Charlie Kirk targeted professors for harassment and participated in an effort to overthrow the Constitution because he believed that his ideological opponents should have no voice in society or government. Mike Lee finds political violence against Democrats to be funny because he thinks those who don't agree with him are illegitimate and don't really have the right to speak. And Trump is in the habit of calling for the violent repression of those who oppose him. These people are not claiming to embrace free speech and then failing to apply that ideal equally. They fairly openly think that some views, and some people, are more equal than others, and that they are entitled to enforce their rule with whatever means they choose, including violence.

This point of view explains what initially seems like a mystery.  -  How can people who joked about the attack on Paul Pelosi, and many similar "jokes" made by the right, including elected officials, now be outraged that everyone is not solemnly respectful to the memory of Charlie Kirk.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted conspiracy theories and jokes after a Trump supporter assassinated Minnesota's Democratic House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband in June.

How?  Because they dont care about free speech unless it is their free speech. That is also the example that their leader sets for them. 

Did Paul Pelosi die as a result of his attack? Apples and goose shit comparison.

Apples and goose shit comparison.

Let's not forget, Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed by right wing nutbag, Vance Boelter, dressed as a police officer on June 14th. He had 45 people on a kill list and thankfully only wounded Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and his wife before being identified and apprehended.

They were killed by a crazy man claiming he was folllowg directions from. Tim Walz.

also, I’m not aware of any, let alone of large numbers republicans celebrating the murders. If you have evidence of right wing government officials, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, etc celebrating the tragedy,  I’d like to see it, 

They were killed by a crazy man.

Perhaps we should work more on the core issue of making everything in American life something hyperpolitical and people won't think 2nd Amendment remedies are the way to solve differences? 

That would be great. A good start would be if everyone agreed

Murder is wrong. Period.

and leave it at that. 

I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere that corresponds to what I said............

A good start would be if everyone agreed Murder is wrong. Period.

Interesting... so in your opinion Charlie Kirk was wrong when he said, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost, of unfortunately, to have some gun deaths every single year so we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect our other God given rights."

I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere that corresponds to what I said............

I quoted the point I was responding to. 

No where does he say that Murder is good, FFS what a false equivalency.

There are 40,000 motor vehicles deaths every year, that is like saying 40,000 dead people are good because i get the convenience of owning a car. 

your opinion Charlie Kirk was wrong when he said, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost, of unfortunately, to have some gun deaths every single year so we can have the 2nd Amendment to protect or other God given rights."

Charlie's "gun deaths" quote is just a perfect example of the low and trashy nature of the average person's thought process. The average person hears the out of context bit about "accepting gun deaths" and thinks "WAOW. He sed dat and den died from a gun. Dis gives me dopamine tingle and makes me feel smart. He was bad and I'm more gooder than him."

Anyone with critical thinking skills could have imagined what was actually said in context, namely, that any technology or tool or practice we employ in society carries an inherent risk, and some people will inevitably fall victim to that risk. Having industrial machinery means someone, somewhere will get hurt in industrial accidents. Having highways means people will die on them. Etc.

Saying this out loud feels excruciating, because it should be so patently obvious as to be above explanation. Yet there are millions of people who just take the dopamine tingle and are either unwilling or unable to internally think it through on their own. Those same people also won't understand even after having it explicitly spelled out for them. Charlie Kirk, whatever you think of him, was probably smarter than the vast majority of people, and not because he was some super-genius. No. He was mostly just quick on his feet and a good speaker. Charlie Kirk was smarter than the vast majority of people because the average person is just much stupider than we would like to believe.

x

Charlie's "gun deaths" quote is just a perfect example of the low and trashy nature of the average person's thought process.

No, Charlie's "gun deaths" quote is a just a perfect example of how low and trashy the nature of Charlie is. Nothing more, nothing less.

The mental gymnastics to go from...

Murder is wrong. Period.

 to...

Anyone with critical thinking skills could have imagined what was actually said in context...

must be exhausting. 

We have a member of NT running all over the place here declaring that everything Kirk ever said is being taken out of context.    Its kind of amazing . 

What's even more amazing is we have members running around here lying about what he said and then complain when it's pointed out to be a lie. 

I'm different than you George, I actually look at and read the things I talk about.  There are hundreds of hours of video of Charlie Kirk spouting his far right beliefs.  Maybe someone will mischaracterize some of them, that is sort of inevitable when you are talking about such a large public body of work. 

Personally, I dont need to lie about him, all I have to do is look at what he said. 

I saw the video of him saying it

[✘]

Its kind of amazing . 

What's amazing is watching people being shown video of  a quote and still defending a reporter for publicizing a fabricated version of it

Drunk driving is wrong period.

We should still let people drive cars, even though some will drive drunk and kill people.

Does that take mental gymnastics to comprehend too?   The inevitability of tradeoffs is hard for some to grasp. 

The mental gymnastics to go from...

Murder is wrong. Period.

 to...

Anyone with critical thinking skills could have imagined what was actually said in context...

must be exhausting. 

Why doesit seem that we need more "intelligent" people than US regular folk, to have what so many on the 'right' really meant, explained ?

  This is required non stop for Trump.

Is there a specific reason do you suppose that the 'right' are so often NOT clear about what they intended say, cause damn it does appear that way, but hey, hopefully someone on the 'right' will be along shortly to explain it, explain it plain as day.

Drunk driving is wrong period. We should still let people drive cars, even though some will drive drunk and kill people.

Wow, that pretzel is looking more like a knot now. Murder is wrong period, but it's good that some people are killed by guns... is still not logical when you change guns to cars.

isn't that along the same lines that Kirk said? It's good to have a few gun deaths so we can save the 2nd Amendment? 

So I guess we should put up with a few DUI deaths because everybody still wants to drive their car

No, Charlie's "gun deaths" quote is a just a perfect example of how low and trashy the nature of Charlie is.

Only if you focus on that very short clip.  Why not show the WHOLE interaction? 

That's the problem.  The ass clowns are only showing 30 to 45 second clips to prove some retarded point.  You aren't showing the whole interaction so that everybody can see what led to that particular statement.

Is there a specific reason do you suppose that the 'right' are so often NOT clear about what they intended say...

Because they can't logic their way out of a wet paper sack. They reserve the 'right' to change their meanings to fit their mood like they change their clothing.

is still not logical when you change guns to cars.

Do you support getting rid of cars because people will be murdered by drunk drivers if you don't?

What about knives? Should we get rid of all knives because If you don't people will be murdered by them?   Or do you in fact accept that its better some people will be murdered instead of confiscating all knives?

I'm going to repost this because anyone struggling with should really concentrate until they are able to grasp this point:

Anyone with critical thinking skills could have imagined what was actually said in context, namely, that any technology or tool or practice we employ in society carries an inherent risk, and some people will inevitably fall victim to that risk. Having industrial machinery means someone, somewhere will get hurt in industrial accidents. Having highways means people will die on them. Etc.

The ability to understand the existence and inevitability of tradeoffs tends to be something liberals struggle with.

ss we should put up with a few DUI deaths because everybody still wants to drive their car

Yes. Either confiscate everyone's car and/or alcohol or accept that some people will be inevitably murdered by drunk drivers.  That's the reality of the world. 

and that's essentially what Kirk said. Guns are our reality

Yes, and  the only people who can logically take issue with it are those who want to confiscate each and every gun from gun owners across the country.  getting them from people who follow the law will be tough enough.  How do people who take issue with Kirk's statement propose getting hold of all the illegal guns?  That would likely result in deaths too.  Gun confiscators would have to be okay with some murders in order to obtain every single gun from Americans. Will they accept those murders?

But we are constantly told liberals oppose gun confiscation so I don't know how they can have any problem with Kirk's statement, since they believe the same thing. 

Do you support getting rid of cars because people will be murdered by drunk drivers if you don't?

I'm not talking about supporting or not supporting anything. You're moving the goalposts here. I'm only commenting on your swift change from Murder is wrong period to murder is okay sometimes in support of the shitty person who said it first. 

I'm only commenting on your swift change from Murder is wrong period to murder is okay sometimes in support of the shitty person who said it first. 

Are you talking to me? What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote? 

I don't how to make this any simpler. All Kirk said is common  sense that anyone who doesn't support the full confiscation of every single gun in America agrees with. Even if they don't understand that they do. 

 No one, and certainly not me,  said "murder is okay".  That's just made up fantasy. 

I don't how to make this any simpler.

Either you were wrong saying murder is wrong period or Kirk was wrong saying murder is okay sometimes. It's not hard, but you can't pick both.

I hope the guys defending Kirks every word on this forum are at least going to get a Christmas card from his family. 

[✘]

There hasnt been less than 20,000 gun deaths in America for any of the past 60 years. 

yes, it's understood that if guns are available, there will be murders, suicides and accidents that involve them. That's a reality that cannot be avoided.  Just like cars. Or knives.  

You don't favor taking every single gun out of every American's hands do you? 

The Greatest Generation brought an untold number of firearms back from Europe and the Pacific theatre as souvenirs. When the Armed Services began to crackdown, the concentration shifted from rifles and swords to handguns, parts and ammo.  For a while there was a 25lb limit for enlisted shipping by USMail.  There were supposed forms for capture or permission from a unit officer.  Zero accountability.

It was the beginning of the madness.

All Kirk said is common sense that anyone who doesn't support the full confiscation of every single gun in America agrees with. 

It does not work that way. That is a false dichotomy.  It is possible to lower the numbers of people killed by guns without taking every last gun away. 

It is possible to lower the numbers of people killed by guns without taking every last gun awa

Whether that's true or not, you, like Kirk,  accept people will be murdered because of your favored policy.

Mmm, what favored policy might that be?

I would argue that less guns=less gun violence, even if it is only certain types of guns. For example take Australia  (from chatGPT) 

 

Here’s a tight, government-sourced snapshot of what changed in Australia after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA)—covering the reforms, gun violence trends, and how many guns Australians hold.

What changed in 1996 (and after)

• The NFA (May 1996) tightened licensing (genuine reason, storage), created uniform controls, and prohibited civilian ownership of most semi-automatic rifles and pump/semi-automatic shotguns. Governments funded a compensated buyback. A later handgun buyback ran in 2003.
• Scale of collections (official/peer-reviewed tallies):
  • 1996–97 long-arm buyback: about 660,000 newly prohibited firearms.
  • 2003 handgun buyback: 68,727 handguns destroyed.
• Since 1 July 2021, Australia has a permanent national firearms amnesty; by 30 Jun 2024 the public had surrendered 40,936 firearms/weapons and 1,463 parts.

Violence outcomes (before vs. after)

• Mass shootings: In the 18 years before the NFA there were 13 mass shootings; in the decade after, none. (Later isolated cases have been debated on definitions, but the immediate post-NFA decade is clear.)
• Suicides with firearms: Multiple studies find large, sustained declines after 1996. A leading econometric analysis estimates the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of ~80%, with no offsetting rise in non-firearm suicide.
• Homicides with firearms:
  • In 2019–20, the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) recorded that 17% of homicide incidents involving a weapon involved a firearm. Earlier NHMP reporting shows firearm involvement fell to ~11% by 2006–07—the lowest since monitoring began—down from much higher shares in the early 1990s.
  • Peer-reviewed work finds firearm homicide likely fell as access declined, though estimates are less precise than for suicide. (Direction is down; magnitude is debated.)
• All firearm deaths: Health agency snapshots show firearm deaths in recent years are low by historical standards (and dominated by suicides). For example, 2019–20 data attribute ~80% of firearm deaths to suicide, ~14% to homicide.

How many guns Australians own (then vs. now)

• Registered civilian firearms: Research compiled from state registries shows >3.5 million registered firearms by 2021, with far fewer licence holders—licensing rates down ~48% since 1997—implying more guns concentrated among fewer owners. (Households with any gun are down ~75% across decades.)
• Illicit market (unregistered): The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission’s current estimate is ~200,000 illicit firearms nationwide (down from a 2016 estimate of ~260,000).
• Ongoing surrenders: The permanent amnesty continues to pull unregistered weapons out of circulation each year (see counts above).

How to read the evidence

• The clearest causal effect is on firearm suicides (large, durable decline) and mass shootings (ceased for many years). Effects on firearm homicide are downward but are statistically less precise. Government monitoring (AIC, AIHW) and independent evaluations agree that post-1996 firearm involvement in lethal violence fell and stayed low relative to pre-NFA levels.

If you’d like, I can pull specific time-series charts from the AIC/AIHW (e.g., firearm share of homicides by year, firearm suicides per 100k) or a short table that lines up pre-1996 vs. post-1996 averages for the metrics you care about.

So it is possible to decrease the #of people dying by only restricting certain types of guns. We all know that some gun deaths are inevitable because of accidents and assholes, but you're assumption of "all guns vs. no guns" is, as I indicated before, a false dichotomy. 

Mmm, what favored policy might that be?

Doesn't really matter. You accept the reality that some people will be murdered by  guns under your policy.   Just like Charlie Kirk. Only a fool would argue otherwise.  But to some,  that reality is some sort of earth shaking scandal that makes one  a MAGA asshole per some of the postings. 

I notice that you did not address the rest of my post which shows that a decrease in the # of guns has been shown to decrease the amount of violent deaths caused by guns. I think because it proves my point and disproved yours.

I think because it proves my point and disproved yours.

My only point is that anyone who believes any Americans should own any guns understands and accepts that people there will be gun deaths.  Which is all Kirk said, and that somehow caused a meltdown among some on the left who apparently lack the power to critically think. Apparently, simply stating that gun deaths will never be zero is enough to cause some to  meltdown and claim he deserved to die etc...  Literally just for stating the obvious.  

I think that he was arguing for the unfettered access to any type of gun because I think that was his position on guns, so I asked chatGPT what his opinions on the Second Amendment were:

Here are a few of Charlie Kirk’s more clear-cut statements and speeches over the years relating to gun rights / the Second Amendment, along with transcripts or close quotes where available, plus how his views appear to have been consistent or changed. If I find full transcripts, I’ll flag them.

---

🔍 Key Quotes & Context Over Time

Date / Event What He Said (approx.) Context & Notes / Implications

April 2023 — Turning Point USA event, Salt Lake City, Utah “I think it’s worth it, I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.” This is his most cited statement on the trade-off: he explicitly acknowledges that maintaining strong gun rights may result in some gun deaths, but argues this is acceptable in order to preserve other fundamental rights. It shows he sees the Second Amendment as a safeguard that justifies risks.

After Parkland (2018) He supported measures like armed guards, detectors on campuses, etc., as backstops to prevent shootings. He’s not wholly opposed to safety measures designed to reduce or mitigate gun violence—in his view, they can coexist with strong gun rights. The emphasis remains, however, on preserving the constitutional protection of individual gun ownership.

General / Philosophical Position Gun rights are a fundamental constitutional and moral right. He often frames the Second Amendment as not just legal protection, but something tied to “God-given rights” and freedom from tyranny. His position is that the Second Amendment plays a central role in protecting liberties, so that restricting it too far would compromise other freedoms.

---

⚠️ Things To Be Careful About / Criticism

His “worth it” quote (April 2023) is frequently cited and also frequently criticized—some see it as a kind of moral trade-off: accepting inevitable harm in order to keep broader freedoms. Critics ask: who defines “worth it,” how many deaths, what kinds of deaths, are there alternative safety measures, etc.

There is ambiguity in some discussions about what limits (if any) he sees on gun rights. He tends to speak in broad principles rather than fine-grained policy detail in many of his public remarks. For example, acknowledging school safety or armed guards doesn’t translate automatically into support for certain gun control laws; he tends to emphasize the risks of government overreach or loss of rights.

---

✅ Has He Shifted or Softened?

From what I found:

As far as public statements go, the core view has been consistent for several years: strong support of the Second Amendment; recognition of risks; acceptance of those risks in order to preserve other constitutional/moral rights.

I did not find a public retraction of the “some gun deaths worth it” line, though it has drawn controversy and been used post-2025 events (e.g. after tragedies) to highlight the potential consequences of that viewpoint. (E.g. after mass shootings, critics revisit that statement.) 

---

If you want, I can try to dig up the full transcript of his April 2023 speech, plus maybe a few earlier ones (2018, 2019) to compare. Do you want those?

---

This indicates that he was arguing more or less for no restrictions. That in turn means that he recognized that deaths would occur if the access was not limited to guns and he accepted the mass shootings as a necessary price of freedom. So, to say he was not for the further reduction of guns seems reasonable. 

I can see why many people have a problem with that. Because he was saying in effect, "Too bad. I want guns, and if children have to die, so be it."

The right's response to Charlie Kirk's death gives away the game.

You upset there were no riots, burning buildings, murders like we've seen from the left?

You upset there were no riots, burning buildings, murders like we've seen from the left?

No, i'm upset that our Constitutional right to free speech is being threatened for people quoting things Kirk actually said. I'm also concerned about the 'right' seemingly melting like the Snowflakes they accuse the 'left' of being, because they are told to snitch and tattle tale on anyone who might have the Gaul to utter something they find offensive.

WTF people!

I had never saw Kirk until the other day, but after reading and hearing some of his offensive rhetoric, I can see why some are espousing their opinions of him in a negative light, and no, I don't agree with them nor think it is right, but again, recent attacks on the left have not exactly been handled with kid like Epstein gloves, now have they...

And here I thought conservatives were all about free speech and the freedom to say what they want when they want. I've been told by at least one person here that he didn't care if what he said got him a ticket because he was going to keep on saying what he wanted.

Does the right wing not care about the First Amendment? Oh....wait....

No, i'm upset that our Constitutional right to free speech is being threatened for people quoting things Kirk actually said.

Wow.  You are actually more worried about what people said instead of a person being killed for having opposing views.   

You didn't seem all that concerned when that Constitutional right to free speech was revoked as the last administration censored social media or when professionals spoke out against the administration.  I guess you only care when that threat fits a certain perspective.  Pretty hypocritical. 

I'm also concerned about the 'right' seemingly melting like the Snowflakes

Melting like snowflakes is what we have continually seen from the left.  You know, like the riots, burning buildings, murders we've seen because you all are offended by the smell of air.

I had never saw Kirk until the other day, but after reading and hearing some of his offensive rhetoric

Apparently research is out of the question, just go along with others told you to think.

Problem here is, they read the excerpts they are told to and don't see whole conversations that he has with.........well........everyone. They absolutely HATE the fact that he made them look in the mirror.

[✘]

hey absolutely HATE the fact that he made them look in the mirror.

Imagine that. Imagine I hate hate speech as well. Imagine I hate what Pam Bondi determines is hate speech. Imagine I am silenced because it is determined by Pam Bondi that I hate her speech, and then explain to me how you don't see serious overreach.

Problem here is, they read the excerpts they are told to and don't see whole conversations that he has with.........well........everyone.

It's the mindrot.  The inability or refusal to do some actual research and read / watch an ENTIRE interaction would destroy their narrative.  2.1.6 is a perfect example.  

They absolutely HATE the fact that he made them look in the mirror.

And he was shot for it.  And they call others the fascists.

Wow.  You are actually more worried about what people said instead of a person being killed for having opposing views. 

And a Wow back at you. 

Trump has made 'hate' speech to die for, a normal occurrence, and I HATE that kind of speech!

Trump has made 'hate' speech to die for

1.  Deflection noted.

2.  Who was killed as a result of what YOU think is "hate speech"?

Who was killed as a result of what YOU think is "hate speech"?

his brother, FREE SPEECH

Wow. You are actually more worried about what people said instead of a person being killed for having opposing views.  

Nice try at building that strawman, but that is not what he said at all. You even quoted  him, and what you said is not even close to a paraphrase. 

Then there is the whatabout.

And...

Melting like snowflakes is what we have continually seen from the left. You know, like the riots, burning buildings, murders we've seen because you all are offended by the smell of air.

That's some grade A whataboutism right there. When confronted with the reality of Charlie Kirk being an asshole on video, you lose your shit and change the subject to "everyone is an asshole" to keep from admitting that Charlie did, in fact and deed, act like an asshole.... but I am sure that he was nice sometimes. 

And this is really rich 

I had never saw Kirk until the other day, but after reading and hearing some of his offensive rhetoric

Apparently research is out of the question, just go along with others told you to think

He just told you that he did some research.

Ohh! I get it. You are paying homage to to Charlie by styling your argumentation after his style. 

hat's some grade A whataboutism right there.

That's actual fact.  Something you refuse to acknowledge.  

When confronted with the reality of Charlie Kirk being an asshole on video, you lose your shit and change the subject to "everyone is an asshole" to keep from admitting that Charlie did, in fact and deed, act like an asshole.... but I am sure that he was nice sometimes. 

Where have I done that?  Provide the link.

Ohh! I get it. You are paying homage to to Charlie by styling your argumentation after his style. 

I guess I am.  He called out the bullshit from the left as well, and the results he received are the same that I'm getting from you.  Excuses.

his brother, FREE SPEECH

Dodging the question I see.  Free speech still exists.  

Spin Spin Spin. 

Just because one can respond to comment with words doesn't mean that those words actually rebut the others argument. 

It doesn't matter if I acknowledge it or not because it is false argument made to distract the reader from the fact that I made the point which you,  somewhat ironically, refuse to acknowledge.

Provide the link? Why? You wrote the comment. It's is literally right in the comment I quoted.  

He called out the bullshit from the left as well, and the results he received are the same that I'm getting from you. Excuses.

I'll give you an "F" for effort. 

[✘]

That's their way of honoring the fascist inside. 

free speech eh? i wouldnt worry too much about whats contained in the first amendment , but i would and will be keeping an eye on bondi and gov  Abbott of Tejas.

 when the government starts charging and arresting folks for what they say then y'all can be worried, because thats all the 1st amendment protects , that the GOVERNMENT cannot make any laws or arrest or suppress or abridge , the government being federal , state or local .

If you think it gives any other protections other than that or that its a prohibition against anyone but government  , then my internal Inigo Montoya  is quietly saying i do not think it means what you think it means .

 You see, anyone is  still free to say whatever they wish, they are just not protected or free from the consequences , be they social , personal , financial , that some one that disagrees or is offended by such speech.

 Im going to take it all this concern is a result of the recent rash of people being fired , for voicing their opinion in a manner not conducive to societal norms , IE grave dancing and semi celebration . I personally noticed the trend going viral on fri  and as of sunday afternoon saw an article saying they had tracked over 800 people being fired , i assume they were using video posting of people complaining of being fired to get the count . Sat my daughter , and grand daughter sent me so many clips to watch i had to beg them to stop . 

 I do have a top 5 list with one still in the making because its local and has not fully developed , but the jist of the other 4 is melt down , how unfair this is , im special and exempt and the final look of im fooked .

 The #1 spot so far is held by a former employee of Microsoft , worked for them for 6 yrs by his count , developed a DEI program , from scratch mind you , and was called on the weekend to be told he was in the ranks of the unemployed .  The reason he currently holds the #1 spot is he started out his vid , with announcing he new employment status , then explain he had made a statement of his opinion of the murder of  CK, stating what it was , then the cutesy , im sorry , not sorry , all the while barely containing and controlling his rage this was actually happening to him . shaking so bad and had the look in the eye of a teacup chihuahua that is on day 8 of a 9 day cocaine binge .

Long story short , bulk of the comments were , damn that sucks , im sorry , immediately followed by , not sorry .

 thats the reality of it , your free to say what you want , but not the consequence  and if and when you find out your not sally fields , and some people dont like you , i mean really really dont like you , and some uncle fester or gomez takes the game controller for that fickle finger of fate pushing the flying magic dildoe of consequence at space balls ludicrous speed aimed directly at the orifice in your 3rd point of contact  and it hits , either lubed with sandy Vaseline, or entirely dry, making you sing an operetta like your geting a prostate exam, from a proctologist with overly large fingers  all the while exclaiming , "THATS A BINGO". 

Of course some people that are enjoying reporting people to their employers are now also setting up online reporting entities so one can see one before it viral and send it to the , the things some people enjoy doing , 

 you see society and employers are free to extract and determine for them selves acceptable behavior , and determine if one comments public or private fits with what they think . they are not constrained by the first amend , never have been nor are they obligated to be . and can decide if someone overstepped , is a moron , or an asshole  and do whats best for themselves .

Very colorful...

 ya think?

 and is any of it wrong ?

no

ty  but i think opinions will vary and i accept that .

 but i will take the compliment , they come far and few these days .

I don't see how we can take the seeded article seriously and, by extension, have a meaningful conversation, when so much of what it presents is so distorted, either knowingly or unknowingly. If the author can't present truthful information about what he brings up, why should I have any confidence in the rest of what he says? I intend to address these distortions or misdirection, one at a time, in separate posts in this thread. First up...

As Elizabeth Spiers explains at The Nation, one of Kirk's main legacies was a "watchlist" of professors who Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA, considered too liberal; people on the list often were targeted for smears and death threats.

This is inaccurate. It isn't a watchlist of people they consider too liberal, it is a watchlist of professors they claim force their liberal views on their students and suppress conservative views. As the mission statement says on the first page of the website...

Professor Watchlist is a project of 501(c)3 non-profit   Turning Point USA . The mission of Professor Watchlist is to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom. Professor Watchlist is a carefully aggregated list sourced by published news stories detailing instances of radical behavior among college professors. Professor Watchlist

I decided to get ChatGPT's take on it and this is what it returned...

Does TPUSA have a professor watch list and if so, what is its purpose?

ChatGPT said:

Yes. Turning Point USA (TPUSA) does maintain what it calls the Professor Watchlist , which has been active since 2016.

What It Is

• It’s a website created by TPUSA that names and profiles professors across U.S. colleges and universities whom TPUSA claims “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”
• The list compiles reports of statements, research, or classroom practices by professors that TPUSA and its supporters view as hostile to conservative viewpoints.

Purpose (According to TPUSA)

• TPUSA frames it as a transparency and accountability tool — intended to alert students, parents, and the public about what it sees as bias or indoctrination in higher education.
• The stated goal is to protect conservative students from professors they believe may unfairly target or grade them for their political beliefs.

Purpose (Critics’ View)

• Many academics, journalists, and free-speech advocates describe it as a blacklist or intimidation tactic .
• Critics argue it could chill academic freedom, encourage harassment of faculty, and stigmatize professors for their political opinions or research.
• The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has condemned it as a threat to free inquiry.

So in short: Yes, TPUSA has a Professor Watchlist. Its declared purpose is to expose professors accused of discriminating against conservative students, but its critics say it functions as an intimidation tool against academics and free expression.

I fount the Purpose (Critics' View) interesting. 

• Many academics, journalists, and free-speech advocates describe it as a blacklist or intimidation tactic .

I can understand why they might think so, but here's the problem. It discounts any concern that discrimination and indoctrination, not education, may be occurring. By making this claim they open themselves to the criticism that they just want to cover up what they may be doing. 

• Critics argue it could chill academic freedom, encourage harassment of faculty, and stigmatize professors for their political opinions or research.

Ironic, since this is the complaint the Professor Watchlist has against those on the list. That is, the chilling of academic freedom of those with opposing (conservative) views of the students, stigmatizing them and so on. The criticism here is they want something they are alleged to be not providing for their students.  

As you can see, there's nothing in there about objecting to the personal political disposition of the professor. The complaint concerns forcing their progressive views and suppressing a student's conservative view. To give you an example of what an entry is like and what the complaint is, I picked the first professor's profile that came up on the page so you can examine it for yourself. Example

That the people on the list were said to have been targeted for smears and death threats is irrelevant as that is not the purpose or goal of the project, nor do they call on anyone to confront the people on the list. Rather, the reason for the project is to expose what they are doing. They are no more responsible for others making smear campaigns or death threats than Justice Cavenaugh receiving death threats when, during his confirmation hearing Democrat Congressmen, feminists and left leaning commentators accused him of lying under oath (according to ChatGPT). 

The main point here is that if the Professor watchlist is viewed for what it really is, it gives the lie to the seed's author's claim that "It's about repression, not free speech" as free expression/speech is what the Professor Watchlist is all about. 

TPUSA also bussed people to the January 6 insurrection,

This is a straight up distortion to the point of being a lie. TPUSA did not bus anyone, being a 501(c)3 and thus would have been illegal. TPA, a 501(c)4 and the political action arm affiliated with TPUSA, bussed them to the Trump rally, not the capitol. Claiming that they bussed them to the "insurrection" either claims the rally was itself an insurrection or that TPA bussed them directly to the capitol or had foreknowledge that the riot was going to take place. 

The reason I mention the distinction between TPUSA and TPA is that the article already incorrectly stated or implied that TPUSA bussed people to the capitol. An astute observer would also believe that TPUSA bussing anyone to a political event in support of a candidate would be a violation of 501(c)3 regulations. I wanted to be sure that this would not be brought up as a complaint against TPUSA due to the incorrect information. 

It seems to me the author worded it this way to influence the reader's views so that his later comments would also be seen in the same light. My question is, if the author cannot present information that is actually factual, why should I be convinced by his later arguments? 

that stoning LGBT people to death is part of "God's perfect law,"

This is completely unjustifiable. What he actually said is...

And according to Factcheck.org...

In a   June 8, 2024, episode   of his podcast (at around the 1:00:00 mark), Kirk reacted to Accurso posting   a video   in which she cited Bible scripture to explain why she had   wished   a “Happy Pride” that month to people in the LGBTQ+ community.

“My faith is really important to me, and it’s also one reason why I love every neighbor,” she said in her video. “In Matthew 22, a religious teacher asked Jesus, what’s the most important commandment? And Jesus says, to love God and to ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “It doesn’t say love every neighbor except,” she went on to say.

In his   reply , Kirk said Accurso left out something else the Bible says. “She’s not totally wrong,” Kirk said. “The first part is Deuteronomy 6:3–5. The second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin.”

He continued: “And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

After backlash from Kirk supporters, the author Stephen King, who had   posted on X   on Sept. 11 that Kirk had “advocated stoning gays to death,”   retracted   his claim and apologized. King   said , “What [Kirk] actually demonstrated was how some people cherry-pick Biblical passages.”

King gets it exactly right. Kirk wasn't discussing whether we should stone people who commit homosexual acts, let alone the whole LGBTQ spectrum. He was discussing cherry picking the Bible for what you like because they feel comfortable but ignoring the parts that don't. 

Kirk is pointing out that while Ms. Rachel has indeed identified the greatest commandments, they are just that, the greatest, not the only. She correctly points out "It doesn’t say love every neighbor except,” but fails to recognize that the greatest commandments do not state that the others are not also important. Because she does, she loves according to her standards and not God's. The first commandment, loving God, as Kirk points out means to love His laws and precepts. In fact, doing so is evidence of love for God. Therefore, to love others as God intends means to love according to His standards and His view of what is right and Holy, not ours. 

That is what Kirk means when he says the following...

How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin.

That is, it is not the love God intends us to show when we confirm or affirm someone's sin as those actions bring down God's wrath on that person. It's like not telling someone they are on fire because you don't want to feel bad and you don't want to make them feel bad. 

This has nothing to do with whether or not we should be stoning anyone. 

Yes. I think Kirk was too nuanced for some

Did Charlie Kirk think whites are the real victims of racism?  He seems to have made a lot of comments about how whites were having things taken from them. 

Do you believe race discrimination is harmless?

Is America a great country?  We have had race discrimination for 400 years. 

Do you think there aren't people in this country that believe this is a white country and it should stay that way? 

It may be true that most white Americans just want everyone to get along , but it also true that there are millions , likely many millions who think only certain people are real Americans. Do you think these people viewed Colin Kaepernick as a real American?  Or Jasmine Crockett? 

We have the "bad" fortune of living in what is hopefully the end of hundreds of years of de facto white superiority.  Technically it ended in 1965, after just 350 years of white superiority.  Now we are hopefully in the "aftertaste". 

There are many many people alive today whose mothers and grandmothers were people who could have been the white woman in this photo. 

Lets say the woman in the photo was 30 at the time. She would be in her early 90's today, her sons and daughters in their 60's or early 70's, and her grandchildren in their 40's or 50's. There probably is a passage of generations that would leech out the majority of the racism, but its not two. 

That woman almost certainly taught her children that white is right. 

Answer my question first.

The idea that white racism built on generation after generation for hundreds of years screeched to a halt in 1965 is silly. 

If God's law is "perfect " then it follows that all of God's laws should be followed. 

Therefore, If you are going to say that you're going to follow one law, then to not be hypocritical, you must follow all laws that God has handed down. Therefore you are obligated as a good, non-hypocritical Christian to stone to death gay men.

If you choose to not stone a gay man and yet still claim to follow God's law, you are not following the perfect law, you are obviously following some moral code other than that laid out in the Bible.

"Oh, let's see. I will take the part about loving thy neighbor, but I will add something to. You know,  brush it up a bit to make it fit with what I think. Mmmm, I will take this part here about gays, I like that, but I think stoning is a bit archaic, so I will just say that it is OK to treat anyone who is gay (I am not sure... Do ladies get a pass?) like an degenerate with no rights. People will love that because I am so enlightened!"

Kirk cherry picks the laws laid out in a perfect Bible, showing that really it is just his thinking that he is following, not the Bible, and certainly not God's law.

He was a grifter who could talk fast and throw out a lot of little factoids in a gish gallop. He wasn't a debater who could rely on facts to buttress his argument, he just wore his opponents down with brow beating.

Once you are done deflecting, are you going to answer my question? 

I'm not deflecting I am informing you of reality. 

No , race discrimination is not a good thing. 

Are you deflecting to this issue because you recognize that Kirk was not actually talking about stoning anyone and the charge was baseless? 

Is America a great country? 

Apparently it is if all these people are willing to risk their lives to get here.

We have had race discrimination for 400 years. 

The US is 400 years old?  

race discrimination is not a good thing. 

I'm glad we agree.  So why shouldn't Kirk, you or anyone else, point it out and try to end it?

When the government or a business discriminates on the basis of race, it creates victims of that discrimination. Being white doesn't magically make that go away. 

Did racial discrimination and racism end in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed?  The idea that it was an instant stop and forever forward there would be no need for further effort is illogical. 

If you want a world where there is no effort to end racial discrimination against non  whites build yourself a time machine and go back a hundred years. 

You say racial discrimination has been going on in the US for 400 years.

What was the name of the piece of land in North America that the English, French, Spanish and Dutch inhabited 400 years ago?

The idea that it was an instant stop and forever forward there 

I didn't claim it did.  

world where there is no effort to end racial discrimination against non  whites build yourself a time machine and go back a hundred years.

Discriminating against whites in not an effort to end racial discrimination against non-whites, it's an effort to discriminate against whites and some non-whites.  You end racial discrimination by stopping racially discriminating against anyone.

Are you deflecting to this issue because you recognize that Kirk was not actually talking about stoning anyone and the charge was baseless?   

Short answer: no. I was illustrating the faulty logic that he used while debating. I can show how he used faulty logic and dishonest debate tactics also.

The original question was

...what’s the most important commandment? And Jesus says, to love God and to ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” “It doesn’t say love every neighbor except,” she went on to say.

----

She’s not totally wrong,” Kirk said.

In fact, she was correct. There is no caveat in the verses Matthew 22:37-40

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Do you see any place where she is wrong? I cannot locate any.

Let's examine his reply some more.

She’s not totally wrong,” Kirk said. “The first part is Deuteronomy 6:3–5. The second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God, so you must love his law. How do you love somebody? You love them by telling them the truth, not by confirming or affirming their sin.”

Deuteronomy 6:3-5

King James Version

3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19

18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

In addition to showing off his knowledge of the Bible, this tactic (a gish gallop) attempts to throw out so much information that he cannot be fact checked in real time unless one is conversant in Bible verse. He didn't need to do this,  but it’s one more smoke screen 

This was a debaters trick to make him look more knowledgeable than she. While he may have had more command of the Bible verses, that has little bearing on the answer to her question. (See above) After he establishes that he "knows more" than the young woman, he gives his opinion on the meaning of love that Jesus would supposedly agree with. I think that it might have been slightly more nuanced, but if he had ended his response there the exchange would have been unremarkable.

But he did not. 

He continued: “And it says, by the way, Ms. Rachel, might want to crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18, is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Ms. Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, love your neighbor as yourself. The chapter before affirms God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.”

What a condescending prick. It wasn't enough to make her look small in front of the great and all knowing Charlie Kirk, he had to toss out some more bullshit, of which I disposed of in my prior comment. He didn't argue from God's law,  he argued from what he thinks God's law should be.

And from my point of view it's all fake anyways. Religious texts have been used to demonize some people and to foist cruelty on many. The sooner that we realize that we are all on this earth together should just get along... We'll never do that, because there are too many assholes out there who want everything. 

What a condescending prick. It wasn't enough to make her look small in front of the great and all knowing Charlie Kirk, he had to toss out some more bullshit, of which I disposed of in my prior comment. He didn't argue from God's law,  he argued from what he thinks God's law should be.

While calling it a sin, and God's "perfect law".

This was a debaters trick to make him look more knowledgeable than she.

As near as I can tell, when Kirk flipped from being an anti-evangelist and never Trumper, he hooked up with a Trump PAC and learned the art of the pool shark.

cheap debate tricks to impress the easily impressed who could donate time or money to Kirk's brand and bank account.

And there it is, Religion, Bigotry and Greed . Good-bye and good riddance Kirk.

Are you deflecting to this issue because you recognize that Kirk was not actually talking about stoning anyone and the charge was baseless?   

Short answer: no. I was illustrating the faulty logic that he used while debating.

Whether or not Kirk's argument was logical is not what is being discussed. It is whether or not Kirk was advocating for the stoning of anyone, let alone LGBTQ people. But even assuming that his logic was faulty (I don't believe it was), did he say anything that supported the idea his argument supported the stoning of any group? 

[✘]

did he say anything that supported the idea his argument supported the stoning of any group? 

He said it was part of God's perfect law.

Assuming that he was indeed Christian and accepts God's perfect law as revealed truth in the scriptures, that statement appears to reveal support for the stoning of gays.

He didn't say, "Go forth and stone the gays" in so many words, but the implication that that is what should be done, were he not such a benevolent overlord, is clearly there. Especially when you add in the line after what you quoted

In a video shared to X, Kirk mocks Rachel for using the Bible to defend the LGBTQIA+ community and says, "Ms. Rachel, you might wanna crack open that Bible of yours, in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shall lay with another man, shall be stoned to death."

" Just sayin', " he adds smirking.

Kirk is referring to is the Bible verse Leviticus 18:22, which in some translations states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

He gets around God's perfect law by picking the parts out that he likes when useful and discarding them when they are not. (And Leviticus is nowhere near Matthew.) 

He said it was part of God's perfect law.

Yes, he did. To what do you think he was referring? The law against committing homosexual acts or to stoning? The perfect law he's referring to is the commandment for one man not to lay with another as he would a woman. Stoning was the penalty for breaking that law, not the law itself. I say "was" concerning stoning because the new covenant superseded the old one. Nowhere in the New Testament writings are any corporal punishments even spoken of, let alone commanded. Kirk knew that as well as any Christian, so he would not be stating stoning is what we should be doing now. Especially to non-believers. Even during Old Testament times, the Jews would not have thought homosexuals in neighboring countries fell under such strictures, as they understood that the law applied only to them as God's chosen people. Still, while stoning no longer stands as an obligatory punishment, the perfect law of God concerning homosexual acts still applies. 

Rather, he was illustrating the depth of God's feelings on the matter and that was the point he was making to Rachel. You can't pick and choose what parts of God's morality you're going to express and still claim you love God. Part of what Kirk pointed out that to love God, you have to be obedient to Him, which necessarily adopting His morality over one's merely fleshly morality. 

He gets around God's perfect law by picking the parts out that he likes when useful and discarding them when they are not. (And Leviticus is nowhere near Matthew.

I don't have time to address this further right now, but I will tonight, along with your post of 5.3.16

To what do you think he was referring? The law against committing homosexual acts or to stoning?

I think that he was referring to both. Both are mentioned in the verse but more to the point, both were mentioned by him.

If it doesn’t mention corporal punishment then the authors must not have deemed the subject important enough to countermand the punishments. And I think that I read that Jesus said himself that he wasn't here to change the teachings and laws of the past. But that might just have been propaganda to keep him out of a tight spot.

Um....yeah. I see. So, in the end, the article is right? Kirk was advocating for the stoning of LGTBQ people, then?

Kirk was advocating for the stoning of LGTBQ people, then

Not in so many words. I think that he was saying that God told people what to do and he (Charlie Kirk), through his ultimate beneficence, would not personally stone them, conditional on the LGBTQ people just going away. The implication being that if they did not go away and hide back in their closets, then he (Charlie Kirk) was not responsible for their safety.

Basically, he was trying to straddle the fence, or have his cake and eat it too. Neither of which works out in the end.

He was a very smart, charismatic person who was adept at controlling the direction that conversations took, and who did not deserve in the least to be shot for expressing his opinions, however one felt about them.

That is my take on it, after delving to some depth into his world and into his logic or lack thereof.

Violence begets violence. 

We have no hope if we yield to violence. That is what the regime is hoping for so that it can crush it. 

In my opinion, your opinion where you hedge your response with "Not in so many words", is due to what seems a lack of understanding of how the Old Testament laws are viewed in Christianity. Hence, Charlie would not condone the stoning of anyone, let alone LGTBQ persons. The idea that Jesus said not one jot, not one tittle of the law would pass away until all is accomplished is true but how it is fulfilled is changed. First, he was the fulfilment of it and our salvation is through him, not the things we do. In other words, by following him, we are fulfilling the law, because he did. Further, he himself said he did not come (at that time) to condemn, but to save. Jesus did not stone the adulterous woman, so why would we stone anyone? 

I doubt that will change your mind, but that is how Christians view the issue. Of course, one can always find outliers; people who do think stoning is valid. Perhaps Westborough Baptist Church, but everyone inside of Christianity thinks they are as crazy as everyone else does. 

Thanks for the conversation and have a good evening. 

This is inaccurate. It isn't a watchlist of people they consider too liberal, it is a watchlist of professors they claim force their liberal views on their students and suppress conservative views. As the mission statement says on the first page of the website...

A distinction without   difference or a difference with no distinction?

I decided to get ChatGPT's take on it and this is what it returned...

Who cares?  Artificial intelligence derived from opinions across the global internet is worthless.  Garbage in, Garbage out.

It gives the lie to the seed's author's claim that "It's about repression, not free speech".

Each and every political "watch list" ever publicized has been to intimidate the opposition. Period. Stop. It's the essence of McCarthyism.

A distinction without   difference or a difference with no distinction?

A list of people considered to have liberal beliefs would exist because of their beliefs . 

A list of people whose beliefs discriminate against others' beliefs exist because of their actions . 

The distinction is important because it illustrates the intent behind Professor Watch. As stated, it exists not because they object to a professor having a set of beliefs, even if they don't agree with them. It exists because they believe that the professors are discriminating against beliefs they object to. 

Who cares?  Artificial intelligence derived from opinions across the global internet is worthless.  Garbage in, Garbage out.

This suggests that you think the ChatGPT LLM simply regurgitates the statistically most common opinions and arguments. That's very wrong. It is actually quite capable of doing logical analysis of a subject. To illustrate this, I will show you a conversation I had with ChatGPT concerning a topic unrelated to the stoning issue. The colored portions are me speaking. 

Is there an instance where Charlie kirk vilified women for not choosing to be stay at home mothers?

ChatGPT said:

Yes — there are multiple examples of Charlie Kirk making remarks that many people interpret as vilifying or chastising women who do not choose to stay at home, or who prioritize careers or being single, over more traditional roles. Below are some notable instances, plus a brief analysis of how they have been received.

Examples of such comments

1. Young Women Leadership Summit — choice between career vs family
   At Turning Point USA’s Young Women Leadership Summit, a young woman training to be an orthopedic surgeon asked Kirk for advice, saying she might be 30 before she could settle down or start a family. Kirk responded that she’d have to choose what mattered more: pursuing a demanding medical career or having kids. He also said things like:

“There are a lot of successful, 35-year old orthopedic surgeons that have cats and not kids. And they’re very miserable.” Dallas Observer

The implication is that a life without kids, or with a delayed start, is less fulfilling or even tragic.

1. On women in their early 30s
   He has made comments about women in their early 30s being “not at their prime,” especially in terms of attractiveness in the dating pool. For example, he said:

“You’re in your early 30s. I’m sorry; you’re not as attractive in the dating pool as you were in your early 20s … And so, I think you should prioritize, ‘What do I want most in my life?’” Washington Examiner

He also said that many women earning good salaries nonetheless feel “they have no one to share their life with,” which frames career success as somehow insufficient without traditional family structure. Washington Examiner

1. “Children first, then a nice job” remark
   In a Fox News appearance, he discussed what he refers to as the “Gen Z Gender Divide,” and urged young women to focus first on having children and getting married, and then pursuing a career. He criticized modern norms he believes are steering women “away from motherhood and traditional family life in favour of career advancement.” mint
2. Jezebel spirit and being "boss of the relationship"
   In another show, he said some young women are “infected with the Jezebel spirit” because they have no interest in getting married or having children and “wanted to be the boss of the relationship.” Media Matters

Interpretation / How these remarks have been viewed

• Many critics consider these remarks to be shaming or demeaning toward women who choose different life paths — careers, delaying or forgoing marriage, childless by choice, or childfree.
• Supporters might view them as reflecting conservative, traditionalist values about family, motherhood, and gender roles, emphasizing what they see as a societal cost to moving away from such roles.
• Some argue that framing the choice in binary or negative terms (e.g. “you’ll be miserable if you don’t have children”) is a form of pressure or moral judgment.

Conclusion

So yes — there are clear instances where Charlie Kirk has vilified or strongly criticized the decision not to be a stay-at-home mother, or to prioritize other goals over motherhood or marriage. Whether one considers the language vilification or simply the expression of a strongly held traditional viewpoint depends on perspective, but many people do perceive it as the former.

If you like, I can pull up exact quotes (with context) so you can judge how strong or harsh the language is, or see if there are defenses or responses he’s made. Do you want me to do that?

You said:

Why did you say " Yes — there are multiple examples of Charlie Kirk making remarks that many people interpret as vilifying or chastising women who do not choose to stay at home, or who prioritize careers or being single, over more traditional roles " when what Charlie said had to be "interpreted" to mean vilification? Would not a "yes" necessitate a direct quote similar to something like "women who do not want to be stay at home moms are not real women?" In your answer, do not consider placating me or giving me an answer you think would be what I want to hear. I want to hear an explanation of your "yes" that doesn't take my feelings into account.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a sharp point. Let me unpack why I framed it that way.

When you asked if there was an instance where Charlie Kirk vilified women for not choosing to be stay-at-home mothers, there are two levels of analysis:

1. Literal / Direct evidence
   To my knowledge, there is no direct quote from Kirk where he says something as explicit as:
   “Women who do not want to be stay-at-home moms are not real women” or “Women who work outside the home are bad.”
   That would be an unambiguous case of vilification. I do not have evidence that he has ever phrased it that bluntly.
2. Interpretive / Indirect evidence
   What does exist are repeated statements in which he contrasts women who pursue careers or delay family with women who prioritize marriage and motherhood, in ways that frame the first group negatively (e.g., saying they end up with “cats, not kids” and are “miserable,” or describing them as “infected with the Jezebel spirit”).
   This isn’t the same as him literally saying, “if you’re not a stay-at-home mom, you’re lesser.” But many observers interpret the tone and implications as chastisement or vilification, because the statements don’t present career-oriented or childfree women as valid, respectable choices — they present them as mistakes, failures, or spiritually corrupt.

Why I said “yes”

I leaned on the interpretive level, because Kirk has a consistent pattern of negative framing around women who don’t choose traditional roles. In journalism and commentary, that pattern is often summarized as “vilifying” or “shaming,” even though he doesn’t literally use those words himself.

So my “yes” was shorthand for: There are instances where Kirk speaks about non–stay-at-home women in ways that many regard as vilification.
But strictly speaking, if we’re reserving “vilify” only for direct, explicit denunciations (like the quote you proposed), then the answer would be no direct examples exist , only indirect ones open to interpretation.

Would you like me to go back and re-answer your original question in that stricter, literal sense — i.e., treating “vilify” as requiring a direct statement rather than an interpretive framing?

You said:

No. However, you give only one way Charlie's comments could be interpreted. What other way or ways could it be interpreted?

ChatGPT said:

Good — that’s a fair challenge. Let’s broaden the lens.

Charlie Kirk’s comments about women and traditional roles can plausibly be interpreted in at least three distinct ways, depending on where the listener is coming from:

1. Vilification / Shaming (negative interpretation)

• Viewpoint: He is portraying women who prioritize careers, independence, or childlessness as failures, miserable, or spiritually flawed.
• Basis: Phrases like “cats, not kids,” “infected with the Jezebel spirit,” or “not in their prime” sound mocking, judgmental, and dismissive.
• Effect: Frames nontraditional choices as inferior, pressures women into conformity, reinforces gender stereotypes.

1. Traditionalist Advocacy (neutral-to-positive interpretation)

• Viewpoint: He is advocating for a traditional vision of family life that he genuinely believes is better for women, men, and society.
• Basis: His arguments often come packaged with a larger worldview — e.g., declining birthrates, breakdown of the nuclear family, loneliness, and cultural decay. Within that frame, his intent is not to vilify but to warn and steer women toward what he sees as a more fulfilling path.
• Effect: The statements can be read less as attacks and more as paternalistic advice, however bluntly expressed.

1. Provocation / Political Rhetoric (instrumental interpretation)

• Viewpoint: He is using sharp language not primarily to describe women’s lives, but to provoke reactions, galvanize his base, and distinguish conservative values from progressive ones.
• Basis: His career thrives on media attention and cultural flashpoints. Saying things like “30-year-old women aren’t in their prime” ensures outrage, which then reinforces his brand as a truth-teller against political correctness.
• Effect: His remarks function more as a political wedge than as literal prescriptions for every woman.

Summing up

• Interpretation 1 : He’s vilifying women who don’t conform.
• Interpretation 2 : He’s offering what he thinks is tough-love guidance, not condemnation.
• Interpretation 3 : He’s provoking for political effect, using women’s roles as a rhetorical battleground.

Do you want me to weigh in on which of these three interpretations is most consistent with his broader body of work and public strategy?

You said:

Here is another interpretation you can consider. Tell me if this one is actually different from any of the three you listed.

ChatGPT said:

Got it — lay out your interpretation, and I’ll examine whether it really is distinct from the three I gave, or whether it just shades into one of them. That way we can see if it adds a genuinely new dimension.

You said:

A man tells a young woman, "You have a job and you're making good money. You have a choice before you. You can spend the money you make buying all that your heart desires and can afford, denying yourself nothing and saving little. Or, you could postpone gratification, save and invest your money, thereby growing it and creating a future where you would have more options than spending it now. Perhaps even retiring far earlier than you would if you just spend it as you make it. The man tells her that, in the long run, she would ultimately be happier by putting off gratification to the future.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a useful analogy. Let’s line it up with the earlier three interpretations and see if it actually adds something new.

In your scenario, the man isn’t vilifying the young woman for spending her money; he’s framing her decision as a tradeoff — short-term gratification versus long-term fulfillment. His advice is prescriptive, not condemnatory.

Applied to Kirk:

• He could be understood as telling women, “Yes, you can pursue career and independence in your 20s, but the long-term consequences might be fewer opportunities for marriage and children. If you delay those things, you may end up less fulfilled.”

That’s subtly different from the three interpretations I laid out:

1. Vilification / Shaming → says women who don’t follow tradition are failures.

• Your analogy avoids that. It’s not “you’re bad if you spend your money now,” but “here’s why it might not serve you best long-term.”

1. Traditionalist Advocacy → says traditional roles are better because of values or social stability.

• Your analogy is narrower: it isn’t rooted in ideology about gender, but in a cost–benefit calculation of choices over time.

Provocation / Political Rhetoric → says harsh things to stir controversy and attention.

• Your analogy doesn’t rely on provocation at all. It’s more like financial planning advice applied to life choices.

So is it different?

Yes — I’d say it is a distinct interpretation. Let’s call it:

1. Strategic Tradeoff / Prudential Advice

• Viewpoint: Kirk isn’t vilifying or moralizing; he’s highlighting tradeoffs, suggesting that prioritizing family earlier yields greater long-term “returns” (fulfillment, stability, options) than delaying it.
• Basis: Similar to financial advice — spend now vs. save now — where the point isn’t to shame one choice but to argue that one is ultimately more beneficial.
• Effect: Casts his comments as pragmatic, even if delivered in blunt or provocative language.

Would you like me to map out how his “cats not kids” and “not in their prime” lines could be read through this strategic tradeoff lens specifically, so we can test whether this interpretation really holds water against his actual words?

You said:

Yes

ChatGPT said:

Alright, let’s test-drive the Strategic Tradeoff / Prudential Advice lens against Kirk’s actual remarks.

1. “There are a lot of successful, 35-year-old orthopedic surgeons that have cats and not kids. And they’re very miserable.”

• Vilification lens: He’s mocking women with careers as cat-owning failures.
• Tradeoff lens: He’s warning that investing heavily in career (“spending” energy now) can crowd out family formation, and the return might be emptiness later. His “miserable” comment is the blunt way of saying the ROI on career success isn’t as high as women expect if it comes at the cost of family.

1. “You’re in your early 30s. I’m sorry; you’re not as attractive in the dating pool as you were in your early 20s … you should prioritize, ‘What do I want most in my life?’”

• Vilification lens: He’s demeaning women in their 30s as undesirable.
• Tradeoff lens: He’s pointing out a biological/market tradeoff: fertility and dating options peak earlier, and the opportunity cost of delay is higher. Like telling an investor, “The compounding curve favors starting early.”

1. “Children first, then a nice job.”

• Vilification lens: He’s dismissing women who want to pursue careers before family.
• Tradeoff lens: He’s offering a sequence strategy: build the “foundation” of family first, then diversify into career later. The structure maximizes long-term payoff, in his view, because fertility has an expiration date while jobs don’t.

1. “Young women are infected with the Jezebel spirit … had no interest in getting married or having children, wanted to be the boss of the relationship.”

• Vilification lens: He’s demonizing women who want independence as spiritually corrupt.
• Tradeoff lens: Harder to fit — this veers into moralizing. But even here, you could argue he’s saying the tradeoff isn’t just practical (loneliness later) but spiritual (living for self vs. living for family). It’s the same investment analogy, but couched in religious terms.

What this shows

• In some cases (cats, kids, prime years, children-first advice), the tradeoff interpretation fits plausibly. His rhetoric can be read as warning about consequences, not just mocking.
• In other cases (the “Jezebel spirit” language), the vilification/moralizing lens is stronger because he introduces spiritual condemnation.

So: the tradeoff/prudential lens doesn’t erase the harsher tones, but it does provide a coherent alternate reading that’s not simply shaming — more like blunt cost–benefit advice about sequencing life choices.

If you have taken the time to read the conversation with ChatGPT, it should be clear that it is doing far more than regurgitating opinion. It is actually quite good at both logical and contextual analysis. It's pretty impressive, really. 

Each and every political "watch list" ever publicized has been to intimidate the opposition. Period. Stop. It's the essence of McCarthyism.

That is an extremist point of view because it refuses consideration of other motivations. While such lists can be intimidating, being intimidating is not necessarily the goal. Exposing an injustice, for instance. 

It exists because they believe that the professors are discriminating against beliefs they object to

And who gets to decide the difference between "discriminating" and Victimhood?

It is actually quite good at both logical and contextual analysis.

That is called bias confirmation.  Kirk was quite adept at using it

It's pretty impressive, really. 

yes it is and it's still garbage if it's sources include garbage.

 Exposing an injustice, for instance.

I.e., victimhood.

If you have taken the time to read the conversation with ChatGPT,

I skimmed a bit of it before skipping to the end, time is money.  That was a waste of time.

Meantime the whiners who screamed about the cancel culture are now themselves the epitome of the cancel culture.

SMH

I can see that you aren't going to put much effort into this conversation. Thanks for the time you did give it, though. Have a nice night.

Look Drak, there are 50 major car manufacturers in the global market each telling us that their product is better than the others.

None of them are correct.

AI is just a massive data crunching piece of software; currently there are 5 AI platforms advertising that they are better than the others.

They all cant be right, especially as this is in it's infancy and admittedly rushed to the "market".

Quoting software opinions as if it was a person is fundamentally wrong before it even gets started.

If I need the average shipping cost of auto parts per pound from point A to point B in a nanosecond, AI is great.

If someone asks AI if God exists and it says no, would you accept that?  of course not.

Thanks for being so polite.

Furthermore, I ran across this today as backlash against an American gymnast grows.

A rumor that circulated online in September 2025 claimed   seven-time , Olympic gold-medal-winning gymnast Simone Biles commented on conservative activist Charlie Kirk's past remarks about her after his fatal shooting that month.

However, searches of   Bing ,   DuckDuckGo   and   Google   located no news media outlets confirming Biles made any recent statements about Kirk. A check of her   Facebook ,   Instagram   and   X   accounts showed she did not publish a post, a blog post or other comments about Kirk, either.

This rumor — a made-up claim — appeared in a popular   post   ( archived ) on a Facebook page with a "page transparency"   tab   revealing its owners as largely residing in Vietnam. That Facebook page's post featured an external link to an advertisement-filled, artificial intelligence-generated blog   article , where its authors earned ad revenue based on people reading their fabricated story.

Simone Biles didn't respond to Charlie Kirk's 2021 Olympics comments after his death

So use caution with AI...

Note: Only the author can determine if a comment is off-topic. There have been too many flags thrown for off-topic against the author in this seed. All off-topic flags from anyone other than the author will be dismissed

Yeah, more or less, lol