Anonymous
(ID: ksdMAS3S)
9/14/2025, 9:16:42 AM
No.515956549
>>515956982
>>515957234
>>515957649
>>515957715
>>515958196
>>515958631
>>515958657
>>515958736
>>515958839
>>515959296
>>515959335
>>515960078
>>515960181
>>515960580
>>515960862
>>515962523
>>515963196
>>515963462
9/14/2025, 9:16:42 AM
No.515956549
>>515956982
>>515957234
>>515957649
>>515957715
>>515958196
>>515958631
>>515958657
>>515958736
>>515958839
>>515959296
>>515959335
>>515960078
>>515960181
>>515960580
>>515960862
>>515962523
>>515963196
>>515963462
Charlie Kirk: Master Debater or just masturbator?
Why is there so much noise about Charlie Kirk?
If you strip away the rumors about Russia, at the end of the day he was basically a YouTuber/influencer who gave his opinions on politics and culture, mostly in speeches at universities or on social media. He wasn’t really making strong arguments, just opinions framed as arguments (and yes, there’s a difference between the two: an argument requires evidence or reasoning, an opinion doesn’t).
And I don’t say this to devalue influencers or YouTubers — their lives matter just as much as anyone else’s. But why Kirk and not others? Every year young people get shot at schools or campuses, and the media cycle moves on. Why is Kirk turned into a symbol?
If the idea is “freedom of speech,” then why him specifically? Why not, for example, Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, who were murdered this year in what was clearly a politically motivated act? Why is his death treated as uniquely symbolic?
To me the only real reason is political. In the U.S. (as everywhere) many people don’t reason deeply about these things, so they see figures like Kirk as “intellectual leaders” or moral authorities. His death then becomes useful: one side uses it to present themselves as victims, the “good guys,” and to demonize their opponents.
If you strip away the rumors about Russia, at the end of the day he was basically a YouTuber/influencer who gave his opinions on politics and culture, mostly in speeches at universities or on social media. He wasn’t really making strong arguments, just opinions framed as arguments (and yes, there’s a difference between the two: an argument requires evidence or reasoning, an opinion doesn’t).
And I don’t say this to devalue influencers or YouTubers — their lives matter just as much as anyone else’s. But why Kirk and not others? Every year young people get shot at schools or campuses, and the media cycle moves on. Why is Kirk turned into a symbol?
If the idea is “freedom of speech,” then why him specifically? Why not, for example, Minnesota Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, who were murdered this year in what was clearly a politically motivated act? Why is his death treated as uniquely symbolic?
To me the only real reason is political. In the U.S. (as everywhere) many people don’t reason deeply about these things, so they see figures like Kirk as “intellectual leaders” or moral authorities. His death then becomes useful: one side uses it to present themselves as victims, the “good guys,” and to demonize their opponents.
