You must log in or # to comment.
This post is a perfect example of everything people criticize about the modern “left.” Not because it disagrees with Charlie Kirk, but because it reduces an entire person to race, gender, and resentment instead of engaging with ideas.
You can think his views were wrong, shallow, or even outright harmful, but dismissing someone as just “a mediocre white man” is exactly the kind of identity based tribalism the left claims to oppose.
And regardless of how much people hated his politics, Charlie Kirk openly debated people who disagreed with him. He went onto hostile campuses, argued face to face, answered questions, and defended his positions publicly. That already puts him above a huge part of modern political culture, where too many people prefer censorship, deplatforming, mob shaming, or labeling disagreement as “harm.”
As for myself, I didn’t agree with everything Charlie Kirk said, and I still don’t. But I deeply respect what he was doing. Peaceful exchange of ideas.
I’m an atheist myself, raised Christian, and honestly I would have loved debating him about religion. Not because I think I would magically “win,” but because that kind of respectful clash of ideas is healthy. People sharpen each other through discussion. Through challenge. Through disagreement.
No person is an island. We’re social creatures. People grow by debating, listening, challenging each other, and trying to understand different perspectives. Open discourse is infinitely healthier than censorship and ideological purity tests.
Ironically, many of the people constantly screaming “fascist” are the same ones trying to silence, deplatform, shame, or censor anyone who disagrees with them. That mentality, “agree with me or you are evil and must be silenced,” is itself authoritarian.
A real democracy requires tolerance for disagreement. It requires accepting that there can be multiple ways to solve problems, even if you strongly prefer one over another.
The post itself proves the point more than it refutes it. Instead of counterarguments, it goes straight to race, identity, and contempt. No discussion, no nuance, no engagement with why millions of people listened to him in the first place. Just “white man bad.”
You can despise someone’s ideas and still defend their right to speak and debate openly. In fact, that’s the entire point of free discourse and freedom of speech.
Why are we still talking about this guy?
He was murdered, he’s dead, he’s no longer an issue. We have LIVING people who STILL support the same shit he did.
Mediocre?!??! Dude had an absolutely amazing head-to-face ratio.
I think his assassination was orchestrated by the GOP considering his wife’s reaction and the reaction of elite republicans. Regardless of his opinions, I don’t think we should celebrate something that they want us to celebrate
He got the public execution he advocated for
As a mediocre white guy who dropped out of college
Fuck that guy
I also am a mediocre white guy who dropped out of college. And to top it off, I entered a field dominated by women. Am I DEI?
No you’re just qualified
To be fair there are a lot of very successful college and more than you might imagine high school drop outs. The difference between them and Kirk is that they’re still alive.
Yeah but they didn’t get involved in gang violence like he did.
Who is Charlie Kirk?
A white man who leaned left.
You, me, others. It’s us. We are Charlie Kirk.
Je suis Charlie.
His death was hilarious and I’m glad it happened
Counting or not counting gang violence?
Every time I do it makes me laugh, How did his shirt get so red, And what the hell is up with Charlie’s head?
I have a hard time celebrating anyone’s death (there are a few I’m looking forward too though), but it’s hard to classify Kirk’s as undeserved. Hell, he preemptively justified his own death in that golden quote about “some shooting deaths are necessary in order to uphold the 2nd amendment”.
I’m not celebrating, but the world is objectively a better place without him
I personally don’t think people should be shot for things they say. I think watching an old, decrepit Kirk fade into obscurity would be a lot more satisfying.
The problem with that is the decades he would continue to sow discourse and spread hate.
On one hand I agree, there could have been worse outcomes for him that he would have deserved, but on the other hand it is good that he can no longer cause any more harm himself
but people failed to realize that mediocre white men should be able to live a happy and fulfilling lives, too. like all of us should. they used to be able to do that by doing less skilled labour like manufacturing etc, and still be able to afford a home and decent life. that’s until capital possessing elites decided that it is more profitable to use cheap off shore labour. that as well as worsening inequality left them miserable and without purpose.
too bad centrist politicians are mostly being bought out by capital, that’s why opportunist grifters like Charlie Kirk was able to fill the vacuum that was left, and poison the mind of these people.
You’re not seriously suggesting Kirk came to fame on his own naturally without massive funding from big corporations and CPAC?
Yeah the meme while funny is a bit too radlib and as such plays idpol with different parts of the working class.
No one is talking to mediocre white men about their worries and dreams.
This is why, if you are going to caucus with Democrats, its important to insist on universalism in whatever social programs get focused on for a platform. Democrats look towards their technocrats to support ‘means testing’ as a way to split hairs and preserve capitalist ideals while offering soft changes on social programs. The result is that we end up with historically racist and sexist programs (look into the origination and implementation of social security).
The answer is straightforwards. Raise the floor. Programs need to be universal, period. There is no cost savings in piecemeal solutions or means testing; its an intentional way to sabotage the social project.
Someone paid him.
there’s one important thing u forgot. he was rich. so what he said mattered.
Shanespeare has a new video about him and his widow.
It’s objectively the truth, I agree entirely with all of it.
I’ve got notes on how to adapt this identical message in a way to maximally influence mediocre white men, but It’s pretty clearly not for that purpose. It could be, though.
Charlie Kirk was the human equivalent of an unfixed tomcat that hangs out in the street and yells at everyone, harasses other cats trying to go about their lives, and spreads disease and discord until they get hit by a car or someone euthanizes them.
or someone euthanizes them.
Boy do I have some good news for you!
Kristi Noem approves this message
This fucking chud has been dead for how long now and y’all are still talking about him? He was a piece of shit and now he’s a dead piece of shit. Why are you keeping this neck bleeding bitch relevant?
