Monday, September 15, 2025

Punch, Judy and Charlie Kirk in the social media battle royal

Sketches from a Punch and Judy show, by George Cruikshank (British Museum)

     Punch and Judy is a traditional British puppet show, once found in 19th century seaside resorts. A tribute to chaos, with the anarchic Mr. Punch and his long-suffering wife Judy going at each other with bats. There was a policeman, and a baby, invariably ejected from the little curtained booth as the children in the audience shriek with delight. Plus, for exotic danger, a crocodile.
     Eventually, modern sensibilities caught up with Punch and Judy — all that violence — and they were toned down and largely disappeared, except for a festival or two.
     I'd like to offer Punch and Judy as a useful frame for understanding social media. We somehow still consider social media as news and debate. 
British Museum
     But it's neither. News is supposed to involve information that is reliably true. And debate involves parties bringing facts to the table to argue points in good faith.
     What we've got instead in social media is algorithm-fueled chaos, where malice and outrage top reason and accuracy, a battle royal, war of all against all.
     Or rather, the traditional political parties, Democrats and Republicans degraded into Mr. Blue and Mrs. Red, pounding the tar out of each other, using words as sticks, while the rest of us sit, cross-legged at their feet, whooping in delight and shock.
     This was very clear during the latest social media frenzy over the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and out of the billions of words expended over the past five days, I want to focus on the way my fellow liberals flooded social media with remarks Kirk made over the years.
     The unsaid implication being, I guess, that as a person who said this kind of thing, he somehow deserved death, which he certainly did not.
     I agree with policy analyst and media pundit Malcolm Nance, who immediately labeled the murder terrorism, adding, "No one had the right to take a life because you have a political disagreement in this country." Later, he tweeted that Kirk "was a vile, unapologetic racist & White supremacist. But he had a RIGHT to speak all the racist White supremacist twaddle he wanted without getting shot."
     This truth flew past a lot of Democrats, who preferred to focus on two statements of Kirk's, presented as particularly significant.
     First, regarding gun deaths:

To continue reading, click here.

Photo courtesy of Howard Tullman



31 comments:

  1. Punch and Judy - a perfect analogy for what passes for discourse in this social media driven age. Steve Jobs thought he was updating the telephone. In fact he was creating Pandora's box.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very nice piece today, Neil.

    It's been a hard week for me, and as usual, I have found comfort in your sanity and practical-ism.

    I would like to ask you, and your readership, the two questions I have been struggling with.

    First. What good is this discussion when only (most of) one "side" of the political spectrum practices empathy, honesty, and debate? How can we have an honest discussion about what should be said and how it should be said when there is an active attempt to silence decent? From Rubio's thought police, to the Texas and Missouri redistricting fights; from Matthew Dowed's firing to Brian Kilmeade retention, how do you honestly approach this world when so many vocal aspects and media empires refuse to do so?

    Secondly, how do you have address the genocide in Israel without making it about being a Jewish issue. The Nazi's and KKK, Charlie Kirk and Nick Fuentes, the entire republican party and project 2025 all operate as Christian Nationalistic institutions yet none of the conversations we have ever seem to view these societal stains as anything but the far edges of some Christianity adjacent fifteenth cousin. Yet the second anyone talks about Gaza, palastine, Israel, Hamas, or nearly anything mid east adjacent, its suddenly "all Jews are pro israel or their not real Jews." How can I come to terms with the idea that I can be a Jew and not support Israel in any way, knowing that until they fix their problems, they are more of a liability to me, my family, and any other Jew the world over and still consider myself Jewish? Stephen Miller and his Jewish Fascists certainly don't help, but why are people able to see Charlie Kirk and what he preaches and say "yep, not a bad christian out there" but see Netanyaho and think "man... hilter might have been right... all jews are bad."

    How do we move forward when the goal is so clearly "Do what republican's say or we burn the whole thing down... oh and by the way, even if you do, we're going to burn the whole thing down and it will be your fault?"

    I suppose I was an optimist, assuming the news papers that helped to grant us OSHA, the weekend, the 40-hour work week, unions, the end of the Vietnam war, the downfall of Nixon, the beginning of accountability for the catholic church, the truth about mental illness, and so many other achievements wouldn't so quickly put their jackboots back on and march to the beat of Horst-Wessel-Lied and the Deutschlandlied.

    There are so many similarities to the civil war right now, how do we save the republic without dooming ourselves to yet another bloody conflict amongst our own brothers in arms?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If "all Jews are pro-Israel or they're not real Jews."--then apparently I am no longer a Jew. Or I'm just a JINO...a Jew In Name Only. (middle and last names, especially). Come for the food, and stay for the Klezmer music. Embrace the ethnicity and the history and the culture...and totally reject the politics. One can still be Jewish and not support Israel's policies in any way, as I have done (or not done) for well over fifty years.

      Bibi Netanyahu? He's a yahoo who needs a net, and a rubber truck. One that takes him to a rubber room. He is as crazy as a shithouse rat, and he has done the rest of the world's Jewry no favors. Too many people hate us even more now.

      Bibi is Trump Lite, cut from the same pattern. Benny and his jets. He and Donny are two blustering bully boys from New York. Both of whom are now poised to take Israel, America, and possibly the entire planet over the cliff. Despite the many difficulties and disadvantages of geezerhood, I'm glad I'm not young anymore.

      Delete
    2. Being pro-Israel does not mean blindly supporting whatever Israel does. If you are going to leap off a cliff, I am not supporting you by giving you carfare to the precipice.

      Delete
    3. Too many Americans, both Jews and goyim alike, are doing just that. They are more concerned with the fate of Israel than they are with the fate of America.

      When I told a group of young Jewish folks they should work hard to fix their own country, before worrying so much about Eretz Yisrael, a place few of them had ever visited, they got angry and snarky and called me a self-hating Jew, among other things.

      And that did not happened yesterday, or even the day before. It happened in 1971, when I was working as a janitor at the Hillel facility in Boulder. All this meshuganer mishegoss has been going on for a couple of generations now.

      Delete
    4. I feel you - this is all very difficult and hopefully eye opening for everyone. I'm not trying to 'gotcha' at all but I just take your first statement. "What good is this discussion when only (most of) one "side" of the political spectrum practices empathy, honesty, and debate?" Which side? Left thinks its them. Right thinks its them! For example, the left only sees the extremists celebrating hammer attacks, kidnapping, etc. (The CK statement on bailing out Paul Pelosi's attacker was actually a comment on cash bail, not glorifying an evil attack but I didn't understand that until CK's murder because I've only been fed the outrage line, not the very interesting and extreme point). I could go on and on but I've gone from complete despair last week to actually a glimmer of hope. The US reunited after a civil war. After massive splits on policies in Vietnam. And tons more that my 50 yo, non-historian brain is not recalling.

      Delete
    5. Thank you both. Any nuance in a sea of absolutes is welcomed.

      I think Newt got what he wanted with his Contract for America; the question is, do we survive it.

      Delete
    6. neil, i think grizz was saying that bibi and trump were driving the two countries over a cliff, unless you were referring to double b. and actually, i thought your column was a little more "come to bury caesar, not to praise him", but perhaps i missed on that as well.

      Delete
    7. Grizz, I tend to have that same conversation with my older jewish friends. the younger ones are ready to denounce being jewish.

      Delete
    8. Some of you may remember Ramparts which was run by Robert Scheer. I am not sure if he started the group the Sheerpost Facebook Group. For the most part I think the people who generally post there. They are certainly not pro Israel. I don't know how any one can support a genocide, which just about every politician does. But there is hardly much posted about what is going on here. While I post a lot of articles about what is going on in Gaza. But I also post articles about the economy, the supreme court and other things going on here. I don't want to be callous about what is going on in Gaza, but there are things going on here that are pretty terrible. I think you can be concerned more than one thing at once.

      Delete
  3. Thank you for sanely writing about this. Karen Attiah was just fired from WaPo for doing the same. Kirk was considering a run for AZ governor. will we ever know what really happened given the FBI head? We are living in an authoritarian playbook. All the signs are there. We could be entering a season of these execution style events.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "As our government becos steadily more tyrannical, gun owners generally applaud because the right to bear arms is never among the rights being shredded."
    But as our newly-minted tyrannical government gains momentum, and moves to take away the right to vote, gun owners will vote with their guns. The fascist bastards know this, so guess what? They're coming for your guns!

    It was never the liberals. Liberals are liberal. Now, a government that feels the need to control you will take whatever steps they deem necessary to maintain control.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Calling this murder terrorism doesn't work for me. The Stern Gang in Palestine, the IRA in Ireland, the Korean Freedom Fighters under Japan, the original Boston Tea Party. They all had political motives; were seen as Davids opposing Goliaths. Though it's arguable how effective any of them were in inflicting pain on oppressive governments to level the playing field. But until there is some evidence, we can have no cogent idea of this assassin's reasons. My guess, wild as it would have to be, is that he just didn't like Kirk (and his ilk) and having access to firearms, decided to shoot him down. In my mind at this moment, the only clearly guilty parties are the gun manufacturers and their stooges.

    tate

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is estimated that there are over 300 million privately owned guns in the United States. Not exactly a fact but generally agreed upon.

    People use guns to kill other people efficiently . A fact

    There have always been people saying things that other people didn't agree with but mostly even on a soapbox weren't heard by many other people.

    Now it's possible to hear everybody and certain voices are magnified by the algorithm for the purpose of bringing more people to the site.

    The entities that manufacture and sell guns and ammunition certainly play A part in The killing.

    The entities that provide a platform for every type of speech and magnify certain speech also play A part.

    I mentioned before that I had never heard of Charlie Kirk I had also never heard of Brian kilmeade. I avoid social media and for the most part the media

    I'm sure there's many other people I have managed to insulate myself from. I'm not angry with them because I've never heard of them and don't know what they said.
    But even if I was aware of these people and they had said things that had angered me I wouldn't have gone and killed them.

    There was a time in my youth when I was worried and those around me were worried that I was going to kill somebody.
    I somehow managed to stay out of the newspapers didn't kill anyone didn't try to kill anyone.

    people did take my guns away and they sent me away in hopes I would get better.

    I'm an old man now and managed to live an exemplary life didn't have anything to do with religion though some people do see AA as something of a religion I have gratitude I look to a higher power I realize there are things I have no control over and one day at a time I face life on its terms. I am only one man and I hope that others can embrace sobriety not just of substances but of emotions

    Excuse me for remaining anonymous in this post and I appreciate that that's an option

    ReplyDelete
  7. Some years ago now, I posted a reply here on EGD observing that Donald Trump appeals to stupid people, to which Neil added that he also appeals to evil ones. I suppose it's a sign of my advancing age that I find myself tolerating stupidity less and less, and also that the dividing line, becoming clearer each day, seems to put intelligent people on the left and stupid ones on the right.

    Trump's acolytes are often described as credulous, and are, let's face it, terrified of intelligent people because they have the best chance of pushing back in an effective way. Consider all the universities fighting to save their federal funding, or scientists pushing back against newly-installed and clueless ideologues. I'm not suggesting that they're enjoying much success, at least not yet, but that the fight is there; the administration is not able to run roughshod over them as much as it can with immigrants.

    That extends internationally as well. As of this moment, if you scroll down the current CNN.com web page, you'll reach an article in the Middle East section with a photo of a massive fireball exploding at the top of a Gaza City high-rise, accompanied by the headline, "Israel strikes high-rises in Gaza City, ahead of cabinet meeting to discuss risk of ground operation to hostages." Gee, ya think maybe bombing residential high-rises might not also carry a risk to hostages?

    My point, not very well focused this morning, is that I'm just getting tired of the whole thing. We need an outbreak of common sense, hopefully before the mid-terms, but I don't know where it's going to come from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there is very little light between evil and stupid people.

      Delete
    2. I think this article about a new series about Mussolini is pretty much Trump. It is all about the show. Before Mussolini was Il Duce, he was a newspaper editor who understood that people don't want policy debates. They want a show. They want to feel like they're part of something dramatic, something that makes their ordinary lives feel like they matter. He figured out that if you gave them that feeling – if you made politics into entertainment – you could get them to go along with pretty much anything.Mussolini basically wrote the playbook that strongmen everywhere are still using. And once you see the performance for what it is, you start recognizing the same moves everywhere.
      https://www.readtpa.com/p/a-new-series-about-mussolini-captures Read the rest. It is not long. A lot of people compare to Trump to Hitler. There is certainly some of that in him. He already has his Goebbels in Miller. Of as Jeff Tiedrich calls him McGoebbels. As far as his actions, Trump is really a lot more like Mussolini than Hitler.

      Delete
  8. I agree that Punch and Judy is an apt metaphor for social media. I agree that the killing of Charlie Kirk was a terrorist act that should be universally condemned.

    However, although there were a small number of people celebrating Kirk’s death and implying he deserved it, the criticism of Kirk and his hateful rhetoric really began in response to the conservative sanewashing of Kirk and his elevation as a champion of free speech and a man of faith.

    Most responses in opposition to the beatification of Kirk did not suggest he deserved to be killed or celebrated his death.but instead were focused on his hate speech in response to his portrayal as St. Charlie Kirk. You can condemn a horrifying act of violence and feel sympathy for his family and friends while also pointing out that Kirk was not just a flawed man, but one who spread lies and used his huge platform to demonize people different from him, including many of the most vulnerable members of our society.



    after many conservatives and right leaning outlets

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous Agreed!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 10:22 has made the point that occurred to me as I was reading this column.

      NS: "The unsaid implication being, I guess, that as a person who said this kind of thing, he somehow deserved death, which he certainly did not."

      I commented on your original column about this killing, citing an utterly sexist, racist quote of his. My implication, perhaps not clear, was not that he should have been killed for it, but that it amply indicated that he was no American hero.

      The orange felon is running the most corrupt administration in American history. My source for that bold statement: Almost every legitimate news story written about what he's been doing and trying to do. I don't believe that there has been another president who so blatantly rewarded those whom he likes, while so openly attempting to punish his opponents. At a minimum, if there were any that came close, they weren't so obvious about it. That was the background for my comment.

      Obviously, this murder is a tragic thing for America and shows that our society is in deep trouble. If the president had chosen to address that issue in a professional manner and tried to get both sides to come to their senses, that would have been one thing. Instead, he chose to attack the left, whom he considers enemies. "We have a radical left group of lunatics out there, just absolute lunatics, and we're going to get that problem solved." How he will attempt to accomplish that solution is not clear, but the way he deals with immigrants is certainly a clue.

      He ordered flags to be flown at half-staff and said he would award Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom. One is not celebrating a person's death by suggesting that a racist, homophobic, monetizer of hate should not be the recipient of such honors.

      Delete
  9. Thanks very much for this column. Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see nothing wrong with pointing out the irony of an assassination victim who had expressed that the proliferation of guns is fine and that gun deaths are the price to pay for the Second Amendment. I also see nothing wrong with challenging the notion that he was some sort of civil debater when in fact he was a provocateur. I haven't seen much if any punditry that actually "celebrates" his death, which is another lie spread by MAGA. (Unlike too many pro-Palestinians who did shamelessly celebrate the Oct. 7 attacks.) Liberals need to stop the circular firing squad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would it also be an irony worth mentioning if someone who pointed out that Prohibition was a failure and an infringement on our civil liberties were to end up getting killed by a drunk driver? Would that irony invalidate the argument against Prohibition?

      Delete
  11. Our current politics obliges us, apparently, to scour the writings and other ramblings of every deranged political assassin, as part of the eternal effort to find mud to throw at the other side.

    Ironically, in so doing, we are giving many such assassins exactly what they want: Attention to their inane/insane opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cannot believe that you are "both siding" this. Nance is correct: Kirk was a hateful person, he shouldn't have been murdered, and it's a tragedy for his children. But the right is now attacking anyone who accurately quotes Kirk's offensive and hateful comments. Just today, Karen Attiah fired from the Washington Post. And JDVance and Stephen Miller using the killing as an excuse to have the government attack any liberal organization.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I'm not taking my moral cues from MAGA, no matter how fun it is. There's a difference between "both siding" and pointing out a moral lapse. One side already does the unquestioning obedience thing. Must we both?

      Delete
  13. Neil, what you published today is perfectly on point. I wrote this a few days ago and thought I might share it here:

    There is no good that will come from all the divisive talk about the death of Charlie Kirk. The blame game sucks on both ends. The truth is that as a democratic society America is so divided we are all torn apart. Where it ends, no one knows. Until people of all religions realize that God is the same God for everyone, then "In God We Trust" is a slogan that skews the concept of separation of church and state. If we are to honor that axiom, then we should also know that man's laws are not the same as religious laws. Religions around the world believe they are right. Governments around the world believe they are right. But the truth is, no one knows ultimate truth, no matter what they have been taught, feel, think or believe. Therefore, it must be left up to the individual to determine for themselves.That is what the Founding Fathers meant to convey in the Constitution. Whatever belief anyone chooses, they will either find bliss or nothingness when their day of rest comes. But to saddle everyone else with their individual faith is unforgivable. Ultimate truth is a mirage. No one should die for their beliefs. What is devastating about the killing of Charlie Kirk and his assassin is that they were both so misguided as to think their moral, religious and political beliefs were universal. Both of them are wrong. That is the fly in the ointment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've seen Mark Kirk videos once in a while on youtube. The quoted excerpt didn't seem consistent with his philosophy. It took a while to find his actual streaming video. Most searches turned up video bloggers commenting on the abbreviated quote, not sharing what Kirk said in full context. That section's monolog was a critique of President Clinton's use of the expression "I feel your pain." Here is a link to the actual three-hour broadcast:

    https://rumble.com/v1nnu66-dont-believe-your-lying-eyes-everything-is-fine-bannon-sheriff-lamb-patel-w.html

    I've transcribed the full quote, His video archived on rumble.com is a real slog, packed with more ads than you can imagine.

    Oct. 12, 2022, episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show."
    The quote begins around the 36:40 mark:

    I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up new-age term, that it does a lot of damage. But it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy I prefer more than empathy; it's a separate topic for a different time. -Charlie Kirk

    Kirk also compared compassion and sympathy with empathy

    ReplyDelete
  15. Charlie Pierce writes What the hell is going on in this country? If the authoritarian right wants to make a cult of martyrdom out of an unforgivable act of public murder, it should go ahead and do so. But there is absolutely no reason for them to drag the rest of us into their rituals. Flags at half-staff and threats against local officials who decline to do so? Tributes at major-league ballparks? A memorial service at the Kennedy Center? Professors fired over their reactions to the event on social media, most of which paled against the things that Kirk said, as a matter of course, that made him rich and influential. https://archive.ph/SG1iH#selection-483.0-495.129 Read the rest

    ReplyDelete
  16. Weird little ironic tangent: The "traditional" script for Punch and Judy shows comes from a man famous for making up historical documents. So it may be another example of misinformation. https://www.sleuthsayers.org/2024/10/fooling-professors-schooling-professors.html#comment-form

    ReplyDelete

Comments are vetted and posted at the discretion of the proprietor. Comments that are not submitted under a name of some sort run the risk of being deleted without being read.