To the Editor:

The hatred for Charlie Kirk, published in letters to the Enterprise editor, is, of course, free speech. Just as Hillary Clinton’s description of [some] Trump voters as “deplorable[s]” was free speech. Hatred is fine, if you want to hate, but you should base your hate on truth, rather than contextless quotes.

For example, some folks prefer not to be able to shoot back at an oppressive dictatorial government, despite their right to keep and bear arms, which Kirk supported. This right, which is a safeguard against Republican governmental overreach, is valuable to those who do not trust government, but not valuable to those who blindly and completely trust government.

Some gun deaths, whether by left-wing nut assassins, or by accident, do happen. Some empathize with those who hate Kirk; others do not. Some folks would like to be able to shoot back against racist cops. Some folks would not like to do so.

Think DIE (Diversity Inclusion Equity), which values protected minority status over competence, the next time you are tens of thousands of feet above the ground in a profit-hungry, capitalist airline. Do you really want the most qualified pilot, or would you rather have the pilot who best fits your opinion of the oppressed? If pilots are selected for DIE criteria, rather than piloting ability, do you want to have to ask yourself if your pilot was chosen because of ability, or because of preferred demographics?

To say that Democratic women want to die alone is silly, especially to all of the lonely Democratic women who cannot find a mate. Because men tend to die younger than do women, older women tend to go without the men that they want. 

You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If it is acceptable to assassinate Kirk, then is it also acceptable to assassinate left-wingers. Imagine the targets available to murderous right-wing nuts, too. Think more, hate less. If you can’t condemn Krik’s assassination, your hate makes you a part of the problem.

Edgar V. Tolmie

Altamont

Editor’s note: Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives are not meant to protect minority status over competence. Rather, diversity ensures recognizing the value of people from varying backgrounds, equity involves fair treatment and equal access to opportunities, and inclusion means engendering a sense of belonging where each person is respected.

Perhaps the earliest DEI initiative in the United States was in 1865 after the Civil War when veterans, their widows, and their orphans were given preferential hiring and treatment.