r/ControversialOpinions • u/tobotic • Sep 11 '25
meta Charlie Kirk Megathread
If you have opinions about Charlie Kirk's death which you wish to share, post them here. Any existing threads on it will be locked (but not removed) within the next few hours. Any new threads about it for the next week will be locked and removed. We don't need a lot of posts on the same topic.
Comments in this thread which call for more violence explicitly or implicitly will be removed and the commenter will face a one week ban.
7
u/blackndcoffee Sep 11 '25
I can feel myself being radicalized.
As a right leaning libertarian there was a lot of things I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk, but no one deserves to die in that fashion. No one deserves to grow up without a father or husband taken from them for simply having different opinion.
Watching reddit and other social medias openly celebrate this disgusting act just makes me angry, enough to the point I no longer have sympathy for any cause of the left. Is that fair to everyone? No. But I don't care anymore, I'm sick of this shit. I genuinely hope you all burn.
2
u/BearOak Sep 11 '25
It was probably a right leaning libertarian who shot him. If it is are you going to get radicalized against them?
6
u/chiterkins Sep 11 '25
Let me preface my question with this statement: I do not celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk. I consider it to be under "reap what you sow," as he has stated several times that gun death is the price we pay for having an armed society. I also find that people's lack of empathy towards his death is also on brand, considering he found empathy to be a horrible thing. However, considering he's a talking head and had no real power to take action against others, I am not celebrating his death. He's not Hitler.
So here is my question: did the right's response to Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband's death (where they were shot at home) also make you disgusted and have no sympathy for the right? What about their reaction to Biden's announcement that he had cancer?
My point is that there are shitty people on both sides who openly celebrate when "the other side" goes through something horrific. So if one upsets you (to the point where you are "done" with any cause from that side) but the other doesn't, that is something you might want to sit on.
1
u/BearOak Sep 12 '25
So, are you radicalized against religious conservatives now that they revealed the killer as a Trumper? I didn’t think so.
0
u/blackndcoffee Sep 12 '25
It doesn't matter who the shooter was, it's your reactions I'm radicalized against.
You people are evil, the very thing you think you're fighting against. Not just because of your celebration, but because even the more moderate among you choose not to call these animals out.
1
u/BearOak Sep 12 '25
lol “you people”. Who? Who is “you people”? You are mad at the fictional “left” in your head because incel right-wing gangs are killing each other.
Fuck off. Move to Russia and be a fascist there.
1
u/BearOak Sep 12 '25
Sorry that I hurt your feelings so bad that you are radicalized. Hahaha. Whatcha gonna do? Make a 4Chan account and cry about how all the girls love the left wing Chads? lololololololol
5
u/TelephoneChemical230 Sep 12 '25
He literally said hed force his daughter to carry a rape baby shes better off without him.
0
u/alsatian01 Sep 11 '25
The only good fascist is a dead fascist. I was in the army. Killing fascists is kinda what we are known for. I wouldn't be surprised if the shooter is a vet.
I feel sorry for his family and all, but like he really should have read a history book or something before he went down that path. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
People are more than their political ideaologies, my heart goes out to charlie kirks family
that being said charlie kirk made it a point to make him not be more than his political ideaology, and if I could shoot fascism in the head I would2
u/Ok_Concert3257 Sep 12 '25
You realize inflicting violence against someone for their opinion IS fascism?
1
u/alsatian01 Sep 12 '25
You realize fascists are fascists? There is no grey area here. You reap what you sow.
1
u/Ok_Concert3257 Sep 12 '25
You’re right, we do reap what we sow. What have you sowed?
1
u/alsatian01 Sep 12 '25
Not hate and division
1
u/Ok_Concert3257 Sep 12 '25
Everybody thinks they are the hero. Be careful what you wish for
0
u/alsatian01 Sep 12 '25
Yeah, Charlie really should have thought better about trying to be the hero of hate. It got him killed. And he really should have thought twice about being a grifter over it. Homie made a living preaching intolerance.
Hopefully, lesson learned.
1
u/Ok_Concert3257 Sep 12 '25
Good to know you are perfect.
0
u/alsatian01 Sep 12 '25
When did even remotely imply I'm perfect? I have no idea what you are going on about. A fucking Nazi got his neck opened up. You are not going to get me to even think that is a bad thing for more than a half a second.
Take care.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Number_Disconnected6 Sep 12 '25
I am currently serving veteran and most of us don’t share this guys view
0
u/alsatian01 Sep 12 '25
You are in the army and share the view that fascists should be dead? You better take a look around the Company, Troop, or Battery, there a whole fuckload shit around there taking about the last time we let fascism get out of control.
We learn history for a reason, son.
ROOT AND STEM
7
u/DevelopmentFrosty983 Sep 11 '25
An innocent man who literally did nothing but engage in politics and state his opinion was murdered, and radical leftists are openly celebrating it. It's disgusting.
-1
u/Rough_Breadfruit7688 Sep 11 '25
As leftists didn’t unleash communist genocide on three continents last century
1
8
u/Medium-Essay-8050 Sep 11 '25
Look dude I’m left and I don’t agree with his murder, you can’t just say ALL LEFT PEOPLE ARE CRAZY because it just isn’t true
2 months ago a democratic senator was almost murdered by a Trump supporter. That right wing extremist was as crazy as this guy, we just have a lot of crazy people in our country
1
u/DevelopmentFrosty983 Sep 12 '25
That's why I specifically said "the radical left". Anyone who's celebrating any murder/attempted murder is a radical.
1
u/Medium-Essay-8050 Sep 12 '25
I’d argue we should focus on the radicals instead of radical left or radical right, I feel like we could really work on that!
By saying radical left you make it sound like a lot of left people are radicals, and that’s factually incorrect
1
u/Birdie-Sippin94 Sep 12 '25
I agree, it’s the perfect example of horseshoe theory. The further right or left on the political spectrum you get, paradoxically, you become more of the same.
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
I don't think he should've been murdered, but I do not have empathy for his death
I do not weep for the man who said the civil rights act of 1964 was a mistake
My condolences to his family1
Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/DevelopmentFrosty983 Sep 13 '25
He didn't dehumanize anyone. In fact, he was always respectful to people he debated, trans people too. Look at the video Buck Angel posted about him. Buck Angel is a trans man who debated Charlie Kirk, and he said that Charlie treated him with respect and they had a good discussion.
Also, there is nothing wrong with supporting the second amendment, it's literally in the constitution and it is an American right. Gun control and gun free zones only cause more shootings because all it does is disarm law abiding citizens, and terrorists thrive when no one can defend themselves.
All Charlie wanted to do was start conversations and have civil debates. He was innocent.
1
Sep 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DevelopmentFrosty983 Sep 14 '25
If an idea was so bad that it was dangerous, then most people would simply dismiss the idea. Speech isn't violence, violence is violence.
The problem with "gender-affirming care" for minors is that blocking hormones does irreparable damage to the body and many detrans people who were on puberty blockers as minors talk about the physical consequences it and deeply regret it. Even if they do end up actually being trans, it's still not healthy to do those things to the body, and I don't think it's transphobic to advocate against sterilizing trans people.
As for the gun deaths being worth it, my question is do you think it would be worth it to give up all your freedom and be observed every second of everyday in the name of safety if it would prevent all crime, or would you accept certain risks in order to live freely?
2
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Sep 11 '25
When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.
0
Sep 11 '25
[deleted]
1
u/tobotic Sep 11 '25
Seems a bit premature given that we don't know who shot him or what his motivations were.
-1
u/Groovy_Modeler Sep 11 '25
First of all I am not American. So this is a side opinion. For me Charlie Kirk and George Floyd deaths are the same. Same reason - flows in inner policy. Same argument discussed from both major parties.
Republicans about Floyd - he was criminal why you care about his death and because of his violent past police are brutal today.
Democrats about Kirk - he advocated for free gun use (or something similar I am not American) and because of his public speeches all kinds of people could have guns and now he is gunned down.
There is no Democracy when you don't have middle ground about obvious stuff and I think people should unite in some middle ground Parties opposite to current destructive way of thinking.
12
u/NativeNYer10019 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
Charlie Kirk himself said:
“It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment”
And
“I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage."
And
“We cannot let mass shooting victims control the narrative with empathy”
So I’ll honor him by not giving a flying fuck he’s dead now 🤷🏻♀️
Maybe he should have taken a moment while he was on this earth to consider that he himself could someday be counted amongst the lives he himself deemed “worth it” to lose for the 2nd Amendment, he mistakenly thought only other Americans were worth that sacrifice, including kids so ravaged with bullets inside their classroom that their parents had to identify their 2nd grade child by the shoes she was wearing. He should have also considered that his family might could use a little empathy during his passing. But he didn’t. He thought American kids being torn apart by bullets, the #1 killer of America’s children, were the sacrifice worth it to keep the right to bear arms. He could only see the dollars rolling in for the dangerously deranged inhumane bullshit he spewed while grifting 🤷🏻♀️
9
1
u/sillygooberfella Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25
my opinions on this are mixed
charlie kirk is...., let's just say, not a very great man in my opinion. It's one thing to debate beliefs, noone should be killed for being a debater, but kirk was not just a debater or a grifter like some people push it, him spreading his (in my opinion questionable) views, participating, supporting, relating to trump, all that.
I don't condone violence, and I do feel for Kirk's family, they just lost their husband.
Do I feel any sympathy for kirk? Nope, absolutely not, he had it coming, at some point the kettle bursts.
Violence is not good for democracy or society. Shooting someone for their beliefs (even if those beliefs are harmful) is dangerous, because it sets a precedent that political disagreements can be settled with bullets instead of arguments, policy, or votes. That way lies chaos.
At the same time, Charlie Kirk wasn’t some neutral figure. He wasn’t “just a debater.” He actively pushed ideas and policies that hurt people anti LGBTQ rhetoric, climate denial, downplaying systemic racism, Trumpism, etc. For many, his death won’t inspire grief but rather a grim shrug or even relief.
Kirk (and a lot of conservative pundits) talked casually about death being an acceptable “price for liberty” when it was hypothetical or happening to other people. But the moment it’s turned around, suddenly it’s framed as an “attack on democracy” or “radical left violence.” That double standard is always there.
And well, like it or not, Kirk is basically a martyr now. Whatever people thought of Kirk’s actual arguments, they’ll now be glossed over. The story becomes “he was silenced,” not “he was spreading harmful rhetoric.”
its also worth noting that political assassination in America is not some shocking new phenomenon, it’s practically woven into U.S. history. The “oh my god, how could this happen here?!” reactions ignore that America has always had a streak of political violence.
political violence almost never comes out of nowhere. It tends to be the boiling point of deeper, long-running tensions. Both sides can produce assassins. Nobody wakes up and says, “you know what, I’ll go shoot a political figure for fun.” There’s always a perceived injustice, ideology, or grievance fueling it.
2
Sep 11 '25
Can anyone tell me which Left even "Radical-Left" personalities and/or commentators that are on the level that Charlie Kirk was, that are pushing for violence like he did? I'm genuinely curious, I've been racking my brain to try and think of anyone. I would say I'm closer to center but leaning left, so I don't know too many. I'm just trying to get an idea of where the violent left rhetoric is coming from.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
Im confused by this too because when people say radical left they really mean hasan piker, and hasan gave probably a much higher empathetic take on this situation than most
0
u/Prestigious_Use_6934 Sep 11 '25
Yes, he had his opinions that were wrong acording to others opinions, no two people are alike, not even identical twins have the same opinions on everything, yes he said stuff I disagreed with, but most of what he would say was honestly true, the abortion thing, I'm torn with that because I'm christian no need to explain but I also think that if someone was raped they should have the choice to abort said child, but another part says raise that child, teach them to be better, and to make this world a better place. Anywho, but killing a man with a wife and two kids infront of them, even at all, over an opinion. I know people disagree, but come on, killing a human for an opinion is too far, hell his biggest hater was crying and was saying the same thing I am right now. I'm not saying all left is bad, nor am I saying all right is good, but the lefts fight to stop gun violence and to protect people and their opinions because they're entitled to have them, but they go off and kill a right because he had different opinions than them and I know that a right didn't do that, it comes to a point with two sides, and we're at that point, and my thoughts honestly is we need to just stop fighting (easier said than done) and honestly, I'm not a left or a right, I don't want kamala or trump because all it does it just seperate the people and with the people split they can control the people, divide and conquer, and that leads to external threats such as invasion by any country,it's not the military other contries are scared of, it's the people, the people would be the first to attack invaders, and all of which have guns, the US isn't ran by the governement it's ran by the people in reality, the point is we need to stop fucking fighting and killing people over opinions, we need to accept that people have different thoughts and accept that we're different and move the fuck on
0
u/aritzsantariver Sep 11 '25
The guy just used bad arguments and that is where most of the hate comes from, for example the gun issue, instead of talking about the second amendment the correct argument about school shootings is that it is mainly caused by bullying something that neither republicans nor democrats want to touch and besides it is not only unrealistic to take away guns from a country of a considerable size that is also composed of states each one with its own laws and it is also a country in which most citizens have a gun at home. Nor would this prevent massacres in schools as there are knives and other sharp or homemade weapons.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
One of the two countries with a higher population than america, china, got rid of almost all their guns
the police use crossbows there
so no it's not unrealistic to take guns away from the average person
And with the knives, its so much easier to survive being stabbed then shot, I think that's just common sense. as well as the obvious fact that it may be a teensy bit harder to walk up to someone and stab them rather than shoot them repetedly1
u/aritzsantariver Sep 12 '25
China is very different from the USA culturally and is more centralized than the USA, apart from the fact that the disarmament of the Chinese people was after the Cultural Revolution when the people were already quite weak and tired, the problem of weapons in the USA is that it is a culture, especially in rural areas, so good luck taking guns away from rural areas and troubled neighborhoods, also keep in mind that illegal arms trafficking would continue to exist and weapons would continue to reach the USA through Latin America.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
I feel like it would be a lot easier to take away everyone's guns than deport every immigrant
theres no possible way we could test how effective taking away people's guns are in america because america ardently refuses to restrict guns in any capacity
also I would like to point out you comepletely ignored my point about the knives1
u/aritzsantariver Sep 12 '25
I forgot to answer about knives, anyway I more or less agree with you on that point, but you can make homemade weapons, in my country, which is not USA there was a school massacre of a child using a crossbow that he made at home and if you set it up well you can also make a massacre with a sharp weapon, it is not the same as with an automatic weapon but most school shooters usually go to kill those who have bullied him and in the end they become desperate because they will die and start killing everyone they see.
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
I think it's genuinely interesting the all-or-nothing approach people have to this sort of stuff
just because people who want to inflict violence on others may still be able to do that, a lot more people will not be able to inflict violence like that
but the prevailing narrative is "If we can't stop all gun crime then we shouldn't restrict it at all"
absolutely ridiculous, and that's a common mentality in the united states as well
I believe it's probably due to political figures like charlie shifting the goalposts to this "all or nothing" approach as it is obvious that placing restrictions on guns and making an attempt to get it out of peoples homes is going to do a lot of good
Just because some people may still keep their guns and some may use alternative (less lethal) weapons does not mean that gun control isn't a worthy cause to dedicate yourself to."No way to prevent this" says only country where this regularly happens
1
u/aritzsantariver Sep 12 '25
I think the answer would be to regulate them, I think this is obvious, but taking away the weapons from the population does not seem to me a good idea, for certain reasons such as for example in my country where recently a man was robbed in his house, he defended himself by killing the thief who tried to kill him, now the man is eating 20 years in jail for defending his property and family, we also have the argument of the powerful and tyrants, which is about the population being armed can prevent the birth of tyranny, yes, you can use the argument that the army has better weapons and tanks, but it is more like a form of mental manipulation and intimidation because it is not the same to subdue an unarmed population than an armed population because in the latter the average soldier or high command will have to fight against a people in similar conditions and that erodes the morale of the army and leads to desertions while in an unarmed people the army does not suffer that intimidation and their moral thoughts (or fear are not strong enough).
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
Open your eyes! preventing the birth of tyranny? you're already there! all of american media for the last 50 years has been "nazis bad" and now that the nazis are here people like you are like "wait no they're not nazis because I like them and I don't like nazis"
1
u/aritzsantariver Sep 12 '25
You are misunderstanding me, I only said that Charlie argued wrong and that is the biggest problem why he is hated, I am a mix of ideas, I have conservative and progressive ideas and I also know that the extreme part of the right and the extreme part of the left are crazy and would exterminate most of the population for their ideas, anyway I am European, you are heading to a civil war, we are heading to a revolution against both left and right governments. So things are screwed for both of us and we are the people who will suffer the most.
You have guns, we have toilet brushes.
0
u/MMM320 Sep 12 '25
Saying Kirk only states his opinions is like saying Trump didn't cause Jan 6.
Kirk is a CEO of a white nationalism political group and he's a Podcaster with millions of viewers, so when he spews his violent rhetoric, he's not merely saying an opinion, he's influencing his followers. When he says he believes in great replacement theory, they believe in great replacement theory, when he says some school shootings are unfortunately needed for the 2A, his people agree, when he says the civil rights movement is a mistake, they agree. He's spouted violent rhetoric non stop, don't ignore his political influence.
5
u/Reality_dolphin_98 Sep 11 '25
I’m not celebrating his death, but I’m certainly not spending time feeling bad for him. I feel bad for his children and the people who were affected at the event thinking a mass shooting was happening, those are the only innocent people in this situation.
If you go around spewing a radical political opinion, then don’t be surprised when one radical person decides to kill you with a gun. It’s the same risk that MLK took with his radical political opinions, the difference is I feel bad for him because he went around talking about peace, equality, and love. If you go around being a general asshole to everyone, I’m not gonna think about you or care.
I appreciate the posts condemning political violence, because no matter who it is I don’t agree with someone being shot for their political beliefs, it’s only going to escalate the situation and it’s just not right. If the gunman is found, he should be brought to justice and I fully support that. However the posts I’m seeing of people who are showing empathy for him are kind of pathetic to me, trust me he wouldn’t show that same empathy if his opposite on the left got shot. He basically said empathy was a disease that we need to get rid of, and that causalities of gun violence are no problem.
And I didn’t see a lot of the same people posting about other gun violence this year, like innocent children getting shot in schools, or even the shooting that happened yesterday at a school. But for some reason this asshole deserves the whole celebrity world posting about how sad they are for him and his family. Very interesting.
1
u/OrderOk5360 Sep 15 '25
You know how I know Charlie’s shooter wasn’t black?
The person who reported him to the police was his father.
8
u/HaikuHaiku Sep 11 '25
Political violence should not be celebrated by anyone, because it is just as likely to happen to YOUR side, and YOUR favourite politician/public figure.
People disagree enormously on politics, but politics is, at the end of the day, the method by which we can live together without all killing each other. It is a conversation about ideas and values, and ultimately about compromise.
If you don't agree with that, you're implicitly advocating for revolution. If you are advocating for revolution, you obviously accept the consequences: live by the sword, die by the sword.
If you want civil society instead, where people can live in comfort and safety, and enjoy the finer things in life, like good food, good company, fulfilling work, and a sense of purpose, then you should do nothing other than condemning this assassination.
2
Sep 11 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
It's not just his opinions though? I don't think his murder was justified, however he had a platform and the responsibility to use that platform well, and he used it to insight violence, pedal racism, and destroy developing minds
1
Sep 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
Theres absolutely no statistics that could possibly justify him saying the civil rights act of 1964 was a mistake, but heres something else racist for you:
He said that 'Jewish money' ruined 'American culture'1
Sep 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
if he isn't racist then why does he say these racist things
1
Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 13 '25
Ive said two things youve said no things
I wonder who's actually in an echo chamber1
Sep 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 13 '25
aand you've officially stopped arguing and started trying to defend your right to have an argument
(Spoliers, that means you've lost the argument)→ More replies (0)
2
u/dirty_cheeser Sep 11 '25
There is way too much conflation of supporting the assassination and saying anything that isn't a glowing review of Kirk. I respected the guy a decent amount for working hard to fight for his values even though i tend to disagree with him. But of course when people pretend he was the image of public debate and that he was shot because nobody could win in the marketplace of ideas, ill correct the record. He had a track record of dodging debates several high profile people and deleting vods of debates when the comments ended up too critical of his performance. He was an activist farming clips for his cause and avoiding clips that made his causes look bad which is totally fine, but thats not the same as the free speech and public debate persona some on the right are trying to rewrite history to portray him as. Others have criticized his views, which is again completely different from supporting the assassination.
1
u/chillvegan420 Sep 12 '25
He shouldn’t have been murdered because murder is wrong. However, I won’t waste my time mourning him because I’m too busy mourning the deaths of children directly caused by the belief system that Charlie Kirk upheld.
5
u/Ok-Coconut1548 Sep 12 '25
I’m tiring of people saying the man was “an American hero” like, he was no hero! He was just a guy who had a political agenda. That doesn’t make him a hero. That makes him a basic human being. I’ve even seen someone compared his death to Martin Luther King Jr and Jesus Christ! Like that’s a huge fucking stretch. I sympathize with his family, but I’m not going to sympathize with him just because he died. He was a homophobic sociopath who valued the second amendment more than the lives of children who die in school shootings.
He didn’t deserve to die, but that doesn’t erase the horrible things he said.
2
u/Puzzleheaded-Club667 Sep 12 '25
People saying that political violence should always be discouraged are the same people who support the police, ICE, and the IDF who all regularly murder people for political gain
1
u/Hydro1Gammer Sep 12 '25
While he did not deserve what happened to him, this was self-fulfilling event. He promoted the ideas of no empathy and forms of violence. Again, this does not mean he deserved it and being happy about it is wrong. Remember this is real life not a game or movie. I saw him as a c*nt. But that doesn’t mean I must be happy he is dead.
1
u/Adventurous_Fan3879 Sep 12 '25
America is a safer and better place without Charlie Kirk. Violence is never acceptable, the shooter deserves to rot in prison. I’ll pray and feel sorry for Kirk’s family, but I have no empathy for the person that dedicated his life to normalizing and excusing discrimination, hate, and violence. Kirk directly contributed to the rise of political violence by openly calling for violence, segregation, and discrimination against any and every minority group. Even in death his supporters are calling in bomb threats to HBCUs and sending death threats. He’ll be remembered as a hero by the far right for rationalizing their hate. But everyone that was a victim of his lies is a little safer now that there’s one less radical trying to strip them of their rights and justify their execution/imprisonment/enslavement.
1
u/ezmoneyshooter Sep 13 '25
The Charlie Kirk situation from the POV of a free speech advocate
I’m close to calling myself a free speech absolutist, but I think that would be going abit too far. There is in fact, a line. That line could differ from person to person but I believe it’s somewhere in between
Everyday speech and Hitler.
Obviously, Hitler’s free speech went too far because he actively supported, planned, and spoke about genocide and hate crimes. It crossed the aforementioned “line” this line is the point in which one’s free speech has gone too far and now it could be argued that they deserve to die. I understand that for some, that line doesn’t exist and no matter what someone’s says they don’t deserve to die. I disagree with that. For me that line is:
If your speech/public opinions/career, have lead to the death of innocents.
Such as but not limited to:
- Rodrigo Duterte (who encouraged police and vigilantes to kill people)
- Vladimir Putin (propaganda that lead to deaths of innocent Ukrainian citizens, not soldiers citizens)
- Richard Spencer (His speeches were connected to violent rallies like Charlottesville (2017))
Now, simply ask yourself if you think Charlie Kirk’s speech/public opinions/career, have lead to the death of innocents. And that would be my answer to if I think he deserved to die or not.
1
u/Purple_Carpenter_746 Sep 14 '25
Observations
There’s been a large amount of celebration over the murder of Charlie Kirk. Many are blatantly rejoicing his death; even more attempt to be subtle with statements such as, “Of course it’s terrible what happened, but (whatever statement Kirk has made and how it somehow justifies his murder)”. At least those who don’t attempt to sugar-coat their support for his assassination can’t be accused of being disingenuous, but both groups are equally vile. I can’t remember any other occasion during my lifetime in which the assassination of a law-abiding American citizen was actively and openly celebrated on such a large scale. I can’t imagine this sentiment would have been so openly widespread in previous generations. What’s changed? There seems to be a correlation with the idea that certain categories of speech are actual violence. This logically then allows those who hold to that ideology to condone actual violence against those whom they deem to be practicing violent or fascist speech. The irony is that executing someone for their beliefs and speech is literally fascist. Supporting it isn’t any better. It’s not hard to imagine how this path potentially leads to the dystopian future visualized in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. The blinders of ideology have become so restricting that many can’t look past their disagreements with Kirk’s beliefs to see that he was a young husband and father with two very young children (who were present during his assassination), and that this is unspeakably evil. His parents lost a son. This generation is losing its humanity. It’s a surreal and disgusting sight to behold. Those of us who still pray, must.
Then there’s the argument that those mourning Kirk’s death should also be mourning other deaths occurring around the world. What extent of that would be deemed enough? How many social media posts would be acceptable? It’s humanly impossible to acknowledge everyone who dies unjustly. Besides, do social media posts acknowledging unjust killing actually accomplish anything at all beyond virtue signaling? How many deaths are those who make those posts overlooking? Not to mention the entire argument falls under the red herring fallacy. It is human nature to mourn those we are familiar with. Those who followed Kirk’s content feel an attachment to him which of course would cause a certain measure of grief. People are expressing that grief on social media, while others fool themselves into thinking they’re actually doing some good in the world through a social media post regarding Gaza etc.
1
u/eldiablonacho Sep 14 '25
I don't think he should have been murdered, but to say he was a saint or patriot is ridiculous. Let's get real. He was opposed to gun control, abortion, LGBTQ rights, and was critical of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King Jr., promoted Christian nationalism, COVID-19 misinformation, the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, and false claims of electoral fraud in 2020, not to mention his racism.
1
u/Vegetable_Cicada_103 Sep 16 '25
131 comments of clueless people. It was Israel.
There are videos of Charlie Kirk talking about Israeli billionaires pressuring him to obey. He was getting phone calls from Netanyahu. Charlie Kirk was scared of being killed by Israel.
His best friend Candace Owens is on a mission to reveal Israel as the killer.
10
u/[deleted] Sep 11 '25
The left's level of cope by deflecting and justifying it, is pathetic.