He presented an alternative to the indoctrination students often receive today at college campuses and through the media. He gave students a microphone and a chance to defend their views.
If presenting an alternative political philosophy causes someone to become enraged (or worse), we’re in a really bad state.
> Writes “Unfortunately the left cannot have debate and disagreement.”
> Receives downvotes - literal expressions of disagreement incarnate.
> Updates post to add “(weird way to prove my point, by downvoting)”
I guess you’re implying you’re a liberal?
At that point, you're not having a useful debate, you're platforming them and lending their ideas legitimacy.
For neo-nazis, appearing on the debate stage is itself a win, and a chance to spread their ideas to the crowd, even if they "lose" the debate.
The Paradox of Tolerance requires neo-nazis be told to go back under the rock they crawled out from, not given platforms.
I hate to break it to you, but judging by the outcome of last year's election, this statement is provably false.
This means his opponents' ideas are by-and-large rejected by civil society, and the amazing irony is, he invited those ideas to be tested out in the open. Kirk gave a platform to ideas he and his audience abhor.
If someone's views are "too egregious" to be tested openly, it's almost always the case that the person suggesting this knows their own views wouldn't hold up. It's a tell that they know they've lost the argument, before it even happened. Calls for censorship and deplatforming are the key tell for how feeble a person is.
If their ideals are so great, why can't they survive under scrutiny?
Only part of Trump's voters thought this would be the outcome, but we're stuck with the results.
Please, quit playing word games. We've moved past that, and America won't survive if you treat this like your high-school debate club.
Or maybe we can fine-tune an LLM with all his dialogue that has been recorded.
I guarantee in the latter case no one would care, because the showmanship aspect would be gone, which is what it really was about. Entertainment.
If we want freedom of speech we need our speech to mean something and use it to seek the truth in good faith.
This is especially true for those holding political office or in the media. They should be held to a higher standard, as they are the example for the people.
Inciting violence is very different from defamation/libel.
No, lawmakers making false statements is not defamatory nor libelous. In fact, they have complete immunity while on the debate floor.
And defamation/libel have to be knowable false statements of fact which created demonstrable damage. Opinions can’t be defamatory. True statements can’t be defamatory. When Trump’s Chief of Staff, General Kelly, calls Trump a fascist and lists the definition of fascism and saying that he meets each one, that’s neither false nor inciting violence.
Maybe check your priors to see if you are more mad because people aren’t being prosecuted, or because what they are saying has truth to it.
- Bombed multiple foreign countries without a congressional declaration of war
- Levied tariffs on trade without the consent of congress
- Built concentration camps with the express purpose of housing undesirable populations they're hoping to ethnically cleanse
- Arrested immigrants for deportation at the courthouse where those people are going through the legal immigration process
- Arrested immigrants who have legal permanent resident status over legally protected speech, before holding them for months at a time despite Habeus Corpus requests
- Arrested immigrants before illegally deporting them to a torture camp in El Salvador against the express orders of multiple judges, before refusing to return said immigrants to the country for months against judicial orders
- Ordered the National Guard to multiple US cities with no outstanding civil order issues against the wishes of the state Governors
- Illegally ordered the Marine corps into an American city in a law enforcement capacity
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc
It feels like this administration has multiple scandals a week that would have ended previous administrations. They're taking dangerous, illegal and frequent actions that fit the definition. It's not just hot rhetoric. People like Charlie Kirk have contributed to the media climate and national discourse that have laid the foundation for these actions. I don't think he should have died for that and I don't think random people should get to be the judge jury and executioner for people they don't like, but damn, open your eyes a little and actually look at what this administration has done and is doing. We're genuinely at a scary place in our history and I just hope we can all pull back from the edge here because I don't want to live through the complete disintegration of the rule of law or a violent civil conflict.
I can name someone who called Trump a NAZI, JD Vance.
Go look at Twitter right now, it’s NYE for republicans. They’ve convinced themselves, sans evidence, that this was a leftist shooter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of posts foaming at the mouth that they can now hunt liberals and that the civil war has started. You’re doing the thing you claim to hate and frankly it’s disgusting.
'I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage.' - Charlie Kirk
Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any.
Saying "we should handle things like we did in the 1950s" when speaking about trans people using the bathroom of their choice is not my idea of kindness.
> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
His main purpose on his college tours was to promote the debate and discussion of different viewpoints. Very often the viewpoints of his listeners were very different from his, but he invited open expression and dialogue regardless.
The context of Kirk's words you are quoting are actually about a trans person winning an athletic event. More significantly, you misinterpret his words to fit your framing of him. He did not advocate for violence against LGBT people.
The Sacramento Bee also initially misinterpreted his words in the same slant you are and after careful reexamination, realized their mistake, retracted their accusation against him and apologized.
> An earlier version of this column included a statement that Charlie Kirk had “called for the lynching of trans people.” The basis for this accusation is a video clip in which Kirk was upset that a trans woman had won an NCAA swimming championship. In the clip, Kirk said that instead of letting the woman compete, “Someone should have took (sic) care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s.” Some trans advocates on social media extrapolated from Kirk’s comments that he called for trans people to be lynched - an accusation The Bee repeated. But a review of the video shows that Kirk never advocated for trans people to be lynched. In fact, he strongly denies the accusation. These notes have been added to the column. The Bee regrets its comments and we apologize for any misunderstanding this earlier version may have caused.
What point were you trying to make here?
Requoting your earlier claim:
> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement."
This seems to be a general characterization of Kirk, that he generally did not advocate for healthy debate and disagreement. By watching his many videos where he frequently listened to opposing viewpoints and also by the fact that he always had an open mic during speaking events, it's pretty easy to disprove your claim.
Cherrypicking one or two incidents where you interpret his words as against healthy debate doesn't support your claim.
I also still insist that deadnaming people is the polar opposite of healthy debate. It is an action done to demonstrate a total lack of respect for another person.
Trans identifying men can use the men’s bathroom easily. If you mean trans identifying men using the women’s bathroom: kick them out or call security, same way you would with any other man entering a woman’s space.
Yes.
What isn’t healthy is pretending to be outraged that someone else doesn't participate in a trans identifying man's gender performance.
Please don't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment. This kind of accusation is highly inflammatory and unfounded, and clearly against the guidelines.
It is false to claim that Charlie Kirk "call[ed] for the deaths of specific groups, but . . . indirectly"
People need to be reminded that they "cannot, month in, month out and year in, year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault . . . and not expect that brutal, violent natures . . . will be unaffected by it." (Theodore Roosevelt)
But the guidelines are very clear about making swipes and posting in an inflammatory style. These are the guidelines are relevant here:
Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
- he never called for the death of anyone
- claiming otherwise (despite apparently being familiar with his work) is a deliberate lie
- falsely claiming that someone is a mortal threat is "grist for the mill" for people with violent tendencies
None of the three components of what I said come anywhere close to violating the guidelines.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the idiom? "Grist for the mill" just means that something is useful for a particular motive, it doesn't suggest being in cahoots or any intent whatsoever. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grist%20for%20one...
As I've kept saying I agree that theirs was a bad comment and agree that it should be flagged and killed, but we need you to try harder to avoid personal attacks and escalatory rhetoric like this. You've been here a long time, we value your contributions and tolerate some boundary-pushing from you because we want a broad spectrum of views to be represented, but sometimes we have to say "enough". Please just do your part to make things better here not worse.
In fact, it's a deliberate lie on your part to say so. You know for an absolute fact it says no such thing.
Shame on you.
> Please just do your part to make things better here not worse.
I am. You are not. Learn to engage with genuine honesty or leave. Your behavior has no place here.
Because of my public criticism of Mr Kirk using words?
I am confident that this was done in an organized fashion with support. There is no chance that these random children knew precisely where to place their hatred in ways that which keep them from getting expelled and also ensure that their professors had to regularly read hate speech whenever they went to grade assignments.
Kirk has visited this university and celebrated the TPUSA organization there.
Kirk's twitter feed is also filled with egregious homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism.
Kirk attended organized debates and used soft words in those debates for the camera so that he could "own" college students. But if you expand to look at his public words they quickly stop being so soft. And if you expand to look at the output of his organization, things become much worse.
I never claimed that Kirk wasn't racist/misogynist/*ist, just that he invited open debate like nobody's business, which is a good thing regardless of your beliefs. I strongly disagree with Kirk's beliefs but I have zero problem with him sharing them. Open debate and even open criticism of people is critical to a functioning society.
Kirk invited open debate in particular contexts while acting against open debate in others. He was not operating under a principle of supporting open debate but instead used specific on camera interactions as a rhetorical device.
Do you think the people they attacked with their speeches were without any fear of violence, let alone death?
Or take some from his last words
>At about 12:20, he is asked by a member of the crowd: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?"
>He replies: "Too many."
Do you think he would have said the same when someone would have asked the same question about gun owners or would have said something like: "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 other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Or pick one of those quotes https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...
He recommend the one about Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded
None of this has anything to do with threatening or inciting violence.
This is, of course, a condensed depiction.
And talking about the spread of misinformation, Kirk spread the lie of the stolen election that led to the January 6 riots and caused multiple deaths.
BTW maybe you can comment under some of the other commenters where I try to explain than words aren just words and can cause damage, you seem to have the same opinion, whereby my reach is far below Kirk's so I think I have a much lower risk of creating a deranged individual than people like Kirk have.
>For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals,"
>This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now."
That from the same guy who painted all immigrans as pet eating, drug trafficking rapists.
But I'm the one accused of spreading misinformation.
Even in his message on TS after Kirk's death Trump can't stay with the truth
>He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us.
The first part is obviously nonsense
He has definitely caused more violence than I.
Kirk and others boost people like those here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo
Show one who got influenced by me. That would be really interesting.
That I spread misinformation has to be proven.
He referenced the 50s and 60s on purpose, the good old times and he knows his peers and what the associate with that time period. So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive. Given all what he said there is a clear subtext you try to ignore.
> So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive.
I disagree - you're extrapolating from very little. If you take into consideration his whole life and the context of the conversation, it's very clear that he did not believe in violence and did not advocate it.
Does that look like someone who wishes violence against gay or trans people? Be real.
Seems right wingers know the old testament pretty well but rarely quote the new one and even rarer live by it. It's often that authoritarian god, you know, the one who gave us the rainbow after multiple genocide and who said later on
>Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Let's see those Christian values in action when they catch the shooter.
>Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
Interesting change. Don't forget my reach and his. And I never spread the lie about the Great Replacement.
The first clip sounds more like don't tell than real acceptance and it's quite ironic that accoring to this clip he says people aren't defined by their sexuality but every time a homosexual couple is show in a kids movie right wingers whine because now they have to talk about anal sex with their kids. What they don't have, like you don't have to explain hetero sex if a hetero couple is shown. The right is obsessed with the sexuality of gays. And calling it a lifestyle, that's one of the biggest misinformations often used to blame the victims of anti-gay violence for their bad "choice".
Maybe watch this clip where he quotes Leviticus 18
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
But of course just saying. We all know you can say anything if you add "just saying" or "no offense".
The second clip frames being trans as a mental disorder packed in clever words.
Again that clip you linked was just him pointing out the irony of using Bible verses to support homosexuality while ignoring other very violent verses towards them. He was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals.
FWIW, I disagree with Kirk on probably most topics (e.g. guns, religion, abortion, homosexuality being a bad "lifestyle") so there's no need to debate me.
I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation.
His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on.
I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers.
He does the exact opposite of "completely ignoring the contradiction". He explicitly uses it to make his point.
But you apparently expect "this is a dogwhistle" to be taken on faith.
This is not a fair, consistent or reasonable standard.
When Nancy Pelosi and her husband were targets of political violence, Charlie Kirk's response was to suggest that whomever bails the attacker out would be a national hero. [1]
To her credit, her response to the attack on him is much more dignified than his was.
-----
[1] "Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy (David DePape) out..." - Charlie Kirk
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-...
If you/society see the performance as beyond the pale, inciting violence then you should arrest the person and give them due process, or change the laws to reflect your beliefs
You seem to implicate "you/society" as the issue, but I didn't shoot anyone. So really it's society's issue, and we're in this situation because the Overton window is so irrevocably wide. Moreso than ever before, our bipartisan system is chock-full of extremists. People who want to kill CEOs, people who want to kill politicians, people who want to kill minorities.
The ordinary response is always "well, some gun violence is tolerable" but that doesn't seem to be reflected at all in this comment section. Many people are treating this as entirely unacceptable - so, from square one, how do we want to legislate a solution?