Do they say it in public or private?
Because yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume, yet I see almost none of it online and certainly not in mainstream media.
And the censorship is certainly not helping.
My friend got multiple warnings and temporary bans on reddit for suggesting that:
- The only hope for democracy in Russia is a violent revolution. From what got banned and what didn't, we gather it's OK to talk about revolution, less OK about violent revolution and not allowed to talk about killing people. Well, how does reddit think revolutions work? People have to get killed or have a very high chance of being killed to give up power "voluntarily".
- That their dictator should be sentenced to death by the ICC and executed. She managed to appeal this one because she phrased it as a court ordered killing ("execution") with the caveat that the court would legalize anyone killing him (since the ICC cannot reach him to arrest him but somebody close to him might be able to do it and could use protection is he managed to escape).
So pro-tip to avoid _some_ censorship: frame it as a change of law or a legal process.
[0]: https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/2025/10/02/day-1717...
> yesterday I learned that 30% of Americans think political violence may be necessary to fix the country[0], which was gathered from anonymous polls I presume, yet I see almost none of it online and certainly not in mainstream media.
They are absolutely saying it in public and private. I hold that opinion and so does every politically engaged person i know. Its heavily censored on the mainstream platforms but you can see the messages conveying this sentiment in a semi coded way.
A podcast bro cites scripture saying queers need to get stoned, he gets a stone to the neck himself. "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast the First". Badda bing badda boom. Lotta angry people.
You're making a debunked claim that takes his statement out of context to make it sound like the opposite of what he actually said.
https://x.com/StephenKing/status/1966474125616013664
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-dMa3rIcjY
https://youtu.be/1pteZE5FpNc?si=UG2jJZovGldIJKJ0&t=1559
This has the effect of whipping up political anger and violence against people based on false pretenses. You are an embodiment of the problem.
Its not what he says that makes people think he encouraged and forced people towards political violence. He isn't just a guy saying mean things. He is one the most influential people pushing support for the political right wing, he influences masses of young and old people towards their campaign, he works with some of the most evil people in the nation and helps them theorycraft and spread their ideas and make it policy. All of this directly affects peoples lives. Thats why I laugh when he was killed and celebrate his death. Thats why I and many others openly say that he deserved what he got.
I'm confused. How is that the opposite of what he actually said? Charlie Kirk was strongly Christian, as I understand it. If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible, doesn't that imply an endorsement of everything in it? So if the Bible says to kill gay people, which he said it does, then does that not mean that he thinks that should be done? Especially given he describes it as "God's perfect law."
I don't understand how this would be "debunked" or mean anything other than what King originally said it meant, unless we're absolutely forbidden from doing even the most basic and obvious logical deduction on statements.
Your "logical deductions" are lossy. You end up making false assumptions. In this case, your assumption is leading to rationale for political violence.
No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything. In the third link, it says that Christians do not follow Leviticus. Charlie was no different. He loved and supported gay people and welcomed them into his movement. There are many gays in his organization, at high levels. To assume that he wanted them stoned to death is absurd, and incredibly ignorant.
Here's Charlie on Gay People: https://youtu.be/N14ywRyTWVI?si=AQzLU_6TBNwSDGEr&t=942
"No, arguing against cherry-picking does not mean you endorse everything."
How so? Either you cherry-pick or you take it all. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from ignoring the whole thing. Pretty sure he's not ignoring the whole thing.
How is it ignorant to see that he thinks that the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe has written down "perfect laws" for us to follow, and that we shouldn't pick and choose which ones we follow, and conclude that he thinks we should follow all of them?
He may have welcomed gay people into his movement but just based on your clip he doesn't seem to love and support them. He says straight out that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle.
I agree that there's a contradiction between "God says we're supposed to kill them" and him standing there chatting with that guy and not trying to rally the crowd to murder him. But I don't see why we have to resolve that in the "he actually loved gay people" direction. If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people, I'm inclined to believe that's what he thinks. He'd hardly be the first religious person who believes their religion demands X and actually does Y when confronted with the situation in reality. It's great that he can stand there and engage in a dialog with someone he believes his God says should be killed, but that doesn't absolve him from that belief or from professing it.
> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people
He did not say that.
Again, Christians do not follow Leviticus. I'm not a Christian, but I just looked this up:
> Mainstream Christian theology holds that Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Leviticus laws, making them no longer obligatory for believers, while the moral principles are reaffirmed and expanded in the New Testament under what is often called the "law of Christ."
You seem to think Charlie wants to stone gays because he's a Christian, and you're assuming that Christianity believes in stoning gays. But that last part is false. Christ revised the old testament. Charlie's making a point that you can't just take Leviticus at face value, and interpret its passages out of context from the new testament.
You're now interpreting Charlie's point to mean the opposite of what he meant. You're assuming that he actually wants to stone gays, because he's pointing out that the old testament talks about it, and because you don't understand Christianity.
Full clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceJpiUPgPU
Again, I'm not a Christian, and I myself appreciate gayness. But we have to stop taking clips out of context and framing people as evil to justify political violence.
>> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people
>He did not say that.
Is this some parallel universe thing where you and I experience completely different versions of Charlie Kirk? Because in my universe, the YouTube link you posted has him saying exactly that:
"In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' the chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
I seriously have to wonder if you are actually watching the stuff you're telling me to watch, or you're just parroting something you've read somewhere.
What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
I was raised Christian and I was Christian for a long time. "Christians do not follow Leviticus" not correct. Some do not. Many do, or at least follow parts of it. Pretty much all of Christianity is an exercise in deciding which parts of the Bible are meant to be followed and which are meant to be interesting stories or history. And there is no universal agreement about which parts are which. The idea that homosexuality is a sin is extremely mainstream Christian belief, and Jesus said exactly zero on that subject.
In that clip, Kirk makes it very clear that he thinks Christians must love God and must love their neighbor, by way of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. He says that you love people by telling them the truth, and he says the truth is that the Bible says gay people must be killed, in the chapter right before where it says that you must love your neighbor.
If he doesn't follow Leviticus, why is he taking "Love your neighbor" from it? Why is he describing it as "God's perfect law"? Is that meant to be sarcastic?
> What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
You're leaving out the context of Ms Rachel. Charlie is saying everything in response to her.
Let me go into extra detail here to explain what I think he meant:
"Ms Rachel is saying that she acts like this because God said 'Love your Neighbor,' and is acting as if that law is so important that we should always adopt the preferred pronouns of people around us. However, the best way to love your neighbor is to tell them the truth, and tell them what sex they are, rather than upholding their preferred pronouns, which I see as untrue to their sex. Secondly, one should not take these Mosaic laws from Leviticus as literal rules for modern day Christians to follow. Christ + his Apostles said that these Mosaic laws were applicable to the Jews (the direct descendents of Israel) in a covenant between them and God, which were only necessary before he arrived as Messiah, and now that he is there, he is fulfilling that covenant for all people, and the gentiles who convert to Christianity do not need to follow the Mosaic laws literally, but rather follow their moral intent as he teaches. Thus, if Ms Rachel really wants to take these laws so literally... she should look in the previous chapter where it says that gays should be stoned to death. I don't think that she would agree with stoning gays to death. So it's hypocritical of her to take these laws so literally."
----
Christian Context (from AI):
After Jesus’ resurrection, the early church—initially Jewish—grappled with whether Gentile (non-Jewish) converts needed to follow the Mosaic Law. This led to the pivotal Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, ~50 CE), where apostles like Peter and Paul decided:
- Gentiles were not required to follow Levitical laws like circumcision or kosher diets.
- They were asked to follow basic moral guidelines (e.g., avoiding idolatry, sexual immorality) to maintain fellowship with Jewish Christians.
Paul’s letters further clarify this shift:
- In Galatians 3:23-25, he describes the law as a “guardian” until Christ came, after which faith in Jesus supersedes the law’s role.
- In Romans 10:4, he says Christ is the “culmination of the law” for those who believe.
- However, moral principles (e.g., loving your neighbor, Leviticus 19:18) remain binding, as they’re reaffirmed in the New Testament (Romans 13:8-10).
----
^ So that's why "Love your neighbor" is still valid in Christianity, but stoning gays is not. This was decided in the Jerusalem Council, which all modern Christian sects inherit from. Charlie was using "stoning gays" as an example of something modern Christians do NOT believe in, even though it was a law of Moses, and is written in Leviticus.
Please don't quote AI at me. If I want to read the output of a bullshit machine, I can do it myself.
One thing I didn't mention before is that it's really bizarre that Kirk cites Leviticus for "love your neighbor." It's true that Leviticus says this, but that's not what most Christians are going to think of when they think of that phrase. "Love your neighbor" is typically associated with Jesus. Jesus said nothing about gay people but he was very clear on loving your neighbor. Three of the four gospels have him saying that this is the second greatest commandment, behind loving God. This is not just one of hundreds of specific rules that got thrown away when the Messiah came. This is one of the two most fundamental rules in the religion, explicitly affirmed by that Messiah.
So it makes zero sense from a Christian perspective to say that "love your neighbor" is not to be taken literally because it's tucked in there next to the "kill gay people" law and all that stuff is just for Jews. And it makes zero sense to assume that "love your neighbor" is a reference to the old Mosaic laws rather than a reference to the literal words of the Son of God.
Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic. And I don't see the justification for that. It's not like "God's perfect law" is a phrase he's throwing back at her. If she had said "God's perfect law from Leviticus commands us to love our neighbor" then I could buy it, but she didn't.
So what's your reasoning for this interpretation? It seems to rest on the idea that Christians ignore Leviticus, so he can't have meant it seriously. But that's just not true in general. Christians typically follow some of those laws and ignore others, more or less arbitrarily (or more accurately, in a way that fits their beliefs about what's right and wrong). If you look up Christian writings about homosexuality, you will find many Christians citing Leviticus on this subject.
The justification for taking Kirk to mean the opposite of his literal words here seems to boil down to, he can't have actually meant that he believes this passage from his holy book, because if he did then that would mean he's a bad person, and implying that Kirk is a bad person leads to political violence.
> Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic.
Yeah. When he said "Just sayin'", that was his cue for sarcasm.
Is this a thing with him or are you guessing?
> How is that the opposite of what he actually said?
> If a faithful Christian argues against cherry-picking the Bible
Talks about what Charlie “actually said”, proceeds to strawman him.
Mate. You literally got given evidence that debunks an idea you’d like to believe and you still continue to believe and argue for the idea you’d want to be true.
Let it go. You’re egos too big and you’re acting like an idiot. Do you consider yourself an idiot?
I literally got given evidence that confirms exactly what I said.
You understand that making a claim and linking to a video doesn't automatically mean the claim is correct, right? Sometimes the video doesn't prove what it's said to prove. In this case, Kirk very clearly said that Leviticus, including the "kill gay people" part, is "God's perfect law." He says that you can't take "Love your neighbor" from it without also taking "Kill gay people." He describes the commandment to kill gay people as part of "the truth."
To be very clear: I'm not parroting anyone else's interpretation of Kirk's statements. I'm taking the above directly from the video of Kirk talking.
And this is why I say I don't have an opinion on his killing.
It's really easy to lie online (both mechanically by just taking stuff out of context as you showed and because people face no punishment for it).
That being said, if I had an opinion, only one of the possible sides is OK to say publicly and I think that's wrong.
For example, one of the claims I heard is that he was orchestrating/supporting harassment of college professors through his Turning Point organization. Now, harassment can lead to suicide, driving innocent people to suicide is murder, a just punishment for murder is death, and when a punishment is just then it doesn't matter who carries it out as long as they have a sufficient standard of proof.
So depending on whether that claim is true, how "successful" he was and the morality of several logical inferences (which is subjective but for each statement/inference you will find a lot of people supporting it), a sane and rational person could perfectly justify the killing.
---
Most people are hypocrites. And what they really hate is when somebody tries to apply a consistent moral system to themselves and others. Not just because it puts them to shame (most people never try to be consistent and they know it even if they'd never admit it out loud or even to themselves). But also because when you apply consistent rules to severe offenses, you very quickly get very severe punishments and people are not comfortable with the idea that they too could be punished in this manner.
---
As another example, I hate when people try to vilify him by quoting him saying some dead children are OK because that's the price for the right to bear arms. Yes, innocent people (including children) dying is sad and wrong. But what do they think happens when nobody has guns? First, people would still kill each other using other tools, even mass murder wouldn't magically stop because car ramming attacks seem to be on the rise. But, second, a long term effect is that people in positions of power who are unaccountable through legal means are no longer accountable through extra-legal means.
One of the first things every dictatorship does is restricting access to guns and confiscating them.
Yes, high gun ownership has a continual price but low/zero ownership has a much higher one-time price and after that it no longer matters what people think.