[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.

[ImJamal]

None of those statements are saying he didn't consider them human or is dehumanizing them. If that is the extent of it, then that is quite weak.

[UmGuys]

I didn't post any statements, but a summary of chatgpt's conclusions. Again, I'm not familiar with the man and DON'T wish to learn no more. He was obviously a hateful provocateur who was apparently murdered for not being evil enough.

[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.

[qcnguy]

You are correct, I didn't notice you were different to nerdsniper.

> The isolated statements I've read indicate a resentment for non-heterosexual, not white people. This is inherently a violent worldview.

This is probably the root of the divergence in replies. It is possible to both dislike a behavior or group of people engaging in a behavior, to speak out about those groups and not want to do violence against them. This is arguably the default state. Merely disliking a group isn't an inherently violent worldview and it can be tolerated, very easily.

After all we have all for decades tolerated feminists who openly dislike men, people who openly dislike whites, people who openly hate the rich, and so on. It isn't OK to go from "that person says they hate the rich" to "therefore they are automatically violent" and from that to "we cannot tolerate their existence". It's sufficient to just argue back. Or even dislike them back, as a group.

Some on the left struggle with this concept because they don't distinguish between words and acts. As far as they are concerned, saying "black people commit a lot of crime" is no different to physically boxing a black person's head in, but this belief is wrong (and actually is an inherently violent worldview).

[UmGuys]

It's fine to dislike people and normal. It's not fine to dislike people because of their race or sexuality. It's much worse to spend your entire adult life spreading bigotry ... in the name of God. His beliefs were inherently violent toward women, non-hetero, and non-white people. I don't want to learn anymore about this guy. I've learned enough this week. He spent his young adulthood intentionally provoking people, pushing right up to or past the limit of what's considered acceptable in the MAGA era. What happened to him is awful, he was awful.