How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2025 9:41 am
Bringing this topic over to have an honest, fact-based conversation, per request from duckpoint.
A poster on another thread felt 'honoring' recently slain political and social commentator Charlie Kirk would be an opportunity for a public university to generate 'unity,' to which I responded that it was inappropriate and cited Charlie Kirk's stances on different topics that directly flew in the face of unity. So I'll explain why, and you can choose to take it or leave it.
Charlie Kirk pushed homophobia to his listeners. - https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3999384
In the above link, Charlie Kirk states that he thinks "monogamous heterosexual marriage should be a prerequisite to adoption." He says it in a calm tone, which makes it sound almost reasonable, except that it's not - he's saying that in his worldview, gay people should have fewer rights than straight people. Being objective - maybe there's good data showing kids who stay in foster homes outperform those that are adopted by homosexual parents? Nope, there isn't. Maybe there's data showing kids in heterosexual households outperform those in homosexual ones? No, there isn't that either. In fact, if I was a leftist propagandist, I'd direct you to this article from Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart ... rch-finds/ ) that suggests the opposite, but in reality I think it's a stretch to say that the topic has been studied well enough to bear any reasonable conclusion. So, people like Charlie Kirk instead just lean on their prejudices to develop their ideology, as we're seeing here. Making it even more apparent, the context for this conversation was taking a single story about a horrific situation where a gay couple sexually abused their adoptive sons. It's a terrible story. But are there also many instances of heterosexual parents abusing their kids? You betcha. I can tell you two just from growing up in a small Oregon town. But those stories don't get the legs of stories like the one mentioned herein, because no one is trying to strip the rights of heterosexual couples to adopt children. So these are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.
Charlie Kirk pushed racist beliefs. - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-re ... 00078.html (frankly too many links but here's a completely sober review of one particular controversy, and I'll add a quotation below
"When it comes to pilots or surgeons, if I see somebody who is Black, as I said on the show, I'm going to hope that that person is qualified. That's what I said, which of course is legitimate because they're begging the question, we're not hiring based on merit anymore. We're hiring based on race."
The manner in which you qualify to be a pilot or a surgeon is that you you get a pilot license or a medical degree. If you see a pilot or surgeon who is non-white and you question their qualifications and you don't do that for a white pilot, that in itself is evidence of a racial bias that you need to work through as an individual, but it's especially bad when you make a statement like the one above because it means you think flight schools and medical schools are giving out pilot licenses and medical degrees just for being black, in his example. The most generous interpretation I can give here would be if he were to say "I question whether that person is the best person for the job" (which is still racist if you see a black person and think this but see a white person and assume they're the best), but he goes so far as to say he wonders if they're even qualified. Ergo, he's pushing this idea to his listeners that the system is so bad that they just give black people in this instance medical degrees and pilot licenses for no reason other than their race. These are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.
Charlie Kirk pushed for inter-faith distrust and even conflict. - https://www.charliekirk.com/podcasts/wh ... an-aydemir
In one of the latest times he platformed this topic, less than two months ago (7/30/25), Charlie Kirk released an episode of his podcast titled "Why Islam Isn't Compatible With the West ft. Ridvan Aydemir." The premise of the conversation is to show that Christianity is "American" or "Western" and Islam is not. Many people who are Christian may find this acceptable because their faith leads them to believe that their religion is the true one and all others are false, but many other Christians and effectively all non-religious people instead believe you should respect people from all faiths and walks of life, and that this broad acceptance of people from different faiths and walks of life is what America is founded on, so this "us versus them" mentality is is inherently harmful because it's meant to sow distrust amongst a Christian majority in America with Muslim people. Further, statements like "Islam is the sword the Left is using to cut the throat of America" (Charlie Kirk on 9/8/25 - https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1965281328108343507) truly sounds like something I would read that David Duke would have said, but this is where the right wing is today. These are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.
I suppose that many people aren't mad at me wanting to have an honest conversation about Charlie Kirk because I'm saying something unacceptable about the person that Charlie was, because all I've done is bring up his stances and opinions, so that's nonsensical. You can't even say that I'm happy he died - I'm not; murder isn't the response to ideological differences here or anywhere, assuming that's why he was murdered. As someone with kids and who lost one parent fairly young, I see the situation as incredibly sad for his family and friends. But Charlie was a major voice is seeding homophobic, racist, and faith-based distrust in a country that needs more unity, not more divisiveness.
A poster on another thread felt 'honoring' recently slain political and social commentator Charlie Kirk would be an opportunity for a public university to generate 'unity,' to which I responded that it was inappropriate and cited Charlie Kirk's stances on different topics that directly flew in the face of unity. So I'll explain why, and you can choose to take it or leave it.
Charlie Kirk pushed homophobia to his listeners. - https://www.mediamatters.org/media/3999384
In the above link, Charlie Kirk states that he thinks "monogamous heterosexual marriage should be a prerequisite to adoption." He says it in a calm tone, which makes it sound almost reasonable, except that it's not - he's saying that in his worldview, gay people should have fewer rights than straight people. Being objective - maybe there's good data showing kids who stay in foster homes outperform those that are adopted by homosexual parents? Nope, there isn't. Maybe there's data showing kids in heterosexual households outperform those in homosexual ones? No, there isn't that either. In fact, if I was a leftist propagandist, I'd direct you to this article from Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart ... rch-finds/ ) that suggests the opposite, but in reality I think it's a stretch to say that the topic has been studied well enough to bear any reasonable conclusion. So, people like Charlie Kirk instead just lean on their prejudices to develop their ideology, as we're seeing here. Making it even more apparent, the context for this conversation was taking a single story about a horrific situation where a gay couple sexually abused their adoptive sons. It's a terrible story. But are there also many instances of heterosexual parents abusing their kids? You betcha. I can tell you two just from growing up in a small Oregon town. But those stories don't get the legs of stories like the one mentioned herein, because no one is trying to strip the rights of heterosexual couples to adopt children. So these are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.
Charlie Kirk pushed racist beliefs. - https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-re ... 00078.html (frankly too many links but here's a completely sober review of one particular controversy, and I'll add a quotation below
"When it comes to pilots or surgeons, if I see somebody who is Black, as I said on the show, I'm going to hope that that person is qualified. That's what I said, which of course is legitimate because they're begging the question, we're not hiring based on merit anymore. We're hiring based on race."
The manner in which you qualify to be a pilot or a surgeon is that you you get a pilot license or a medical degree. If you see a pilot or surgeon who is non-white and you question their qualifications and you don't do that for a white pilot, that in itself is evidence of a racial bias that you need to work through as an individual, but it's especially bad when you make a statement like the one above because it means you think flight schools and medical schools are giving out pilot licenses and medical degrees just for being black, in his example. The most generous interpretation I can give here would be if he were to say "I question whether that person is the best person for the job" (which is still racist if you see a black person and think this but see a white person and assume they're the best), but he goes so far as to say he wonders if they're even qualified. Ergo, he's pushing this idea to his listeners that the system is so bad that they just give black people in this instance medical degrees and pilot licenses for no reason other than their race. These are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.
Charlie Kirk pushed for inter-faith distrust and even conflict. - https://www.charliekirk.com/podcasts/wh ... an-aydemir
In one of the latest times he platformed this topic, less than two months ago (7/30/25), Charlie Kirk released an episode of his podcast titled "Why Islam Isn't Compatible With the West ft. Ridvan Aydemir." The premise of the conversation is to show that Christianity is "American" or "Western" and Islam is not. Many people who are Christian may find this acceptable because their faith leads them to believe that their religion is the true one and all others are false, but many other Christians and effectively all non-religious people instead believe you should respect people from all faiths and walks of life, and that this broad acceptance of people from different faiths and walks of life is what America is founded on, so this "us versus them" mentality is is inherently harmful because it's meant to sow distrust amongst a Christian majority in America with Muslim people. Further, statements like "Islam is the sword the Left is using to cut the throat of America" (Charlie Kirk on 9/8/25 - https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1965281328108343507) truly sounds like something I would read that David Duke would have said, but this is where the right wing is today. These are his words, and this is not a unifying idea he's pushing.
I suppose that many people aren't mad at me wanting to have an honest conversation about Charlie Kirk because I'm saying something unacceptable about the person that Charlie was, because all I've done is bring up his stances and opinions, so that's nonsensical. You can't even say that I'm happy he died - I'm not; murder isn't the response to ideological differences here or anywhere, assuming that's why he was murdered. As someone with kids and who lost one parent fairly young, I see the situation as incredibly sad for his family and friends. But Charlie was a major voice is seeding homophobic, racist, and faith-based distrust in a country that needs more unity, not more divisiveness.