In praise of Kirk, kinda.

[berg80]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

 

[martybegan]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

You guys need to stop calling every opinion you don't like "hateful"

it's a cowards way out, intellectually fraudulent, and actually pretty pathetic.

 

[EMH]

"hateful rhetoric"

noticing left wing bullshit and exposing it
noticing DEI/Affirmative Action gives us incompetent traitors in public office
noticing 107 was complete bullshit
noticing trans people are sick, unhealthy disasters, many of whom regret getting "trans-ed"


The OP is a hateful sick person who preaches lies and treason against America. Charlie was one who was busting those lies...

 

[80zephyr]

The truth is not "hateful rhetoric". It simply is.

 

[berg80]

The truth is not "hateful rhetoric". It simply is.

You might consider being less cryptic.

 

[80zephyr]

You might consider being less cryptic.

Speaking the truth is not hateful. If it is pointed out that blacks have a murder problem, its the truth. And without
speaking the truth, a problem can never be solved.

 

[Rawley]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

ANother one. Quote his "hateful rhetoric"

 

[rightwinger]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

Kirk was willing to get in the face of those who opposed him and he was very good at it.

 

[Moonglow]

Speaking the truth is not hateful. If it is pointed out that blacks have a murder problem, its the truth. And without
speaking the truth, a problem can never be solved.

Humans have a murder problem, and they come in all the colors humans have. The way that Charlie was doing it was that he was not noticing that humans come in many colors, yet act the same.

 

[Rawley]

Kirk was willing to get in the face of those who opposed him and he was very good at it.

Actually, the opposite. He invited those he disagreed with to get up in his face.

 

[80zephyr]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

To be clear, he held some really awful views and said some disturbingly provocative things. Despite this he was praised in the NYT by Ezra Klein who said.........

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination-fear-politics.html

You can dislike much of what Kirk believed and the following statement is still true: Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him. He was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.
............................................................................................................................................................................................
By all means he gets points for his focus on a willingness to debate people from the other side and for the denouncement of violence. But based on things he said the flip side is he could reasonably be accused of being, or at least sounding like, a racist, a bigot, and a homophobe. And then there's his shameless promotion of the Big Lie.

Meaning his legacy is complicated.

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

What were his awful views?

 

[Anathema]

My question being, does his advocacy of debate excuse his sometimes hateful rhetoric? Shouldn't we expect more of people in the public square? Or has it really come to this?

His rhetoric was not hateful. He simply failed to follow the leftist mantra of excusing people from the consequences of their own decisions and actions. He also wasn’t one to compromise his ideals. That’s what I liked the most about him.

 

[berg80]

Speaking the truth is not hateful. If it is pointed out that blacks have a murder problem, its the truth. And without
speaking the truth, a problem can never be solved.

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

 

[marvin martian]

You guys need to stop calling every opinion you don't like "hateful"

it's a cowards way out, intellectually fraudulent, and actually pretty pathetic.

And leads to people getting murdered.

 

[martybegan]

And leads to people getting murdered.

Call people wrong, call people stupid, call people misguided.

Give up on the racist crap and save it for actual ******* racists. Learn to live with the reality that some people will consider homosexuality sinful. Come to realize the who trans thing is a giant clusterfuck of multiple types of bullshit.

 

[80zephyr]

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

I would love for you to prove that. Everyone can make a mistake, but I doubt he would lie intentionally.

 

[martybegan]

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

Opinions you don't like aren't lies. Reality you refuse to admit isn't false.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

It sounds like you and the killer had a lot in common?

"At a press conference on Friday morning, Utah Governor Spencer Cox began his remarks by delcaring: 'We got him.'

He said that investigators learned from Robinson's family that he had become more political in recent times, and had recently expressed his dislike for Kirk, describing him to his family as 'full of hate.'

Charlie Kirk 'killer' identified as Tyler Robinson

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Now I get it. My view is Kirk had the right to say ignorant, bigoted things and not be shot for it. But let's not pretend he was truthful.

He spoke the truth. Thats why you hate.