The truth

I hope he's remembered for losing a bad faith argument in the most ironic way possible.

Spent his life arguing against the public good. Ended his life as a fountain.

but people failed to realize that mediocre white men should be able to live a happy and fulfilling lives, too. like all of us should. they used to be able to do that by doing less skilled labour like manufacturing etc, and still be able to afford a home and decent life. that's until capital possessing elites decided that it is more profitable to use cheap off shore labour. that as well as worsening inequality left them miserable and without purpose.

too bad centrist politicians are mostly being bought out by capital, that's why opportunist grifters like Charlie Kirk was able to fill the vacuum that was left, and poison the mind of these people.

Not that I disagree with the message, but why is most of it highlighted?

His death was hilarious and I'm glad it happened

When he couldn't get into West Point he was too much of a baby to just join up.

If he couldn't get the prettiest costume he wasn't going to play soldier.

As a mediocre white guy who dropped out of college

Fuck that guy

Who is Charlie Kirk?

To be fair there are a lot of very successful college and more than you might imagine high school drop outs. The difference between them and Kirk is that they're still alive.

Charlie Kirk was the human equivalent of an unfixed tomcat that hangs out in the street and yells at everyone, harasses other cats trying to go about their lives, and spreads disease and discord until they get hit by a car or someone euthanizes them.

Who was Charlie Kirk again?

Why are we still talking about this guy?

He was murdered, he's dead, he's no longer an issue. We have LIVING people who STILL support the same shit he did.

He got the public execution he advocated for

It's objectively the truth, I agree entirely with all of it.

I've got notes on how to adapt this identical message in a way to maximally influence mediocre white men, but It's pretty clearly not for that purpose. It could be, though.

Ah yes, Charlie Kirk, I vaguely recall that guy, how time flies.

there's one important thing u forgot. he was rich. so what he said mattered.

Mediocre?!??! Dude had an absolutely amazing head-to-face ratio.

This fucking chud has been dead for how long now and y'all are still talking about him? He was a piece of shit and now he's a dead piece of shit. Why are you keeping this neck bleeding bitch relevant?

Shanespeare has a new video about him and his widow.

I think his assassination was orchestrated by the GOP considering his wife's reaction and the reaction of elite republicans. Regardless of his opinions, I don't think we should celebrate something that they want us to celebrate

This post is a perfect example of everything people criticize about the modern “left.” Not because it disagrees with Charlie Kirk, but because it reduces an entire person to race, gender, and resentment instead of engaging with ideas.

You can think his views were wrong, shallow, or even outright harmful, but dismissing someone as just “a mediocre white man” is exactly the kind of identity based tribalism the left claims to oppose.

And regardless of how much people hated his politics, Charlie Kirk openly debated people who disagreed with him. He went onto hostile campuses, argued face to face, answered questions, and defended his positions publicly. That already puts him above a huge part of modern political culture, where too many people prefer censorship, deplatforming, mob shaming, or labeling disagreement as “harm.”

As for myself, I didn’t agree with everything Charlie Kirk said, and I still don’t. But I deeply respect what he was doing. Peaceful exchange of ideas.

I’m an atheist myself, raised Christian, and honestly I would have loved debating him about religion. Not because I think I would magically “win,” but because that kind of respectful clash of ideas is healthy. People sharpen each other through discussion. Through challenge. Through disagreement.

No person is an island. We’re social creatures. People grow by debating, listening, challenging each other, and trying to understand different perspectives. Open discourse is infinitely healthier than censorship and ideological purity tests.

Ironically, many of the people constantly screaming “fascist” are the same ones trying to silence, deplatform, shame, or censor anyone who disagrees with them. That mentality, “agree with me or you are evil and must be silenced,” is itself authoritarian.

A real democracy requires tolerance for disagreement. It requires accepting that there can be multiple ways to solve problems, even if you strongly prefer one over another.

The post itself proves the point more than it refutes it. Instead of counterarguments, it goes straight to race, identity, and contempt. No discussion, no nuance, no engagement with why millions of people listened to him in the first place. Just “white man bad.”

You can despise someone’s ideas and still defend their right to speak and debate openly. In fact, that’s the entire point of free discourse and freedom of speech.