To believe the right and left have more in common than we think

[TheKhakiQuail]

I am saddened by Charlie Kirk's murder, not because I share his political or religious views, but because he was a young father who had ideas and was willing to talk and debate with anyone. It makes me even more sad to see how many people online are celebrating, laughing and mocking his death because they think he is a 'hateful' person. Most of us share the same basic values - we want our loved ones safe, healthy and happy, we value freedom and autonomy, we have compassion. People just do the math differently. One person who values bodily autonomy and human life will support abortion and oppose mandatory vaccination, another will come to the opposite conclusion. CK was willing to be intellectually honest about the fact that all such decisions come with trade-offs - he supported the 2nd amendment because he saw gun ownership as a tool to maintain the other freedoms in the constitution, and acknowledged that the cost of that is some gun deaths every year. I am incredibly grateful to live in a country with tight gun control, I think he was wrong, but he didn't want gun deaths. I am sick of people acting like he supported gun deaths or would be happy if his daughter was raped and pregnant at 9 and forced to have the baby - he is just willing to accept that that is the potential cost of his strongly pro-life stance. Just as I am not happy about 'babies being murdered' but am willing to acknowledge that my stance on abortion accepts the ending of human lives (at a very early stage) to give women bodily autonomy. I am of the left, but the thing that is driving me nuts about 'my side' at the moment is the unwillingness to hear what the right actually believe, and recognise that it is underpinned by many of the same values and humanity, even if they do the math differently on political solutions.

No, I didn't share any of Charlie Kirk's values. He had no compassion. I do not need to hear and understand him.

“I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.” - Charlie Kirk, 2023.

It's a mistake to think that political views are a simple left-right lineal spectrum. In fact its more a multi dimensional model with an axis of socialism vs capitalism, an axis of libertarianism vs authoritarianism, axes of the extent to which concerns of science, religion and environmental issues should be dealt with politically, the not being necessarily opposed to each other or aligned with any other axis. With this understanding it's certainly possible that two individuals could be diametrically opposed on one of these axes and in basic agreement on all the others. However that opposition is still going to be important to each of them.

yeah - it is a good test of a person these days, how do they perceive the other side of the political spectrum.

If they can understand that the other side (overall...) are not evil or stupid, but just have a different set of fundamental values that leads them to different conclusions, prioritizing different risks, protecting different groups, valuing different things etc. But that fundamentally each side does truly believe that they are making the world better and doing the right thing.

If they can accept that - then they are a rational and reasonable individual that you can have a decent discussion with.

If they can't, and fundamentally its all us-vs-you, they are stupid/evil/wrong, etc. just don't bother. Because at a fundamental level, you are right that we all have far more in common than we realize. Even against those on the other side, if you actually sat down and were able to map out all the things you care about, all of your positions on every aspect of life. You'd overlap on 90% of fundamental ideas. Yet we spend our whole lives focusing on the 10% - especially in the political media, hence why we think that we are entirely incompatible. The 90% becomes invisible.

This goes both ways. My home-town environment leans quite right... but my work environment leans quite left, and in both settings you can tell the people who are reasonable, and the people who are fully ideological and unable to deal with anything from the other side.

Those people (on both sides), I end up just tuning out, because you aren't going to get anything good out of them.. if you disagree they will treat you awfully, and if you agree - then best get a chair because they will love nothing more than giving you a lecture on exactly everything that is wrong with the other side.

"People just do the math differently" excuses an awful lot of racism!

Lot of word salad to cover up plain evil.

no one should be assassinated for their views but people should be censored especially for violent and harmful views.

I feel for his wife and kids in the way I feel also for teen kids shooting. It’s sad and unnecessary.

They need to have tighter gun laws in the USA.

There is definitely more than unites us than separates us with almost anyone, anywhere.

That's not what most of the voices on the right want to portray though, quite the opposite. They are deliberately divisive and trying to destabilise the country in the UK. They try to say that people of a different ethnicity are so fundamentally different that we can't all possibly live together. This will do no-one any favours except those who are invested in disaster capitalism and the individuals who will gain power.

One of the things I think Charlie Kirk wasn’t afraid of, was recognising what his views would mean. Eg. Having 2nd amendment means accepting gun deaths, banning abortion means accepting people giving birth in truly horrendous circumstances.

It’s one of the reasons he was successful I think. If you look at debates the other way - (as an example - people who advocate for no abortion limit at all) - the proponents are far less likely than Charlie Kirk to agree that that would make abortions at 40 weeks acceptable in the eyes of the law. You’ll get some stuff about how “it wouldn’t happen” or “women wouldn’t do that”.

I thought he was very good at debating/arguing/defending his case. He was certainly impactful.

(Caveat because that’s what we seem to need these days: I disagreed with him on many things.)

This Charlie Kirk murder has posed a few questions for me.

Yes it’s an horrendous and unjustified killing, but through his belief in the second amendment Charlie Kirk supported gun killings. It made me wonder whether he’d have been in favour had he known what was ahead.

So whilst I agree we have more in common and we need to heal this divide, it doesn’t mean we should tolerate the hate that’s currently growing. The beliefs Charlie Kirk held are doing innocent people harm and they’re affecting people’s right to choice.

I am a big believer in people believing what they like, until it affects other beings adversely. One persons freedom should not affect another’s, and the problem with this authoritarian thinking is that it does.

Religious fundamentalists of all stripes certainly have a lot in common. I expect Charlie would be appalled by having a lot in common with the Taliban, but he did.

To answer your OP: of course. They are both authoritarian, dogmatic and intolerant of any other beliefs.

And usually they’re highly unpleasant human beings too.

I am not sure how a person actively stopping women from getting abortions can be compared to a woman getting an abortion. Nothing dogmatic or intolerant about saying the first is a vile forced birther.

Don't want to have an abortion?
Don't. But don't condemn women to dying in childbirth because your mythical God whispered in your ear.

How do you know you don't share any of someone's values if you don't hear or understand them?

Heard enough of his views and seen enough of his videos recently. Don't need to 'understand' them as OP frames it , by which she means conclude that we are all alike. I am not alike.

Are you trying to understand radical Islamists like Anjem Chaudhary? Because that's what Charlie Kirk was, just white and in a nice suit.

I'd like to understand someone's beliefs as in, why they believe what they believe. I think some people sincerely believe things which are anathema to me. CK seems to fall into that camp. I'd rather that than someone who hasn't really though about what they're saying, or who pretends to believe things they don't believe, or blindly follows what they're told is the right belief.

I would never have agreed with CK but at least he was clear on what he believed and had thought through the consequences of what he believed - e.g. that being anti abortion would mean his 10 year old having to have a baby from rape, that being pro guns meant people would die from guns who'd live if guns were controlled. I can't agree with him, or see how anyone could believe what he did, but I can respect that he'd actually thought about what he said.

Given this is a UK site
Given most ppl in UK never heard of CK prior to his death

There sure are a lot of MN threads about the murder of guy who also had NO direct Influence on most our lives or politics.

As though we didn't have enough native-generated political drama going on.

It's almost like someone is trying very hard to use his death to promote & publicise his views in UK. Out of their "deep grief" about the nature of the man's passing? #CynicalMe

From what I’ve seen, many are pointing out he would have zero empathy for them if the shoe was on the other foot. He himself literally says he doesn’t believe in empathy and believes it to be woke and very damaging. Many are going by what he has said in his regards.

The mass majority I’ve seen feel sorry for his family’s loss and definitely think the way he went out was brutal and uncalled for, but it cannot be ignored the many things he has said show what kind of person he is and people are allowed to say how they feel regardless. Him being dead doesn’t take away from the things he said and the way he used his platform. Plus, from what he said himself, I would guess he wouldn’t be bothered.

I also think more people are in the middle than left or right but too many people think if you agree with one or two of xyz you must be left or right.

I can be bothered by one thing and not want the heavy-handed version of it. I can understand where someone is coming from and very much still disagree with them because of the harm it could cause. It’s not an all or nothing scenario in many cases and I think that is the problem with the whole left/right bs and the media does not help in the slightest and perpetuates the problem.

The consequences of CK's views were that other 10-year-olds will be forced to have babies, not just his. Other 10- year- olds will die terrified in school shootings, not just his.

I can't respect that. No one would talk about respect if CK were a mullah who had thought about the consequences of his decisions and decided " Hey, I am ok with women and children suffering because of my God-given rights". But CK gets a pass because he was polite and had nice manners.

I think the right and left have more in common than not also and I think the extreme right/left stances are both authoritarian and intolerant and a scary prospect.

Its why I like democratic systems that lead us towards the centre and consensus.

I am basing this in the england. On something like abortion english people are overwhelming pro abortion in at least some circumstances so it must cover left and right leaning people to be so well supported. But they might be thinking it in in a different way. I think this is key to getting consensus in some issues.

No he doesn't 'get a pass'. His views were abhorrent to me. But I respect his right to hold them. And no one has the right to kill someone who's views they disagree with, no matter how awful the views are.

I did not once say he should be killed.
We don't disagree on that.

Horseshoe Theory - I think there is something in this, though what research there is doesn’t seem to strongly support it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory#:~:text=Proponents%20of%20horseshoe%20theory%20argue,have%20criticized%20the%20horseshoe%20theory.

I've watched some of the Campus videos.

I don't agree with most of his views - only agree on Trans issues - but he DID encourage debate and listened to opposite POV.

He didn't just spout dogma like the poster above

"KateMiskin · Today 07:22

Lot of word salad to cover up plain evil."

🙄

Is supporting a woman's rights over her own body dogma?