Bravo! Thank you for writing this piece. I am sharing widely.
I have been labeled all sorts of degrogatory labels and told my writing is dangerous. I'm not allowed to talk about what concerns me or my perspective in my own family, and all attempts, minus a bullet, have been made to silence me.
This piece reads less like a principled defense of civil discourse and more like a sanitized rewrite of Charlie Kirk’s public record. It’s one thing to condemn political violence — which any decent person should — and another to portray Kirk as a thoughtful champion of dialogue and mutual respect. That framing simply doesn’t square with his real-life conduct.
Charlie Kirk built his career on provocation. He routinely spread misinformation, trafficked in conspiratorial rhetoric, and caricatured his political opponents in ways that were designed to inflame. One can defend his right not to be murdered — as we must — without erasing the harm he did to the very norms of debate this essay claims to uphold.
Condemning violence shouldn’t require mythologizing the man. The truth is, Kirk didn’t model civil disagreement. He modeled division, spectacle, and scorched-earth politics. Recasting him now as a martyr for reasoned dialogue only deepens the polarization the piece claims to lament.
Even if Kirk happened to be correct in principle on gender ideology, embracing him in this hagiographic way is both politically shortsighted and morally confused. It alienates the very people who might otherwise be open to rethinking their positions on so-called trans rights.
I appreciate your comment. To be clear, I wasn’t trying to canonise Charlie Kirk or rewrite his record. He was provocative, sometimes abrasive, and often contributed to the very polarisation I’m concerned about.
But that’s precisely why his murder is so alarming. If we only defend civil discourse for those who are unfailingly courteous or factually perfect, then we’ve hollowed out the principle. The line I wanted to draw is simple: disagreement, even heated or irresponsible disagreement, cannot justify dehumanisation or violence.
My essay wasn’t about rehabilitating Kirk’s image. It was about the danger of treating any political opponent as a “legitimate target.” That is where words tip into violence, and once that line is crossed, none of us are safe.
I agree with everything said in this essay. Unfortunately, something does need to be done about terrorists BEFORE they murder someone. What is that going to be?
Excellent, eloquent essay. Thank you.
Bravo! Thank you for writing this piece. I am sharing widely.
I have been labeled all sorts of degrogatory labels and told my writing is dangerous. I'm not allowed to talk about what concerns me or my perspective in my own family, and all attempts, minus a bullet, have been made to silence me.
It has to stop. We are all fed up with this silencing and denigration.
Yes indeed.
Thank you, Sara.
I will share this widely.
This piece reads less like a principled defense of civil discourse and more like a sanitized rewrite of Charlie Kirk’s public record. It’s one thing to condemn political violence — which any decent person should — and another to portray Kirk as a thoughtful champion of dialogue and mutual respect. That framing simply doesn’t square with his real-life conduct.
Charlie Kirk built his career on provocation. He routinely spread misinformation, trafficked in conspiratorial rhetoric, and caricatured his political opponents in ways that were designed to inflame. One can defend his right not to be murdered — as we must — without erasing the harm he did to the very norms of debate this essay claims to uphold.
Condemning violence shouldn’t require mythologizing the man. The truth is, Kirk didn’t model civil disagreement. He modeled division, spectacle, and scorched-earth politics. Recasting him now as a martyr for reasoned dialogue only deepens the polarization the piece claims to lament.
Even if Kirk happened to be correct in principle on gender ideology, embracing him in this hagiographic way is both politically shortsighted and morally confused. It alienates the very people who might otherwise be open to rethinking their positions on so-called trans rights.
I appreciate your comment. To be clear, I wasn’t trying to canonise Charlie Kirk or rewrite his record. He was provocative, sometimes abrasive, and often contributed to the very polarisation I’m concerned about.
But that’s precisely why his murder is so alarming. If we only defend civil discourse for those who are unfailingly courteous or factually perfect, then we’ve hollowed out the principle. The line I wanted to draw is simple: disagreement, even heated or irresponsible disagreement, cannot justify dehumanisation or violence.
My essay wasn’t about rehabilitating Kirk’s image. It was about the danger of treating any political opponent as a “legitimate target.” That is where words tip into violence, and once that line is crossed, none of us are safe.
I agree with everything said in this essay. Unfortunately, something does need to be done about terrorists BEFORE they murder someone. What is that going to be?
Love love love this!