他父亲的做法，是成语的大义灭亲吧。听人议论他这样做实际上保护了儿子。他是老警察，知道躲不过去，假如拘捕没准会被当场击毙。还好，迄今没听见人议论他被某某洗脑了，有时候真怕了见着简中圈内怀着简中之心的议论。文学城里有一篇博文讲到CNN女记者采访犹他州司法部长，问什么是公正？（What is justice?）司法部长回答，公正是让当事人为自己所做的事承担责任（Justice is when someone is accountable for what he did）。相信这也是枪手父亲的想法。
二十年前在德州，曾经陪一位法国教授逛户外用品店Bass Pro Shops。给教授强烈印象的是店里那些练习瞄准的顾客，被形容成“美国人对扳机的热情”。据讲电影《拯救大兵雷恩》里有一句台词：“我听到子弹呼啸而过，相信我，子弹的声音里有一种迷人的东西。”不确定电影里是否真有这么一句，假如有，会是那个狙击手说的。
柯克太太的原话是：He's on a work trip with Jesus, so he can afford your blueberry budget.。读来令人心碎。
前两天罗马教宗Leo做了一个讲道，被标题《查理·柯克：为什么？》。教宗将柯克和数个圣经人物做了联结。摩西直面法老，但以理站立在巴比伦，以斯帖面对波斯王，保罗在雅典宣教。他们都是普通人，elevated in extraordinary moments。“都不完美，没有一个没有缺陷。”
教宗要人们聚焦在Why，Why this happening in my nation?
他说，We are living in an age many young people are searching for the direction where foundations of faith, family and freedom are being shaken. That is question of Why matters so much, they cause us to stop and reflect.
教宗一语点破我的迷惘。这般清晰的概括，不知道别人，我被折服。
教宗说那些男女之所以勇敢地进入公共竞技场，是要唤醒沉默地坐在长木椅上的人们。他问，Will you rise up in your own circle of influence, will you speak when it is easier to stay silent? Will you stand when it is easier to bow?
@Diaoerlong：
记录 Jimmy Kimmel --------------------：
BBC的逐字稿：
What were Kimmel's comments about Kirk?
“The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said on his show. “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving,” he added.
--------------------
USA-Today的逐字稿：
"We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. In between the finger-pointing, there was, uh, grieving on Friday .....
Friday之后的是为脱口秀笑话，讲川普This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend; this is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, OK? 不是他被叫停的关键点，BBC也省去了。
=============================
微妙的差别在BBC截去了开头的 We hit some new lows over the weekend。
从 “The MAGA gang is..."开始讲的是Fact, 一个Jimmy Kimmel观察到的社会现象。一个新闻评论人讲fact无懈可击。但是加上前面的We hit some new lows over the weekend 就不是了，变成了主观评论。我想是low坏了事情。
BBC的手法老道很有看头不是？
“We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of settlers that had children. “” And by the way, I want to make – I want to be very clear. I’m not just talking about illegal immigration, we have way too many legal immigrants coming into this country, too” “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
"We are living in an age many young people are searching for the direction where foundations of faith, family and freedom are being shaken. "
It seems "where" should be "when". That would make the sentence more coherent.
Thank you again for sharing this remark. It reveals that this Pope is extremely judicious and righteous, far stronger than his three predecessors. This single remark earned my admiration for him. It seems you might misunderstand it. You and I have disparate, even contrary comprehension of it.
I noticed many Trump supporters left messages that corroborate my descriptions of them.
如斯 发表评论于
回复 '雾蒙蒙雨霏霏' 的评论 :
去看了从CNN到Fox News的报道，不知道说什么是好。
PrimeryColor 发表评论于
3. If speech may render loss of job, it may render loss of life. This is a plain logic.
“Vast majority of Trump supporters in Wenxuecity are illiterate in English. They can not write and can barely read in English, so that they are incapable of vandalizing my sincere discussions with blatantly preposterous or nonsense or digressing comments.“
回复 '诚信' 的评论 :
But Charlie said "it is worth." That is the point. You neglected.
-------------------------------------
我没有neglected，我已经说了，“柯克的言论再是不当.... ”。连续读你的几片留言，读到结论：“Therefore, Kirk's death is not completely innocent. ” 好了，我们两人都将自己的观点明白阐述了。这题到此为止。
The fact is, Tyler used to be very excellent at both academics and ethics.
-------------------------------------
是这样，我看他的第一感觉就是一个闯了祸的邻家大男孩，也知道他是个好学生。我记写下当时的反应，骂了他一句小兔崽子。行刺川普的也是一个好学生，，我们这里的那个男孩子也是，，，（多说一句，他老爸是华人所谓科技大厂的VP人物，他离家前发表了一通高科技敛财资本罪恶的讲话，表示不再用家里的钱，果真在外期间也没有用。很innocent, 是不是？）
这几天我迷惘于，这些孩子们，怎么回事？教宗一语道明问题所在：many young people are searching for the direction where foundations of faith, family and freedom are being shaken. 我觉得，就是这么回事。
这些都是能够有自己想法的孩子，他们在寻求direction，可不幸社会是一个faith, family and freedom在shaken的状况。看到左右两派的论战日趋激烈，在社群提供的同温层中感受到对对手个人的厌恶，，，愿意的可以继续深入分析哈，我折回头。始自杜威的理念，传统道德在美国教育中的占比日渐其弱，终至foundation被shaken，在这样的社会氛围中长成的大男孩，就上屋顶了。
两党都要停下来，全民都要停下来，审视这一个悲剧。
Thousands of Americans are killed by guns in schools, malls or somewhere ...
---------------------------------------------------
借教宗的措辞一用, 柯克是在public arena中被射杀，其鲜明的象征意义，我想你也是理解的吧。诚然过去一年有过多起枪击案，但这一颗子弹对世界的影响，我想这个也是为什么教宗会立即站出来发表谈话。他说，重要的不是柯克is who, 重要的是 why.
至于悼念的规格是不是公平，，，唉，极尽哀荣又怎么样呢？我还是情愿活着。
我没漏掉你写给我的points吧，谢谢留言评论。
诚信 发表评论于
@晒就是分享,
Thank you for exemplifying and substantiating my statement about English.
晒就是分享 发表评论于
ChatGPT is a toy, far from a reliable tool yet. Don't rely on it.
- You are not serious. You are the one who is relying on it.
诚信 发表评论于
ChatGPT is a toy, far from a reliable tool yet. Don't rely on it.
可能成功的P 发表评论于
谢谢如斯以秋天特有的温柔悲悯的笔触写出对这一事件的反思。教宗的Why，是每个人都应该扪心自问的。我个人认为最可怕的是事件过后，以分裂国家和民众为目的的言论。断章取义，模糊概念，别的地方我不清楚，华语圈一大堆一到社会事件就会忽然冒出来的陌生ID，看看他们的言论，就知道什么是亲痛仇快了。另外，关于意识形态的斗争，记得看过一个纪录片，其中一方骄傲地说：你们输了，因为我们控制了你们的孩子们（We got your children）。
“Will you rise up in your own circle of influence, will you speak when it is easier to stay silent? Will you stand when it is easier to bow?”
赞如斯的反思和不再沉默。
1. It is a firm consensus across the world that Tyler Robinson committed crime in killing Charlie Kirk with his registered rifle, which was bequeathed from his grandpa. He must face the consequence.
-- agreed
2. The only controversy across the world is the way Trump and his allies exalted Kirk and condemned the crime, in which many narratives are false and baseless as always, which may exacerbate the political chaos and further corrode American democracy in aftermath of the shooting.
-- No kidding. I guess the Russian collusion hoax, Letitia James’ false claims, Trump's assassination attempts and MSM fake news have promoted your “democracy”.
3. If speech may render loss of job, it may render loss of life. This is a plain logic.
-- So your plain logic is silencing those with different opinions is OK.
You are condoning the cruelty of the killing. Stop talking about democracy because you don’t know a dame thing about democracy. Sicko!
对“城信”观点的看法：
First, innocence in a violent death hinges on the absence of direct provocation in the incident. Charlie Kirk was fatally shot on September 10, 2025, during a speech at Utah Valley University in a politically motivated attack. [3] [7] He was not committing a crime or inciting violence against himself. Suggesting his Second Amendment advocacy makes his death less innocent is victim-blaming. Free speech, protected by the First Amendment, allows Kirk to voice his views without bearing personal responsibility for societal issues like gun violence. Holding him accountable for others’ actions sets a dangerous precedent that punishes opinions rather than crimes.
Second, claiming Kirk’s speeches directly “balked” gun control efforts oversimplifies a complex issue. Gun violence stems from multiple factors—mental health, socioeconomic issues, and enforcement gaps—not solely from individuals like Kirk. His organization, Turning Point USA, promotes conservative values, including Second Amendment rights, but this does not make him complicit in unrelated shootings. Blaming him for “hundreds of gun deaths” ignores the broader policy deadlock where both sides share responsibility.
Finally, comparing Kirk to other gun violence victims who “never made inappropriate speeches” is flawed. All victims of senseless violence are innocent, and Kirk’s death is no exception. President Trump’s decision to lower flags until September 15, 2025, reflects Kirk’s public prominence and the attack’s implications for free speech. [9] [11] While it’s fair to question why other victims don’t receive similar honors, this does not diminish Kirk’s tragedy. Pitting victims against each other only deepens division.
In conclusion, Charlie Kirk was an innocent victim of a heinous act. His political views do not negate this, and mourning him does not detract from other victims. Society must reject blame-shifting and unite in condemning violence, regardless of the victim’s beliefs.
Obviously, it is necessary to reaffirm the fundamental facts here:
1. It is a firm consensus across the world that Tyler Robinson committed crime in killing Charlie Kirk with his registered rifle, which was bequeathed from his grandpa. He must face the consequence.
2. The only controversy across the world is the way Trump and his allies exalted Kirk and condemned the crime, in which many narratives are false and baseless as always, which may exacerbate the political chaos and further corrode American democracy in aftermath of the shooting.
3. If speech may render loss of job, it may render loss of life. This is a plain logic.
I intentionally express my opinions on this seemingly complicated issue in English. Vast majority of Trump supporters in Wenxuecity are illiterate in English. They can not write and can barely read in English, so that they are incapable of vandalizing my sincere discussions with blatantly preposterous or nonsense or digressing comments.
Thousands of Americans are killed by guns in schools, malls or somewhere every single year. They have never made inappropriate speeches. Their deaths are more innocent and misfortunate than Kirk's. But their deaths have never been mourned and condoled with lower national flags. They deserve lower flags too and better. But Kirk said "it is worth."
Kirk's speeches have impact on millions of Americans. Therefore, his speeches are consequential. His speeches on 2nd Amendment unavoidably balked the efforts to enact a law on restricting assault weapons, which rendered hundreds of gun deaths every year. Therefore, Kirk's death is not completely innocent. The honor he received from Trump is controversial nationwide.
However, the sad fact is that, thousands of Americans are killed by guns in schools or malls or somewhere every single year, for no reason at all. They even have never made any inappropriate speeches. They are even more innocent and misfortunate than Charlie.
But Charlie said "it is worth." That is the point. You neglected.
回复 '如斯' 的评论 : Kirk的死是不正当的， That is for sure. 但是他本人的确也在制造仇恨。
如斯 发表评论于
回复 'Ayala' 、林向田 的评论 :
二位，这个难道构成他被射杀的正当性？
诚信 发表评论于
It appears that 2nd amendment is quite antiquated. It needs to be scrupulously construed, and hence it cannot be so comprehensively advocated and invoked as Charlie Kirk did.
诚信 发表评论于
Your diction is passionate. Thank you for sharing it and Pope's remarks.
I would like to remind that Tyler Robinson is also a child of God. He loves and hates, just like Charlie Kirk.
Kirk has made many many very famous remarks on race, gun right, abortion and life, etc. The most famous one reads “It's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” It seems either himself or Tyler has proved he was wrong.
林向田 发表评论于
回复 'Ayala' 的评论 : 为了方便大家阅读，我把他的推文copy 下来：
The evil Chinese lost the medal count in every Olympic category. They are liars, cheaters, and sworn enemies of the west. We should delight in our win and their loss. USA!
他父亲的做法，是成语的大义灭亲吧。听人议论他这样做实际上保护了儿子。他是老警察，知道躲不过去，假如拘捕没准会被当场击毙。还好，迄今没听见人议论他被某某洗脑了，有时候真怕了见着简中圈内怀着简中之心的议论。文学城里有一篇博文讲到CNN女记者采访犹他州司法部长，问什么是公正？（What is justice?）司法部长回答，公正是让当事人为自己所做的事承担责任（Justice is when someone is accountable for what he did）。相信这也是枪手父亲的想法。
二十年前在德州，曾经陪一位法国教授逛户外用品店Bass Pro Shops。给教授强烈印象的是店里那些练习瞄准的顾客，被形容成“美国人对扳机的热情”。据讲电影《拯救大兵雷恩》里有一句台词：“我听到子弹呼啸而过，相信我，子弹的声音里有一种迷人的东西。”不确定电影里是否真有这么一句，假如有，会是那个狙击手说的。
柯克太太的原话是：He's on a work trip with Jesus, so he can afford your blueberry budget.。读来令人心碎。
前两天罗马教宗Leo做了一个讲道，被标题《查理·柯克：为什么？》。教宗将柯克和数个圣经人物做了联结。摩西直面法老，但以理站立在巴比伦，以斯帖面对波斯王，保罗在雅典宣教。他们都是普通人，elevated in extraordinary moments。“都不完美，没有一个没有缺陷。”
教宗要人们聚焦在Why，Why this happening in my nation?
他说，We are living in an age many young people are searching for the direction where foundations of faith, family and freedom are being shaken. That is question of Why matters so much, they cause us to stop and reflect.
教宗一语点破我的迷惘。这般清晰的概括，不知道别人，我被折服。
教宗说那些男女之所以勇敢地进入公共竞技场，是要唤醒沉默地坐在长木椅上的人们。他问，Will you rise up in your own circle of influence, will you speak when it is easier to stay silent? Will you stand when it is easier to bow?