Thoughts on Charlie Kirk's Assassination

First some main points:

• I'm highly disturbed by the whole thing
• I differed with Kirk on tons of his politics
• I think it's REALLY bad for the country that he got murdered
• I don't think he was nearly as bad as many are describing
• While I didn't like his politics, I mostly liked how he engaged
• I think he was trying to do good, unlike the far-right people who hated him
• We need more people to openly debate like that, trying to change minds
• We need to be fighting about/with studies and data, toward shared goals
• We have a framing problem that stops any conversation
• Our media is creating and magnifying that framing problem

My biggest lesson and realization with this whole thing is seeing how my close friends here from my hometown in the Bay Area sort of had a "Well, that's what you get…" mentality. Like, "Well he was horrible, so I'm ok with it."

It truly surprised me and showed me how much of a problem we actually have in this country. And it wasn't just them. Other friends from other parts of the country as well. The narrative pushed about him had been purchased by many of my friends. They all believe the exact same thing about him as each other, and the exact narrative being pushed by the media.

Even worse than the media problem, though, is the framing issue. It's seeing the same topic, debate, or set of debates and coming to completely different conclusions. Again, because of the media. It's super dangerous, and I think it's what explains everything. Trump. The last 15 years. All of it (mostly).

We just see the world differently, and this causes us to interpret information differently. This is what has to change. We have to find a way to merge this again. Not all the way, but to a significant degree.

I've seen dozens of this guy's debates before he was killed. I considered him moderate for the scale of the right that exists today. I can't stand hard-right people. He wasn't Candace Owens or Tim Poole or Tucker Carlson, who I can't even watch. I see them as non-principled people who are driven by their hatred of others and/or the seeking of money.

I saw Kirk as someone genuinely trying to bring something good and positive to others—through conversation. I disagreed with a lot of what he thought was positive and good, but that's a minor point compared to the intention. I can talk to anyone who's actually trying to help in a non-racist, non-fascist way. I don't think he was racist and I don't think he was fascist.

I know he had many views that seemed hateful, and there are a million clips of him saying some pretty bad shit. Some of those are—in my opinion—genuinely wrong beliefs. Meaning, he was wrong about that being a good belief. But many of the things my other liberal friends think about him are from things that were out of context, or that he never said at all.

Here are some examples that show me who (I think) he really was:

• Him telling a black woman how beautiful her baby is, and how it's a gift from god. And getting the crowd to cheer for them. VIDEO
• Him talking to tons of black people answering questions about his views on race and society. Directly addresses a bunch of the quotes you've probably heard if you heard he was racist. VIDEO
• Kirk being compassionate and nice rather to an OnlyFans girl on some podcast. VIDEO
• Van Jones talking about getting a message from Kirk before he died. CLIP
• Here he is schooling an anti-gay person at one of his events. Saying being Christian does not mean treating people like crap. It's also well-known that he had gay friends, and he just hung out with Dave Rubin like the week before he was killed. VIDEO
• And here's the Annenberg's Public Policy Center's page (which looked pretty balanced to me) for viral claims about Kirk quotes. PAGE

And here's my favorite. Here's Kirk arguing with an actual racist white racist guy. After being told that America was supposed to be for white men of good stock, here's what Charlie tells him:

You, sir, and your ideology is not Conservative. It is Right Wing, Identitarian, and has no place in the Conservative movement my friend. Get out of line! Get out of line! VIDEO

He criticized some of the Civil Rights movement (not all, he said it did a lot of good as well) because he believed it harmed black people! That's the entire point of his criticism. That it made things worse! Which he learned from Thomas Sowell, by the way. A black guy, who is also conservative.

These are not the positions of a racist or someone who hated gay people. Yet enough people can post out-of-context quotes about him and basically make half the country think he's Pol Pot and half the country think he should be on Mt. Rushmore.

We have a real problem in this country because you can have someone like Charlie, or Thomas Sowell, or Coleman Hughes, who are basically arguing that race should be secondary, and that it all comes down to personal behavior, and keeping the family together, and being a good person (which he clearly associated with Christianity of course), but this was—and still is—being interpreted as hate.

It's not. It's conservatism, and religion (which I'm very against when it goes extreme) but in his case he argued for principled versions of them that, when done in moderation, can actually take you to decent places. And most importantly—shared places! Places that Star Trek liberals like me want to go as well! Like MLK's society that judges based on character vs. race. The guy was actually hated by a lot of far-right people because of his moderate beliefs.

We really have to regain our ability to tell the difference between hate and someone being decent in a different—and maybe even wrong—way than us.

I have tons of conservative friends who are good people. I have tons of liberal friends who are good people. I disagree with them. On different things. But we're all good people. Imagine that! It's crazy! But guess what? They mostly don't like each other. Why? Because they don't talk. They don't live the same places. They don't share meals. So their world views have diverged, and now they see completely different things in the same news story.

It's not just a liberal problem. The far right basically thinks they know everything about a person because they're pro-trans or whatever, not taking the time to learn what they believe, and why. It's like we hear a few tidbits of someone's worldview and instantly fill in the rest with the worst possible interpretations. Without actually listening. Without actually engaging.

I disagreed a ton with the guy, and I don't think we should launch a NASA mission to rearrange the planets to spell out "Charlie". And I don't think he is some Jesus figure like a lot on the right are trying to push right now. But he did engage with people, and we need more of that. We also need more conservatives saying a black woman and her child are a gift from god. And more conservatives kicking racists out of their events because they don't represent their conservative movement. And more people conducting their politics through conversation.

More. Not less.

So I think I'm ultimately bothered by this whole thing for multiple reasons, and here are my takeaways:

• People who think he was an anti-gay racist have it very wrong, and that's clear if you watch enough of his content
• I think his method of doing politics was generally a good thing we want more of
• The fact that so many smart and good people see this in completely opposite ways is alarming
• We have to find a way to share frames again