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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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?
Did you even bother reading the article before you commented? "That said, yes: the participants were adults, even if we might colloquially refer to them as “college kids,” and they participated voluntarily." This is the opposite of infantilizing -- it's me saying they are adults with agency. That doesn't mean I have to commend the tactic of going around humiliating hapless 19 year olds for cheap viral "content." If you're going to "debate," why not debate a peer? Who's actually competent? Why not have a real debate -- rather than a clownish imitation of one? I simply don't respect the format, at all. But by saying that, I am not "infantilizing" the college-aged participants.
Of course you're infantilising them. I agree you absolve yourself of doing so as an afterthought, but you don't respect the format and want to hammer your point home, so you refer to them as hapless, beguiled, embarrassing and stammering oponents first. Kirk was 18 years old himself when he started Turning Points and only recently out of college when he started debating his peers. That the format still worked for him as he aged remained perfectly valid at institutions where there are few conservative voices among the (adult) students or faculty.
On the other hand you think the underage aspect of the Epstein case is overblown, so despite Epstein being 30+ years senior and admitting a charge of soliciting a minor you put "victim", "survivor" and "groomed" in quotes in the headlines of the 2 separate articles you've dedicated to reiterating over and again the point that the college age girls he solicited were adults.
To be clear, I appreciated both of those Epstein articles. It's the reaching to critique Kirk that's inconsistent and glaringly so. You have plenty to go on with the views he stated without clutching your pearls about the people he traded those views with.
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.
Sorry, this is way off topic but Michael, did you see this? Maybe a response isn't necessary because it is so puerile, but I know people who read this and thought it was a terrific rebuttal that completely rehabilitated Bryant, so you may want to consider responding: https://nickbryantnyc.com/blog/f/mikey-and-me-a-love-story
I did read it, but it's so stupid and incoherent that it's not even worth a standalone response. What am I supposed to do, refute him calling me "Mikey" over and over? He has refused to debate me directly, instead demanding that I apologize to Virginia Roberts Giuffre as a condition for any further engagement. Which of course I'm not going to do. It's absurd. Who are the people you know who read that post and thought it was a "terrific rebuttal"? Do they suffer from severe brain injuries?
Great work on this article, BTW. When it comes to cancel culture and attacks on Free Speech, both corporate parties are more or less equally at fault; they just have different targets and different strategies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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?
Why do you infantalise the adults Charlie Kirk debated politics with but adultify the children Epstein solicited for sexual interractions?
Did you even bother reading the article before you commented? "That said, yes: the participants were adults, even if we might colloquially refer to them as “college kids,” and they participated voluntarily." This is the opposite of infantilizing -- it's me saying they are adults with agency. That doesn't mean I have to commend the tactic of going around humiliating hapless 19 year olds for cheap viral "content." If you're going to "debate," why not debate a peer? Who's actually competent? Why not have a real debate -- rather than a clownish imitation of one? I simply don't respect the format, at all. But by saying that, I am not "infantilizing" the college-aged participants.
Of course you're infantilising them. I agree you absolve yourself of doing so as an afterthought, but you don't respect the format and want to hammer your point home, so you refer to them as hapless, beguiled, embarrassing and stammering oponents first. Kirk was 18 years old himself when he started Turning Points and only recently out of college when he started debating his peers. That the format still worked for him as he aged remained perfectly valid at institutions where there are few conservative voices among the (adult) students or faculty.
On the other hand you think the underage aspect of the Epstein case is overblown, so despite Epstein being 30+ years senior and admitting a charge of soliciting a minor you put "victim", "survivor" and "groomed" in quotes in the headlines of the 2 separate articles you've dedicated to reiterating over and again the point that the college age girls he solicited were adults.
To be clear, I appreciated both of those Epstein articles. It's the reaching to critique Kirk that's inconsistent and glaringly so. You have plenty to go on with the views he stated without clutching your pearls about the people he traded those views with.
Michael, you are literally beating a dead horse.
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.
Sorry, this is way off topic but Michael, did you see this? Maybe a response isn't necessary because it is so puerile, but I know people who read this and thought it was a terrific rebuttal that completely rehabilitated Bryant, so you may want to consider responding: https://nickbryantnyc.com/blog/f/mikey-and-me-a-love-story
I did read it, but it's so stupid and incoherent that it's not even worth a standalone response. What am I supposed to do, refute him calling me "Mikey" over and over? He has refused to debate me directly, instead demanding that I apologize to Virginia Roberts Giuffre as a condition for any further engagement. Which of course I'm not going to do. It's absurd. Who are the people you know who read that post and thought it was a "terrific rebuttal"? Do they suffer from severe brain injuries?
Great work on this article, BTW. When it comes to cancel culture and attacks on Free Speech, both corporate parties are more or less equally at fault; they just have different targets and different strategies.
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, 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.
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 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.