- Apparently “leftist” means not demonizing gays and transgender people, as Christians do;
- How Charlie Kirk’s discourse favored conflict, not informed debate;
- Some MAGA guy wants to perhaps kill 500,000 people in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder;
- And Karoline Leavitt thinks an earthquake in Utah is a sign of God’s anger over the killing of Charlie Kirk.
So I gather that Utah Governor Cox and others in the GOP have concluded that the suspect in the Charlie Kirk killing exhibited “leftist ideology” simply because his posts on social media indicated that he supported gay rights and was living with a person undergoing gender transition. That is, being leftist means not hating gays and transgender people as much as MAGA conservatives do. That’s it. All other policies disregarded.
Oh, and Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League, implicitly equates Charlie Kirk’s views with those of Christianity, at JMG: Donohue: “Kirk Was Killed Because He Was Christian”. Glad to clear that up.
\
You have all these people (not just on the right) extolling how Charlie Kirk reached out to students by debating substantial issues. But he didn’t do that at all.
The Atlantic, David A. Graham, 16 Sept 2025: The Irony of Using Charlie Kirk’s Murder to Silence Debate, subtitled “The conservative activist couldn’t have risen to prominence without robust free speech.”
A strange thing happens when a notable public figure is killed: Their rough edges are sanded down, and a multidimensional person is flattened into the simplicity of a myth.
This has happened with jarring speed to Charlie Kirk, the conservative influencer murdered last week in Utah. Many paeans to Kirk, including from those who opposed him on many issues, have focused on Kirk’s eagerness to engage with those with whom he disagreed. Some of Kirk’s friends and allies have even compared him to Martin Luther King Jr., another prominent leader assassinated for his politics. In the rush to canonize Kirk, people are transforming him into someone he might not recognize—and highlighting an extreme tension within the MAGA movement.
… The Trump administration is vowing to use Kirk’s death as an excuse to crack down on dissent even as it lionizes him for defending it.
His was not civil discourse. He favored conflict.
Some people now praising Kirk are conflating a commitment to argument with a devotion to civility. Kirk succeeded, in part, by eschewing civility in favor of conflict. He said, for example, that “Joe Biden is a bumbling, dementia-filled—Alzheimer’s—corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.” (In the same radio show, he questioned whether Kamala Harris is Black.) He bused supporters to Washington on January 6, 2021; invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions about the insurrection; and campaigned for pardons for the perpetrators.
Kirk railed against transgender and gay rights. He called George Floyd a “scumbag,” declared the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “mistake,” and claimed that many influential Black figures were in their roles only because of affirmative action. “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified,’” he said. He said that if Donald Trump lost in 2024, hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants would be brought to Alabama, where they would “become your masters.” Comparisons to King are especially ironic because King, Kirk said, was “awful. He’s not a good person.”
\\
Similarly.
Salon, Katherine Kelaidis, 17 Sept 2025: “Debate Me” Bro culture has ruined civil discourse, subtitled “How entertainment culture has replaced genuine political dialogue”
In the days after conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s tragic murder in Utah, there has been a tidal wave of commentary arguing that his public platform, and most importantly the college campus debating events for which he was most famous, were a sort of last bastion of civil public discourse. On Sept. 11, the day after Kirk was killed, New York Times columnist Ezra Klein declared that “Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way,” and argued that he “was one of the era’s most effective practitioners of persuasion.”
Klein, and a host of other would-be eulogists, are attempting to frame Kirk and his signature “Prove Me Wrong” events as a modern-day incarnation of the long, necessary tradition of public dialogue and debate within a democracy. It’s a lovely image: Kirk as a modern-day Socrates, wandering the agora of America’s universities seeking to find truth by means of rhetorical contest. Unfortunately, it’s not quite what he was doing. In fact, hardly anyone on the right or the left is engaging in real civic dialogue, and it’s one of the reasons our democracy is now in crisis.
About the “Prove Me Wrong” format:
No expertise is required, just the confidence to spar. Consequently, the format has spread to nearly every corner of the digital world, replicated in TikTok stitches and in Facebook comment threads, where your boomer aunt and high school boyfriend can “debate” questions of policy, theology and science. Even the world’s most popular podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience,” is centered in large part on people who don’t know what they’re talking about arguing with each other under the guise of debate.
And
Democracies need free and public debates that are accessible to as many citizens as possible. But debaters should be held to a higher standard than simply having the confidence to step up to a microphone. They ought to be educated experts in the topic at hand and, just as crucially, trained in the principles of fair argument and logic. They should come prepared not only to persuade, but also to be persuaded themselves, ready to concede when their case has been dismantled — and the audience should see that happen. True public discourse of this nature, though, is rooted in the liberal arts, which teaches critical thinking, research and analysis, communication styles and problem solving, among other vital skills. With this in mind, it’s not surprising why so many of the “Debate Me” Bros — including Kirk, who published a book (verbosely) titled “The College Scam: How America’s Universities are Bankrupting and Brainwashing Away the Future of America’s Youth” — have made the liberal arts, and liberal arts education, their mortal enemies.
Charlie Kirk was a college drop-out. He knew what he knew, as conservatives do, and didn’t to hear anything differently.
\\\
Conservative response to anything but adulation over Charlie Kirk is to get them fired from their jobs, get them deported… or get them killed. Is Christianity this far-gone into violent culthood?
LGBTQNation, Alex Bollinger, 17 Sept 2025: MAGA organizer calls for 500,000 people to be “possibly killed” in response to Charlie Kirk murder, subtitled “He wants Trump to ‘avenge his friend’ Charlie Kirk and start mass arrests with a possible death penalty.”
And
Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla, 16 Sept 2025: Ali Alexander Calls On Trump To Arrest And ‘Possibly Kill’ 500,000 People In Response To Charlie Kirk’s Murder
Are these conservatives values too?
\\\
More headlines from JMG. Well, just one; others are about topics (the deleted DOJ study; Pam Bondi’s shaky understanding of free speech) already covered. This one is new, though its theme is familiar.
- Leavitt Shares Claim God Caused An Earthquake In Utah Over Kirk: “Earth Trembles When God Is Angry” (from Daily Beast)
She is a child.
\\
