Canceling the Murder Enthusiasts

One of the responses by the left to the barrage of firings of people who displayed incredible insensitivity and mental derangement following Charlie Kirk's murder is that it shows the hypocrisy of conservatives who opposed "cancel culture" when they were being "held accountable" but now favor it when it's people on the left who are being canceled.

I don't think the comparison works very well. Conservatives have suffered the loss of career and reputation for disagreeing, often politely, with policy or ideas. What we've seen in the last few days are left-wing individuals terminated from employment for violating company policy, making their employer look bad, and for the moral depravity of celebrating a man's murder.

Many of these folks are teachers and professors. Some are doctors and nurses. Is a fifth-grade teacher who repeatedly shows his ten-year-old students video of Charlie Kirk's murder on the same moral plane as a professor debating his college students over some point of domestic or foreign policy?

Don't parents have the right to insist that the teachers whose salary they're paying not traumatize their children? If medical professionals rejoice in the murder of a man with whose politics they disagree, would patients feel secure entrusting their care to those professionals?

There's a vast moral chasm between, say, opposing men in women's sports and cheering political violence and murder.

Guy Benson has a column at Townhall.com in which he draws a number of distinctions between the cancellation of conservatives and what's currently happening to some hateful progressives. Here's the lede:

The forces of decency must stand together against the cancer of political violence and twisted vigilantism. What must also be said is that there is a toxic and not-insignificant strain of leftism that indulges, excuses, and cheers on this evil. We saw it after the cold-blooded murder of healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City. We've seen it repeatedly from the pro-Hamas hate mob for nearly two straight years. And we're seeing it again in the wake of Kirk's violent demise.

Applauding murder is vile and should have no place in a civilized, free society. This should not be controversial.

I'd submit that privately harboring some perverse facsimile of joy or happiness upon a political opponent's death should inspire serious introspection within one's conscience and heart. But publicly advertising such depravity descends to an even uglier level of darkness.

The whole column is worth reading, but I'll only include this excerpt which summarizes Benson's argument against equating the cancelation of conservatives and holding accountable some very depraved individuals:

Is it hypocritical for anti-'cancel culture' conservatives -- myself included -- to accept or embrace public shaming and firings for those who celebrate the assassination of Charlie Kirk? I have concluded that no, it is not. Opposition to cancel culture, at least as I conceive of it, is rooted in the belief that people shouldn't suffer severe punishments, including loss of livelihood, over political differences.

This is not the same as suggesting that Americans should never be confronted with serious consequences for their speech. It is the idea that the bar for what we tolerate ought to be very high in a pluralistic and free society. Yet limits do and must exist.

If someone went online and posted their hatred for black people, perhaps using the N-word and expressing a desire for racial minorities to be killed, that person should not expect the principle of free speech to save them from profound and negative ramifications, personally and professionally.

Very few anti-cancellation advocates would rush to that person's defense, nor should they. While explicit, open expressions of racism should not result in criminal prosecutions (the First Amendment protects such odious speech), our society should treat such utterances as unacceptable violations of a bright moral and ethical line.

The same ought to apply to statements in support of politically-inspired violence, and especially lethal violence....Defending and performing virtual cartwheels over a political opponent's murder does not constitute a legitimate difference of opinion. It is a sinister, sociopathic manifestation of darkness. Can anyone genuinely argue otherwise, in good faith?

Applauding murder is a not a run-of-the-mill differing viewpoint. It is an evil impulse that rips at the shared fabric of our country and our humanity. Establishing and enforcing a cultural guardrail against approving or celebrating murder isn't "cancel culture" at all; it's an act of basic societal hygiene.

As stated above, our 'cancellation' bar should be set quite high. Sentiments such as, 'people I hate for political reasons deserve to be shot to death, I'm glad they're dead, and I only wish they'd suffered more' clear that bar. Easily.

As others have stated, if someone believes Charlie Kirk deserved to lose his life because of his beliefs, they can hardly object to losing their jobs because of theirs. That's a snappy talking point, but is there a convincing rebuttal to it?

As I said the whole piece deserves to be read, especially the three points he makes in his conclusion.