I hate the ‘he had a family’ line. Does that mean killing single men and women or people who never married makes it somehow OK? Like if Charlie Kirk was both single and celibate and said he was ‘married to his principles and mission’ (with no indication of being a closeted gay man or asexual) would that have made his murder more acceptable?
Countless evil people were married and had kids. Stalin was known to be a doting father. Saddam was also known by his children as a very kind and affectionate father. Roy de Mayo, one of the most infamous mafia hitmen, had a family and his family life was so quiet and unremarkable that his children had absolutely no idea whatsoever that their father killed people for a living (and his son had a nervous breakdown when he saw the movie Murder Machine in the early 90s, which was about his then dead dad).
Agreed. Besides, if these people were concerned with what their children thought, they should’ve factored that in when making their decisions. The truth can’t hide forever (in the case of that last story), and the others (including Kirk) made their awful words and deeds public. If they never stopped to think, “What would my kids have to say about what I’m doing?” then why should it suddenly be our concern?
Sorry your daddy was a piece of shit that didn’t care about the legacy or how it would reflect back on his children, but there’s no whitewashing what he publically stood for.
Kids of figures like Kirk have multiple possible outcome. Firstly they could just be their own person, live their own lives and not necessarily have anything to do with their father’s legacy. Second they could actively speak against what their father stood for, or they could walk in his footsteps and continue the hate.
I hate the ‘he had a family’ line. Does that mean killing single men and women or people who never married makes it somehow OK? Like if Charlie Kirk was both single and celibate and said he was ‘married to his principles and mission’ (with no indication of being a closeted gay man or asexual) would that have made his murder more acceptable?
Countless evil people were married and had kids. Stalin was known to be a doting father. Saddam was also known by his children as a very kind and affectionate father. Roy de Mayo, one of the most infamous mafia hitmen, had a family and his family life was so quiet and unremarkable that his children had absolutely no idea whatsoever that their father killed people for a living (and his son had a nervous breakdown when he saw the movie Murder Machine in the early 90s, which was about his then dead dad).
Agreed. Besides, if these people were concerned with what their children thought, they should’ve factored that in when making their decisions. The truth can’t hide forever (in the case of that last story), and the others (including Kirk) made their awful words and deeds public. If they never stopped to think, “What would my kids have to say about what I’m doing?” then why should it suddenly be our concern?
Sorry your daddy was a piece of shit that didn’t care about the legacy or how it would reflect back on his children, but there’s no whitewashing what he publically stood for.
Kids of figures like Kirk have multiple possible outcome. Firstly they could just be their own person, live their own lives and not necessarily have anything to do with their father’s legacy. Second they could actively speak against what their father stood for, or they could walk in his footsteps and continue the hate.