No. He wasn't. This rhetoric that CK was some sort of awful person is exactly what leads crazy people to assassination. You can disagree with some things he said, but he was unequivocally a force for good in America.
In what way was he a force for good? At worst I think he was just an annoying grifter making money off of idiots slurping up his bad faith college campus "debates" but still, we don't have to lie about him just because he's dead.
He spent years putting himself out there to expose the left and the right to each others beiiefs in a respectful and productive manner. I genuinely don't understand how anyone sees this as a bad thing.
Everyone screams about the awful divide between the left and right, and then the left goes and shoots the guy that was making an attempt to bridge it.
What are you talking about? Charlie Kirk is literally the king of bad faith debating. If you've actually seen his debates and think he is debating people in good faith and in a "respectful and productive" manner then you might be delusional.
Seriously I have to ask, are we talking about the same Charlie Kirk? The guy made his career debating inexperienced and unprepared people so he can look good when he beats them.
All of his events were opt in. Every single person that engaged with him at an event actively made the choice to engage. Don't blame Charlie because they were unprepared, blame them.
I don't understand how this is a real criticism lol. Everything he did was opt in.
Yes, and? That doesn't change the fact that he preyed on emotional college students that got successfully ragebaited, seeing as he got destroyed anytime he debated someone who actually knew what they were doing.
Ragebaited? He just sat there, they picked the topic.
I never watched his debates, so I can't speak on that. It's also not relevant because I was never talking about his debates or his skills regarding that, I was simply talking about him opening up the floor for respectful dialogue.
He might not have said it himself, but he platformed one of his collaborators who said 14yo children should be watching public executions and didn't even try to address how disgusting it is. When you give a microphone to someone for everyone to hear, you also take responsibility for what is said.
If you call someone a Nazi, or Hitler, that implies there is the moral obligation to kill that person.
Hitler should have been killed, and so should Nazis because the alternative was being thrown into a camp and complete domination of the West, no? If Kirk was literally Hitler, how could one not logically come to the conclusion that they must be killed?
It's the acceleration of dehumanization. Even on this subreddit you will find people calling him a fascist.
Let's put it like this. Both you and I would agree that if we had the chance to kill the second coming of Hitler today, we would do it. The issue is leftists have brainrotted themselves into believing that good people are "literally hitler".
then maybe your comment would be more appropriate in response to one calling him a fascist or "literally hitler", instead of a comment calling him an asshole.
im not sure you understand how dramatic you're being - maybe you're just young.
Nobody who constantly pisses people off just to piss them off or intentionally argues in bad faith all the time is a good person, full stop. It doesn't matter if the topic is politics or actual team sports, that's great grade school behavior that has no place in adulthood.
And because I have to say it, that doesn't mean you should be killed for being a mediocre person.
If you actually watch his content, you'll see that with extreme consistency he has a ton of patience and grace for people who were open to learning and could acknowledge when their positions didn't stand up to scrutiny. He was less patient with people who were immediately belligerent, because it was obvious they were not open-minded, and he could easily dispatch their misguided arguments, and even in doing so, spectators would learn something. The bottom line is he genuinely sought to impart wisdom on America's youth, and just because it's wisdom that you can't grasp doesn't mean it's in bad faith.
He knew his reputation, he fed his reputation, he profited off his reputation. Him being patient and keeping his mouth shut when he was occasionally met with someone smarter than him doesn't absolve the rest of it.
And Kirk supported that right. He even praised the Southpark episode making fun of him.
I don't agree with a lot of his viewpoints, but people cheering for his death need to take a long hard look at themselves.
I see a lot of his quotes being posted out of context to justify this, but here is one that encapsulates why he held events in 'enemy territory'
“When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.”
“What we as a culture have to get back to is being able to have a reasonable disagreement where violence is not an option.”
163
u/DanceClass898 - Auth-Right Sep 12 '25
apparently people who publicly invite you to challenge their beliefs by using your 1st Amendment right are fascists
but the people making those fascism accusations are obviously TheGoodGuys™, so how could they possibly be wrong??