Why the Left Hates Charlie Kirk
| 1. James (Original post) | play_circle |
If you're thinking about making a quip about today's assassination, please rethink that idea. Political violence undermines our system. Murder undermines our morals and ethics. He didn't hold a political office, but this can only be called an assassination. Violence begets violence.
Charlie Kirk did not deserve to die for his political opinions, as abhorrent as they might have been. He leaves behind two toddlers who only knew their father as the hero that every kid thinks their dad is.
| 2. Violet (in response to 1) | play_circle |
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
| 3. Gove (in response to 2) | play_circle |
Violet, your comment is deeply offensive. For "live by the sword die by the sword" to be relevant, Kirk would have to have engaged in political violence. In this case, he exercised his right to speak, and for that he was murdered.
| 4. James (in response to 2) | play_circle |
Violet, he didn't live by the sword, but by recommending swords to others. I don't think that someone deserves to die for recommending swords, even if I find that behavior reprehensible.
| 5. Gove (in response to 4) | play_circle |
James, when you say "he recommended swords to others," is this just a comment that he supports the second amendment? Or is there some other way in which he recommended swords to others? I just haven't seen it. If you could provide a link to what makes you say this, I would be very interested to read or view it.
| 6. James (in response to 5) | play_circle |
I'm taking a day off Facebook. I'll respond tomorrow.
| 7. James (in response to 5) | play_circle |
Gove, I have decided I'm not talking about Charlie Kirk anymore. There is a wealth of examples out there with some simple searching for you to see that he advocated for all kinds of things abhorrent to me and you, including recommending swords. I don't want to waste anymore energy on the decedent other than to say that no one should be murdered.
| 8. Lyla (in response to 2) | play_circle |
Violet, That kinda sums it up very simply. The first thing I said was...."how can someone who spreads hate and wished people severe harm not worry that it would visit them."
| 9. Gove (in response to 8) | play_circle |
Lyla, it sounds as though you are saying Kirk got what he deserved. If so, I wonder if someone would think that your comment is "spreading hate." Do you worry that it might "visit you?" There must be hundreds of hours of Charlie-Kirk video available on social media. I've only seen a small fraction of it, but what I have seen, I would describe as conservative and Christian, not hateful. Perhaps I just haven't seen the content to which you are referring, or do you mean that conservative and Christian views are hateful?
| 10. Lyla (in response to 9) | play_circle |
Gove, Never said that. Never meant that. I have no doubt you can read, which makes your reply nothing more than a deliberate twisting of my post. If I’m mistaken, then I suggest you read it again properly and actually inform yourself about what C Kirk has propagated. Nobody deserves to be executed — least of all children, even if that’s the “price” HE said was worth paying to uphold constitutional rights. That alone should tell you enough. And apparently, you call that “being Christian” while hiding behind “perhaps I didn’t see the content”. The truth is, today conservative views are hateful — Alligator Alcatraz is just one glaring example of what passes for conservatism these days.
| 11. Gove (in response to 10) | play_circle |
Lyla, are you able to provide links to what Charlie said that is spreading hate? I'm not trying to hide behind a fiction. I truly haven't seen it. Did he say children deserve to be executed? You seem to suggest that but providing a reference could clear that up.
| 12. Lyla (in response to 11) | play_circle |
Note from Gove: This comment is from my memory of how Lyla responded. After I made my response (comment 13), Lyla's response seems to have been to delete all of her comments, taking my responses with them.
Gove, I find it hard to believe that you could be ignorant of what C Kirk has spread in his posts. And by the way, It’s not my job to do your research for you. I am not going to search for the original references because that would train my algorithm to show me more of what this hateful man has said and I don't want to expose myself to that. If you are going to speak publicly on a topic, it is your responsibility to inform yourself on the subject. Kirk has repeatedly argued against common-sense gun laws, banning the kind of A-R style weapons that are used to kill children in school shootings. He openly says that the death of these children is the necessary price that society must pay to uphold the Second Amendment.
And where were your comments on the Hortman shootings? Do you not have anything to say when democrats are gunned down?
| 13. Gove (in response to 12) | play_circle |
Lyla, I think I finally understand your position. You seem to believe that anyone who is not in favor of a ban on all guns (or at least a certain class of guns) is harboring hate and that when a person voices that opinion, he or she is spreading hate. You and I just have very different opinions about what it means to "spread hate."
| 14. Henry (in response to 9) | play_circle |
Gove, Charlie Kirk has called for the execution of gays and transgenders. The fact that you say you read his stuff but don't know about this is pretty disturbing. Do you lie as a habit?
| 15. Gove (in response to 14) | play_circle |
Henry, I haven't said that I've read anything written by Charlie Kirk. I have seen, perhaps, a few dozen videos on social media of him engaging college students in debate. Never have I heard him call for the execution of gay or transgender people. I would be pleased to review the material if you can provide a link or other reference. And no, I do not lie as a habit; in fact, I strive for honesty in all my communication. I will extend you the courtesy of accepting anything you tell me about your personal experience at face value.
| 16. Henry (in response to 15) | play_circle |
He was made famous by doxxing College professors who had views that he disagreed with, including Heather Cox Richardson and Barack Obama, to name a couple. He did it so he could bully them into silence. He also falsely quoted Leviticus on a radio show in order to show his support for Biblical law, while also stating that the "scripture" that he was quoting was biblical direction to commit genocide against homosexuals. Aren't you a college professor? How would you feel if you were on a similar list, with people directing hate and violence directly at you?
| 17. Henry (in response to 15) | play_circle |
Also, why is it my responsibility to educate you about something that you just commented about? Shouldn't you do your own research? Maybe don't comment until you've looked it up? I imagine if one of your students acted like you you'd kick them out of your class.
| 18. Gove (in response to 16) | play_circle |
Henry, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll address your points one-by-one in separate comments to facilitate further discussion, should you be inclined to continue the conversation.
| 19. Gove (in response to 16) | play_circle |
Henry, You claim that Charlie Kirk doxed college professors who had views with which he disagreed. You chose not to provide a reference to support your claim, so I had to do a search to see if I could discover what you meant. I did find a reference to something called the TPUSA Professor Watchlist (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/what-is-charlie-kirks-tpusa-professor-watchlist-and-why-is-it-so-controversial/articleshow/123840834.cms), which seems to be a list of professors “accused of promoting leftist ideologies in US classrooms.”
I did find the watchlist referenced by the article from the Times of India. Here is the URL for your reference (https://www.professorwatchlist.org">https://www.professorwatchlist.org). I spent some time reviewing it. I found that about three percent of the faculty of the university where I most recently worked as a professor are listed. They are tagged for promoting Abortion, Racial Ideology, LGBTQ, and DEI. Each listing on the site was accompanied by appropriate documentation or citations to published documents supporting why the professor was labeled with a particular “leftist” tag.
If this is the site you are referencing when you assert that Kirk doxed college professors, then your claim is unfounded. The definition of dox is “to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dox). This site does not appear to publish private information (there are no addresses or telephone numbers available on the site). It simply aggregates information that is already public in the sense that it is published, either to locations that are broadly available or in course materials and assignments that are published for student consumption. In either case, the content cannot be considered to be “private.” So, the privacy threshold for doxing is unmet.
I acknowledge that I may not have identified the mechanism by which you claim Kirk doxed college professors. In that case, please provide a reference so I can examine your source directly.
You claim that he has included particular professors on this list so he could “bully them into silence.” You have made this allegation without any reference. If you have some information about the motivation of the site other than that which is included on the site’s “about us” page, please provide a reference. It is true that many detractors have hypothesized other intentions than those stated (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/us/professor-watchlist-is-seen-as-threat-to-academic-freedom.html), but I’m unable to find any that are authoritative.
You asked how I would feel to be included in such a list. My answer is that I would be pleased to have any position that I have taken publicly to be published publicly. It is the very nature of life in academia. We publish information and hope that it is cited broadly. The honest academic wants his or her ideas to be known by the largest number of people possible. In my personal moral philosophy, when a person takes an action that he or she hopes will remain unknown, there is a high likelihood that the action is inherently immoral.
| 20. Gove (in response to 16) | play_circle |
Henry, you said: “He also falsely quoted Leviticus on a radio show in order to show his support for Biblical law, while also stating that the ‘scripture’ that he was quoting was biblical direction to commit genocide against homosexuals.”
Here, you do not provide a reference for your claim, so it’s difficult to be sure I have found the incident to which you are referring. I’m unable to find any evidence of Kirk quoting Leviticus on a radio show, let alone misquoting. However, I was able to find considerable discussion about him quoting Leviticus, including a (now deleted) post on X by Steven King. According to the New York Post, here’s the post by King, made the day after Kirk was killed:
“He advocated stoning gays to death. Just sayin.”
(https://nypost.com/2025/09/12/us-news/stephen-king-ripped-for-horrible-evil-charlie-kirk-post)
King appears to have deleted the original post and has posted the following apology:
“I apologize for saying Charlie Kirk advocated stoning gays. What he actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”
(https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664)
All of this seems to be in response to the following podcast, available at the following URL: https://omny.fm/shows/the-charlie-kirk-show/thoughtcrime-ep-48-trump-rally-aftermath-pride-mon, (time indices 1:00:30 – 1:03:12).
Kirk does misquote Leviticus 18. He says:
“Thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death.” (time index 1:02:41)
He seems to be trying to recall from memory verse 22, which reads, in the King James Version, as follows:
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
The penalty attached to this behavior, and other sexual acts, appears in verse 29:
“For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.”
So the penalty specified here seems to be banishment, not execution. So, I think that the first part of your claim (“He also falsely quoted Leviticus”) is accurate.
It is likely that the verse he was trying to recall is Leviticus 20:13, which reads as follows:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
So, although he has misquoted the text, he has not unfairly twisted what the book of Leviticus says regarding the penalty for specific homosexual activity under Mosaic Law. More importantly, if you will take the time to listen to the audio segment (it’s less than three minutes) you will see that Kirk is not referring to the scripture to support any argument that people who engage in homosexual activity should be executed. What he is doing, as Steven King points out, is demonstrating how some people quote selective passages from the bible to support a specific agenda, even when that agenda is in conflict with other parts of the bible—even when the ignored passages are in close proximity to the selected passages.
So, in totality, your assertion that he stated “that the ‘scripture’ that he was quoting was biblical direction to commit genocide against homosexuals” is simply false. In the audio segment, he offers no commentary about how this part of Mosaic Law should be treated today.
Lest my words in this post should be taken out of context, let me explicitly assert that I do not believe that people who engage in homosexual activity should be put to death.
While I was doing the research to find the origin of your claim, I realized something really interesting. While it was easy to find many people claiming that Charlie Kirk had advocated the execution of homosexuals, it was very difficult to find the reference to the origin of the claims. And while I’m relatively certain I have found his original words that have led to this claim, it is very telling that none of the posts and articles that I observed claiming Kirk has genocidal intent for homosexuals referenced Kirk’s actual statements. It is not because it is difficult to do. In fact, the official website for the Charlie Kirk Show, where the original audio is hosted, has a one-click tool to generate a link to the podcast, including the ability to start at a particular time index.
So, Henry, you have been led astray by people who have told falsities about what Charlie Kirk has said and what Charlie Kirk believed. You appear to have accepted this misinformation as truth without making much effort to verify its veracity. I suspect this is just what Tyler Robinson did and what lies at the heart of why he harbored such hate for the man that he chose to respond with a bullet.
This is not just a problem with those on the left of the political spectrum. It is natural for us to believe the information we receive from a trusted source. But when we engage to spread information we do not know to be true as if it were true, we help contribute to a polarized society that prompts people to respond with violence. Because it takes effort to verify and cite information, the vast majority of us are willing to spread information that we do not know to be true, myself included. In that sense, nearly all of us share some blame for the environment that led to Charlie Kirk’s death.
| 21. Gove (in response to 17) | play_circle |
Henry, you said, “Why is it my responsibility to educate you about something that you just commented about?” The reason it is your responsibility is that you are the one who made the claim. It would be a strange world indeed if the normal mode of discourse allowed for a person to make an unsubstantiated claim that should be accepted as true until it is proved to be false, especially because the receiver of a statement might have no idea of the evidence that the claimant used to arrive at the statement. That is the real problem here. You had no evidence for your claim. You simply parroted what you had heard and assumed to be true.
You said, “Shouldn't you do your own research? Maybe don't comment until you've looked it up?” I find this statement particularly interesting because it is exactly what you have done. You have spread lies without “doing your own research” or “looking it up.” If you will look at what I posted, you will see that I am not making a claim; I’m only asking Lyla to provide some evidence for her claims. Interestingly enough, her response was the same as yours. She told me that it was not her job to do my research for me. Apparently, like you, she did not feel it was her responsibility to do her own research either, because when I did research on the claim she advanced and reported it, she deleted all her comments from this thread. I wonder if you will do the same, or will you have the academic honesty to admit that you have parroted that which is untrue. I suppose an apology for so doing is more than can be expected, but I’ll leave the door open for you to surprise me.
You said, “I imagine if one of your students acted like you, you'd kick them out of your class.” Not in the least. I hope that all students in my classes will ask questions in good faith. I would not even kick out a student who has behaved as you have, that is, to take an unsubstantiated position. I would do for that student, as I have done for you, ask him or her to give evidence for the claims. If the student’s response was to tell me to do the research to support the position he or she advanced, I still would not kick him or her out of class, though it would likely lead to a reduced final grade—especially if the behavior continued.
A while after posting this response, I checked to see if Henry had responded. His response seems to have been to delete all of his comments from the original post. I had hoped that my challenge to him to have the academic integrity to admit his behavior had been inappropriate would keep him from deleting the thread, but it appears otherwise.
Upon reflection, I was quite interested that each of the three people with whom I engaged in the comments on this post each declined to provide references for their claims that Charlie Kirk was a purveyor of hate. Each was certain that he spread hateful ideas; each appears to have accepted it without evidence.
I suspect that each harbored dislike for him because they watched a few of the videos of him debating leftist college students, and those videos showed the ideas to be weak. It may even have been that they felt that the playing field was unevenly slanted in Kirk's favor, which would have increased their animosity toward Kirk. As a result of an initial dislike, they seem to have been willing to accept unsubstantiated claims that seemed to give legitimacy to their initial dislike.
I experienced a similar thing when I first saw the claim that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had gone from essentially zero net worth to tens of millions during her time in Congress. I remember accepting in initialy, but then wanted to find the exact numbers. When I went looking, I was unable to find anything authoritative. I have only the slightest inkling of how many other bias-confirming falsities I have accepted as truth.
Our tendency is to believe that the world view that we have accepted is correct and that anyone who dissagrees is either misinformed, willfully ignorant, or lying. I believe that we would all be better served if we began all of our reasoning with the proposition that much (perhaps most) of what we accept as true is either false or at least has been reinforced by that which is false.
Was Charlie Kirk a purveyor of hate? I'm not sure one way or the other. However, after a couple of weeks of looking into the origin of claims that he was, I have found no evidence to support that claim.