Will Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Embolden or Further Silence Right-Thinking Young People?
‘Charlie Kirk #Karma’ seems to be the Insta tag that some are using in response to Charlie Kirk’s death. Across Britain today young men and women will be heading into schools and sixth form colleges with different reactions to the Charlie Kirk assassination: sadness or happiness. One side will be louder than the other.
“Charlie Kirk’s died,” announced our 17 year-old son this morning. “That’s bad. He said some decent things.”
It was, I think, the first news event he has taken personally. He scrolled on his phone, then put his head on the table and said: “Oh no the girls. They’re all happy. Look at this.” He showed me posts with the tag: ‘Charlie Kirk #karma.’
“I sit next to one of them in morning tutor. She’s a real feminist. And she’s going to be going on about how Charlie Kirk deserved being killed because he likes guns and hates abortion.”
“And how will you respond?” I asked.
He looked exhausted at the thought.
“I dunno. … She’ll say… if I like Charlie Kirk… I like rape abortion. I don’t like rape abortion…” He trailed off looking miserable.
No-one wants to discuss rape abortion in morning tutor.
“I’ll probably just say ‘no-one deserves to be assassinated’ and hope she doesn’t talk about it.”
I suspect this summarises fairly concisely the level of political conversation that has been happening across sixth form colleges and universities for the past few years. Those who have Right of centre instincts but who haven’t fully formulated their opinions on outlier cases like rape abortion, are blunted into silence by those who have.
Charlie Kirk had given students a way of demonstrating that civil debate and argument were possible. His assassination puts a very different complexion on this. The question is now whether young people who agree that Charlie Kirk “said some decent things” will feel emboldened to speak up, or will be further silenced.
Until young people feel able to speak openly at schools and colleges without fear of being monstered by a group of ‘Charlie Kirk #karma’ fans, his great efforts at the frontier of free-speech and civil political discourse will have been in vain.
Joanna Gray is a writer and confidence coach.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Leftist, collectivist thinking people like to judge people by their words and thoughts.
Conservative thinking people while interested in people’s words are more likely to judge someone by their actions.
Charlie Kirk was by all accounts a very decent human being.
People who write that “karma” abomination are once again the sort of people who think words are violence, who have trouble distinguishing between the conceptual, the imagined and the tangible, real.
They are people who think someone deserves to die because of his lack of ideological purity.
People who write about “karma” should consider that the results of their actions will also catch up with them in the end.
Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Are psychopaths capable of believing in anything except their own reflection?
In the past the young tended to be leftish and have leftish heroes – even though some of those heroes were flawed. While that is perhaps still true today I suspect the leftish heroes are viewed more critically.
The trouble with heroes is that they are welcome when there are monsters to be slain, but afterwards they hang around flirting with all your potential partners, drinking all your alcohol, and eating all your food. Perhaps many ‘heroic’ left wing governments have reached that post monster hero resentment stage?
It will be the turn of the right wing heroes soon.
The young, at least the smarter ones tend to be contraband ( I wasn’t, I am now, odd that), so as they see the world they are set to inherit descend into a morass of impoverished enchained wokeness, they are thinking fuck that for a game of soldiers rather like the admirable jack Watson of this parish.
The liberal/left particularly in the media are responsible for creating an atmosphere of intolerance which unfortunately pushes some of its supporters over the edge into committing violent acts.
Volkert van der Graaf killed Pim Fortuyn
Juraj Cintula shot Robert Fico
Un-named assailant attacked Andrej Babiš
Un-named assassination attempt against Viktor Orbán
Thomas Matthew Crooks assassination attempt against Donald Trump
Un-named assassin killed Charlie Kirk
And the Leftist assassin who tried to kill Jair Bolsonaro was let off by a Leftist judge in cahoots with Marxist Dictator Lula:
Jair Bolsonaro: Man who stabbed Brazil’s leader acquitted – BBC News
Thanks. I’ve added it to my list.
Crooks was apparently a registered Republican. I don’t know his real beliefs.
He also donated to the Democrats.
Joanne, your son could say no-one deserves to be killed for having different views. If the feminist thinks killing people with different views is OK, then she must accept it’s theoretically fine if someone shot her dead (because she holds different views to others!).
He could then suggest discussion is often the best way to develop ideas.
Excellent suggestion
It’s a decent idea BUT unlikely to be possible with a modern self righteous, smug little entitled madam unable to conceive she could ever be wrong. I think the weary reaction of Joanna’s son may confirm this. I do despair that reasoned debate is not considered an option in so many cases but would really, really like your suggestion to be possible. Wise older heads trump entitled woke youth
Except… those who scream their hate, fling “Fascist”, “racist”, etc at everyone who disagrees are incapable of discussion.
Watch TV debates, anti-fascist protesters, they speak continually repeating the same slogans and pejoratives, unwilling to listen to others or have a calm, if not vigorous, back and forth engagement with others.
They lack any intellectual basis for their “beliefs” which is why they are agressive, nasty, insulting and yell a lot. And when that fails, violence.
And it’s how civilisation falls apart.
It’s pretty logical, except when you are in the drama because that is how the behavioural psychologists program you. And that is their goal.
See this
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115182892535295750
Impressive.
Yes, a very decent speech.
A black day for America.
How’s the baby responsible for the mother having been raped?
“Rape abortion”, supposedly meaning “abortion after a child was conceived during a non-consensual sex act” is strawman and a badly constructed one. It’s really just child presumed to be unwanted because the mother presumably cannot possibly want it. And that’s in no way different from any other kind of unplanned pregnancy. The choice is still just
The precise circumstances of conception don’t matter because the child isn’t responsible for them.
NB: This is not a statement of opinon in favour of either 1) or 2).
So true! Brings it back to self-censorship. Should there be a better debating space within the education system?