The themes today are about the continued demonization of “the Left” despite the identification of the Charlie Kirk shooter; and how the Right, including Kirk, claim to valorize “free speech” while quelling anyone who says anything not nice about Charlie Kirk.
Boing Boing, Rob Beschizza, 1 Sep 2025: Washington Post fires black woman who quoted what Charlie Kirk said about black women
Conservatives and Republicans are virtually unanimous in calling for censorship, firings and even imprisonment for those criticizing or quoting Charlie Kirk after his death. As many of them cast themselves as “free speech” absolutists, the temptation is to accuse them of hypocrisy. But that would honor the false notion that they are failing to live up to standards they hold in good faith. The Kirk aftermath shows that they never believed any of it: speech is to them a prerogative. They have the freedom of it; others will hold their tongues.
\\
More items from the aggregate site JMG:
- Texas Gov Cheers Woman’s Arrest For “Mocking” Kirk
- Kari Lake: Kirk’s Killer Was “Brainwashed” By College
With this fact-check in the comments:
Kari Lake is the biggest airhead on earth. We’re supposed to believe Charlie Kirk’s killer was “brainwashed” into becoming an assassin by spending one semester in an engineering program at Utah State University four years ago?
I won’t quote; she’s a moron. (“They”, “millions”, “spiritual revival”, and so on.) But OK, do your split, and you’ll be left with a rich blue America and a poor red Confederacy.
And more:
- Trump Admits “Smart People Don’t Like Me” [VIDEO]. Hunh.
- Trump: “300 Million People Died From Drugs Last Year”. The population of the entire US is only about 340 million.
- Randy Fine: I’ll Get All Critics Of Kirk In Florida Fired. Free speech!
Just as in this proposed map of a split California, last month.
The inner counties want to be heard.
\\\
Comments from Facebook.
And there is this to think about.
The guy who shot Charlie Kirk did it because he was a disciple of another fright-wing group, led by Nick Fuentes. He shot Kirk because Kirk wasn’t “conservative” enough.
It seems to me that Nick Fuentes should be concerned now. Because it is not impossible that some disciples of Charlie Kirk might feel emboldened to go after Fuentes.This is a speculation — not a prediction, not an advocacy. It is a speculation that this event could be a trigger and two reich-wing groups might go to war against each other.
That’s how far down the rabbit-hole we’ve fallen. Decades of propaganda, decades of deliberate manipulating the vulnerable young men of this country into extremist beliefs has resulted in a culture of violence.The blight-wing of American politics loves to whine about how violent the left is — but any rational tally of violence, of attention to violence, shows that the overwhelming majority of it is coming from the so-called “right.”
and
Peter Coyote via Nigel Sellers:
I want to be crystal clear that Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die or be physically assaulted for the positions he espoused. However, let’s not sugar-coat what this young man stood for and espoused, or towards what ends he directed his charisma and intelligence, campaigned, raised money, and preached for, okay?
Kirk became a prominent advocate of Christian nationalism in the 2020s, calling for an end to the separation of church and state and asserting that “you cannot have liberty if you do not have a Christian population.” He advocated for the Seven Mountain Mandate, pushing for Christians to take over key spheres of society. Does that sound like an America in which Buddhists, Muslims ordinary Protestants and Catholics would respected and empowered?
Abortion: He described abortion as murder and argued it should be illegal, with no exceptions for rape—not even for young girls. He sometimes described abortion as worse than the Holocaust. Are those beliefs you and your wives, daughters and sisters would espouse?
Kirk was a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, insisting that the cost of some gun deaths each year was “worth it” to preserve gun ownership rights? Why? According to what? He argued that more armed Americans and armed guards in schools were the solution to gun violence. Really? On what factual evidence other than the lobbying arm of the armaments industry?
LGBTQ+ rights and gender: He openly opposed gay and transgender rights, referring to transgender identity as a “mental disease” and pushing young conservatives to avoid what he called “gender ideology.” He encouraged students to report educators endorsing such views. Snitching your friends out?
Race and Civil Rights: Kirk was controversial for his criticism of civil rights legislation and key historical figures such as Martin Luther King Jr., whom he called “awful.” He argued that the Civil Rights Act of the 1960s was a mistake and promoted divisive and racist rhetoric targeting Black Americans and Muslims. What do Black Americans and Muslims feel about the Civil Rights Act, or women, who were its greatest beneficiary?
Kirk promoted the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.
And so on.
\\
Kirk’s “prove me wrong” challenges were mostly stunts, apparently.
NYT Letters, 15 Sep 2025:
Charlie Kirk dealt almost exclusively in bad-faith arguments, distorting facts and bringing up the irrelevant, often employing rhetorical tactics to verbally and emotionally dominate his opponent.
The “right way” to do politics is not to say horrid things for shock value, as Mr. Kirk was known to do.
These are traditional methods of those who argue against science and reason. And this is why debate is not an effective method of reaching the truth, as I’ve always felt.
