this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
1021 points (97.8% liked)
Charlie Kirk Memorial
160 readers
133 users here now
Let's remember Charlie Kirk for who he was.
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage." -Charlie Kirk
founded 4 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes absolutely I do. If you want me to be specific I will, but in terms of my gender I don't define myself as cis, nor do I define my sexuality as straight.
I disagreed with a lot of what Kirk had to say, but first that doesn't mean he was opposed to people saying it even if he too disagreed with their beliefs.
I grew up in the the bible belt, so I had some empathy to understand components of how he got there & the power structures that would push people in that direction.
I've also seen many people, including myself, that can't claim that we've never ignorantly or willingly taken a job, did something for money, or spent money on something, that ultimately helped support or fund things we opposed or came to oppose. So I try not be quick to fully judge someone, especially those that I don't know personally or that well.
I did see some pieces of good in Kirk, but that doesn't mean that I thought his ideas were great or that he didn't have more bad than good. But I think we all, or most people, have some bad & good things about ourselves. I believe the best way to stand up against ideas I'm opposed to, that people like Kirk supported, is to be the best example of what you want.
Also, being able & willing to challenge your own beliefs, and ensuring they are centered around truth, morality & empathy. I believe fundamental truths in this way are not something that can be erased, or that it would take some sort of drug administered early on, or some drastic modification to humankind to wipe that away forever.
Now I'm confident in those beliefs which shows, but I also don't have to convince everyone, because I believe they will resonate with enough people, being based in moral purity & actual truth, that they too will know them if being honest or remember them.
I also want to show others that I believe there is a future for honesty. I'm not afraid to admit my challenges, or my faults, like I used to be. I'm actually proud of them in a way, and they also show that we all have struggles or things we could do better. I can't tell you how much that has done to build connections with others, simply by admitting what you struggle at... and then they too feel open to admit the same.
I think it's admirable to live your life that way and probably the most effective at actually changing minds. But I think you need to extend that empathy to the people who are happy he's dead as well. I would never sit here and lecture a person whose kid died in a school shooting that we need to feel bad Kirk is gone.
The main problem with that philosophy is locking yourself into a binary. I'm sure you can admit that Hitler's death was pretty much all upside right?
The Hitler comparison actually proves my point - Hitler was a dictator who invaded countries and orchestrated genocide. Kirk was a campus activist who held debates. Who despite having ideas we opposed, still engaged in dialogue. If we can't distinguish between those two things, if every political opponent becomes 'literally Hitler,' then we've lost the ability to have proportional responses to actual threats.
My concern isn't about protecting Kirk's memory - it's about what celebrating political murder does to democratic discourse and how it hands ammunition to people who want to justify their own extremism. When the left cheers assassination, it makes every accusation about us being violent radicals seem credible.
I agree that a comparison of Kirk to Hitler is not apt but it highlights my problem with your philosophy. There absolutely are some instances of political violence that should be celebrated (Hitler's death). I think to ask questions is the right approach, or at least more right than loudly uncritically declaring your joy but in my mind the world will be a better place without Kirk in it.
As far as the violent left claims are concerned, we've already lost that battle. They believed those things without evidence previously and they'll continue to whether we give them ammunition or not. Kirk never came to argue in good faith, he was a propaganda/hate mouthpiece. Look at how he responded when backed into a corner, he would never change his mind and that's why I take umbrage with the characterization that he engaged in dialogue. He was a monologist who used his words as weapons.
At the end of the day though I think you're right. The world can always use more empathy and empathetic people and we should strive for that but we're also imperfect and missteps should be met with that same energy.