zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
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.

>>shruub+H81
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.