Regardless of how many essays you and your comrades write misrepresenting what he said, people aren’t going to remember Kirk’s words. They will remember he was murdered for saying them.
You’re lucky that only the feeble minded think words are violence. If Charlie Kirk basically deserved to die because his opinions were challenging to you, then what makes your words exempt from deadly repercussions?
I don’t think you have thought this through very well.
Keep thinking of Johnson’s Life of Milton for some reason:
“But of ‘evil tongues’ for Milton to complain required impudence at least equal to his other powers — Milton, whose warmest advocates must allow that he never spared any asperity of reproach or brutality of insolence.”
The fact that was Kirk was doing was (obviously) less harmful than literal murder doesn’t mean it wasn’t harmful and corrosive to society. It’s important that we can say that because there are many people like him and we are all suffering the consequences of their work. Kirk had a right not to be silenced by the government nor a gun, but I personally believe his beliefs should be condemned by all decent people. There is no contradiction here.
Popular or not, my conclusion is simple. Fuck that guy. He spent his career shitting on innocentnpeople and fomenting the right to violence. It's poetic justice that he died by the method that he advocated the most...guns. Sad for his family, but not for the general political environment as his death leaves one less voice for justifying violence, and one less voice for punching down.
Thanks for a perfect column. It encapsulates every piece of Kirk and the rest of the trash who will exploit Kirk's death. And politicians like Shapiro, Newsom (he goes from 0-60 and back to 0) and Polis. Plus the Yankees, who had a moment of silence and had Trump visit.
The reactions of some liberal pundits and Dem politicians have been pathetic and a good sign that this country may fall not because MAGAs are strong enough to do this on their own but because the opposition is far too pathetic to stop them. A win by default of sorts.
It should be simple enough to say “even assholes don’t deserve to be murdered” and leave it at that. But no, they had to whitewash this guy who got the ironic end of the very type of violent society he wanted. I expect MAGAs to be disgusting—it’s their thing!—but for the rest to roll over and pretend we just lost a guy who dedicated his life and talents to feeding the poor is nauseating.
I’m ready for this news cycle to move on.
BTW if one of Newsom’s opponents for 2028 wanted to take the lead they could come out and say “even assholes don’t deserve to be murdered” but apparently that’s beyond the “civility” of our weak-ass Democrats.
'I've come to bury Caesar, not praise him' is the correct approach here. Although one of the most apt descriptions I read was 'I can't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but Charlie Kirk supported what happened to Charlie Kirk'
To describe Kirk as ignorant gives him a lifeline. "Ignorant" suggests if someone just got through to him, there would be a chance at redemption, or at least some glimmer of basic humanity.
He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it was wrong and evil on multiple levels.
He may have stumbled on a successful formula, but after that he put a lot of thought and effort into perfecting it.
Otherwise, you're dead on.
The world is a better place without Charlie Kirk, but he can rest easy knowing he left the world a worse place than he found it.
Agreed, though I do think ignorance is in many ways willful. True wisdom comes from being open to learning things and realizing you don’t know everything. Nothing is more dangerous than certainty.
This. I absolutely did not understand a damn thing about liberal politics, even after calling myself a Democrat and liberal for many years, until I finally told myself to shut up and read and absorb what libs and progressives were saying. I made myself think about it. I read some of the same articles and essays over and over, just letting them sink in gradually. Turns out I was, ideologically, more a Republican calling myself a Dem and voting mostly Democratic over the years. It takes work if none of the issues or positions were things say, you grew up knowing about. I didn't. It turned out I was fiscally liberal and leaning to socially conservative and I hated myself for it so I chose to change. You don't know if you're wrong until you do; certainty that you've got all your views locked down just right can blind you to reality.
The way they’re going on about him as though he was some messiah is just disgusting to me. By all his messaging he seemed ok with being a victim as well. He just didn’t think it would happen to him. So much for being a visionary.
He was a vile propagandist who died as he lived, making life worse for the vulnerable.
And of course this is an opportunity for all the high-minded pundits to go, "awww he was so awesome because all he was doing was talking!" "Exchange of ideas!"
He didn't think empathy was valid for the rest of us, so when the tiger he rode turned around and devoured him, I will give him as much empathy as he offers others.
Do remember that it is—under Murc's Law—required for elected Democrats to offer grace while Republicans can say whatever they want.
In addition to his other vile ideas, Kirk outspokenly believed that the slaughter of unarmed civilians, attending school, church, parades, grocery shopping, meeting friends at a bar, watching a movie, or peacefully protesting was a reasonable price to pay for the availability of completely unregulated guns. He celebrated and encouraged violence, and he was gunned down in a manner he fully supported, on a campus free of gun regulations. Obviously, he figured anyone with a weapon was a kindred spirit, who was more likely to shoot some mouthy woman who dared to speak out.
The only sad part is that the violent right wing loons, who embrace Kirk's ideology, will quickly return to their usual targets. So school children, POC, immigrants, women, LGBTQ+, and other unarmed civilians who gather for the usual reasons while going about their daily lives will be at risk. Only the wealthy and powerful will have security details. No gun regulation will come from this.
‘I’ve seen (mostly) men express this sentiment, and it’s incredibly naive. Kirk’s intentions were aggressive and abusive, like the trolls who’d regularly challenge Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to a debate. They don’t want to exchange ideas. They want to subdue and humiliate. You might recall all those YouTube videos with titles boasting about how some right-winger “owned” or even “destroyed” some liberal (especially a woman). That’s not reasoned debate. It’s a show of dominance.’
Yep.
He was never interested in the truth. He wanted a verbal wrestlemania spectacle.
Very well said. Thank you for being brave enough to say it clearly, without rancor or malice, and with words and philosophy that defy our AI gibberish era.
The lionization of this horrible, damaging troll by MSM and several Democrats has been just as disturbing as his assassination, so the only way to honor his legacy is by reminding them of all the horrible, damaging shit he said over the years.
And there is no shortage of it. In fact, he said so much terrible things there is a quote for everything.
This. Why are Dems coming out about it? Can’t they just not say anything? Or at the very least don’t praise him. They’re making this nobody into a somebody.
Regardless of how many essays you and your comrades write misrepresenting what he said, people aren’t going to remember Kirk’s words. They will remember he was murdered for saying them.
You’re lucky that only the feeble minded think words are violence. If Charlie Kirk basically deserved to die because his opinions were challenging to you, then what makes your words exempt from deadly repercussions?
I don’t think you have thought this through very well.
Keep thinking of Johnson’s Life of Milton for some reason:
“But of ‘evil tongues’ for Milton to complain required impudence at least equal to his other powers — Milton, whose warmest advocates must allow that he never spared any asperity of reproach or brutality of insolence.”
You completely nailed it here. No notes.
The fact that was Kirk was doing was (obviously) less harmful than literal murder doesn’t mean it wasn’t harmful and corrosive to society. It’s important that we can say that because there are many people like him and we are all suffering the consequences of their work. Kirk had a right not to be silenced by the government nor a gun, but I personally believe his beliefs should be condemned by all decent people. There is no contradiction here.
Popular or not, my conclusion is simple. Fuck that guy. He spent his career shitting on innocentnpeople and fomenting the right to violence. It's poetic justice that he died by the method that he advocated the most...guns. Sad for his family, but not for the general political environment as his death leaves one less voice for justifying violence, and one less voice for punching down.
Thanks for a perfect column. It encapsulates every piece of Kirk and the rest of the trash who will exploit Kirk's death. And politicians like Shapiro, Newsom (he goes from 0-60 and back to 0) and Polis. Plus the Yankees, who had a moment of silence and had Trump visit.
The reactions of some liberal pundits and Dem politicians have been pathetic and a good sign that this country may fall not because MAGAs are strong enough to do this on their own but because the opposition is far too pathetic to stop them. A win by default of sorts.
It should be simple enough to say “even assholes don’t deserve to be murdered” and leave it at that. But no, they had to whitewash this guy who got the ironic end of the very type of violent society he wanted. I expect MAGAs to be disgusting—it’s their thing!—but for the rest to roll over and pretend we just lost a guy who dedicated his life and talents to feeding the poor is nauseating.
I’m ready for this news cycle to move on.
BTW if one of Newsom’s opponents for 2028 wanted to take the lead they could come out and say “even assholes don’t deserve to be murdered” but apparently that’s beyond the “civility” of our weak-ass Democrats.
'I've come to bury Caesar, not praise him' is the correct approach here. Although one of the most apt descriptions I read was 'I can't support what happened to Charlie Kirk, but Charlie Kirk supported what happened to Charlie Kirk'
Quibble.
To describe Kirk as ignorant gives him a lifeline. "Ignorant" suggests if someone just got through to him, there would be a chance at redemption, or at least some glimmer of basic humanity.
He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew it was wrong and evil on multiple levels.
He may have stumbled on a successful formula, but after that he put a lot of thought and effort into perfecting it.
Otherwise, you're dead on.
The world is a better place without Charlie Kirk, but he can rest easy knowing he left the world a worse place than he found it.
Agreed, though I do think ignorance is in many ways willful. True wisdom comes from being open to learning things and realizing you don’t know everything. Nothing is more dangerous than certainty.
This. I absolutely did not understand a damn thing about liberal politics, even after calling myself a Democrat and liberal for many years, until I finally told myself to shut up and read and absorb what libs and progressives were saying. I made myself think about it. I read some of the same articles and essays over and over, just letting them sink in gradually. Turns out I was, ideologically, more a Republican calling myself a Dem and voting mostly Democratic over the years. It takes work if none of the issues or positions were things say, you grew up knowing about. I didn't. It turned out I was fiscally liberal and leaning to socially conservative and I hated myself for it so I chose to change. You don't know if you're wrong until you do; certainty that you've got all your views locked down just right can blind you to reality.
The way they’re going on about him as though he was some messiah is just disgusting to me. By all his messaging he seemed ok with being a victim as well. He just didn’t think it would happen to him. So much for being a visionary.
He was an unabashed bigot. His murder was horrific and avoidable.
Both can be true.
He was a vile propagandist who died as he lived, making life worse for the vulnerable.
And of course this is an opportunity for all the high-minded pundits to go, "awww he was so awesome because all he was doing was talking!" "Exchange of ideas!"
He didn't think empathy was valid for the rest of us, so when the tiger he rode turned around and devoured him, I will give him as much empathy as he offers others.
Do remember that it is—under Murc's Law—required for elected Democrats to offer grace while Republicans can say whatever they want.
In addition to his other vile ideas, Kirk outspokenly believed that the slaughter of unarmed civilians, attending school, church, parades, grocery shopping, meeting friends at a bar, watching a movie, or peacefully protesting was a reasonable price to pay for the availability of completely unregulated guns. He celebrated and encouraged violence, and he was gunned down in a manner he fully supported, on a campus free of gun regulations. Obviously, he figured anyone with a weapon was a kindred spirit, who was more likely to shoot some mouthy woman who dared to speak out.
The only sad part is that the violent right wing loons, who embrace Kirk's ideology, will quickly return to their usual targets. So school children, POC, immigrants, women, LGBTQ+, and other unarmed civilians who gather for the usual reasons while going about their daily lives will be at risk. Only the wealthy and powerful will have security details. No gun regulation will come from this.
And to your last line, that is sad. That’s the message that needs to be sent. With so many guns without regulation, anyone can be a victim.
‘I’ve seen (mostly) men express this sentiment, and it’s incredibly naive. Kirk’s intentions were aggressive and abusive, like the trolls who’d regularly challenge Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to a debate. They don’t want to exchange ideas. They want to subdue and humiliate. You might recall all those YouTube videos with titles boasting about how some right-winger “owned” or even “destroyed” some liberal (especially a woman). That’s not reasoned debate. It’s a show of dominance.’
Yep.
He was never interested in the truth. He wanted a verbal wrestlemania spectacle.
and money.
Very well said. Thank you for being brave enough to say it clearly, without rancor or malice, and with words and philosophy that defy our AI gibberish era.
The lionization of this horrible, damaging troll by MSM and several Democrats has been just as disturbing as his assassination, so the only way to honor his legacy is by reminding them of all the horrible, damaging shit he said over the years.
And there is no shortage of it. In fact, he said so much terrible things there is a quote for everything.
This. Why are Dems coming out about it? Can’t they just not say anything? Or at the very least don’t praise him. They’re making this nobody into a somebody.