MSNBC political analyst fired for blaming Charlie Kirk assassination on 'hate speech'

[Michie]

Ex-Bush strategist once called the Bible 'a book filled with much fiction'

Cable news network MSNBC has reportedly fired veteran political analyst Matthew Dowd following widespread backlash to his on-air comments linking conservative activist Charlie Kirk's "hate speech" to the "environment" that led to the 31-year-old's fatal shooting in Utah.

The exchange came during MSNBC's live coverage of the tragedy on Wednesday, shortly after Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot in the neck from long range while addressing a crowd of about 3,000 at a Utah Valley University event. Kirk was pronounced dead a short time later.

As details emerged of the attack, which Utah Gov. Spencer Cox described as a "political assassination," anchor Katy Tur turned to Dowd with a question about "the environment in which a shooting like this happens."

Dowd's response zeroed in on Kirk, whom he called "one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups."

Continued below.

MSNBC political analyst fired for blaming Charlie Kirk assassination on 'hate speech'

Cable news network MSNBC has reportedly fired veteran political analyst Matthew Dowd following widespread backlash to his on-air comments linking conservative activist Charlie Kirk s hate speech to

www.christianpost.com

 

[Yarddog]

Ex-Bush strategist once called the Bible 'a book filled with much fiction'

Cable news network MSNBC has reportedly fired veteran political analyst Matthew Dowd following widespread backlash to his on-air comments linking conservative activist Charlie Kirk's "hate speech" to the "environment" that led to the 31-year-old's fatal shooting in Utah.

The exchange came during MSNBC's live coverage of the tragedy on Wednesday, shortly after Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot in the neck from long range while addressing a crowd of about 3,000 at a Utah Valley University event. Kirk was pronounced dead a short time later.

As details emerged of the attack, which Utah Gov. Spencer Cox described as a "political assassination," anchor Katy Tur turned to Dowd with a question about "the environment in which a shooting like this happens."

Dowd's response zeroed in on Kirk, whom he called "one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups."

Continued below.

MSNBC political analyst fired for blaming Charlie Kirk assassination on 'hate speech'

Cable news network MSNBC has reportedly fired veteran political analyst Matthew Dowd following widespread backlash to his on-air comments linking conservative activist Charlie Kirk s hate speech to

www.christianpost.com

Good to see them do this. I just wish other stations would follow suit with their on air personalities.

 

[stevevw]

Ex-Bush strategist once called the Bible 'a book filled with much fiction'

Cable news network MSNBC has reportedly fired veteran political analyst Matthew Dowd following widespread backlash to his on-air comments linking conservative activist Charlie Kirk's "hate speech" to the "environment" that led to the 31-year-old's fatal shooting in Utah.

The exchange came during MSNBC's live coverage of the tragedy on Wednesday, shortly after Kirk, the co-founder of Turning Point USA, was shot in the neck from long range while addressing a crowd of about 3,000 at a Utah Valley University event. Kirk was pronounced dead a short time later.

As details emerged of the attack, which Utah Gov. Spencer Cox described as a "political assassination," anchor Katy Tur turned to Dowd with a question about "the environment in which a shooting like this happens."

Dowd's response zeroed in on Kirk, whom he called "one of the most divisive, especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups."

Continued below.

MSNBC political analyst fired for blaming Charlie Kirk assassination on 'hate speech'

Cable news network MSNBC has reportedly fired veteran political analyst Matthew Dowd following widespread backlash to his on-air comments linking conservative activist Charlie Kirk s hate speech to

www.christianpost.com

This makes me sad but angry that some will continue this ideological over reach even when obviously not the case. This is the same mentality that has led to an innocent man being killed and the rise in hatred and violence such as antisemetism.

KIrk spoke truths and was actually working to unify people and living a fundemental principle of academia in open discussion on issues and allowing different views.

I hope that this now leads to a full acknowledgement that this harmful ideological and politicised over reach has to stop. Or at least isolates this ideology as dangerous for all to see. A bit like how conflating Hamas terrorism as a legitimate right.

Isolate these radicals and their ideology for what they are, which is committing the very things they proclaim wrong and that others are doing when they are not. That their actions and thinking prove it is all evil. Not some false narrative that good is evil and truths are lies.But the reality this ideology produces which is hatred and division.

But I don't think so as the very nature of this is not rationality, facts or truth but ideological belief in how things should be in the world. A clash of worldviews thats seems to be coming down to a spiritual battle between truth and lies, Gods way or humans as gods of their own socially contructed world and building some human kingdom and utopia. Which inevitably brings chaos and evil.

Its now gone beyond the worldly idea that there can be many truths and all are welcome. Its now a battle of truth and it seems the ideology does not tolerate alternative beliefs and ideas even exterminating them. Totally contradicting even basic principles of freedoms.

 

[Yarddog]

This makes me sad but angry that some will continue this ideological over reach even when obviously not the case. This is the same mentality that has led to an innocent man being killed and the rise in hatred and violence such as antisemetism.

KIrk spoke truths and was actually working to unify people and living a fundemental principle of academia in open discussion on issues and allowing different views.

I hope that this now leads to a full acknowledgement that this harmful ideological and politicised over reach has to stop. Or at least isolates this ideology as dangerous for all to see. A bit like how conflating Hamas terrorism as a legitimate right.

Isolate these radicals and their ideology for what they are, which is committing the very things they proclaim wrong and that others are doing when they are not. That their actions and thinking prove it is all evil. Not some false narrative that good is evil and truths are lies.But the reality this ideology produces which is hatred and division.

But I don't think so as the very nature of this is not rationality, facts or truth but ideological belief in how things should be in the world. A clash of worldviews thats seems to be coming down to a spiritual battle between truth and lies, Gods way or humans as gods of their own socially contructed world and building some human kingdom and utopia. Which inevitably brings chaos and evil.

Its now gone beyond the worldly idea that there can be many truths and all are welcome. Its now a battle of truth and it seems the ideology does not tolerate alternative beliefs and ideas even exterminating them. Totally contradicting even basic principles of freedoms.

Are you condemning Kirk or condemning those Kirk was condemning?

 

[stevevw]

Are you condemning Kirk or condemning those Kirk was condemning?

I am condemning (if you can call it that) as its more about truth and fact which is not necessarily a moral issue. But I am condeming the idea that speaking a truth or fact is itself condemining someone morally. That speaking truth and fact is hatred.

In that sense I am condemning those who make out Kirk is promoting hate when he is not. Not if speaking truth and fact is a fundemental part of any society in being able to stay sane and stable and not divide itself into ideological groupthink control of information and words and decend ourselves into chaos. As what seems to be happening now. .

For his few faults one thing is fact. Kirk was an advocate of free speech even that which conflicted with his beliefs and he never cancelled them. It seem they have cancelled him. But they won't his ideas and beliefs about the freedom and truth.

In fact in some ways Charlies own death has left a legacy that will live on in that this will make these freedoms and truths even more empowered.

 

[Yarddog]

I am condemning (if you can call it that) as its more about truth and fact which is not necessarily a moral issue. But I am condeming the idea that speaking a truth or fact is itself condemining someone morally. That speaking truth and fact is hatred.

How are those that are being condemned supposed to react to this? Whose truth and fact are being hated? When there are two opposing views, both parties believe that they are speaking truth and facts.

In that sense I am condemning those who make out Kirk is promoting hate when he is not.

That depends on if one is on the receiving of Kirk's opinions or not.

Not if speaking truth and fact is a fundemental part of any society in being able to stay sane and stable and not divide itself into ideological groupthink control of information and words and decend ourselves into chaos. As what seems to be happening now. .

For his few faults one thing is fact. Kirk was an advocate of free speech even that which conflicted with his beliefs and he never cancelled them.

I don't know about the few faults opinion but of the debates that I have seen, he does allow others people time to speak, without interrupting, before giving his viewpoints. (I wish that he wouldn't speak so fast)

It seem they have cancelled him. But they won't his ideas and beliefs about the freedom and truth.

The Right is famous for their cancel culture but Kirk did allow opposing views.

In fact in some ways Charlies own death has left a legacy that will live on in that this will make these freedoms and truths even more empowered.

Ever hear the song, "Abraham, Martin, and John"? There's something about people who die young that cements their views in the minds of many people.

 

[Tuur]

Mr. Kirk, I understand was a big fan of free speech advocacy. Would he would have approved of the firing of Dowd for expressing his opinion of Mr. Kirk? Would he have approved of those applauding the firing of Dowd?

Free speech is not speech without consequences. You have the legal right to walk up to a biker and make rude comment about his mother, and if he takes exception to that, he has not prevented anyone from saying such.

A person in the US has the legal right to make whatever vile comment he pleases. If he does so on company time, he is subject to quality time in the unemployment line if the vile comment violates company policy. If he deliberately insults a customer, it's buh-bye time. It only starts to get less clear if he person expressed his opinion on his own time without any link to the company. Bottom line though is a private company isn't subject to the 1st Amendment, which begins with "Congress shall make no law."

If anyone wants to point out this also covers Christians witnessing, have at it. It still holds true.

This is how Gilbert Gottfried lost his Aflac gig: He made some way, way, too soon jokes after that massive earthquake in Japan. Gofffried had a strong tie with Aflac, and Aflac had a strong market in Japan.

So here we have someone on the network formally known as MSNBC make disparaging comments about Kirk on the air of a TV channel that's already marginalized itself into a tiny corner. Nice going, Dowd: Now that network is even more marginalized and comes across as sanctioning such by blaming Kirk for his own murder. The amazing thing is they gave him is walking papers.

Don't worry. Maybe Dowd can get a job on NPR.

 

[stevevw]

How are those that are being condemned supposed to react to this? Whose truth and fact are being hated? When there are two opposing views, both parties believe that they are speaking truth and facts.

Thats because Kirk was not speaking about any particular truth should rule. It was the principle of open and free speech itself. That he allowed that freedom to others in prqactice but was not returned that right.

If your talking about personal truths they don't mean fact or first principle truths like say human rights or constitutional rights. Such as the truth principles of freedom to believe, have polical views and associations. Even the right to protest.

How do we determine the truth as opposed to personal truths which are subjective and have no objective way to determine them. I don't know you tell me lol. All I know is that whatever it is, it has to be something outside human personal opinion. Even group opinion because we have a bad track record.

We know these independent truths in democratic and free nations that destinguishes us from other ideas such as Communism, Islam, Marxism or any other ideology. From the Christian truths we at least use to believe in that underpinned our politics.

That depends on if one is on the receiving of Kirk's opinions or not.

But thats exactly what they are, subjective opinions. How is one to know that a word is going to upset a subjective opinion that may be influenced by many factors that may make someone more sensitive to certain words than others.

If this is the basis for truth then we have potentially millions of opinions we need to be careful about before we open our mouths lol. I don't know. Do you have a specific example. But really its more about the idea that there can be multiple truths all competing and equal is the issue I think.

What is behind the idea that personal truths are the most important way to determine what is real.

I don't know about the few faults opinion but of the debates that I have seen, he does allow others people time to speak, without interrupting, before giving his viewpoints. (I wish that he wouldn't speak so fast)

I know and I think he forgets this. Which I think is a presentation problem. But I agree he allows different opinions and asks questions. But he is also good at getting quickly to the point. Because I think he is trying to paint the bigger picture of what is happening. How to think critically.

The Right is famous for their cancel culture but Kirk did allow opposing views.

Yes and I think this is that too and fro, tit for tat politics that happens. In the past there was more unity in the center and the extremes were regarded as out there. Most people generally agreed on the ideas, morals, truth principles such as freedom of opinion and beliefs.

But its gradually become polarised. The political has become the personal. Or is it the personal has become political. Doesn't matter. The extremes have come more into the center on both sides each time ratcheting up to a new level and spreading.

Now we are seeing extremes on both sides in the streets as a result. But I still say that primarily this is a spiritual battle. In becoming the personal it becomes everything including the spiritual.

I believe this is not just a battle of a political ideology or personal truth. But a battle for truth itself. As in Christ. As in how we should order society and the world and reality itself. Either with God or without. Thats what its coming down to. Thats the level it has reached.

Ever hear the song, "Abraham, Martin, and John"? There's something about people who die young that cements their views in the minds of many people.

Yeah I guess. There is something about the (27) club of musos who died at 27 that makes them special. I think there is truth to this and its part of who we are. Martyrs and icons are made so by the society that makes it so.

That Kirk is seen in this way is itself testament to this phenomena. That this is the topic resulting from his death is the manifestation of where the society is at regardless of the right or wrong of what Kirk stood for. This itself is a rare phenomena and significant as far as where a culture is at.

Especially for what I would say is not someone who would come to mind in creating such an outporing or outrage. Maybe someone more related to such a status like Dr King or Diana even. I think in its own way this will be similar as far as culture is concerned.

Maybe and hopefully a time of reflection of where we are at and heading for if we don't unite. Look at whats happening with the rise of antisemetism. This to me is a big red flag for any society to stop in their tracks and think this is not good, this is a sign of an unhealthy society.

In some ways it reminds me of the Tower of Babel where everyone was divided into nations, cultures who are no longer united and fighting with each other over differences.

 

[Yarddog]

Thats because Kirk was not speaking about any particular truth should rule. It was the principle of open and free speech itself. That he allowed that freedom to others in prqactice but was not returned that right.

When? Charlie Kirk has spoken on many topics. He was good about allowing free debate but he also was condemning about some topics. How were people from the gay community supposed to respond when he wanted to take away their rights?

 

[iarwain]

When? Charlie Kirk has spoken on many topics. He was good about allowing free debate but he also was condemning about some topics. How were people from the gay community supposed to respond when he wanted to take away their rights?

What rights did Charlie Kirk want to take away from gay people? I've seen a lot of people attributing different things supposedly said by Kirk, but they are only quoting half the sentence, or is taking what he said out of context, or aren't giving the full story. Doesn't matter to them, as long as they get to put it out there that his murder was justified, or that he was somehow asking for it. It's one thing to say "Charlie Kirk wanted to take away gay people's rights", but what exactly did he say and do, and what does that entail to you? Your saying it doesn't make it so.

I know he was a Christian, so I'm sure he views homosexuality as a sin, because that is what the Bible teaches. Perhaps he doesn't believe in same sex marriage. Even Barack Obama said that "Marriage is between a man and a woman" about 17 years ago. He's since changed his stance, but that was not all that long ago.

 

[stevevw]

When? Charlie Kirk has spoken on many topics. He was good about allowing free debate but he also was condemning about some topics. How were people from the gay community supposed to respond when he wanted to take away their rights?

That he was willing to come and allow anyone including gays to speak their beliefs and views is the point. That the situation was created to accommodate alternative views. If a gay person believed their rights were being denied Kirk would not deny them saying so.

I think people confuse that because Kirk will then reason why he may disagree with the beliefs of others that somehow this is hateful.

But I am not sure what you mean when you say accommodating gays. Just hearing them, giving them a platform is accommodating them or anyone else who has a different belief or view. Are you saying KIrk should agree with the beliefs and ideas of those who disagree with him.

That he then responds by giving his belief and that it clashes with the opposing belief does not mean he is not accommodating. He is accommodating the person and their beliefs. Just not agreeing with them. That is not hate.

He does not say, well you are damned to hell you evil sinner, or you must be forced to follow my Christian beliefs. But this is exactly what some opponents are doing to him. He only has to mention God or his belief in marriage and people are triggered and overreact.. We have seen the same in how people are cancelled for saying the wrong words.

Thats because the political has become the personal and words now becoming a matter of life and death in some peoples eyes to the point they must cancel and even violently stop alternative beliefs that conflict with their own.

KIrks death was the result of the over personalising of politics to the point his ability to say words had to be completely taken out. His mouth had to be stopped because some did not like the words coming out of his mouth. The beliefs he expressed. They percieved just the mention of this as hate.

Which is the result of a long period of cultivating such thinking and belief. The last 20 odd years have been the manifestion into the wider society from academic ideologues who have managed to manipulate many young minds.

In fact part of Kirks mission was to enlighten young minds with critical thinking. Which ironically was suppose to be the very universities he was engaging in. Promoting free thought and healthy thinking and not hatred and controlled thinking and words.

 

[stevevw]

I am still sad and feel sad for what has happened. Not just for Kirk and his family and loved ones. But for the the world. For how we as humans have decended to a point where its now ok to kill others for simply having a different belief.

I think now people will be scared to speak truths. What does this say for any other person who may be out there professing their belief to the world. Is not part of being a Christian is to proclaim the gospel to the world.

Does this now mean that Christians are at risk as well. Is this the beginning of Christian persecution as mentioned in the bible. That you will be hated for standing with Christ and attacked and killed like Christ. We have to get security for people who go out in public and speak the truth.

Or was this just a sporadic act without precedent or a cultivated idea that has risen up society wide. Such as with similar ideas to antisemetism. Is it now Jews and Christians. Is this the new group that people want to wipe out. Now I feel angry again lol. Gods 'Will' be done on earth as it is in heaven. .

 

[stevevw]

I am still sad and feel sad for what has happened. Not just for Kirk and his family and loved ones. But for the the world. For how we as humans have decended to a point where its now ok to kill others for simply having a different belief.

I think now people will be scared to speak truths. What does this say for any other person who may be out there professing their belief to the world. Is not part of being a Christian is to proclaim the gospel to the world.

Does this now mean that Christians are at risk as well. Is this the beginning of Christian persecution as mentioned in the bible. That you will be hated for standing with Christ and attacked and killed like Christ. We have to get security for people who go out in public and speak the truth.

Or was this just a sporadic act without precedent or a cultivated idea that has risen up society wide. Such as with similar ideas to antisemetism. Is it now Jews and Christians. Is this the new group that people want to wipe out. Now I feel angry again lol. Gods 'Will' be done on earth as it is in heaven. .

I believe this can be a turning point for reflection and coming together. Hate begets more hate and violence brings more violence. At some point we have to turn the other cheek and meet that hate with Christs example.

As others have said we have two choices ahead. One that will bring more of the same or one that will change the course of history. Hopefully everyone will at least stop and reflect and get back to the truth principles that Charlie stood for. Maybe in his death people can come together.

 

[Michie]

I saw a documentary last night on Kirk. One of the commentators said they were taking things Kirk said out of its context and also not showing the things said to him when he was replying. I do not believe he was spreading hate as they are trying to spin it,

 

[RileyG]

Good to see them do this. I just wish other stations would follow suit with their on air personalities.

Amen!