Two years past his presidency, Thomas Jefferson offered words that resonate profoundly in today’s landscape. He said, “A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen: but it is not the highest,” emphasizing the need for self-preservation when the nation is under threat. As recent events unfold, it appears many have adopted a mindset of self-preservation, driven to confront disturbing narratives and actions from certain segments of society.
For example, in the last week, the actions and rhetoric of certain individuals have heightened this need for self-preservation. One particularly troubling incident featured a young woman expressing outrage over the memorial for a conservative figure. Her outburst was a stark encapsulation of the extreme emotions that seem to permeate leftist discussions today. “I wished he didn’t die,” she stated in an ironic twist, as she criticized those mourning the loss. She went on to vilify anyone associated with the man, stating, “Anybody who agrees with anything Charlie Kirk says is a racist, homophobic, Islamophobic piece of s***.” This level of vitriol suggests a troubling absence of any attempt at rational discourse.
The basis of her outrage, however, appeared to rest on misinterpretations and outright fabrications. For instance, she directed her ire at Kirk by claiming he said that “black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously.” A simple fact-check revealed that these accusations were steeped in misinformation at best. The phrase “black women” was reportedly never uttered by Kirk, with a former Washington Post reporter losing her position after falsely repeating it. This incident highlights how easily misinformation can spread and take root in public sentiment.
The young woman further illustrated her disconnect by focusing on the racial makeup of the memorial attendees, implying aversion based solely on their appearance. She lamented, “First of all, everybody there was pretty much white, like, everybody was old and white,” revealing a hypocrisy that reflects her inability to see beyond skin color or generational differences.
In her outburst, she made a troubling comparison between the peaceful commemoration of Kirk’s life and the violent riots that followed George Floyd’s death. “I’m sorry,” she declared overwhelmingly, “one person was murdered by systemic police violence, and one person got murdered by an ultra fringe right conservative group who was so anti-Semitic that they killed a man because he supported Israel.” This kind of rhetoric underscores the challenge of engaging with those who seemingly refuse to acknowledge the complexity of these discussions.
The reaction from media figures like Jimmy Kimmel, who echoed similar sentiments linking the perpetrator to conservative ideologies, further complicates the dialogue. Such narratives, often unchallenged, serve to entrench division rather than foster understanding or resolution.
This whole scenario begs the question: How does one communicate with someone so ensnared in the bounds of misinformation? Jefferson’s words serve as a reminder that sometimes you cannot reach someone ensnared in such a mentality. The need for self-preservation becomes paramount. The public discourse is rife with toxic narratives, and self-preservation may mean confronting these lies with unwavering resolve.
Many might find themselves praying for the redemption of individuals like the young woman who exhibited such vehement bias. As Jefferson alluded to the duties around self-preservation, there is a need for advocates of truth to stand firm against the tide of falsehood. Perhaps, as Jefferson envisioned, the qualities of good citizenship must sometimes yield to the necessity of preserving one’s values and ideals against the onslaught of toxic rhetoric.
In navigating this turbulent landscape, one must remain vigilant. The emotional and rhetorical extremes on display not only endanger civil discourse but call into question the very foundations of shared societal values. Jefferson’s wisdom may not provide a roadmap, but it certainly sheds light on the vital distinction between lawful observance and the deeper obligations we have to uphold reason and truth.
"*" indicates required fields
