Cav's Place

In light of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I’ll just say that turning opponents into martyrs is akin to shooting your own side, your own cause. So don’t do it, damn it! And I’m not just referring to the fact that lethal force should only be used in case of a real and present threat, and in this case we’re talking about someone who, while particularly influential, used only speech as a “weapon”, and the retaliation to words, to opinions, however despicable they may be, should not escalate beyond the level of words. And no, the fact that the other side is doing it, using anything from official regulations to, yes, actual assassinations, be it there or, far more blatantly, elsewhere, is no excuse.
But, as I said, ethics and the moral high ground are not the main point I’m trying to make here, and it’d be weird to dwell on it when we’re talking about the elimination of a particularly toxic individual and I keep saying that noble ends do justify the means and it’s necessary to do whatever works… Yet that’s just where the even bigger problem lies. Using violence against such a person turns them into a victim, and killing turns them into a martyr. And martyrs generate zealots. And, at a more “mundane” level, they make the strong and active supporters of their cause feel justified in their stance, activate plenty of passive ones, may also turn over some of those who were undecided, and may cause plenty of their opponents to feel uneasy about acting out on that opposition. And, of course, such an act offers the perfect justification for the kind of terrible backlash that’s already appearing over there. So, going beyond any ethical considerations, the fact is that such an act is particularly detrimental to the cause that those who may consider it would ostensibly support.
And yes, I remain as “allergic” to conspiracy theories as ever. I mean, I maintained this stance even in case of the failed attempt on Trump that pretty much ensured his victory, so at a point when the conspiracy stories were basically writing themselves, while now they really make no sense, so unless someone has solid, clear, specific evidence of something of the sort in case of Kirk, any and all such scenarios don’t even deserve the effort of being refuted. Until and unless clearly proven otherwise, this was done by an individual determined to eliminate someone they saw as a terrible, and terribly influential, opponent. And my message to anyone else who may consider taking similar actions is firm and simple: Don’t do it! Don’t turn them into victims, and most of all don’t turn them into martyrs! If not because it’s morally, ethically wrong, then because it’s strategically wrong. It causes massive harm to your cause and boosts theirs. So if you really do oppose them, forget about any such plans or ideas and put your efforts into something that may actually work in your favor.