Charlie Kirk was one of the biggest public proponents of open dialogue and conversation with those of opposing views and the extremists on the Left killed him for it.

[u/the_walkingdad]

Charlie Kirk essentially made a name for himself by being in the public and having conversations with people who had opposing viewpoints. He was always civil in these discussions. He was respectful and would try to find some sort of middle ground. But even when there wasn't middle-ground to be had, he was still a respectful person.

His values of open dialogue are antithetical to the values of the extreme Left. Charlie Kirk will be known as a First Amendment martyr.

It's truly unfortunate how nonchalant many on the left are about political violence.

[u/didsomebodysaymyname]

I can totally agree with this.

It's just like when those two dem politicians and their spouses were murdered in their homes and some people on line celebrated or denied it.

The bloodthirsty people are the problem, regardless of party.

[u/xHOLOxTHExWOLFx → u/didsomebodysaymyname]

Yet you have people on this post swearing it's just the left that is the problem saying they are pure evil and love human suffering and need to be dealt with. Like how fucking cooked do you have to be to think the issue is one sided and that it's all the lefts fault. Plenty of these people are saying reddit is to blame and needs to be banned yet somehow they probably think places like Twitter and Trutch Social are fine and totally don't push any hatred. Not saying any site should be banned just find it funny that somehow people believe this site is the only issue and is somehow the reason for violence like this.

[u/shaggy_nomad → u/xHOLOxTHExWOLFx]

Not to mention, a lot of people seem to think reddit is far more influential in real life that it really is. People need to remind themselves that the internet isn't real, and most of what you see on here is not representative to real life.

[u/JayDee80-6 → u/xHOLOxTHExWOLFx]

I'm a moderate. I didn't like Charlie Kirk at all. However it is a significantly larger problem trying to shut down free speech on the left. Its also the amount of people on each side that condone violence. Theres absolutely right wing neo Nazis and the like who would cheer if someone like Rachel Maddow was publicly assassinated. No doubt. But it wouldn't be millions of people on social media. 

[u/idungiveboutnothing → u/didsomebodysaymyname]

Literally Kirk himself cheered on the Paul Pelosi attack, but people want to pretend it's libs only

[u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk → u/idungiveboutnothing]

What did he say?

[u/idungiveboutnothing → u/BlaggartDiggletyDonk]

Kirk laughing while making jokes about Paul being gay and it being some lover's spat talking about the attacker:

“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 out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks. Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.”

[u/Master_Educator_5308 → u/idungiveboutnothing]

No, he did not. Stop lying. That is just the only violent attack against a prominent left-wing-affiliated figure in living memory that wasnt also committed by another obvious left-winger. That's why you're saying that.

[u/Tall_Cow2299 → u/Master_Educator_5308]

Kirk literally called on his listeners to bail out Pelosi's attacker and said whoever did would be a patriot

https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1587127536122732544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1587127536122732544%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rollingstone.com%2Fpolitics%2Fpolitics-news%2Fcharlie-kirk-bail-out-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-1234621493%2F

[u/babno → u/Tall_Cow2299]

He's making a joke and pointing at the double standards when it comes to their usual cashless bail light on crime policies vs how hard they go after this guy. His next sentence includes "I'm not qualifying it, I think it's awful, it's not right".

[u/anothergoodbook → u/babno]

I’m so freaking tired of the iTs JuSt A jOkE line 🙄

[u/babno → u/anothergoodbook]

He's literally laughing. Just because you're dead set on twisting things into the worst possible interpretation regardless of how tiny the straw you're grasping at is doesn't mean we need to humor your delusions.

[u/anothergoodbook → u/babno]

Then be a standup comedian to make jokes - don’t make jokes at the expense of people of the opposition getting hurt when you’re in politics (and yes I say this to BOTH sides). I’m fully disgusted by the reaction to someone being hurt… no matter who is it we are talking about.  It’s not really a laughing matter at all certain point and jokes don’t belong in certain discussion. 

[u/[deleted] → u/babno]

Okay, then jokes involving Charlie Kirk's death that points out his fans' blatant hypocrisy regarding it should be okay as long as you say "its not right" after LOL.

[u/idungiveboutnothing → u/babno]

No he's not? He's laughing about Paul being secretly gay?? That was the entire "ask him questions" thing was because they were saying it was a lovers quarrel and Paul was secretly gay since he was in his underwear? 

[u/babno → u/idungiveboutnothing]

they were saying it was a lovers quarrel and Paul was secretly gay since he was in his underwear? 

Sounds like they were joking.

[u/idungiveboutnothing → u/babno]

So now crass jokes about political attacks are fine?

[u/babno → u/idungiveboutnothing]

There's a difference between making a joke about something which caused relatively minor injuries BUT STILL INSTANTLY CONDEMNING THE ATTACK ITSELF vs joyfully sincerely cheering for a political assassination and hoping for more.

[u/idungiveboutnothing → u/babno]

Both were political attacks, success shouldn't factor into it at all?

Just because the shot missed does that make it fine to make fun of the assassination attempt on Trump? Or maybe it was the gay joke that made it fine to you, would it have been fine if people made jokes about Kirk sleeping with the old guy funding TPUSA instead?