Charlie Kirk Didn’t Shy Away From Who He Was. We Shouldn’t, Either

[iluvatar5150]

A good take on things, IMO, from Jamelle Bouie:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.vy8R.MrGjYMJUcbTn&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There has been less agreement about Kirk’s life and work. Death tends to soften our tendency to judge. And sudden, violent death — especially one as gruesome and shocking as this one — can push us toward hagiography, especially in the immediate wake of the killing.

So it goes for Kirk.
<snip>
There is no doubt that Kirk was influential, no doubt that he had millions of devoted fans. But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”​

--------------------

ETA: Covering similar ground, I actually like this article better:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/charlie-kirk-ezra-klein-tanehisi-coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates engages in a pretty thorough takedown of not just Kirk, but also the (left-wing) media who are engaging in what he calls a "Lost Cause" revision of Kirk's body of work. It's easily the most well-cited piece of this sort I've come across and, of the quotes for which I checked the references, none appeared to be taken out of context.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A good take on things, IMO, from Jamelle Bouie:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.vy8R.MrGjYMJUcbTn&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There has been less agreement about Kirk’s life and work. Death tends to soften our tendency to judge. And sudden, violent death — especially one as gruesome and shocking as this one — can push us toward hagiography, especially in the immediate wake of the killing.​

​

So it goes for Kirk.​

<snip>​

There is no doubt that Kirk was influential, no doubt that he had millions of devoted fans. But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.​

​

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”​

That's one reason why I never, ever brought up my Christian faith in a 'multi-cultural / early D.E.I.' class back when I was taking my university studies. I knew that some of the professors, and some of the students, could become a little unhinged if I did. I wasn't paying good money just so I could set myself up for automatic failure.

Besides, pushing theology in an overly political setting, particularly one endeared to Leftist ideology / Marxism / Communism like in the university classes I attended, tended to be a bit of a bore.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A good take on things, IMO, from Jamelle Bouie:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.vy8R.MrGjYMJUcbTn&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There has been less agreement about Kirk’s life and work. Death tends to soften our tendency to judge. And sudden, violent death — especially one as gruesome and shocking as this one — can push us toward hagiography, especially in the immediate wake of the killing.​

​

So it goes for Kirk.​

<snip>​

There is no doubt that Kirk was influential, no doubt that he had millions of devoted fans. But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.​

​

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”​

Wow! That's interesting. I didn't know Kirk had made such a list and a website to go with it.

I'll have to see if anyone I studied under made it onto his list. It sure beats the now dated and partially discredited book by David Horowitz I've had stuffed away in a box for a number of years.

I can understand how being cited on such a list could be infuriating. It's definitely time for folks on all sides of the political spectrum to begin learning how to treat each other like human beings and be able to stomach sitting down at lunch and talking bilaterally about their respective perspectives. I'm sure Jesus would agree.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

A good take on things, IMO, from Jamelle Bouie:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.vy8R.MrGjYMJUcbTn&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There has been less agreement about Kirk’s life and work. Death tends to soften our tendency to judge. And sudden, violent death — especially one as gruesome and shocking as this one — can push us toward hagiography, especially in the immediate wake of the killing.​

​

So it goes for Kirk.​

<snip>​

There is no doubt that Kirk was influential, no doubt that he had millions of devoted fans. But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.​

​

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”​

Are we allowed to actually quote his stance on the many issues our society has overcome since the plight of the abolitionists ?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Are we allowed to actually quote his stance on the many issues our society has overcome since the plight of the abolitionists ?

sure?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

sure?

Nah...I am sure not.

 

[BPPLEE]

A good take on things, IMO, from Jamelle Bouie:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.vy8R.MrGjYMJUcbTn&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

There has been less agreement about Kirk’s life and work. Death tends to soften our tendency to judge. And sudden, violent death — especially one as gruesome and shocking as this one — can push us toward hagiography, especially in the immediate wake of the killing.​

​

So it goes for Kirk.​

<snip>​

There is no doubt that Kirk was influential, no doubt that he had millions of devoted fans. But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.​

​

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”​

So? Kirk was not a senator or a person of authority in any capacity.
What's wrong with calling out professors who discriminate against conservatives?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So? Kirk was not a senator or a person of authority in any capacity.
What's wrong with calling out professors who discriminate against conservatives?

Is.... not promoting the reversal of the14th -Civil Rights Amendment discriminating against conservatives?

 

[iluvatar5150]

What's wrong with calling out professors who discriminate against conservatives?

By the Watchlist's own description, that's not the entirety of what they catalog:

The mission of Professor Watchlist is to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.

Professor Watchlist is a carefully aggregated list sourced by published news stories detailing instances of radical behavior among college professors.

If it were solely about discrimination, I wouldn't care as much, but it isn't. I looked at the first dozen or so names on the list and only found one that even flirted with anything close to discrimination (a second listed alleged discrimination, but it was clearly specious). Some of the folks said some nasty things on twitter, but weren't alleged to have done anything improper in the classroom. Most were only even accused of espousing leftist or anti-racist ideologies. At least with the sample I saw, the site's emphasis was overwhelmingly on attacking undesirable speech and ideas, not misbehavior.

You can check for yourself:

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/

 

[BPPLEE]

Is.... not promoting the reversal of the14th -Civil Rights Amendment discriminating against conservatives?

No

 

[Tyler52]

But it is difficult to square this idealized portrait of Kirk as model citizen with the man as he was.

​

Kirk’s eulogists have praised him for his commitment to discourse, dialogue and good-faith discussion. Few if any of them have seen fit to mention the fact that Kirk’s first act on the national stage was to create a McCarthyite watchlist of college and university professors, lecturers and academics. Kirk urged visitors to the website to report those who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”​

What’s wrong with that? If your professor attempts to censor you in a place of free thought then something needs to be done to stop them. He stood up for what’s right, why would you attempt to criticize that? And if you do, why would you do it 4 days after it happened? Your post has made me realize that we have a problem with respecting the dead, and I might be the same. But shouldn’t silence be there until the mourners have had time to heal before we start criticizing people? Even if none see it, why don’t we respect the man by not going after him. This behavior is not fitting for Christians, and I’m glad I’ve realized this, through this post. I’m not better than you, so let’s both work to be better.

I would also like to add this question, is this the way we love our fallen brothers in the faith? Charlie was a Christian, and I hope he’s in heaven now, but regardless, is this how we honor God’s servants?

 

[iluvatar5150]

What’s wrong with that? If your professor attempts to censor you in a place of free thought then something needs to be done to stop them.

I answered this two posts before yours.

He stood up for what’s right, why would you attempt to criticize that? And if you do, why would you do it 4 days after it happened? Your post has made me realize that we have a problem with respecting the dead, and I might be the same. But shouldn’t silence be there until the mourners have had time to heal before we start criticizing people?

I don't generally have much sympathy for the notion or respecting the dead, but when his "mourners" are calling for civil war? lol, no.

Even if none see it, why don’t we respect the man by not going after him. This behavior is not fitting for Christians, and I’m glad I’ve realized this, through this post. I’m not better than you, so let’s both work to be better.

Tell ya what - I'll stop criticizing him when his fans stop gushing over him as if he was the messiah. Deal?

I would also like to add this question, is this the way we love our fallen brothers in the faith? Charlie was a Christian, and I hope he’s in heaven now, but regardless, is this how we honor God’s servants?

I don't believe he was serving anybody but himself.

 

[BPPLEE]

I answered this two posts before yours.



I don't generally have much sympathy for the notion or respecting the dead, but when his "mourners" are calling for civil war? lol, no.



Tell ya what - I'll stop criticizing him when his fans stop gushing over him as if he was the messiah. Deal?



I don't believe he was serving anybody but himself.

"Tell ya what - I'll stop criticizing him when his fans stop gushing over him as if he was the messiah. Deal?"

I'm sure it's not but this comes across as jealousy

 

[iluvatar5150]

"Tell ya what - I'll stop criticizing him when his fans stop gushing over him as if he was the messiah. Deal?"

I'm sure it's not but this comes across as jealousy

It’s not. It’s mostly bewilderment, similar to how I view many Trump fans.

 

[Servus]

It’s not. It’s mostly bewilderment, similar to how I view many Trump fans.

That view probably stems from the jargon that reverence towards those on the right for what they stand for, is cult worshipping them as the messiah. A bunch of fascist racist cultists.

 

[Juvenal]

But shouldn’t silence be there until the mourners have had time to heal before we start criticizing people?

While I will not be joining those mourning Charlie's death, out of deference to the bereaved I agree that it is "too soon" to engage in criticism of his life. My best wishes for peace for his family, friends, and supporters as they grieve. This is a tragedy for all Americans.

Independent of the character of his speech, he always delivered his speech with courage and civility.

 

[Matt5]

The article is pretty offensive.

Grok AI Summary:
Key Points from "Charlie Kirk Didn’t Shy Away From Who He Was. We Shouldn’t Either." by Jamelle Bouie:

1. Condemnation of Assassination: Virtually all notable American political figures condemned the killing of Charlie Kirk, expressing concerns about rising political violence.
2. Idealized Portrayals Post-Death: Following Kirk’s violent death, public figures like President Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom praised him as an influential figure who inspired millions through courage, logic, and spirited discourse.
3. Contrast with Kirk’s Actions: The article challenges the idealized image of Kirk, highlighting his controversial actions, including creating a McCarthyite "Professor Watchlist" to target academics who opposed conservative ideology, encouraging harassment.
4. Support for Authoritarian Measures: Kirk advocated for state suppression of political opponents, including legal intimidation of the left and support for Trump’s mass deportation plans, warning against dissent.
5. Role in January 6: Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, supported Trump’s "stop the steal" efforts by busing participants to the January 6, 2021, rally that led to the Capitol riot.
6. White Nationalist Rhetoric: Kirk promoted white nationalism, warning of a “great replacement” of white rural Americans and calling for a “citizen force” to protect “white demographics” at the border.
7. Racial and Social Commentary: Kirk made inflammatory remarks about Black Americans, falsely claiming high crime rates, and criticized figures like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Martin Luther King Jr., questioning the Civil Rights Act.
8. Anti-LGBTQ Stance: Kirk opposed transgender rights, calling for a nationwide ban on trans-affirming care and describing LGBTQ identities as a “social contagion.”
9. Influence on Trump Administration: Kirk’s ideas influenced Trump administration policies, including efforts to strip transgender recognition and implement anti-diversity measures in government.
10. Call for Honest Assessment: The author argues that while Kirk’s death is tragic, his legacy as a proponent of authoritarian politics and divisive rhetoric should not be whitewashed or mythologized.

Geiger Capital on X:

"Stephen Miller is going nuclear… “This is not fringe anymore. Tape, after tape. Federal workers, bureaucrats, educators, professors, nurses… people celebrating and cheering the assassination of Charlie Kirk! There is a domestic terrorist movement growing in this country.”

https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/1966696304186138854

Stephen Miller has the president's ear.

Of course, we all know everything starts with the universities. I would take a good look at them.

 

[Tyler52]

I answered this two posts before yours.



I don't generally have much sympathy for the notion or respecting the dead, but when his "mourners" are calling for civil war? lol, no.

Who? The people I listen to as far as I know are not, and Charlie was against civil war. Who is advocating this who is a serious public figure? If no one, then who cares what random people on the internet say?

Tell ya what - I'll stop criticizing him when his fans stop gushing over him as if he was the messiah. Deal?

How are they doing this? They feel as though they lost a friend. I’m sure that people felt the same after Kennedy and Lincoln am I wrong? This is a tragedy for America, one of our greatest minds and (even if you disagree with the first statement) most influential people has been snuffed out at the age of 31. This was a huge hit to conservatives.

I don't believe he was serving anybody but himself.

Do you know him? Do you know that? What does his pastor say whoever he is? Most importantly, has God told you the man’s heart?

“But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)
or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);”
Romans 10:6-8

 

[Tyler52]

That view probably stems from the jargon that reverence towards those on the right for what they stand for, is cult worshipping them as the messiah. A bunch of fascist racist cultists.

I’m on the right and I stand for neither of these things. Nor am I a fascist. I’m very much opposed to fascism, and I know of no fascist on the mainstream right. If you mean to say that trump is a fascist, he is not, he would’ve been normal in the 90s and as far as I’m aware Opera was fine with him advocating for a border wall in the 90s while he was on her show. Not to mention that he was a democrat until 2008.

 

[stevevw]

Theres been an interesting situation happening in parliaments, congress and the EU around members objecting to holding a minutes silence for Kirk. The US member chose to give his time to a minutes silence and other EU members began to chant and bang tables in protest.

What is going on. This has really sparked a divide and I am not sure this is going to be sorted with people ever coming together. Its like a doubling down of division. People declaring sides. No longer willing to stand together even in such a major national and now world stage event. THis is not good.

I think the whole idea of arguing for or against whether we should condemn the act for what it was. A henius act of evil fullstop. The idea of qualifying and arguing whether Kirk was deserving of the recognition that an innocent man was killed fullstop.

Qualifying him as whether he is innocent or guilty is completely seperate to acknowledging that a person has been murdered fullstop. Even if KIrk said some stupid things. Even done some stupid things and there are people who we forgive in the same position as Kirk. Its still completely evil to kill someone. To as a citizen gun down people who you percieve as wrong or doing wrong.

Its such a subjective thing and silly to get into debates as its always going to be personal views. The fact is an innocent man as far as not derserving to be executed was murdered. If we are arguing what is deserving of death for saying and doing stupid things then we would have possies everywhere gunning down those percieved to be bad.

But what I find concerning is that there is a whole subculture out there growing that actually are happy and celebrating Kirks death and I think its not going to deminish. Its not only going to be KIrk. What people don't realise I think is the horse has already bolted and home grown terror has been culivated for some time. Now its coming out. This is not just the US but all western nations.