JD Vance selflessly filled in Monday afternoon as guest host of “The Charlie Kirk Show.” Just like seemingly every other Republican politician in the country, the Vice President professed what a great “friend” he had been of Charlie’s.
Michael, I generally find your sceptical insights useful, but your concentrated effort to paint Charlie Kirk as some incompetent and unprincipled government stooge comes off as deranged. It might benefit you to try lose some of your cynicism and assess people with a bit more respect. It could also make some of your good observations more impactful - e.g., regarding the dangerously excessive firing of people for posts that did not actually celebrate the assassination, and Pam Bondi's attempt to open up "hate speech" persecution. Btw I failed to notice any emphasis on the fact that many conservative commentators immediately and vocally criticised her for it. Also, it shows a lack of judgment on your side to reject Kirk's big open debates on campuses as barely more than publicity stunts for YouTube clicks. Of course that format does not permit deeper and nuanced discussion, which is also necessary, but even the basic level of societal debate on conservative topics was basically taboo for many years - and Kirk helped change that, and died because of it - not because of any support for the government (and why shouldn't he support it if he saw it as largely coinciding with his views - even if not 100%?), but because he was encouraging people to speak out with healthy, sane opinions against the dominant destructive and delusional discourse.
Saying I "come off as deranged," in lieu of making an actual argument, certainly does not uphold the spirit of rational inquiry and debate that we're told Charlie Kirk represented, and now must be regarded as a martyr for. If you don't believe he was a government stooge, explain why. I laid out my evidence for why the term is apt. Calling me "deranged" is not a rebuttal.
You do not give Kirk even the slightest benefit of the doubt at any point in your texts (or if you did, it was not noticeable to me on reading them), you are solely critical of him, you deny him any good work, any well-meant motivation, any moral strength of character (correct me if I missed it, but if you did, it was - again - not noticeable to me). That he was not simply a government stooge is easy to understand from the simple fact that many of his active years were under a Democrat government, which he definitely did not support, and even taking just the past 5 years, 4 of them were under Democrats - so even if loyalty to Trump's team was his primary motivation in the past 9 months (I'm not saying it is, but even if it was), it is disingenuous to characterise him based on that alone. "Deranged" is the impression I got from reading your past articles on the topic, and I wanted you to know that - please take it as friendly criticism. I don't need to win this argument, I just think this dogged criticism-only approach is damaging your credibility, and it's a pity because it weakens your voice, which often offers a useful, sceptical "third" perspective.
This isn't friendly or constructive criticism. It's totally devoid of substance, and totally unresponsive to anything I wrote. You dislike my tone and emphasis. OK. Congratulations.
In his defense it wasn’t “totally unresponsive” to anything you wrote. In fact he explicitly makes the argument that we shouldn’t consider Kirk a stooge for the government because he was active under “Democratic government.” Not a good argument in my opinion, but it was *responsive*. Your reply was actually unresponsive and “devoid of substance.”
Mr Tracey has of recent appeared to be loosing the plot. All of us care wrong about something at some point in our lives for we are not perfect beings but some of us are incapable of admitting it and so they become their own worst enemy.
You’d already made an actual argument in your first post, he’s just not going to address any of your points, just sidestep with the deranged bit. Pity because I thought you brought out some good constructive criticism.
I'm an American I am NOT a republican&democrat voter.
I am NOT invested in the democrat&republican PARTY.
Charlie Kirk died in an American society completely and unconstitutionally DOMINATED by the republican&democrat PARTY.
He did NOT die in a country with a government of "We the People," because "We the American People" have no representation in a government unconstitutionally occupied by the democrat&republican PARTY.
I am an American and I do NOT care about republican&democrat politicians, their activists, or their followers for the simple reason that, republican&democrat politicians, their activists, and their followers do NOT care about the American People.
I am an American and of course, I HATE the democrat&republican PARTY, because I have 37 TRILLION reasons, and counting, why.
DEATH to the republican&democrat PARTY.
Was that too much for the ever so delicate democrat&republican...voter?
Well Adam...I guess you are a democrat&republican voter so it must be real confusing to you when you read something not written by the republican&democrat PARTY.
Hence, why I say the dumbest people in America are democrat&republican voters.
You lose all credibility when you resort to insults.
Yes, both parties are broken, and no matter how we vote, the same endless wars continue, and the march toward globalism goes on. But on some issues, there are important differences between the parties, and I approve of Trump's anti-mass immigration stance.
No, the system I want to destroy, IS the democrat&republican PARTY system.
Please read my book "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" available on Amazon. By me, Lebo Von Lo~Debar.
...and see how "We the American People" can have a government of, by and for "We the American People," instead of the current government of, by, and for the republican&democrat PARTY & their corporate sponsors.
Michael's characterization of Charlie as a government stooge obviously did not apply to ANY administration. Charlie pretty much backed the Trump Admin no matter what. While he urged Trump not to bomb Iran, he approved it after the fact. He was a tool of the Trump Admin.
Charlie had recently begun to moderate his rabid support for Israel, &, based on reporting from Max Blumenthal and others, was catching heat from Israeli supporters over it. It would have been interesting, going forward, to see where this led. I suspect he was first moved to question Israeli actions because many Turning Point members were expressing similar sentiments to him. This shows that he was willing to change his mind on some issues, which is an admirable quality in anyone.
Having said that, I admire his willingness to engage with others, his ability to encourage conservatives to argue their points, and his advocacy of dialogue over either pointing and shrieking or violence.
You don't come off as deranged but rather attention seeking and that's fine. Who isn't. You're like a smarter version of Candace Owens - where she goes to conspiracy you go in the opposite direction. My problem is that I know the Left has been waiting to be absolved for all of their terrible behavior over the past ten years. This just gives them an excuse to say "see!" And that bugs me. I've been waiting for some sort of acknowlegement or reckoning on their part and it will never come. The so-called "cancel culture" we're seeing on the Right is nothing compared and any honest person knows that. The Right never had that kind of power. They have some power now and I don't blame after Kirk's death to be angry at people dancing on his grave. That is not the same as what the Left did after George Floyd. Nowhere near.
True, because the Democrats had government employees actually pressuring social media platforms to remove critical posts, or to ban certain users.
Private employers deciding they don't want to retain some crazed lunatic, expressing glee over the assassination of an innocent man, on their payroll is something else entirely.
Lots of people share opinions that aren’t shaped by any “attention seeking.” Who isn’t? Well, is that why you share the particular opinions you do? Attention seeker? Sounds like maybe you are just erroneously projecting your own habits on everyone else?
Michael I generally agree with the bulk of your posts. However, I am all for getting people fired from their jobs if they celebrate Charlie's death. I agree that it's free speech. That's why I don't think they should be arrested for it. I also think if you're celebrating Charlies death YOU SHOULD GET FIRED from your job. Just as it is free speech to celebrate the murder of an innocent person, it is also FREE SPEECH to SHAME these people and get them FIRED! PS. I was not a Charlie Kirk fan. I think he was a shill. However, I AM part of the movement to SHAME & FIRE people who celebrate his death. All is fair in love & war.
Show some concrete examples of people who have been fired for "celebrating Charlie's death," rather than just expressing political opinions about Charlie's legacy as a prominent political figure, which is the only reason anyone knows of him.
The surgeon was said to have said, “I hate Charlie Kirk.… He had it coming. He deserved it,” and has now “resigned.” The quote seems to be just via the nurse who was initially suspended (maybe? read the article) for calling him out on it; I’m not sure if he admits to it.
Just putting it out there for discussion, not banging my shoe on the table for either side.
I did see a video about this AND... I don't think this is a good example. The 'nurse' is an attention whore and a MAGA idiot. She's posing suggestively in a skimpy bikini with a Trump poster with a photoshop of a rope tied around him as if to claim Trump as her prey. I feel this broad is an attention whore and it was part of her plan all along to get her selfie on YouTube. I'm suspicious of her motives. Please check my notes for a picture of her. Her name is Lexi
How about the UCLA race and equity director who said, “Yup. Good riddance, both [Kirk and Rush Limbaugh],” and "It is OKAY to be happy when someone who hated you and called for your people's death dies—even if they are murdered”?
Michael, one more thing: I feel the SAME way about you. You're a controversial figure and there is also a group of people that don't like you. If some right wing or left-wing whacko took you out while you were challenging the Epstein narrative, I would not be for celebrating your death. That encourages future shooters. Ps. I also don't agree with those who kicked you out of the Epstein 'victims' press conference. I think you're a brilliant guy and I quite agree with you about the Epstein thing, I've been saying it's a dead horse for years now. Some people think your running interference for Trump, and I don't think that's the case. I get where you are coming from. I get free speech. But I DON'T approve of celebrating the death of someone who was assassinated in front of a classroom full of kids for ex.
Utterly depraved hand waving. You have a selective conscience, which is to say you do not have one. You're either shocked by someone getting shot in the neck by a sniper in front of his wife and kids and everyone else, or you're not.
I will. And please know that I enjoy your writing and agree with most of it. Here's a concrete example of a callous bitch who was fired for celebrating Charlie's death and had nothing to do with political opinions. She even tried to make it sexy. Please check my notes:
You don’t think celebrating death by violent assassination differs to somebody’s death by more natural causes after living a full life? Interesting take!
I think employment law is going to need to be very specific about what is and is not taboo if you're arbitrarily choosing the deaths that can be publicly celebrated or not.
I think the difference between celebrations of the death of Thatcher and Kirk are less to do with how they died and more to do with changes in public censoriousness in the intervening years.
I think if you celebrate people being assassinated, then it’s a pretty slippery slope. I thought the left were the compassionate ones, but now they condone assassinations when it suits the agenda? Many changes in the “intervening years”, it would seem
The 'difference' is that she died of old age. She wasn't murdered by a crazed gunman. The former isn't a threat, but the latter gives encouragement to future shooters
So Joseph, you're just sick of this whole free speech thing that we have going in America?
You want us to be more like the former Soviet Union or the Trump1/Bidden years of free speech restriction and cancellation for not professing loyalty to the political cult's Social agenda contrary to the US Constitution?
Celebrating the death of someone who was assassinated for his free speech views is a threat to future speakers as it gives encouragement to future shooters. I think this is a different issue than free speech.
Is this a general principle you believe in? Do you believe that everyone who mocks a murder victim should be fired from their job? Do you believe that it would be good for America if we found everyone who has ever celebrated or laughed at a victim of political violence and ensured that they lose their job?
Celebrating the assassination of a murder victim who was killed for his opinions, may be free speech in the legal sense, However, it is an attack on free speech in its own right and is also inciting further violence against someone's opinion you don't like. If it was just mocking someone who died there's no issue. Publicly mocking someone who was assassinated may be free speech in the legal sense, but it is also inciting further violence and encourages future shooters. I didn't say they should be arrested. No one is calling for them to be incarcerated. I said they should lose their jobs. It is >They who are attacking the free speech of the speaker who was assassinated. It is not an attack on free speech. It has to do with defending the free speech of future speakers like Michael Tracy.
You are one confused person. For Chist's sake, think before you write. I have considered that you may be making a joke, judging from your last line (the extensive use for all-caps--one of the hallmarks of the desperately ignorant--is a nice touch), but its not really working if that's the case.
I think if you are a democrat&republican voter you should be fired from your job for what the republican&democrat PARTY has done to this country, and you voted for it...you are an accomplice.
The similarities to make it a "George Floyd moment"moment are that the two groups of people had some empathy and identification with a person who was murdered and now are very upset about it.
Yes, and they have the full support of the United States judicial system and president. That's the big difference. Like the journalist said, they and the judicial system of the United States are running a full cancel Campaign against perceived non-loyalty to a political agenda.
The difference between the two murders that you're ignoring, is George Floyd was murdered by a government employee. And as far as we know, that didn't happen with Charlie Kirk. The George Floyd demonstrations were against the government procedures.
So. . . setting small businesses (many of them minority-owned) on fire, toppling statues, and dragging random white people out of their cars and beating them half to death was all being done to force a change in "government procedures"?
People compare two things they don't compare it down to the last detail because then they would be exactly the same and they wouldn't be two separate things anymore.
To be more accurate, the journalist could've said it's kind of like a George Floyd moment. But that's not the way Americans talk. The gist of it is, Someone was murdered that a particular group has identification with and then that group wants to do something about it. That's all there is. One group protested the governments actions, the other group, with the governments blessing, wants to cancel people And hurt their economic life--Could be called economic violence.
People compare two things they don't compare it down to the last detail because then they would be exactly the same and they wouldn't be two separate things anymore.
To be more accurate, the journalist could've said it's kind of like a George Floyd moment. But that's not the way Americans talk. The gist of it is, Someone was murdered that a particular group has identification with and then that group wants to do something about it. That's all there is. One group protested the governments actions, the other group, with the governments blessing, wants to cancel people And hurt their economic life--Could be called economic violence.
You left one thing out - no rampanging through the streets, no tearing down of statues. No forcing people to raise their fists to BLM. It isn't that one side is good and the other side isn't it's that the MAGA side is always expected to take the high road, always, whether it's lawfare or riots or this. It's always like the Left does whatever it wants with impugnity. Cancel culture is about power. None of these people losing their jobs are losing everything. They aren't shunned by everyone they know. The Left has spent days and days and days and days screeching about how Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a Nazi. The Right didn't do that after George Floyd. I think you're making a false equivilency but I appreciate you must always be the contrarian. Sometimes I like it, sometimes it bugs.
Michael, of course Charlie Kirk was a partisan supporter of Trump and MAGA. He helped win the election for Trump by mobilizing so many young people to vote for him. He was no different than most of the media talking heads, anchors, pundits, former government officials, etc., appearing on MSNBC CNN ABC NBC CBS PBS pushing and praising Biden and his cabinet, along with the NYT WAPO LA TIMES USA TODAY, etc.
The only difference was Charlie Kirk was not a journalist. There wasn’t a conflict of interest when he pushed the Trump line. He had the right as a citizen to support whoever he wanted. Not so for the vast majority of partisan “journalists” who claimed to be objective but instead spoke the exact same words that the Biden PR people instructed them to do.
Michael, take a look in the mirror. You are Charlie Kirk, without the Christian part. You like to make snide arguments that make others look bad. This article being a great example. Your hypocrisy is hilarious. And I would mourn you as well if a crazy person killed you, and feel horrified if someone reveled in your death.
What I wouldn’t do is call for their firing, unless they called for additional violence or their statements legitimately undermined trust in doing their job (ie Doctors and Nurses at hospitals) If they do that, then they deserve what they get. This is the consequences for free speech. Charlie received the ultimate and undeserved punishment for free speech. And he was only influential for Trump, because their purposes largely aligned. His mission existed before Trump and you undermine him when you present him as a lackey. He was no stooge.
The main problem with left wing cancel culture was that it plucked people out of obscurity and made them public enemies. The lady in Central Park with the dog who called the cops on the black guy and got fired comes to mind. The private/civilian canceling of people who voluntarily inject themselves into a hot button topic with a rude and wholly public take...that used to just be called society policing itself.
Cooper vs Cooper. Kmele Foster did a dive into that altercation. I think it might’ve been on Bari’s podcast. Basically he concluded Amy got a bum rap and that Christian is notoriously an asshole amongst the Central Park bird watching groups, and baited people into confrontations and then played the race card as his trump card.
I don’t think you can quite take the measure of him from a defense he gave on signal gate the way you think you can. Many non operatives would have given that defense-the polarization we have going on means everyone comes ready with their defenses. Could he actually have believed that, not according to you…isn’t it a little bit wrong how easily we can dismiss each others whole fucking being based on nothing.
I found the censorship/cancel culture/forced vaccination under Biden to be the definition of a fascist regime.
I find the censorship of speech on college campuses (which is only going to accelerate after Kirk’s death…cuz safety)/the arrest of legal U.S. residents for opinion columns/and the firing of anyone for their speech to be just as fascistic and contrary to, not only Trump’s campaign rhetoric, but to our countries founding principals.
Thank you, Michael, for your independent spirit and incisive intelligence. Also your thick thick skin.
Great article. Look at all these right wing mental children in your comments furious at you for stating basic publicly available facts about Kirk, Trump, and their other favorite free speech warriors who are engaged in the most flagrant government violations of the 1st Amendment we’ve seen for some time.
I seriously commend you for displaying actual principle and remaining capable of objective analysis even though you could probably make more money by pandering to the chud apes in your comments.
It’s always infuriating reading Michael Tracey. Not because what he says is wrong or incorrect, necessarily (although I do disagree often), but because he seems to write with the purpose of going against the grain of whatever the current popular opinion is. I’m not one who holds many popular opinions, but when I do align with it I can always count on Tracey to force in counter narrative. However much I hate that, there is still value in it.
Some people are just very far to one side on the agreeable/disagreeable scale. I know guys like this at work, they’ll argue if you say the sky is blue.
However, it IS okay for a private employer to decide he doesn't want to keep a person on his staff, who gleefully celebrated an assassination, and/or called Charlie Kirk a Nazi, fascist, white supremacist who deserved to die. Free speech is not free from consequences.
I believe we should make these people famous, by reposting their hate for all to see.
I'm an American I am NOT a republican&democrat voter.
I am NOT invested in the democrat&republican PARTY.
Charlie Kirk died in an American society completely and unconstitutionally DOMINATED by the republican&democrat PARTY.
He did NOT die in a country with a government of "We the People," because "We the American People" have no representation in a government unconstitutionally occupied by the democrat&republican PARTY.
I am an American and I do NOT care about republican&democrat politicians, their activists, or their followers for the simple reason that, republican&democrat politicians, their activists, and their followers do NOT care about the American People.
I am an American and of course, I HATE the democrat&republican PARTY, because I have 37 TRILLION reasons, and counting, why.
DEATH to the republican&democrat PARTY.
Was that too much for the ever so delicate democrat&republican...voter?
Michael, I generally find your sceptical insights useful, but your concentrated effort to paint Charlie Kirk as some incompetent and unprincipled government stooge comes off as deranged. It might benefit you to try lose some of your cynicism and assess people with a bit more respect. It could also make some of your good observations more impactful - e.g., regarding the dangerously excessive firing of people for posts that did not actually celebrate the assassination, and Pam Bondi's attempt to open up "hate speech" persecution. Btw I failed to notice any emphasis on the fact that many conservative commentators immediately and vocally criticised her for it. Also, it shows a lack of judgment on your side to reject Kirk's big open debates on campuses as barely more than publicity stunts for YouTube clicks. Of course that format does not permit deeper and nuanced discussion, which is also necessary, but even the basic level of societal debate on conservative topics was basically taboo for many years - and Kirk helped change that, and died because of it - not because of any support for the government (and why shouldn't he support it if he saw it as largely coinciding with his views - even if not 100%?), but because he was encouraging people to speak out with healthy, sane opinions against the dominant destructive and delusional discourse.
Saying I "come off as deranged," in lieu of making an actual argument, certainly does not uphold the spirit of rational inquiry and debate that we're told Charlie Kirk represented, and now must be regarded as a martyr for. If you don't believe he was a government stooge, explain why. I laid out my evidence for why the term is apt. Calling me "deranged" is not a rebuttal.
You do not give Kirk even the slightest benefit of the doubt at any point in your texts (or if you did, it was not noticeable to me on reading them), you are solely critical of him, you deny him any good work, any well-meant motivation, any moral strength of character (correct me if I missed it, but if you did, it was - again - not noticeable to me). That he was not simply a government stooge is easy to understand from the simple fact that many of his active years were under a Democrat government, which he definitely did not support, and even taking just the past 5 years, 4 of them were under Democrats - so even if loyalty to Trump's team was his primary motivation in the past 9 months (I'm not saying it is, but even if it was), it is disingenuous to characterise him based on that alone. "Deranged" is the impression I got from reading your past articles on the topic, and I wanted you to know that - please take it as friendly criticism. I don't need to win this argument, I just think this dogged criticism-only approach is damaging your credibility, and it's a pity because it weakens your voice, which often offers a useful, sceptical "third" perspective.
This isn't friendly or constructive criticism. It's totally devoid of substance, and totally unresponsive to anything I wrote. You dislike my tone and emphasis. OK. Congratulations.
It was neither devoid of substance, nor totally unresponsive to what you wrote. But take it as you want it.
In his defense it wasn’t “totally unresponsive” to anything you wrote. In fact he explicitly makes the argument that we shouldn’t consider Kirk a stooge for the government because he was active under “Democratic government.” Not a good argument in my opinion, but it was *responsive*. Your reply was actually unresponsive and “devoid of substance.”
Just moderating the debate honestly.
Mr Tracey has of recent appeared to be loosing the plot. All of us care wrong about something at some point in our lives for we are not perfect beings but some of us are incapable of admitting it and so they become their own worst enemy.
You’d already made an actual argument in your first post, he’s just not going to address any of your points, just sidestep with the deranged bit. Pity because I thought you brought out some good constructive criticism.
I'm an American I am NOT a republican&democrat voter.
I am NOT invested in the democrat&republican PARTY.
Charlie Kirk died in an American society completely and unconstitutionally DOMINATED by the republican&democrat PARTY.
He did NOT die in a country with a government of "We the People," because "We the American People" have no representation in a government unconstitutionally occupied by the democrat&republican PARTY.
I am an American and I do NOT care about republican&democrat politicians, their activists, or their followers for the simple reason that, republican&democrat politicians, their activists, and their followers do NOT care about the American People.
I am an American and of course, I HATE the democrat&republican PARTY, because I have 37 TRILLION reasons, and counting, why.
DEATH to the republican&democrat PARTY.
Was that too much for the ever so delicate democrat&republican...voter?
What are you blathering about?
Well Adam...I guess you are a democrat&republican voter so it must be real confusing to you when you read something not written by the republican&democrat PARTY.
Hence, why I say the dumbest people in America are democrat&republican voters.
Thanks for reinforcing that truism, Adam.
You lose all credibility when you resort to insults.
Yes, both parties are broken, and no matter how we vote, the same endless wars continue, and the march toward globalism goes on. But on some issues, there are important differences between the parties, and I approve of Trump's anti-mass immigration stance.
That's funny because your assumption is wrong. You are a poor misguided person. I pray you are liberated from the chains you bound around yourself +
Good question. I think he was requesting to be muted, just in a unique way.
The system you emotionally uphold.
No, the system I want to destroy, IS the democrat&republican PARTY system.
Please read my book "The Separation of Corporation and State" subtitled "Common Sense and the Two-Party Crisis" available on Amazon. By me, Lebo Von Lo~Debar.
...and see how "We the American People" can have a government of, by and for "We the American People," instead of the current government of, by, and for the republican&democrat PARTY & their corporate sponsors.
Why is Kirk (or anyone else) entitled to the benefit of the doubt?
You are being disingenuous.
Michael's characterization of Charlie as a government stooge obviously did not apply to ANY administration. Charlie pretty much backed the Trump Admin no matter what. While he urged Trump not to bomb Iran, he approved it after the fact. He was a tool of the Trump Admin.
Charlie had recently begun to moderate his rabid support for Israel, &, based on reporting from Max Blumenthal and others, was catching heat from Israeli supporters over it. It would have been interesting, going forward, to see where this led. I suspect he was first moved to question Israeli actions because many Turning Point members were expressing similar sentiments to him. This shows that he was willing to change his mind on some issues, which is an admirable quality in anyone.
Having said that, I admire his willingness to engage with others, his ability to encourage conservatives to argue their points, and his advocacy of dialogue over either pointing and shrieking or violence.
Its only damaging MT's credibility with you, son.
You don't come off as deranged but rather attention seeking and that's fine. Who isn't. You're like a smarter version of Candace Owens - where she goes to conspiracy you go in the opposite direction. My problem is that I know the Left has been waiting to be absolved for all of their terrible behavior over the past ten years. This just gives them an excuse to say "see!" And that bugs me. I've been waiting for some sort of acknowlegement or reckoning on their part and it will never come. The so-called "cancel culture" we're seeing on the Right is nothing compared and any honest person knows that. The Right never had that kind of power. They have some power now and I don't blame after Kirk's death to be angry at people dancing on his grave. That is not the same as what the Left did after George Floyd. Nowhere near.
True, because the Democrats had government employees actually pressuring social media platforms to remove critical posts, or to ban certain users.
Private employers deciding they don't want to retain some crazed lunatic, expressing glee over the assassination of an innocent man, on their payroll is something else entirely.
Lots of people share opinions that aren’t shaped by any “attention seeking.” Who isn’t? Well, is that why you share the particular opinions you do? Attention seeker? Sounds like maybe you are just erroneously projecting your own habits on everyone else?
Sasha, this is a really good comment. I don’t really have anything clever to say other than thanks for this perspective.
Who cares what he thinks.
I thought only the left did fcking tone policing!
Both sides are idiotic and most of us with half a brain left the DemoCRIPS or RepubliBLOODS team sports IDIOCRACY.
It's comments like the one you just made Rob...that make me like your tone.
I am an American, and I do NOT belong to the largest group of dumb asses in this country...the republican&democrat PARTY!
Well said Sir!
Michael I generally agree with the bulk of your posts. However, I am all for getting people fired from their jobs if they celebrate Charlie's death. I agree that it's free speech. That's why I don't think they should be arrested for it. I also think if you're celebrating Charlies death YOU SHOULD GET FIRED from your job. Just as it is free speech to celebrate the murder of an innocent person, it is also FREE SPEECH to SHAME these people and get them FIRED! PS. I was not a Charlie Kirk fan. I think he was a shill. However, I AM part of the movement to SHAME & FIRE people who celebrate his death. All is fair in love & war.
Show some concrete examples of people who have been fired for "celebrating Charlie's death," rather than just expressing political opinions about Charlie's legacy as a prominent political figure, which is the only reason anyone knows of him.
This has been reported out of New Jersey: https://nypost.com/2025/09/15/us-news/nj-surgeon-who-cheered-charlie-kirks-murder-resigns-as-suspended-nurse-who-called-him-out-is-reinstated/
The surgeon was said to have said, “I hate Charlie Kirk.… He had it coming. He deserved it,” and has now “resigned.” The quote seems to be just via the nurse who was initially suspended (maybe? read the article) for calling him out on it; I’m not sure if he admits to it.
Just putting it out there for discussion, not banging my shoe on the table for either side.
That's not even a direct quote. It's what some nurse, who then sued, claims she heard.
I think I fairly represented that fact in my comment
I did see a video about this AND... I don't think this is a good example. The 'nurse' is an attention whore and a MAGA idiot. She's posing suggestively in a skimpy bikini with a Trump poster with a photoshop of a rope tied around him as if to claim Trump as her prey. I feel this broad is an attention whore and it was part of her plan all along to get her selfie on YouTube. I'm suspicious of her motives. Please check my notes for a picture of her. Her name is Lexi
How about the UCLA race and equity director who said, “Yup. Good riddance, both [Kirk and Rush Limbaugh],” and "It is OKAY to be happy when someone who hated you and called for your people's death dies—even if they are murdered”?
Now placed on immediate leave and under investigation by the university. https://freebeacon.com/campus/ucla-places-race-and-equity-director-who-celebrated-charlie-kirk-assassination-on-leave/
Note: I know “placed on leave” isn’t “fired.”
Michael, one more thing: I feel the SAME way about you. You're a controversial figure and there is also a group of people that don't like you. If some right wing or left-wing whacko took you out while you were challenging the Epstein narrative, I would not be for celebrating your death. That encourages future shooters. Ps. I also don't agree with those who kicked you out of the Epstein 'victims' press conference. I think you're a brilliant guy and I quite agree with you about the Epstein thing, I've been saying it's a dead horse for years now. Some people think your running interference for Trump, and I don't think that's the case. I get where you are coming from. I get free speech. But I DON'T approve of celebrating the death of someone who was assassinated in front of a classroom full of kids for ex.
Utterly depraved hand waving. You have a selective conscience, which is to say you do not have one. You're either shocked by someone getting shot in the neck by a sniper in front of his wife and kids and everyone else, or you're not.
I will. And please know that I enjoy your writing and agree with most of it. Here's a concrete example of a callous bitch who was fired for celebrating Charlie's death and had nothing to do with political opinions. She even tried to make it sexy. Please check my notes:
When Margaret Thatcher died vast swathes of the population were so happy that "Ding dong the witch is dead" topped the charts in the UK.
Should every person that celebrated her demise have been hunted down and fired?
I didn’t realize she was assassinated?
What difference does the nature of a death make to how people are permitted to react?
Where is your line on the permissibility of celebrating death? Is manslaughter ok?
You don’t think celebrating death by violent assassination differs to somebody’s death by more natural causes after living a full life? Interesting take!
I think employment law is going to need to be very specific about what is and is not taboo if you're arbitrarily choosing the deaths that can be publicly celebrated or not.
I think the difference between celebrations of the death of Thatcher and Kirk are less to do with how they died and more to do with changes in public censoriousness in the intervening years.
I think if you celebrate people being assassinated, then it’s a pretty slippery slope. I thought the left were the compassionate ones, but now they condone assassinations when it suits the agenda? Many changes in the “intervening years”, it would seem
The 'difference' is that she died of old age. She wasn't murdered by a crazed gunman. The former isn't a threat, but the latter gives encouragement to future shooters
So Joseph, you're just sick of this whole free speech thing that we have going in America?
You want us to be more like the former Soviet Union or the Trump1/Bidden years of free speech restriction and cancellation for not professing loyalty to the political cult's Social agenda contrary to the US Constitution?
Celebrating the death of someone who was assassinated for his free speech views is a threat to future speakers as it gives encouragement to future shooters. I think this is a different issue than free speech.
“Cancel culture is awesome, actually”-ass take
Is this a general principle you believe in? Do you believe that everyone who mocks a murder victim should be fired from their job? Do you believe that it would be good for America if we found everyone who has ever celebrated or laughed at a victim of political violence and ensured that they lose their job?
Celebrating the assassination of a murder victim who was killed for his opinions, may be free speech in the legal sense, However, it is an attack on free speech in its own right and is also inciting further violence against someone's opinion you don't like. If it was just mocking someone who died there's no issue. Publicly mocking someone who was assassinated may be free speech in the legal sense, but it is also inciting further violence and encourages future shooters. I didn't say they should be arrested. No one is calling for them to be incarcerated. I said they should lose their jobs. It is >They who are attacking the free speech of the speaker who was assassinated. It is not an attack on free speech. It has to do with defending the free speech of future speakers like Michael Tracy.
You are one confused person. For Chist's sake, think before you write. I have considered that you may be making a joke, judging from your last line (the extensive use for all-caps--one of the hallmarks of the desperately ignorant--is a nice touch), but its not really working if that's the case.
So does that go both ways, if, for instance, someone were to ice Adam Shiff?
What if I celebrate election results that you don't like? Where does this end?
These are honest questions.
Shame is a forgotten emotion. Too many shameful behaviors today are celebrated and venerated.
I think if you are a democrat&republican voter you should be fired from your job for what the republican&democrat PARTY has done to this country, and you voted for it...you are an accomplice.
So if it’s the right’s “George Floyd” moment, how come they’re not all rioting and looting?
The similarities to make it a "George Floyd moment"moment are that the two groups of people had some empathy and identification with a person who was murdered and now are very upset about it.
Agree. But the way the right are expressing themselves being upset seems far less violent, don’t you think?
Yes, the reaction from the right is less violent except for their reactionary versions of cancel culture and attempts to crackdown on our liberties.
Yes, and they have the full support of the United States judicial system and president. That's the big difference. Like the journalist said, they and the judicial system of the United States are running a full cancel Campaign against perceived non-loyalty to a political agenda.
The full support not to be violent? I’d hope so, yes!
Free speech is not violence unless it causes physical harm.
Somehow Sustack had me sign up again. I think the tread is now somewhere in digital vapors.
It could also be argued that Antifa/BLM thugs had the support of a large segment of the judicial system, and many politicians.
I totally oppose any "hate speech" legislation -- whether it's being pushed by Democrats or Republicans. It is unacceptable.
George Floyd wasn't murdered. He died of a drug overdose combined with physical exhaustion because of his violently resisting arrest.
Yes I know there was a trial where if any of the jurors found him not guilty they probably would be lynched shortly after.
The difference between the two murders that you're ignoring, is George Floyd was murdered by a government employee. And as far as we know, that didn't happen with Charlie Kirk. The George Floyd demonstrations were against the government procedures.
So. . . setting small businesses (many of them minority-owned) on fire, toppling statues, and dragging random white people out of their cars and beating them half to death was all being done to force a change in "government procedures"?
So does that mean it’s not the right’s “George Floyd” moment, as the headline states?
People compare two things they don't compare it down to the last detail because then they would be exactly the same and they wouldn't be two separate things anymore.
To be more accurate, the journalist could've said it's kind of like a George Floyd moment. But that's not the way Americans talk. The gist of it is, Someone was murdered that a particular group has identification with and then that group wants to do something about it. That's all there is. One group protested the governments actions, the other group, with the governments blessing, wants to cancel people And hurt their economic life--Could be called economic violence.
So one group uses physical violence and one group uses “economic” violence. Got it. Still seems out of whack to me
People compare two things they don't compare it down to the last detail because then they would be exactly the same and they wouldn't be two separate things anymore.
To be more accurate, the journalist could've said it's kind of like a George Floyd moment. But that's not the way Americans talk. The gist of it is, Someone was murdered that a particular group has identification with and then that group wants to do something about it. That's all there is. One group protested the governments actions, the other group, with the governments blessing, wants to cancel people And hurt their economic life--Could be called economic violence.
The George Floyd demonstrations were against the merchandise at the local CVS.
You left one thing out - no rampanging through the streets, no tearing down of statues. No forcing people to raise their fists to BLM. It isn't that one side is good and the other side isn't it's that the MAGA side is always expected to take the high road, always, whether it's lawfare or riots or this. It's always like the Left does whatever it wants with impugnity. Cancel culture is about power. None of these people losing their jobs are losing everything. They aren't shunned by everyone they know. The Left has spent days and days and days and days screeching about how Charlie Kirk was a white supremacist and a Nazi. The Right didn't do that after George Floyd. I think you're making a false equivilency but I appreciate you must always be the contrarian. Sometimes I like it, sometimes it bugs.
Michael, of course Charlie Kirk was a partisan supporter of Trump and MAGA. He helped win the election for Trump by mobilizing so many young people to vote for him. He was no different than most of the media talking heads, anchors, pundits, former government officials, etc., appearing on MSNBC CNN ABC NBC CBS PBS pushing and praising Biden and his cabinet, along with the NYT WAPO LA TIMES USA TODAY, etc.
The only difference was Charlie Kirk was not a journalist. There wasn’t a conflict of interest when he pushed the Trump line. He had the right as a citizen to support whoever he wanted. Not so for the vast majority of partisan “journalists” who claimed to be objective but instead spoke the exact same words that the Biden PR people instructed them to do.
Michael, take a look in the mirror. You are Charlie Kirk, without the Christian part. You like to make snide arguments that make others look bad. This article being a great example. Your hypocrisy is hilarious. And I would mourn you as well if a crazy person killed you, and feel horrified if someone reveled in your death.
What I wouldn’t do is call for their firing, unless they called for additional violence or their statements legitimately undermined trust in doing their job (ie Doctors and Nurses at hospitals) If they do that, then they deserve what they get. This is the consequences for free speech. Charlie received the ultimate and undeserved punishment for free speech. And he was only influential for Trump, because their purposes largely aligned. His mission existed before Trump and you undermine him when you present him as a lackey. He was no stooge.
Excellent points. It's awful that Charlie Kirk was killed, but his death should not be the occasion for distorting and canonizing who he was.
The main problem with left wing cancel culture was that it plucked people out of obscurity and made them public enemies. The lady in Central Park with the dog who called the cops on the black guy and got fired comes to mind. The private/civilian canceling of people who voluntarily inject themselves into a hot button topic with a rude and wholly public take...that used to just be called society policing itself.
Cooper vs Cooper. Kmele Foster did a dive into that altercation. I think it might’ve been on Bari’s podcast. Basically he concluded Amy got a bum rap and that Christian is notoriously an asshole amongst the Central Park bird watching groups, and baited people into confrontations and then played the race card as his trump card.
I don’t think you can quite take the measure of him from a defense he gave on signal gate the way you think you can. Many non operatives would have given that defense-the polarization we have going on means everyone comes ready with their defenses. Could he actually have believed that, not according to you…isn’t it a little bit wrong how easily we can dismiss each others whole fucking being based on nothing.
I found the censorship/cancel culture/forced vaccination under Biden to be the definition of a fascist regime.
I find the censorship of speech on college campuses (which is only going to accelerate after Kirk’s death…cuz safety)/the arrest of legal U.S. residents for opinion columns/and the firing of anyone for their speech to be just as fascistic and contrary to, not only Trump’s campaign rhetoric, but to our countries founding principals.
Thank you, Michael, for your independent spirit and incisive intelligence. Also your thick thick skin.
Great article. Look at all these right wing mental children in your comments furious at you for stating basic publicly available facts about Kirk, Trump, and their other favorite free speech warriors who are engaged in the most flagrant government violations of the 1st Amendment we’ve seen for some time.
I seriously commend you for displaying actual principle and remaining capable of objective analysis even though you could probably make more money by pandering to the chud apes in your comments.
Nothing in this piece is original. You published an opinion that almost everyone in the dominant media already agrees with so…congratulations?
It’s always infuriating reading Michael Tracey. Not because what he says is wrong or incorrect, necessarily (although I do disagree often), but because he seems to write with the purpose of going against the grain of whatever the current popular opinion is. I’m not one who holds many popular opinions, but when I do align with it I can always count on Tracey to force in counter narrative. However much I hate that, there is still value in it.
Some people are just very far to one side on the agreeable/disagreeable scale. I know guys like this at work, they’ll argue if you say the sky is blue.
It feels like the 1950s red scare Idiocracy again.
How the heck is it ok for companies to fire people just because some asshole from the DemoCRIPS or RepubliBLOODS complained about a tweet?
It isn't.
However, it IS okay for a private employer to decide he doesn't want to keep a person on his staff, who gleefully celebrated an assassination, and/or called Charlie Kirk a Nazi, fascist, white supremacist who deserved to die. Free speech is not free from consequences.
I believe we should make these people famous, by reposting their hate for all to see.
"I get it, but please cite a single other reason why Pam Bondi would’ve been nominated by Trump."
She's kinda hot and definitely Trump's type. He's shallow enough for this to be the main factor, actually.
I'm an American I am NOT a republican&democrat voter.
I am NOT invested in the democrat&republican PARTY.
Charlie Kirk died in an American society completely and unconstitutionally DOMINATED by the republican&democrat PARTY.
He did NOT die in a country with a government of "We the People," because "We the American People" have no representation in a government unconstitutionally occupied by the democrat&republican PARTY.
I am an American and I do NOT care about republican&democrat politicians, their activists, or their followers for the simple reason that, republican&democrat politicians, their activists, and their followers do NOT care about the American People.
I am an American and of course, I HATE the democrat&republican PARTY, because I have 37 TRILLION reasons, and counting, why.
DEATH to the republican&democrat PARTY.
Was that too much for the ever so delicate democrat&republican...voter?