Had you heard of Charlie Kirk before yesterday?

[Havetoagree]

Just that really? I hadn’t and wondering if I’m the only one. And why is it such a big story? I guess the association with trump. What would be the equivalent level of fame over here?

Yeah they don't like it up them.

Personally, this isn’t something I could get worked up about.

Have you heard vegans compare the slaughter of animals to the Holocaust?

There’s the constant comparisons of Gaza to the Holocaust.

How many times has Hitler been mentioned on this thread alone?

I suppose bringing up the Nazis is really that shocking to me because it is so commonplace.

The laughably horrible accusations he made apparently about gay people exemplify his main faults when debating :

CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): By the way, the buried lede of this is that 60 percent of this school board is LGBT, is gay. The question is, do Christians run for school boards as much as the LGBT community does? No. As I said yesterday, which is groomers can't reproduce, so instead they recruit. So, they go serve on school boards. And they go do drag queens. And they do all this other sort of disgusting nauseating stuff.

The people of Phoenix shouldn't put up with this. But a -- I'll be honest, it's more important to go run for your local school board than it is just to show up for another political rally.

Respectfully I think it’s you who are missing the point.

“You should be allowed to share an opinion/POV without getting murdered.”

Absolutely.

Children should also be allowed to go to school without getting murdered.

Disturbingly, in the US, these things are at risk becomes of the right to bear arms. Charlie Kirk was highly influential in advocating for this right. He insisted that some people, including children at school, being murdered was “worth it” and a “rational” price to pay for the right to bear arms .

Charlie Kirk also had a lot to say about the “toxicity” of empathy. All this outpouring of feeling about his death and for his family is quite out of keeping with the value and ideals he preached.

He wouldn’t want us to get emotionally hijacked by this narrative. He told us that some deaths are inevitable to protect Americans’ god given rights to bear arms, and that empathy is a made up and damaging concept.

So let’s not corrupt this influential man’s legacy by having too many feelings/ concerns about his murder.

It's vile to lessen it by constant incorrect comparisons, whether you're talking about veganism or abortion or any of the others.

My 14 and 17 have me no

When the bullet entered his throat, it was "worth it" (via having access to guns) according to him.

He also didn't believe in empathy.

The killing of this shitstain is therefore a non story in the white settler entity america, as he said gun deaths were worth it, thus it would be strange for his white nationalist followers to be upset over it, as would feeling any empathy over it. If they like him surely they would do as he says. No upset, nor any empathy.

I'm not worked up either, I just think what he said was crass, stupid and wrong. Certainly not measured or thought provoking or whatever you and others on here have said about him. Maybe choose different examples.

It does feel weird, given he's violently dead, to be picking apart his words like this though I guess that's what happens if talking is what you do for work.

Sure, but I’ve been online long enough to know that a whole load of people are trivialising the Holocaust, the Nazi’s, Hilter, fascism everyday - Godwin’s Law.

I don’t particularly think they are being vile, I think ignorance plays a part. Often people are trying to convey how bad they believe something is by comparing it to the worst thing they can think of

I’m not saying I agree with the comparisons. it’s fucking outrageous. And at times, antisemitic.

How many times has Hilter been mentioned on this thread?

What I’m saying is that it is so commonplace, it’s not really something that I personally could get worked up over Charlie Kirk doing, when I see it on Mumsnet daily.

You’ve clearly got me mixed up with someone else - I’ve never once said he was measured or though provoking.

I just simply don’t believe that it’s fine for people to be shot to death for having opinions, or saying stupid shit.

Me too. Regardless of political persuasion, unfortunately there are so many younger audiences who have now seen something they can't unsee.

I was coming here to reference this too.

Charlie Kirk had many unpleasant views. Not a surprise when you consider he was a close buddy of Trump.

I cannot conceive why he deserves such an outpouring of emotion, especially when you consider Democrats like Melissa were assassinated just a couple of months ago and it barely caused a murmur.

I’m watching the news right now and there’s huge overreaction from some right-wing sources - calls for the left to be “held accountable” and the party banned. Funny how they were silent when it was Democrats being shot and killed.

No one deserves to be shot and killed. No one.

I have the utmost sympathy for his wife and children. It must be truly, truly horrific for them.

But I don’t see why this man is getting such an outpouring of love. It’s bizarre.

People talking about him being a decent man because he conversed with people with opposing views. That is such a low bar to set. I don’t think that makes him a decent man. But that just shows you how accustomed we’ve become to people who lie and swerve the questions. It still doesn’t mean he was a good person though.

Many of his views were abhorrent. And yes, that includes his view that some gun deaths every year are nothing more than unfortunate collateral that aren’t as important as gun rights.

I am sorry that a man died. And I’m desperately sorry for his wife and kids.

But Trump using this death to whip up more of a frenzy against the left is utterly disgusting. Disgusting. And Charlie Kirk certainly doesn’t deserve this level of coverage when no one raised an eyebrow about Democrats being assassinated. And a further school shooting occurred just yesterday with barely a mention.

Sorry to jump in, but I actually do think it’s really strange how as humans we tend to worship the dead. For example, we might not like someone but then when they die everyone says what a lovely person they were. For me it’s the same here. He was who he was and his words were powerful and that’s how he made a name for himself. His words are all that remain of him now and we shouldn’t sugar coat & pretend his beliefs were something else. (I think the phrase is live by the sword, die by the sword).
The man was in support of gun laws and clearly stated that (paraphrasing) some deaths are inevitable and the price to pay. He also thought empathy was dangerous and woke. We should respect his views and beliefs in death & trust that as a man of strong beliefs - such that he made a living out of preaching them - that he understood, accepts, and is comfortable with the risks of existing in a world where guns are as easy to buy as bread and milk.

Ah right fair enough I don't think stupid people should be shot either.

He doesn't sound particularly devout though, which is how you described him. He sounds like a wind up merchant.

He said he was devout. Everyone who knew him said the same.

I am not religious. Who am I to question someone else’s faith?

So what he's saying here is very telling.
First he says, 'Groomers can't reproduce so they recruit.' This phrase was coined by the notorious homophobe Anita Bryant during her 1970s Save Our Children campaign, which claimed that gay people should not be allowed to be teachers.

The question is, by 'groomers', does he mean ALL LGBT people are groomers and therefore suspicious?

Quoting Anita Bryant does seem to imply he meant gay people in general, rather than paedophiles, and referencing the LGBT community in the same breath also seems to indicate that.

The whole speech is also laughably inaccurate. I googled the school board case he was referencing in Phoenix which he claims is 60% LGBT (3 out of 5 school board members)

The 3 LGBT members appear to be Tamillia Gosa Chapa (described as a 'wife and mother', and 'identifies as part of the LGBT community. Suspect she is married to a man but not totally clear), Nikki Gomez Whaley ( has children, also married to a man, works on behalf of the LGBT community but not clear if she herself is) and Kyle Clayton (married to a 'partner' of 17 years- apparently gay but not totally sure, and also has children).

So Kirk was ridiculously saying their behaviour was proof of the LGBT community 'recruiting as unable to reproduce', when in fact all 3 have children!

It's not even clear if Gomez Haley is LGBT, there seems to be no statement that she is, and she is definitely married to a man. Gosa Chapa 'identifying as LGBT' could well mean she was just saying so for woke points.

The 3 board members behaviour apparently involved firing Christian staffers for their beliefs, which is terrible. But the argument Kirk was making about it was laughably wrong, as well as bigoted.

The whole situation, tangentially, makes me think that this looks v much like policies promoted by someone who does not appear to be LGBT (Gomez) and someone who vaguely 'identifies as' (Chapa) being used to demonise to all LGB people as 'groomers', when in fact they may well not be LGBT at all.

Not really a great showcase for Kirk's kindness or logic!

@JustMyView13 live by the sword die by the sword has been echoing in my head too since I heard about this. But. I don't know that it really applies, given that he doesn't come across as particularly sincere. He was probably just a dumb bloke who didn't compute consequences and didn't see himself as living by the sword.

And it makes me an arsehole to say that, because the reason you don't speak ill of the dead is because punching down is bad, and you can't get more down than dead. But then we'd never even be talking about this guy if it weren't for frigging trump beatifying him.

Funny thing is, there wasn't one single thread, not one, created when a right wing lunatic assassinated Melissa Hortman and her husband.

There was no condemnation of the right as a disgusting, violent collective. No outrage at the vile comments on social media. No demands that the right be "dealt with", not even a presidential statement condemning the killings.

The right have become experts at playing the victim and it's absolutely abhorrent how many of them do it on here.

Charlie Kirk being murdered does not suddenly make him any less vile.

He himself thought that people, including children, being murdered was a price worth paying for the right to own guns. So surely he would actually have approved of the manner of his own death?

I'll save my tears for the children being gunned down in Gaza for the crime of trying to get a little food.

@Vivi0 ah come on, his words are not devout, holy saintly or devotional. They are strident, hectoring and full of provocation. It's fighting talk, to coin a phrase.

My 19 year old DD told me about him, a few months ago, and mentioned the Cambridge students. She was the one who first saw the news of his death on line.

Nope

Yup. For all the posts about the evil violent left, fact is that right wing extremism manifests in far more violence and murder. Some US stats:

The thing is, does the US government have the ability to stop people having guns? They tried stopping people drinking alcohol, that didn't work, they tried stopping people taking drugs, that hasn't worked either. So why would a ban on guns be any different? Criminals certainly aren't going to give up their guns.

He suddenly decided he was devout a few years ago. It's impossible to assess his sincerity, but I don't believe it, and think it was for self-promotion.