Charlie Kirk as a martyr

[Gmonet]

Charlie Kirk was a clever internet troll. He had no discernible talent other than saying provocative things with a smile on his face. He was a mediocrity who lied about why he didn't get into West Point, spent a few weeks at CC, and took on any role that would get him closer to power (he was not originally a Trump supporter). There is a reason he was spoofed in South Park as being Eric Cartman, because that is the essence of who he was. Of the thousands of deaths by violence in the world yesterday his was likely one of the least tragic. That he had such cachet amongst the younger population is a tragedy and an ominous sign for our country.

 

[donbosco]

For many young folks on the Right, 9/10 will be their 9/11.

I think many of you here (understandably since Kirk wasn't in your social media feed) grossly underestimate the power, influence and reach of Charlie Kirk. He mobilized the youth on college campuses and on social media and I would argue, played a huge role in Trump winning the under 30 vote (particularly among young men). Kirk wasn't a right wing provocateur; instead, he was famous for showing up on campuses with a smile and politely engaging with liberals in a friendly manner. Kirk also played a role in the return of young men to church which has been quantified. There was/is no one equivalent on the Left.

Kirk will be hard/impossible to replace.

Expect to be asked to provide attribution for statements like, "Kirk also played a role in the return of young men to church which has been quantified."

I will not let such things go. I am also not accusing you of anything save not providing proof. Perhaps you are in a hurry. But expect me to ask.

 

[WaynetheDrain]

For many young folks on the Right, 9/10 will be their 9/11.

I think many of you here (understandably since Kirk wasn't in your social media feed) grossly underestimate the power, influence and reach of Charlie Kirk. He mobilized the youth on college campuses and on social media and I would argue, played a huge role in Trump winning the under 30 vote (particularly among young men). Kirk wasn't a right wing provocateur; instead, he was famous for showing up on campuses with a smile and politely engaging with liberals in a friendly manner. Kirk also played a role in the return of young men to church which has been quantified. There was/is no one equivalent on the Left.

Kirk will be hard/impossible to replace.

lol, my God you are pathetic.

 

[Tar1978Heel]

For many young folks on the Right, 9/10 will be their 9/11.

I think many of you here (understandably since Kirk wasn't in your social media feed) grossly underestimate the power, influence and reach of Charlie Kirk. He mobilized the youth on college campuses and on social media and I would argue, played a huge role in Trump winning the under 30 vote (particularly among young men). Kirk wasn't a right wing provocateur; instead, he was famous for showing up on campuses with a smile and politely engaging with liberals in a friendly manner. Kirk also played a role in the return of young men to church which has been quantified. There was/is no one equivalent on the Left.

Kirk will be hard/impossible to replace.

I don’t know about that but he will be there George Floyd or Malcom X…

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Please remember not to directly quote/respond to the board chuds so that the rest of us who Super Ignored them can see your post. I'm interested in reading your posts, but not anything from ram, calla, hy, and other idiots.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[superrific]

Please remember not to directly quote/respond to the board chuds so that the rest of us who Super Ignored them can see your post. I'm interested in reading your posts, but not anything from ram, calla, hy, and other idiots.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

I thought the post is visible but the ignored content isn't.

 

[Healing]

I thought the post is visible but the ignored content isn't.

Only on ignore. Super ignore eliminates their posts and the posts of responders.

 

[nycfan]

A week or so ago, VP Vance made a comment (that was widely misquoted) that a wise pollster told him that the problem with midterm elections for almost every sitting president was that midterm voters tend to be the angry people and MAGA voters are happy with the Trump Administration, so they don’t have that angry driver to get out and vote in the 2026 midterm.

Well, this assassination provides exactly what the Trump Administration was looking for — a martyr to inflame their supporters to act by voting. I am not saying they are happy this happened to Kirk or engineered it or something — I am just saying this is a terrible political “gift” they will whole-heartedly exploit.

@Ramrouser is getting dragged by some for saying 9/10 will be the 9/11 for a lot of young conservatives but I think that may not be hyperbole — and I think conservative politicians will absolutely feed that fire. At least in the social media under 30 MAGAsphere, Kirk is an immensely popular and influential figure. He could be a powerful martyr for millions of young men and conservative young women.

The eventual power of his martyrdom will depend on the extend to which it reaches outside dedicated MAGA Men and I to the broader population. As a purely crass political matter, that makes it vitally important to Trump, Vance and those who will use his martyrdom for their own purposes to whitewash and nice Kirk’s views — simplify his often extreme rhetoric to be anodyne support for traditional family values, patriotism, being a good Christian Dad and free speech advocate.

I doubt that Trump will mention that Kirk was a vocal supporter of releasing the Epstein Files — mentioning that will be considered in bad taste or something. Bringing up Kirk’s radical statements about gun rights and LGBTQ rights to exist and women’s rights outside a traditional motherhood role subject to the husband’s control will be treated as disrespect for the dead to sanitize Kirk’s martyrdom.

How dare you speak ill of the dead — even if you are quoting his own recorded words — will be a well worn cudgel.

The playbook is well worn for political martyrdom. Martyrdom is political sainthood.

 

[CFordUNC]

A week or so ago, VP Vance made a comment (that was widely misquoted) that a wise pollster told him that the problem with midterm elections for almost every sitting president was that midterm voters tend to be the angry people and MAGA voters are happy with the Trump Administration, so they don’t have that angry driver to get out and vote in the 2026 midterm.

Well, this assassination provides exactly what the Trump Administration was looking for — a martyr to inflame their supporters to act by voting. I am not saying they are happy this happened to Kirk or engineered it or something — I am just saying this is a terrible political “gift” they will whole-heartedly exploit.

@Ramrouser is getting dragged by some for saying 9/10 will be the 9/11 for a lot of young conservatives but I think that may not be hyperbole — and I think conservative politicians will absolutely feed that fire. At least in the social media under 30 MAGAsphere, Kirk is an immensely popular and influential figure. He could be a powerful martyr for millions of young men and conservative young women.

The eventual power of his martyrdom will depend on the extend to which it reaches outside dedicated MAGA Men and I to the broader population. As a purely crass political matter, that makes it vitally important to Trump, Vance and those who will use his martyrdom for their own purposes to whitewash and nice Kirk’s views — simplify his often extreme rhetoric to be anodyne support for traditional family values, patriotism, being a good Christian Dad and free speech advocate.

I doubt that Trump will mention that Kirk was a vocal supporter of releasing the Epstein Files — mentioning that will be considered in bad taste or something. Bringing up Kirk’s radical statements about gun rights and LGBTQ rights to exist and women’s rights outside a traditional motherhood role subject to the husband’s control will be treated as disrespect for the dead to sanitize Kirk’s martyrdom.

How dare you speak ill of the dead — even if you are quoting his own recorded words — will be a well worn cudgel.

The playbook is well worn for political martyrdom. Martyrdom is political sainthood.

He’s getting dragged because to any normal person, comparing the murder of a podcaster at the hand of a lone ranger to the murder of 3,000 Americans at the hands of terrorists is absolutely preposterously outlandish. I understand you probably feel the need to play some impartial arbitrator on this board for whatever reason you may have, but it’s objectively an incredibly asinine comparison with no merit. Can you imagine how deeply offensive it would be to any surviving family member or relative of a 9/11 victim to have that comparison made?

Also, not one single solitary person in Kirk’s audience is the persuadable kind who could be convinced to vote for Democrats. Therefore, his murder isn’t going to take one single, solitary vote from Democrats from that particular bloc. also, every single one of us here is to some varying degree of “extremely online” and know who Kirk is because we are dwelt immersed in political stuff on the internet every day. The overwhelming vast majority of people who go to the polls in November 2026 and November 2028 won’t really know who he was and won’t really care who he was. They’ll care about the same exact things non-political people always care about the most: the economy. Last time I checked, we ain’t doing so well on that front, are we? The notion that the shooting death of Charlie Kirk in September 2025 is not going to have more importance in November 20 26 or November 2028 than the fact that everyone is getting decimated economically, and it’s certainly not going to be the reason that the age old trend gets bucked of the in-party getting resoundingly repudiated at the ballot box in the midterms.

 

[nycfan]

 

[rodoheel]

The eventual power of his martyrdom will depend on the extend to which it reaches outside dedicated MAGA Men and I to the broader population. As a purely crass political matter, that makes it vitally important to Trump, Vance and those who will use his martyrdom for their own purposes to whitewash and nice Kirk’s views — simplify his often extreme rhetoric to be anodyne support for traditional family values, patriotism, being a good Christian Dad and free speech advocate.

I doubt that Trump will mention that Kirk was a vocal supporter of releasing the Epstein Files — mentioning that will be considered in bad taste or something. Bringing up Kirk’s radical statements about gun rights and LGBTQ rights to exist and women’s rights outside a traditional motherhood role subject to the husband’s control will be treated as disrespect for the dead to sanitize Kirk’s martyrdom.

How dare you speak ill of the dead — even if you are quoting his own recorded words — will be a well worn cudgel.

The playbook is well worn for political martyrdom. Martyrdom is political sainthood.

I have no doubt about this. And you can see from ramrouser's posts that he is already ahead of the game on "whitewash and nice Kirk's views" to paint him as some peaceful lamb who just told us all to love our families and go to church. Which is what I have been dragging him for.

 

[korgguy1971]

I was unable to find a corresponding list of, for lack of a better phrase, "lefties trying to kill righties" since the advent of Trump but would definitely like to see one if someone would be so good as to produce it.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

He’s getting dragged because to any normal person, comparing the murder of a podcaster at the hand of a lone ranger to the murder of 3,000 Americans at the hands of terrorists is absolutely preposterously outlandish. I understand you probably feel the need to play some impartial arbitrator on this board for whatever reason you may have, but it’s objectively an incredibly asinine comparison with no merit. Can you imagine how deeply offensive it would be to any surviving family member or relative of a 9/11 victim to have that comparison made?

Also, not one single solitary person in Kirk’s audience is the persuadable kind who could be convinced to vote for Democrats. Therefore, his murder isn’t going to take one single, solitary vote from Democrats from that particular bloc. also, every single one of us here is to some varying degree of “extremely online” and know who Kirk is because we are dwelt immersed in political stuff on the internet every day. The overwhelming vast majority of people who go to the polls in November 2026 and November 2028 won’t really know who he was and won’t really care who he was. They’ll care about the same exact things non-political people always care about the most: the economy. Last time I checked, we ain’t doing so well on that front, are we? The notion that the shooting death of Charlie Kirk in September 2025 is not going to have more importance in November 20 26 or November 2028 than the fact that everyone is getting decimated economically, and it’s certainly not going to be the reason that the age old trend gets bucked of the in-party getting resoundingly repudiated at the ballot box in the midterms.

I feel strongly both ways.

I think nyc's point is that the response to Kirk's death may close the enthusiasm gap that frequently hurts the party in power during the midterms. Ultimately, the 2026 elections will come down to democrats showing up and independents being persuaded by the conditions at the time. Of course, this analysis assumes that there will be free and fair elections next year.

I believe this fall's Virginia & New Jersey elections will tell us much about what may happen next year.

 

[Peppers49]

Not to sound insensitive but people have short attention spans, especially chronically online conservatives. My guess is they will gnash their teeth about this for a week or two and then something else will take over the news cycle.

 

[CFordUNC]

I feel strongly both ways.

I think nyc's point is that the response to Kirk's death may close the enthusiasm gap that frequently hurts the party in power during the midterms. Ultimately, the 2026 elections will come down to democrats showing up and independents being persuaded by the conditions at the time. Of course, this analysis assumes that there will be free and fair elections next year.

I believe this fall's Virginia & New Jersey elections will tell us much about what may happen next year.

Yeah, I hear ya for sure. My contention is that the people for whom Charlie Kirk’s death would be a motivator to vote are already voting (because they’re already extremely politically-engaged) and they’re already voting against Democrats no matter what. Kirk isn’t an entity to anyone outside of the extremely-online right wing (which, obviously, isn’t exactly a small subset necessarily), and his death- again, IMO- isn’t going to be something that resonates to the average Jane and Joe voter next fall- much less three falls from now- if and when their economic circumstances are currently in the toilet due to the incumbent party’s policies.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Whew, I guess we're all safe since they're going after the "Democrat" party instead of the Democratic Party.

 

[UNCMSinLS]

Which is what I have been dragging him for.

Doing the lord's work, my good man. Doing the lord's work.

 

[superrific]

The eventual power of his martyrdom will depend on the extend to which it reaches outside dedicated MAGA Men and I to the broader population. As a purely crass political matter, that makes it vitally important to Trump, Vance and those who will use his martyrdom for their own purposes to whitewash and nice Kirk’s views — simplify his often extreme rhetoric to be anodyne support for traditional family values, patriotism, being a good Christian Dad and free speech advocate.

So don't them do that. That's my goal in saying (truthfully) that he was less victim than collateral damage in his own war.

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

What is the supposedly violent rhetoric coming from Democrats?