It would be wonderful if everyone would just do the research before repeating claims and bearing false witness. Even if the source is trusted--in fact, especially if the source is trusted--we all need to verify that our sources are genuine and accurate. We now live in a world of openly biased news media, and it stands to reason that if you learn something from a media source that is hell-bent on destroying the reputation, character, and credibility of anyone who speaks out in opposition to that source's base ideology, that information might be skewed or even inaccurate. Please, everyone, do the research. Know what you're saying is true before you say it even one more time--and DO NOT become complacent in trusting a source that tells you what you want to hear, then quitting your quest for the complete story.
"This should terrify you. And you should really take some time to seriously consider what becomes of that social contract. Because this isn’t just about Charlie. It’s about the direction this culture is heading. Where speech is increasingly treated as violence, and actual violence is treated as catharsis."
yes its scary. cheering someone's death because they had ideas is serious MADness!:-(
i don't like him but he did not need to be killed. let him talk. so sad.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” an audience member asked.
“Too many,” Kirk responded to applause from the crowd.
The attendee informed him that the total was five and continued: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”
And then he was killed. You say his IDEAS weren't violent, but how do ideas like transphobia, xenophobia, and genocide denial actually make people safer?
I don't condone celebrating murder, but to have the nation lower flags to half staff for this? Ask us to grieve for someone who couldn't care less if we were the ones slaughtered?
Truth? Really? The man's own last words were in fact an untruth... He's not interested in truth. He could have said he really didn't know how many, or "probably not very many," but he chose to incite hate, to a sickening reaction from the crowd. Disgusting. It's about advancing a narrative, not finding truth. And he was admittedly very good at the former.
Very sad day, and not just for conservatives or people on the right. Charlie was flawed in many ways and I didn't agree with him on every topic - but he was the ONLY person on any part of the political spectrum willing to have open discussions without a safety net, a teleprompter or a studio production behind him. Killing this guy is possibly the worst move ever for anyone who values peace over war, dialogue over violence and civil discourse over civilizational decline.
The people cheering this killing are shortsighted and foolish. This is good news for no one.
Absolutely. Charlie was truly one of a kind when it came to debate. I find it so concerning how many people can't see that aspect of this. He always argued in good faith. He always allowed room for response and dissent. Terrible... just terrible. I don't even know what else to say at this point.
These people don't realize that Charlie faced disdain from the actual far right for even sitting down with these weirdo campus commies. I wouldn't have the patience for it. No one does - except for this one guy who did it for years on end. What's the message from the left here? Agree or die? I'm glad these cretins are publicizing their murderous tendencies but it's not a good feeling to realize you're swimming in a cultural acid bath.
I had an awareness of him being a “red activist “. But I did not know anything of substance about him. Hats off to him for asking for debate. Rejoicing in him being killed is barbaric. Thank you for writing ✍️
Absolutely. People are allowed to disagree with his ideas—and he did invite that disagreement. But celebrating his death is a level of evil I cannot comprehend.
Charlie Kirk’s ideas contributed to violence — from the insurrection to justifying genocide in Palestine, saying the people there “deserved it.” I can say plainly: no one deserves murder, and I don’t think I do either. But you can’t demand that the oppressed feel sorry for, or humanize, people who actively contribute to their oppression.
Charlie Kirk’s anti-abortion rhetoric helped fuel the political climate that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. By framing abortion as “murder,” he reinforced a movement that worked to strip away reproductive rights. The loss of those rights is a form of systemic violence against women, exposing them to harm and denying their autonomy.
Words are not violence. He welcomed debate, even on the topic you’re shouting about. You find truth by exchanging ideas. When you kill the exchange of ideas, you kill truth. Full stop.
Words may not be violence, but they can be complicit in it. He didn’t welcome debate to find truth—he welcomed it to amplify and legitimize his harmful beliefs. You mentioned the issue I ‘shout’ about, so let’s address it directly: on several occasions, he stated that Palestine doesn’t exist and that its people deserve what’s happening to them. How is that not violent rhetoric that fuels harm against Palestinians?
i’m sorry but in the case of Israel and Palestine, one rhetoric is retaliation to years of violence and the other is support of genocide. No one is denying that violence is the answer to opposing views but words are mightier than a sword and have the ability to persuade people to participate in violence. I love your articles and your views on many topics but in this case - it’s not about celebrating the death of a right wing speaker which is sick in its own way - but I wish this same mournful sentiment to the many Palestinian children and victims of gun violence that Kirk himself suggested as a required consequence.
Ethan, you're right in that words can incite violence, but that's not what happened here. This was violence performed as a means to silence the words. Violence is a physical act meant to inflict harm. Twisting language, suggesting that the loss of someone's right to get a convenient abortion is an form of systemic violence, is just another way of bullying people into shutting up when you don't like what they're saying. People are necessarily "oppressed" just because they're not getting their way--sometimes they're just trying to do bad things, but some authoritative force is preventing them from doing them. There are probably thousands of hours of video of Charlie speaking over the past 12 years. I defy you to find any example at all of his words leading to the oppression of anyone on the planet. This shooter had every opportunity to go down and talk to Charlie and voice his opinions, just as Charlie had every right to voice his. Neither had the right to kill the other just because they disagreed. Charlie believed that abortion clinics were a form of systemic violence against unborn children. It doesn't take clever language to back that up--it's literally a system that ends the lives of unborn children. Maybe you think the mother's right to kill the child outweighs the child's right to live. That's fine. That's the debate. You do not have the right to murder me if I go out and share my opinion on the matter--that's all Charlie did--and it's demonstrably dangerous for people to defend the actions of someone who took someone's life over a difference of opinion. I'll never be able to wrap my head around the "blame the victim" mentality that seems to rule the left today.
Thank you for putting this out there. You are absolutely correct; this was not about what side he was on, what his personal beliefs were. It was that he was brave enough to stand up and talk. He was open enough to ask for and seek debate. And he was murdered for it.
In seeking understanding, in holding a hand out to start discussion to bridge the gap in ideologies, he was vilified and demonized. And that should terrify everyone who writes or uses words to express themselves. Because if someone who was aware that they were putting themselves out there, putting a target on their back for their beliefs, can be murdered and have that act celebrated by so many - what does that mean for the rest of us, that can't protect ourselves from potential backlash?
I think it's important to write, even when we think "what's the point"... I think the point is: silence begins to take its own shape, as cliche as the sounds. Never underestimate how many people need to see or hear your words. There are so many times I almost stayed silent on issues, only to receive many messages from people expressing gratitude bc they felt like I'd given them some form of "permission" to feel a certain way, or to express the thoughts for themselves.
I was slapped down and called a fascist for literally this. Not even siding with Charlie, just asking people to step back and consider whether or not this was a step in the right direction. Which it obviously isn't. It's horrifying. People began confronting me with bad takes on his debates and out of context quotes to 'prove' he somehow was a bad actor. Rushing to put him on trial after he was executed. Profoundly disturbing. Not surprising.
“As if assassination is now open-source. As if this is some kind of a game. That is not just sick. That is pure evil.” — THIS. I’m aware this guy has deeply problematic views, but his death and the subsequent celebration (I can’t imagine the suffering his children will go through), is inhumane and to me shows the soullessness of modern humanity. We are suffering from an epidemic of soul loss, and this exemplifies it.
Thank you for this.
💔
Could not have said it better. Thank you for this.
It would be wonderful if everyone would just do the research before repeating claims and bearing false witness. Even if the source is trusted--in fact, especially if the source is trusted--we all need to verify that our sources are genuine and accurate. We now live in a world of openly biased news media, and it stands to reason that if you learn something from a media source that is hell-bent on destroying the reputation, character, and credibility of anyone who speaks out in opposition to that source's base ideology, that information might be skewed or even inaccurate. Please, everyone, do the research. Know what you're saying is true before you say it even one more time--and DO NOT become complacent in trusting a source that tells you what you want to hear, then quitting your quest for the complete story.
Instead they just watch their little TikTok videos and parrot whatever they're told.
"This should terrify you. And you should really take some time to seriously consider what becomes of that social contract. Because this isn’t just about Charlie. It’s about the direction this culture is heading. Where speech is increasingly treated as violence, and actual violence is treated as catharsis."
yes its scary. cheering someone's death because they had ideas is serious MADness!:-(
i don't like him but he did not need to be killed. let him talk. so sad.
As a War Veteran, I am appalled and shocked cowards think they are able to undermine our freedom of speech.
Charlie's murder is a senseless tragedy.
We can't let cowards win by not using our freedom of speech.
Keep going super-smart ST.
It’s sad how many people don’t understand what freedom of speech even means.
Thanks for your service, Jeremy.
🇺🇸
Read Charlie Kirk's last words.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” an audience member asked.
“Too many,” Kirk responded to applause from the crowd.
The attendee informed him that the total was five and continued: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”
And then he was killed. You say his IDEAS weren't violent, but how do ideas like transphobia, xenophobia, and genocide denial actually make people safer?
I don't condone celebrating murder, but to have the nation lower flags to half staff for this? Ask us to grieve for someone who couldn't care less if we were the ones slaughtered?
The exploration of ideas is the only way to find truth. If you kill the exploration of ideas you kill truth.
To say Charlie "couldn't care less if we were the ones slaughtered" is hyperbolic and false.
Truth? Really? The man's own last words were in fact an untruth... He's not interested in truth. He could have said he really didn't know how many, or "probably not very many," but he chose to incite hate, to a sickening reaction from the crowd. Disgusting. It's about advancing a narrative, not finding truth. And he was admittedly very good at the former.
What part of “too many” is an untruth?
I would value co-authoring a piece with you someday if you would consider.
Very sad day, and not just for conservatives or people on the right. Charlie was flawed in many ways and I didn't agree with him on every topic - but he was the ONLY person on any part of the political spectrum willing to have open discussions without a safety net, a teleprompter or a studio production behind him. Killing this guy is possibly the worst move ever for anyone who values peace over war, dialogue over violence and civil discourse over civilizational decline.
The people cheering this killing are shortsighted and foolish. This is good news for no one.
Absolutely. Charlie was truly one of a kind when it came to debate. I find it so concerning how many people can't see that aspect of this. He always argued in good faith. He always allowed room for response and dissent. Terrible... just terrible. I don't even know what else to say at this point.
These people don't realize that Charlie faced disdain from the actual far right for even sitting down with these weirdo campus commies. I wouldn't have the patience for it. No one does - except for this one guy who did it for years on end. What's the message from the left here? Agree or die? I'm glad these cretins are publicizing their murderous tendencies but it's not a good feeling to realize you're swimming in a cultural acid bath.
Thank you for posting this as it’s made clear that you do not understand the concept of violence nor the impact of words.
Thank you for this comment as it’s made clear that you do not understand the concept of empathy or free speech.
I had an awareness of him being a “red activist “. But I did not know anything of substance about him. Hats off to him for asking for debate. Rejoicing in him being killed is barbaric. Thank you for writing ✍️
Absolutely. People are allowed to disagree with his ideas—and he did invite that disagreement. But celebrating his death is a level of evil I cannot comprehend.
Charlie Kirk’s ideas contributed to violence — from the insurrection to justifying genocide in Palestine, saying the people there “deserved it.” I can say plainly: no one deserves murder, and I don’t think I do either. But you can’t demand that the oppressed feel sorry for, or humanize, people who actively contribute to their oppression.
Which of his ideas contributed to violence, exactly?
Charlie Kirk’s anti-abortion rhetoric helped fuel the political climate that led to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. By framing abortion as “murder,” he reinforced a movement that worked to strip away reproductive rights. The loss of those rights is a form of systemic violence against women, exposing them to harm and denying their autonomy.
Words are not violence. He welcomed debate, even on the topic you’re shouting about. You find truth by exchanging ideas. When you kill the exchange of ideas, you kill truth. Full stop.
Words may not be violence, but they can be complicit in it. He didn’t welcome debate to find truth—he welcomed it to amplify and legitimize his harmful beliefs. You mentioned the issue I ‘shout’ about, so let’s address it directly: on several occasions, he stated that Palestine doesn’t exist and that its people deserve what’s happening to them. How is that not violent rhetoric that fuels harm against Palestinians?
If he literally said “Palestinians deserve violence,” link the clip with the full context and timestamp—because I’ll condemn that too.
If you’re collapsing a debate about statehood/history into “he wants people harmed,” that’s not truth—that’s slander.
The shooter committed violence. A microphone didn’t.
And while we're at it, if opinions that “fuel harm” are violence, do you apply that to:
– “From the river to the sea”?
– “Israel is a settler-colonial apartheid state”?
Either speech is speech on both sides—or we’re just deputizing our politics to decide who’s allowed to talk.
i’m sorry but in the case of Israel and Palestine, one rhetoric is retaliation to years of violence and the other is support of genocide. No one is denying that violence is the answer to opposing views but words are mightier than a sword and have the ability to persuade people to participate in violence. I love your articles and your views on many topics but in this case - it’s not about celebrating the death of a right wing speaker which is sick in its own way - but I wish this same mournful sentiment to the many Palestinian children and victims of gun violence that Kirk himself suggested as a required consequence.
Ethan, you're right in that words can incite violence, but that's not what happened here. This was violence performed as a means to silence the words. Violence is a physical act meant to inflict harm. Twisting language, suggesting that the loss of someone's right to get a convenient abortion is an form of systemic violence, is just another way of bullying people into shutting up when you don't like what they're saying. People are necessarily "oppressed" just because they're not getting their way--sometimes they're just trying to do bad things, but some authoritative force is preventing them from doing them. There are probably thousands of hours of video of Charlie speaking over the past 12 years. I defy you to find any example at all of his words leading to the oppression of anyone on the planet. This shooter had every opportunity to go down and talk to Charlie and voice his opinions, just as Charlie had every right to voice his. Neither had the right to kill the other just because they disagreed. Charlie believed that abortion clinics were a form of systemic violence against unborn children. It doesn't take clever language to back that up--it's literally a system that ends the lives of unborn children. Maybe you think the mother's right to kill the child outweighs the child's right to live. That's fine. That's the debate. You do not have the right to murder me if I go out and share my opinion on the matter--that's all Charlie did--and it's demonstrably dangerous for people to defend the actions of someone who took someone's life over a difference of opinion. I'll never be able to wrap my head around the "blame the victim" mentality that seems to rule the left today.
Very, very well stated, Matt. Thank you.
Perfectly said.
Thank you for putting this out there. You are absolutely correct; this was not about what side he was on, what his personal beliefs were. It was that he was brave enough to stand up and talk. He was open enough to ask for and seek debate. And he was murdered for it.
In seeking understanding, in holding a hand out to start discussion to bridge the gap in ideologies, he was vilified and demonized. And that should terrify everyone who writes or uses words to express themselves. Because if someone who was aware that they were putting themselves out there, putting a target on their back for their beliefs, can be murdered and have that act celebrated by so many - what does that mean for the rest of us, that can't protect ourselves from potential backlash?
Perfectly captured a lot of what’s been going through my mind today. I’ve thought about writing and then thought what’s the point.
I think it's important to write, even when we think "what's the point"... I think the point is: silence begins to take its own shape, as cliche as the sounds. Never underestimate how many people need to see or hear your words. There are so many times I almost stayed silent on issues, only to receive many messages from people expressing gratitude bc they felt like I'd given them some form of "permission" to feel a certain way, or to express the thoughts for themselves.
I finally wrote & published my thoughts on it. If you have the time, feel free to read: https://open.substack.com/pub/lewistack/p/where-do-we-go-from-here?
You are right and I am going to write because I want to for my own mind I guess.
It’s great that you receive such positive response.
I was slapped down and called a fascist for literally this. Not even siding with Charlie, just asking people to step back and consider whether or not this was a step in the right direction. Which it obviously isn't. It's horrifying. People began confronting me with bad takes on his debates and out of context quotes to 'prove' he somehow was a bad actor. Rushing to put him on trial after he was executed. Profoundly disturbing. Not surprising.
“As if assassination is now open-source. As if this is some kind of a game. That is not just sick. That is pure evil.” — THIS. I’m aware this guy has deeply problematic views, but his death and the subsequent celebration (I can’t imagine the suffering his children will go through), is inhumane and to me shows the soullessness of modern humanity. We are suffering from an epidemic of soul loss, and this exemplifies it.
❤️