When I first heard about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I was sitting in the barbershop, halfway through a fade, watching it unfold on the news in real time.
Immediately, there was this overwhelming wave of grief and emotion that swept through the room. Within minutes of leaving, I couldn’t scroll for more than five seconds without seeing something about Kirk. My Facebook feed was clogged with In Memoriam posts, thoughts and prayers, candle emojis… you get it. I’m sure you’ve seen it. You’d think the man cured cancer instead of just yelling about “woke culture” on social media.
I couldn’t quite wrap my head around what I was feeling. For years, Charlie Kirk pushed extremely far-right propaganda that wasn’t just “controversial,” but flat-out harmful. What he preached wasn’t a difference in opinion, it was the wrong way of thinking. Period. Now I’m not saying that because Charlie Kirk was a Republican, he immediately had the wrong way of thinking. I know plenty of Republicans, some friends and some family, that are great people. But spreading divisive rhetoric to perpetuate hate toward certain people groups is where the line should have been drawn.
I’ve seen countless posts saying it’s “disgusting” that people are dying because of a difference in political opinion. Now, I agree political violence should always be condemned, and no one should lose their life at the hands (or guns) of another person. But I’m tired of the media trying to guilt me into feeling empathy for a man who once described empathy itself as “woke” and harmful. Forgive me if I’m not crying into my pillow over the loss of someone who thought compassion was society’s biggest threat.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand Charlie Kirk wasn’t just a political figure. He was a father, a husband, someone’s son. And I do feel genuine sadness for his family. But I’ve never understood the obsession people have with political personalities. Even when it’s someone I agree with, I don’t treat them like rockstars. I vote, I move on. I don’t hang posters of senators in my bedroom or make them my profile picture on Facebook. That’s just weird.
The sheer number of people who are treating Kirk like some kind of saint is unsettling. I’m not saying people shouldn’t be upset, and I’m certainly not condoning political violence. But it says a lot about this country that we are losing our collective minds over a polarizing figure, while shrugging when children are gunned down in their classrooms. School shootings have become so normalized they barely crack the top five headlines, sandwiched somewhere between a celebrity divorce and a new iPhone release. But Charlie Kirk? He’s receiving more attention than any of those children ever did. That, to me, is not just disturbing… it’s backwards.
With all of that being said, I am going to address 3 of Charlie Kirk’s top talking points.
Hot Take 1: Abortion is Worse Than the Holocaust
Charlie was known for making controversial and often click-bait statements like this one: “Abortion is worse than the Holocaust.” First off, if you’re reading this, you probably already know where I stand on abortion and reproductive rights. There’s no need to beat a dead horse and explain why I disagree with someone who wouldn’t have so much as held the door open for me.
But let’s humor the argument for a second. Suppose abortion really is the most grotesque way to end “human life.” Statistically, there are about one million abortions performed yearly in the United States, the vast majority in the first trimester. Charlie insisted that life begins at conception. Plenty of pro-lifers echo this, but scientifically and morally it doesn’t hold water. I’ve heard the familiar claim that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer is charged with double homicide. In Missouri, that only applies after the fetus has developed to about 28 weeks. Before that, the law doesn’t classify it as homicide at all. And the reality is that most women who decide to get an abortion do so very early in the pregnancy. The ominous term “late-term abortion” is not a real medical term, it’s a political invention. In fact, it might be the only late-term thing conservatives have ever been early on.
All of that is really insignificant, though, once you put the numbers and definitions aside. A zygote, or even a first-trimester fetus, doesn’t have the neurological development to feel pain… or feel anything at all. Most abortions are simply an oral medication that ends the pregnancy before the cells could even register the concept of existence.
The Holocaust, on the other hand, was not a metaphor. It was the systematic genocide of millions of people, primarily Jews, who were subjected to concentration camps, starvation, physical torture, and mass executions. To compare that horror to a medical procedure chosen by women who are often making the most difficult decision of their lives is more than dishonest. It’s offensive. Eradicating entire populations because of their faith or ethnicity is not “equal to” or “worse than” ending a pregnancy before the fetus even has nerve endings. Calling abortion worse than the Holocaust is not just bad logic, it’s the kind of take that should immediately disqualify someone from being taken seriously ever again.
Charlie Kirk was also asked in a Jubilee podcast about how he would respond if his 10 year old daughter was raped and impregnated. He stated that he would force her to carry the child because “a life is a life” created by God. He defended this argument by explaining that an ultrasound of a consensually conceived baby versus a baby conceived from rape look the exact same and the act of abortion in any scenario is murder. This completely ignores the perpetrator’s vile actions and only perpetuates predatory behavior toward children, almost justifying it as a blessing.
Hot Take 2: Any Gun Law is an Infringement of Basic Human Rights
I’ve heard this argument time and time again, both among my conservative family and my law enforcement family. Charlie Kirk has remained adamant that gun reform laws such as red flag laws, increased background checks, or licensure to possess a firearm infringe on our rights as Americans to bear arms. Not so your Uncle Randy can dual weld AR-15’s in his cul de sac because he saw John Wick one time. Not to mention, the “tyrannical government” also had muskets, not Draco’s with high-capacity magazines.
From a more logical standpoint though, if the entire purpose of the second amendment was to protect we the people from government overreach, wouldn’t it make more sense to increase safeguards to keep guns out of the hands from unstable individuals? If the wrong people are stockpiling weapons and ammunition they don’t protect freedom. In fact I’d say those same people are the ones who destabilize it.
Let’s be real, your gun isn’t going to protect yourself against governmental tyranny anyways. Your AR-15 isn’t going to stop a drone strike. The government has precision missiles that could vaporize 20 semi trucks from 10,000 feet in the air. You’re not holding off the Pentagon with a hunting rifle you got from Bass Pro on Black Friday. What background checks and red flag laws do is decrease the chances of mass shootings, suicides, and the repeat domestic abuser from turning their “God-given rights” into somebody else’s funeral.
It’s also worth pointing out that we already accept licenses, regulations, and trainings for other rights. You need a license to operate a vehicle, training to practice medicine, and permission to build onto your house or property. Nobody screams “TYRANNY!” when the DMV requires you to pass a driving or vision test to get a drivers license. But the second you mention that maybe someone should pass a background check and complete a licensure exam before being able to own an AR-15, suddenly it’s 1776 again and people are ready to dump Lipton into the harbor.
So no, red flag laws and background checks aren’t an infringement. They’re the bare minimum. They’re the equivalent of putting a seatbelt on your rights; not to restrict you, but to make sure everyone else survives the ride too.
Hot Take 3: The passage of the Civil Rights Act was a Mistake
Charlie Kirk has made it perfectly clear that he was a strong proponent against any affirmative action programs. I noticed on a lot of his “debate me” tours, any argument about race fell back to affirmative action and why it was wrong. Charlie Kirk has made statements such as questioning a pilot’s qualifications if that pilot happened to be black. He’s referred to black Supreme Court justices as “diversity hires” and has repeatedly made statements about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. being an “awful person”.
Pretending race has no impact on opportunity is like saying gravity doesn’t exist because you personally haven’t floated away yet. Studies have shown that systemic barriers such as underfunded schools, hiring bias, and generational wealth gaps still affect outcomes today.
Additionally, regarding his comment about the Black pilot: airplanes don’t stay in the air because of diversity initiatives. They stay in the air because the pilot knows what the fuck they’re doing. Even suggesting that a Black pilot is less qualified because of affirmative action or diversity programs is not only racist, it flat-out ignores the brutally unforgiving training standards of aviation. Planes don’t care about politics; they care about physics.
Charlie Kirk also has a habit of claiming that any person of color hired for a high-profile position… take the Supreme Court, for example… is automatically a “diversity hire.” He erases their credentials and experience and focuses solely on what he sees on the outside. If they’re anything other than white and male, suddenly their entire career is reduced to a box checked on a quota sheet. That’s not an “opinion.” That’s fucking racism at its core. Every justice, regardless of race or gender, goes through the exact same nomination process, hearings, and Senate confirmation. To imply otherwise isn’t just insulting, it’s dishonest.
And then, of course, there’s his repeated dismissal of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an “awful person.” Let’s be clear: MLK’s leadership directly fueled the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Act, and a cultural shift toward equality; changes Kirk himself has described as a historical mistake. To dismiss all of that with personal attacks isn’t just absurd, it’s offensive to the millions of people whose lives were improved because of MLK’s vision and sacrifice. If standing for equality makes someone “awful,” then I’ll proudly take being awful over whatever the hell Kirk thought he was.
With all of this being said, I’m just… annoyed. I’m annoyed that this man is being remembered as a martyr, as a “man of God,” as some kind of hero. Do I feel empathy for his family, especially his wife and kids? Absolutely. Do I condone political violence? Absolutely not. But his death doesn’t suddenly rewrite who he was in life. I’m pissed that Charlie Kirk’s death has dominated headlines while thousands of children in Gaza fight for their lives in silence, and while American children continue dying in classrooms and on street corners to gun violence without a fraction of the national grief. We shrug when it’s kids, but we lose our collective shit when a controversial political figure dies, painting him as a saint. He wasn’t.
In summary, I don’t know why it’s suddenly considered distasteful to talk honestly about someone’s life after they die. All of these Facebook posts painting Charlie Kirk as just a husband and father while dismissing everything else flatten him into a 2D figure. The truth is, Charlie Kirk publicly mocked plenty of deaths, laughed at tragedies, and used his platform to push more hate into the world. He didn’t value empathy; he ridiculed it.
I’m not writing this to disrespect or dance on the guy’s grave. I’m writing it because staying quiet while 90% of my Facebook feed turns him into a saint feels dishonest. Even if nobody reads this, it makes me feel less crazy to put my thoughts into words rather than sit back while everyone rewrites history in real time.
When my time comes, I don’t want to be remembered for stirring division or profiting off outrage. I want to be remembered as a man of character: someone who gave everything he had to others, who made sacrifices, who was a good husband and father, and who offered empathy when it was least deserved.
For a Thought 
Leave a comment