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

[stevevw]

That's fine, but whether or not he deserved to be murdered isn't the only point being tossed around. I don't think I've come across any serious person who thinks that he deserved it. I certainly don't. And while I'm sure some do, I'm not on Twitter or TikTok, so I don't run into them. Regardless, there are other claims about him that are being tossed around, like how great of a man he was and what sort of legacy he left behind. It's those that I'm addressing in this thread. Folks can debate his legacy while still acknowledging that he didn't deserve this.

I am not sure that this is easy to seperate. At least right now as its too early and trying to sort out his legacy or not seems part of the issue of whether he was a good man or not and then can easy in this political climate be turned into whether he deserved it or not.

The whole thing seems a crazy phenomena for what basically is someone who before this we would say did not hold such a divided and prominant place in peoples minds. Almost like their death itself and how it happened is bigger than the person themselves. Something cultural has been released that perhaps was already being felt but now more unleased.

Yes, there's been plenty of bad rhetoric on both sides.

I disagree. I am talking about the clear and explicit language of calling for the murder of people for these beliefs and views. This has been from the radical Left from talk of putting targets on the president to blantantly celebrqating the killing of people with opposing beliefs. A survey was done which showed 1/3 of dems would have like it if Trumps assassination attempt was successful.

This talk has brought the radicals to come out and actually do it. Its only early days but I think we will find that this radicalisation has been explicitley cultivated in the insitutions. There have been clear signs of connections to radical groups who support violence. This was never called out and allowed to fester.

There is a difference between expressing a belief or view and calling or supporting violence against fellow humans. I don't think Kirk ever supported that.

One big difference I perceive is that the prominent media voices on the left largely don't toss around comments such as Kirk's about Biden deserving the death penalty. IME, that kind of stuff gets tossed around on in prominent right-wing all the time. It's hard to gauge how seriously to take it much of the time, but it's there. When similar rhetoric gets tossed around on the left, it's usually just by randos with little-to-no audience.

Yet the Left media were not shy of conflating everything else. Turning peoples words into hate and something they did not say. We have clear evidence that it was the bias of the Left media that has caused most of this.

Anyway as a result we have people clearly celebrating the murder of an opposing belief and voice just like they cancelled 1,00s of voices in the past. Its not really about what exactly someone said and whether it was good or bad in certain peoples eyes. Its that people are willing to take out opposing beliefs and views by violence and even killing.

Thats the concern of where the culture is at and a much bigger issue. How this itself has been able to be cultivated and is now spilling into reality as the logical conclusion of cultivating such hate.

I tend to see things more prgamatically because peoples words and what they truely represent by those words and narratives created are not necessarily a true representation. We see people say words or are attributed words or certain meanings or those words and then they actually live the complete opposite.

For me Kirk lived the words and principles he spoke despite that he may have (SAID) the wrong thing on occassions. If he was as some say a facist or called for the unfair death of some then he did not live that. We could find 1,000s of words and actions of the complete opposite of what he is being accussed of.

He never took drugs, did crime, physically abused anyone, had a strong marriage and beautiful family, worked hard, sacrificed a lot to get where he was, was going into places where he was hated by some but still welcomed them, gave a platform for minority voices and often prayed for and wished for their best in life no matter who they were or what they believed.

So I tend to go with how a person actually lives rather than the few bad words which could mean a number of things. But certainly I have seen from most of the people who claim he is hateful themselves accomodating worse and even explicit hate in rhetoric as being ok because it was supporting something they believed.

Basically what I am saying is despite all this Charlie lived his belief on those campuses and in meeting those who disagreed and even hated him for it. He was still willing without hate to hear opposing views and talk it out in the persuit of truth. NOt hos but truth itself. Which was a fundemental principle of academia. Yet he was not an academic.

The standard for getting axed seems to have been, in at least several cases, merely criticizing him like I've been doing here. So, I wouldn't use that as your benchmark.

I think it was more than that. It was criticising as a way to justify what happened. To make it political.

The imbalance that some Left media and radicals go to that all balance is lost and its completely one sided so obviously so that any normal person would not display. Even many dems are now acknowledging this.

As I said in normal situations despite someone saying an occassional wrong thing we recognised first and foremost that this is wrong, its evil as its murder no matter what. But teh emphasis and focus for some was purposely to make it something else. This is the ideological over reach that has been plaguing society and the culture wars.

But some think in themselves it is justified because a percieved wrong was done to them or the greater society. Almost like the IRA and civil rights radicals who believed that violence was ok because it was stopping a greater danager ect ecte ect.

Its the ideological mindset that people don't realise is the problem not the individuals words and the subjective meaning of them. That they are willing to defy reality and plain obvious morality in the name of what amounts to their own belief. They are killing for their beliefs based on their own belief.

Which is the exact same thinking as all the radicals in the world. What people don't realise that the US and other western nations who use to say that sort of thinking and radicalisation was in far distant lands is now on their doorstep and its being cultivated. So much so that many think this radical and extreme thinking is the moral things to do.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The whole thing seems a crazy phenomena for what basically is someone who before this we would say did not hold such a divided and prominant place in peoples minds. Almost like their death itself and how it happened is bigger than the person themselves. Something cultural has been released that perhaps was already being felt but now more unleased.

eh... Kirk was pretty prominent before his death. Maybe not plastered-on-the-front-page prominent, but he was not a bit player by any means. He's always been divisive. His on-campus "debates" might have had the veneer of civility, but his show and TPUSA's other stuff have always been right-wing ragebait.

I disagree. I am talking about the clear and explicit language of calling for the murder of people for these beliefs and views. This has been from the radical Left from talk of putting targets on the president to blantantly celebrqating the killing of people with opposing beliefs. A survey was done which showed 1/3 of dems would have like it if Trumps assassination attempt was successful.

I know what you're talking about and you're wrong. Perhaps you're not aware of it happening on the right; perhaps the way in which it's delivered just makes it easy to not notice (which is definitely a thing). Kirk himself said Biden deserved the death penalty. Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, just recently, said Obama was guilty of treason (which can be punishable by death). Trump, in the past, has half-jokingly suggested various Dems and media members deserve to be beaten up. One of his first acts in his second term was to pardon all of the J6 insurrectionists, including the ones who were clearly guilty of political violence.

How much stuff has been directed at the Clintons? The supposed murder list; pizzagate; and "lock her up" all, at a minimum, suggest using the power and threat of violence by the state to imprison them (particularly Hillary).

When this stuff comes up on the left, it's predominantly random nobodies who are spreading it around. But on the right, this rhetoric comes right from the top - from the prominent national-level politicians and from the most prominent media figures. You don't have Chuck Schumer, out there, for example, encouraging Antifa to go make some noise. Rachel Maddow hasn't, as far as I'm aware, said Trump should be executed.

There is a difference between expressing a belief or view and calling or supporting violence against fellow humans. I don't think Kirk ever supported that.

He may not have supported it, but he certainly leaned on it in his rhetoric because over-the-top language gets views. That's been a thing in right-wing media for a long time - talking all kinds of crazy stuff without necessarily meaning it. Most of the people at Fox didn't believe the election was stolen, but they kept putting it on the air anyways. Does Alex Jones actually believe that Sandy Hook was fake? I don't know, but he certainly pushed that idea, because it made him a lot of money.

I tend to see things more prgamatically because peoples words and what they truely represent by those words and narratives created are not necessarily a true representation. We see people say words or are attributed words or certain meanings or those words and then they actually live the complete opposite.

So, in your mind, it's okay to cajole others into doing bad things, so long as you don't do the bad things yourself? Charles Manson never killed anybody, so he must be pretty okay then?

This is how you sane wash people.

Note that the leftists you're complaining about who cheered on Kirk's murder and who encourage the killings of others - they're also just saying stuff. They're not out there killing people. Why do you have a problem with their violent rhetoric, but excuse the same thing on the right?

 

[stevevw]

From your link (dated 2020):

​

​

THE ISSUE​

The United States faces a growing terrorism problem that will likely worsen over the next year. Based on a CSIS data set of terrorist incidents, the most significant threat likely comes from white supremacists, though anarchists and religious extremists inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda could present a potential threat as well. Over the rest of 2020, the terrorist threat in the United States will likely rise based on several factors, including the November 2020 presidential election.​

​

...This analysis makes several arguments. First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors. One of the most concerning is the 2020 U.S. presidential election, before and after which extremists may resort to violence, depending on the outcome of the election. Far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests, raising the possibility of escalating violence during the election period.​

​

Fair enough and I am not taking sides on this but rather making a cultural wide observation beyond politics. I think radicalism is growing on both sides. It has cycles where one side is more dominant which spurs the opposite reaction. Its been that way for decades if not centuries.

But it seems its becoming more mainstream. As I said the fringes of both sides are coming to the center and dominating power or influecing the narratives. The latest spkie is from the Left. When I say latest I mean in the last 5 years. But this cycle may go back to 10 or more years when identity politics began to infiltrate politics.

This is what seems to have escalated things into a new radicalism. The personalisation of politics. Making political beliefs and views a matter of life and death. If you hold a different view its almost like your going to destroy democracy and reality lol.

We have seen the symptoms like PC, Cancel culture, policing of words, deplatforming, people losing jobs for saying or believing the wrong. It ramped up into the last election where the hate speech became the norm and talk of taking out or disowning those who disagreed.

This was mainly fueled by Leftist ideology that had permeated the universities and spread into the institutions and mainstream society. We can see its development and cultivation. We can cite the ideas that were promoted which has led to this situation.

But like I said this is not the point. It doesn't matter as both sides are doing and murder is murder and truth is truth. Its what we do now and celebrating murder of a political opponent or arguing that somehow Kirk is to blame for his own murder is the worst thing to do if things are going to change.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Fair enough and I am not taking sides on this but rather making a cultural wide observation beyond politics. I think radicalism is growing on both sides. It has cycles where one side is more dominant which spurs the opposite reaction. Its been that way for decades if not centuries.

But it seems the latest spkie is from the Left. When I say latest I mean in the last 5 years. But this cycle may go back to 10 or more years when identity politics began to infiltrate politics. THis is what seems to have escalated things into a new radicalism.

Why does it seem like that spike is from the Left? The same day as the Kirk murder, a righty-wing white supremacist shot up a high school. A few months ago, a crazy right-winger murdered a MN state legislator and her husband, shot another and his wife, and had plans to kill a bunch more.

Jan 6 aside, the left may have a near-monopoly on large-scale public upheavals like riots (though in many cases, the police seem to provide as much fuel to those fires), but when it comes to killings, or attempted killings, it's been predominantly right-wing ideology driving it.

We have seen the symptoms like PC, Cancel culture, policing of words, deplatforming, people losing jobs for saying or believing the wrong. It ramped up into the last election where the hate speech became the norm and talk of taking out or disowning those who disagreed.

This was mainly fueled by Leftist ideas that had permeated the universities culminating with the rise of antisemetism. Which spread into the institutions and mainstream society.

"Cancel culture" has been a hallmark of conservative culture since the beginning of human history. There was loads of "cancel culture" during segregation when folks dared integrate their private businesses. There was loads of "cancel culture" during the red scare when professors and entertainers were black listed. There was loads of "cancel culture" directed at the LGBTQ community up until very recently when their rights were finally enshrined in law - not just for things like wedding cakes, but for protections against discrimination in employment and housing situations.

What happened is not that the left invented "cancel culture." What happened is that the left developed and started enforcing its own sort of dogmatic orthodoxy, just like the right had already been doing for millennia. Essentially, it's a form of left-wing conservatism.

 

[durangodawood]

.....When this stuff comes up on the left, it's predominantly random nobodies who are spreading it around. But on the right, this rhetoric comes right from the top - from the prominent national-level politicians and from the most prominent media figures. You don't have Chuck Schumer, out there, for example, encouraging Antifa to go make some noise. Rachel Maddow hasn't, as far as I'm aware, said Trump should be executed.....

Yes. Mainstream right is infected with this stuff.

 

[DaisyDay]

Fair enough and I am not taking sides on this but rather making a cultural wide observation beyond politics. I think radicalism is growing on both sides. It has cycles where one side is more dominant which spurs the opposite reaction. Its been that way for decades if not centuries.

But it seems its becoming more mainstream. As I said the fringes of both sides are coming to the center and dominating power or influecing the narratives. The latest spkie is from the Left. When I say latest I mean in the last 5 years. But this cycle may go back to 10 or more years when identity politics began to infiltrate politics.

Politics has always been about identity, us vs them. It is likely that this just came to your attention in the last 5 years as the cycle is far older.

This is what seems to have escalated things into a new radicalism. The personalisation of politics. Making political beliefs and views a matter of life and death. If you hold a different view its almost like your going to destroy democracy and reality lol.

Radicalism isn't new, but perhaps it has become more mainstream.

We have seen the symptoms like PC, Cancel culture, policing of words, deplatforming, people losing jobs for saying or believing the wrong. It ramped up into the last election where the hate speech became the norm and talk of taking out or disowning those who disagreed.

This goes back a long, long ways. Do you not remember Bill O'Reilly every year promoting the so-called War on Christmas? Starbuck's December coffee containers were deemed insufficiently Christmasy. Dick's Sporting Goods' ads said "Season's Greetings". On and on, every year until he was booted for costing too much in hush money for sexual harassment. But it goes back much further than that:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/war-on-christmas-short-history-101222/

In 1959, it was the far-right John Birch Society that published a pamphlet alerting the nation to an "assault on Christmas" carried out by "UN fanatics...What they now want to put over on the American people is simply this: Department stores throughout the country are to utilize UN symbols and emblems as Christmas decorations.”

...
The modern American War on Christmas began “pretty much 10 years ago,” Fox News host Bill O’Reilly recalled earlier this month in a conversation with Sarah Palin (the former would-be veep was promoting her new book, Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas). It was sparked in part, he said, by “major corporations [that] ordered their employees not to say ‘Merry Christmas.’”

He got the date slightly wrong. It was actually nine years ago, almost to the day, on Dec. 7th, 2004, that The O'Reilly Factor first aired a segment on “Christmas Under Siege” and, in so doing, appears to have launched The War Over Christmas as we know it.
​

This year, government ranks, including career civil servants and the top military brass, has been purged of "DEI". Loyalty to the leader, not the country is prerequisite for employment in civil service. Students have been deported for criticizing Israel or sympathizing with Palestinians.

This was mainly fueled by Leftist ideology that had permeated the universities and spread into the institutions and mainstream society. We can see its development and cultivation. We can cite the ideas that were promoted which has led to this situation.

More likely, you only noticed the stuff you don't like. Kirk got his rise to fame targeting college professors and getting them removed for being supposedly anticonservative. How can you have missed the more recent antiwoke/anti-DEI initiatives? You might have seen the successful cancel campaigns against Target and Bud Lite.

But like I said this is not the point. It doesn't matter as both sides are doing and murder is murder and truth is truth. Its what we do now and celebrating murder of a political opponent or arguing that somehow Kirk is to blame for his own murder is the worst thing to do if things are going to change.

The scary thing for the left is the government getting involved with punishing people for their speech. For a workplace to do so is their prerogative, but the governmental overreach is concerning. That nobody is allowed to criticize Kirk or face government retribution is a few steps in the wrong direction. Assassination is shocking and wrong but that doesn't make Kirk an untouchable saint.

 

[The Barbarian]

"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.”

Miller has declared freedom of speech to be "a growing domestic terrorist movement." Exactly what people predicted would happen in a Trump administration. Kirk was not a very nice guy, and it's not surprising that a lot of people would say so. While his killing coincides with his break with the Trump administration on the Epstein files, there were plenty of people not involved with Epstein who didn't like him.

The killing of 31-year-old conservative activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk has reignited attention on a long-simmering feud within elements of the far right. The differences between Kirk and the so-called "Groyper" movement led by white nationalist Nick Fuentes is again back in spotlight.
Charlie Kirk critic Nick Fuentes fantasied about marrying 16-year-old, compared Jews killed by Nazis to 'cookies baked in oven'

Regardless, in a free country, any person is entitled First Amendment protection of speech. Miller and his crew are looking to put an end to it.

 

[The Barbarian]

The scary thing for the left is the government getting involved with punishing people for their speech. For a workplace to do so is their prerogative, but the governmental overreach is concerning. That nobody is allowed to criticize Kirk or face government retribution is a few steps in the wrong direction. Assassination is shocking and wrong but that doesn't make Kirk an untouchable saint.

Exactly.

 

[stevevw]

Why does it seem like that spike is from the Left? The same day as the Kirk murder, a righty-wing white supremacist shot up a high school. A few months ago, a crazy right-winger murdered a MN state legislator and her husband, shot another and his wife, and had plans to kill a bunch more.

Jan 6 aside, the left may have a near-monopoly on large-scale public upheavals like riots (though in many cases, the police seem to provide as much fuel to those fires), but when it comes to killings, or attempted killings, it's been predominantly right-wing ideology driving it.



"Cancel culture" has been a hallmark of conservative culture since the beginning of human history. There was loads of "cancel culture" during segregation when folks dared integrate their private businesses. There was loads of "cancel culture" during the red scare when professors and entertainers were black listed. There was loads of "cancel culture" directed at the LGBTQ community up until very recently when their rights were finally enshrined in law - not just for things like wedding cakes, but for protections against discrimination in employment and housing situations.

What happened is not that the left invented "cancel culture." What happened is that the left developed and started enforcing its own sort of dogmatic orthodoxy, just like the right had already been doing for millennia. Essentially, it's a form of left-wing conservatism.

Le I said its from both sides and the current celebrating and justifying of his murder doesn't help.

 

[stevevw]

Miller has declared freedom of speech to be "a growing domestic terrorist movement." Exactly what people predicted would happen in a Trump administration. Kirk was not a very nice guy, and it's not surprising that a lot of people would say so. While his killing coincides with his break with the Trump administration on the Epstein files, there were plenty of people not involved with Epstein who didn't like him.

The killing of 31-year-old conservative activist and Trump ally Charlie Kirk has reignited attention on a long-simmering feud within elements of the far right. The differences between Kirk and the so-called "Groyper" movement led by white nationalist Nick Fuentes is again back in spotlight.
Charlie Kirk critic Nick Fuentes fantasied about marrying 16-year-old, compared Jews killed by Nazis to 'cookies baked in oven'

Regardless, in a free country, any person is entitled First Amendment protection of speech. Miller and his crew are looking to put an end to it.

Le I said its from both sides and the current celebrating and justifying of his murder doesn't help.

 

[Juvenal]

Le I said its from both sides and the current celebrating and justifying of his murder doesn't help.

Charlie Kirk justified his own murder. That's what really doesn't help.

 

[stevevw]

Charlie Kirk justified his own murder. That's what really doesn't help.

I don't know what that even means. Are you actually saying KIrk caused his own murder. Its actually Kirks fault and not the murderer.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I don't know what that even means.

Kirk said some number of deaths are acceptable to keep the second amendment.

 

[The Barbarian]

Kirk said some number of deaths are acceptable to keep the second amendment.

I think he was just parroting right wing slogans there. His concern that Epstein's associates might escape, and his refusal to acceptably condemn LGBTQ people shows that he had a conscience.. Irony is, that's what might have killed him; the extreme far right hated him for it.

 

[NxNW]

I don't know what that even means. Are you actually saying KIrk caused his own murder. Its actually Kirks fault and not the murderer.

Kirk said, "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

As a result of that, this cartoon is getting a lot of press: