This is the quote to that sums up this entire situation. It was made by Kirk in regards to Floyd.
“I am also going to offer some context and some nuance about the death of George Floyd that no one dares to say out loud. Which is that this guy was a scumbag. Now, does that mean he deserves to die? That’s two totally different things — of course not.”
So everyone that said Kirk didn’t deserve to die but was a shithead are correct and Kirk himself agrees.
End of story.
He wanted gay people to be stoned, so death was certainly not out of his desires. People tend to die when stoned, that is the point of stoning.
I suppose he could have just been confused about the Bible and wanted them to get some high quality weed?
Still seems pretty straight forward. Sow seeds of hate, reap the fruit of violence
Something about those who live by the sword die by the sword.
I mean our whole understanding as a people has been shattered
But Hemmer added, the choice of others to reshare [graphic content] is driven by the fact that social media “rewards this kind of extreme content.” Many who re-shared the images are making money and gaining followers off of it, she notes. “That’s just part of the incentive structure of media today,” she said.
…Nuance fails in online platforms designed to boost and sustain engagement and promote content likely to provoke a reaction from users. Already, social media pundits on the left are questioning whether the texts and interviews in the charging documents are real. Meanwhile, those on the right are agitating to declare left wing activists as terrorists.
There’s no nuance. There’s just fact. He was a fascist misogynistic racist. He was killed by another right-wing asshole - the various local, state, and federal officials wringing their hands and bleating about how much of a leftist the guy was are all lying, to a man. This is the play they’re running
So you’re saying social media isn’t a cesspool? That’s what these quotes are highlighting.
You don’t need to argue with my comment, a comment that quotes the article like that. It’s not suggesting this was a “both sides” situation, and that Kirk had upsides. It’s pointing out polarization, and lack of decorum, lack of sensitivity, a pressure to race to post, gross incentives for profit and many other toxic properties of social media.
Kirk was a shithead. Don’t get me wrong. But, all your reply is is restating facts about Kirk and the right wings tactics and not discussion about the topic of the article.
I specifically quoted these in hope of replies that were not just statements that reflect one side of the toxic discourse. Even if they are correct and factual about Kirk and the corrosive rhetoric he and his organization peddle.
The article is about extreme polarization. And polarization means there is no nuance. Nuance would be following the facts, not making up ones own lies about the radical left.
The article is about talking past each other instead of with each other. The article is about people just posting their views instead of engaging with others in a nuanced way.
“Lack of Nuance” here is talked about broadly as a property of social media platforms. Not as a property of Kirk.
