The AntAGonist said:

---

This statement is not entirely accurate. Please refer to the 2 Minnesota representatives who were shot and of January 6th. Can we just agree that political violence is horrible and should never be condoned? That free speech is our right even if one may not agree with what is being said?

---

The only time violence (of any type) should be condoned is in defense of one's self, one's loved ones, or the innocent.

I know the limpwristed, Mario-looking DA over in Austin would disagree, but he's an asshat.

I'm going to take this opportunity to say this: I am really ****ing sorry that Charlie Kirk had his life taken from him. I am sorry his kids are without their father. I am sorry his wife is without her husband. I am relieved they caught the person that did this. I hope the full weight of justice is applied to him. I did not agree with Charlies beliefs, but I respected his right to have them. I respected his right to have them out loud. And I really respected that he openly debated. He was my fellow American and I would and will defend his right and all of our rights to our opinions. I hate that we are divided. That's how I honestly feel about it. RIP Mr. Kirk.

713nervy said:

---

Here's the thing - I am having to work hard to come to the (now) educated opinion that his beliefs are harmful to people I deeply care about. I've worked through his comments about women, saying that named prominent black women don't have the brain processing power, and that it was a mistake to pass the civil rights act. I don't think I'll continue.

I've learned that the statements aren't within their context, yes. But the context isn't helping THAT much. Having these beliefs is one thing, but he traveled the country trying to persuade people to believe the same things. He spent lots of money toward these causes that many believe are hurtful.

I believe he was motivated my self preservation, preservation of white culture and traditional society and what some might call Christian values - but I don't agree that they are all Christian values and I don't find his opinions to be promoting love and acceptance.

---

And for the terrible offense of engaging in good faith discourse regarding his own personal beliefs, he was murdered in cold blood and leaves behind a widow and two young kids whose Dad will only be a memory.

You just described the modern leftist playbook.

• "OMG help! The evil Nazi fascists are oppressing us! Well... they're literal Nazis, so violence is okay!"

While literally no one is stopping them from saying anything, no one is oppressing them, they have every same legal rights as everyone else, and they are in fact the ones murdering people and trying to assassinate the president. They think telling minors they need to wait until their 18 if they want cause irreparable self-harm to their bodies via amputations and hormones is "trans genocide". And then they all celebrate the murder of a man for using his words, as they decry their opponents as the "hateful bigots".

We're entering levels of cognitive dissonance I didn't know the human brain was physically capable of. Huxley never could have imagined that we wouldn't walk ourselves into, but that individuals would actually start killing their peers to usher in the Brave New World.

I am devastated for Kirk's family, friends, and the many, many people who viewed him as a role model.

I am disheartened by the apparent coordinated effort by some to intentionally take things he said out of context (or didn't say at all) and spread them around on social media to make him look like an evil monster who shouldn't be mourned. A lot of people who didn't know Kirk or what his actual beliefs were are being lied to online about who he was.

Those same lies were spread while he was still alive and apparently radicalized one young man enough to shoot him.

I am angry that we live in a world of social media which seems to be post-truth and post-nuance. Young people are being trained by social media platforms to be constantly angry and to view people as being all-good or all-bad as some sort of contagious social neuroticism. I'm convinced that "dead internet theory" (especially on platforms like Reddit) is a very real thing. People are chatting with a lot of bots, bot farms run by foreign adversaries who want disrupt the US political system as much as possible.

The skill of critical thinking, while not completely dead, appears to be in grave condition.

Kirk was a guy who wanted to engage with people who disagreed with him, wanted dialogue, wanted to win people over with words. He wanted people to think.

TPUSA and PragerU were already having events cancelled over threats of violence and security concerns. Left wing activists would post threats in an effort to get the schools to shut down their events. Now we will have even more college campuses banning conservative speakers out of the fear of "violence" and only left-wing ideology will have a platform. Free speech took a huge hit on Wednesday. It's something that - regardless of our political philosophies - should be fought for.

Thought this might be enjoyable and/or to the benefit of some on this thread.



If you don't want to watch, this is the text from the video above by John Cleese in 1987. Worth watching to get his delivery.

Quote:

---

Seriously though we've heard a lot about extremism recently. A nastier, harsher atmosphere everywhere. More abuse and bother boy behavior less friendliness and tolerance and respect for opponents.

Alright but what we never hear about extremism is its advantages. Well the biggest advantage of extremism is that it makes you feel good - because it provides you with enemies.

Let me explain...

The great thing about having enemies is that you can pretend that all the badness in the whole world is in your enemies - and all the goodness in the whole world is in you. Attractive isn't it?

So if you have a lot of anger and resentment in you anyway and you therefore enjoy abusing people then you can pretend that you're only doing it because these enemies of yours are such very bad persons. And that if it wasn't for them you'd actually be good-natured and courteous and rational all the time. So if you want to feel good become an extremist.

Okay, now you have a choice. If you join the hard left they'll give you their list of authorized enemies. Almost all kinds of authority, especially the police, the city, Americans, judges, multinational corporations, public schools, various newspaper owners, fox hunters, generals, class traitors and of course moderates.

Or, if you'd rather be an extremist on the hard right, no problem. Fine you still get a lovely list of enemies only they're different ones noisy minority groups, unions, Russia, weirdos, demonstrators, welfare sponges, meddlesome clergy, peaceniks, the BBC, strikers, social workers, communists and of course moderates and upstart actors.

Now once your armed with one of these super lists of enemies you can be as nasty as you like and yet feel your behaviors morally justified. So you can strut around using people and telling them you could eat them for breakfast and still think of yourself as a champion of the truth, a fighter for the greater good are not the rather sad paranoid schizoid that you really are.

---

For those liberals who say that Charlie Kirk was hateful to transgender people, explain yourselves. Most of you have literally never heard him, and are just parroting what main stream media talking heads have told you about him.

THIS is how Charlie debated and interacted with… pic.twitter.com/HEaEgFYv3c

— ☘️𝕃𝕦𝕔𝕜𝕪 Ƒʉͫcͧкͭιͪηͣ 𝕄𝕔𝔾𝕖𝕖‎ (@LuckyMcGee) September 11, 2025

He seems very cordial no matter who he was talking to in his debates. I haven't seen that many of his videos but I never saw one where he was hateful, etc.

713nervy said:

---

Here's the thing - I am having to work hard to come to the (now) educated opinion that his beliefs are harmful to people I deeply care about. I've worked through his comments about women, saying that named prominent black women don't have the brain processing power, and that it was a mistake to pass the civil rights act. I don't think I'll continue.

I've learned that the statements aren't within their context, yes. But the context isn't helping THAT much. Having these beliefs is one thing, but he traveled the country trying to persuade people to believe the same things. He spent lots of money toward these causes that many believe are hurtful.

I believe he was motivated my self preservation, preservation of white culture and traditional society and what some might call Christian values - but I don't agree that they are all Christian values and I don't find his opinions to be promoting love and acceptance.

---

I see your perspective…and what I am going to say is that I know that are some on the right that will say vile things about the left…I just want to say that, because my response will not be from that place.

I am a straight white male, and over the last 10 years, straight white men have absolutely been s*** on from quite of few people on the left to the point I am over it…I have never been one to concern myself with race, like I didn't care…I also never saw a woman as less than a man…I viewed everyone on equal footing…I am fully aware of what people of color have gone through since the founding of this country, I also recognize what women have gone through as well. What I am not going to do it to continue to being told that being a white male that I am somehow the problem…these people don't know my life, what I have done to get where I am at, and the struggles…just because I am white doesn't mean I don't have struggles….

Yes, I like Charlie Kirk, yes he spoke through his Christian values and his love of God…he was consistently respectful to the people he debated, while they weren't respectful towards him…this is a loss to America, regardless of what your politics are…he allowed debate where we are in a society that no longer fosters debate…people immediately scream hate and move on.

Straight white male?

Congrats. You are what's wrong with the world. And you have more opportunities than anyone else in history.

Go away, you opaque breeder.

Slicer97 said:

---

And what, exactly, is wrong with the preservation of white culture? That doesn't necessitate the destruction of other culture (unless that particular culture is trying to destroy white culture). What, exactly, is wrong with the preservation of traditional society? Nuclear families are good for society.

---

The problem is calling it "white culture". I have friends that are Syrian, Lebanese, Indian, and South African who all have very dark skin pigmentation. We all believe in the same person that Charlie Kirk put his faith in. Let's call it what it is. Godly Culture vs Evil Culture.

You do realize that this "white culture" you speak of is what forms the basis of modern western civilization and that many of the rights/beliefs that this nation was founded upon were Christian values, correct?

Have you read any John Locke, or Thomas Paine, or anything written by the founding fathers? Do you understand anything that motivated them when they formed this nation?

America didn't just "happen". It was shaped by thousands of years of political and religious thoughts and many failed experiments in other forms of governance.

I appreciate the work posters have done in this thread refuting the claims that Charlie Kirk was a hateful and bad person. I have some contacts posting those same quotes on Facebook trying to shift the narrative to what they want it to be rather than the tragedy it is.

I am in mourning over this, my daughter watched his videos and it sparked awesome conversations between us. He was giving me hope in the youngsters growing up now.

I hope his wife takes the torch and keeps TP going.

For someone who doesn't want this discussion here on this board, you sure have made the decision to open it up and comment on it a lot…

713nervy said:

---

Here's the thing - I am having to work hard to come to the (now) educated opinion that his beliefs are harmful to people I deeply care about. I've worked through his comments about women, saying that named prominent black women don't have the brain processing power, and that it was a mistake to pass the civil rights act. I don't think I'll continue.

I've learned that the statements aren't within their context, yes. But the context isn't helping THAT much. Having these beliefs is one thing, but he traveled the country trying to persuade people to believe the same things. He spent lots of money toward these causes that many believe are hurtful.

I believe he was motivated my self preservation, preservation of white culture and traditional society and what some might call Christian values - but I don't agree that they are all Christian values and I don't find his opinions to be promoting love and acceptance.

---

How is the bolded even relevant? I don't think you're using that as a justification for him being murdered, but plenty of people are. For what it's worth, I think the same thing about your beliefs and how they are harmful to our nation and the people I care about. Plenty of people feel that way on both sides. Charlie had conviction. You do too. Both are admirable.

But Charlie was very respectful and engaged publicly and in good faith time and time again on these topics. He embodied the discourse that so many supposedly espouse. There is absolutely no argument for him being murdered, but especially based on the specifics of his beliefs.

Believe it or not, people can generally form opinions about you based upon the thoughts and ideas you publicly display.

But this is the typical direction you take things in when you can't engage with your ideas being challenged so I'll leave it at that.

713nervy said:

---

CC09LawAg said:

---

I know you don't see it that way.

---

I'm saying that your implication / suggestion / assumption is wrong.

It feels creepy that you're telling me what I believe when you don't know me. Stop doing that.

---

You said Kirk wanting to preserve "white culture" was bad.
You agree with the other poster on what "white culture" produced.
Other poster says that must mean you dislike what "white culture" produced.
You say other poster is wrong? How can that be?

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

713nervy said:

---

CC09LawAg said:

---

I know you don't see it that way.

---

I'm saying that your implication / suggestion / assumption is wrong.

It feels creepy that you're telling me what I believe when you don't know me. Stop doing that.

---

Hopefully the post above mine is deleted… that's pretty loser behavior.
You said Kirk wanting to preserve "white culture" was bad.
You agree with the other poster on what "white culture" produced.
Other poster says that must mean you dislike what "white culture" produced.
You say other poster is wrong? How can that be?

---

This is how I took it. So just smh, moving on.

713nervy said:

---

I never said that preserving white culture was inherently bad.

---

That's how it came across. Not saying that was your intent, just that it came across that way.