Charlie Kirk and the Awful People Celebrating His Death
Social media is full of messages justifying the murder of the American ultra-agitator.
He was antiabortion and sexist. There are recordings of dozens of his clearly racist remarks. And he was a fan of the right to bear arms. That said, it is truly astonishing to see so many people — so very many — who rejoiced at Charlie Kirk’s murder on Thursday. There are thousands of examples of those who, instead of mourning his death, celebrated it or justified it across all social media platforms. Many messages amassed tens of thousands of “likes.” Even on Bluesky, a refuge for those who abandoned X with the emergence of Elon Musk, and who defend the new platform as a place of love, unlike the tycoon’s platform. This is perhaps proof that Bluesky isn’t good; it’s just young.
Other columnists will analyze the rise in the risk of social conflict that this crime implies, and others will mourn the human side and the suffering of a widow and two young children. Regardless, this murder’s repercussions online mean bad news for two reasons.
First, because Kirk was one of the canaries in the coal mine of a generational gap that we can’t ignore one second longer. If they had paid more attention to Kirk and other digital figures like him, many of the media outlets caught with their pants down by Donald Trump’s overwhelming second victory — because they chose to listen to only one half of society — would have been pleasantly surprised.
And second, because, even if you are diametrically opposed to Kirk’s ideas (and he often made it easy to be), he represented some of the best of what the digital world has to offer. Because he was a columnist, a commentator and a writer, yes. But let’s not fool ourselves: His popularity and influence came from his videos on YouTube and social media, in which he debated on college campuses with anyone who wanted to, with no other weapons than his tongue and his brain. He wasn’t tiresome and he didn’t scold his audiences as if they were children, as so many politicians do. Instead, he challenged them intellectually. And that’s how he earned millions of followers.
Of course, his videos were compilations of his best comebacks, but editing aside, he gave his naysayers a genuine forum to exchange ideas: You could go there and get burned, or you could stand up to him. He’s no Vito Quiles* or “Caiga quien Caiga” **. He didn’t chase anybody through the streets, nor did he raise decibels to get a rise out of people. He was just a guy sitting in front of a camera waiting for someone to come and spit the truth to him or criticize his ideas.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are other conservative (sometimes very conservative) influencers who have taken over social media in the U.S. with their rhetoric and controversy, following the path of street debates started by Jordan Peterson in 2017. After the left’s incomprehensible failure to show up, social media is now almost completely dominated by the right.
Again, whether you like their ideology or not, these names managed to reach those listeners that traditional media couldn’t, as well as to win over a large part of public opinion with their arguments.
Unfortunately, after Kirk’s murder, many influencers are likely to stop appearing in public, and the space that they created for open, strictly dialectical confrontation, will suffer for sure. It’s not ridiculous to think polemicists from both sides of the political spectrum will stop showing their faces out of fear and will hide away in less visible and harmful spaces, evermore poisoning the atmosphere that lies ahead of us.
Rest in peace. May all learn a lesson from this.
Editor’s note: * Vito Quiles is a Spanish reporter and political activist.
Editor's note: ** “Caiga Quien Caiga” is a weekly roundup show originating from Argentina with several international adaptations, including in Spain.
He was antiabortion and sexist. There are recordings of dozens of his clearly racist remarks. And he was a fan of the right to bear arms. That said, it is truly astonishing to see so many people — so very many — who rejoiced at Charlie Kirk’s murder on Thursday. There are thousands of examples of those who, instead of mourning his death, celebrated it or justified it across all social media platforms. Many messages amassed tens of thousands of “likes.” Even on Bluesky, a refuge for those who abandoned X with the emergence of Elon Musk, and who defend the new platform as a place of love, unlike the tycoon’s platform. This is perhaps proof that Bluesky isn’t good; it’s just young.
Other columnists will analyze the rise in the risk of social conflict that this crime implies, and others will mourn the human side and the suffering of a widow and two young children. Regardless, this murder’s repercussions online mean bad news for two reasons.
First, because Kirk was one of the canaries in the coal mine of a generational gap that we can’t ignore one second longer. If they had paid more attention to Kirk and other digital figures like him, many of the media outlets caught with their pants down by Donald Trump’s overwhelming second victory — because they chose to listen to only one half of society — would have been pleasantly surprised.
And second, because, even if you are diametrically opposed to Kirk’s ideas (and he often made it easy to be), he represented some of the best of what the digital world has to offer. Because he was a columnist, a commentator and a writer, yes. But let’s not fool ourselves: His popularity and influence came from his videos on YouTube and social media, in which he debated on college campuses with anyone who wanted to, with no other weapons than his tongue and his brain. He wasn’t tiresome and he didn’t scold his audiences as if they were children, as so many politicians do. Instead, he challenged them intellectually. And that’s how he earned millions of followers.
Of course, his videos were compilations of his best comebacks, but editing aside, he gave his naysayers a genuine forum to exchange ideas: You could go there and get burned, or you could stand up to him. He’s no Vito Quiles* or “Caiga quien Caiga” **. He didn’t chase anybody through the streets, nor did he raise decibels to get a rise out of people. He was just a guy sitting in front of a camera waiting for someone to come and spit the truth to him or criticize his ideas.
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh are other conservative (sometimes very conservative) influencers who have taken over social media in the U.S. with their rhetoric and controversy, following the path of street debates started by Jordan Peterson in 2017. After the left’s incomprehensible failure to show up, social media is now almost completely dominated by the right.
Again, whether you like their ideology or not, these names managed to reach those listeners that traditional media couldn’t, as well as to win over a large part of public opinion with their arguments.
Unfortunately, after Kirk’s murder, many influencers are likely to stop appearing in public, and the space that they created for open, strictly dialectical confrontation, will suffer for sure. It’s not ridiculous to think polemicists from both sides of the political spectrum will stop showing their faces out of fear and will hide away in less visible and harmful spaces, evermore poisoning the atmosphere that lies ahead of us.
Rest in peace. May all learn a lesson from this.
Editor’s note: * Vito Quiles is a Spanish reporter and political activist.
Editor's note: ** “Caiga Quien Caiga” is a weekly roundup show originating from Argentina with several international adaptations, including in Spain.
Previous article![]( "Trump Declares War on Cities")
