Dear progressives, it's your turn to apologize

[Michie]

Disclaimer: I count myself blessed to know a great number of reasonable, kind, compassionate people on the political left, people who unequivocally condemned the assassination of Charlie Kirk and who are consistent in their standards. This article is not about them. It’s directed toward the others.


During my first marriage, after a violent fight when my narcissistic ex headbutted me and hurled misogynistic slurs, he sent me an “apology” email.

It began: “I’m sorry I let you make me so angry.”

What followed wasn’t repentance. It was a list of demands: lose weight, dress hotter, and meet his terms. I was the one bleeding and humiliated, and yet he positioned himself as the victim.

That was the moment I realized: no relationship can heal if one side refuses to confront its own sins.

That’s exactly how I feel about my relationship with progressives in this country right now.

I’ve spent the last week grasping for words to articulate the seismic shift so many of us have felt in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s execution. It’s not an exaggeration to say it feels as if the ground itself has shifted beneath us. I’ve been stunned by how deeply it has pierced me — especially since I didn’t even agree with him on every position or priority. But here’s the truth: agreement was never the point.

Continued below.

Dear progressives, it's your turn to apologize

His death feels like more than a personal loss or even a political blow

www.christianpost.com

 

[bèlla]

How does one have a relationship with progressives and when did we start defining people by their beliefs or affinities above their person? You don’t have a relationship with politics, religion, and so on. You’re engaging with someone with that interest in addition to others.

~bella

 

[childeye 2]

Why would "progressives" have anything to do with this? I heard that the guy who shot Charlie Kirk was raised shooting guns and that he shot Charlie Kirik because of what the shooter deemed as hate speech.

 

[Michie]

Why would "progressives" have anything to do with this? I heard that the guy who shot Charlie Kirk was raised shooting guns and that he shot Charlie Kirik because of what the shooter deemed as hate speech.

I think the op is self explanatory. It’s an opinion piece so you are free to disagree.

 

[childeye 2]

I think the op is self explanatory. It’s an opinion piece so you are free to disagree

We should all know how the devil works in people's minds, to turn brother against brother. It's reasoning upon a false premise to expect an apology from people who had nothing to do with Charlie Kirks shooting. It's slanderous to insinuate they did. People need to ask themselves which spirit they are listening to in their minds and what character of person is knocking on the door of their heart.

To follow Christ is to carry a cross and forgive those who would crucify you.
To follow the devil is to accuse and believe and spread slander about others.

 

[Michie]

We should all know how the devil works in people's minds, to turn brother against brother. It's reasoning upon a false premise to expect an apology from people who had nothing to do with Charlie Kirks shooting. It's slanderous to insinuate they did.

To follow Christ is to carry a cross and forgive those who would crucify you.
To follow the devil is to accuse and believe and spread slander about others.

The piece did not do that. It talks about those that ruin it for a whole group of people that are good people. But you are free to disagree. Opinions are just that, opinions.

 

[childeye 2]

The piece did not do that. It talks about those that ruin it for a whole group of people that are good people. But you are free to disagree. Opinions are just that, opinions.

The Slanderer is saying bad things about others without proof.

This isn't God talking --> "For years, the Left has tightened the noose around free speech, punishing dissenters, reporting neighbors, threatening livelihoods, even lives, for the crime of calling a man a man. And now? Now you want to posture as defenders of open discourse. Really? Where were you?

And here’s the bitter irony: even as conservatives grieve, even as we bury our dead, your late-night court jesters use our wounds as punchlines. Jimmy Kimmel’s “primary job” is to entertain, to unite audiences in laughter. Instead, he exploited a brutal murder to insult half the country. Tell me: what other job in America allows you to spit in your customers’ faces while they’re mourning and still keep your paycheck?"

 

[Michie]

Slander is saying bad things about others without proof.

This isn't God talking --> "For years, the Left has tightened the noose around free speech, punishing dissenters, reporting neighbors, threatening livelihoods, even lives, for the crime of calling a man a man. And now? Now you want to posture as defenders of open discourse. Really? Where were you?

And here’s the bitter irony: even as conservatives grieve, even as we bury our dead, your late-night court jesters use our wounds as punchlines. Jimmy Kimmel’s “primary job” is to entertain, to unite audiences in laughter. Instead, he exploited a brutal murder to insult half the country. Tell me: what other job in America allows you to spit in your customers’ faces while they’re mourning and still keep your paycheck?"

Did you read the piece? I wonder. It’s a good idea to read things without taking automatic offense. Some things are said, like Kimmel, that leaves no doubt. This is not one of those instances.

 

[childeye 2]

Did you read the piece? I wonder.

I read the piece. I even provided some of the sentiments that are obviously slanderous. Remember that slander is saying bad things about others without proof. The Spirit of God doesn't do that.

 

[Michie]

I read the piece. I even provided some of the sentiments that are slanderous.

Like I said, if you choose to take offense to someone’s opinion, that up to you. Both sides have been extremely nasty in the things they have said and done. To the dismay of those in their group that do not take part in that type of behavior.

 

[childeye 2]

Like I said, if you choose to take offense to someone’s opinion, that up to you.

You've got me all wrong. The article wasn't offensive to me. I understand the anger of betrayal. If I were offended, I could just turn the other cheek, count it all joy, and my conscience would be fine before God. But this is slander against others, and while I could stay quiet, it seems cowardly of me in the eyes of God to let lies about others go unchallenged and I say nothing. Clearly, I'm on record pointing out the slander against OTHERS in the article and declaring that slander is not of the Spirit of Christ. Yet slander in the mind would think otherwise since it sows cynicism.

Both sides have been extremely nasty in the things they have said and done.

This above does not bring forth clarity, it intends to hand out equal blame. Unfortunately, in the process, it obscures my concern about the spiritual issue of slander as a master manipulator, and how slander undermines love that sees others as oneself.

To the dismay of those in their group that do not take part in that type of behavior.

childeye 2 said:
We should all know how the devil works in people's minds, to turn brother against brother. It's reasoning upon a false premise to expect an apology from people who had nothing to do with Charlie Kirks shooting. It's slanderous to insinuate they did.

To follow Christ is to carry a cross and forgive those who would crucify you.
To follow the devil is to accuse and believe and spread slander about others.

Michie said:
The piece did not do that.

Article: "This is an invitation to reckon. Will you take it?"

"Charlie’s murder shakes us along lines that must divide. I’m not an intensely partisan person. My heart has always been for bridgebuilding and reconciliation. It will remain so. But I will no longer play the role of the bleeding partner blamed for my own wounds while the abuser claims victimhood". <--This sentiment basically conveys they're no longer going to be the victim of the abuser that claims to be the abused. Anger is a typical response when grieving.

"No nation can heal if one side refuses to face its own sins. Progressives can deny, deflect, and invert reality — but I will not carry their delusion." <--- This sentiment is basically conveying that progressives are to blame for the Nation's partisan divide, and that they represent the abusers who claim to be the abused.


The article named Jimmy Kimmel. If Kimmel decides he has something to apologize for with any degree of conviction, even if he says he could have worded things better, I'd applaud whatever concession he decided was worth making for the sake of peace and let it go. But as it stands there is no proof provided in the article that Kimmel did or said anything that he should apologize for, or get punished for, it just insinuates that there is.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Disclaimer: I count myself blessed to know a great number of reasonable, kind, compassionate people on the political left, people who unequivocally condemned the assassination of Charlie Kirk and who are consistent in their standards. This article is not about them. It’s directed toward the others.


During my first marriage, after a violent fight when my narcissistic ex headbutted me and hurled misogynistic slurs, he sent me an “apology” email.

It began: “I’m sorry I let you make me so angry.”

What followed wasn’t repentance. It was a list of demands: lose weight, dress hotter, and meet his terms. I was the one bleeding and humiliated, and yet he positioned himself as the victim.

That was the moment I realized: no relationship can heal if one side refuses to confront its own sins.

That’s exactly how I feel about my relationship with progressives in this country right now.

I’ve spent the last week grasping for words to articulate the seismic shift so many of us have felt in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s execution. It’s not an exaggeration to say it feels as if the ground itself has shifted beneath us. I’ve been stunned by how deeply it has pierced me — especially since I didn’t even agree with him on every position or priority. But here’s the truth: agreement was never the point.

Continued below.

Dear progressives, it's your turn to apologize

His death feels like more than a personal loss or even a political blow

www.christianpost.com

This is a strange article. It starts out with describing her husband's misogyny something the left continually combats. Then she rebukes the very movement that allowes her voice to be heard.

"For those of us who have spent years feeling trampled by the cultural left "

Then she goes on to generalize the progressive movement indicating that they did this:

"And progressives laughed. You said he deserved it. You made memes with graphic images of blood spurting out of his neck. And you did it all while preserving the crazy delusion that you are the ones who oppose hate."

This is a flat out misrepresentation. A few bad actors do not define a group! This is woefully misleading and dangerous.

In conclusion, the real "bitter irony" here is that both the far right and the far left, despite their opposing ideologies, share a cynical style of political engagement. They both tend to rely on anger, conspiracy theories, and a view of politics as a battle between good and evil.

Thanks for sharing.