I'm not pissed off by your essay: insightful and well reasoned. I believe Mr. Kirk's assassination was a heinous crime. However, I respectfully suggest you made one omission regarding Kirk's life. Although I admired Mr. Kirk for his energy, talent, competence, and profitable insight into what conservatives find entertaining, I did not admire the heart of Mr. Kirk's business: Kirk's debates with students on college campuses. Mr. Kirk was a professional bully. Kirk brought a knife to a fist fight. Mr. Kirk was much older, gifted with the ability to translate thought to speech, and was massively more prepared and experienced than his hapless adolescent debate partners. Mr. Kirk controlled the microphones. Mr. Kirk could splice and dice to create viral videos that cast him in favorable light. I give props to Mr. Kirk for his politeness, but he was still a bully: saying 'thankyou' as he left his unworthy opponents humiliated and beaten. Mr Kirk extended this bullying to trans people, currently the politically weakest members of our society. Bullies are one of the worst things a human can become.
Hey! Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the respectful tone. My bigger aim with this essay was to say that I believe Kirk valued free speech and civil discourse/disagreement. I feel mixed about his actual views and his approach to college campuses, etc. I can totally understand and respect your side on this particular point. Like I said in the piece, I wasn't a Kirk fan. I mostly understand him now as a symbol of reaching across the aisle with dialogue, which we badly need in this country. He had reached to Van Jones to speak. Think about that. We need more of that!
Chill reply. The difference between adequate writing and good writing can be the choice between an adequate word and the best word. I regret I used the word 'omission' in my previous comment. You didn't omit my topic: your focus was elsewhere. I appreciate the reminder to write more carefully...
I'm not pissed off by your essay: insightful and well reasoned. I believe Mr. Kirk's assassination was a heinous crime. However, I respectfully suggest you made one omission regarding Kirk's life. Although I admired Mr. Kirk for his energy, talent, competence, and profitable insight into what conservatives find entertaining, I did not admire the heart of Mr. Kirk's business: Kirk's debates with students on college campuses. Mr. Kirk was a professional bully. Kirk brought a knife to a fist fight. Mr. Kirk was much older, gifted with the ability to translate thought to speech, and was massively more prepared and experienced than his hapless adolescent debate partners. Mr. Kirk controlled the microphones. Mr. Kirk could splice and dice to create viral videos that cast him in favorable light. I give props to Mr. Kirk for his politeness, but he was still a bully: saying 'thankyou' as he left his unworthy opponents humiliated and beaten. Mr Kirk extended this bullying to trans people, currently the politically weakest members of our society. Bullies are one of the worst things a human can become.
Hey! Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the respectful tone. My bigger aim with this essay was to say that I believe Kirk valued free speech and civil discourse/disagreement. I feel mixed about his actual views and his approach to college campuses, etc. I can totally understand and respect your side on this particular point. Like I said in the piece, I wasn't a Kirk fan. I mostly understand him now as a symbol of reaching across the aisle with dialogue, which we badly need in this country. He had reached to Van Jones to speak. Think about that. We need more of that!
Chill reply. The difference between adequate writing and good writing can be the choice between an adequate word and the best word. I regret I used the word 'omission' in my previous comment. You didn't omit my topic: your focus was elsewhere. I appreciate the reminder to write more carefully...