I was in the “who?” crowd and when I read up on it involuntarily everywhere I also saw nobody sad. All who stated how sad it was were clearly using it as a tool for forwarding an agenda or because they felt they needed to. Non-emotional sadness.
Sure, there might be people who felt truly sad because they had a constructed image of him in their heads.
Just like a crappy 90s boyband had women deeply in love with their artificial personas.
But people emotionally sad who knew the guy well? No, not that I could see in a remotely believable way.
This guy has never been relevant in my home country in Europe. I’m pretty sure at least 99.5% of people here had never heard from him including me. It was still on national news the entire day, and the aftermath in the following week was on the news too. So yeah. Everyone can be a pretty apt description.
When people say “everyone” in a context like this, they do not literally mean all 7,999,999,999 people on Earth speaking with a single unified voice. This is safe to infer because all 8 billion people having the same opinion about anything is not something that happens. They mean the majority of people, and they mean the people in their social sphere.
When people say everyone, they might only be thinking about the majority of people in their social sphere, but what they want to do is universalise that, and say that “everyone who matters” thinks the same way.
When you talk about politics, if you say “everyone” but mean “my friends” you’re either not making a point at all or you’re lying by that implicit universalisation.
So do you earnestly think a person who did not know who Charlie Kirk was before he died has an opinion on his death that should be treated with equal weight to the people whose lives he directly or indirectly impacted, or do you disagree that the majority of people who were talking about Charlie Kirk’s death were either celebrating or trying to profit off of it?
“everyone?” Don’t kid yourself.
Yes, everyone.
There were exactly three reactions to Kirk dying:
That is it. Not one person was SAD.
Some of my magat in-laws definitely cried and were sad.
Myself and others celebrated, but they got extremely upset at us doing that
You are kidding yourself. What did I just say?
I was in the “who?” crowd and when I read up on it involuntarily everywhere I also saw nobody sad. All who stated how sad it was were clearly using it as a tool for forwarding an agenda or because they felt they needed to. Non-emotional sadness.
Sure, there might be people who felt truly sad because they had a constructed image of him in their heads.
Just like a crappy 90s boyband had women deeply in love with their artificial personas.
But people emotionally sad who knew the guy well? No, not that I could see in a remotely believable way.
This guy has never been relevant in my home country in Europe. I’m pretty sure at least 99.5% of people here had never heard from him including me. It was still on national news the entire day, and the aftermath in the following week was on the news too. So yeah. Everyone can be a pretty apt description.
Oh, right, I didn’t realise “everyone” meant “almost (but not quite) everyone in a country other than the one where the guy lived”
Jesus wept.
Right, I’m gonna let you in on a little secret.
When people say “everyone” in a context like this, they do not literally mean all 7,999,999,999 people on Earth speaking with a single unified voice. This is safe to infer because all 8 billion people having the same opinion about anything is not something that happens. They mean the majority of people, and they mean the people in their social sphere.
When people say everyone, they might only be thinking about the majority of people in their social sphere, but what they want to do is universalise that, and say that “everyone who matters” thinks the same way.
When you talk about politics, if you say “everyone” but mean “my friends” you’re either not making a point at all or you’re lying by that implicit universalisation.
So do you earnestly think a person who did not know who Charlie Kirk was before he died has an opinion on his death that should be treated with equal weight to the people whose lives he directly or indirectly impacted, or do you disagree that the majority of people who were talking about Charlie Kirk’s death were either celebrating or trying to profit off of it?