[smt88]

I wish this hadn't happened, but let's not rewrite history with our eulogies.

> Many people didn't like what they heard, but it wasn't because it was mean or wrong

He was often wrong, as most people are, and he often doubled down on it. For example, he repeatedly lied about the 2020 election being stolen.

> He didn't provoke political division, he tried to reconcile it.

He paid for people to attack the capitol on January 6 and advocated for Joe Biden to be given the death penalty[1]. He repeatedly tried to frame "the left" for things they didn't do or didn't even happen, and said things like "prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people" (verbatim quote from his podcast).

He was extremely, intentionally divisive.

1. https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...

[anonymousiam]

You could benefit by doing further research on Charlie Kirk, and on the 2020 election. Citing Media Matters will not increase your credibility.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/media-matters/

There is much to question about the 2020 election, and much of the evidence is now gone.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1742670648433090764.html

What was divisive were the attacks and mockery of Kirk, not the man himself. I noticed that Comedy Central has now pulled their "Charlie Kirk" episode.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/television/202...

[smt88]

The link I gave was just direct quotes with attribution. The publication's bias was just in choosing to write that article at all.

Also please skip the "there is much to question" nonsense. The conspiracy theorists had dozens of days in court and ended up with losses, fines, dismissal, and jail time because they couldn't provide proof.

It would also be very strange for people to partially steal an election, allowing their opponents to take statewide offices in states like Georgia where the vote split between parties.