Very sad day, and not just for conservatives or people on the right. Charlie was flawed in many ways and I didn't agree with him on every topic - but he was the ONLY person on any part of the political spectrum willing to have open discussions without a safety net, a teleprompter or a studio production behind him. Killing this guy is possibly the worst move ever for anyone who values peace over war, dialogue over violence and civil discourse over civilizational decline.
The people cheering this killing are shortsighted and foolish. This is good news for no one.
Absolutely. Charlie was truly one of a kind when it came to debate. I find it so concerning how many people can't see that aspect of this. He always argued in good faith. He always allowed room for response and dissent. Terrible... just terrible. I don't even know what else to say at this point.
These people don't realize that Charlie faced disdain from the actual far right for even sitting down with these weirdo campus commies. I wouldn't have the patience for it. No one does - except for this one guy who did it for years on end. What's the message from the left here? Agree or die? I'm glad these cretins are publicizing their murderous tendencies but it's not a good feeling to realize you're swimming in a cultural acid bath.
I had an awareness of him being a “red activist “. But I did not know anything of substance about him. Hats off to him for asking for debate. Rejoicing in him being killed is barbaric. Thank you for writing ✍️
Absolutely. People are allowed to disagree with his ideas—and he did invite that disagreement. But celebrating his death is a level of evil I cannot comprehend.
I don't mean to say he deserved it—no one deserves to die like that for speaking out—but it's impossible to say he was just a guy who liked to debate. He had radical ideas and was extremely racist (and for that alone, he should have been arrested long ago). Even if he wasn't a violent person, his speech contributed to spreading hate and violence against various marginalized groups. Saying he wasn't an activist is a far cry from who he really was. Unfortunately, this tragedy happened, but trying to humanize the guy to promote free speech is flawed. I feel very sorry for his family; in fact, I feel sorry for all the people and their families who suffered any harm or violence that resulted from his "debating."
Repeating these talking points that Kirk was some kind of racist who should have been arrested does not make them true, but it does make you seem like a dim bulb. If you think bad speech should reasonably result in death, you should move out of your dumbass glass house before throwing stones.
It is vile ideas like yours that led to Charlie's murder. Even assuming he was racist -- which he was not -- that is not a criminal offense for which one should be arrested.
There is no evidence that his speech contributed to spreading hate and violence against anyone. He was always calm and respectful to everyone he debated.
And no one suffered harm or violence from his debating, a.k.a. talking, which for some reason you put in scare quotes.
Thank you for putting this out there. You are absolutely correct; this was not about what side he was on, what his personal beliefs were. It was that he was brave enough to stand up and talk. He was open enough to ask for and seek debate. And he was murdered for it.
In seeking understanding, in holding a hand out to start discussion to bridge the gap in ideologies, he was vilified and demonized. And that should terrify everyone who writes or uses words to express themselves. Because if someone who was aware that they were putting themselves out there, putting a target on their back for their beliefs, can be murdered and have that act celebrated by so many - what does that mean for the rest of us, that can't protect ourselves from potential backlash?
"This should terrify you. And you should really take some time to seriously consider what becomes of that social contract. Because this isn’t just about Charlie. It’s about the direction this culture is heading. Where speech is increasingly treated as violence, and actual violence is treated as catharsis."
yes its scary. cheering someone's death because they had ideas is serious MADness!:-(
i don't like him but he did not need to be killed. let him talk. so sad.
You don’t have to agree with someone’s politics to grieve their murder. That’s the entire point of empathy—not making it contingent on tribal alignment.
I never claimed Charlie was a saint. But if your instinct is to moral scorekeep a dead man before his body is even buried, maybe it’s you who is lacking empathy.
You can care about school shootings, racial injustice, and also a brutal stabbing in public. Compassion isn’t a zero-sum game. But if it was, you just lost.
I think it's important to write, even when we think "what's the point"... I think the point is: silence begins to take its own shape, as cliche as the sounds. Never underestimate how many people need to see or hear your words. There are so many times I almost stayed silent on issues, only to receive many messages from people expressing gratitude bc they felt like I'd given them some form of "permission" to feel a certain way, or to express the thoughts for themselves.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” an audience member asked.
“Too many,” Kirk responded to applause from the crowd.
The attendee informed him that the total was five and continued: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”
And then he was killed. You say his IDEAS weren't violent, but how do ideas like transphobia, xenophobia, and genocide denial actually make people safer?
I don't condone celebrating murder, but to have the nation lower flags to half staff for this? Ask us to grieve for someone who couldn't care less if we were the ones slaughtered?
Truth? Really? The man's own last words were in fact an untruth... He's not interested in truth. He could have said he really didn't know how many, or "probably not very many," but he chose to incite hate, to a sickening reaction from the crowd. Disgusting. It's about advancing a narrative, not finding truth. And he was admittedly very good at the former.
History proves you wrong. Guns have been omnipresent in America since its founding. High schools even used to have marksmanship programs.
But high murder rates, whether by inner city thugs or psychotic ideologues, are a phenomenon that began in the 1960s, coinciding with both the rise of the welfare state and the rise of violent left-wing ideologies.
Don’t know the guy but most probably killing him with a bullet in an open air university speech is probably not the best way to fight his ideas if ever you disagree. That said sadly I am not sure that politics - and idea « marketplace »- is really played by the rules these days, especially in the Us but getting there elsewhere
Omg would love to believe in this… but it seems to me that’s not the direction of things neither macro (world politics) or micro (any small group of people have different dynamics that just respective merit of ideas) …. The dark side is too strong :)
Thank you for this.
💔
Could not have said it better. Thank you for this.
Very sad day, and not just for conservatives or people on the right. Charlie was flawed in many ways and I didn't agree with him on every topic - but he was the ONLY person on any part of the political spectrum willing to have open discussions without a safety net, a teleprompter or a studio production behind him. Killing this guy is possibly the worst move ever for anyone who values peace over war, dialogue over violence and civil discourse over civilizational decline.
The people cheering this killing are shortsighted and foolish. This is good news for no one.
Absolutely. Charlie was truly one of a kind when it came to debate. I find it so concerning how many people can't see that aspect of this. He always argued in good faith. He always allowed room for response and dissent. Terrible... just terrible. I don't even know what else to say at this point.
These people don't realize that Charlie faced disdain from the actual far right for even sitting down with these weirdo campus commies. I wouldn't have the patience for it. No one does - except for this one guy who did it for years on end. What's the message from the left here? Agree or die? I'm glad these cretins are publicizing their murderous tendencies but it's not a good feeling to realize you're swimming in a cultural acid bath.
I had an awareness of him being a “red activist “. But I did not know anything of substance about him. Hats off to him for asking for debate. Rejoicing in him being killed is barbaric. Thank you for writing ✍️
Absolutely. People are allowed to disagree with his ideas—and he did invite that disagreement. But celebrating his death is a level of evil I cannot comprehend.
Perfectly said.
I don't mean to say he deserved it—no one deserves to die like that for speaking out—but it's impossible to say he was just a guy who liked to debate. He had radical ideas and was extremely racist (and for that alone, he should have been arrested long ago). Even if he wasn't a violent person, his speech contributed to spreading hate and violence against various marginalized groups. Saying he wasn't an activist is a far cry from who he really was. Unfortunately, this tragedy happened, but trying to humanize the guy to promote free speech is flawed. I feel very sorry for his family; in fact, I feel sorry for all the people and their families who suffered any harm or violence that resulted from his "debating."
Repeating these talking points that Kirk was some kind of racist who should have been arrested does not make them true, but it does make you seem like a dim bulb. If you think bad speech should reasonably result in death, you should move out of your dumbass glass house before throwing stones.
It is vile ideas like yours that led to Charlie's murder. Even assuming he was racist -- which he was not -- that is not a criminal offense for which one should be arrested.
There is no evidence that his speech contributed to spreading hate and violence against anyone. He was always calm and respectful to everyone he debated.
And no one suffered harm or violence from his debating, a.k.a. talking, which for some reason you put in scare quotes.
1000000000% 🎯
Thank you for putting this out there. You are absolutely correct; this was not about what side he was on, what his personal beliefs were. It was that he was brave enough to stand up and talk. He was open enough to ask for and seek debate. And he was murdered for it.
In seeking understanding, in holding a hand out to start discussion to bridge the gap in ideologies, he was vilified and demonized. And that should terrify everyone who writes or uses words to express themselves. Because if someone who was aware that they were putting themselves out there, putting a target on their back for their beliefs, can be murdered and have that act celebrated by so many - what does that mean for the rest of us, that can't protect ourselves from potential backlash?
"This should terrify you. And you should really take some time to seriously consider what becomes of that social contract. Because this isn’t just about Charlie. It’s about the direction this culture is heading. Where speech is increasingly treated as violence, and actual violence is treated as catharsis."
yes its scary. cheering someone's death because they had ideas is serious MADness!:-(
i don't like him but he did not need to be killed. let him talk. so sad.
You don’t have to agree with someone’s politics to grieve their murder. That’s the entire point of empathy—not making it contingent on tribal alignment.
I never claimed Charlie was a saint. But if your instinct is to moral scorekeep a dead man before his body is even buried, maybe it’s you who is lacking empathy.
You can care about school shootings, racial injustice, and also a brutal stabbing in public. Compassion isn’t a zero-sum game. But if it was, you just lost.
I totally agree, it's a shame he died but trying to humanize him isn't fair.
“It’s a shame he died, but let’s not humanize him”
You should hear yourself.
Perfectly captured a lot of what’s been going through my mind today. I’ve thought about writing and then thought what’s the point.
I think it's important to write, even when we think "what's the point"... I think the point is: silence begins to take its own shape, as cliche as the sounds. Never underestimate how many people need to see or hear your words. There are so many times I almost stayed silent on issues, only to receive many messages from people expressing gratitude bc they felt like I'd given them some form of "permission" to feel a certain way, or to express the thoughts for themselves.
You are right and I am going to write because I want to for my own mind I guess.
It’s great that you receive such positive response.
Read Charlie Kirk's last words.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” an audience member asked.
“Too many,” Kirk responded to applause from the crowd.
The attendee informed him that the total was five and continued: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”
And then he was killed. You say his IDEAS weren't violent, but how do ideas like transphobia, xenophobia, and genocide denial actually make people safer?
I don't condone celebrating murder, but to have the nation lower flags to half staff for this? Ask us to grieve for someone who couldn't care less if we were the ones slaughtered?
The exploration of ideas is the only way to find truth. If you kill the exploration of ideas you kill truth.
To say Charlie "couldn't care less if we were the ones slaughtered" is hyperbolic and false.
Truth? Really? The man's own last words were in fact an untruth... He's not interested in truth. He could have said he really didn't know how many, or "probably not very many," but he chose to incite hate, to a sickening reaction from the crowd. Disgusting. It's about advancing a narrative, not finding truth. And he was admittedly very good at the former.
What part of “too many” is an untruth?
Just your regular reminder that high rates of gun ownership do lead to high rates of homicide. Prove me wrong.
History proves you wrong. Guns have been omnipresent in America since its founding. High schools even used to have marksmanship programs.
But high murder rates, whether by inner city thugs or psychotic ideologues, are a phenomenon that began in the 1960s, coinciding with both the rise of the welfare state and the rise of violent left-wing ideologies.
She doesn't want to hear it though.
You sound like a real thinker, Dominique.
Don’t know the guy but most probably killing him with a bullet in an open air university speech is probably not the best way to fight his ideas if ever you disagree. That said sadly I am not sure that politics - and idea « marketplace »- is really played by the rules these days, especially in the Us but getting there elsewhere
People might not play by the rules but I do know one thing for sure: the best ideas will always win.
Omg would love to believe in this… but it seems to me that’s not the direction of things neither macro (world politics) or micro (any small group of people have different dynamics that just respective merit of ideas) …. The dark side is too strong :)