Charlie Kirk, MAGA influencer and Turning Point USA co-founder, killed at 31

The problem in today's world is that no one gets the complete picture. We live in the age of TikTok and Turning Point used it to great effect. Short 5 second bursts of something to create an emotive response, increase the brand and bring in dollars. While I have no doubt that there was a lot of sincerity in Charlie wanting to spread the gospel, in the end it was part of an enormous money generating enterprise. So image was highly curated by teams of people. I think his faith was changing over time as well. In the beginning, faith was not a big part of his messaging. It was really only in the last 2-3 years that it became more of a focus in his discussions.

>>I’m not going to rejoice with him over Mormon missionaries or conservative Catholics.<<

You’re not going to hear me rejoice over what Catholics and Mormons are doing either. However, you and I share a common friend who was saved inside a Catholic church. Without commending the Catholics, can I still rejoice that even as diminished as it was (or perhaps even preached in “pretense”) the Gospel was preached there and reached a soul? Absolutely.

As I said, I’m not here to commend the questionable things about Charlie Kirk. He stands alone before the Savior now, and will have to answer for his life. Again, I don’t know if he died for his politics or his faith, but in the last few years, his faith (as flawed as it may have been) was on display, and he boldly named the name of Christ. I don’t have to lionize the man, but I am thankful for what witness he had.

Dgsweda: We live in the age of TikTok and Turning Point used it to great effect. Short 5 second bursts of something to create an emotive response, increase the brand and bring in dollars.

I don’t think this is accurate. Maybe with “5 second bursts” is an exaggeration. But I really don’t think any of Charlie’s answers are like that. Maybe you’re finding some clips cut from his speeches or responses. If so, you should listen to full discussions.

Dgsweda: We live in the age of TikTok and Turning Point used it to great effect. Short 5 second bursts of something to create an emotive response, increase the brand and bring in dollars.

Dan: I don’t think this is accurate. Maybe with “5 second bursts” is an exaggeration. But I really don’t think any of Charlie’s answers are like that. Maybe you’re finding some clips cut from his speeches or responses. If so, you should listen to full discussions.

We also have to remember that the algorithms seem to have figured out our biases. It is very possible that Dgsweda is getting 5 second clips of Kirk from Kirk's detractors. That would result in a far different perspective than those who watch the whole interaction where Kirk typically answered a question and then allowed the one asking it a follow up question. Kirk also often asked people questions himself and waited for their answers.

We all need to be cautious about any out of context clips we get, no matter what side of the political isle we are on.

I know that Charlie Kirk had multiple media outlets. I was only making the comment that he was really propelled by his use of Tik Tok. I am not talking about out of context clips. I am talking about his own clips. He was masterful at how he used it and a key component on how he engaged the youth. I am not knocking him. He gave his generation what they wanted to hear. His quick question and answer format were well structured to be put on social media platforms like Tik Tok and it reached a large audience. The younger generation just don't want to watch a 60 minute podcast. They want short consumable pieces of information. That is what pulled them in, to then explore other sources of information that he had. Some of his stuff resonated with me and some of his stuff didn't resonate with me, but I probably wasn't his target audience either.

I'm pretty uncomfortable with people getting fired over their comments concerning Charlie Kirk's death. Do I like some of these comments? No. Do I think they are insensitive and wrong? Yes. But I really worry about conservatives getting fired for their social media posts when said posts are deemed to be insensitive and wrong.

Personally I think it’s fine when employers, schools, branches of government, etc., decide to fire people based on their public speech, at least in certain cases. We don’t want teachers, fire fighters, doctors, army officers, etc. who are OK with some people being murdered to be responsible for the lives of others or for teaching others. And protection against firing is not what the right to free speech protects.

Speaking as someone without that kind of responsibility (I have worked in the tech industry my entire career — if I do something wrong, maybe your phone or router has too many errors), it’s always been understood at each of my places of employment (and often stated in the written policies) that if what I say or write publicly has a negative effect on my employer, I can be terminated for that. I’m an “at will” employee. That’s the way it works. For those in positions like police, fire, military, etc., their speech has always been under stronger regulations than that of the average citizen, and for good reason.

Where I might possibly agree with Andy here, I will not (no matter how hard it is) join in the piling on and vilification of people exercising their speech (no matter how disgusting). There would be exceptions to this, though it would be handled differently. My children are grown, but if one of their teachers had expressed that it’s OK to murder someone for their speech, I would have been down at the school asking what is going to be done about that. If nothing, my child would have been removed from that influence.

Of course I don’t want to see Christians or conservatives getting fired for their speech either, but the constitution doesn’t protect against that already, and I’m sure that will continue to happen. I just don’t want to make things worse by joining a lynch mob against speech that disagrees with mine.

I read today that Pam Bondi is promising to go after "hate speech." Brothers, this should concern us. Hate speech is often in the eye of the beholder. Unless someone is threatening violence, the government should not be regulating whatever the person leading the DOJ considers "hate speech." This will end badly for Christians.

What she said yesterday was definitely concerning. She appears to have walked that back somewhat today, reframing it as speech that crosses the lines into threats of violence, which as you note, is the real issue. I will be keeping an eye on this for sure.

It's not speech that is at issue, but rather character. When you work with people, your employer has interest when your words demonstrate murderous intent, especially when what provokes the person's wrath is simple disagreement. No matter what political stand it might be, I don't want a doctor or teacher who thinks they can pour out their wrath on someone with whom they disagree.

>>No matter what political stand it might be, I don’t want a doctor or teacher who thinks they can pour out their wrath on someone with whom they disagree.<<

I completely agree with this, and as I said above, I’m not against such firings. That doesn’t mean I want our government to go overboard to the point of arresting people for that “hate speech” (which is really just free speech). The free market can take care of them almost as well. Threats, of course, are a different matter entirely.

My cousin just posted this:

Insanity: thinking it is wrong to lose your job because of what you said, but what you said is that Charlie Kirk should lose his life for what he said.

And now we have the FCC chairman making threats to pull ABC's licenses over remarks Jimmy Kimmel made, relatively benign by the way. So now Jimmy Kimmel is canceled and there are threats being made all over the place by different levels of federal and state governments. We are heading full steam into authoritarianism. I've never watched Jimmy Kimmel and don't care about his show, but this is not a good path. If you'd be outraged by government actions when it's against your party but thrilled when it's in favor of your party, it's probably not your desire for justice but rather your desire for revenge speaking.

And all this while Brian Kilmeade last week says to give the homeless "involuntary lethal injections...just kill'em". And he's still employed by Fox. What in the world is going on in this country?

I believe Kilmeade should lose his job over that.

What in the world is going on in this country?

We live in a world that needs Jesus.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Even though his coming means wrath on an unsaved world, come, Lord Jesus. Let us also remember Romans 12:19 in that context:

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

We can recognize the justice of consequences without taking vengeance ourselves.

What most people should realize is as you go farther right or farther left the two sides look the same:

• Hunter Biden's laptop vs. Epstein Files
• Cancel Culture
• Complain about removing Robert E. Lee statues and rewriting history, complain about removing slavery exhibits

We continue to go down the same road. Not only is the the cancelling of Jim Kimmel an attack on free speech, but it continues our devolution into crony capitalism, where the markets are not driven by the consumer, but to please the whims of the president. None of this is surprising and why I have not been a fan of Trump.