Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Charlie Kirk's beliefs

1000 replies

MsAmerica · 15/09/2025 02:29

If You're Wondering What Charlie Kirk Believed In, Here Are 14 Real Quotes
In light of his death, Charlie Kirk's legacy is being remembered through these viral quotes.
BuzzFeed

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexalisitza/viral-charlie-kirk-quotes

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
BoredZelda · 15/09/2025 21:38

Underthinker · 15/09/2025 14:58

The difference is, when Melissa Hortman died, there wasn't a sizeable minority of the American and British public who were pleased or who thought it was to some extent justified. We weren't arguing about the context of the things she'd said to figure out whether the assassin had a bit of a point.

Kirk changes things because too many ordinary people are showing they are happy about it. An even larger number of people will make a token nod to say his death was wrong, but then will share misinformation to do their best to make you hate him as much as they did.

They are happy to say Kirk died becaue he was a fascist. They are also happy to call anyone who disagrees a fascist. Which puts a lot of people in the potential firing line.

Oh you are hilarious. You really think there weren’t right wing nut jobs rejoicing? Look at what also happened after the attack on Paul Pelosi. It has been horrendous to see what people have said about violence towards left wing politicians or their families. Not to mention calling for the death of high profile politicians. They literally took a gallows to Jan 6, and were looking for individuals to kill. We weren’t arguing about the context of things she has said because she didn’t put herself out into social media and build a brand doing it. Her views were also not extreme.

I haven’t seen anyone saying the assassin “had a bit of a point”. I don’t see anyone here saying the killing was justified. In fact, the only people talking about any justification are Kirk’s supporters saying his opponents claim it was justified. You even claim that people who disliked him are being dishonest when they say he shouldn’t have died.

Kirk changes nothing. Misinformation is a problem in politics across the board. For example a quote like “too many ordinary people showing they are happy about it” is not fact, but you state it as if it were. “Out of context” is something I usually see when someone is dog whistling. When you go back and look at what is claimed to be context, it changes little, it simply adds plausible deniability. I don’t believe he is being completely misquoted. If you want real context you have to look at the entirety of his views. Saying ‘Gods perfect law” during a conversation about homosexuality taken in the context of his overall views about LGBTQ is not an error, it’s not entirely out of his wheelhouse, he was just smart enough to drop it into a conversation in a way that he can backtrack and say “aaah but I didn’t actually say they should be stoned.”

I suspect the vast majority of people on this thread who say “I agreed with some of what he said” are referring to his stance on trans people. These are posters who will claim they are in no way transphobic, but when you look at his comments on trans people, he clearly was. These are posters who will claim their issue with trans people is about protecting women’s rights, and yet, Kirk’s ideology was about removing rights for women. Make that make sense.

KnitFastDieWarm · 15/09/2025 21:39

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 11:32

I didn’t equate those things. This is the problem with trying to have a discussion about anything online: constantly being attacked with nonsensical responses from people with such poor reading comprehension that they evidence that they don’t understand basic sentences.

I stated that the inevitable logical conclusion of the argument to which my comment you quoted was responding - i.e. that what someone says or does online doesn’t matter because you can just choose not to look at it - would be that these things would also be acceptable: quite clearly, as explicitly stated, these examples were used to demonstrate the extreme of what such a viewpoint would justify as acceptable and why, therefore, the poster’s argument that it was fine for Kirk to say and do whatever he wanted online because people could just choose not to view it is logically incoherent, and such a position fundamentally undermines any attempt to have a decent society where everyone is safe because this can only exist when there are constraints on freedom of speech and behaviour; rights can only exist sustainably within reasonable boundaries so that the very rights that Kirk actively tried to undermine for over 50% of the population can continue to exist for everyone.

I did NOT equate in any way the views that Kirk was supporting - disgusting and internally self-contradictory as his views were - with those of paedophiles. I used this example to show that the argument the poster tried to use to justify Kirk’s behaviour could equally be employed by them to justify theirs. You should consider refraining in future from responding to posts you don’t understand and making false accusations you have fabricated in your imagination about other posters (being charitable about it) or, worse, deliberately trying to misrepresent other people’s comments.

the problem with your argument here is that Fred West, Jimmy Savile, and people who view CSA were/are actually causing physical harm to people (and even then, we don’t summarily execute such people in public).

Charlie Kirk was giving his opinion and debating it with others. Whether you agreed with it or not, he had a legal and arguably a human right to do this in a free and democratic society.

Those are not comparable situations, ethically or legally speaking.

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 22:26

weearrows · 15/09/2025 15:16

Did you read the blog? He is talking about classical liberalism and provides a chart explaining the difference between that and neo liberalism. In short, classical liberalism is about maximising individual freedom while minimising coercive power of the state.

The article explains this. I shared it because some people wish to paint CK as a fascist when everything he espoused is classical liberalism.

He clearly had not the faintest idea what liberalism is at all.

Clue: it doesn’t involve demands that 50% of the population should be subordinate to the other, give up all financial freedom/ careers and “understand” that their purpose in life is to “find a husband to serve” and then “submit to him” and “obey him”, have their right to refuse consent to sex removed, have their right to contraception and abortion removed, forced births - even if the girl needing an abortion was a 10 year old child who had been raped: the answer is still no; good old Charlie boy explicitly stated he’d make the 10 year old raped child go through the pregnancy and give birth, even if that raped and traumatised child was his own daughter.

How is this “liberalism” or a doctrine which “maximises individual freedom”?

Please do explain.

Or did you mean “individual freedom” just for some human beings, and not those unfortunate and inferior ones born with vaginas, to whom this “liberal” <cough> “morality” mysteriously does not apply?

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 22:39

KnitFastDieWarm · 15/09/2025 21:39

the problem with your argument here is that Fred West, Jimmy Savile, and people who view CSA were/are actually causing physical harm to people (and even then, we don’t summarily execute such people in public).

Charlie Kirk was giving his opinion and debating it with others. Whether you agreed with it or not, he had a legal and arguably a human right to do this in a free and democratic society.

Those are not comparable situations, ethically or legally speaking.

Try reading the thread before commenting. More straw man arguments which are holding up things I haven’t said as though they were an opinion I expressed that you need to argue against.

I haven’t seen anybody compare Mr Kirk’s behaviour to that of child abusers and murderers so I have no idea why you are making such a comparison let alone falsely trying to claim this is “my argument” when I’ve said no such thing at any point. Perhaps you should read the thread again so you understand the comments properly.

That said, Mr Kirk’s intentions were very much to cause immense harm of another kind to tens of thousands or even millions of people if he could, particularly to women, had he been successful in his desire and campaigns to have his worldview enacted into US law and forced onto everyone else as he explicitly stated he wished to do.

Nobody on the thread as far as I have seen has asserted that Mr Kirk did not have a right to debate his opinions. People have stated that such incoherent, hypocritical, self-contradictory and frankly abhorrent opinions were rightly challenged while he was alive and will continue to be challenged regardless of the fact that he is dead. Presumably, as a supposed advocate of free speech (only for humans with penises though, of course) he would welcome this, but probably not on Mumsnet, admittedly, due to the distinct lack of penises. We should all probably be busy “submitting to men” by this time of day.

dwordle · 15/09/2025 22:44

He had the right to an opinion but you are blatantly not being honest if you think a Christian can support the death penalty. Christians can not support any form capital punishment and that is not something Christians are in a position to debate if they stand up and make representation as a Christian.

So when a person talks about faith and says that somehow you can justify the death penalty as a Christian there can only be one reason. You are deliberately setting out to stoke controversy.

When people make a living by being deliberately controversial its not being very sincere or honest with your audience. Social media content makers don't make a name for themselves by being bland....they have to distinguish themselves. My thoughts are that this character was doing just that.

It's like having an opinion on abortion and then having a debate outside an abortion clinic with women who intend to or have had one. It would be wrong to do that as it would be upsetting and immoral...but it would get media attention and spark controversy....so I don't fully support freedom to say what ever you like.... because sometimes saying things can cause harm and lasting harm ....and sometimes ab opinion is just that an opinion to be kept to yourself

weearrows · 15/09/2025 22:48

@TheClaaawI’ve done my best to try and have a polite discussion with you and even offered to apologise if I have insulted you, but your posts come across as though you are right and everyone else is a ‘bit dim’. I could absolutely explain my position again but I don’t think you are really interesting in engaging with me. Have a nice evening.

GoldenGail · 15/09/2025 22:49

This is nasty. Taken out of context. Show respect…..he didn’t deserve what happened NO MATTER WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE SAID

weearrows · 15/09/2025 22:53

dwordle · 15/09/2025 22:44

He had the right to an opinion but you are blatantly not being honest if you think a Christian can support the death penalty. Christians can not support any form capital punishment and that is not something Christians are in a position to debate if they stand up and make representation as a Christian.

So when a person talks about faith and says that somehow you can justify the death penalty as a Christian there can only be one reason. You are deliberately setting out to stoke controversy.

When people make a living by being deliberately controversial its not being very sincere or honest with your audience. Social media content makers don't make a name for themselves by being bland....they have to distinguish themselves. My thoughts are that this character was doing just that.

It's like having an opinion on abortion and then having a debate outside an abortion clinic with women who intend to or have had one. It would be wrong to do that as it would be upsetting and immoral...but it would get media attention and spark controversy....so I don't fully support freedom to say what ever you like.... because sometimes saying things can cause harm and lasting harm ....and sometimes ab opinion is just that an opinion to be kept to yourself

I agree with you on this. The Bible talks about ‘an eye for an eye’ but a Christian should know that Jesus later said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

So no, I don’t believe you can argue for the death penalty from a Christian POV. I imagine (though never heard him say it) that Charlie Kirk would have been in favour of the DP. I don’t think it’s logically compatible with a Christian worldview.

TooTooMuchEverything · 15/09/2025 22:57

KnitFastDieWarm · 15/09/2025 21:39

the problem with your argument here is that Fred West, Jimmy Savile, and people who view CSA were/are actually causing physical harm to people (and even then, we don’t summarily execute such people in public).

Charlie Kirk was giving his opinion and debating it with others. Whether you agreed with it or not, he had a legal and arguably a human right to do this in a free and democratic society.

Those are not comparable situations, ethically or legally speaking.

You think words don’t cause harm?

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 23:06

weearrows · 15/09/2025 22:48

@TheClaaawI’ve done my best to try and have a polite discussion with you and even offered to apologise if I have insulted you, but your posts come across as though you are right and everyone else is a ‘bit dim’. I could absolutely explain my position again but I don’t think you are really interesting in engaging with me. Have a nice evening.

A long-winded way of saying you have no way to square the circle between your assertion that he was a proponent of liberalism and “individual freedom”, and his clearly expressed views that women and girls should have no freedom at all, “submit to men” and be “subordinate to them” and that ten year old rape victims should be forced to give birth.

These were the clearly expressed views of the man you have been defending. Continue to do so if you wish. A libertarian he was not!

I’m not sure what argument you would put forward to justify his position on forced childbirth for 10 year old rape victims, amongst his many other abhorrent views, and I’m sure as you say that the only reason you’re not enlightening us with the alleged justification for such views that will make them ok that you know and we don’t is purely because you dislike me, “so there! I won’t tell you what the justification for it is because I think you haven’t been sufficiently deferent to my (still at this point unexplained) defence of this nasty man!”

Whatever. Nobody is buying this nonsense I’m afraid. It’s quite clear you’re not providing your defence of his views because they are indefensible, not because you’re mildly annoyed with a random stranger on the internet. If you or any of the hangers on to his doctrine had any defensible position to argue you’d have done so 7 or 8 pages ago.

Kirk was a deeply unpleasant man with nasty, misogynistic views amongst a great many other character faults. Sadly many such men exist in the world, but when they try to force policy changes to force their disgusting views onto everyone else in law and remove other people’s rights they become a danger to society and it’s entirely appropriate for their views to be challenged robustly, during life and posthumously.

He should not have been murdered. Justice will take its course. That, however, is a separate issue to his opinions and there is a clear and deliberate attempt to try to portray this nasty man as some kind of hero and use his death as a way to elevate his toxic views in public discourse. His views remain as disgusting and incoherent as they were last week and it’s completely legitimate for people to continue to challenge them and all of the disingenuous people now trying pretend that he was some kind of virtuous and decent person.

dwordle · 15/09/2025 23:12

weearrows · 15/09/2025 22:53

I agree with you on this. The Bible talks about ‘an eye for an eye’ but a Christian should know that Jesus later said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

So no, I don’t believe you can argue for the death penalty from a Christian POV. I imagine (though never heard him say it) that Charlie Kirk would have been in favour of the DP. I don’t think it’s logically compatible with a Christian worldview.

Indeed and the eye for an eye was taken from the old testament, whereas Christians follow the work of Jesus Christ.

To the other posters comments, I didn't say he deserved to be shot nor am I making an excuse for it. What I'm saying is these social media stars fill the screens of millions of young minds. Not all will cope with the barrage of anger and hate and some like the 22 year old man will commit this act. As Christians we now need to show remorse and compassion. Remorse for the failure to protect and compassion on how we deal with someone who had made a terrible mistake that he will eventually have to come to terms with. Politicians calling for scalps helps who exactly....it certainly won't help the children who have lost their dad in such violent circumstances.

People in America and across the world need time to reflect and Mr Trump needs to shut up.

TooTooMuchEverything · 15/09/2025 23:32

If only Mr Trump would shut up. And now Don Jnr is pushing anti trans rubbish.

In fact, Statistically, trans people are underrepresented in the assassin category.

The Trumps et al are on a witch hunt. Hitler’s Germany comes to mind more and more often these days.

Meanwhile how’s the Epstein thing coming along? Are we effectively distracted enough now?

MsAmerica · 15/09/2025 23:37

Sausagenbacon · 15/09/2025 06:37

And?
What are we supposed to post in response?
"What a frightful person, he deserved to be shot"
Also, I'd prefer not to use someone else's soundbites.
Lastly, he's spot on here
A man who calls himself trans is wearing 'woman face,' no different than I would wear Black face trying to be a Black person. It's assuming an identity that isn't yours.

Edited

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "I'd prefer not to use someone else's soundbites."
Are you saying we should wait for people to themselves post "Here's a list of the worst things I've said"?

OP posts:
MsAmerica · 15/09/2025 23:39

Pepperedpickles · 15/09/2025 07:28

If anyone genuinely wants to know everything there is to know about CK they can visit his instagram page and / or the turning point USA page. It’s not exactly hard to find.

I'm sorry, but if your response is sincere, it's incredibly gullible.
Public figures do not post anything on their own websites other than what makes them look most admirable.

OP posts:
TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 23:55

MsAmerica · 15/09/2025 23:39

I'm sorry, but if your response is sincere, it's incredibly gullible.
Public figures do not post anything on their own websites other than what makes them look most admirable.

Hilarious and extremely worrying if this poster genuinely thinks that ”Turning Point” is a credible and unbiased source of news! Quite mind boggling.

IsEveryUserNameBloodyTaken · 16/09/2025 00:52

GoldenGail · 15/09/2025 22:49

This is nasty. Taken out of context. Show respect…..he didn’t deserve what happened NO MATTER WHAT HE MIGHT HAVE SAID

It’s the evil of the left though.
They are truly the fascists. They are the ones that want to shut down any discussion unless it is on their agenda.
Looking at all those on social media that have been celebrating and cheering on the murder, they are the violent left.They so like to preach tolerance and inclusion but are hypocrites.

TooTooMuchEverything · 16/09/2025 01:03

It’s the evil of the left though.
They are truly the fascists. They are the ones that want to shut down any discussion unless it is on their agenda.

???? meanwhile in America they are making lists about anyone who has said they don’t like Charlie Kirk and don’t care that he died and they are publishing those lists on social media. People are losing their jobs because of what they said on social media.

Who is shutting down discussions exactly? The far right are in power remember. Your post is irrational.

Batmanisaplaceinturkey · 16/09/2025 02:37

IsEveryUserNameBloodyTaken · 16/09/2025 00:52

It’s the evil of the left though.
They are truly the fascists. They are the ones that want to shut down any discussion unless it is on their agenda.
Looking at all those on social media that have been celebrating and cheering on the murder, they are the violent left.They so like to preach tolerance and inclusion but are hypocrites.

Hahaha. A joke post surely!?

Sadly probably not though.

danascully96 · 16/09/2025 04:03

I’m a liberal American and it really shocks me how many people on both sides are using this assassination to justify violence.

First of all, even though I disagree vehemently with Kirk, a lot of his quotes are being taken out of context. It makes me shudder to see people on my “side” swallow whatever sound bite will support their image. Most of their evidence about him being evil is based on half-truths and dishonest interpretations of his arguments.

I have seen his videos and there are many instances where he shows the ability to reason against his own side, admit someone made a good argument, and has offered arguments that have challenged some of my own views. I am almost a free speech absolutist and applaud his willingness to hold conversations with those whom he disagreed.

Having said that, I think Kirk did dog-whistle and that we can’t condemn his murder while also taking an honest look at his legacy. For instance, even if he wasn’t saying that “all Black women” lack the brain processing power to be leaders (like many on the left are alleging) but was instead questioning affirmative action and the competence of specific Black women like Joy Reid or Michelle Obama, it stills rings racist. He listed so many prominent Black Democratic women that it was almost impossible not to question how broadly he was speaking.

Especially when there are a lot of white men who share similar seats to these prominent Black women and have benefitted from white privilege and generational wealth. He neglects to mention those forms of affirmative action. Framing the issue as Black people stealing White people’s spots is going to stoke racial tension.

Also, Kirk called George Floyd a “scumbag,” as if that is reason enough to discredit Floyd’s humanity. Kirk similarly spread misinformation about Floyd’s death because he said that Floyd’s murderer was the victim of a “show trial” and that Floyd had actually died of a drug overdose… even though the medical examiners proved that asphyxiation was the true cause.

Or even Kirk’s argument that rap music is degenerative; on its surface, he can say he hates the messages it sends, but when he continually criticizes and invalidates huge parts of Black American culture (albeit under the guise of constructive arguments), it is no wonder that so many Black Americans felt targeted by him. We cannot venerate him as if he is MLK Jr. when he himself called MLK Jr. an “awful” person. Again, you can, in the abstract, make all these arguments and not be racist, but his arguments, on the whole, would leave a KKK member hooting and hollering. That’s not the effect we should have on society.

My takeaways:

  1. Kirk’s murder was unjustified and horrific no matter what he ever said

  2. Kirk should be quoted correctly and recognized as a man who could be fair in many ways, but we also should not whitewash his legacy (he did create a watchlist of professors because of their liberal beliefs, so saying he always championed free speech without any nuance is going too far)

  3. Both political sides have extreme corners that are willing to excuse violence. I’m most disappointed in my own side because I expected better — anyone who makes fun of Kirk’s death is deplorable; however, the Right should realize that they too have celebrated or tolerated violence against the Left (Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally, Jan. 6th, Nancy Pelosi’s husband’s attack, etc.)

  4. Let’s work toward understanding why the other side is upset and validate some of our honest frustrations instead of trying to prove our superiority all the time

  5. We need gun control, better mental health services, fewer kids glued to their screens all day, and more governmental oversight of online fringe groups

danascully96 · 16/09/2025 04:15

Edit: “Can condemn his murder*” not “can’t”

Itsnottheheatitsthehumidity · 16/09/2025 06:30

CK was a dick. He was entitled to his opinions even if I strongly disagreed with them. It doesn’t mean he deserved a terminal cancellation.

Parker231 · 16/09/2025 06:31

BananaPeels · 15/09/2025 13:01

i don’t think I’ve ever met a person in my entire life where I have agreed with all their views on everything or disagreed with them on everything.

I liked how Charlie Kirk came across. I think he had a wonderful demeanour and came across as exceedingly kind. I agreed with some of the premises he advocated for but others, whilst I understood where he was coming from, I didn’t agree. But boy I would have loved to have debated with him. I love a good, robust, calm debate.

it is very obvious that the clips maligning him were out of context. I don’t think he ever said anything offensive or even deeply controversial.They were just his conservative Christian views and he would defend them and listen to the opposing view.

we need this in society which is why I’m dreadfully sad he’s no longer with us.

You think his comments about others were kind?

weearrows · 16/09/2025 07:36

@danascully96A brilliant summing up. Don’t agree with all your points but I can absolutely see the point you’re making - very helpful. 👏🏼

KnitFastDieWarm · 16/09/2025 09:06

TheClaaaw · 15/09/2025 22:39

Try reading the thread before commenting. More straw man arguments which are holding up things I haven’t said as though they were an opinion I expressed that you need to argue against.

I haven’t seen anybody compare Mr Kirk’s behaviour to that of child abusers and murderers so I have no idea why you are making such a comparison let alone falsely trying to claim this is “my argument” when I’ve said no such thing at any point. Perhaps you should read the thread again so you understand the comments properly.

That said, Mr Kirk’s intentions were very much to cause immense harm of another kind to tens of thousands or even millions of people if he could, particularly to women, had he been successful in his desire and campaigns to have his worldview enacted into US law and forced onto everyone else as he explicitly stated he wished to do.

Nobody on the thread as far as I have seen has asserted that Mr Kirk did not have a right to debate his opinions. People have stated that such incoherent, hypocritical, self-contradictory and frankly abhorrent opinions were rightly challenged while he was alive and will continue to be challenged regardless of the fact that he is dead. Presumably, as a supposed advocate of free speech (only for humans with penises though, of course) he would welcome this, but probably not on Mumsnet, admittedly, due to the distinct lack of penises. We should all probably be busy “submitting to men” by this time of day.

Edited

@TheClaaaw you seem very angry with me and I understand that - I also found many of CK’s opinions on women very troubling, even though I will defend his right to express them. I wish you the best.

Plastictreees · 16/09/2025 09:12

Parker231 · 16/09/2025 06:31

You think his comments about others were kind?

It really is just laughable!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread