Freedom of speech applies to all, not just those whose opinion we agree with. They should be opposed by logic, reason and debate, not violence! Well done for speaking up on this, and other important issues, and thank you for all the great work you do.
I didn't have soft feelings for Charlie hearing what he was saying. But I felt really upset when I saw your letter with this horrible news (I don't read Western news in general). He didn't deserve it, no non-vegan deserves this for just being brain-washed by the society, like we all were. Truly a tragedy for a young person to be violently deprived of his live, and for a family to lose a loved one. No justification for that.
Also great point you brought at the end that if we justify killing because of disliking views, somebody then could be justified doing the same with one of us.
The main problem here is that tragically killed famous people get the "every individual is sacred" treatment, while tragically killed anonymous people don't -- even those killed by the famous people's policies. And this awful overarching fact cuts across major political camps.
"As a vegan, I can tell you plenty of people hate us too."
They hate us because they are in the objective wrong/are objectively immoral, Charlie Kirk's views were objectively wrong/immoral as well!
Having said that, I agree with you: "Charlie Kirk’s Killing Is a Tragedy — Even If You Hated Him... Nobody deserves to be murdered for speaking their mind."
As someone who believes killing is wrong and someone who did not celebrate his murder, I don't think we should cater to the idea that Charlie Kirk only indulged in free speech. He incited violence against gay and trans people by saying the bible says gay people should be stoned to death, SENT PEOPLE IN BUSES to the January 6 insurrection (that got people killed), said the civil rights act was a mistake and black women don't have brains, and said someone should receive an award if they bailed out the person who tried to kill Nancy Pelosi and cracked her husband's skull. In response to mass murders in the US, he stated that some deaths are unfortunately the price you have to pay for the second amendment. While you might say most of these statements are freedom of speech, they are also hate speech which incite violence. This kind of speech is rampant in southern states of the US, cause white people to believe black people are inherently dangerous or violent and gets black people murdered. I would not shame a black person or LGBTQ person for saying they think the world might be a safer space without Charlie Kirk. This kind of "free speech", especially with a global platform, is propaganda that is dehumanizing, is what shapes society, and will cause more violence and murder.
The point comparing a vegan activist being murdered is that the vegan person is not inciting violence or oppression. The point is that people should still say, "this is wrong that the person was murdered, but let's share what this person's values were".
Again, I disagree with murder, but I feel as though calling out the people who are "celebrating" his death instead of just saying "Charlie Kirk was evil but I don't think he should have been murdered" is helping whitewash and glorify his beliefs. If a child only hears "oh poor Charlie" and not also that his beliefs were problematic, then a child might find themselves aligning with those views.
On black women not having brains: he never said that. He criticised DEI hiring based on skin colour instead of merit.
The Nancy Pelosi comment was a bad joke.
The second amendment comment: he compared it to cars, in that cars kill more people than guns but we see the utility of cars so we keep them, he believed in the utility of guns and so believed they shouldn’t ban guns as they also shouldn’t ban cars.
It’s important to see his quotes in full context and without being clipped or cherrypicked to suit a narrative - which is what many have been doing unfortunately.
You can still find many things to not like him for, but nothing he said justifies him being shot dead in front of his children in public.
Again, I agree with the fact that nothing he said justifies him being killed. I wouldn't say it's justifying his death to discuss what he stood for.
Here is a clip (around minute 5) of him responding to Ms. Rachel. She says the bible says love thy neighbor, Charlie says to "read the second part of that" in Leviticus 18 in which he thinks it says "thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death".
Saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake is different than merely saying it wasn't a fix all. He goes into why he thinks it contributes to DEI. DEI is not used to hire unqualified people based on race, gender, religion, etc., over qualified non-minority people. Kirk claims it has turned into anti-white, as if white people are being oppressed.
It's also ridiculous to say that skin color is the only reason someone could be hired over a white person. This is what "skin color over merit" implies. Does Kirk critique all the white people handed positions of power because of family ties, not based on merit?
Start at minute 53 to hear kirk say the following:
"If we would have said three weeks ago [...] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're comin' out and they're saying it for us! They're comin' out and they're saying, "I'm only here because of affirmative action.
Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
Peter Pelosi comments did not appear to be a joke. He said whoever bails him out should be called a patriot. Charlie says, "bail him out and then ask some questions". Why does the guy need to be bailed out to be questioned? Imagine saying, "someone bail out Charlie's shooter, you would be a patriot. Bail Tyler Robinson out and then ask him some questions."
An all out ban on guns is not what most argue for. It would be stricter gun laws in which Kirk, as far as I know, was not fighting for. Cars are not used for the intent of killing. That argument is apples to oranges. We still want laws and regulations with owning and using a vehicle.
To conclude, I still agree he should not have been murdered. I did not celebrate his death. I do think it's important to be able to discuss statements that spread hate. I would not say Kirk spoke out of love and progress for all living beings, but I also do not believe that justified his murder.
Side note, I commend you for challenging Kirk on veganism.
Absolutely. I've seen many people take the position that Charlie deserved to be shot for what he was saying. Someone could say the exact same thing about me or any outspoken animal advocate for example.
Freedom of speech applies to all, not just those whose opinion we agree with. They should be opposed by logic, reason and debate, not violence! Well done for speaking up on this, and other important issues, and thank you for all the great work you do.
Vegan and big fan of your work, 100% completely agree.
Thank you for the kind words Steve.
No, thank you! You and a few others make me feel less intellectually lonely.
I wholeheartedly agree with you David. Thank you for being a voice for compassion and respect. There are good people in this world.
Totally agree, I have his young family in my thoughts, btw. What a tragedy.
I didn't have soft feelings for Charlie hearing what he was saying. But I felt really upset when I saw your letter with this horrible news (I don't read Western news in general). He didn't deserve it, no non-vegan deserves this for just being brain-washed by the society, like we all were. Truly a tragedy for a young person to be violently deprived of his live, and for a family to lose a loved one. No justification for that.
Also great point you brought at the end that if we justify killing because of disliking views, somebody then could be justified doing the same with one of us.
The main problem here is that tragically killed famous people get the "every individual is sacred" treatment, while tragically killed anonymous people don't -- even those killed by the famous people's policies. And this awful overarching fact cuts across major political camps.
"As a vegan, I can tell you plenty of people hate us too."
They hate us because they are in the objective wrong/are objectively immoral, Charlie Kirk's views were objectively wrong/immoral as well!
Having said that, I agree with you: "Charlie Kirk’s Killing Is a Tragedy — Even If You Hated Him... Nobody deserves to be murdered for speaking their mind."
As someone who believes killing is wrong and someone who did not celebrate his murder, I don't think we should cater to the idea that Charlie Kirk only indulged in free speech. He incited violence against gay and trans people by saying the bible says gay people should be stoned to death, SENT PEOPLE IN BUSES to the January 6 insurrection (that got people killed), said the civil rights act was a mistake and black women don't have brains, and said someone should receive an award if they bailed out the person who tried to kill Nancy Pelosi and cracked her husband's skull. In response to mass murders in the US, he stated that some deaths are unfortunately the price you have to pay for the second amendment. While you might say most of these statements are freedom of speech, they are also hate speech which incite violence. This kind of speech is rampant in southern states of the US, cause white people to believe black people are inherently dangerous or violent and gets black people murdered. I would not shame a black person or LGBTQ person for saying they think the world might be a safer space without Charlie Kirk. This kind of "free speech", especially with a global platform, is propaganda that is dehumanizing, is what shapes society, and will cause more violence and murder.
The point comparing a vegan activist being murdered is that the vegan person is not inciting violence or oppression. The point is that people should still say, "this is wrong that the person was murdered, but let's share what this person's values were".
Again, I disagree with murder, but I feel as though calling out the people who are "celebrating" his death instead of just saying "Charlie Kirk was evil but I don't think he should have been murdered" is helping whitewash and glorify his beliefs. If a child only hears "oh poor Charlie" and not also that his beliefs were problematic, then a child might find themselves aligning with those views.
I was no big fan of many of Charlie’s opinions, but unfortunately most of the things you’ve attributed to him here aren’t true.
On the civil rights act: https://x.com/the_jefferymead/status/1967999113028685866?s=46&t=Td_dihw_GYsNYCE0lnGg4Q
On stoning gay people (he never advocated stoning gay people, even Stephen King retracted a post about that once he realised it was a lie): https://x.com/the_jefferymead/status/1967399806151905705?s=46&t=Td_dihw_GYsNYCE0lnGg4Q
On black women not having brains: he never said that. He criticised DEI hiring based on skin colour instead of merit.
The Nancy Pelosi comment was a bad joke.
The second amendment comment: he compared it to cars, in that cars kill more people than guns but we see the utility of cars so we keep them, he believed in the utility of guns and so believed they shouldn’t ban guns as they also shouldn’t ban cars.
It’s important to see his quotes in full context and without being clipped or cherrypicked to suit a narrative - which is what many have been doing unfortunately.
You can still find many things to not like him for, but nothing he said justifies him being shot dead in front of his children in public.
Again, I agree with the fact that nothing he said justifies him being killed. I wouldn't say it's justifying his death to discuss what he stood for.
Here is a clip (around minute 5) of him responding to Ms. Rachel. She says the bible says love thy neighbor, Charlie says to "read the second part of that" in Leviticus 18 in which he thinks it says "thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWKF5EU1Cig
Saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake is different than merely saying it wasn't a fix all. He goes into why he thinks it contributes to DEI. DEI is not used to hire unqualified people based on race, gender, religion, etc., over qualified non-minority people. Kirk claims it has turned into anti-white, as if white people are being oppressed.
It's also ridiculous to say that skin color is the only reason someone could be hired over a white person. This is what "skin color over merit" implies. Does Kirk critique all the white people handed positions of power because of family ties, not based on merit?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7t6qfWcX1l4
Start at minute 53 to hear kirk say the following:
"If we would have said three weeks ago [...] that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative-action picks, we would have been called racist. But now they're comin' out and they're saying it for us! They're comin' out and they're saying, "I'm only here because of affirmative action.
Yeah, we know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person's slot to go be taken somewhat seriously."
https://rumble.com/v2zt1nq-wray-the-wretched-ray-epps-socks-fox-white-house-cocaine-mystery-gaetz-seif.html
Peter Pelosi comments did not appear to be a joke. He said whoever bails him out should be called a patriot. Charlie says, "bail him out and then ask some questions". Why does the guy need to be bailed out to be questioned? Imagine saying, "someone bail out Charlie's shooter, you would be a patriot. Bail Tyler Robinson out and then ask him some questions."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flRQsbXeZVQ
An all out ban on guns is not what most argue for. It would be stricter gun laws in which Kirk, as far as I know, was not fighting for. Cars are not used for the intent of killing. That argument is apples to oranges. We still want laws and regulations with owning and using a vehicle.
To conclude, I still agree he should not have been murdered. I did not celebrate his death. I do think it's important to be able to discuss statements that spread hate. I would not say Kirk spoke out of love and progress for all living beings, but I also do not believe that justified his murder.
Side note, I commend you for challenging Kirk on veganism.
Absolutely. I've seen many people take the position that Charlie deserved to be shot for what he was saying. Someone could say the exact same thing about me or any outspoken animal advocate for example.