how seriously some of these kids are taking this.
Sadly, I'm not surprised to see the RW using it for political leverage or the LW continuing to declare their self righteousness.
don't you go after people for this kind of rhetoric and call them hysterical?
I think (hope) they're overly concerned, but I wouldn't call them hysterical.
Charlie Kirk was murdered over his conservative views. People have openly celebrated, filmed themselves doing so, and posted it on the internet. Left wing nutjobs have mocked, attacked and assaulted people at vigils. Social media posts have called for the death of Kirk's wife and children. They've said things like "Matt Walsh is next" and "now let's get Ben Shapiro".
Sorry, but those are facts. These people are telling you loudly and clearly they see nothing wrong with killing people with different political views.
When people who have already murdered someone are threatening to do it again, I'm not sure how we consider believing them to be "hysterical".
Imagine if, in the days following George Floyd's death, a few Minneapolis Police officers made a video celebrating his death and promising to treat any other black people in similar fashion. I don't think anyone would have considered it "hysterical" for black people to believe they might be next.
You call John and several others of us hysterical nearly every day.
And I haven't seen the celebrating of his death on the internet. You must explore darker areas than I do. So I need to see links to these occurrences
And don;t tell me to go google them myself. You made the claims, you back them up
What he has been doing for years is saying, regularly, that Trump's unfitness is no big deal, that people that dont like him and say it should just chill out. He actually does this ad nauseum.
So lets say that the people saying the left is celebrating Kirk's death are hysterically over reacting.
nearly every day
Yes, that's good
"The thing that has me concerned that this is more serious than a "simple assassination" is the conversations I've had over the weekend with guys my age (50s) who have kids (especially boys) in their teens, 20s and early 30s.
The tone has gone from one where they ignored the looney left and just let them shout at the sky and everything else to "if they shot Charlie, they'll just as happily shoot me and just as readily dance on my grave".
Interesting. Didn't think of that but makes sense and the "they killed him, they can kill me just as, if not more, easily". Someone on that public of a stage at that age can make some stop and think.
Sadly, I'm not surprised to see the RW using it for political leverage or the LW continuing to declare their self righteousness.
Neither am I. Both sides are talking about ramping down, stopping the rhetoric while at the same time ratcheting it up. Trump, Bondi and others are rampaging about retribution for "hateful" speech while the dems are pushing statistics on which side actual performs, follows through on violence, violent talk.
When the shoe fits.
I don't know how you've missed it.
Instagram and Facebook are "darker areas"? Riiiiiight.
Why do I think this could happen in your living room and you would still deny it?
Here are but a few examples of many......
Twenty-six percent of liberals under 45 years old, compared with 12 percent of liberals 45 and older, said political violence can sometimes be justified;
And then there is this lovely little montage from Sky News Australia:
John, if you lack the courage to speak to me, you should probably stop speaking about me.
You are the one who thinks having Trump in the national life for 15 years is a walk in the park. You are the one who has explaining to do.
What, specifically, would you like explained?
I don't think a suspension is out of order, plus a think a nice rider on his contract where he has to serve food in a shelter or the Salvation army without press or cameras, and not someplace like Marthas Vineyard would be a nice touch, plus it might humanize those he was so willing to dehumanize.
I was thinking the same. Suspension plus he donates his salary for the rest of the year to his local shelter and works there, no cameras, not photo-ops, no giving out turkeys on Thanksgiving mess. Or perhaps the company donates the equivalent.
Yes, Fox is "entertainment" but at same time since they are presenting themselves as a legit news organization / network I would hope there's some kind of moral's clause in their contracts.
I wonder what the South Park and SNL "Kilmeade" episodes will be like.
Oh dear, starting to look like The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal are exchanging partisan lanes.
We’ve now reached the point where numerous people on the left are defending quote fabrication by journalists. Even I’m kinda shocked we are here, and I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being too naive about many on the left wing’s relationship with the truth.
They've been defending fabricated nonsense from these bloggers for years.
If left wing media are willing to defend fabricated quotes when everyone can see they are fabricated, what are they willing to do with sources we can’t see?