Sir Ralph

If you go through nearly all of them won’t reflect the statement suggested . People with opposing views hated him because he often showed their arguments up for being unfounded. So they made crap up about him. I bet the muppet on Five Live didn’t even listen to him.

It was a tactic used by people from certain political view points to discredit him. In every circumstance you need to watch the video where he says it. What you will likely find is that he was a rationale (even if you don’t agree with all his views) and good debater. It’s unfortunate he was killed by some idiot who spent to much time reading bollocks on the internet.

Completely irrelevant to the point - muppets like King shouldn’t make false accusations. in fact the king article is a good example of people that hugely took his comments out of context to make a point.

I only read the first two What’s the context to these statements. The first one I found was false https://deadline.com/2025/09/stephen-king-apology-charlie-kirk-stoning-gays-1236529789/ The second comment was in the context of DEI - see video. He was using the second comment as an example. Do you really think he is being racist in this? The individual statements need to be read in context. Whoever produced the list has lazily tried to make a point. People just accept and don’t read into things and make their own minds up. The exact problem. Respectfully I suggest you listen to his videos and make your mind up

Have you watched his videos? If he was that extreme why was he allowed to debate in such public places under multiple governments. If he was racist he would have been arrested or stopped

I’m not a supporter of Trump as such. I think he’s done some good things and things that I’m not so sure about. On the flip side I preferred him to Harris but I think there should be better options for US president.

Yes I’ve listened to him before - less his debates more his own opinions and his reasoning for doing what he does

I don’t know who Alex jones is and never listened to him. I saw he said something ridiculous about sandy hook which I would suggest that particular view is extreme. Thats a different person though. Kirk is not near that (from the small things I’ve read about jones) so you shouldn’t dismiss someone like Kirk on the basis of the views from people who are actually extreme.

He never suggested or said anything of the sort. I think you should watch a couple of his debate and non debate videos, including why he explains what he does. I think it might change your perspective of him a bit (even though you may not agree with his views)

Thats just not correct - its called free speech. Just because you dont like it, it doesnt mean its wrong or shouldnt be said. Applies to both left and right view.

I only recall talking about the difference in the public reaction / social disorder in relation to the two murders. I didnt get into the discussion about comparisons between the two deaths themselves.

There is a difference between a view that someone considers to be obnoxious and an 'extreme' view. An extreme view needs to be seen as that. If we start saying that someone's view is 'extreme' too easily, it becomes a dangerous position. If you listen to his videos which arent debates you will understand why he did what he did - he didnt intend to shock and want attention. If you haven't I would encourage you to watch his non debate videos and you may see it differently.

He wasnt extreme. If you listen to what he says and his world view, and you still think that, I think your definition of 'extreme' is nowhere near my definition. I would say that about anyone on the left or the right. Your definition of "extreme" is exactly the problem with closing down debate. Sorry, thats just not correct.

Its actually ridiculous that anyone thinks that because Kirk had a political opinion that he vocalised he may have to some degree put himself at risk. If you accept that as a concept you might as well bin free speech if its going to offend any looney that might kill you then. This lunatic wrote 'catch facist' on his bullet.

Ok I take your point. I think that based on the evidence to date regarding inscriptions on bullets etc and the fact the Kirk was a prominent conservative that the motivation for the killing is likely to be political. I genuinely hope the right don’t react with public disorder . Let’s see what happens then - I may be proved wrong and made to look silly (again) However the point about whether it was pre meditated or not is neither here nor there in the context of the point made.

Why does it explain a different reaction from the public? if you want to get technical the officer in the George Floyd case were charged with 2nd and 3rd degree murder so my statement was factually correct

I’m unclear as to why that shows me in a poor light and dim. Please explain. They are probably to two most high profile murders in recent years in the US and the reaction to both has been markedly different from a public disorder perspective(I hasten to add to date). Neither we justified and both terrible. I genuinely fail to see how that is a controversial point other than you disagree with the point

Somebody observed this morning - the difference between the peoples reaction to Charlie Kirk’s death and the that took place after George Floyd’s death. One peaceful (so far) the other widespread disorder.

I wasn’t making a political point I was just saying that the proliferation of drugs is a big issue particularly if you go to lots of American cities now. The sad thing is that lots of people of fent were legitimately introduced to it

Guns and liberal drug policies for starters

Youre buggered if youre an ally of the labour party then😆

Thats fine - my initial perception on some of the responses was incorrect and I hold my hands up, like I said.

Fair point I may have pushed the political element a bit too far. Hands up and apologies

Great reply. You havent said once that his murder was unacceptable but suggested other factors. Do you think it was unacceptable? If so I'm happy to accept that I was wrong in respect of my perception of your view on this matter.

Exactly - if you actually listen to his background he was god-fearing and his principle point wasnt to destroy people but challenge university students who he believes had been unduly influenced by wokeism on US campuses. His objective was to challenge thinking. He wasnt aggressive or demeaning as others have suggested.