Meanwhile, there’s another school shooting and no one’s talking about that. No country outpouring of empathy there. No half mast flags. No we’ll never forgot. Barely a news article.
Exactly. Just another day in 'Murica. Incidentally, Charlie Kirk said that school shooting victims were acceptable sacrifices for the sake of keeping the Second Amendment. I am NOT grieving for him. The world is better with him gone.
So by your logic—are you okay with auto deaths, or should we ban cars too? If not, why treat the Second Amendment differently?
Charlie Kirk’s actual point about the Second Amendment and gun deaths was this:
He did not celebrate or welcome gun deaths. He argued that the freedom secured by the Second Amendment comes with risks, and while tragedies like school shootings are horrific, the alternative—stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves—would be far worse for society.
To explain this, he used an analogy with automobiles: every year, roughly 50,000 Americans die in car accidents. As a society, we don’t view those deaths as “acceptable sacrifices,” nor do we support car crashes. But we recognize that banning cars would devastate our way of life. The benefits of cars outweigh the tragic losses, and so we work to minimize risks (seat belts, airbags, speed limits) while still keeping cars legal.
Kirk’s argument is that the Second Amendment works the same way: we should take steps to reduce violence, but the existence of risk doesn’t justify banning the very right that ensures Americans can protect themselves and remain free.
Kirk wasn’t saying he supported the attack or wanted the guy walking free. He called it awful. His “bail him out” line was pointing out the hypocrisy — the same people who raised bail money for rioters, looters, and violent offenders in 2020 suddenly act shocked when the mirror is turned back on them. You can’t cheer bail funds for your side’s violence and then clutch pearls when someone applies the same standard in reverse. That was his point.
Sorry not sorry. He was a sad, sorry, despicable 31 year old who was wreaking havoc on young impressionable minds all in the name of greed and power. He was the new young prince of the republican party. Maybe his innocent children won't have to grow up under the sociopathic father that they will need years of therapy to figure out who they are meant to be. Maybe his wife can live the life she was meant to be and not melded into a slave of his warped mind. I have empathy and I also have the guidance of a moral compass. And trust me, there can be both traits at one time.
In absolute agreement on this. I’m sickened by another senseless public shooting, the trauma everyone in that crowd experienced, the pain his family must endure. But I’m more angry about the 3 innocent kids in critical condition who were shot in the Colorado high school yesterday (& will receive little attention). Those teens weren’t inciting hatred, political division, belittling empathic citizens. They weren’t using a national microphone to state how we must accept gun deaths everyday for “our God given rights to have guns” (how ironic) or jumping on the media to ask someone to be a true patriot and bail out the hero who beat Mr. Pelosi with a hammer. I’m more frightened for what hell will be unleashed by this shooting of Mr. Kirk. Charlie can answer now to his maker.
I get the anger. I get the fear. When someone we oppose says things we find dangerous or cruel, it’s natural to feel relieved when they’re gone. That reaction is human — not pretty, but human. Let’s start there and be honest about it.
But relief is not the same as justice. Joy at another person’s death is not righteous; it’s the easy way out. It costs nothing to celebrate when a life ends. It costs everything to hold people accountable while still recognizing their shared humanity.
Think about what celebrating that death actually says: that the values you claim to defend are subordinate to your desire for retribution. It signals that the moral line you draw depends on who you like, not on a consistent principle. That’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.
If you want a safer country, more honest politics, or a healthier public square, start with consistency. Demand accountability, yes — but don’t trade one form of cruelty for another. Punish bad ideas with better ideas. Expose harmful behavior with facts and sustained pressure. But don’t make a habit of rejoicing when someone stops breathing.
We should grieve for victims. We should seek consequences for wrongdoing. We should work to reduce harm. But celebrating death? That does the opposite of what we say we want. It hardens us. It normalizes violence. It makes us less persuasive, not more.
If your outrage is real, channel it. Vote. Organize. Speak clearly and keep the facts front and center. Hold leaders to account in public, legal, and civic arenas. Use your energy to build something better — not to perform moral theater on social media.
There’s a difference between calling someone to account and exulting in their end. If you care about the future you claim to fight for, choose the harder path: be consistent, be humane, and let your actions match your words.
Why is it despicable? Did you mourn for Osama bin Laden’s children? John Wayne Gacy had children. Some fathers rape their daughters, and some mothers beat their sons. Honor thy mother and father is sometimes bullshit.
I think it’s fantastic that you have wonderful parents and could not imagine their deaths being a release to you. Not everyone is so lucky.
Yeah, I hope you’re never this jaded too. It’s not a fun way to be. The benefit is that I’m never surprised at how terrible people are. And I’m usually right.
Well said, John! I was appalled to read almost immediately that all democrats needed to be purged from the US. What on God's green earth is wrong with them. My reaction I read of his death was how disgusting it was to murder someone, to assassinate, no matter what their truth was. They, Charlie, had to right to say what he did. I'm with you, I opposed everything stood for, but it isn't someone's right to take his life.
He did not have the right to say some of what he said. Hate speech, fighting words, speech that incites imminent lawless action - all fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.
The irony, of course, is that he was killed while uttering vile, disgusting, unprotected speech. His own words brought about his death.
It seems like a “Reap what you sow” moment. And that sentiment doesn’t erase the loss a family is feeling for a loved one. We love others even when we know they are flawed, and still do not wish upon them cruelty. Oh, Unless you’re maga. They do. Over, and over, and over, and over……
Yes, he certainly did reap what he sowed. He supported America’s gun fetish by claiming it was a prudent deal and willingly sacrificed his own life to ensure that every American has access to any weapon anytime anywhere. He would defend his own killing as a “prudent deal.”
He was a sick, hateful, piece of shit with no redeeming qualities. His death might’ve saved the lives of others. His death served the greater good.
I do not love those who wish for the death of those of whom they disapprove and who do them no harm. If you choose to, that is your prerogative and I support it, but I am not compelled to love people who want to kill my son. And his death wasn’t cruel. Certainly not compared to the children for whom gun violence is the number one cause of death.
So by your logic—are you okay with auto deaths, or should we ban cars too? If not, why treat the Second Amendment differently?
Charlie Kirk’s actual point about the Second Amendment and gun deaths was this:
He did not celebrate or welcome gun deaths. He argued that the freedom secured by the Second Amendment comes with risks, and while tragedies like school shootings are horrific, the alternative—stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves—would be far worse for society.
To explain this, he used an analogy with automobiles: every year, roughly 50,000 Americans die in car accidents. As a society, we don’t view those deaths as “acceptable sacrifices,” nor do we support car crashes. But we recognize that banning cars would devastate our way of life. The benefits of cars outweigh the tragic losses, and so we work to minimize risks (seat belts, airbags, speed limits) while still keeping cars legal.
Kirk’s argument is that the Second Amendment works the same way: we should take steps to reduce violence, but the existence of risk doesn’t justify banning the very right that ensures Americans can protect themselves and remain free.
Honestly, are you ok dear? Really, I am worried about your reading comprehension. Maybe your bifocals need to be adjusted.
Note: all my questions are rhetorical. I really don't want to have to respond to more of your inarticulate drivel.
What "logic" are you imputing to me?
Of course I'm not ok with auto deaths and we don't need to ban cars. We prohibit impaired driving, driving while on a cellphone, driving with a suspended license or without insurance or a seatbelt or or adequate brakes. Regulation saves lives. Deaths from car accidents reduced significantly when MADD pushed for drunk driving laws and when Congress mandated seat belts. Your, and Kirk's, car accident analogy is specious at best. (Here's where you look up "specious.") Because cars are regulated and guns are not, at least not to the extent that those regulations reduce gun deaths significantly. Or at all actually. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 18. The 2nd Amendment would work the same as regulating, instead of banning, cars but the maggots won't accept any regulations at all. Not even common sense measures like banning the blind from owning firearms and requiring gun owners to demonstrate proficiency to obtain a license. In Texas open carry is allowed with no testing and licensing requirements. But Texas requires new drivers to pass tests before getting a license. Still think that analogy works?
Haven't you read "The Jungle?" Do you think eating tainted meat is an acceptable risk we take to "protect our freedom?" Not everything in this country is caveat emptor, not should it be. The free market doesn't care about our lives and safety.
I'm not getting into a 2nd Amendment thing with you here; suffice to say none of our other rights are absolute but the right to bear arms seems to be, so far. And it trumps our other rights. Why is that ok? Our rights conflict and when they do, legislators and courts determine which right prevails. Hell, the two religion clauses of the 1st Amendment clash just by their language alone. So your second amendment, absolutism conflicts with the our right to live and live safely. Or maybe you don’t think we have a right to live and live safe safely? Maybe you only think the right to life applies to zygotes.
Your right to own a bunch of guns just cause you want to should not be more important than a child’s right to feel safe at school. And please do not come back with “the way to stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns“ bullshit.
KIrk, and the rest of you maggots, absolutely celebrate gun deaths every time you offer only "thoughts and prayers" after children (children!!!) are murdered. Your silence in the face of constant mass shooting is endorsement. What freedoms are more important than a child's life? You need an arsenal of AR15s to "remain free and protect yourself?" From whom? The government can come in take your shit whenever it wants. It won't, because you are not on ICE's list, but it can. Don't pretend your guns are anything more than compensation and a way to threaten and silence those you hate.
There is nothing more horrific than school shootings. Nothing. Your nebulous "freedom" isn't threatened by common sense gun reform. But children's lives are absolutely threatened by the maggot all-guns-for-everyone-all-the-time agenda. Regulation is sensible and saves lives. Unlimited rights run rampant cause harm.
Rebecca, this is exactly where you’re mistaken. The First Amendment absolutely does protect speech you find vile or disgusting. “Hate speech” is not a legal category in America — the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on that. The government can’t punish speech simply because it offends. The only narrow exceptions are true threats, direct incitement of imminent violence, or obscenity — and those are tightly defined. Kirk’s comments, no matter how much you hated them, were protected. That’s the uncomfortable truth about free speech: it protects the speech you hate just as much as the speech you cheer.
Now, let’s follow your logic. You say his words “brought about his death,” as if that’s justice. If we normalize the idea that offensive or “vile” speech deserves violent retaliation, then disagreement in society stops being settled with debate, voting, or persuasion — and instead it’s settled with fists, hammers, and bullets. That’s not “poetic,” that’s the end of civil society. It’s mob rule. It’s exactly what our Constitution was written to prevent.
Do you really want to live in a world where whoever is most easily offended gets to decide who lives or dies? Where every unpopular opinion risks execution by the angriest person in the room? Because that’s the logical end of what you’re cheering for here.
Free speech isn’t about protecting people we agree with. It’s about holding the line so society doesn’t collapse into violence every time we clash. If you throw that principle away because you hated Kirk, don’t be surprised when it’s used against you next.
Rebecca, I can tell this really bothers you, and I respect that. But let’s be clear — Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t fired for being “anti-MAGA.” He was fired because he said something reckless and flat-out wrong about Charlie Kirk. Networks don’t tolerate hosts celebrating or misrepresenting political violence, no matter which side it’s aimed at. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s accountability.
Honestly though, I’m disappointed. Kimmel was the best recruiter conservatives ever had — every monologue of his pushed more people to the right than a hundred campaign ads could. So in a strange way, I’m going to miss him.
But here’s the irony — you’re furious that he was let go, and I’m bummed too… just for completely opposite reasons. If you can’t see the humor in that, or the hypocrisy of celebrating cancellations only when they go your way, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Try to re-read what I said carefully. I'll explain in detail for the other Allistic boomers on here. I did know the reason we allow offensive speech (to protect speech we hate as much as the speech we cheer) but thanks for the reminder. You forgot to mention the marketplace of ideas and the maxim that offensive speech is best countered by more speech.
And, there are more exceptions to 1st Amendment protection than ONLY threats, obscenity and speech that incites imminent lawless action: false advertising, libel and slander are also unprotected. There are even separate standards applied to libel and slander suits depending on how well known the plaintiff is.
Also, legitimate time, place and manner restrictions on speech are perfectly legal. Example: you may protest at a school board meeting but not in front a school board member's house at 3 am.
Additionally, speech can be regulated if it is viewpoint neutral. Example: a public school can prohibit all prayer in the classroom (yup, that's still legal) but it cannot prohibit a specific type of prayer (Christian, Jewish, etc).
And speech protections are hierarchical: political speech is afforded the highest protection, pornography the lowest.
I won't get into symbolic speech and the illusory category of "forced speech."
IYKYK.
I'd cite the cases but it's late and I'm tired and don't want to drag out all my 1st Amendment notes and books from law school.
Yes, the Supreme Court has not said specifically that "hate speech" is unprotected. But it does not necessarily follow that it is protected. Hate crime legislation/enhancement are legal. We further penalize certain crimes because of the perpetrator's intent and chosen victims (when the legislature has determined that those crimes committed against certain victims are worthy of extra condemnation by extended sentences.)
Why would hate crime legislation and enhancement be permissible but not hate speech? And where do you draw the line between fighting words and obscenity and hate speech? And what is the difference between porn, which does have limited first amendment protection, and obscenity, which does not?
These questions have not adequately been answered by SCOTUS so states fill in these gaps to determine what speech is further protected by their laws, and what is not. That's federalism. 10th Amendment reserved powers. Need I explain those also? I don't know Utah's laws. Maybe you do?
I did not say it was logical or normal that his words brought about his death. I don't know why you say it's "my logic." That assertion itself is illogical. But it's a reasonable inference that he was shot because of his words, while speaking in public, having become filthy rich and infamous almost entirely because of his words. Just as it is reasonable to assign a life-long smoker's two pack-a-day habit to his death by lung cancer.
I'm wiling to bet Kirk was not killed because the shooter disliked his race, religion, sexual orientation or gender preference. Ditto because Kirk owed the shooter money or tried to steal his wife. I could be wrong about that.
And "poetic" means symbolic, metaphorical, ironic even, elevating the death from more than a simple cessation of life to an occasion for deeper meaning and reflection. Really, did you not understand this? I think you are grasping for things to find objectionable in my post, even creating reasons.
No, I don't want to live in a world where the most offended determines who lives or dies. Who does? Again, not a logical end to what I was saying. Certainly I wasn't cheering. I'm not throwing any principles away - that's a big reach. Try not to infer what I didn't imply.
And if I spoke as Kirk did, I wouldn't be surprised if I was shot. But I wouldn't be because compassionate, reasonable people (liberals) don't shoot those they disagree with. We also don't say vile things that endanger the least among us.
Sorry if this was TLDR, but you irked a chick with Aspergers with your cliche' ridden, badly written, irrational "response."
Rebecca, you really did throw the whole kitchen sink of legal jargon at me. But let’s not lose sight of the key point: you actually conceded my original argument. You wrote, “Yes, the Supreme Court has not said specifically that ‘hate speech’ is unprotected.” That’s exactly what I said — “hate speech” is not a legal category in America. The Court has repeatedly upheld that vile, offensive, and even hateful speech is protected. Nazis marching in Skokie, Westboro Baptist at military funerals, flag burning — all allowed under the First Amendment. The Court doesn’t need to spell it out any clearer.
Yes, there are exceptions — libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words, false advertising, time/place/manner restrictions, etc. That’s the kitchen sink you listed. But none of those equal “hate speech.” The exceptions are narrow, defined, and not a blank check for silencing people you disagree with.
You also wrote: “It’s poetic that he was killed while uttering vile, disgusting, unprotected speech” and told me to “be gone.” That is incitement to violence and dehumanization — whether you admit it or not. Calling someone’s death “poetic” and then banishing people who defend him is celebrating political violence. I’ve already reported that to Substack because it crosses the line of civil discourse.
The irony here is thick. You say you want to protect society from “dangerous speech,” yet in the same breath you justify and romanticize someone being killed for his words. You don’t see the contradiction, but anyone who cares about free society does.
At the end of the day, my point stands. “Hate speech” is not unprotected under U.S. law. The First Amendment protects it unless it falls into those narrow categories you listed — and Kirk’s comments, no matter how much you despised them, didn’t. That’s why my statement was correct, and why your anger is aimed more at Kirk himself than at the Constitution.
This is a long post. You might read all of it, you might not. But I am not posting this for you. I am posting this for me and the other neurodivergent thinkers out there.
I’m sorry that I threw a bunch of legal jargon at you. You did too. I don’t object to it. What I object to is that you are trying to have a discussion about something you clearly don’t understand. I don’t pretend to know stuff about shit I don’t fully understand. If you came at me with a post about cars or chemistry or something, I wouldn’t try to correct you.
And I am sorry if words like slander and symbolic speech are jargon to you. They seemed pretty basic to me. You said a bunch of stuff that was factually incorrect so I tried to teach you. Some people wanna learn, some people don’t. You totally missed the point, of course. I explained what I meant by poetic. I am sorry you didn’t understand. I did not mean warranted or justified or proportional or sensible. And I never wrote that. Like I said before, try not to infer what I didn’t imply. If I had thought that his death was appropriate or warranted, I would have said so.
One of the features of ASD is that I am a Gestalt Language Processor. I get that that is jargon also but I can’t help that you might not know what that means. I use big words. I speak in concepts. I am literal.
I am not going to dumb down my language or censor myself because you don’t take the effort to understand what I wrote. I don’t have to, and I am not going to, change the way I speak and write to accommodate the Neurotypical/neurodominant community. I don’t accept criticism that because I use big words and speak in concepts that people might not understand that I am aggressive or hypocritical or whatever derogatory word you might assign to me because you won’t acknowledge that I don’t think like you, and that it’s OK that I don’t. I didn’t write anything inappropriate or untrue. Just because you disagree with me does not mean that I am wrong or offensive.
You reported me for offending you. You don't get to decide what civil discourse is. That's the entire crux of your argument, isn't it? That neither of us get to decide what is offensive and should be banned. But you proved my point. You’ll never understand that or admit it, but I know.
I told you to be gone because you are a troll. Go find your own people and revel in your red swill and leave thinking folks alone. You are here to troll. Or own the Libs or whatever you call it. You should at least have the sense and the grace to admit it because I’m sure you’re proud of it. If you choose to take offense because I pointed out the truth about what you are I can’t help that either. How many sub stack and other social media platforms do you troll? And why, Don’t you have anything better to do?
I get that you didn't understand my point about 10th Amendment reserved powers, most people don't outside the legal system don’t. And the concept of true federalism as the framer's intended it is just is lost on maggots. And I don’t understand how I could be angry at a document. I am angry about the far-right interpretation of that document, however.
But hate speech can absolutely be a category under state law. Re-read that section of my comment carefully - I reiterate: just because SCOTUS hasn't ruled hate speech protected doesn't mean it is, or is not. That's why states can decide for themselves until SCOTUS rules on this.
Again, you didn't think about what I wrote.
I'm sorry my post went over your head. I get the "jargon" was confusing for you. My mistake. Because of my ASD, sometimes I assume people are as smart and logical as I am, and that they can understand what I mean. And that's one of my faults: not meeting people where they are. I know better than to bring facts to trolls and ask them to think carefully and deeply. Won't happen again. You made no attempt to meet me where I am - do you know anyone with ASD? Because if you did you would understand how discriminating and insulting your comments are.
I'm not going to report you because almost nothing makes me as angry as hypocrisy. But feel free to keep reporting me because you got your feelings hurt that I called you a maggot, and ignorant and a Boomer and Allistic and .... whatever else you come up with.
And if you report me, then you have to report a whole lot of other people. Just to be consistent. Or do you only report women because your fragile heteronormative “ideology” driven ego can’t stand that a woman might be smarter, more articulate and more accurate than you.
So as a woman and a person with a federally recognized and protected “disability,” I am personally offended. But I don’t think you violated any policies; I don’t have the right not to be offended. And neither do you.
I know there are fascist of your ilk out there calling for anyone who posts something about Kirk’s death that they don’t like to be reported to the feds. Should I expect the feds to show up at my door? Who else did you report me to?
Forgot one: speech that presents a clear and present danger is not protected. Classic example is can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. So that’s 7 types of speech not protected by the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. Name 7 SCOTUS approved restrictions on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I’ll wait.
Rebecca, I was listening to an interview that congresswomen Jasmine Crockett engaged in on Friday, with The Breakfast Club radio program. She had some interesting things to say about the 1st Amendment and limits. I am sure that the murdered CK went up on that line, but I don't know well enough if he took people over the line of in sighting violence.
Excellent point! I also don't know if he met the legal standard for inciting violence at the time he was killed. That's for the legal system to decide. I am pretty sure I know how the prosecutors in Utah are leaning. I was thinking more about the totality of his speech and actions throughout the years - taken as a whole, I believe they rise to the level of advocating for imminent lawless action. But lately the courts (SCOTUS at least) don't seem to hold maggots to the same standard as the rest of us. They can get away with anything.
Rebecca, this is exactly where you’re mistaken. The First Amendment absolutely does protect speech you find vile or disgusting. “Hate speech” is not a legal category in America — the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on that. The government can’t punish speech simply because it offends. The only narrow exceptions are true threats, direct incitement of imminent violence, or obscenity — and those are tightly defined. Kirk’s comments, no matter how much you hated them, were protected. That’s the uncomfortable truth about free speech: it protects the speech you hate just as much as the speech you cheer.
Now, let’s follow your logic. You say his words “brought about his death,” as if that’s justice. If we normalize the idea that offensive or “vile” speech deserves violent retaliation, then disagreement in society stops being settled with debate, voting, or persuasion — and instead it’s settled with fists, hammers, and bullets. That’s not “poetic,” that’s the end of civil society. It’s mob rule. It’s exactly what our Constitution was written to prevent.
Do you really want to live in a world where whoever is most easily offended gets to decide who lives or dies? Where every unpopular opinion risks execution by the angriest person in the room? Because that’s the logical end of what you’re cheering for here.
Free speech isn’t about protecting people we agree with. It’s about holding the line so society doesn’t collapse into violence every time we clash. If you throw that principle away because you hated Kirk, don’t be surprised when it’s used against you next.
Jo Burns, what I was thinking of today after reading this writing was, the murder is so terrible to me because of what could have been. Yes, he could have continued or gotten worse with his rhetoric, but he could have also repented and turned from his ways toward love. I am sorry that he did not get to repent in his life, what a witness that could have been.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
Why are you here? Take your trolling elsewhere please. Nothing of what you say is factually accurate.
I’d say I was surprised by the inane fictions maggots create to justify their warped reality, but after 10 years, I’m absolutely not. Charlie Kirk was compassionate like Hitler was a mensch. I’m not gonna explain that one to you. You’ll have to look it up.
Stop with the nonsense that you are posting. Be gone.
Rebecca, the reason I’m here is simple: this is a space for political discourse. That’s what America was founded on — the free exchange of ideas, even the ones we don’t like. I never once told you “be gone” or questioned why you were here. That’s the beauty of free speech: you get to speak your mind, and so do I.
It’s also interesting that you brought up Hitler. You accuse me of “trolling” just for disagreeing with you, while at the same time demanding I leave the conversation. Shutting down dissenting voices and trying to banish people from the public square — if we’re going to play that comparison game, who’s really acting more like the dictator?
I’m not here to silence you, Rebecca. I’m here to have the debate. That’s the whole point of a free country.
I did not know the CK, so I will have to take your word for it. I did not take John's writing other than describing CK as being human. I am not an evangelical or fundamentalist. I believe in showing people who you are and if you have to use words to preach - I believe something similar is attributed to Mother Theresa.
Hi Lynette—thanks for clarifying your stance. You’re right that the saying attributed to Mother Teresa—“Spread the love of God through your life; use words only when necessary”—echoes what you’re describing, focusing on actions over words. She also prayed, “Let me preach You without preaching—not with words, but by example…” Both show the heart of what you mean: people see who you really are in what you do.
And that’s actually why many of us admired Charlie. Beyond his words on a stage, he lived by action—he was a husband, a father, a man deeply committed to his family, and someone who gave to charitable causes and communities. That consistency between word and deed is the very thing Mother Teresa was pointing toward.
Charlie also died for his cause. They tried to silence him through violence, to deny him his speech—but in doing so, they only made his voice louder than ever. His life and death both testify to conviction lived out, which no amount of misrepresentation can erase.
This quote lacks context. I didn’t sheer with a lot of what the man believed in but he made clear he thought sympathy was far more valuable than empathy.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I’m so worn out by the constant hate coming from the right I’m not sure I have any empathy or sympathy or compassion left in me. I go numb. Hoping to come back to life at some point … 😶
It does wear us down. Believe that is the whole point. They want us to give up & go along with their agenda. Not while there is breath still left in me will I believe it’s wrong to be compassionate or empathetic.
yes it is definitely overwhelming. Do what feeds you. Have a toolbox of things that make you feel more like you. One of my favorite things is to star gaze and sip a nice cup of herbal tea. I am going to go indulge.
I wonder what his wife, his children and his spirit, wherever it is, will be thinking of this going forward:
"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
Yesterday, I compiled as many of his disgusting quotes I could find into a blog post - just to remind people what exactly it was that we had just lost. And this was at the top. Other gems included his statements that trans people were an abomination and that "if both of them are drunk, is it really r*pe" - said to a teenage girl who asked a question about consent.
Be careful when saying "never". Which part do you object to? The gun? Or the violence? Had we had laws to persecute Charlie Kirk for hate speech, would you have objected if he were imprisoned and then died in prison? Would that have been less disturbing? What is it exactly that people have such a problem with - that Charlie Kirk is gone for good or how he is gone? In your heart of hearts - no need to tell me, tell yourself, honestly - is it Charlie Kirk's death that upsets you or how it was carried out and you just wish it wasn't so public and violent?
We live in a country where cops - people who are supposed to protect us - can shoot someone over a traffic violation and get away with it.
We live in a country where someone can be snatched up off the street without reason and disappeared into some gulag.
As far as I'm concerned? People who say "this is not America" are stuck in an ivory tower. This IS America. We've had 309 mass shootings this year alone with 302 people dead and 1,354 wounded. Like it or not this is where we live.
And Charlie Kirk was not only ok with it - he advocated it. There are some bloggers including Gary Kasparov, for whom I have utmost respect, who say that we should rely on laws and established institutions to deal with people like Charlie Kirk. Ok. What laws? What institutions? Every single vile thing he said was covered under the first amendment. Unlike some of the European countries, we have no reliable laws to persecute hate speech. We have no procedures, no institutions to stop the likes of Charlie Kirk from grooming children in his image. So, it's no wonder somebody finally snapped. This is what happens when people lose faith in their government. This is basically "V for Vendetta" playing out in real life.
I don't like it either. I feel sincerely concerned and sorry for all the marginalized groups who will get blamed and attacked because of it (and I am part of several of those marginalized groups). But this is our reality. And if my only consolation is that at least Charlie Kirk is now burning in hell - then I'll take it.
Murder is not ok. Saying that as John said in his writing is not whipping the slate clean with all the horrible things is CK is recorded to have said. It is possible that both can be true at the same time. We can mourn and shun murder but not martyr the speech and action. It is not giving any bad behavior a pass to be empathetic to another's pain. I read a quote this week, "all human behavior is an act of love or a call for love." James Inman.
That doesn't answer my question. What do you object to? The fact that he is dead or how he is dead? I think people are not being honest with themselves.
Like it or not, murder is very commonplace - under various titles. And some of it is justified. For example, my fellow Ukrainians right now are killing Russian soldiers while defending their country. When they go to the front, when they get their weapons issued, when they get their missions, they know what will happen - it is 100% premeditated. It's also self-defense. If they didn't do what they are doing, they and their country would be destroyed.
Death penalty is legal in 27 states in the United States. So, when prosecution, witnesses, judges, jury come together to eventually deliver the verdict and convict someone in one of those states, it could be argued they are planning a murder. Because if it's one of the crimes punishable by death, and the jury hands down the guilty verdict, everyone in that room knows that the suspect will be killed. But when it happens, most people are unaware and pretend like it doesn't exist because it happens out of sight, somewhere else.
As I pointed out, had we had laws to convict Charlie Kirk for his hate speech, his support of forced birth, his devotion to gun culture, and his trans-phobia, and had he died in prison, everyone would have been just fine with it. What happened - that he was killed in this very public manner, by someone radicalized even more than Charlie Kirk was himself, is why this is getting so much attention. 16,700 homicides took place in the US in 2024. That's roughly 45 per day. So, it is possible that 44 other people were murdered on the same day as Charlie Kirk for various reasons. Nobody gave a damn.
I object to murder and I object to death penalty. But I am not going to sit here and pretend that Charlie Kirk deserves more coverage, more publicity, or more compassion than any of the other people who died violently on the same day. I am sick and tired of the platitudes like "murder is never ok". I don't think people who say that are honest with themselves and with each other. They would kill in self-defense (or - even more likely - in defense of their loved ones, particularly their children). They would fight in a war to defend their country. They would convict a criminal, even if he is likely to get death penalty. Welcome to life. As for Charlie Kirk? I call it karma.
Charlie never “celebrated” death. When he compared gun deaths to auto deaths, his point was simple: society accepts that some risks exist because the alternative—stripping away freedoms—creates something worse. That’s not endorsement; that’s sober realism. You’ve stripped the nuance to smear him as heartless.
Empathy and compassion are traits necessary for a civilized society. Not everyone understands or is capable of empathy. I’m not sure it can be taught unless it’s taught and modeled early in the family. I don’t know yet who Charley Kirk was. I certainly disagree with what he said about empathy. I couldn’t practice my profession without empathy. I must admit that I have no empathy for Trump and some of his administration. Narcissists are incapable of empathy. Some can fake it without feeling it.
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” You see that on bumper stickers. I think that’s short sighted. It’s become too frequent as more people have guns, but I think it’s a national sickness. It’s excused, rationalized, and even taught. “I killed him because he disrespected me.” Where do we learn that view?
I’m not sure where to find it. I understand that he was from a good family and that his father may have encouraged him to turn himself in. I don’t condone this kind of killing. I know that a lot of theories have been proposed, most before he turned himself in. I don’t think a motive has been established, but a lot of people are guessing. It’s so hard to know what is true anymore. Everything is a conspiracy. I doubt seriously that any conspiracy was involved. It’s hard to understand the bullet casings. He only fired 1 shot. There may be a message there, and there are already interpretations, maybe all of which are wrong. He may tell us. Otherwise, others will spin it to their purposes.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I’m a Clinical Psychologist, and I know very well what empathy is. Neither sympathy or compassion is a complete substitute. Empathy and compassion go together well. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, to truly understand. He was wrong about empathy. It’s not a weakness; it’s a strength. I’m not saying he was wrong about compassion. I didn’t see the whole quote. Actually, I may have elsewhere. I don’t think he meant to imply that Charlie was cold hearted. He had a wife, children, and friends. For anyone to celebrate his death was cold, but the idiot that posted that comment may not have been cold hearted. We have begun to ignore how complex we are. I do sometimes think John forgets that and paints Trump supporters too negatively. I know good people who support Trump. I just try not to judge them by that belief alone.
Thank you John. I pray for healing in our country and our world. Violence is never to be celebrated or condoned. We on the left need to condemn this act. MAGA will revere Charlie Kirk as their martyr. Let’s remain clear: the fact of his violent death doesn’t make him a saint or sanctify MAGA.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
Beautiful, John. You have a true empathetic heart and soul. This world needs us all to be empathetic and kind, especially in this situation when a young person has tragically lost his life to a senseless shooting. And we need to passionately call out when other are not being kind and empathetic - especially our country's leaders. You are doing this with your posts, John. The lack of empathy and kindness - and the cruelty of this administration - are truly heartbreaking.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I do not feel empathy for a person who spent his life fully denigrating so many others. I frankly feel some relief knowing he will not be speaking those hateful things again.
I do not applaud the manner of his death and I also wonder what pushed his murderer over the edge.
I do not applaud that his wife is now widowed and his children fatherless. I do wonder if his wife shares his convictions. His children are innocents who will grow up repeatedly viewing the images of their father’s murder. That is a horrible burden to bear. I cannot begin to wonder what scars will form and how those children will develop.
I find incredible irony that he said that if preserving 2nd amendment rights means some people need to die, that is fine. I wonder if he had seen a glimpse of today, if he would have changed his convictions.
I am clearly not God, who loves Charlie Kirk as God’s beloved child. It is not for me to determine what Charlie’s meeting with God was like when he took his final breath.
I feel exhausted by all the violence. The victims & families at Evergreen High are barely an asterisk at the bottom of the page. I am angry that Pres.Tuck Frump and the American Fascist Party didn’t express any kind of human emotion when Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered.
I am definitely struggling to reconcile my professed beliefs as a disciple of Christ with my smug gut response that we reap what we sow; if that were true, I’d have been in big trouble long ago.
Thank you John. I'm sorry for his shooting and death but MAGAs and other conservatives have no understanding of empathy and probably never will. Maybe it's genetic. Who knows? How about their lack of empathy for those who are not in their tribe or cult? Many adults and children are dying across the world from malnutrition, lack of vaccines and treatments for HIV, arrests and deportations or imprisonment under inhumane conditions for alleged illegal immigrants without due process, and the militarization of American cities. As you know there is even more to come like loss of Medicaid and a decrease in veteran's medical care. I hate to say it but this administration is both evil and incompetent. I do not understand the thinking, if there is any, of its supporters. I believe in non-violent resolution of conflicts but doubt that it will happen. Sooner or later the administration or its followers will resort to violence and then I fear that all is lost. I apologize for becoming pessimistic and will make an effort to be more positive.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I agree with your words, John. I also agree with severak posters and have been struck by the irony of his murder and his last words. I have been asking myself if my empathy is genuine because I personally loathed every thing this young man stood for. Is it bad that I'm not more sad? I do feel true empathy for his wife and children, yet I felt that the first time I heard him speak.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I avoided listening to Charlie Kirk after the first time I heard him.
“You reap what you sow”
If you condemn empathy, the basic emotion that keeps people from becoming monsters - you will attract the human monsters among us.
Charlie Kirk’s killing has made him a “martyr” to MAGA. This is why political assassinations of one’s opponents are a bad idea strategically as well as morally.
However, for people who lack empathy, to whom human life is disposable, as those in this Administration have repeatedly demonstrated, the making of a martyr is a way of reigniting wavering support for their agenda.
Trump said the Epstein files were a “dead issue”.
No one in the extreme MAGA base will be talking about Epstein now will they?
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
Meanwhile, there’s another school shooting and no one’s talking about that. No country outpouring of empathy there. No half mast flags. No we’ll never forgot. Barely a news article.
The good old double standard. Sad. 😔
Exactly. Just another day in 'Murica. Incidentally, Charlie Kirk said that school shooting victims were acceptable sacrifices for the sake of keeping the Second Amendment. I am NOT grieving for him. The world is better with him gone.
Here is an update on the shooting. https://coloradonewsline.com/briefs/3-students-hospitalized-after-shooting-at-evergreen-high-school/
Thank you for sharing the update. There was also an incident in Pierre, SD at a school yesterday as well.
So by your logic—are you okay with auto deaths, or should we ban cars too? If not, why treat the Second Amendment differently?
Charlie Kirk’s actual point about the Second Amendment and gun deaths was this:
He did not celebrate or welcome gun deaths. He argued that the freedom secured by the Second Amendment comes with risks, and while tragedies like school shootings are horrific, the alternative—stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves—would be far worse for society.
To explain this, he used an analogy with automobiles: every year, roughly 50,000 Americans die in car accidents. As a society, we don’t view those deaths as “acceptable sacrifices,” nor do we support car crashes. But we recognize that banning cars would devastate our way of life. The benefits of cars outweigh the tragic losses, and so we work to minimize risks (seat belts, airbags, speed limits) while still keeping cars legal.
Kirk’s argument is that the Second Amendment works the same way: we should take steps to reduce violence, but the existence of risk doesn’t justify banning the very right that ensures Americans can protect themselves and remain free.
Agreed Maria K.
And where was the right’s empathy when Paul Pelosi was nearly killed by a madman with a hammer 🔨
Instead of empathy they chose jokes and ridicule.
Not to mention lies and defamation
Kirk wasn’t saying he supported the attack or wanted the guy walking free. He called it awful. His “bail him out” line was pointing out the hypocrisy — the same people who raised bail money for rioters, looters, and violent offenders in 2020 suddenly act shocked when the mirror is turned back on them. You can’t cheer bail funds for your side’s violence and then clutch pearls when someone applies the same standard in reverse. That was his point.
Sorry not sorry. He was a sad, sorry, despicable 31 year old who was wreaking havoc on young impressionable minds all in the name of greed and power. He was the new young prince of the republican party. Maybe his innocent children won't have to grow up under the sociopathic father that they will need years of therapy to figure out who they are meant to be. Maybe his wife can live the life she was meant to be and not melded into a slave of his warped mind. I have empathy and I also have the guidance of a moral compass. And trust me, there can be both traits at one time.
In absolute agreement on this. I’m sickened by another senseless public shooting, the trauma everyone in that crowd experienced, the pain his family must endure. But I’m more angry about the 3 innocent kids in critical condition who were shot in the Colorado high school yesterday (& will receive little attention). Those teens weren’t inciting hatred, political division, belittling empathic citizens. They weren’t using a national microphone to state how we must accept gun deaths everyday for “our God given rights to have guns” (how ironic) or jumping on the media to ask someone to be a true patriot and bail out the hero who beat Mr. Pelosi with a hammer. I’m more frightened for what hell will be unleashed by this shooting of Mr. Kirk. Charlie can answer now to his maker.
Well said, Lisa.
Truth!
I get the anger. I get the fear. When someone we oppose says things we find dangerous or cruel, it’s natural to feel relieved when they’re gone. That reaction is human — not pretty, but human. Let’s start there and be honest about it.
But relief is not the same as justice. Joy at another person’s death is not righteous; it’s the easy way out. It costs nothing to celebrate when a life ends. It costs everything to hold people accountable while still recognizing their shared humanity.
Think about what celebrating that death actually says: that the values you claim to defend are subordinate to your desire for retribution. It signals that the moral line you draw depends on who you like, not on a consistent principle. That’s hypocrisy dressed up as virtue.
If you want a safer country, more honest politics, or a healthier public square, start with consistency. Demand accountability, yes — but don’t trade one form of cruelty for another. Punish bad ideas with better ideas. Expose harmful behavior with facts and sustained pressure. But don’t make a habit of rejoicing when someone stops breathing.
We should grieve for victims. We should seek consequences for wrongdoing. We should work to reduce harm. But celebrating death? That does the opposite of what we say we want. It hardens us. It normalizes violence. It makes us less persuasive, not more.
If your outrage is real, channel it. Vote. Organize. Speak clearly and keep the facts front and center. Hold leaders to account in public, legal, and civic arenas. Use your energy to build something better — not to perform moral theater on social media.
There’s a difference between calling someone to account and exulting in their end. If you care about the future you claim to fight for, choose the harder path: be consistent, be humane, and let your actions match your words.
High five! Same.
This is a despicable take on any human life. I hope that I am never this jaded.
Why is it despicable? Did you mourn for Osama bin Laden’s children? John Wayne Gacy had children. Some fathers rape their daughters, and some mothers beat their sons. Honor thy mother and father is sometimes bullshit.
I think it’s fantastic that you have wonderful parents and could not imagine their deaths being a release to you. Not everyone is so lucky.
Yeah, I hope you’re never this jaded too. It’s not a fun way to be. The benefit is that I’m never surprised at how terrible people are. And I’m usually right.
Well said, John! I was appalled to read almost immediately that all democrats needed to be purged from the US. What on God's green earth is wrong with them. My reaction I read of his death was how disgusting it was to murder someone, to assassinate, no matter what their truth was. They, Charlie, had to right to say what he did. I'm with you, I opposed everything stood for, but it isn't someone's right to take his life.
He did not have the right to say some of what he said. Hate speech, fighting words, speech that incites imminent lawless action - all fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.
The irony, of course, is that he was killed while uttering vile, disgusting, unprotected speech. His own words brought about his death.
It’s poetic, really.
It seems like a “Reap what you sow” moment. And that sentiment doesn’t erase the loss a family is feeling for a loved one. We love others even when we know they are flawed, and still do not wish upon them cruelty. Oh, Unless you’re maga. They do. Over, and over, and over, and over……
Yes, he certainly did reap what he sowed. He supported America’s gun fetish by claiming it was a prudent deal and willingly sacrificed his own life to ensure that every American has access to any weapon anytime anywhere. He would defend his own killing as a “prudent deal.”
He was a sick, hateful, piece of shit with no redeeming qualities. His death might’ve saved the lives of others. His death served the greater good.
I do not love those who wish for the death of those of whom they disapprove and who do them no harm. If you choose to, that is your prerogative and I support it, but I am not compelled to love people who want to kill my son. And his death wasn’t cruel. Certainly not compared to the children for whom gun violence is the number one cause of death.
So by your logic—are you okay with auto deaths, or should we ban cars too? If not, why treat the Second Amendment differently?
Charlie Kirk’s actual point about the Second Amendment and gun deaths was this:
He did not celebrate or welcome gun deaths. He argued that the freedom secured by the Second Amendment comes with risks, and while tragedies like school shootings are horrific, the alternative—stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves—would be far worse for society.
To explain this, he used an analogy with automobiles: every year, roughly 50,000 Americans die in car accidents. As a society, we don’t view those deaths as “acceptable sacrifices,” nor do we support car crashes. But we recognize that banning cars would devastate our way of life. The benefits of cars outweigh the tragic losses, and so we work to minimize risks (seat belts, airbags, speed limits) while still keeping cars legal.
Kirk’s argument is that the Second Amendment works the same way: we should take steps to reduce violence, but the existence of risk doesn’t justify banning the very right that ensures Americans can protect themselves and remain free.
Honestly, are you ok dear? Really, I am worried about your reading comprehension. Maybe your bifocals need to be adjusted.
Note: all my questions are rhetorical. I really don't want to have to respond to more of your inarticulate drivel.
What "logic" are you imputing to me?
Of course I'm not ok with auto deaths and we don't need to ban cars. We prohibit impaired driving, driving while on a cellphone, driving with a suspended license or without insurance or a seatbelt or or adequate brakes. Regulation saves lives. Deaths from car accidents reduced significantly when MADD pushed for drunk driving laws and when Congress mandated seat belts. Your, and Kirk's, car accident analogy is specious at best. (Here's where you look up "specious.") Because cars are regulated and guns are not, at least not to the extent that those regulations reduce gun deaths significantly. Or at all actually. Gun violence is the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 18. The 2nd Amendment would work the same as regulating, instead of banning, cars but the maggots won't accept any regulations at all. Not even common sense measures like banning the blind from owning firearms and requiring gun owners to demonstrate proficiency to obtain a license. In Texas open carry is allowed with no testing and licensing requirements. But Texas requires new drivers to pass tests before getting a license. Still think that analogy works?
Haven't you read "The Jungle?" Do you think eating tainted meat is an acceptable risk we take to "protect our freedom?" Not everything in this country is caveat emptor, not should it be. The free market doesn't care about our lives and safety.
I'm not getting into a 2nd Amendment thing with you here; suffice to say none of our other rights are absolute but the right to bear arms seems to be, so far. And it trumps our other rights. Why is that ok? Our rights conflict and when they do, legislators and courts determine which right prevails. Hell, the two religion clauses of the 1st Amendment clash just by their language alone. So your second amendment, absolutism conflicts with the our right to live and live safely. Or maybe you don’t think we have a right to live and live safe safely? Maybe you only think the right to life applies to zygotes.
Your right to own a bunch of guns just cause you want to should not be more important than a child’s right to feel safe at school. And please do not come back with “the way to stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns“ bullshit.
KIrk, and the rest of you maggots, absolutely celebrate gun deaths every time you offer only "thoughts and prayers" after children (children!!!) are murdered. Your silence in the face of constant mass shooting is endorsement. What freedoms are more important than a child's life? You need an arsenal of AR15s to "remain free and protect yourself?" From whom? The government can come in take your shit whenever it wants. It won't, because you are not on ICE's list, but it can. Don't pretend your guns are anything more than compensation and a way to threaten and silence those you hate.
There is nothing more horrific than school shootings. Nothing. Your nebulous "freedom" isn't threatened by common sense gun reform. But children's lives are absolutely threatened by the maggot all-guns-for-everyone-all-the-time agenda. Regulation is sensible and saves lives. Unlimited rights run rampant cause harm.
How do you not get this?
Rebecca, this is exactly where you’re mistaken. The First Amendment absolutely does protect speech you find vile or disgusting. “Hate speech” is not a legal category in America — the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on that. The government can’t punish speech simply because it offends. The only narrow exceptions are true threats, direct incitement of imminent violence, or obscenity — and those are tightly defined. Kirk’s comments, no matter how much you hated them, were protected. That’s the uncomfortable truth about free speech: it protects the speech you hate just as much as the speech you cheer.
Now, let’s follow your logic. You say his words “brought about his death,” as if that’s justice. If we normalize the idea that offensive or “vile” speech deserves violent retaliation, then disagreement in society stops being settled with debate, voting, or persuasion — and instead it’s settled with fists, hammers, and bullets. That’s not “poetic,” that’s the end of civil society. It’s mob rule. It’s exactly what our Constitution was written to prevent.
Do you really want to live in a world where whoever is most easily offended gets to decide who lives or dies? Where every unpopular opinion risks execution by the angriest person in the room? Because that’s the logical end of what you’re cheering for here.
Free speech isn’t about protecting people we agree with. It’s about holding the line so society doesn’t collapse into violence every time we clash. If you throw that principle away because you hated Kirk, don’t be surprised when it’s used against you next.
And how happy are you that Kimmel’s show was canceled? If you don’t see the hypocrisy in that, then you are totally lost.
Rebecca, I can tell this really bothers you, and I respect that. But let’s be clear — Jimmy Kimmel wasn’t fired for being “anti-MAGA.” He was fired because he said something reckless and flat-out wrong about Charlie Kirk. Networks don’t tolerate hosts celebrating or misrepresenting political violence, no matter which side it’s aimed at. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s accountability.
Honestly though, I’m disappointed. Kimmel was the best recruiter conservatives ever had — every monologue of his pushed more people to the right than a hundred campaign ads could. So in a strange way, I’m going to miss him.
But here’s the irony — you’re furious that he was let go, and I’m bummed too… just for completely opposite reasons. If you can’t see the humor in that, or the hypocrisy of celebrating cancellations only when they go your way, then I don’t know what to tell you.
No comment by LOL. And what color is the sky in your world? Never mind. I know it’s red.
Try to re-read what I said carefully. I'll explain in detail for the other Allistic boomers on here. I did know the reason we allow offensive speech (to protect speech we hate as much as the speech we cheer) but thanks for the reminder. You forgot to mention the marketplace of ideas and the maxim that offensive speech is best countered by more speech.
And, there are more exceptions to 1st Amendment protection than ONLY threats, obscenity and speech that incites imminent lawless action: false advertising, libel and slander are also unprotected. There are even separate standards applied to libel and slander suits depending on how well known the plaintiff is.
Also, legitimate time, place and manner restrictions on speech are perfectly legal. Example: you may protest at a school board meeting but not in front a school board member's house at 3 am.
Additionally, speech can be regulated if it is viewpoint neutral. Example: a public school can prohibit all prayer in the classroom (yup, that's still legal) but it cannot prohibit a specific type of prayer (Christian, Jewish, etc).
And speech protections are hierarchical: political speech is afforded the highest protection, pornography the lowest.
I won't get into symbolic speech and the illusory category of "forced speech."
IYKYK.
I'd cite the cases but it's late and I'm tired and don't want to drag out all my 1st Amendment notes and books from law school.
Yes, the Supreme Court has not said specifically that "hate speech" is unprotected. But it does not necessarily follow that it is protected. Hate crime legislation/enhancement are legal. We further penalize certain crimes because of the perpetrator's intent and chosen victims (when the legislature has determined that those crimes committed against certain victims are worthy of extra condemnation by extended sentences.)
Why would hate crime legislation and enhancement be permissible but not hate speech? And where do you draw the line between fighting words and obscenity and hate speech? And what is the difference between porn, which does have limited first amendment protection, and obscenity, which does not?
These questions have not adequately been answered by SCOTUS so states fill in these gaps to determine what speech is further protected by their laws, and what is not. That's federalism. 10th Amendment reserved powers. Need I explain those also? I don't know Utah's laws. Maybe you do?
I did not say it was logical or normal that his words brought about his death. I don't know why you say it's "my logic." That assertion itself is illogical. But it's a reasonable inference that he was shot because of his words, while speaking in public, having become filthy rich and infamous almost entirely because of his words. Just as it is reasonable to assign a life-long smoker's two pack-a-day habit to his death by lung cancer.
I'm wiling to bet Kirk was not killed because the shooter disliked his race, religion, sexual orientation or gender preference. Ditto because Kirk owed the shooter money or tried to steal his wife. I could be wrong about that.
And "poetic" means symbolic, metaphorical, ironic even, elevating the death from more than a simple cessation of life to an occasion for deeper meaning and reflection. Really, did you not understand this? I think you are grasping for things to find objectionable in my post, even creating reasons.
No, I don't want to live in a world where the most offended determines who lives or dies. Who does? Again, not a logical end to what I was saying. Certainly I wasn't cheering. I'm not throwing any principles away - that's a big reach. Try not to infer what I didn't imply.
And if I spoke as Kirk did, I wouldn't be surprised if I was shot. But I wouldn't be because compassionate, reasonable people (liberals) don't shoot those they disagree with. We also don't say vile things that endanger the least among us.
Sorry if this was TLDR, but you irked a chick with Aspergers with your cliche' ridden, badly written, irrational "response."
Rebecca, you really did throw the whole kitchen sink of legal jargon at me. But let’s not lose sight of the key point: you actually conceded my original argument. You wrote, “Yes, the Supreme Court has not said specifically that ‘hate speech’ is unprotected.” That’s exactly what I said — “hate speech” is not a legal category in America. The Court has repeatedly upheld that vile, offensive, and even hateful speech is protected. Nazis marching in Skokie, Westboro Baptist at military funerals, flag burning — all allowed under the First Amendment. The Court doesn’t need to spell it out any clearer.
Yes, there are exceptions — libel, slander, obscenity, fighting words, false advertising, time/place/manner restrictions, etc. That’s the kitchen sink you listed. But none of those equal “hate speech.” The exceptions are narrow, defined, and not a blank check for silencing people you disagree with.
You also wrote: “It’s poetic that he was killed while uttering vile, disgusting, unprotected speech” and told me to “be gone.” That is incitement to violence and dehumanization — whether you admit it or not. Calling someone’s death “poetic” and then banishing people who defend him is celebrating political violence. I’ve already reported that to Substack because it crosses the line of civil discourse.
The irony here is thick. You say you want to protect society from “dangerous speech,” yet in the same breath you justify and romanticize someone being killed for his words. You don’t see the contradiction, but anyone who cares about free society does.
At the end of the day, my point stands. “Hate speech” is not unprotected under U.S. law. The First Amendment protects it unless it falls into those narrow categories you listed — and Kirk’s comments, no matter how much you despised them, didn’t. That’s why my statement was correct, and why your anger is aimed more at Kirk himself than at the Constitution.
wow. You are really far gone.
This is a long post. You might read all of it, you might not. But I am not posting this for you. I am posting this for me and the other neurodivergent thinkers out there.
I’m sorry that I threw a bunch of legal jargon at you. You did too. I don’t object to it. What I object to is that you are trying to have a discussion about something you clearly don’t understand. I don’t pretend to know stuff about shit I don’t fully understand. If you came at me with a post about cars or chemistry or something, I wouldn’t try to correct you.
And I am sorry if words like slander and symbolic speech are jargon to you. They seemed pretty basic to me. You said a bunch of stuff that was factually incorrect so I tried to teach you. Some people wanna learn, some people don’t. You totally missed the point, of course. I explained what I meant by poetic. I am sorry you didn’t understand. I did not mean warranted or justified or proportional or sensible. And I never wrote that. Like I said before, try not to infer what I didn’t imply. If I had thought that his death was appropriate or warranted, I would have said so.
One of the features of ASD is that I am a Gestalt Language Processor. I get that that is jargon also but I can’t help that you might not know what that means. I use big words. I speak in concepts. I am literal.
I am not going to dumb down my language or censor myself because you don’t take the effort to understand what I wrote. I don’t have to, and I am not going to, change the way I speak and write to accommodate the Neurotypical/neurodominant community. I don’t accept criticism that because I use big words and speak in concepts that people might not understand that I am aggressive or hypocritical or whatever derogatory word you might assign to me because you won’t acknowledge that I don’t think like you, and that it’s OK that I don’t. I didn’t write anything inappropriate or untrue. Just because you disagree with me does not mean that I am wrong or offensive.
You reported me for offending you. You don't get to decide what civil discourse is. That's the entire crux of your argument, isn't it? That neither of us get to decide what is offensive and should be banned. But you proved my point. You’ll never understand that or admit it, but I know.
I told you to be gone because you are a troll. Go find your own people and revel in your red swill and leave thinking folks alone. You are here to troll. Or own the Libs or whatever you call it. You should at least have the sense and the grace to admit it because I’m sure you’re proud of it. If you choose to take offense because I pointed out the truth about what you are I can’t help that either. How many sub stack and other social media platforms do you troll? And why, Don’t you have anything better to do?
I get that you didn't understand my point about 10th Amendment reserved powers, most people don't outside the legal system don’t. And the concept of true federalism as the framer's intended it is just is lost on maggots. And I don’t understand how I could be angry at a document. I am angry about the far-right interpretation of that document, however.
But hate speech can absolutely be a category under state law. Re-read that section of my comment carefully - I reiterate: just because SCOTUS hasn't ruled hate speech protected doesn't mean it is, or is not. That's why states can decide for themselves until SCOTUS rules on this.
Again, you didn't think about what I wrote.
I'm sorry my post went over your head. I get the "jargon" was confusing for you. My mistake. Because of my ASD, sometimes I assume people are as smart and logical as I am, and that they can understand what I mean. And that's one of my faults: not meeting people where they are. I know better than to bring facts to trolls and ask them to think carefully and deeply. Won't happen again. You made no attempt to meet me where I am - do you know anyone with ASD? Because if you did you would understand how discriminating and insulting your comments are.
I'm not going to report you because almost nothing makes me as angry as hypocrisy. But feel free to keep reporting me because you got your feelings hurt that I called you a maggot, and ignorant and a Boomer and Allistic and .... whatever else you come up with.
And if you report me, then you have to report a whole lot of other people. Just to be consistent. Or do you only report women because your fragile heteronormative “ideology” driven ego can’t stand that a woman might be smarter, more articulate and more accurate than you.
So as a woman and a person with a federally recognized and protected “disability,” I am personally offended. But I don’t think you violated any policies; I don’t have the right not to be offended. And neither do you.
I know there are fascist of your ilk out there calling for anyone who posts something about Kirk’s death that they don’t like to be reported to the feds. Should I expect the feds to show up at my door? Who else did you report me to?
Forgot one: speech that presents a clear and present danger is not protected. Classic example is can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. So that’s 7 types of speech not protected by the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. Name 7 SCOTUS approved restrictions on the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. I’ll wait.
Rebecca, I was listening to an interview that congresswomen Jasmine Crockett engaged in on Friday, with The Breakfast Club radio program. She had some interesting things to say about the 1st Amendment and limits. I am sure that the murdered CK went up on that line, but I don't know well enough if he took people over the line of in sighting violence.
Excellent point! I also don't know if he met the legal standard for inciting violence at the time he was killed. That's for the legal system to decide. I am pretty sure I know how the prosecutors in Utah are leaning. I was thinking more about the totality of his speech and actions throughout the years - taken as a whole, I believe they rise to the level of advocating for imminent lawless action. But lately the courts (SCOTUS at least) don't seem to hold maggots to the same standard as the rest of us. They can get away with anything.
Rebecca, this is exactly where you’re mistaken. The First Amendment absolutely does protect speech you find vile or disgusting. “Hate speech” is not a legal category in America — the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on that. The government can’t punish speech simply because it offends. The only narrow exceptions are true threats, direct incitement of imminent violence, or obscenity — and those are tightly defined. Kirk’s comments, no matter how much you hated them, were protected. That’s the uncomfortable truth about free speech: it protects the speech you hate just as much as the speech you cheer.
Now, let’s follow your logic. You say his words “brought about his death,” as if that’s justice. If we normalize the idea that offensive or “vile” speech deserves violent retaliation, then disagreement in society stops being settled with debate, voting, or persuasion — and instead it’s settled with fists, hammers, and bullets. That’s not “poetic,” that’s the end of civil society. It’s mob rule. It’s exactly what our Constitution was written to prevent.
Do you really want to live in a world where whoever is most easily offended gets to decide who lives or dies? Where every unpopular opinion risks execution by the angriest person in the room? Because that’s the logical end of what you’re cheering for here.
Free speech isn’t about protecting people we agree with. It’s about holding the line so society doesn’t collapse into violence every time we clash. If you throw that principle away because you hated Kirk, don’t be surprised when it’s used against you next.
I am not dismissing the influence he had on young minds or others. It was a systematic way to distort an agenda of opposition and facts.
Jo Burns, what I was thinking of today after reading this writing was, the murder is so terrible to me because of what could have been. Yes, he could have continued or gotten worse with his rhetoric, but he could have also repented and turned from his ways toward love. I am sorry that he did not get to repent in his life, what a witness that could have been.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
Why are you here? Take your trolling elsewhere please. Nothing of what you say is factually accurate.
I’d say I was surprised by the inane fictions maggots create to justify their warped reality, but after 10 years, I’m absolutely not. Charlie Kirk was compassionate like Hitler was a mensch. I’m not gonna explain that one to you. You’ll have to look it up.
Stop with the nonsense that you are posting. Be gone.
Rebecca, the reason I’m here is simple: this is a space for political discourse. That’s what America was founded on — the free exchange of ideas, even the ones we don’t like. I never once told you “be gone” or questioned why you were here. That’s the beauty of free speech: you get to speak your mind, and so do I.
It’s also interesting that you brought up Hitler. You accuse me of “trolling” just for disagreeing with you, while at the same time demanding I leave the conversation. Shutting down dissenting voices and trying to banish people from the public square — if we’re going to play that comparison game, who’s really acting more like the dictator?
I’m not here to silence you, Rebecca. I’m here to have the debate. That’s the whole point of a free country.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out all the things you said that are just factually incorrect. I don’t care what you think.
I did not know the CK, so I will have to take your word for it. I did not take John's writing other than describing CK as being human. I am not an evangelical or fundamentalist. I believe in showing people who you are and if you have to use words to preach - I believe something similar is attributed to Mother Theresa.
Hi Lynette—thanks for clarifying your stance. You’re right that the saying attributed to Mother Teresa—“Spread the love of God through your life; use words only when necessary”—echoes what you’re describing, focusing on actions over words. She also prayed, “Let me preach You without preaching—not with words, but by example…” Both show the heart of what you mean: people see who you really are in what you do.
And that’s actually why many of us admired Charlie. Beyond his words on a stage, he lived by action—he was a husband, a father, a man deeply committed to his family, and someone who gave to charitable causes and communities. That consistency between word and deed is the very thing Mother Teresa was pointing toward.
Charlie also died for his cause. They tried to silence him through violence, to deny him his speech—but in doing so, they only made his voice louder than ever. His life and death both testify to conviction lived out, which no amount of misrepresentation can erase.
“Empathy is the only thing that can save us.” Thank you, John. That is a truth to live by.
This quote lacks context. I didn’t sheer with a lot of what the man believed in but he made clear he thought sympathy was far more valuable than empathy.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I’m so worn out by the constant hate coming from the right I’m not sure I have any empathy or sympathy or compassion left in me. I go numb. Hoping to come back to life at some point … 😶
It does wear us down. Believe that is the whole point. They want us to give up & go along with their agenda. Not while there is breath still left in me will I believe it’s wrong to be compassionate or empathetic.
Thanks Kate. I won’t give up either, just gets me down every once in awhile. 👍🏻😁
Sorry! Cate. Damn autocorrect.
yes it is definitely overwhelming. Do what feeds you. Have a toolbox of things that make you feel more like you. One of my favorite things is to star gaze and sip a nice cup of herbal tea. I am going to go indulge.
I do have a collection of coping things at hand, and tea id definitely one of them. A couple of sips makes everything better. Thank you!
I wonder what his wife, his children and his spirit, wherever it is, will be thinking of this going forward:
"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
~ Charlie Kirk April 5, 2023
Yesterday, I compiled as many of his disgusting quotes I could find into a blog post - just to remind people what exactly it was that we had just lost. And this was at the top. Other gems included his statements that trans people were an abomination and that "if both of them are drunk, is it really r*pe" - said to a teenage girl who asked a question about consent.
Gun violence is never ok, no matter who the victim is. But the martyrdom of such a vile creep is really hard to take!
Be careful when saying "never". Which part do you object to? The gun? Or the violence? Had we had laws to persecute Charlie Kirk for hate speech, would you have objected if he were imprisoned and then died in prison? Would that have been less disturbing? What is it exactly that people have such a problem with - that Charlie Kirk is gone for good or how he is gone? In your heart of hearts - no need to tell me, tell yourself, honestly - is it Charlie Kirk's death that upsets you or how it was carried out and you just wish it wasn't so public and violent?
We live in a country where cops - people who are supposed to protect us - can shoot someone over a traffic violation and get away with it.
We live in a country where someone can be snatched up off the street without reason and disappeared into some gulag.
As far as I'm concerned? People who say "this is not America" are stuck in an ivory tower. This IS America. We've had 309 mass shootings this year alone with 302 people dead and 1,354 wounded. Like it or not this is where we live.
And Charlie Kirk was not only ok with it - he advocated it. There are some bloggers including Gary Kasparov, for whom I have utmost respect, who say that we should rely on laws and established institutions to deal with people like Charlie Kirk. Ok. What laws? What institutions? Every single vile thing he said was covered under the first amendment. Unlike some of the European countries, we have no reliable laws to persecute hate speech. We have no procedures, no institutions to stop the likes of Charlie Kirk from grooming children in his image. So, it's no wonder somebody finally snapped. This is what happens when people lose faith in their government. This is basically "V for Vendetta" playing out in real life.
I don't like it either. I feel sincerely concerned and sorry for all the marginalized groups who will get blamed and attacked because of it (and I am part of several of those marginalized groups). But this is our reality. And if my only consolation is that at least Charlie Kirk is now burning in hell - then I'll take it.
Murder is not ok. Saying that as John said in his writing is not whipping the slate clean with all the horrible things is CK is recorded to have said. It is possible that both can be true at the same time. We can mourn and shun murder but not martyr the speech and action. It is not giving any bad behavior a pass to be empathetic to another's pain. I read a quote this week, "all human behavior is an act of love or a call for love." James Inman.
That doesn't answer my question. What do you object to? The fact that he is dead or how he is dead? I think people are not being honest with themselves.
Like it or not, murder is very commonplace - under various titles. And some of it is justified. For example, my fellow Ukrainians right now are killing Russian soldiers while defending their country. When they go to the front, when they get their weapons issued, when they get their missions, they know what will happen - it is 100% premeditated. It's also self-defense. If they didn't do what they are doing, they and their country would be destroyed.
Death penalty is legal in 27 states in the United States. So, when prosecution, witnesses, judges, jury come together to eventually deliver the verdict and convict someone in one of those states, it could be argued they are planning a murder. Because if it's one of the crimes punishable by death, and the jury hands down the guilty verdict, everyone in that room knows that the suspect will be killed. But when it happens, most people are unaware and pretend like it doesn't exist because it happens out of sight, somewhere else.
As I pointed out, had we had laws to convict Charlie Kirk for his hate speech, his support of forced birth, his devotion to gun culture, and his trans-phobia, and had he died in prison, everyone would have been just fine with it. What happened - that he was killed in this very public manner, by someone radicalized even more than Charlie Kirk was himself, is why this is getting so much attention. 16,700 homicides took place in the US in 2024. That's roughly 45 per day. So, it is possible that 44 other people were murdered on the same day as Charlie Kirk for various reasons. Nobody gave a damn.
I object to murder and I object to death penalty. But I am not going to sit here and pretend that Charlie Kirk deserves more coverage, more publicity, or more compassion than any of the other people who died violently on the same day. I am sick and tired of the platitudes like "murder is never ok". I don't think people who say that are honest with themselves and with each other. They would kill in self-defense (or - even more likely - in defense of their loved ones, particularly their children). They would fight in a war to defend their country. They would convict a criminal, even if he is likely to get death penalty. Welcome to life. As for Charlie Kirk? I call it karma.
Charlie never “celebrated” death. When he compared gun deaths to auto deaths, his point was simple: society accepts that some risks exist because the alternative—stripping away freedoms—creates something worse. That’s not endorsement; that’s sober realism. You’ve stripped the nuance to smear him as heartless.
Empathy and compassion are traits necessary for a civilized society. Not everyone understands or is capable of empathy. I’m not sure it can be taught unless it’s taught and modeled early in the family. I don’t know yet who Charley Kirk was. I certainly disagree with what he said about empathy. I couldn’t practice my profession without empathy. I must admit that I have no empathy for Trump and some of his administration. Narcissists are incapable of empathy. Some can fake it without feeling it.
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” You see that on bumper stickers. I think that’s short sighted. It’s become too frequent as more people have guns, but I think it’s a national sickness. It’s excused, rationalized, and even taught. “I killed him because he disrespected me.” Where do we learn that view?
There are more guns than people in this country. What a sad commentary.
I would encourage you as I have to search out the context of what he said about empathy. It is not as egregious as it is being made out to be.
I’m not sure where to find it. I understand that he was from a good family and that his father may have encouraged him to turn himself in. I don’t condone this kind of killing. I know that a lot of theories have been proposed, most before he turned himself in. I don’t think a motive has been established, but a lot of people are guessing. It’s so hard to know what is true anymore. Everything is a conspiracy. I doubt seriously that any conspiracy was involved. It’s hard to understand the bullet casings. He only fired 1 shot. There may be a message there, and there are already interpretations, maybe all of which are wrong. He may tell us. Otherwise, others will spin it to their purposes.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I’m a Clinical Psychologist, and I know very well what empathy is. Neither sympathy or compassion is a complete substitute. Empathy and compassion go together well. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, to truly understand. He was wrong about empathy. It’s not a weakness; it’s a strength. I’m not saying he was wrong about compassion. I didn’t see the whole quote. Actually, I may have elsewhere. I don’t think he meant to imply that Charlie was cold hearted. He had a wife, children, and friends. For anyone to celebrate his death was cold, but the idiot that posted that comment may not have been cold hearted. We have begun to ignore how complex we are. I do sometimes think John forgets that and paints Trump supporters too negatively. I know good people who support Trump. I just try not to judge them by that belief alone.
Thank you John. I pray for healing in our country and our world. Violence is never to be celebrated or condoned. We on the left need to condemn this act. MAGA will revere Charlie Kirk as their martyr. Let’s remain clear: the fact of his violent death doesn’t make him a saint or sanctify MAGA.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
Beautiful, John. You have a true empathetic heart and soul. This world needs us all to be empathetic and kind, especially in this situation when a young person has tragically lost his life to a senseless shooting. And we need to passionately call out when other are not being kind and empathetic - especially our country's leaders. You are doing this with your posts, John. The lack of empathy and kindness - and the cruelty of this administration - are truly heartbreaking.
Your last sentence says it all. I have to keep reminding myself there still are lots of good, kind, compassionate, empathetic people in the world.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
All of this is heart breaking and I fear the resulting actions might make things worse for our country. We have to do better.
I do not feel empathy for a person who spent his life fully denigrating so many others. I frankly feel some relief knowing he will not be speaking those hateful things again.
I do not applaud the manner of his death and I also wonder what pushed his murderer over the edge.
I do not applaud that his wife is now widowed and his children fatherless. I do wonder if his wife shares his convictions. His children are innocents who will grow up repeatedly viewing the images of their father’s murder. That is a horrible burden to bear. I cannot begin to wonder what scars will form and how those children will develop.
I find incredible irony that he said that if preserving 2nd amendment rights means some people need to die, that is fine. I wonder if he had seen a glimpse of today, if he would have changed his convictions.
I am clearly not God, who loves Charlie Kirk as God’s beloved child. It is not for me to determine what Charlie’s meeting with God was like when he took his final breath.
I feel exhausted by all the violence. The victims & families at Evergreen High are barely an asterisk at the bottom of the page. I am angry that Pres.Tuck Frump and the American Fascist Party didn’t express any kind of human emotion when Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered.
I am definitely struggling to reconcile my professed beliefs as a disciple of Christ with my smug gut response that we reap what we sow; if that were true, I’d have been in big trouble long ago.
Thank you John. I'm sorry for his shooting and death but MAGAs and other conservatives have no understanding of empathy and probably never will. Maybe it's genetic. Who knows? How about their lack of empathy for those who are not in their tribe or cult? Many adults and children are dying across the world from malnutrition, lack of vaccines and treatments for HIV, arrests and deportations or imprisonment under inhumane conditions for alleged illegal immigrants without due process, and the militarization of American cities. As you know there is even more to come like loss of Medicaid and a decrease in veteran's medical care. I hate to say it but this administration is both evil and incompetent. I do not understand the thinking, if there is any, of its supporters. I believe in non-violent resolution of conflicts but doubt that it will happen. Sooner or later the administration or its followers will resort to violence and then I fear that all is lost. I apologize for becoming pessimistic and will make an effort to be more positive.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
I agree with your words, John. I also agree with severak posters and have been struck by the irony of his murder and his last words. I have been asking myself if my empathy is genuine because I personally loathed every thing this young man stood for. Is it bad that I'm not more sad? I do feel true empathy for his wife and children, yet I felt that the first time I heard him speak.
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.
Yes, another school shooting today here in Colorado. Hardly anyone in the newsrooms has noticed.
Excellent essay John - thank you!
I avoided listening to Charlie Kirk after the first time I heard him.
“You reap what you sow”
If you condemn empathy, the basic emotion that keeps people from becoming monsters - you will attract the human monsters among us.
Charlie Kirk’s killing has made him a “martyr” to MAGA. This is why political assassinations of one’s opponents are a bad idea strategically as well as morally.
However, for people who lack empathy, to whom human life is disposable, as those in this Administration have repeatedly demonstrated, the making of a martyr is a way of reigniting wavering support for their agenda.
Trump said the Epstein files were a “dead issue”.
No one in the extreme MAGA base will be talking about Epstein now will they?
Charlie was actually very compassionate — people forget that. He wasn’t saying compassion is bad, he was saying the modern use of empathy has been twisted to excuse destructive behavior. That’s why he said sympathy is the better word: you can deeply care for someone’s suffering without enabling harmful choices.
But notice how John cut the quote short and left that explanation out. That wasn’t an accident. By stripping the context, he made Charlie look cold-hearted and used that false picture to push a narrative that justifies the hatred surrounding him — even his murder. That’s not empathy, that’s intentional dishonesty.