[dingosity]

It sounds like your point is when left wing politicos are targeted and people celebrate it, those are obviously sock-puppets and bots. But when right wing celebrities (for lack of a better word) are targeted, it's the democratic base that comes out in force to celebrate.

So only right wing commentators who advocate political violence deserve protection?

[Also... Do you have any data supporting this hypothesis?]

[ImJamal]

I'm not who you are replying to but the demographics of bluesky is heavily left wing. The users are significantly less likely to make fun of people on their side being attacked.

Also, I've seen more comments in the last 24 hours saying Kirk deserved it than comments about Shapiro despite his attack happening months ago.

Lastly, I don't know much about Kirk, but I haven't seen a single comment he made where he advocating for political violence. Would you mind sharing a few?

[harimau777]

Advocating violence against trans people: https://x.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1626672143617384472

Saying that a "patriot" should bail out the man who attacked Nancy Pelosi's husband: https://archive.is/SE3y7

[ImJamal]

With the trans one, it is not clear if he was advocating for violence or to put them in a mental institution. It sounds more likely he is advocating for violence, but you can't tell.

With the Pelosi one, I don't think he was condoning violence, but wanted him free so there could be an interview with the attacker. "Bail him out and then go ask him some questions". I think this is due to conspiratorial views that there was a fallout between gay lovers.

Neither of these are great, but it is not clear that either are actually advocating for violence.

[baubino]

Forcing someone who is not mentally ill into a mental institution is an act of violence. It’s not much different than throwing someone in jail even though they haven’t committed a crime.

[ImJamal]

He considers people who are trans to be mentally ill. If they are to the point they may hurt themselves or others, then you can justify it.

You and he are coming at this issue with a different premise which is causing the issue.

[jeffgreco]

Kirk: “Joe Biden is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”

[defen]

He didn't say that on Bluesky so I don't see how that is relevant to this conversation.

[harimau777]

The parent post asked:

>> Lastly, I don't know much about Kirk, but I haven't seen a single comment he made where he advocating for political violence. Would you mind sharing a few?

[ImJamal]

That is not advocating for violence anymore than saying a rapist should be jailed or a murder should be given the death penalty. He is not calling for some sort of extra judaical punishment, but to work within the legal system and execute the law.

[ndsipa_pomu]

How would it be appropriate for Biden to be given the death penalty under U.S. law? That sounds to me like extra-judicial punishment that was specifically being called for by Kirk.

[ImJamal]

I am pretty sure he thought Biden committed treason, but I am not an expert on Kirk's view.

[UncleMeat]

And if Kirk thought that all trans people were child rapists, would it not be a call to violence if he advocated for imprisoning all trans people?

[nerdsniper]

I'm just here to answer your direct question. As a general rule, I don't carry opinions on celebrities, Charlie Kirk included. So this is a relatively objective summary of what a critic of him who goes digging would be most likely to find. In my own personal opinion, you generally won't find "smoking guns" in terms of black-and-white obvious calls to violence from Charlie Kirk.

Critics would likely point to:

- Helping organize January 6th, claimed that "The team at Turning Point Action are honored to help make this happen, sending 80+ buses full of patriots to DC to fight for this president."

- Glorifying Kyle Rittenhouse: “You’re a hero to millions, it’s an honor to be able to have you.” as well as supporting the man who attacked the Pelosi household.

- At an event in Nampa, Idaho (Oct 25, 2021), an audience member posed an alarming question during Kirk’s Q&A session. Kirk did denounce the idea of shooting political opponents – but notably, he did so on strategic grounds rather than moral ones. The man in the audience asserted “this is tyranny” and asked: “When do we get to use the guns?... How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” – referring to Democrats purportedly stealing elections. The crowd cheered and applauded this direct call for political violence. Kirk’s response has been controversial. Kirk immediately urged the audience not to resort to violence “because you’re playing into their plans, and they’re trying to make you do this”. He warned that any violent uprising would give the left a pretext to crack down: “justify a takeover of your freedoms… the likes of which we have never seen”.

- During a special livestream of The Charlie Kirk Show on March 30, 2023, Kirk vented fury at Democrats and the “tyrannical” Biden administration. He claimed those pursuing Trump were “acting like Stalinists” and warned “we must make them pay a price and a penalty”. Referring to Trump’s indictment, Kirk declared, “They crossed the Rubicon… They have declared quote-unquote the Roman Civil War.” Media Matters characterized Kirk’s post-indictment monologues as “noticeably more incendiary and alarmist” than usual, reaching a “dangerous new level” of extremist rhetoric. Calling political opponents “Stalinists” and alluding to civil war was seen by critics as flirting with incitement, even if Kirk was ostensibly talking about legal retaliation. Commentators warned that such language – framing routine legal processes as a literal war – could egg on unhinged followers to view political conflicts in apocalyptic, violent terms.

- On his March 31, 2023 broadcast, he told his audience: “We are living in an enemy-occupied country. They have taken over the government and we have to think as dissidents." Describing fellow Americans in power as an “enemy” occupier is the kind of dehumanizing language that often precedes or incites political violence. Critics noted that this phrasing encourages listeners to see themselves as insurgents in their own country.

Charlie Kirk didn't really issue direct/unambiguous calls for people to commit specific acts of political violence. But critics would generally agree that his body of work created a comprehensive "permission structure" for such actions. This was achieved through a three-pronged rhetorical strategy:

1) He provided an ideological justification for lethal force as a necessary and rational political tool, primarily through an absolutist and insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.

2) He engaged in the systematic dehumanization of his political, racial, and religious opponents, casting them not as fellow citizens with differing views but as existential threats to the nation, Christianity, and "Western civilization" itself. He described the political landscape as a "spiritual battle" and a "war between diametrically opposed worldviews which cannot peacefully coexist". During an appearance with Donald Trump, he claimed that Democrats "stand for everything God hates". In another segment on his show, he asserted, "The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse". Also objectifying/dehumanizing along racial lines: "Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that's a fact". He publicly referred to George Floyd, a man whose murder by police sparked a global movement for racial justice, as a "scumbag". In a tweet shortly before his death, he wrote, "Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America". "We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately"

3) He offered explicit endorsements of specific violent acts and issued calls for extra-judicial retribution, which served to normalize violence as a legitimate response to political and cultural disagreement. Kirk advocated for "bailing out" David DePape, the man convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the brutal hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of the former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Praising Kyle Rittenhouse as a “hero”. Critics argued that by hailing a shooter as a hero, Kirk was sending a message that “taking up arms” against perceived opponents is admirable.

One of TPUSA's most notorious initiatives is the "Professor Watchlist," a website launched in 2016 that lists the names, photos, and alleged offenses of academics Kirk's organization deems to be promoting "leftist propaganda" or discriminating against conservative students. While TPUSA framed this as a tool for transparency, its practical effect was to create a digital blacklist. The criteria for inclusion were broad, often targeting professors for their scholarly publications, social media posts, or any discussion of race and politics. The predictable and documented result of being placed on this list was subjection to "campaigns of online harassment".

To critics, the watchlist is an example of how Kirk built, deployed, and maintained over the long-term an infrastructure to enact his political will through mob dynamics and intimidation.

[ImJamal]

Thank you for the list. I agree there are no smoking guns here. I think, as a matter of charity, you could interpret them in a nonviolent way pretty easily.

For example, with the Jan 6th, as far as I can tell he was bussing people to a rally not to the insurrection. With Rittenhouse, he was defending himself from being attacked so self defense, not a call to go engage in violence. With the election one, he could have been advocating for arresting people, holding a trial and then using the death penalty, not some sort of extra judicial sort of killing.

I don't feel like addressing the rest since it seems like you don't think he really has explicit calls to violence.

[UmGuys]

I can't understand your summary of the post you're responding to. The man organized and constructed an empire that promoted hate through mob violence and decried Democrats (and anyone not straight white) as non human enemies, and you don't see violence? It's as if saying Hitler wasn't violent because there's no video of him killing anyone. Before it was reported he died, the MAGA cult leader guy explicitly called for violence in his name.

[ImJamal]

> decried Democrats (and anyone not straight white) as non human enemies, and you don't see violence

I haven't seen any statement where he said they were non-humans? Care to provide a source?

> Before it was reported he died, the MAGA cult leader guy explicitly called for violence in his name.

Who is the MAGA cult guy? Are you talking about Trump?

[UmGuys]

IDK much about the late man other than what I've read in the past couple days. Regarding Dems he's made many remarks that I can't quote precisely.

I asked ChatGPT. Prompt: charlie kirk statements that dehumanize democrats

How those statements can be seen as dehumanizing

Framing as enemies: Saying liberals “hate” America or “want to destroy it” sets them up as antagonists, not just political opponents. It’s about moral character in extreme terms rather than policy disagreements.

Defining identity reductively: Labeling groups as “dependent on government,” or “living in tragedy of your own making,” etc., strips away nuance and reduces people to blame or shame‐oriented traits.

Assigning malicious intent: Some statements assume that Democrats act with ill will or deliberate harmful goals rather than simply having different philosophies or policy priorities.

Us vs. them polarization: These sorts of remarks deepen divides by denying any shared ground or possibility of good faith.

Yes I mean the evil orange guy.

[qcnguy]

None of the things you quoted involve him claiming Democrats aren't human or asking that they should be killed. Some involve him saying not to do that.

Hitler's manifesto included in it a promise to kill all the capitalists, so there's no comparison to be made here.

[UmGuys]

First, I didn't mention anything. I read the well crafted comment you replied to and was repulsed to learn about Kirk's hateful beliefs, then equally shocked by the lack of compassion in a reply. It seems the context is now missing. The comparison is Kirk dehumanizing anyone he disagrees with. And being super racist and bigoted in the process. The isolated statements I've read indicate a resentment for non-heterosexual, not white people. This is inherently a violent worldview. Just like Nazism and just like Nazism, it can't be tolerated. It's quite a paradox.

[defen]

Bluesky is 99% people who left twitter because Elon Musk took over. I don't have any hard data but I can't think of any reason why a Bluesky user would celebrate someone on their side being attacked or murdered.

> It sounds like your point is when left wing politicos are targeted and people celebrate it, those are obviously sock-puppets and bots. But when right wing celebrities (for lack of a better word) are targeted, it's the democratic base that comes out in force to celebrate.

When left-wing politicos are targeted, my experience is that right-wing people have a playbook of possible responses: 1. It didn't even happen 2. It happened, but it wasn't one of our guys (with zero evidence to support that claim) - e.g. J6 was antifa, Paul Pelosi was attacked by his gay lover, etc. 3. Tasteless jokes, but nothing rising to the level of "it's good that this happened" or "he deserved it because of his political beliefs". Happy to be corrected on that one.

When right-wing politicos are targeted, my impression is that "the left" is much more celebratory. Maybe that's just my own bias/filter bubble.

[dingosity]

So your data is "I noticed BlueSky is people who left Twitter." This may not be the convincing argument you think it is.

[qcnguy]

You can look at the huge surge in Bluesky usage at the time of the US election, if you want data. They report it themselves.

[dingosity]

If your assertion is "a bunch of people got on Bluesky to talk about the election..." well, did you notice there were two candidates? I think what you're saying is "DEMOCRATS left TWITTER to go to Bluesky," which may be true, but that is a hypothesis for which data would confirm or refute.