Do you believe the narrative that Charlie Kirk was this decent nice guy that many try to portray him as?

Question

I barely heard the man speak except on short videos on TikTok but since his death many are exposing him for the things he said and to me it shows this Charlie guy seems more like a trash of a person.

Here are a couple of the nasty things he said according to me.

#1: The civil rights act of the 60's was a mistake.

In other words, he doesn't believe black American citizens were worthy of any civil rights like the rest of white American citizens.

#2: It's worth the cost of some people getting killed by guns so that way the 2nd amendment can be argued to be preserved.

What do you think of Charlie Kirk as a person?

Decent guy or hiding behind his politics and religion to trick people of his real nasty personality and views?

Do you believe the narrative that Charlie Kirk was this decent nice guy that many try to portray him as?

DeGoma · Accepted Answer

I am from the UK. I wasn’t really aware of Charlie Kirk until he died. But about a month ago I heard my husband watching a video of Charlie Kirk debating with an English Oxford student. She must have been between 19-21. The debate was about the roles of women and that modern women are not happy and how we should return to traditional values. The debate itself didn’t wind me up - I’ve heard enough similar view points and people can have their opinion. My issue was the WAY he was speaking to her and not letting her speak. She literally had to talk at breakneck speed to get her point across. But she was so eloquent and to the point, and even had him stumbling at certain parts - I wanted to jump up and give her a standing ovation.

I didn’t know who the male voice was then. I just knew I thought he was an arrogant, mysongonistic , vile of poison. Not just for the views I disagree with, but for the way he was trying to belittle her and talk over her to almost stop what she was saying because his belief that he was correct meant no other point mattered - that’s not a debate. That’s a lecture.

I’m no active feminist, or an activist for anything by any degree, I really don’t have the time or patience. Just don’t undermine me because I have a vagina. Don’t patronise me because I have breasts. Don’t mistake my male employee, HIRED by ME, as my manager just because he’s a man in a suite and I’m in a skirt and have make up on. I’m human. I’m the same as you. And that goes for everyone regardless of race, religion, gender etc. and I truly feel that way. It absolutely baffles me that people don’t see the world like this, but I guess that’s my ignorance.
On wider research this guy seemed to have the exact opposite way of thinking. Whilst everyone is entitled to their views and are able to think differently of what makes a perfect world, I feel as a public figure he was just spreading hate and inequality. I’ve heard people say “yeah but he stood up for what he believed in?” …. I would argue - so did Hitler 🙄.

No one deserves to be murdered for their beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. But I am neither surprised or sad about his death. Just sad that this is the world we live in.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Why do you read small quotes online, taken out of context, and believe that without questioning even drawing conclusions of his believes? Context does matter.

About the civil rights act, he said the intent of it was noble - that no American could be denied entry to any business based on their skin color or ethnicity and that he totally agrees with that but that the intent and the law are different things. He talks about how it was a mistake to implement it that way because now the 2nd amendment is being used by DEI army to push other things like male/female bathrooms, transagenda, affirmative action, ban voter ID and is referred to when a race isn’t doing as well as other races in certain areas, saying that that is a violation of the civil rights act even though there are other reasons for those differences than racism. That the civil rights act is basically worded too vague/wide so now it’s used for things that it was not intended for. Basically that it should have been worded more precise.

About the 2nd amendment, he talked about how everything comes with a cost. Like for example the cost of cars being legal is that 50000 people per year are killed in car accidents. We have decided that having cars is worth that cost. We can try to reduce the death toll, but ultimately it’s a price we’re apparently willing to pay. With the second amendment comes the cost of people being killed by guns. But we have decided it’s worth that cost for having the right to protect ourselves in self defense and against government if they gurn tyranical. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to reduce the number of people killed by gun violence. That shootings at big events/airports etc have stopped with arm guards, that’s one proven effective way to prevent these things. So not having arm guards protecting out children in schools for example increase shootings and death tolls if they happen and that it’s these protective measures that we need to focus on, not banning guns.

lightbulb27 · Accepted Answer

He's like most people, a little quirky, opinionated. More reminds me of the "southern preacher type"... in other words... strong in his views. He had solid opinions on issues and liked to debate and share how smart he was. He was quick thinking and well spoken.

I like that he brought Jesus into it, faith, and had solid family. I like that he brought different viewpoints into campuses where there is a left leaning bias due to separation of church and state. That's all he did... bring an angle onto the campus of debate around key topics.

I don't like how devisive he was in his communications and sometimes kinda arrogant... in other words, it lacked compassion for others viewpoints. I think that got him into trouble, but maybe... it was part of the show... for he made $ by clicks and to get those clicks, you have to be divisive. Compare his communication to Vivek Ramswami when they sat together... night and day. Vivek communicates so well and with heart and compassion for others such that the other person would listen to him. Charlie seems to left most people "stoic". That is the issue with debate and debate is more about can you convince the other and can you communicate it well.

What happened to him is not right. But in this day and age.. you could be sitting on a train and murdered by someone for nearly no good perceivable reason. That could have happend 200yrs ago as well. You have to be careful. When I watch the video of his last moments I was thinking... this whole thing is overplayed and he should have moved onto something else. He literally was speaking one word at times.

My sincere condolences to his children and wife and family and friends. He should have lived a long life. That was a pointless murder. He had a right to share what he thinks.

I didn't know him personnaly and would occasionally watch blurbs of events.

Hardon-Collider · Accepted Answer

on topic, one suggestion: Look up clips of charlie's own words, whatever the claim is. @WhiteSteve for example, only posts people's summarized interpretations of charlie's words. For instance about stoning homos to death, he mentioned that verse when speaking to a bible-girl who portrayed god as LGBT, so he warned her "if you thump the bible, read all of it."

But, i will post this around many times now:

i was testing to see if my images are being embedded properly, to post under another question though.

========================================================

With the way that all over internet and this site the leftist reactions prove that they are dangerously insane. it looks plausible that a bunch of hateful troons are capable of such.

yet stuff about the troon narrative does not add up.

Witnesses heard the shot to originate from nearby.

in addition, the no scope toy,

the fact that the cctv watch reported someone on the roof, but the wrong "suspect" was first detained,

... because the "tyler" is a decoy himself, while fbi shot charlie. giving the decoy more decoys to cover themselves. speaking of whom:

students filmed a gunman on the roof, visible from the ground,

yet the bodyguards on the other roof missed him?

hand signs made by the 2 nearest standing people.

other signs can be interpreted differently in different training, but this like universally a signal to the "sniper". while the one in black looked at him to finish, then stepped forward to signal to the real shooter.

and remember, if the "sniper" was not the only one shooting, then his ammo was just for the show, so he did not need to aim properly

(the "debunkers" push that snipers don't have the view or time to look at signs. but he wasn't really a sniper.)

WhiteSteve · Answer

This was what I wanted to respond to you about the other day; I just wanted to let the body turn cold before I went all in, just for some modicum of respect for life. I’m glad you’ve learned more and are seeing he’s not someone to be martyred and canonized in death. Guy was a white supremacist for fuck sake.

I think Christians should resent “just a good Christian man” as part of his obituary, because I don’t think he was that at all, and he reflects poorly on Christianity. I like to think that the Christians I personally know are better than this…

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2QkRUUUlFKY

Anonymous · Answer

I think if you stick a microphone in front of anyone for a long enough time they're going to contradict themselves at some point, I don't care who they are.

He also said "white privilege" doesn't exist. And I think he said that because in his world that doesn't exist. A world where we're all Christian and brothers. Or at the very least all brothers. Everyone gets equal opportunity. But unfortunately that is NOT the world we live in. People have individual biases and prejudices.

He also brought up crime in black neighborhoods. Now since I can ONLY go by the snippet that was made available to me. I don't want to ASSUME he was suggesting that black people committed more crime. But he did say crime was higher among African-Americans. But he completely omitted the very RELEVANT factors that poverty is more than twice as high amongst African-Americans. Poverty breeds crime.

I am an optimist. I do think we've made great strides. But I do think we still have a ways to go. And I think Charlie was a guy who treated everyone equally. But just because HE did, doesn't mean everyone does. And where I think Charlie is wrong is that some people have to be for ed or at least shamed into doing the right thing. Teach your kids, I don't doubt Charlie taught his kids right. But unfortunate division and hate is still taught by others. You cannot just wish that away.

ManOnFire · Answer

I never agreed with the guy, and yes, I too always felt like his views were veiled hate parading as trying to explain how things should be in a political way infused with "Christian" nationalism. Never thought he would be killed and never hoped he would be. His ideas were divisive and not really constructive for a peaceful society or future.

Christian nationalism is really just a veiled supremacist hate cult. They are focused on all the things Jesus and Paul didn't - some of which they taught Christians to avoid: stay out of world affairs aka politics and keep your eyes on God and his new world to come, not the flawed political systems of this age; live a life in peace without fighting which also means not having any care for guns or being desperate to use them. Christian nationalists try to use the Bible for their agendas where God has no interest whatsoever in what they want to do.

avery58 · Answer

He definitely wasn't perfect and I myself had called out on some of the things he said on numerous occasions. I didn't like him at all. But I do believe that only God can judge him now.

At the end of the day, he was an influencer that helped promote some problematic narratives along with a few valid ones. He wasn't directly involved in decisions that hurt people.

I also believe he was slowly changing his mind on certain things, like the genocide in Gaza which he was beginning to publicly yet cautiously question.

NaultD · Answer

He wanted some of the most extreme state sponsored violence on the American people. Away and disconnected from white Christian national hands to wash away. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? Friedrich NietzscheIt's like American psycho confused what is reality and not. https://youtu. be/S23Y9YgAFt8? si=uQS0lC6hgaxE-fOr

AviatorTom · Answer

If you listen to what he says, please listen to everything he says. The media often takes snippets out of context.

For example, he explained that the civil rights acts of the 60s were a mistake because they instilled an attitude in minorities that they were entitled, regardless of their capabilities. The acts led to DEI, which gives minorities preference over more qualified people, and that's just wrong.

Anonymous · Answer

what are you on about?

the mainstream narrative is currently that Charlie Kirk is a horrible human being and for the reasons you yourself have fallen for

yes we know Charlie ain't Jesus or Superman for that matter but he's damn closer to Jesus than anyone you can name

then again if Charlie Kirk is a trash person, then everyone is trash person unless you think Hasan Piker and Destiny aren't trash people

and since you're a "Christian" which of the 10 commandments has Charlie Kirk repeatedly violated? which of the 7 deadly sins does Charlie Kirk frequently indulge in?

ChicoFromThe305 · Answer

Well number two is just a realistic fact, because death is going to happen anyways, and the realism of it, is just that cold, for the second amendment to stay, unfortunately there's always going to be those that abuse that right and will cause chaos, we just have to hope that never happens to us but it will happen and having the legal ability to stand your ground and defend yourself and your loved ones is a valid option than the contrary and that's to not have those rights to bare arms and die anyways, most likely with much more grusome weapons or tools, unfortunately the wicked and lawbreakers don't abide the laws or rules so guns or not they will be a manace.

Screenwriter · Answer

I think his views tally as racist and sexist tinged with literal views of the Bible as religious fact. He was an far-right extremist.

I don't hold with killing the man because of his extreme views. But I'm not convinced he was some nice guy.

Jackblue · Answer

He said the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, but rejected the notion he was trying to undermine King and the Voting Rights Act, arguably he wasn't opposed to Civil Rights, but rather DEI. Admittedly he could have phrased it better than he did and people were offended. I agree with him though that we shouldn't idolize King in the way we have. He was not the only person black or white who was important in passing the Civil Rights Act. Some of the things King said and did in turn were questionable. Some liberals of course seem to feel Kirk's assassination by firearm was poetic justice, but condoning guns doesn't mean you condone murder by guns. If you believe alcohol should be legal than arguably you believe some deaths by alcohol poisoning and drunk driving are unfortunate side effects of maintaining people's rights. I am not sure I would call him a great guy, but I don't think he was a horrible guy either.

Twalli · Answer

When he wasn't spouting political rhetoric, he was like a lot of people. He loved his family and was a good friend. I was one of the few who saw his political evolution from idealistic high school kid to conservative activist. His group "Turning Point USA" was actually started in high school and was mostly bipartisan at the start. He wasn't as politically polarizing until Trump's rise to power. So, while I disagreed with him on multiple issues, we had very cordial and respectful debates online for years. I'm less political than I was, and he went the opposite direction, so we generally stopped talking online.

MuddyMole · Answer

Just another opportunistic, exploitative asshole, looking to get rich.
He was a christian in the same way that those multi-millionaire pastors and televangelists are christians. Maybe he believed in all it to begin with, but in the end it was all about the money - and in his line of work, the more controversial your comments, the more money you make (whether you believe them or not).

exitseven · Answer

There have been my quotes and video clips that have surfaced then have been taken out of context. The quote about the Civil Rights act does not continue to include that he said that it enabled black youth to be raised in fatherless homes which statistics show a much higher percentage of people raised in fatherless home grow up to be criminals.

This cannot be disputed.

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

Charlie Kirk was a good man. The fact that you felt it necessary to “interpret” his perfectly simple and clear statements without including links to videos that portray full context means you do to. You’ve chosen to drive a narrative rather than the truth. Kirk definitely wasn’t perfect. But he was a better man than you or me.

DonaldDarko · Answer

He was just a guy, not as bad as some. I think the worst thing he said is that his daughter should carry a rapists baby if she were raped. That's pretty fucked up. I didn't know he said that but I'm not surprised, the right is full of religious nut cases.

Miristheiss · Answer

He was a great man.

I've followed him for years and heard hours of his teachings, beliefs, debates.

All the shit the left and the tattooed, blue, pink, green, nose ring wearing people online who rejoice that he was murdered are spouting 100% lies and false accusations.

Amy10223 · Answer

Absolutely not. For all the things he said and believed in, he was in my view, not only immoral, but crazy as well. No wonder Trump liked him so much.

Anonymous · Answer

You should listen more fully. Those were his views, he said that since the 1960s civil rights act and desegration blacks are doing worse now, why is that? These are questions that should be asked.

Thanks the 2nd ammendment my husband was able to defend our family when intruders broke in.

Cidknee · Answer

I've watched him since Trump started running in 16.
The context in any statement is key. The civil rights act ushered in the age of welfare. The huge decline in black fathers in the home and the incentive to raise kids alone for the black mother. This is the context.

As for guns, to exist without the 2A would be far worse than what the number of deaths to guns each year occur.

Telekinetic-Potato · Answer

I think you should watch some of his videos.  Would you take someone's opinion of a movie seriously if they told you they just saw a few clips online?

Leodeh · Answer

I strongly dislike his pro Israel shilling, but he wasn't a politician. As far as the people on the other side, I want them in prison or deported. I, unlike Charlie, don't believe in free speech or democracy.

Grond21 · Answer

I think you should look into those clips a little more carefully. You're getting caught up in a smear campaign. He was genuinely a very good man, and he didn't believe what you think he believed.

seeyounexttuesday · Answer

Bro, sometimes you can be smart. You're really being a moron here. How about being honest and post the full quotes in context? Or are you too cowardly?

Jennz6 · Answer

He was a great Christian man and I loved him.

Bricealan · Answer

@hispanic-cool-guy I have no opinion of the man. I never heard of him before his murder.

noohair · Answer

I think that many of the clips were taken from longer speach and does not reflect his true thoughts. He was not a saint and he was not a monster.

onedarkcloud · Answer

He was human; as to what he might have been good or evil, we will never know. His time was cut short because some demented idiot thought he knew better and murdered him

DrPepper12 · Answer

He's a parasite. Toxic bigoted & narcissistic. He's MAGA

beefcakebradybatson · Answer

H**L to the NO !!! Dude was a more or less overt white supremacist.

Bklynbadboy12 · Answer

Doesn't matter nobody deserves what happened to him

berserk945 · Answer

You did listen to everything he had to say then, there is more content to all of those

Fireguy17 · Answer

I never heard of him until someone killed him.

Wodens_Apprentice · Answer

You're a pooman.

Paige90 · Answer

Yes 100%

Do you believe the narrative that Charlie Kirk was this decent nice guy that many try to portray him as?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is Your Opinion Of Charlie Kirk Positive, Negative, Or Neutral?

Do you believe the narrative that Charlie Kirk was this decent nice guy that many try to portray him as?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Is Your Opinion Of Charlie Kirk Positive, Negative, Or Neutral?

We're glad to see you liked this post.