Interview with Kara Dansky and Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk did well at one thing - persuading people that he was interested in a meaningful, honest and respectful debate. That was an incredible achievement given that his aim was simply to indoctrinate young voters into believing his opinions.

He used debating tricks to get Tik Tok suitable clips - short, snappy clips that appear to show his debating opponent as deluded, extremist or ignorant. He framed the questions, moderated most of these and encouraged the crowd to cheer and jeer. He. more often that not, picked who he debated. He had prepared statements full of "facts" but basically it's the same technique that Trumps uses - say that it's true often enough and throw some statistics in. When you're failing, reference God/Jesus/Familty/God Bless America and suddenly you're winning the debate again.

He's not respectful to trans people - he mocks them and sets them up for ridicule but frames it with concern for them and their wellbeing.
He's not respectful to women - he gaslights nearly every woman he has debated and saves his genuine belief that woman are second in God's plan and subordinent to men for his podcasts and tweets.

Once Charlie Kirk and his like have manipulated young voters, they drill down with the more extreme views and leave these young people with a sense that it would be disloyal to go against any of the views proffered up. It's not politics, it's a cult.

Charlie Kirk was not a great orator, or debator but he was a great manipulator and it's okay to call that out. We're so used to framing the bad guys as the ones that use horrible language, make shocking statements, as being shouty, obnoxious and loud that we're in danger of losing sight that calm and respectful can be the mark of a perfect manipulator.

Kirk dies and there are calls for lying in state, flags nationwide to be at half mast, memorial services in stadiums, Vice President escorts, Presidential Medals of Honour. That should all be a red flag - he did nothing for America as a whole to justify that.

Interestingly, despite being unable to fathom why women want rights, Clive Lewis wrote a very long tweet about understanding the concerns of the people on that protest.

There is general recognition that at a certain point it's not productive for politicians to write off all voters as fascists.

Those quotes by the Guardian are for the most part massively taken out of context.

What does that say about The Guardian, do you think?

It's interesting, in Christian Evangelical circles this is something that happens in certain groups, where a pastor will cherry pick a few Bible quotes and use them to make whatever social or political point he wants. They are taken totally out of context in many cases.They call this "proof-texting".

Most Christian evangelicals recognise this as being an illegitimate and dodgy way to operate.

But it's precisely what the Guardian is doing here.

it's shocking what shit journalism they do now.

I think these people are very threatened by the fact that there are people on the right who can have views they consider abhorrent, but who can have calm and reasonable discussions about ideas with others they disagree with.

It shows that they themselves are in no way tolerant or open minded.

It shows that often they cannot articulate their own views.

It makes them look like they are scared their own ideas don't hood up to challenge.

It shows that people like Kirk aren't just full of "hate" and wanting others "not to exist," but in fact have reasons for their views they can articulate.

It also reveals that often, their ideas are being straw manned or even misrepresented in the left wing press.

There are a fair number of these guys (and a few girls) in the right wing online spaces addressing this stuff, and a number doing so specifically on campuses. They aren't all of the same quality, some are really good, others more middling.

But they are almost all approaching these questions from a place of being willing and able to have a discussion, and I think they are actually being pretty effective in getting young people to question things they have been taught as truisms.

And we all know that as soon as you stop just accepting some of these ideas, it opens up a big can of worms. The left has been complacent and coasting for a generation, and it shows in their discourse.

I think anybody would think twice about who they were associating with

Let me explain how guilt by association works. Last Saturday there was a big march in London led by Tommy Robinson. For the avoidance of ambiguity, I don't like Tommy Robinson. I would guess you don't either. Lots of people will therefore have automatically sympathised with the smallish counter-demo by something calling itself "Stand Up To Racism".

Unfortunately, SUTR is a wholly owned subsidiary of the rapey as fuck Socialist Workers Party. You might not know that, but Diane Abbott and Zarah Sultana, who spoke at the event, certainly know who they are. SWP head honcho, rape apologist Lewis Nielsen, was on the platform beside them.

Have you denounced Diane and Zarah for not thinking twice about who they were associating with? If not, why not? Or do you think it's worth holding your nose to get a message out? Eh? Eh?

See how easy this is?

“When it comes to someone who said black women don’t have brain processing power…”

But that’s not exactly what he said, is it?

The question is whether you’re repeating what someone else told you - or whether you are deliberately taking the quote out of its context (particular women who benefited from affirmative action) - to make a murdered man sound worse than he was.

Kara Dansky was interviewed by him to raise awareness of the damage trans ideology does to women, when lots of other interviewers will not. This interview will have spread the message to lots of people who wouldn't hear about it otherwise.

Why wouldn't feminist want everyone to know about the dangers of trans ideology?

I don’t think anyone on this thread has said he ought to have been shot, including me. I don’t think that’s what this is about, is it. There’s a difference between saying you can partly agree with someone’s views when you’re talking about taxes say, or health service reform. When it comes to someone who said that black women don’t have brain processing power, I think anybody would think twice about who they were associating with, and whether that might benefit the person with those racist opinions.

You're right, it is better to openly debate your toxic views rather than just spout them in sound bites on X.

He came across as generally calm and polite. He ‘appeared’ to listen, but in no way does that render his views as any less racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic or pro violence. To call his comments jokes or throwaway comments is really minimising what he stood for and what he actually said.

I’m not sure they can be called “mainstream American views”! Any Americans care to comment?

This.

The OP requested comment on Dansky being interviewed by a far right figure head. My point as with many others on this thread is Kirk is anti women rights as well as anti human rights in general so 'cozying' up to him signals legitimacy & support for his views.

The far right , like GC's are biological essentialists but not for the same reason. GC's see biology as essential to protecting women's rights, the far right have & want to continue to use biology to take away women's rights. Far rightists believe feminism to be the down fall of society IE the root causes of societies problems were caused by feminism. They believe the purpose of women only as breeders & carers that's why being defined by their biology matters. Biology is destiny to them.

As they are primarily white nationalists, they believe immigration is an existential threat to the white race (see The Great Replacement Theory) & blame declining white birth rates on feminism where choice & birth control necessitated immigration. So they are not only anti abortion but anti birth control, anti women working & anti mixed marriages. Kirk has made numerous statements to this effect & some are here.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

I was slightly familiar with Charlie Kirk because he was a semi-regular guest on Megyn Kelly's show. I didn't warm up to him at first, because he could be quite intense and I prefer my talking heads to be more laid back. Ideology aside, one thing I came to like about him was his very American optimism that there are no problems society can't solve through having a cordial conversation with those you disagree with.

I can't say that I ever heard him say anything that wasn't totally mainstream American conservatism. The idea that he was some kind of fascist only makes sense if you like in the ideological bubble of the US left which believes everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton is a fascist.

I'm sure there's plenty of stuff he said that I would disagree with. But I'm a little suspicious of those who in the last week have become experts in him, and have obviously all been reading the same copypasta cherrypicking his most outrageous comments, even if quite a few of them are obvious throwaway jokes or don't seem so outrageous when you read the full quote.

Regardless, I'm not Charlie Kirk's biographer or hagiographer. I appreciate him giving Kara Dansky a platform when they had little in common ideologically, and when almost all centrist to left American media would refuse to platform Kara.

I'm thinking here of Ryan T Anderson, whose book When Harry Became Sally was only recently unbanned by Amazon. Ryan is a conservative Christian, so he's not the most obvious person left wing feminists would look to as an ally. But his book was one of the first that gave a platform to detransitioners to tell their story. It is incredibly important to get detransitioners' voices out there.

It's possible to agree with people on some things and not on others. Some tribal leftists have trouble seeing that. And I think some posters absolutely do understand it but use the you're all far right adjacent tactic in bad faith to try to shut us up, or stop others listening.

How the fuck is anyone in an "alliance" with him by observing that shooting someone does not win an argument!

Kirk was not decent, or tolerant, or a supporter of women’s rights. Alliances with people with his views can only be in the interests of a minority of women, not all women. That’s not feminist

Commenting that it was a good interview and that his murder was horrific is exactly the same as saying we agree with everything he said, apparently.

I remember seeing the interview before, but never thought to research Charlie Kirk because I was interested in Kara not him.

There is no point. It's just more tedious slurs about women aligning with the Far Right and deifying the wrong type of people because we refuse to obediently chant TWAW. Remember even babies can be fascists now.

I'd never heard of this bloke before either.

I was talking about the Good Friday agreement recently, and thinking how those involved must really have had to grit their teeth in order to enter negotiations with people they seriously despised, knowing they would have to make unpalatable concessions. And yet they did it.

We have lost the ability to calmly debate with people we think are dangerously wrong.

I'd never heard of him until he was shot. What point are you trying to make?

I doubt Charlie Kirk has ever been discussed on here much, if ever, before his murder.

The link is that he could see that TRA was a danger to individuals and society. And that he interviewed at least one feminist.

Thats it.

Why posters are expecting everyone on MN to know his beliefs and motivations, and comment on them, is beyond me.

Why are people wanting to talk about how they disliked his opinions with people who have little to do with him? Wouldnt it be more appropriate to have that discussion with people who knew of him, and maybe before he was murdered?

Tell us you don't know who Charlie Kirk is without telling us…

Who is pursuing a 'far right alliance'? That's all in your head.

In a democracy you have the power to express opposing views.

I notice that women are being lectured as usual as to what is and isn’t in their best interests. Who they should speak to and who they should not.

He definitely did not deserve to die for his views.

Just because he was willing to openly debate a ‘feminist’ and they had shared ground when it comes to gender identity, his motives were very different to hers. Her motives for her belief are women’s rights. His motives were primarily because he hates anyone who wasn’t white, straight, male and ‘Christian’. He was a hateful homophobic, racist, misogynistic, transphobic, pro-violence dangerous man.

He had an agenda. Ethnic cleansing of America and to put women back in the home and undo all the rights they’ve gained (abortion for one) in recent decades. Just because he agreed that TWANW doesn’t mean he gave a shiny shit about actual women.

No one here is suggesting Kirk's murder was justified because of his very influential inhumane views. The context here is feminists pursuing far right alliance that is not in their interests.

There is a word for the use of murder to achieve a political end. That word is terrorism.