Charlie Kirk Shot

[ohio jones]

I only knew about Mr Kirk in passing. I don’t do the podcast thing. After he was assassinated I started watching his videos and listening to what he was saying for myself (instead of some commentator who’s pushing an agenda). He never advocated hate. He was always kind in his responses.

Do you really mean to make a blanket statement about all of his content, or did you actually watch all of it in two days?

I'm not saying he was ever hateful or unkind; I don't know that he was. But "never" and "always" are forceful words to use about someone you're unfamiliar with.

Do you intentionally target and nitpick my comments repeatedly or are you doing this to everyone here?

Read my comment again, this time slowly. It was not a blanket statement. I shared my experience of his videos.

This is what I was doing, since I read it as a blanket statement at any speed:

If something hits me wrong I let the other person know and give them a chance to apologize or reframe their own words. That’s called communication.

[Nomad]

I have sharp critiques of some Mr. Kirk's theology, philosophy and methodology however this doesn't seem to me to be the time for such things. If someone wants to resurface this thread in a year or maybe six months, that would be different.

For now I will say he seemed to be a man of action who liked to engage in conversation with people who disliked him. In those ways I would like to be more like him.

Well put.

I think about his wife and children right now. Would I say some of these things on a forum that she was reading so shortly after her husband's death? Even my own comment about disagreeing with him on firearms may be a bit raw for someone losing their loved one such a short time ago.

I wouldn't say most of the comments made on this thread in criticism of Kirk have been terribly aggregious. But they do have a slight back handed sound to them even as they are obviously authentic in their remorse of his death.

[mike]

I have sharp critiques of some Mr. Kirk's theology, philosophy and methodology however this doesn't seem to me to be the time for such things. If someone wants to resurface this thread in a year or maybe six months, that would be different.

For now I will say he seemed to be a man of action who liked to engage in conversation with people who disliked him. In those ways I would like to be more like him.

Well put.

I think about his wife and children right now. Would I say some of these things on a forum that she was reading so shortly after her husband's death? Even my own comment about disagreeing with him on firearms may be a bit raw for someone losing their loved one such a short time ago.

I wouldn't say most of the comments made on this thread in criticism of Kirk have been terribly aggregious. But they do have a slight back handed sound to them even as they are obviously authentic in their remorse of his death.

There is something unique about a person who made his living trying to be in the public eye as much as possible, like all those others who earn money from speeches, books, podcasts and things of that nature. To have a sudden moratorium of scrutiny of his very public views, words, and actions seems a little unlikely out there in the wide world of media. Decency does call for some tact and maybe for some time to pass, but it was Charlie Kirk who put himself out in front of the world, after all.

However, as was requested in this thread, this isn't the time and this thread shouldn't be the place.

I do wonder why the main way a lot of prominent conservative media accounts on X have reacted to his shooting is by reposting all the bad and reprehensible reactions to his death and specifically calling for people to lose their jobs. (And I think a lot of them are in fact losing their jobs.) I mean, I understand why a lot of them are considered horrible responses (those gloating over Kirk's murder and calling for more of the same) and I personally wouldn't want some of these people working for me. However, aren't those people exercising the right to free speech, the same right that conservatives are supposed to be championing.

[R7ehr]

I wouldn't say most of the comments made on this thread in criticism of Kirk have been terribly aggregious. But they do have a slight back handed sound to them even as they are obviously authentic in their remorse of his death.

I agree. And I’ve mulled it over just a wee bit as to why that might be the case.

1. If you are a non-Christian, politically liberal person, who largely opposes things that Kirk promoted, that may be the underlying influence of that “slight back handed sound”.

However, I don’t believe that this applies to all.

2. Some of us, myself included, feel a level of disingenuousness about being obligated to ignore all negative aspects and pretend they don’t exist. I feel if I were to only recount the positives in glowing terms, that would not be honest, and is a reflection on myself at that point. It would feel like I was jumping on some bandwagon that I don’t belong on. I recognize too that not everyone is wired like that.
Dying does not erase someone’s faults. For example, I think it is much more healthy if a funeral preacher at least in some way kindly acknowledges a deceased reprobates idiosyncrasies instead of ignoring them and then just going on and on about what a outstanding guy he was. Assuming the preacher has a close relationship with the family, I find a kind truth much more appropriate than just pretending away things. It would feel cheap to me if a preacher who didn’t know the family whatsoever, just went all over the top in praise of a man that I personally knew as having some pretty serious flaws.

Obviously, this is on a spectrum. And a big factor in this is exactly how close a person is with the family. I doubt anyone would think it appropriate to stand in front of a grieving family that you have no relationship with, total strangers, and think it right to say anything beyond condolences. Thats not what I’m talking about.

[Bootstrap]

Charlie Kirk’s wife, Erika Frantzve, and their two young children are facing a sudden and painful loss. Let’s remember them not as a talking point or a symbol, but as a real family walking through deep sorrow.

Let us pray for them as they grieve in the public eye. May God comfort Erika in her sudden loss and give her strength as she raises two very young children. May their family and community surround them with steady love and support in this season of deep sorrow.

[mike]

When my mother passed away recently, I was surprised at how quickly the memories of difficult times faded away, and how easy it was to focus on the great memories.

[Ken]

I do wonder why the main way a lot of prominent conservative media accounts on X have reacted to his shooting is by reposting all the bad and reprehensible reactions to his death and specifically calling for people to lose their jobs. (And I think a lot of them are in fact losing their jobs.) I mean, I understand why a lot of them are considered horrible responses (those gloating over Kirk's murder and calling for more of the same) and I personally wouldn't want some of these people working for me. However, aren't those people exercising the right to free speech, the same right that conservatives are supposed to be championing.

They are farming political outrage which was Charlie Kirk's stock-in-trade and what made him rich. According to media reports, doing his outrage schtick is what built him a $12 million net worth and:

His personal holdings included three high-end homes, according to Times Now: “a $4.75 million estate near Phoenix with sweeping desert views, a nearby apartment, and a beachside condominium on Florida’s Gulf Coast.”

Everyone's social media experience is obviously unique because everyone on social media gets a personally curated algorithm-driven feed that is unique to them. But from what I have seen, the most common public response to the shooting and most common way it was being politicized was some version of the following:

It's odd to me that the most outspoken against guns political party is also the one committing the most in-house assassination attempts with them.

[Nomad]

I wouldn't say most of the comments made on this thread in criticism of Kirk have been terribly aggregious. But they do have a slight back handed sound to them even as they are obviously authentic in their remorse of his death.

I agree. And I’ve mulled it over just a wee bit as to why that might be the case.

1. If you are a non-Christian, politically liberal person, who largely opposes things that Kirk promoted, that may be the underlying influence of that “slight back handed sound”.

However, I don’t believe that this applies to all.

2. Some of us, myself included, feel a level of disingenuousness about being obligated to ignore all negative aspects and pretend they don’t exist. I feel if I were to only recount the positives in glowing terms, that would not be honest, and is a reflection on myself at that point. It would feel like I was jumping on some bandwagon that I don’t belong on. I recognize too that not everyone is wired like that.
Dying does not erase someone’s faults. For example, I think it is much more healthy if a funeral preacher at least in some way kindly acknowledges a deceased reprobates idiosyncrasies instead of ignoring them and then just going on and on about what a outstanding guy he was. Assuming the preacher has a close relationship with the family, I find a kind truth much more appropriate than just pretending away things. It would feel cheap to me if a preacher who didn’t know the family whatsoever, just went all over the top in praise of a man that I personally knew as having some pretty serious flaws.

Obviously, this is on a spectrum. And a big factor in this is exactly how close a person is with the family. I doubt anyone would think it appropriate to stand in front of a grieving family that you have no relationship with, total strangers, and think it right to say anything beyond condolences. Thats not what I’m talking about.

Fair enough. And I agree...somewhat. However, when I think about when my grandpa passed away...He had many faults and said things that were at times callous or untimely...but I think if someone had come up to me the day after his death and decided in that moment to bring up all the bad stuff he said. I probably would have felt like it was a little to soon. I wouldn't necessarily need them to give a glowing report either, of course.

I do agree with what mike said though (if its true...). If the conservatives are reposting all the despicable things said about his death...I can't think why other than to incite people against the "other side". Which is legitimately concerning....

[Bootstrap]

Obviously, this is on a spectrum. And a big factor in this is exactly how close a person is with the family. I doubt anyone would think it appropriate to stand in front of a grieving family that you have no relationship with, total strangers, and think it right to say anything beyond condolences. Thats not what I’m talking about.

I agree.

Some of the responses here seem to use Kirk’s death to advance culture-war narratives or to make him into a symbol. That isn’t the same as offering condolences, and I notice very few posts have simply expressed sorrow for his wife, children, and family.

At the same time, I think many of us feel a deeper unease. The level of fear in American politics feels higher now than I can remember, and it runs across the spectrum. This event risks intensifying that fear, and too often it pushes people into a victim posture where they lash out at others.

Whatever our feelings about Charlie Kirk as a public figure, one thing he valued was the ability to debate ideas openly. I hope we can all honor that. We share fear about speaking freely in such a charged climate, concern for our families and communities, and sorrow for a young family left behind. Behind every headline are real human beings like us.

[Bootstrap]

If the conservatives are reposting all the despicable things said about his death...I can't think why other than to incite people against the "other side". Which is legitimately concerning....

Not all conservatives. I see two broad camps. One conservative camp points to political violence and threats against both Republicans and Democrats, sometimes even issuing bipartisan statements, and calling for greater civility, mutual respect, and less hate. Governor Spencer Cox of Utah, the Rode Island Young Republicans who issued a joint statement with the Young Democrats, and House Speaker Mike Johnson come to mind. And this is exactly what most Democrat leaders are doing.

The other conservative camp turns Kirk’s death into ammunition for the culture wars—highlighting Republican victims while ignoring Democrat victims, and using it to stir up more hostility.

What we should all be able to agree on is that political violence is wrong, and that we need to find ways to speak across our differences without feeding the cycle of fear and hate.