https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opin ... itics.html
Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way - The New York Times
纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
版面规则
左也行，右也行，文明发帖就欢迎；粉也罢，黑也罢，互相尊重别谩骂。
左也行，右也行，文明发帖就欢迎；粉也罢，黑也罢，互相尊重别谩骂。
#2 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
Opinion
Ezra Klein
Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way
Credit...Cheney Orr/Reuters
Ezra Klein
By Ezra Klein
Opinion Columnist
Sept. 11, 2025
The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear of violence. To lose that is to risk losing everything. Charlie Kirk — and his family — just lost everything. As a country, we came a step closer to losing everything, too.
We’ve been edging closer for some time now. In 2020, a plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, was foiled by the F.B.I. In 2021, a mob stormed the Capitol in an effort to overturn the result of the election and pipe bombs were found at the Democratic and Republican National Committee headquarters. In 2022, a man broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home, intending to kidnap the then-speaker of the House. She was absent, but the intruder assaulted her 82-year-old husband, Paul, with a hammer, fracturing his skull. In 2024, Donald Trump was nearly assassinated. That same year, Brian Thompson, the chief executive of UnitedHealthcare, was murdered.
In 2025, Molotov cocktails were thrown into the home of Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania during Passover. Melissa Hortman, the former House speaker of Minnesota, and her husband were murdered, and State Senator John Hoffman and his wife severely injured, by a gunman. And now, this week, Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was gunned down during a speech at Utah Valley University.
You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion. When the left thought its hold on the hearts and minds of college students was nearly absolute, Kirk showed up again and again to break it. Slowly, then all at once, he did. College-age voters shifted sharply right in the 2024 election.
That was not all Kirk’s doing, but he was central in laying the groundwork for it. I did not know Kirk and I am not the right person to eulogize him. But I envied what he built. A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy. Liberalism could use more of his moxie and fearlessness. In the inaugural episode of his podcast, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California hosted Kirk, admitting that his son was a huge fan. What a testament to Kirk’s project.
On social media, I’ve mostly seen decent and human reactions to Kirk’s murder. There is grief and shock from both the left and the right. But I’ve seen two forms of reaction that are misguided, however comprehensible the rage or horror that provoked them. One is a move, on the left, to wrap Kirk’s death around his views — after all, he defended the Second Amendment, even admitting it meant accepting innocent deaths. Another is on the right, to turn Kirk’s murder into a justification for an all-out war, a Reichstag fire for our time.
But as the list above reveals, there is no world in which political violence escalates but is contained to just your foes. Even if that were possible, it would still be a world of horrors, a society that had collapsed into the most irreversible form of unfreedom.
Political violence is a virus. It is contagious. We have been through periods in this country when it was endemic. The 1960s saw the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert F. Kennedy and Medgar Evers. In the 1970s, George Wallace was shot by a would-be assassin but survived, and Gerald Ford faced two assassination attempts in one month. In 1981 Ronald Reagan survived after John Hinckley Jr.’s bullet ricocheted off his rib and punctured his lung. These assassins and would-be assassins had different motives, different politics and different levels of mental stability. When political violence becomes imaginable, either as a tool of politics or a ladder for fame, it begins to infect hosts heedlessly.
American politics has sides. There is no use pretending it doesn’t. But both sides are meant to be on the same side of a larger project — we are all, or most of us, anyway, trying to maintain the viability of the American experiment. We can live with losing an election because we believe in the promise of the next election; we can live with losing an argument because we believe that there will be another argument. Political violence imperils that.
x1
NC CHINESE AMERICANS FOR TRUMP 
#6 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
你去nytimes发一个极右言论 看看nytimes发不发？
nytimes所有的出版物都会有编辑审核，编辑是左派，现在nytimes完全不会发表任何极右的言论
nytimes是美帝的主流媒体，就是定调了。
上次由 dealfinder10 在 2025年 9月 11日 10:10 修改。
#10 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
dealfinder10 写了： 昨天 10:09你去nytimes发一个极右言论 看看nytimes发不发？
nytimes所有的出版物都会有编辑审核，编辑是左派，现在nytimes完全不会发表任何极右的言论
nytimes是美帝的主流媒体，就是定调了。
你有没有搞错。Editorial board和Op-ed editor是分开的。
大报纸从来就是要在op-ed上发表不同的声音的。
你让我找counterfactual，不公平吧。
#12 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
极左左儿为什么爱谩骂，打杀，暗杀？
其实就是因为他讲不过道理，因为他没有道理。
所以只有两条路可走了：
1.谎言诈骗洗脑，比如莉莉阿毛。还有共产党黑手党。
2.谩骂，打杀。比如本版的一些极左左儿，还有共产党黑手党。
共产党就是赤裸裸黑手党
#13 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
YouHi 写了： 昨天 10:22你有没有搞错。Editorial board和Op-ed editor是分开的。
大报纸从来就是要在op-ed上发表不同的声音的。
你让我找counterfactual，不公平吧。
nytimes不行，times封面行吗？
#15 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
说你胖你就喘
树根杆儿你就爬
Mountainlion 写了： 昨天 10:25极左左儿为什么爱谩骂，打杀，暗杀？
其实就是因为他讲不过道理，因为他没有道理。
所以只有两条路可走了：
1.谎言诈骗洗脑，比如莉莉阿毛。还有共产党黑手党。
2.谩骂，打杀。比如本版的一些极左左儿，还有共产党黑手党。
#16 Re: 纽约时报定调了，不要污蔑kirk
YouHi 写了： 昨天 10:22你有没有搞错。Editorial board和Op-ed editor是分开的。
大报纸从来就是要在op-ed上发表不同的声音的。
你让我找counterfactual，不公平吧。
难得这么严肃 
第一印象差的某些男id，现在看来印象依然很差。 
黑色的好吃，我每天都要吃。
听说我是自认为台湾人的日本人，自学中文成才