That's only a good thing to the degree that those beliefs are good. Charlie's beliefs were evil.
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our God-given rights."
True—but that's the thing about preaching hate, it turns out, there's lots of people who might want you dead.
Do you know if he ever clarified his position on killing gays anywhere else? If that's the only time he ever publicly mentioned it, on it's own, it's too ambiguous to call preaching hate.
So far, I can't find any hate preaching. I don't want to sift through everything just in case there's some hidden gem. You could just tell me which one is pretty clear if you knew about it. So I assume you're just repeating some popular opinion that isn't even true.
How do you imagine that working? Do you call many things you don’t support “God’s perfect law?”
> just making a claim about what's true within the canon of the bible
I wonder why he chose that specific example, then.
> what Ms. Rachel would believe to be consistent with herself.
What do you mean here?
> Do you know if he ever clarified his position on killing gays anywhere else?
This is an amazing sentence.
Imagine instead of the Bible, it's The Lord Of The Rings. Somebody examining it might describe the special master ring as being Sauron's perfect creation, or whatever. That doesn't mean they believe it is in real life. They're talking within the context of the story.
You're saying he preaches hate by promoting killing gays. If that's what he was doing, wouldn't he have been clearer about it instead of just using it as part of a smug retort showing somebody else's hypocrisy?
> What do you mean here?
She used Leviticus to justify her beliefs, but apparently cherry-picked the parts she wanted and neglected the stoning gays part. He's pointing out that the actual text says the opposite of what she believes based on that same book of the bible.
Since every example you've shown and I've looked at has been weak or nothing, I conclude that you're wrong about him preaching hate and instead you've just been fooled by media telling you that and you never bothered to look at the evidence. Really, it's that media that's been preaching hate - hence why he was so widely hated.
So you read a bunch of his writings, or watched his videos, and didn’t pick up on the fact that he was a devout Christian?
> I conclude that you're wrong about him preaching hate and instead you've just been fooled by media telling you that and you never bothered to look at the evidence. Really, it's that media that's been preaching hate - hence why he was so widely hated.
It’s clear you started with your conclusion—very efficient, but a waste of my time. I’m done feeling the trolls, goodbye.
At the end of the day, you have no evidence that he was preaching hate. So you must have come to that conclusion by believing what someone told you without checking it yourself. If you were being skeptical, you could go and ask those people who told you that to explain their reasons and maybe they do have something, or maybe they don't.
1. Pick some ideas.
2. Define any disagreement with those ideas as "hate".
3. Kill anyone who disagrees on the grounds that "haters" deserve it.
This is circular mirror-world logic. The left is full of hate-based ideas. If leftists were being systematically mown down and Trump led celebrations each time, justifying himself by this logic, you would find it appalling.
I think, there's actually a considerable amount of doubt.
Maybe, but was he killed for denigrating black people? Gay people? Jews? Transgender people? Immigrants? Professors? Doctors? The list goes on.
He also pissed off the right, too—Laura Loomer recently calling him a traitor. So, I guess we’ll find out.
> According to investigators they found his ammo, which was engraved with "transgender and anti-fascist ideology"
You might want to look into that again.
None of this is surprising. There's a long history of far-left Antifa and trans activist types trying to kill people. Look at the armed far-left militia that attacked an ICE office, or the "trans rationalist cults" that killed their landlord and others.
Speaking of unhinged takes... I literally can't parse that sentence. Touch grass sometime soon?
Academia and broader cultural messaging teach students to see career success, productivity, and corporate loyalty as higher priorities than caring for or investing in family.
People are encouraged to define themselves by their job titles, income, or the prestige of their employer rather than by family roles or community contributions. (Proven in polls)
Students may be groomed to see working for large companies as the “default path” to security, respectability, and self-worth. This is relevant with in the context of how few gen Z folks on the left view family as important (<10%) - this was major news this week.
Universities often emphasize employability, corporate partnerships, and internships with major firms, implicitly signaling that this is the “right” way to succeed.
If corporate work is framed as more important, family responsibilities can be treated as distractions rather than central parts of life.
Societies that reward corporate loyalty over family care risk weakening intergenerational bonds and making people feel alienated outside of work.
The critique is that academia is not only instilling blind faith in perpetual economic growth but also shaping values so that young people see serving corporations as more worthwhile than serving their families. Kirk’s main message was pushing back against that hierarchy—saying family, community, and personal meaning should matter more than being a cog in the corporate machine.
I mean, I suspect it's the cost of university education in the US that's driving much of the observed behaviours, that seems like a more parsimonous explanation than what you've given above. And speaking as a former university lecturer, the notion that academia tells students what to think does not match my experience at all.
> saying family, community, and personal meaning should matter more than being a cog in the corporate machine.
Wow, to be fair this is the first statement of Charlie Kirk that I've wholeheartedly agreed with.
I completely agree on the issues you bring up but I disagree on their causes and what should be done to address them.
I don't believe Academia is to blame for all of this. Not any more than the rest of our shifting culture. Hyper-individualism is a symptom/goal of neoliberalism, the dominant ideology in the west for the past 50 years.
What you describe has a name in leftist theory: worker alienation. Workers are alienated from the purpose of their work, from their community and even from themselves. In these conditions, it becomes very hard to find meaning in one's life and even harder to get the will to do anything for the community.
The right has sold Americans on the idea of the self-made man, on self-reliance. They have basically destroyed syndicalism in the country and told workers they should simply perform better if they want a better life.
Everyone has internalized these precepts: that one's success and happiness in life are pure results of one's grit and dedication. You see it everywhere, in gym culture, in dating culture, in eutrepreneurship... "No empathy should be spared for the unemployed, they are all lazy and deserve nothing", or "Your coworker got fired? Good, one less to compete with".
And so, years after years, Republicans (mainly them, Democrats also helped) unwove the threads of our society one by one. Cutting into social security, healthcare, infrastructures... Slowly the country is crumbling under a severe lack of care.
All of this makes me grin when I hear Charlie Kirk speak of rebuilding the family and our communities. Why is he siding with the party that sold our country for tax cuts to the wealthy, then? Even now, huge tax cuts to the rich and defunding of important government programs are the centerpieces of Trump's economic policy. (See his so-called "Big Beautiful Bill.)
Trump and Kirk both support massive businesses extracting money from local communities. They both support this atomization of workers, this weakening of regulations in favor of employers. They both drank the Kool aid on exponential growth, which is why they reject the very real fact of climate change.
Now, what's the actual solution? Rebuild society's safety nets: stop people from being afraid of the future. Shame this culture of "grindsets" and "mogging": bring back kindness and empathy. Redistribute wealth, even if just symbolically: show this country's values actually mean something, and meritocracy is not just a lie invented to justify massive wealth inequalities.