Picking Cherries

September 16th, 2025

I don’t have to say anything about Charlie Kirk; then again, I don’t have to say anything about anything at all, and yet I keep writing here anyway.

Right away, I want to make two things I believe clear:

1. I don’t think anybody should be murdered, and this particular incident was horrifying. I was unfortunate enough to be exposed to the video without my consent and I’ve had trouble sleeping since.

2. Some of you are being really persistent in dismissing the way millions of people felt about Charlie Kirk and that… is a choice. This dismissal goes both ways.

Do you know how often a woman will come forward to her family and friends about the abuse she suffers under her husband only to be met with the phrase “…but he’s such a nice guy”? It doesn’t mean that either perception is dishonest; this very real phenomenon, however, may be something you want to consider at this time.

I actually want this essay to be about something very specific: cherry picking.

A long time ago, I stopped judging people for cherry picking the Bible, and for one simple reason: the Bible (and God) is full of contradictions from beginning to end.

It is impossible to do everything right according to the Word and that’s because the Bible, despite what people have shouted at me over the years, is not perfect. It was not written by God’s literal hand; it was written by man’s, and we are fallible as heck.

For example, there are these ten rules that God commanded; I forget what they’re called at the moment. “Thou shalt not kill” is a big one. But God killed people — like, a lot of people. But not only that: he encouraged people to kill other people. I’ve actually surprised Christians I know by mentioning this; they go on to tell me that isn’t true. But it is — according to the Bible. And it’s one of many dissonant facts found in its pages.

So: I said that I don’t judge people for having to cherry pick. This is true. Instead: I judge them by what they cherry pick and why.

Another example: Miss Rachel posted a video during Pride in which she said she loves everyone because her faith tells her to do so, and quoted a passage from the Bible to support that view. In a now extremely viral video, Charlie Kirk and his friends attacked Miss Rachel and her stance, and then quoted an earlier chapter of that same passage, where God calls on us to stone a man who lies with a man, which Kirk then calls the perfect response (or “law”).

One of these people cherry picked based on inclusion, kindness and compassion; one them chose exclusion, violence and hatred as the basis for their choice.

Religion gives nobody a stable, preconstructed moral framework; it’s up to us to build our own home of ethics, and to ensure it has a strong foundation, sturdy walls and can withstand the winds of those who wish to hurt, manipulate and control us. We also choose the furniture; we pick love or fear, empathy or apathy, destruction or acceptance.

Going back to an earlier point, I think it’s really hard for humans to hold the idea that several truths can exist at the same time. Charlie Kirk was an inspirational figure to millions. Charlie Kirk said and did things to hurt just as many.

Look, a bunch of you are going to talk so much shit about me when I’m gone (but be honest, some of you already do). And I will deserve at least some of it. Maybe a few of you will call me a scumbag, like Kirk did George Floyd after his murder. This cycle of shit-talking ends when we end it, which feels unlikely any time soon.

What’s funny is that everybody is screaming about context, but context doesn’t make Charlie Kirk look better or worse; it just gives you a more complete picture of who he was and who he wanted us to think he was.

And isn’t that all anyone wants?

We all want more context, more benefit of the doubt, we want people to see a more complete picture of who we are. It explains socialization of every kind. If you’ve come here to say something completely positive or negative about Kirk, you are missing the point. He wasn’t either of those things, but neither are you or I. People are allowed to mourn (or not) in their own ways.

If you can’t see the hypocrisy of the administration’s reaction to this death, then you are either paying woeful inattention or participating in willful ignorance. It’s a tragedy, but the blame being laid at the feet of half of the country is just another distraction, up successfully baiting down, active encouragement for you to hate me.

You can hate me. Fine.

But at least do it on your own terms. Don’t generalize or label me. Don’t cherry pick the worst of me and ignore the best when I’ve sincerely tried my hardest to give you it all. I write these stupid essays constantly, and sometimes you disagree; I take those disagreements to heart. Sometimes my opinions change because of them, but sometimes it makes me sharpen my own ethical tools and make a better, sharper, stronger statement than I ever could have without you.

That’s actual open dialogue. I won’t condescend to you. I do listen, even when you infuriate me. I won’t ask you to prove me wrong with the automatic assumption that I’m always right.

There’s a lot of that going around.

Anyway, I didn’t have to say anything today, or any other day.

For all of this to work, though, one of us has to start a real conversation.