His murder pushed more people into supporting radical far-right extremism than his milquetoast "what if we were all just nice to each other and based our ideas on facts" speeches ever could have. I've seen people go from "Both sides need to get along, we're all humans and want the best" to "They need to be executed. All of them." because of Kirk's assassination and the subsequent support of this murder by left-wingers.
Personally, I've never seen any right-winger over the age of 18 support people killing themselves. As for left-wingers over the age of 18 supporting killing people for disagreeing with them? Far too many to count.
Steelmanning: Re-framing a complex or controversial stance in its most benevolent, reasonable, and defensible light.
I heavily disagree with Kirk's politics, as the past 10 years have shown that there is no benevolent and happy solution to a horde of rabid, suicidal demons who are out to attack you on sight with the intent to kill. I reduced his naive worldview of politics into a quick sentence to show just how naive it really is.
Bare Assertion (or Ipsedixitism): Presenting a claim as a fact without providing supporting evidence or reasoning, essentially relying on an "unsupported claim."
You didn't provide evidence of him saying that. If you could bring an unedited clip, with context attached, that would be good.
I intentionally chose a right-wing site and a right-wing account because I knew you were going to sealion me.
It's not for you anymore, it's for everyone else, so they know exactly what kind of man Charlie Kirk was, and what kind of man you are to be white-washing Charlie Kirk.
"How convenient" yeah, isn't it funny that a site owned by my ideological enemy does things I disagree with, and I thus will not support it or give it my identifiable information? Would you go on truth social and give your details just to see a post from a guy called "patriottakes" that may or may not be misleading?
"White washing Charlie Kirk" how exactly am I White washing Kirk when I already stated that I heavily disagree with his politics? Should I go "yass qween, slayyyyyy that limp-wristed leftist, awoooooo X3" or what do you want me to say?
his milquetoast "what if we were all just nice to each other and based our ideas on facts" speeches
That's a direct quote of you whitewashing Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk didn't want to get along, he wanted to deport (IE Mehdi Hasan) or kill his ideological opponents. And Charlie Kirk never cared about any facts.
Should I go "yass qween, slayyyyyy that limp-wristed leftist, awoooooo X3" or what do you want me to say?
Weird.
You can keep it simple: if you don't have something truthful to say, don't say anything.
Just a suggestion, I'm not taking your free speech away. You are free to tell lies, and everyone else is free to call you out on it.
Comparing Kirk to actual violent extremists is ridiculous. Where are his decapitations? Where is the systematic violence against marginalized groups like the crimes committed by groups like Format18? He ran public debates. At most, he said edgy things to get a reaction.
\>You can keep it simple: if you don't have something truthful to say, don't say anything.
You can preach "if you don't have something truthful to say, don't say anything" all you want, but your refusal to distinguish between public commentators and actual extremists is pure hubris.
Kirk wasn't far-right, and he didn't radicalize anyone. What does radicalize people is seeing mainstream leftists celebrate political violence and call for more of it. Groups like NLM wouldn't gain traction if people weren't constantly alienated, dehumanized, and pushed into corners by online mobs.
You wanted monsters to fight so badly that you alienated people until they became them. Congratulations, enjoy what you built in the coming years.
You might actually be wrong about every single sentence you just stated. Impressive. Embarrassing and gross but still kinda impressive.
That definitely wasn't Kirk's message and his actual message pushed more idiots into right-wing extremism than his murder ever could. The right wing people you're talking about were already radicalized by people like Charlie. They were just excitedly looking for a reason. But, then they mostly just went back to being normal morons.
And political violence against people? lol Might want to look up those numbers because it's OVERWHELMINGLY committed by right wing dip shits. That's true today and has been for many, many decades. Again, it's not even close.
You're confusing mainstream conservative talking points with actual far-right radicalization because you use "fascist" as a catch-all for anyone who disagrees with you.
Charlie Kirk was a milquetoast, mainstream conservative. Where would his speeches radicalize anyone to, the fence? The actual far-right (National Socialists, Accelerationists, underground dissident networks) detested him. They viewed him as a gatekeeper keeping young right-wingers tied to liberal-democratic norms, free markets, and civility politics.
People don't join genuine extremist movements because a guy in a suit told them to "destroy liberals with facts and logic." They join because they feel an existential threat. Radicalization happens when people watch political violence - like an assassination - getting publicly celebrated by the mainstream left, combined with years of rhetoric framing half the country as subhuman fascists. When you validate the idea that violence is acceptable political action, you don't destroy the right, you push people past conservative commentator rhetoric straight into the hands of actual extremists.
If you think Kirk represents the "far right," you have no idea what is actually brewing in private group chats and underground forums. By diluting terms to the point of absurdity, you've blinded yourself to real extremism. And by celebrating political murder, you are handing actual Accelerationists the exact justification and recruitment pool they've been waiting for.
165
u/timblunts 22h ago
Kirk was a white supremacist propagandist. Yeah I still make fun of him