Young Democrats celebrate the man who murdered a father of two like three weeks before Christmas. Right now, they're celebrating the vicious murder of a father of two. I have never seen a Democrat forced to take accountability for any expression of extremism.
The problem is the polarization has become too extravagant. The Left and the Right, especially among younger Americans, have disagreements down to the fundamentals of political and moral philosophy. The differences are irreconcilable. One will be forced to accept the will of the other, there's no compromise to be found.
To address your hypothetical of Trump saying "nigger" on live television, I disagree, he'd probably have a drop in ratings among some. But not all. Because the animosity and polarization and white male bashing have hardened the hearts of young men when they are confronted with the troubles experienced by African Americans. The increase in racism among young men, casual and serious, is the consequence of race pandering.
In any case, this thread is about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
None of these positions are extreme. These align with normal right wing opinions at the turn of the century. These opinions were near universal in 1945, held among those who went overseas to defeat fascism (they also supported a segregated military and society). The standard morals and values of a society shift with time. The audacity from the Left is that they consider their current opinions to be the zenith of all moral, spiritual, and political philosophy. These "truths" that you've had drilled into your mind all your life, the glory of egalitarianism, the feats of secular society, they're all just the latest fad. With that said, they all seem to be worded in the least charitable way (if you're approaching them from the moral standards of a 2025 American leftist). You're simply employing the strawman against a corpse to justify one's glee in the vicious murder of a young man. You can admit you want your political opponents killed, such a stance wouldn't be without historic precedent. But it does clash with the modern Leftist construction of secular morality, hence the need for the strawman.
But I've spent enough time talking about how other's feel about Kirk's murder. I think it is abhorrent. I've always considered Kirk a moderate, someone who was comfortable cozying up with the political establishment, so he couldn't claim the far right views I hold for the sake of political expediency. I spent years thinking he was an intellectual lightweight, a political actor who would have went along with the rest of the Republicans in their move to the left in the aftermath of the 2012 election and the infamous "autopsy." Republican politics was essentially dead in the water until Trump stormed on scene in 2015. Luckily, Kirk was in ideological alignment with Trump's message. That, or he was willing to adopt and advance Trump's new brand of Republican politics and American conservatism. Kirk was a kid during the Obama presidency, when it really seemed like it would be permanent Democrat rule. People might say that exaggerates it, but it was something Democrats openly acknowledged. The idea was with the growing minority population, the Republican position would be untenable due to a slavish loyalty among Latinos to vote Democrat. The whole "demographics is destiny" thing. In the end, the theory fizzled out as Republicans managed to gain more ground among Hispanics in the aftermath of the Trump Revolution. Since Kirk was involved and passionate about politics since before 2011, it's obvious his ideology was not set in stone and he was open to the influence of political pressure, both from the Left and Right.
Kirk was seemingly slavish to Israel and one hundred percent a Republican stooge. That's how I saw him. I thought his college debates were nothing more than low brow engagement bait. I still remember rolling my eyes at the old TPUSA "Socialism Sucks" marketing campaign. But I was wrong about Charlie. He was a very smart man and an expert at playing the political game. What I thought was a joke managed to become a household name in politics. And not only for the media they produced, but the political action they engaged in. Voter registration, canvassing, outreach, staffing campaigns. The goofy kid with big gums managed to assemble a dominant political machine, through his engagement and his political flexibility. He was open to changing his opinion. Was it seven years ago, the Groyper War? Kirk was getting major flack from elements of the right who were more heavily focused on race, religion, and America First foreign policy. Kirk was obviously afraid to discuss anything that might involve race politics more aligned with Jared Taylor or foreign policy more aligned with Pat Buchanan.
Let's fast forward to the beginning of this week. In light of all the history I just babbled about, Charlie Kirk went through a considerable transformation. Kirk was talking about race. He was talking about Israel. He was talking about how multination corporations were ruining the prospects of young Americans. Kirk, as a major political player and as a part of the Trump movement, was in a position to shape the aspects of "conventional conservatism". Charlie was in a position to redefine the Republican platform, and slavish commitments to "free market economics" or our "obligations as the world's superpower" were thrown out the window. He put in the work as a moderate to push the messaging to the right. From what I could tell, he seemed to inject aspects of his Catholic faith into political considerations. He was evolving politically and no one can say where he would have ended up. This is probably why right wing politics are more popular with young men these days, the Republican party and American Conservatism are being redefined.
I am not a Charlie Kirk fan. Or rather, I wasn't. I'm still not fond of his format. But seeing how his moderation and youth engagement led to his political organization growing to such influence, I can admit I was wrong and Charlie Kirk was right. For a lot of people in political spaces, politics is just an ideological game. So much so that pundits become slaves to their ideology. Charlie Kirk had the grand strategy in mind. Others talked theory, he put boots on the ground. Such a valuable trait, to not only have the policy knowledge to defend and debate, but the practical knowledge of aiding political campaigns across the nation. That's why he was such a big deal. That's why this loss is so heavy, just in terms of American politics. On a human level, it's a real rotten way to die. Gunned down by a coward's bullet, no chance to even attempt to protect himself. Murdered in front of hundreds of fans and detractors. Some say a quick death is preferable, but I'd take slow and painful if it meant my loved ones could be with me when I died. Just sad.
Progress is not a fad, it is progress. Not all progressive ideas are good, but the ideas of the "conservatives" of the not so distant past are just abhorrent (like e.g. 'let's kill all jews' and 'black people are not really people' and 'having sex with children is okay if you marry them').
It is also pretty obvious that super conservative countries are much worse to live in than super progressive countries for the average citizen.
In the end it is sad a person died and violence is despiccable, but at least in this case it was at not an innocent schooldchild but somebody who said that other peoples deaths were a neccessary evil for having the second amendment (I am paraphrasing but I think the sentiment is not in question).
One last thought: how big was the thread here two days after a minnesotian lawmaker, her husband and her dog were murdered? Did half of jsp cry for violent retribution aswell?