Page 15 | Charlie Kirk dead

Booneymil · 2025-09-10T22:20:26+00:00

The last thread was taken down because of personal insults towards the man. We should be able to have a thread about this news topic. Report any insulting posts. Mumsnet can you please just delete the offending posts, instead of deleting the whole thread? Thank you. Charlie Kirk has died today. He was shot at a public talk that he was giving.

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 03:41

Oblomov25 · 11/09/2025 03:35

I still can't believe some of the awful posts re basically he was a trump supporter so deserved to die. I find that hard to stomach. Come on all life is valuable, no one wants someone dead, or shouldn't, and no one should actually be shot. It's a calamity.

plus like others I didnt realise how young he was, he looked older, spoke more maturely. He was only 31. With a wife and 2 kids. This is so sad.

I don't support Trump, I didn't agree with CK on gun laws, or abortion. He was too conservative for me.

But I did agree with him on trans issues. I believe you cant change sex. A woman is a woman. I used to love watching him debate, as he visited all the uni campuses. He was incredibly bright, very articulate, very quick witted and could debate well. Although I did see him get caught out by a uk student!

But as someone who liked his debates re trans and how women are women, I loved watching his debates.

He only said the truth. You can't change sex. And for this he deserved to die? No!

Obvs he said a lot of things, plenty not so imcontestable as 'you can't change sex'.

But ofc he shouldn't have died for that! No one should die for their beliefs!

And the 'Trump supporters should die' posts are insane. If I were US I would vote Trump, tho I loathe him, bc the Democrats were pushing v dangerous policies like all the trans stuff, open borders, & some dubious stuff on crime.

Plenty of people felt similarly- many strongly disliked Trump but were understandably scared of defunded police & transwomen in prisons & bathrooms etc

ChessorBuckaroo · 11/09/2025 03:43

ChessorBuckaroo · 11/09/2025 00:30

More on the right in america CENSORING their disgusting history being taught to kids in schools:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/25/critical-race-theory-us-history-1619-project

"Today’s reactionaries are picking up the mantle of generations of Americans who have fought to ensure that white children are taught a version of America’s past that is more hagiographic than historic", with examples cited including Oregon enacting a law in the 1920s that banned the use of any textbook in schools that "speaks slightingly of the founders", to Lynne Cheney, the chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, launching a campaign in the 1990s against an effort to introduce new standards for teaching U.S. history which she found insufficiently "celebratory".

One of those "founders" was thomas jefferson, who raped his 15 year old slave, one of 600 African human beings he owned.

Charlie Kirk did not want this history being taught. He wanted "patriotic history".

In addition to KirK advocating the censorship of history in american classrooms, so completely whitewashing the most racist country in human history and indoctrinating kids with a "patriotic" version of history (ie. a make believe one that didn't involve the dehumanization, ethnic cleansing and massacre of the Native people (not "savages" america, PEOPLE), or the slave owning tyrants who held African slaves while president, including the paedophile thomas jefferson who raped his 15 year old slave), Kirk also said empathy was a made up word, and that the gun laws there which allowed deaths were "prudent".

He was a heartless git, an advocate of censoring history, and a product of the white settler entity that he came from.

*Kirk being a gun advocate, when thomas jefferson was raping his 15 year old slave it's a pity she didn't have a gun to put a bullet through his forehead which would have done humanity an enormous favour, but alas as a slave it was illegal for her to be armed. Being armed was the preserve of whitey, of white settlers who inflicted hell on others.

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 03:45

This reply has been withdrawn

This message has been withdrawn at the poster's request

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 03:47

Financial · 11/09/2025 03:39

It’s actually worse than that.
In Utah, anyone who has a concealed carry permit can openly carry a weapon, whether it's a pistol or a rifle, on college campuses if they are over 18.

Show quote history

Incredible. And the teachers aren't scared? I suppose they mostly agree if they choose to teach there...but find it hard to get my head around...

AngelicKaty · 11/09/2025 03:52

JKRisGalileo · 11/09/2025 03:39

To all the posters bringing up stuff he said that they (and I!) don't agree withas an excuse for what happened: you are aligning yourselves with people who are condoning his murder. The outbreak of glee and gloating on social media is appalling. You're proving his point: that when you refuse to talk or allow others to talk, then violence breaks out. We're seeing this throughout the once-peaceful Western civilisations. The whole point about the democratic system is that it allows debate and dissent. But right now, too many people are giving themselves permission to express their own dissent with violence rather than words, and we're seeing this on our streets every damn weekend. We need to remember that flawed though it is, a democratic parliamentary multiparty system is the best one we've got. Every other system will punish you for wrongthink, sometimes with death. Charlie Kirk was a decent human being with strong opinions that I didn't fully agree with. He did not deserve to be murdered. Words are not violence: actual violence IS violence.

Edited

Who on this thread is "bringing up stuff he said that they (and I!) don't agree with as an excuse for what happened: you are aligning yourselves with people who are condoning his murder."? Some people, myself included, are certainly quoting some of the things he's said but none of us has said 'and therefore he deserved to die'. That's offensive, arrant nonsense.

CurlewKate · 11/09/2025 03:53

MorningLarkEchoes · 11/09/2025 03:21

So if you’re not left-wing in your political beliefs, you are saying this is the inevitable consequence? Good grief! I’m shocked at the level of nastiness I’ve seen on here tonight…

Show quote history

You misunderstand me. I am saying that Kirk’s own clearly expressed point of view was that some gun deaths were the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of not controlling the ownership of guns. And tragically his death proved that. I hope that his supporters take a moment to think about this awful thing and perhaps reconsider their position.

EsmaCannonball · 11/09/2025 03:56

In recent years there have been atheists lynched to death in Pakistan, a Somalian comedian was murdered, several bloggers in Bangladesh have been killed in the streets. There will always be someone, somewhere who takes a rabid dislike to your opinions, no matter how benign or mainstream they are.

I don't get how all the 'well, he was pretty repellent' people aren't worried by just how easy it is for somebody to be labelled as death-worthy these days. J.K. Rowling? Graham Linehan? Salman Rushdie? A.O.C.? Owen Jones? There are many people out there who genuinely think the words of these people are so bad that they deserve to die.

JKRisGalileo · 11/09/2025 03:56

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 03:01

I agree totally w your view of Left's violent misogyny

However, don't you think it's misogynist at all to deny ALL abortion access to women, even preteen rape victims?

To say that women on the Pill are automatically 'crazy and bitter'?

That women over 30 are by default ',past their prime' so it's understandable if men aren't interested?

That women should only go to college to get a husband?

Show quote history

You're simply proving his point that when people decide that words aren't enough to force their views on others, that then you get violence. Of course I didn't agree with the highly conservative views he expressed, while agreeing with others. None of this justifies what the murderer did. Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be murdered.

JKRisGalileo · 11/09/2025 03:59

EsmaCannonball · 11/09/2025 03:56

In recent years there have been atheists lynched to death in Pakistan, a Somalian comedian was murdered, several bloggers in Bangladesh have been killed in the streets. There will always be someone, somewhere who takes a rabid dislike to your opinions, no matter how benign or mainstream they are.

I don't get how all the 'well, he was pretty repellent' people aren't worried by just how easy it is for somebody to be labelled as death-worthy these days. J.K. Rowling? Graham Linehan? Salman Rushdie? A.O.C.? Owen Jones? There are many people out there who genuinely think the words of these people are so bad that they deserve to die.

Absolutely. Posie Parker, J.K. Rowling, Graham Linehan, have all been subjected to appalling threats of violence. JKR said she could paper her walls with all the rape and death threats she'd received. Charlie Kirk never condoned threats against women and children, even if some of his views were very conservative.

kkloo · 11/09/2025 04:01

ChessorBuckaroo · 11/09/2025 00:30

More on the right in america CENSORING their disgusting history being taught to kids in schools:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/25/critical-race-theory-us-history-1619-project

"Today’s reactionaries are picking up the mantle of generations of Americans who have fought to ensure that white children are taught a version of America’s past that is more hagiographic than historic", with examples cited including Oregon enacting a law in the 1920s that banned the use of any textbook in schools that "speaks slightingly of the founders", to Lynne Cheney, the chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities, launching a campaign in the 1990s against an effort to introduce new standards for teaching U.S. history which she found insufficiently "celebratory".

One of those "founders" was thomas jefferson, who raped his 15 year old slave, one of 600 African human beings he owned.

Charlie Kirk did not want this history being taught. He wanted "patriotic history".

That's not unusual though.
Out of curiosity, what country are you from?

TinyIsMyNewt · 11/09/2025 04:02

GallantKumquat · 11/09/2025 03:41

I'm certainly not the best person to argue a pro Kirk position, I disagreed with him on too many issues and consequently didn't follow him closely enough for me now to do justice to his views. Certainly he would have disagree with the liberal basis of free speech that I would put forward. maybe others here will argue it.

But keeping a watch list on notorious, public, bad actors is hardly beyond the pale - any activist or politically oriented organization does it. Nor is calling out the extreme ideological capture and intellectual dishonesty of American universities. And more broadly he was 100% correct - there was (and still is) a huge coercive force in place to systematically suppress voices ''on the far right' - and in the trans debate that meant suppressing those of gc women, even those well left of center. It's extremely destructive to our democracies. It's destroyed the trust of millions of citizens in their civic and governing institutions.

Show quote history

His Watchlist resulted in death and rape threats being sent to the listed professors.

He inspired political violence, and he died as a result of political violence.

GarlicPint · 11/09/2025 04:02

AyeDeadOn · 10/09/2025 23:38

Anyone who thinks theyre making some clever point by saying he supported the right to bear arms so somehow is in any way more deserving of being assassinated because he said things people disagree with, is either a total idiot or being completely disingenuous.

He did explicitly say that collateral deaths are a worthwhile price for the right to bear arms:

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 right.

This obviously doesn't mean he deserved to be shot - particularly as I disagree with him on the acceptability of guns and deaths. But it's not wrong to remark that, sadly, he's fallen victim to his own ideology.

I don't suppose we'll ever know what point the shooter wished to make, or if there even was a point; it looks like s/he effectively melted away.

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 04:02

JKRisGalileo · 11/09/2025 03:56

You're simply proving his point that when people decide that words aren't enough to force their views on others, that then you get violence. Of course I didn't agree with the highly conservative views he expressed, while agreeing with others. None of this justifies what the murderer did. Charlie Kirk did not deserve to be murdered.

Show quote history

I don't understand what you mean. I don't want to use violence to force my views on anyone. I don't agree w Kirk's murder. How does my post prove your point?

Apologies for being slow. It's late and I'm quite tired.

2021x · 11/09/2025 04:02

I have watched a few right-wing leaning YT channels on this. It is obvious the ones that have had either media or jounalistic training and standards and the ones that are just based on personalities.

All of the comments are saying things like the "left" are the violent ones, and it was because he was speaking his opinion and the left caused this death. At the time these comments were made we didn't know who the shooter was etc.

It really opened up my eyes about the irresponsible cash-grab these "opinion" channels are on both sides. The story wasn't about CK, but about how "the left" media was gleeful he was dead. I know that people would be having these discussions anyway but they are usually in the bar with their mates, not to be recorded for posterity.

Sugarnspicenallthingsnaice · 11/09/2025 04:04

GarlicPint · 11/09/2025 04:02

He did explicitly say that collateral deaths are a worthwhile price for the right to bear arms:

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 right.

This obviously doesn't mean he deserved to be shot - particularly as I disagree with him on the acceptability of guns and deaths. But it's not wrong to remark that, sadly, he's fallen victim to his own ideology.

I don't suppose we'll ever know what point the shooter wished to make, or if there even was a point; it looks like s/he effectively melted away.

Show quote history

Imagine being the mother of a primary school shooting victim and hearing him say that.

"worth it"

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 04:05

EsmaCannonball · 11/09/2025 03:56

In recent years there have been atheists lynched to death in Pakistan, a Somalian comedian was murdered, several bloggers in Bangladesh have been killed in the streets. There will always be someone, somewhere who takes a rabid dislike to your opinions, no matter how benign or mainstream they are.

I don't get how all the 'well, he was pretty repellent' people aren't worried by just how easy it is for somebody to be labelled as death-worthy these days. J.K. Rowling? Graham Linehan? Salman Rushdie? A.O.C.? Owen Jones? There are many people out there who genuinely think the words of these people are so bad that they deserve to die.

No one deserves death for an opinion, no matter how repellent. We should ALL agree on that

tamade · 11/09/2025 04:05

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 03:16

Kirk was an adult, an intelligent and articulate one.

I think you're taking away his agency here. I don't believe he was pressured to say those things, I believe he was a strong character who stated what he truly believed- an admirable quality, even if the views were- often less than admirable.

The murder is VILE. Let no one with any humanity say otherwise.

But whitewashing Kirk's image infantilises him : as if it's the interviewer's responsibility that Kirk expressed those views. No, Kirk freely chose to answer those questions w those words

I do not believe that interviewers should be holding back in case an evil kook decides to murder based on a reply given by an interviewee.

The murder is solely the responsibility of the murderer. It's very dangerous to say that other people's words caused the murder. It's the same line of thought that imprisons brave people like Glinner.

I DO think security there was astoundingly weak. Bag searches could have saved Kirk's life!

Show quote history

I agree with almost all of that but I do think asking loaded questions, which give the interviewee a choice between; (1) making an exception in the application of their principles (and undermining their credibility) or, (2) rigidly applying their principle and appearing to be a callous monster and losing moral authority. Are part of the problem making good faith debates impossible. There are posters on here saying it is ironic, humorous even that he was shot to death. Would they hold such views if he had not been put on the spot and 'forced' (by his principles and character) to chose (2) when answering questions framed to make him look bad?

The shooter is ultimately responsible but why did he want to kill Kirk? I suggest it was because of his public image which is basically his debating face, and that is the sum of all of his answers.

TinyIsMyNewt · 11/09/2025 04:05

GallantKumquat · 11/09/2025 03:41

I'm certainly not the best person to argue a pro Kirk position, I disagreed with him on too many issues and consequently didn't follow him closely enough for me now to do justice to his views. Certainly he would have disagree with the liberal basis of free speech that I would put forward. maybe others here will argue it.

But keeping a watch list on notorious, public, bad actors is hardly beyond the pale - any activist or politically oriented organization does it. Nor is calling out the extreme ideological capture and intellectual dishonesty of American universities. And more broadly he was 100% correct - there was (and still is) a huge coercive force in place to systematically suppress voices ''on the far right' - and in the trans debate that meant suppressing those of gc women, even those well left of center. It's extremely destructive to our democracies. It's destroyed the trust of millions of citizens in their civic and governing institutions.

Show quote history

His organizations Watchlist was designed to threaten and intimidate those with perceived left-wing views. It resulted in death threats and threats of rape being sent to listed Professors.

He inspired political violence, and its also how he met his end. Both are deplorable acts, but yeah - free speech advocate? Pull the other one.

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 04:07

tamade · 11/09/2025 04:05

I agree with almost all of that but I do think asking loaded questions, which give the interviewee a choice between; (1) making an exception in the application of their principles (and undermining their credibility) or, (2) rigidly applying their principle and appearing to be a callous monster and losing moral authority. Are part of the problem making good faith debates impossible. There are posters on here saying it is ironic, humorous even that he was shot to death. Would they hold such views if he had not been put on the spot and 'forced' (by his principles and character) to chose (2) when answering questions framed to make him look bad?

The shooter is ultimately responsible but why did he want to kill Kirk? I suggest it was because of his public image which is basically his debating face, and that is the sum of all of his answers.

Edited

Show quote history

Would it have undermined his credibility though to say that preteen rape victims should be allowed abortions? Plenty of conservative Christians and Relublicans woul probs make an exception for rape, esp of a child.

misssunshine86 · 11/09/2025 04:08

The man literally said that deaths by shooting were a price worth paying to retain the second amendment, so yes, whilst it's sad for anyone to get shot, I'm puzzled at why I'd be more sad about this than a classroom full of children. I don't think anyone should be shot which is why I disagreed with his views. I think we shouldn't underplay the danger of extreme views in either direction - if your opinion questions the rights of others to exist then how can you be surprised when they in turn hate you back and once you pair that with virtually zero gun control, this is to be expected. Not right, but expected.

ThriveAT · 11/09/2025 04:09

Booneymil · 10/09/2025 23:30

I don't support Trump but I know some really lovely people who do support Trump.

We should all have the freedom to choose

Show quote history

The cult mindset is not about freedom.

Kurokurosuke · 11/09/2025 04:16

TheJoyOfWriting · 11/09/2025 03:41

Obvs he said a lot of things, plenty not so imcontestable as 'you can't change sex'.

But ofc he shouldn't have died for that! No one should die for their beliefs!

And the 'Trump supporters should die' posts are insane. If I were US I would vote Trump, tho I loathe him, bc the Democrats were pushing v dangerous policies like all the trans stuff, open borders, & some dubious stuff on crime.

Plenty of people felt similarly- many strongly disliked Trump but were understandably scared of defunded police & transwomen in prisons & bathrooms etc

Show quote history

Even if your belief is...
"It's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment".

I won't celebrate death. Not even his, as I disagree with his opinion, so to celebrate his shooting would go against what I believe.

But... he literally believed some lives are worth the cost in order to protect the Second Amendment, so one would have to presume, in his opinion, that includes him...

AngelicKaty · 11/09/2025 04:17

tamade · 11/09/2025 04:05

I agree with almost all of that but I do think asking loaded questions, which give the interviewee a choice between; (1) making an exception in the application of their principles (and undermining their credibility) or, (2) rigidly applying their principle and appearing to be a callous monster and losing moral authority. Are part of the problem making good faith debates impossible. There are posters on here saying it is ironic, humorous even that he was shot to death. Would they hold such views if he had not been put on the spot and 'forced' (by his principles and character) to chose (2) when answering questions framed to make him look bad?

The shooter is ultimately responsible but why did he want to kill Kirk? I suggest it was because of his public image which is basically his debating face, and that is the sum of all of his answers.

Edited

Show quote history

Answers he chose to give. Kirk was a skilled and eloquent debater (whether you agree with his views or not). Do you seriously think that if he was faced with "questions framed to make him look bad" that he wouldn't simply reframe them? Politicians do this all the time - they are trained to do it. People in the public eye create and hone their public image with great care, yet you're trying to claim that Kirk's public image was somehow accidental. That's utter nonsense.

2021x · 11/09/2025 04:19

Something else is this is in contrast to Graham Linehams case when it comes to freedom of speech.

There are some people using their right to freedom of speech to say that CK got what he deserved because he was vocal about the right to have access to firearms, and the use of his platform to sow seeds of distrust amongst groups creating conflict and therefore increasing his value as an "outspoken" speaker.

Some of these right wing commentators are saying that these speeches are supporting political violence. But if speech cannot incite violence i.e. you can say this person should be punched in the balls etc that is freedom of speech, how can you then say that saying someone deserved to die (as distasteful and extreme as it is) is a demonstration of violent tendancies.

Sugarnspicenallthingsnaice · 11/09/2025 04:25

JKRisGalileo · 11/09/2025 03:59

Absolutely. Posie Parker, J.K. Rowling, Graham Linehan, have all been subjected to appalling threats of violence. JKR said she could paper her walls with all the rape and death threats she'd received. Charlie Kirk never condoned threats against women and children, even if some of his views were very conservative.

Show quote history

He did make some interesting comments about the man who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband with a hammer - "if some amazing patriot in the San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out".