“We desperately need a way forward. And tragically, one of the few voices attempting to chart that course through intellectual discourse, whether one agreed with him or not, was killed for it.”
I respectfully encourage you to listen to those who claim Kirk’s views promoted bigotry. They may be wrong. But if discussion and debate without hate is to happen, there needs to be listening on both sides. And both sides need to see that the other side is listening.
Have you sat down and spoken with anyone who believes that Kirk’s views were morally wrong?
I actually have. Very few of them have actually listened to Kirk at length. I recommended that they do so, especially before calling the man a bigot. Most of them seem uninterested in Kirk as a person, or his message. They are viewing the situation through an us/them lens (as Stephen describes here). They want to believe that the sources who have told them that Kirk was hateful are correct, and I think that some of them fear the cognitive dissonance of finding out that they may have been lied to. That's pure speculation of course. The point is that critics of Kirk are far more interested in labelling him than they are in understanding him or listening to him, in my limited experience.
Such a timely and incisive piece! I truly fear where our country is headed in the next few years.
On a brighter note: So glad to know you are still writing on Substack. 🙌🏾 Haven’t seen you in a minute. 😉
“We desperately need a way forward. And tragically, one of the few voices attempting to chart that course through intellectual discourse, whether one agreed with him or not, was killed for it.”
I respectfully encourage you to listen to those who claim Kirk’s views promoted bigotry. They may be wrong. But if discussion and debate without hate is to happen, there needs to be listening on both sides. And both sides need to see that the other side is listening.
Have you sat down and spoken with anyone who believes that Kirk’s views were morally wrong?
I actually have. Very few of them have actually listened to Kirk at length. I recommended that they do so, especially before calling the man a bigot. Most of them seem uninterested in Kirk as a person, or his message. They are viewing the situation through an us/them lens (as Stephen describes here). They want to believe that the sources who have told them that Kirk was hateful are correct, and I think that some of them fear the cognitive dissonance of finding out that they may have been lied to. That's pure speculation of course. The point is that critics of Kirk are far more interested in labelling him than they are in understanding him or listening to him, in my limited experience.
I JUST posted about this issue (although a slightly different aspect of it). I'm glad to see that the problem is somewhat widely recognized!
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/an-explosion-of-puerility