Preliminary note: they’ve apparently caught a suspect in Charlie Kirk’s death. A tweet:
NEWS: According to NBC, President Trump reports that a man is in custody in connection with the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
His name is Tyler Robinson—a Utah resident, born 2003. pic.twitter.com/UpW1dMnxx7
— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) September 12, 2025
I’ve read a bit about reactions to the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and got into at least one heated argument about it with a friend who said that Kirk’s murder was a good thing. There have been various degrees of reaction to the bloody assassination, ranging from jubilant celebration all the way to canonization and martyrdom.
My own view is that although I differ with Kirk on nearly every issue he espoused, I see him as someone who was simply of opposite political views to mine. While you can make the case that his views espoused or created violence, I don’t think you can make much of a case. And I am not aware that anything he said violated the First Amendment. In general, he and his Turning Point group generally espoused civil debate, not calls for killing, injury, or destruction.
Several people who applauded Kirk’s murder have brought up two things. First, Kirk was allegedly elated when he heard that Nancy Pelosi’s husband was injured with a hammer bu a trespasser. I remember that attack, but not Kirk’s reaction. This is what AI said when I asked it what Kirk’s reaction was:
In a 2022 podcast [on”The Charlie Kirk Show”], Charlie Kirk jokingly suggested that an “amazing patriot” should post bail for the man who attacked Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi. Kirk was not supporting the assault but using it to criticize the justice system and progressive bail reform policies, while simultaneously condemning the attack as “awful”.
- The attack: In October 2022, an assailant broke into Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco home, asking “Where is Nancy?” before attacking her husband, Paul, with a hammer.
- The podcast: On the October 31, 2022, episode of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” Kirk questioned why the assailant was being held without bail, using the incident to critique policies in cities like Chicago and San Francisco.
- The criticism: Kirk sarcastically contrasted the denial of bail for the Pelosi attacker with his claim that other serious crimes were often treated less severely under “cashless bail” policies in other cities.
- Condemnation of violence: Despite his sardonic comment, Kirk also stated, “I’m not qualifying it. I think it’s awful. It’s not right”.
Further, with reference to point #3 below, there’s what I call the Argument from Roosting Chickens, which says Kirk espoused violence through approving the Second Amendment, and so that violence came home to him. Here’s the AI answer to my question, “What did Charlie Kirk think of the Second Amendment?”:
Charlie Kirk was a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and strongly opposed gun control. In his view, the right to bear arms was a crucial protection for individuals against a tyrannical government.Key points of Kirk’s stance
- Willing to accept gun deaths as a cost of freedom: In an April 2023 event for TPUSA Faith, Kirk controversially stated that it was “worth it” to accept “some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights”.
- Protection against tyranny: Kirk framed the Second Amendment as a fundamental safeguard to protect Americans’ other rights, implying it was a deterrent against government overreach.
- More armed citizens for safety: He advocated for more armed Americans, not fewer, as the solution to gun violence. In 2023, he argued that if airplanes and banks have armed security, schools should have armed guards as well.
- Rejection of “utopian” gun control: Kirk believed it was unrealistic to think a society with an armed citizenry would have zero gun deaths, dismissing such thinking as “nonsense” and “drivel”.
- Long-standing advocacy for gun rights: He was a consistent advocate for gun rights and had previously spoken on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA)
Although his statement about gun deaths were the “cost of freedom”, I took it as meaning that if you think the Second Amendment is now an overall good thing, he thought the benefits it brought, including possible saving of lives, was worth the accidental deaths of innocent people caused by firearms. This is what one of our readers commented yesterday,
I believe his actual point about the 2nd was that on balance it would save more lives to have guns than it would to ban them.
I believe he was wrong about that, but his point wasn’t “we must save the 2nd Amendment no matter the cost.”
That was my interpretation. Unfortunately, the data show that FAR more innocent people are killed, commit suicide, or are murdered by guns in the hands of civilians than the number of bad guys killed in self-defense. There is no justification for the use of guns for self-protection as a way of saving innocent lives (in fact, there are more deaths by accidents or suicide than deaths via self-protection). The original intent of the Second Amendment can no longer be justified.
Now one can argue that it’s too late: the guns are out there and we can’t find them. The bad guys have them and we can’t stop criminal gun violence, so we should allow gun ownership by citizens. But I don’t agree that this means we should stop trying to get rid of guns. So, in general I disagree with Kirk on the Second Amendment. But I don’t think his statement should be seen, as our reader noted, as a callous disregard of innocent people killed as a byproduct of owning guns. I think Kirk really considered the Second Amendment a good thing for America.
But to me these two points are largely irrelevant in how we judge those who reacted to Kirk’s death. No, he was not a saint, he said some reprehensible things. But I have heard far worse from my friends about Republicans, for example I often hear a fervent wish that Trump had died in the two assassination attempts on him. Some of my liberal friends think the courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment, now allowing civilian ownership of guns for reasons other than forming a militia, are fine, even though they surely know, like Kirk, that innocent people will die. Do these friends deserve to be killed for their views? I think not!
But the issue at hand is this: “How should we think of the different reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death?” I see four classes of reactions, though there are undoubtedly more. Remember, Kirk never killed anybody, never caused anybody’s death, and did not espouse violence as a way to achieve political aims. Also keep in mind we’re talking about a man shot in the neck and killed horribly in front of his wife and two young children. Should we celebrate Kirk’s death, as many have, or should we say that he deserved what he got because of who he was?
I am talking now about civilians like Kirk, not terrorists or deaths in wartime, so don’t pepper me with questions about “What about Hitler?” “What about bin Laden?” I am not going to answer questions like that.
And so I’ll divide the reactions into four groups with a few words on each.
1.) “Who was Charlie Kirk? Since I don’t know him, I have no opinion.” Many people don’t know about him and Turning Point. This is a perfectly acceptable reaction given that you don’t know if he was a civilian giving a political talk or somebody killed while physically assaulting someone else. But inquisitive people will find out who he was, and when they do they should condemn his killing.
2.) “I know who Charlie Kirk was and how he died. But I don’t care whether he was killed.” I find this reaction lacking in sympathy, for he had a wife and two kids. It also seems to justify politically-motivated murder, which at the least can spread the view that killing someone for their views along is, well, not to be condemned. (I note that Kirk was speaking on a college campus, which is supposed to be especially tolerant of such speech). Regardless of the circumstances of the assassination, one should at least condemn this kind of murder. Luana adds that because the celebration is largely by people on the Left, simple human decency that condemns the killing of innocents will, in the end, come around to hurt the Left. I agreed, but in this discussion we should leave out the political consequences for one side or the other and talk about simple morality instead. Bernie Sanders discusses the consequences for democracy below.
3.) “Because Kirk espoused violence, he got what was coming to him. The chickens have come home to roost.” This is false, obtuse, and reprehensible. As you see above, Kirk didn’t go around advocating violence against his opponents. The two remarks above about Pelosi and the Second Amendment, similar in kind but not content to what I often hear from my friends, do not justify killing the speaker. Period. Kirk had a wife and child, many friends and colleagues who cared about him. Those who neglect that, and the fact that these people will be devastated (no, they don’t deserve that devastation), are people with zero sympathy. This view is reprehensible.
4.) “Kirk deserved to die because he was a homophobe/transphobe/horrible right-wing activist/promoter and enabler of Trump/antisemit, etc. etc.” This is taking the most unsympathetic and immoral view of all, and, sadly, it’s not an uncommon reaction. But Kirk did not “deserve” to die for his political views. We have a First Amendment that insulates people like Kirk—and most of us—from punishment, much less murder.(As for Kirk’s antisemitism, the NY Times reported it inaccurately; Kirk did not espouse antisemitism but deplored it.)
Only the first view above is justifiable. The death of anyone is a tragedy for their friends, relatives, and loved ones, even if they are horrible people. But in Kirk’s case, there is nothing I can see to mitigate that tragedy.
I never though I’d finish a post by touting the words of Bernie Sanders, but here he speaks very eloquently, and I agree 100%. We must condemn the murder of Charlie Kirk as strongly as possible, for justifying politically-based murder is both immoral and corrosive to the foundation of our free society .
h/t: Luana for discussion
How might history have been different if Sanders had run in 2016 rather than Clinton?
Sen. Sanders did run for President in 2016 (and in 2020), so we don’t have to imagine what might have happened. What did happen was that his party chose someone else as their nominee both times. He had his chance. Twice.
Actually, “his” party didn’t.
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat and never has been a Democrat (he’s always been an independent).
As I like to put it: He tried to seize the means of production from the Democratic Party! 😀
Nice.
I’m saddened by Charlie Kirk’s death for one major reason: he had the right attitude. That is, he would go on to campus, set up a banner saying “prove me wrong”, and invite students who disagreed with him to engage in civil discussion and try to argue him out of his position.
Too many on the “progressive” left have the opposite attitude, declaring that any such speech is “violence” and that anyone who disagrees with them must be a bad person who should be ostracised and cancelled.
This proves the point that conservatives really are a minority at most colleges across the country. The side that needs free speech protection the most is the minority…the side that wants to shut down speech is the status quo.
If the tables were turned and conservatives were in the majority, we’d likely see them abandon free speech principles. But until that day, continue to expect the enemies of free speech, at least in the university ecosystem, to come mainly from the Left.
We don’t have to imagine, conservatives are in the majority in the government, they control the presidency, supreme court and congress. Trump is trying to suppress free speech already.
What I have yet to see from conservatives is the culture of “protesting” against unwanted speakers by shouting them down, pulling the fire alarm, assaulting them if the security bill is still affordable etc., as sadly seen on college campuses a few years ago. Christians especially are usually polite and well-behaved.
Conservatives and progressives are not monolithic groups. Millions of people consider themselves parts of these groups. One subset of Conservatives did something worse in my opinion, they entered a building by force, brought weapons and prevented the peaceful counting of votes. Many Conservatives were against that and many progressives are against this kind of protest. You don’t hear from them because the media won’t them up.
“This proves that conservatives are really a minority on campus.”
It proves nothing of the sort.
You claim that the left wants to “shut down” free speech.
You have no grounds for that claim either.
Your assertions are baseless.
Sorry, but conservatives are a minority on campus; the data show that.
And yes, SOME people on the left want to shut down free speech.
Your last sentence is uncivil.
Yes, I strongly second your sentiment. Debate is the answer. But the far left deplores it, and I can’t help but deplore them for it.
I strongly agree. Kirk’s death was an evil political assination. I’ve never heard him advocate violence, only civil discourse. I disagreed with his views on religion, abortion, gun control, and more, but he was open to debate.
I forget who said this first “It was worse than a crime; it was stupid.”
Sub 100%
I could reply, “Too many on the right seek to censor the right of the citizenry to speak up against the government.” To support that claim, I could point to Pam Bondi’s loose talk about going after “hate speech”—as if the 1 A did not exist. I could point to the deal that Nexstar has reached with FCC’s Brendan Carr: axe Kimmel in exchange for Carr’s revocation of anti-monopoly rules for TV stations.
I think Kirk’s death is tragic for his family and friends. I think America’s enthusiasm for gun violence is both tragic and insane. And perhaps irreversible.
Thanks for the link to Bernie Sanders’ comments.
It has been reported that he was possibly radicalized in college, and that he felt strongly about Kirk’s being guilty of so-called “hate speech”; moreover, he was apparently fond of “Bella Ciao”, the famous “anti-fascist” song of the Italian Resistance during the Second World War.
“It has been reported that he was possibly radicalized in college . . . .”
What can’t the media report if it’s OK to use words like “possibly”? Who radicalized him – other students and professors? Do they have some culpability in the matter? This “seems” to be reportorial bloviating and opinionating. It “seems” one is no less entitled to speculate that he possibly allowed himself to be radicalized in college.
This morning I heard on the podcast “America This Week” a clip of an interaction between Kirk and a student. She said words to the effect that, what with Kirk being age 30 (at the time of the exchange), Kirk was more worldly-wise and experienced than the students, and was somehow taking advantage of the latter. He replied, asking her if she were a voter. She was. He said he was attempting to interact with voters.
From her stated position, it seems that she and other students ought not interact with professors since, after all, they are older and more experienced.
I don’t think I am qualified to debate an antivaxer, because they have read so much on that topic. I started talking to an antivaxer once and they brought up study after study. This doesnt prove them right, but to be able to debate them you have to know their talking points.
To debate Kirk ideally you need to have read his go to talking points otherwise you are going to be embarrassed by typical debate tactics.
With a professor you are not debating the professor, you are trying or should be trying to just learn what the subject he is teaching. Asking for clarification when you don’t understand something, but that is not debating
Bernie Sanders and pretty much any given pundit I’ve listened to says “political violence”.
“Political violence” is a Gnostic epistemic spell that conceals radicalism.
Violence, by definition, is radicalism. Doesn’t matter where from – “it is the Revolution which uses men.” (LeMaistre, 1796).
There were also some very unpleasant reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death on German social media from people who consider themselves to be on the political left.
For example, El Hotzo, a German “satirist,” gag writer, podcaster, and author, posted the following tweet: https://x.com/elhotzo/status/1965893736422133951
El Hotzo had already come under heavy criticism last year for approving of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump:
„Leider knapp verpasst“ (“Unfortunately, it was a close call.”)
„Ich finde es absolut fantastisch, wenn Faschisten sterben“ (“I think it’s absolutely fantastic when fascists die.”)
“Unser Charly” was a German family series from the 1990s and 2000s, in which the clothed chimpanzee Charly plays the actual leading role.
German state television also had an “expert” on who said Kirk wanted to stone gay people*. I have seen more info from other experts comparing him to a KKK member, and implying he was like a Nazi 😉
https://nitter.poast.org/eugyppius1/status/1966456639961153894#m
Unfortunately, German coverage of US affairs leaves much to be desired, as I have sadly observed. There is lazy Anti-American stereotyping, as shown by the fabricated stories of award-winning journalist Relotius of Spiegel magazine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claas_Relotius#Fabrication_of_stories (nobody found his Fergus Falls reporting odd there). Some American trends are misunderstood as they arrive with a time delay and occur in a different cultural context (e.g. journalists not really figuring out what “diversity” means). But for the most part, journalists appear to parrot MSNBC and similar outlets without source criticism or developing independent perspectives of their own. This explains why they think white American Christians actually wanting to stone gay people is plausible. Or why their fact-checkers assured viewers that Biden videos showing his mental difficulties were deep fakes.
One correction: Germany does not have state television. ZDF and ARD are public broadcaster like PBS. Both broadcasters are currently under pressure from extreme right-wing groups, but also from left-wing and progressive groups. The former consider them too green and left-wing, while the latter demand that reporting on and interviews with the far-right AfD be restricted or stopped altogether.
But I agree with you that reporting on the US has its flaws and that the US is often viewed too strongly through a Eurocentric lens. However, we also see the opposite case, for example when there is a lack of understanding as to why Germany does not grant the same comprehensive freedom of speech that Americans are accustomed to.
That is why I read US blogs and comment on them to learn about other perspectives and question my own preconceptions. 🙂
Thank you for that; I cannot agree more.
I made the dumb mistake of not realizing the Kirk/Pelosi clip was part of larger context. Good correction!
Indeed.
I have been bombarded with all these bad, out of context quotes from Kirk in the last 24 hours (how dare you feel compassion for this evil man?!). And, inevitably, they cannot (or will not) come up with actual quotes.
As we have seen over and over, short quotes and short video clips are almost always misrepresentations of the actual facts.
“He advocated violence!” “He called for stoning gays to death!” Etc.
Ironically, many among today’s Left are fully on board with people who actually do call for stoning gays to death, and with those who do so in Islamofascist countries such as Iran. Here in Australia, tens of thousands of Leftists recently marched across the Sydney Harbor Bridge for Hamas, with some marchers waving the ISIS flag and a banner depicting the Ayatollah. Leftist politicians appeared in photo ops in front of that banner.
I got jostled by a woman decked out in a keffiyeh covered helmet, dark glasses and mask during a protest in Melbourne last week. I was there visiting a friend, going off to buy a puzzle to do together. She must have thought I was a Nazi. She was one of thousands on the Pro-Islamofascism ant-Israel side and was ready for violence and was prepared to instigate it.
They are there every week.
A fundamental part of the problem is that modern leftism strongly discourages it’s adherents from listening to unapproved arguments or opinions.
It reminds me strongly of evangelical religious folks. They think that listening to the wrong music or socializing with the wrong people will lead to Satan snatching up your soul.
So, they are willing to believe that Kirk was a fascist, because that is what they have been told to believe. Of course, they never seem to be able to define fascism. Beyond that, many of them claim to be socialists, but cannot define that, either.
Bullseye.
The violence needs to be condemned by all sides with no “buts.”
Do not follow the lead of Elizabeth Warren when commenting on the assassination of Brian Thompson: “Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far.”
https://www.latintimes.com/elizabeth-warren-issues-dramatic-warning-after-unitedhealthcare-ceo-assassination-people-can-568816
Unfortunately, one of those who joined Warren in that opinion was, yes, Bernie Sanders:
Oy!
Isn’t that the same argument many used to blame Israel for the invasion and slaughter by Hamas 10-07-23?
+1
October 7 was terrible, but…
Rape is terrible, but her skirt was too short….
I also disagree with most of what Charlie Kirk was espousing.
But I found his willingness to go into the “lion’s den” of college campuses and engage with people as a huge plus. This is very much in the spirit of John Stuart Mill…let’s open our ears to the other side. Even if I think Kirk was dead wrong about say abortion, it actually helps me to engage in argumentation with someone like him, as it can help me hone my own position better.
I realize that yes, a lot of the footage of these events and discussions can and were selectively edited to make liberals look crazy and unhinged. But…they probably didn’t have to do to much editing at many campuses to get that effect!
At first I didn’t know who Kirk was, but after watching a few reports I realized that I saw a few of his debates with college students on YouTube. He was very skilled indeed. To me, his political positions were just those: positions. And he was very successful at espousing them, especially with young people. I don’t feel the need to say whether I agreed with Kirk’s positions or not. The fact that he was assassinated while lawfully expressing his views is enough to warrant condemnation. Persuasion through advocacy and debate is how the American character was formed, and the liberty of free speech provides the mechanism for how that character might change. This is how the system is supposed to work, and it shocks us all to realize that a lone gunman has the power to cut so deeply.
I’m going to share that Bernie video with my students. We’re just finishing a module on free speech/Mill and academic freedom. Thanks for posting it.
Relatedly, a student visited me in my office today looking for a club advisor for a new chapter of Turning Point USA on our campus. I declined but suspect the number of chapters on college campuses across the country is about to explode.
Although Kirk’s words were about some gun deaths being acceptable to preserve the Second Amendment as a vital means of the population to resist a tyrannical government, ultimately he was a hypocrite. Kirk applauded all of Trump’s moves toward tyranny–masked federal agents not identifying themselves and kidnapping people off the street, suspending due process, turning the DOJ into his personal vendetta machine, ignoring judicial rulings or actually suing judges, and putting military troops into cities he does not like on the pretext of preventing crime. Where are the Second Amendment supporters like Kirk who feared Obama and Biden would take their guns away in a wave of federal tyranny? Crickets.
I wonder what Antifa’s position is on masked federal agents.
You make unsupported inflammatory assertions that President Trump’s executive actions to enforce immigration law:
– are illegal merely because ICE agents are sometimes masked to protect them and their families from doxxing
– amount to kidnapping. (I have never heard of an arrest in a democracy being referred to as kidnapping in any context. Are you sure you know what kidnapping is?)
– deny whatever due process might be obligated in administrative actions like visa revocation and deportations — do you know what due process means in that context?
– defy court rulings. Note that an appeal of a decision is in no way illegal as long as he doesn’t defy an injunction made as part of the ruling. Why can’t a President sue a judge? If it’s illegal, the suit won’t be heard. If it’s legal, see you in Court.
– defy the law on troops in cities. The Courts have already ruled this is legal.
– politicize the DoJ. A matter of opinion, not lawbreaking.
You are trying to make the case that President Trump is a threat to your republic. If he was, wouldn’t you be calling for drastic action, like impeachment? Based on what you’ve said here, I just don’t see it. All I see is disagreement with his policies, which happens. We’re not happy with tariffs, and our feelings are still hurt over the annexation talk, but 🤷♂️. And who knows, the Supreme Court might rule against him. We know he’s not going to direct Customs to collect illegal tariffs, right?
Everybody who values liberty and civil (or, for that matter, uncivil) political discourse must condemn this act. If someone espouses opinions contrary to your own, you can speak and write against them, you can ignore them and you can make fun of them. If you remain within legal bounds, you can mess with them ala Dick Tuck. (Younger readers may have to Google that name.) If their actions reach the outrageous level of an Alex Jones, they can be prosecuted or sued in civil court. Violence is utterly counterproductive. Trump and his minions will exploit this to the hilt. The silencing of a single voice accomplishes nothing. One does not believe in free speech if they do not extend that right to those they hold in utter contempt.
Thanks for the reference to Dick Tuck. I needed a good laugh.
There are a lot of people with whom I disagree on many topics. I don’t think any of those disagreements are either a cause or an excuse for violence. In the history of freedom of speech there was a major turning point when people accepted that words should not be criminalized, only actions. Even a person who espouses violence generally (as opposed to instigate violent acts directly) has a right to free speech. That’s why people who say you should punch a fascist aren’t in jail.
I’ll give you my reaction, which is different than what you enlist: I feel his killing (and people cheering it) is a failure of the US as a democratic society that supposedly advocates for free speech. I worry about how this will damage the already bad social and political climate in the US, I am in part sad about his family (with a side comment: maybe this will spare the kids being raised by a hateful parent), I feel sad for him for becoming what he was (a hateful person), but I don’t really feel sad for his death personally. He said that empathy was bad, and he was killed by someone lacking empathy for him. He advocated for guns and he was killed by one. He contributed to what killed him with his advocacy.
I don’t think of Kirk as either a hateful person, though some opposed to his politics do, and I am sure he was not a “hateful parent”. I’m betting he was an excellent father.
As for him contributing to what killed him, you’re just dead wrong about that, and I have to add that you show almost no sympathy for his family. You are a #3 above.
You take that stuff about “empathy” VERY much out of context. Kirk described “empathy” as a somewhat meaningless newagey concept that was a poor substitute for traditional concepts of “sympathy”, “pity”, or “compassion”. That is very different than saying we should not have regard for others which is how people misrepresented his statements that he disliked empathy.
Another point about Kirk’s position on empathy (in addition to Michael Cole’s): a number of people, among them psychologist Paul Bloom, have argued that empathy, at least by itself and untempered with rationalism, is a poor guide to moral decision making.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Empathy
Doctors are taught to try to develop empathy to better understand their patients’ situations. I get where that concept is coming from — it’s more detached than sympathy. Nonetheless when I heard video of Mr. Kirk’s dismissal of empathy, I felt vindicated after all these years of not really buying it. It is fundamentally a fake emotion, an interview technique, and certainly not a guide to moral judgements.
How can you know he was hateful at all let alone a hateful parent?
Would you also celebrate the death of an automobile enthusiast or even someone who might just say that the cost of automobiles and public roads is a price we have to pay?
There are many genuine arguments against empathy including Paul Blooms book ‘Against Empathy’ 2016. Are they in the crosshairs too, or perhaps a more nuanced view is in order.
Charlie Kirk said some reprehensible things (there’s a list on the Guardian website), and I found him a very objectionable human being. His rhetoric was deliberately polarising, and it’s undeniable that he contributed to the level of anger and division between left and right, especially among younger people. He was quite happy to lie to stay in Trump’s good books, of which his relentless propagation of the 2020 ‘stolen election’ narrative is a prime example. I couldn’t stand the guy, and I’m fully of the opinion that his existence had a net negative effect on the health of American politics and society in general.
Moreover, I don’t buy the argument that he believed guns were necessary to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. I have never seen a remotely sensible argument that guns would have any efficacy in that regard. In fact, every shred of common sense and realistic argument says exactly the opposite. Charlie Kirk was no idiot, and I find it very difficult to accept he actually believed that. As I mentioned above, he was perfectly happy to lie if it suited him and believing him on this point requires far more credulousness than I am willing to afford him.
Guns are such an integral part of the American lore that Christian Nationalists associate with, that to deny them guns would deny them a huge part of what makes them tick. He supported the 2nd amendment because he lived and breathed the marketing material that forms the worldview of the far right.
Neither am I convinced by his pronouncements on gun deaths being made in good faith. Or at least if they were made in good faith, his opinion was dismissive of such deaths and lacked empathy for those who suffered as a result. It wouldn’t surprise me if it were this phrase that led to his killer pulling the trigger.
You can clearly see that I was not a fan of Mr Kirk. However, I would like to make clear that I condemn in the harshest possible terms his murder. Violence can never be justified, and to kill someone in cold blood like that is diabolical and sickening. It makes me extremely sad for everyone who knew him, and I offer my sincere condolences to all involved. Speaking more generally, I’m shocked and saddened at the escalating rate of political violence in the US and by the fact that murder is now seen (at least in some circles) almost as a legitimate way to deal with political disputes. To see (as we also did in the Brian Thompson murder) people on the left callously celebrating it makes me sick to my stomach.
This really is a very sad state of affairs, and it leaves America in a very precarious position. Leaders should use this as an opportunity for reflection and the healing of divides, yet Trump and his ilk seem committed to digging their heels in. Within minutes, they were blaming the radical left and gunning for the death penalty. I am not optimistic about where this will lead.
Charlie Kirk undoubtedly primed the powder keg with his incendiary words and tactics, and helped to make political violence more likely. But I am in no way saying he brought it on himself, or that he deserved it. He most certainly didn’t. I’m simply trying to highlight what’s wrong with political discourse in America and how, left unchecked, it can lead to anyone becoming the victim of violence.
I should also say that if I had bumped into Mr Kirk in a hotel, I would certainly have had a beer (though he was probably teetotal) with him and probably had a good laugh too. This is what being civilised is all about – seeing the humanity in someone, irrespective of your disagreements.
I always wonder who the 2nd Amendment gun lovers will fight when they decide they are being oppressed by the government. Their local police, school board, or the city council? State government officials? The US military? Ultimately, I think Charlie Kirk will fade into oblivion just as Rush Limbaugh did.
An opportunity for healing or further division? Kirk is already being crowned as the new Horst Wessel.
“Kirk is already being crowned as the new Horst Wessel.” Yes, by anti-Trumper George Conway III, on Bluesky at 7:35 am yesterday (not sure of the time zone it was a Bluesky time stamp, so maybe Pacific time?)
Now, a week later, by Stephen Miller and JD Vance who have taken it further then a new Horst Wessel. Greg Z. was right.
It seems that every list of bad words by Charlie Kirk is only clips taken out of context (as exemplified by Jerry’s examples).
People keep showing me the same lists. The big ones seem to be:
“He said gay people should be stoned to death”
“He was fine with people dying from guns”
“He advocated violence”
When I ask for links to his actual words, for the full context, none of these interlocutors can come up with any.
The best they can do is videos of other people stating their opinions about Kirk’s positions and repeating the same really short clips with no other context.
Short-clipping people is, essentially, always done to distort their positions. If it weren’t, then they would show/quote longer segments so that the target could be “hoist on his own petard” by expounding his evil thoughts more completely.
I had one interlocutor today say that Kirk wasn’t calm and reasonable in debate, basically because he didn’t agree with their position and some people were offended by his position (hurty words).
To me, the comments like “I am opposed to political violence; but …” are psychological ploys to allow people to feel that it was OK to assassinate a political opponent. I can’t see it any other way. IMO, there’s no other point in making such statements. They mean this: He was a “bad person” therefore there’s no need to feel sad or angry about his death.
(To be clear, just like Jerry, I disagreed with Kirk on essentially every subject.)
The President of the Oxford Union (that’s Oxford University’s debating society), George Abaraonye, responded by posting on WhatsApp ‘Charlie Kirk got shot, let’s fucking go!’ – and on Instagram ‘Charlie Kirk got shot lool’ (‘lool’ is an emphatic version of ‘lol’, = laugh out loud).
He subsequently apologised, saying he responded in the heat of the moment and didn’t really mean it.
There are calls for his resignation. Should he resign? The odd thing is that Kirk would have defended his right to post those messages.
Yes, he should resign. If your response to the murder of a political opponent, is “laughing out loud (lol),” then you are an asshole.
I haven’t called for anybody to lose their jobs, but companies have the right to ditch people who make the company look bad.
Yes, he should resign from (or be deposed from) the high-profile position of President of the Oxford Union, but he should not be disciplined by Oxford University. (As an aside, his grades are way lower than usually needed to get into Oxford so he seems to be a DEI admit.)
Yes he should resign, and if he doesn’t he should be otherwise got rid of. I do hope the people that matter have the guts to expunge him. It was such an inappropriate and uncivilised way to react to someone’s death, and completely at odds with how the OU should publicly respond to such events.
Murder is wrong. Political violence is wrong. it is disgusting to gloat because someone you disagree with has been assassinated.
It does not follow that we need to whitewash Kirk’s views because he enjoyed debate. Should we wait until he is buried before we point out his deplorable positions? I heard his statements on the second amendment. He brushed off these deaths-17,927 homicides in 2023. Apparently he didn’t imagine it would be him or his loved ones. He said this in the wake of the 6 deaths at a Nashville school- several of them children. If he can use a mass murder at a school to point out that these deaths are a “prudent cost”, I believe we may discuss his political views now. Bernie is right- this violence is terrible for our nation. Yet Kirk deserves criticism for his views and activism.
Kirk’s argument – or at least the one I heard – was to point out that some 40,000 people are killed by cars every year, yet no one calls for cars to be banned because of that. I disagree and think the 2nd should be reinterpreted or repealed, although criminals would still have their guns regardless.
I knew next to nothing about Charlie Kirk until news of his assassination hit the radio. I called my one staunchly conservative friend who explained how important this fellow was in the MAGA movement.
I felt sickened by the shooting. The notion that snuffing out a person whose politics you don’t agree with is acceptable is repugnant to me. My first thoughts were about his family. I looked him up and discovered he was married with two young children and that he was only 31 which told me his parents are likely alive and that’s where my heart stayed, with those who love him and the pain in their future.
I detest these public take downs, assassinations, or executions.
Thank you Jerry. I’ve been having the same kind of tussles with FB interlocutors for the last 24 hours. I am fully aligned with you.
There is some evidence (NCVS for example) that shows that in the U.S. there are about 65,000 reported incidents of use of a gun for defensive purposes. This number has stayed relatively stable over time.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39298697/
Gun rights advocates make this point fairly regularly and use it to balance the cost/benefit equation of the argument.
I don’t have enough expertise into the matter to judge the weight of this argument.
I don’t think it is so easy to quantify defensive gun use. Someone actually getting shot is the last stage of a fairly long train of escalation.
The two instances of defensive gun use by people close to me have both involved older women alone who repelled home invaders just by holding a gun where the intruders could see it.
In one of those cases, the intruders were already inside the woman’s home, and likely knew she was there alone. One of them started up the stairs to her bedroom, saw her standing at the top with the pistol, and they left without a word.
The perfect defensive gun use is when the criminals assume you are armed, and just don’t bother you.
People seem to be praising Kirk for going to college campuses and thinking he was promoting free speech. To me, that was all part of his “act”. Nobody has mentioned his organization, Turning Point USA. They created a searchable “watchlist” of college professors who they deemed “left-wing”. Professors on this list were then subjected to threats and vitriol for years. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/sep/17/turning-point-usa-professor-watchlist
He may have pretended to be open to free speech, but I really don’t think he was. He was a performer — who managed to get wealthy and famous by saying the awful BS that Trump-supporters loved to hear.
The “watchlist” is not about professors that “they deemed left-wing”, it is about professors who “discriminate against conservative students” in how they teach and grade. That’s quite a bit different.
There has been rampant bias against conservatism in how many, many professors teach for decades now.
Cole, that’s not what was reported in the Guardian article I posted. As far as the “rampant bias against conservatism”, there might be a perfectly good reason for that. Many conservative ideas have been debunked by reality.
“Many conservative ideas have been debunked by reality.”
True, but why stop there? Yours is rather akin to Irving Kristol’s quip that “a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” I know you are surely not suggesting that only one “side” in this debate is human: it must be that side alone that is enslaved by groupthink, blinded by confirmation bias and a tendency to caricature, prone to selective use of facts, to confusion of assumption with truth, to an inability to reckon with the unintended consequences of its policies, and holding a cocksure confidence it can never be wrong.
Reality can mug us all—and it strikes hardest those who think themselves immune to human folly and error and who find solace and confidence in the like-mindedness of those around them.
I wonder whether Charlie Kirk ever called for the execution of a public official? There is a video from last year again making its rounds on social media in which John McWhorter, while on Glenn Loury’s show, acknowledged that he had publicly implied that he wished someone would kill Donald Trump. And he admitted that he meant it. His sole apology was to say that he would certainly say it again in private, but he was wrong to make the view public. Loury was aghast, and McWhorter, even with Loury’s prompting, seemed oblivious to the larger societal implications and violence that could be unleashed. This happened only three weeks before the attempt on Trump’s life in Butler, PA. Does McWhorter share culpability? Should McWhorter die? Should he lose his perch at the NYT? His position at Columbia? I would neither kill nor fire him. But my respect for him, both as public intellectual and as a man, plummeted and is unlikely to recover. Some things can’t be unseen.
The relevant comments begin at 17:52
Charlie Kirk gets assassination and the far right pundits and politicians are red faced with rage. True it was not an acceptable action. But Roadkill Kennedy Jr. is destroying our health system with his utter incompetence. Long term, that will cause many deaths, hundreds, thousands, with bad luck many more. And these right wingers, red faced with rage do not care, not even a little bit about the deaths that will occur if Roadkill and friends don’t cease destroying American health care.
This has nothing to do with the topic; you appear just to want to vent your rage against RFK Jr. Comments should at least be relevant to the topic or to some other comment. This one is not.
Kennedy’s name is: Ratfuck, not Roadkill.
R(atfuck) F(ucking) Kennedy, Jr.
It is unfortunate that the shooting of Mr. Kirk elicits so much more comment than the Denver area high school shootings a day or two earlier, or the Minneapolis church school multiple shootings a few weeks earlier. These features of the US continue to be, uhhh, interesting, at least from a psychiatric perspective. Mr. Kirk’s assassination has perhaps as much to do with that as with politics.
There is still some discussion about the Minneapolis church shooting – including about why some are reticent to discuss it:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/annunciation-catholic-church-minneapolis-shooting-transgenderism
There is a significant concern about the contagion effect occurring from the wide spread reporting of school shootings.
More than just that in the Minneapolis case, as the shooter was trans. One major news outlet even apologized for “misgendering” the male mass murderer by referring to him with male pronouns.
Misgendering the poor mass shooter presumably made him feel unsafe. Did he (they?) lodge a complaint to this effect with the DEI office at the relevant press office?
He wasn’t part of Don’t violent camp. The problem is Donny keeps them mostly under his thumb and has done a mostly good job at preventing bloodshed.
The other side reject them and basically, they’re free and lose to act independently.
Who on earth is Donny?
AKA: iDJT, DonT, The ***on Don, capo di tutti-fruity, etc.
A new one every week.
Donald Trump. The guy loves the violent element and has embraced them but as a result has them mostly under control.
I’m going to predict that Tyler Robinson fell under the influence of a man who served as a father figure, and who radicalized him.
Everything so far has a similar feel to various lone wolf jihadi attacks we’ve seen over the years.
#speculation
My first post on this yesterday morning was:
But using words is hard.
Indeed. And thinking is too.
(Not to mention that both using words and thinking things through are Western Colonialist Hegemonic Racist Oppressions of the noble
savagesBIPOCs and their self-proclaimed allies.)I agree with most of your points, but I don’t think the following statement is accurate:
“My own view is that although I differ with Kirk on nearly every issue he espoused, I see him as someone who was simply of opposite political views to mine.”
In fact, you and Kirk share agreement on several key issues:
You both support academic freedom and free speech.
You both oppose DEI initiatives.
You both believe hiring and college admissions should be merit-based.
You both support Isarel
You both are against racism.
You both affirm that there are only two sexes.
You both would reject the claim that a fetus is just a lump of cells.
While you haven’t stated it explicitly, I’d guess you both support the U.S. constitutional republic, separation of powers, private property rights, and a market economy.
Overall, I think you align with him far more than you align with far-left positions. This, to me, highlights a common issue with academic centrists and moderates: they’re often much closer to conservatives than to the far left but don’t always recognize it.
I had heard Kirk’s name, but didn’t know anything about him or his positions, so I looked him up on Wiki, and discovered he was a complete right-winger, way off the reservation. Pick any nut-job conspiracy, and he’s trafficked in it. The sentiments expressed about him above are really mild compared to what the guy actually was.
I think he has a lot of people spreading the old bs (disinformation) about him now that he’s dead.
And, many (everyone I know on social media) are trafficking lies and distortions about what he actually said or advocated for.
Yes, he was a conservative Christian and I am opposed to more or less everything he promoted politically. But that doesn’t make him “evil”.
A former colleague of mine commented on one of my FB postings yesterday:
I don’t think he deserved assassination or punishment for his views. Violence is the antithesis of the American experiment.
But, comparing him to a run-of-the-mill Christian conservative is disingenuous, in my opinion. He was a full-on conspiracy theorist who made millions of dollars by spreading lies about the 2020 election, Covid vaccine, race and civil rights, Jews, Russia, climate change, and everything else that right wing liars hold dear.
That said, it’s a free country. People can say anything they want.
I have consistently condemned violence political or otherwise whether it is against political figures or others. I think my major frustration was seeing the outrage on this occurrence by those that ignored or rejoiced in it when it happened to someone not on their side.
I have to admit though that I have been sheltered by not being very active on social media and the liberal friend circle I have do not think and act like the liberals you have described. It is very disappointing, disturbing, and disgusting. Sadly I see how the worst parts of each side feed on each other and social media algorithms supercharge the worst in all of us.
The West – our civilization – needs Good Old Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The Enlightenment needs defenders.
THe quotation seems unlikely to have been written or spoken by Voltaire, but by a 20th-century writer expressing what she believed would have been Voltaire’s views, had he ever been in a position to stake his life on freedom of speech. Notably, she herself was not.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
This isn’t a quibble. The likelihood that Voltaire never said it, at a time when standing up for one’s own freedom, never mind an enemy’s, required singular courage, supports the counterfactual that likely no one will actually defend this premise to his own death. I know I wouldn’t, so I can’t expect anyone else to. When soldiers fight “for freedom”, they are fighting under orders for a more abstract concept, for a state (theirs) that supports a broad agenda of freedoms including national self-determination, not specifically for the right of domestic dissidents to burn their flag or call for them, the soldiers themselves, to be disarmed and exterminated. We accept that a robust definition of freedom requires tolerance of views we find reprehensible, but dying for them? No thanks. The Skokie Nazis, BLM, and the trans activists are on their own when the police truncheons come out defying the Courts who say they can’t.
The best reason to tolerate opposing views when one’s side is in power is that you can’t expect the other side to tolerate you when it takes power if you don’t forswear repression when you have the opportunity and excuse to. Whoever breaks the no-censorship contract first, even if it is codified in First-Amendment protections, can expect to have the wrath of vengeance rain down upon him in turn. What’s remarkable is that 1A, written as it was (shortly) before there were political parties in the new republic, survived and thrived in full robust form even after partisanship entered the arena. Will it survive cancel culture? We shall see.
Regardless of one’s feelings about his beliefs, what happened to Charlie Kirk is disgusting, horrifying, and should shake anybody to the core who has a heart and even announce of human decency. From what I’ve read, seen, and listen to, Charlie promoted open discussion and debate. He would travel the country, and speak in front of any group, any size…regardless of the type of crowd or if they had opposing views. In fact, he would welcome opposing views and promote people who did not agree with him to move to the front of the line and offer their opinions and the ability to debate with him. He died under the banner “Prove me Wrong”. He would answer questions hear people out, and from what I gather, he was polite, gave his opinions and stated facts to back that up his arguments, to the best of his knowledge .This is more than an assault on free speech. This is an assault on open dialogue and open debate, and the freedom to promote discussion. Even worse than this, it exemplifies a problem on the left, far worse than free speech, but in the redefining of speech. The radical left has successfully redefined many words. To them. speech is violence. Speech is harmful, and is therefore equivalent to violence in every meaningful way. They have redefined the words, hate, fascist, nazi, far right, totalitarian dictatorship, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic, male, female, diversity, equity and inclusion. And yes, if you still think those have the same definition that your parents would understand, you might want to read the books of their “leaders”. The radical left for the most part refuses to specifically define any of these words although it seems they all pretty much mean, anyone with differing views to theirs. They also refuse to debate, take questions, or have any open dialogue. For example, from my understanding Ibram X Kendi shows up gives his pre-prepared speech and leaves. Never taking questions. Never debating. No open discussion. If anyone exemplifies radical left hate it is him. But the radical left has grown ever so powerful, and with its growth and lunacy, the “non-radical” left has shifted as well, using their redefined words, (as hate has been used above) not understanding what they are promoting.
Sorry this is so long, but I seriously fear for your country, and not because of Trump. I actually think he’s trying to save you from the direction the Western world has moved following the radical left down its twisted dark road, or at least not openly questioning, what’s going on. Well, we’ve just seen what can happen, if you haven’t already lost your job or been silenced. I know this is a long and late post, but I know this is a left leaning group, and as one who used to vote left in Canada (that is left of Bernie for you Americans), I am curious how many are aware of the left’s view of speech being violence.
Thanks, but do try to keep your comments shorter than this. It is ok, though, as it does not exceed the 600-word maximum guideline.
I agree a lot of left wing extremists don’t debate and just present a perspective as if it is incontrovertible. On the other hand, Charlie Kirk was just a skilled sophist, whose opinions were not backed up by real facts. His “Prove Me Wrong” label is the opposite of what should be the case. He is the one making the claim, and has to prove his opinions. Gun control case in point – there is no evidence that shows a net benefit from the widespread private ownership of firearms, yet Charlie Kirk never addressed the real evidence, just kept rolling out the debunked arguments the NRA have put out for decades.
And made a lot of money doing so.
It is a bad thing that Charlie Kirk was murdered.
It is a bad thing that people laugh about it or celebrate.
The rationales by many for those reactions are simplistic and weak.
I know what it is like to have a parent die when young, those kids have witnessed something unimaginably horrible as has his wife. My condolences to them.
It is a bad thing that Charlie Kirk was murdered.
It is a bad thing that people laugh about it or celebrate.
It is bad thing when people get fired for their political opinions.