On Violence, Empathy, and Pluralism

I don't typically post stuff like this, but for one reason or another, I want to.

__

In the days following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I’ve been sitting with a heavy mix of of emotion that's hard to articulate. Sad and disgusted is a good proxy.

I disagreed with Kirk on almost everything he stood for, and I often found his rhetoric abrasive. Yet what happened to him was not only tragic, it was an assault on something far larger than one man. It was an attack on the very idea that in a democracy, we argue with words, not weapons.

Kirk built his career on engagement. He gave microphones to critics, invited tough questions, and made his case in the public square. Those characteristics are the first principles of what a free society requires. His murderer was not just a killer but a coward, someone unwilling to persuade and instead resorting to force.

I’ve had many conversations with friends and family in the aftermath, and spent an unhealthy amount of time on social media. There are rational takes, but what saddens me the most is how rare those voices are. I’ve been struck by how quickly some people move to dehumanization. Some voices on the far left saying, “he had it coming.” Some on the far right calling for “war.” Many leaders rushing to blame “sides.” And once again, Donald Trump exploiting tragedy to divide further.

But sides are the problem.

Political violence is unacceptable.

I am not a pacifist. I believe in self-defense and in just uses of force. But political violence, the idea that bullets should replace ballots, that coercion should replace persuasion, is never acceptable. It is cowardice dressed up as courage.

Free speech is under siege.

From both extremes, the ideal of free speech is eroding. On the left, through deplatforming, cancellation, and the instinct to silence. On the right, through attacks on journalists, restrictions in education, and labeling dissent as “enemy of the people.” And across the board, media outlets function less like neutral reporters and more like amplifiers of propaganda.

The real problem is hate and radicalism.

Radicalism, the far-right, and extreme leftist groups all share the same flaw: they cannot tolerate pluralism. They see only their vision of the world and seek to impose it by intimidation, shame, or violence.

Empathy and pluralism are the path.

The world I long for, and the one I want my children to help build, is a pluralist one. A world where empathy is practiced even toward those we disagree with. A world where trans people are free to live with dignity, and where conservative Christians or Muslims are free to hold traditional views. A world where disagreement is not demonization, and where persuasion, not coercion, is the way forward.

Empathy is not weakness. It does not mean endorsing views you find harmful or wrong. It means refusing to strip others of their humanity, even when you oppose them. Without empathy, pluralism cannot survive. Without pluralism, democracy cannot endure.

This is not easy. Rights collide. Convictions run deep. But the alternative is a cycle of hatred that devours us all.

_____

To my children:

Life will sometimes feel unbearably heavy. You will see things that make you afraid, sad, even angry at the world. But never forget this:

• All people deserve safety. Even those you disagree with.
• Kindness is essential. But never be so kind you forget to be cunning. And never be so cunning you forget to be kind.
• Empathy is strength. It allows you to see the humanity in others and resist the temptation of hate.
• Pluralism is the way. It is the bravest path there is, to live alongside those you disagree with and to keep building a shared future anyway.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I believe this much: violence, hate, and forced belief will destroy us. Empathy, freedom, and pluralism are the only way forward.

Life is precious. Hold onto that.