[flagged]
Kirk made a substantial portion of his living trolling people and fomenting hostility between people of different political ideologies. He said gay people should be stoned to death. He did not deserve to die, I do not celebrate his murder. But I will not celebrate the way he lived his life, let alone indulge this flagrant (and tasteless) attempt by the GOP to make him a saintly martyr.
The reason is Hortman is less known.
> He said gay people should be stoned to death.
No he didn’t.
Here’s something he did say, however, including a source:
> "Black women do not have brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot."
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-17000...
Ignoring the ironic typo: is this dialogue? Is this “crossing political divides” for productive discussion? Or is it just bog standard racism/sexism? I’m curious what your thoughts are on that one, which was a pretty typical comment from him mind you.
Charlie Kirk was a cruel person to those he considered outside his tribe. I will not participate in the GOP’s cynical, opportunistic attempt to brand him as a martyr for free speech. It’s whitewashing nonsense.
I wasn’t aware they said they were there because of AA, this is worthwhile information.
He literally said the above quote I mentioned. It was sexist/racist. It was wrong. You can weigh in on it or not that’s your choice. But this man was not the saint the right is making him out to be. It’s flagrant revisionist history
Edit: I also forgot to respond to your Hortman comment. That does not matter. She and her husband were brutally murdered in their home for the crime of being democrats and holding office. How is that not worthy of national attention? How is that not the kind of political violence that the right allegedly cares about right now, despite the fact that right wingers are disproportionately the perpetrators of political violence over the last decade? If they had been Republicans we would still be hearing about it and you know it.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/09/12/is-radic...
And since this is a paywalled source, here’s the graph that illustrates the issue: https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250920_WOC...