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

[Servus]

 

[mark46]

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.”​

Do you think that leftists don't try to have list of those who discriminate against leftist students in the classroom? Do both far right and farleft student groups and professors try to remove such teachers?

Sure, they do. Also, comparing such activity to McCarthy is true overkill and tells the reader that one doesn't understand the McCarthy era in American politics. In a sense, it is similar to the constant comparing of Trump and white supremacists to Hitler.

 

[7thKeeper]

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.

I'm sorry, but why should he be given a minute of silence in parliaments/congresses in EU? By the way, you worded that really badly, I have no actual clue as to what place exactly you mean. He's just a US political influencer, not even an elected person. He's not really known in the EU almost at all except for some pretty outrageous things he's said. So... Why?

 

[mark46]

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.”​

We should not celebrate Charlie Kirk's ideas.

Rather we should celebrate his right IN THE US to express such beliefs. He died as a martyr to free speech, an American experiment. He was shot in the throat while debating issues in the public square.

Charlie Kirk was willing to debate anyone. His life was devoted to bringing political and civic awareness to college students and to encourage them to debate and discuss issues with those with whom they disagreed.
=========
Trump, those on the far left and those on the far right all attempt to punish those who speak positions with which they disagree. There is less and less discussion between those of different views. Most of America lives in their silos and refuse to discuss issues with others.
=======
There are others that reach out and encourage discussion between those of opposite views. They are view and far between. Charlie Kirk devoted his entire life to free speech and to discussion. And, of course, the first thing folks want to do is to ask "what about this or that" with regard to his life.

 

[durangodawood]

....Charlie Kirk was willing to debate anyone.....

Was he? That would be impressive. I picture most people in his game as canny controllers of the mic who use their position rather than their arguments to shut down others when really challenged.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

I don't think all of his "mourners" as you've identified them are calling for civil war. Although, while I'm at it, I will say that I find such a call, made by anyone on either side of the political spectrum, whether left or right, to be despicable. We don't need that kind of talk and it needs to stop just as much as a call for "revolution" does since it is likewise despicable and needs to stop, along with all of the stereotyping and demonizing that each political side does of the other.

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

For myself, I barely knew about Kirk when this tragic event took place. I had seen him a while back on YouTube where he had a discussion with Bill Maher and then also where he debated a couple of dozen liberal college students. And that's all I knew about him until recently.

But, now I know more.

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

Or, he really believed his denominational angle, just like you apparently do with yours.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Or, your religion wasn't relevant to the class discussion and was shared by most of the students.

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.

Theology pushing is always a bore, here, there, and everywhere.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Or, your religion wasn't relevant to the class discussion and was shared by most of the students.

Hans, it's usually not good for someone such as yourself to aver a "better interpretation" about someone else's ongoing, semester long experiences with certain professors and fellow students, especially if that someone, again such as yourself, wasn't there.

And actually, sometimes, such as in a class specifically about "multi-culturalism" as it was then called, religion was at times a relevant aspect to consider.

Theology pushing is always a bore, here, there, and everywhere.

It's really wasn't always a bore; it's just that they tended to overreact too easily, BUT I had other ways to stymie their all too easily derived sets of bloated Marxist assumptions. I didn't always disagree with what was taught in class, but when I did, I presented some humdingers that caused them to say, "Gee....................I hadn't thought of that before, or Gee...................I was criticizing religion (or Christianity) from the position of a hyper liberal or Communist, and I didn't really know what I was talking about. I'm sorry I misspoke as someone credentialed to be a scholar on the topic of education and on the essence of how I think the derision of religion plays a part in the politics permeating the chosen class curriculum, whether Formal ........................ or Hidden."

And go ahead and tell me now how much you don't care about any of that. Which is why, of course, you felt you had to chime in-----because you "don't care."

 

[stevevw]

I'm sorry, but why should he be given a minute of silence in parliaments/congresses in EU? By the way, you worded that really badly, I have no actual clue as to what place exactly you mean. He's just a US political influencer, not even an elected person. He's not really known in the EU almost at all except for some pretty outrageous things he's said. So... Why?

I think from what I read it was something to do with a precedent that was set when the EU evidently did the same when George Floyd was killed. I think it was about recognising another tragic event that has rocked the world. Just like Floyd did.

I was just mentioning the level of reaction for something I thought was also a world event and a reasonable request. Also that the local house of reps also objected to the minute silence. Which I thought was also reasonable under the circumstances.

Not a good start to trying to mend differences. I would have thought as a gesture even if some don't agree to just respect the taking of an innocent life that has rocked the nation and world. It is a big talking point here in Australia. I don't think you realise how much what is happening in the US affects the world. Or at least the free nations who subscribe to similar politics, principles and philosophy.

https://people.com/house-floor-chaos-after-charlie-kirk-moment-of-silence-11808099

 

[stevevw]

 

[7thKeeper]

I think from what I read it was something to do with a precedent that was set when the EU evidently did the same when George Floyd was killed. I think it was about recognising another tragic event that has rocked the world. Just like Floyd did.

Eeh, I don't really see the situations as the same. Floyd was killed by a police officer, a representative of the government and was seen during that time as more of a human/civil rights issue.
This is an apparently crazed killer, whose motive is still unclear who shot someone without larger implications for anything really, especially since the killer was just a single person without belonging to a larger entity like the government.
And quite frankly, his stance on Ukraine and some of the other things he's said garnered him no friends. Maybe among the far right/pro-Russia segments though.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hans, it's usually not good for someone such as yourself to aver a "better interpretation" about someone else's ongoing, semester long experiences with certain professors and fellow students, especially if that someone, again such as yourself, wasn't there.

Anyone who went to college since the 80s or so took at least one of those multicultural classes. I did. Everyone at my university did, even the engineers. Then there was the orientation, the convocations, and the editorials in the student papers.

And actually, sometimes, such as in a class specifically about "multi-culturalism" as it was then called, religion was at times a relevant aspect to consider.

Indeed it can be, but I don't get why being a Christian put you into some minority among the students. You're not young enough to have been in a freshman class that wasn't majority Christian. Unless you were one of *those* Christians that had to start their comments in class with "As a Christian..." while the rest of us just cringed and avoided the discussion. (or thought "so that's what Protestants are like...")

It's really wasn't always a bore; it's just that they tended to overreact too easily, BUT I had other ways to stymie their all too easily derived sets of bloated Marxist assumptions.

Marxism isn't a theology.

I didn't always disagree with what was taught in class, but when I did, I presented some humdingers that caused them to say, "Gee....................I hadn't thought of that before, or Gee...................I was criticizing religion (or Christianity) from the position of a hyper liberal or Communist, and I didn't really know what I was talking about.
I'm sorry I misspoke as someone credentialed to be a scholar on the topic of education and on the essence of how I think the derision of religion plays a part in the politics permeating the chosen class curriculum, whether Formal ........................ or Hidden."

Seems likely, Jan.

And go ahead and tell me now how much you don't care about any of that. Which is why, of course, you felt you had to chime in-----because you "don't care."

Well, I do care about your persecution complex, and especially the general Christian persecution complex whinging about "liberal professors" (as they have for at least a century) as it is the basis for one of things Kirk and TP USA did for a long time -- paint targets on professors who's ideology they did not like with their "Professor Watchlist" (or whatever exactly it was called).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Anyone who went to college since the 80s or so took at least one of those multicultural classes. I did. Everyone at my university did, even the engineers. Then there was the orientation, the convocations, and the editorials in the student papers.

Indeed it can be, but I don't get why being a Christian put you into some minority among the students. You're not young enough to have been in a freshman class that wasn't majority Christian. Unless you were one of *those* Christians that had to start their comments in class with "As a Christian..." while the rest of us just cringed and avoided the discussion. (or thought "so that's what Protestants are like...")

Marxism isn't a theology.

Seems likely, Jan.

Well, I do care about your persecution complex, and especially the general Christian persecution complex whinging about "liberal professors" (as they have for at least a century) as it is the basis for one of things Kirk and TP USA did for a long time -- paint targets on professors who's ideology they did not like with their "Professor Watchlist" (or whatever exactly it was called).

Thank you for equitably and fairly stereotyping me and, with your obviously incisive and clear understanding, placing me firmly and squarely within the realm of whatever notions of "the political other" you may be harboring in your mind at this very moment.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Do you think that leftists don't try to have list of those who discriminate against leftist students in the classroom? Do both far right and farleft student groups and professors try to remove such teachers?

Sure, they do. Also, comparing such activity to McCarthy is true overkill and tells the reader that one doesn't understand the McCarthy era in American politics. In a sense, it is similar to the constant comparing of Trump and white supremacists to Hitler.

Sure they do. But just as I don’t think leftist cancel culture advocates should be lauded as advocates of free speech, neither do I think Kirk should be.

Or, he really believed his denominational angle, just like you apparently do with yours.

I think anybody who’s media presence is built around proving themselves smarter than X is doing it for themselves, including a host of people on the left.

 

[Juvenal]

It seems this thread is moving slowly enough to tempt me into conversation.

Whatever solidarity his supporters may feel with the lamented Charlie Kirk, they will never be Charlie Kirk. None of them nor TPUSA are trained public speakers ready to take up his singular promotional style. Nor are his ad hoc positions, taken up and abandoned at his personal whim, a moveable feast set for successors to carry on.

Arguably, not even Charlie Kirk could be Charlie Kirk.

From the million students who famously never showed up for Trump 2020 to the 80 buses that were never needed to deliver the 350 students he recruited to support the "Civil War" he promoted for J6 when Trump lost. Kirk was a critic of college education who dropped out before attending a single class.

Silencing MLK didn't stop the Civil Rights Movement because it gained appeal with a majority of Americans.

Kirk's TPUSA has not gained appeal with even a majority of the college students who Kirk would know, if Kirk had actually attended college, actually set the tone and politics on campus for their professors, and not the other way around.

The Chicago Statement on Free Expression was created to preserve academic freedom under assault from a more liberal — some would say more coddled — student body, because that has always been the dominant force on campus.

 

[Servus]

It seems this thread is moving slowly enough to tempt me into conversation.

Whatever solidarity his supporters may feel with the lamented Charlie Kirk, they will never be Charlie Kirk. None of them nor TPUSA are trained public speakers ready to take up his singular promotional style. Nor are his ad hoc positions, taken up and abandoned at his personal whim, a moveable feast set for successors to carry on.

Arguably, not even Charlie Kirk could be Charlie Kirk.

From the million students who famously never showed up for Trump 2020 to the 80 buses that were never needed to deliver the 350 students he recruited to support the "Civil War" he promoted for J6 when Trump lost. Kirk was a critic of college education who dropped out before attending a single class.

Silencing MLK didn't stop the Civil Rights Movement because it gained appeal with a majority of Americans.

Kirk's TPUSA has not gained appeal with even a majority of the college students who Kirk would know, if Kirk had actually attended college, actually set the tone and politics on campus for their professors, and not the other way around.

The Chicago Statement on Free Expression was created to preserve academic freedom under assault from a more liberal — some would say more coddled — student body, because that has always been the dominant force on campus.

Charlie Kirk wasn't $200,000 in debt for a degree that got him nothing unlike zillions of college graduates. Also it's way too premature to say where things will go in the aftermath of his assassination. Although the fact that the Democratic party is failing so badly, even according to democrats themselves, indicates that appeal is going towards what Turning Point stands for. Which has probably just been greatly accelerated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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



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/

What a horribly designed website. (And it looks like nothing more than a collection of TP USA's political enemies in academic robes.)

 

[stevevw]

Eeh, I don't really see the situations as the same. Floyd was killed by a police officer, a representative of the government and was seen during that time as more of a human/civil rights issue.
This is an apparently crazed killer, whose motive is still unclear who shot someone without larger implications for anything really, especially since the killer was just a single person without belonging to a larger entity like the government.
And quite frankly, his stance on Ukraine and some of the other things he's said garnered him no friends. Maybe among the far right/pro-Russia segments though.

Actually Kirk I think has become a symbol of free speech and I think thats why his death resinated around the world in free nations who support these freedoms.

I think you will find many people see Kirks death as part of a bigger ongoing issue that has been brewing for some time. The rise of political violence against opponents which is also happening in Europe and Britain.

That the gunman was radicalised by the same thinking that has been behind attempts on Trump and the growing attacks and assassinations of high profile people for political reasons.

KIrks gunman may have been solo, though we don't know yet. But his radicalisation is part of a national issue that is cultivating such violence. Especially in universities. But also politics itself such as the growth of radical groups on campus and in the wider community. Not denouncing antisemetism and other violence and even sending a signal that violence is ok as a means to stop opponents.

There are similarities between Trumps killer and Kirks. This is the result of the radicalisation of US politics. Thats why Kirks death is such a significant event. Because its gone from politicians to now anyone who is in the public square such as journalists, preachers, political commentators, high profile bloggers who have said similar stuff to Charile.

 

[7thKeeper]

Charlie Kirk wasn't $200,000 in debt for a degree that got him nothing unlike zillions of college graduates.

... So? What does that have to do with anything? If you're criticizing how expensive education is in the USA, that's a topic for a different thread.

Also it's way too premature to say where things will go in the aftermath of his assassination. Although the fact that the Democratic party is failing so badly, even according to democrats themselves, indicates that appeal is going towards what Turning Point stands for. Which has probably just been greatly accelerated.

Both parties are quite unpopular in the USA, though according to Gallup, in 2025 party affiliation has shifted to favour the Democrats. But right now I suspect nothing much will come out of this in the long run. Hundreds of children have been shot in schools by crazed killers of one sort or another over the past two decades and nothing has been done about it. Several politicians even have been shot, with nothing happening.

 

[Juvenal]

Charlie Kirk wasn't $200,000 in debt for a degree that got him nothing unlike zillions of college graduates. Also it's way too premature to say where things will go in the aftermath of his assassination. Although the fact that the Democratic party is failing so badly, even according to democrats themselves, indicates that appeal is going towards what Turning Point stands for. Which has probably just been greatly accelerated.

Thank you for your thoughts, and indeed, for a demonstration of my thesis. This is far less than any response I'd expect from Charlie Kirk.

• $200,000 is excessive, an outlier, and neglects the student aid that more often leads to graduation without student debt.
• A "zillion" is not a number.
• TPUSA will not go in the direction Kirk intended now that he is no longer playing a role.
• The success of TPUSA is not linked to the success of the Democratic Party.
• TPUSA, being a populist movement, has never stood for anything in particular.

TPUSA, outside Kirk's personalized outreach, is better known for its efforts to suppress free speech than for defending it, and in that is no better than the masked antifa mobs providing a heckler's veto over conservative speakers they were afraid to hear out.

Charlie Kirk died demonstrating that he was personally capable of acting otherwise, attracting interlocutors who demonstrated they were capable of doing the same.