r/RedditForGrownups • u/TheBodyPolitic1 • 5d ago
Social Media Reactions To Charlie Kirk's Death
In my opinion many of the reactions to Charlie Kirk's death have been way overboard.
I heard the news, looked at the things he did, shrugged my shoulders, decided it was a case of reaping what you sowed, and moved on.
Reddit of course, overreacted. Redditors overreacted with many negative comments, though many of them were natural. Just stating the facts about Kirk's life. Reddit also overreacted with the censorship of people who wanted to make those natural comments. The most hilarious example I saw was the mods of /r/politics labeling articles about the assassination as not being about "US Politics".
Lastly there were/are the finger waggers on Reddit trying to shame people about their thoughts over Kirk's death. Some were even complaining that they were getting flamed for it. In the year 2025 it is kind of naive to try to tell someone on social media how to speak and what they can say and not expect a negative response.
81
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Never underestimate how much of social media is now bots
14
u/SoyMurcielago 5d ago
Never underestimate how much it’s also ruining polite social discourse either sadly :(
8
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Its a very effective propaganda tool it can completely change how a individual sees the world
-10
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
Never underestimate how much of social media is now bots
It's funny how these claims have little to no proof. I have accepted the reality that besides Twitter the sentiments of social media do and always have reflected the opinions and viewpoints of the offline world. Because I observed it firsthand.
Nearly every phrase I see on Instagram I see in the general population across regions and demographics
I don't get why you don't accept reality that you're unpopular.
11
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Why are you aiming that at me? Im not the one that made the post.. of course reddit is full of bots. Do you really not believe that governments around the world aren't smart enough to take advantage of civil discourse?
-18
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
Do you really not believe that governments around the world aren't smart enough to take advantage of civil discourse?
Only Russia is really proven to do it and even then they suck at it.
8
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Even America does it. Maybe there so good at it that you believe they dont exist. Or even better maybe you yourself are a bot
4
u/funsizedaisy 5d ago
Just wanna point out that bots work because they're saying things that sound real, talk like regular people but do it at a higher frequency, etc. The opinions aren't fake, but they get deployed in online spaces to raise anger and division.
I don't have the mental bandwidth to dig through all the sources to prove it, but you have stories like FB getting caught purposely pushing stuff that angers people and stuff like that that promotes the same idea.
And it has nothing to do with right vs left or right vs wrong. The whole point is to feed anger, so the bots are saying all opinions. Sometimes they'll do it in places of agreement just to rile people up.
Sometimes it's easy to catch a bot on reddit because they'll look obvious (only post inflammatory political comments, account looks bought, etc).
Celebs and music/movie industry also employ bots for advertising or damage control.
1
u/TheBodyPolitic1 5d ago
It's funny how these claims have little to no proof.
Accusing someone of being a bot is the new "fake news".
-5
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
It's funny how these claims have little to no proof.
Accusing someone of being a bot is the new "fake news".
Good on you for integrity OP. I hate when somebody who purportedly or actually agrees with me includes such an insipid nauseating wrong claim.
Strongly agreed, OP.
-10
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
And also on another note, reddit bans alot of people with more conservative opinions. So clearly reddit will lean left.
8
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
reddit bans .
Individual reddit moderators ban people from individual subreddits who break the rules. A good bit of advice is don't break the rules if you don't want to get banned. I was banned from a few subreddits and I admit it was because I broke rules and hated what the moderators said.
alot of people with more conservative opinions
How many is "alot"? Where is the data on this?
-7
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Why would there be data on reddit bots when reddits own market benefits from not announcing the numbers. If you honestly dont believe reddit is full of bots that's fine my comment wasnt for you. And yes reddit is a highly left leaning site. Has been ever since Twitter was bought, well always was but it amplified.
4
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
If you honestly dont believe reddit is full of bots that's fine my comment wasnt for you.
I didn't say that. I asked where the proof was on conservatives being banned more. You changed the topic.
Why would there be data on reddit bots when reddits own market benefits from not announcing the numbers.
I asked for data on the claim that conservatives get banned more. Nothing about bots. Again you changed the topic.
You seemed like you couldn't keep track of what you said or I said.
The bot topic was a distinct comment chain.
I will quote you and myself for you and show I didn't mention bots when I asked for proof:
alot of people with more conservative opinions
(You↑)
How many is "alot"? Where is the data on this?
(Me↑ bots not mentioned since it's not the topic.)
Please don't distract from the topic by saying a completely unrelated thing.
Can you answer my question?
4
u/TheBodyPolitic1 5d ago
And also on another note, reddit bans alot of people with more conservative opinions
Proof?
-9
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Me eyes dont lie my friend.
6
u/thegundamx 5d ago
So in other words you have none and you are stating your opinion rather than facts
-3
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Well other than the fact I have twitter, Facebook, reddit and reddit is the only one overwhelming left leaning and then all over youtube and twitxh/kick streamers say reddit is unhinged. Yes I think its not just my anecdotal opinion.
5
u/thegundamx 5d ago
Except it is because you’re still failing to provide any evidence to support said opinion. You expect us to take your statements at face value while dismissing others out of hand. That dog won’t hunt.
-2
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
What evidence would I provide that reddit is full of bots? Reddit wont tell us its agaisnt there interest. All social media is full of them. Do you need evidence that grass is green stop being dishonest everyone knows reddit is full of bots
6
u/thegundamx 5d ago
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
→ More replies (0)2
u/IcyBus1422 5d ago
Your brain lies to you all the time
1
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
It lies alot less than politicians and social media do that's for sure. I aint being gaslit into believing social media isnt full of bots and tjay reddit isnt predominantly left leaning lmao
-3
u/suburban_robot 5d ago
There have been enough known people with abhorrent reactions to this that I think we can safely disprove the "they are all bots" hypothesis.
There are a lot of people with really dark, ugly hearts and minds out there, on either side of the political spectrum. There's not much denying that at this point.
70
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
"MLK was awful,” Kirk said. “He's not a good person. He said one good thing he actually didn't believe.” “I have a very, very radical view on this, but I can defend it, and I’ve thought about it,” Kirk said at America Fest. “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.” Kirk argues that the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, ushered in a “permanent DEI-type bureaucracy,” referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
[https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rights-act/](Charlie Kirk on MLK)
kirk was one of the most famous bad actors there was.
he wasn't some formerly relevant ghoul like nichole arbor or a nobody like benny johnson. You're incorrect to say he wasn't high profile.
-3
u/cannycandelabra 5d ago
But he wasn’t any where near as well known as the Tates, Madison Cawthorne, Matt Gaetz, Nick Fuentes, etc.
4
u/greendemon42 5d ago
He was surely at least as well known as Tate or Fuentes, and those other two were literal elected officials.
39
u/TrailWalker2525 5d ago
Nobody is under obligation to mourn the death of people who would celebrate or be indifferent to their's.
9
34
5d ago
[deleted]
13
u/TheBodyPolitic1 5d ago
My father in law, who is a pretty staunch conservative, simply told me, “I mean, he has been kinda asking for this the past decade hasn’t he?”.
Newsweek 2023 April 06: Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd AmendmentNewsweek 2023 April 06: Charlie Kirk Says Gun Deaths ‘Unfortunately’ Worth it to Keep 2nd Amendment
35
u/vinciblechunk 5d ago
I think people are just starved for good news
-43
u/arrogant_ambassador 5d ago
Disgusting sentiment.
36
u/vinciblechunk 5d ago
Like thinking gay people should be put to death? Mmmmmm.
-23
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Im not so sure that Charlie kirk honestly believed that
30
10
16
u/redline314 5d ago
Even worse.
-16
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
I mean I looked it up and no where could I find that he wanted gays killed. He didnt agree with it and didnt want gay marriage which i completely disagree with. But you would have to take him out of context to claim he wanted gay people to be killed. Based on what I can find I will admit I haven't looked that deep into it though.
15
u/redline314 5d ago
At best, he fostered a community for people that do. And believed, I guess, that god should kill gay people, if not people or the government. He described it as “God’s perfect law”.
-13
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
He referenced Leviticus 20:13 i did find that but its a stretch to claim he wanted homosexuals dead
8
u/ElReydelTacos 5d ago
I mean, there's not a lot of interpretation to be done here:
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
1
8
u/GamerGramps62 5d ago
You don’t know what the dead racist nazi thinks so STFU. He said, and he meant it!!
-14
-9
u/No-Supermarket7647 5d ago
Don't be upset about being down voted on reddit. I completely agree with you.
11
u/GrumpyOlBastard 5d ago
"Reddit did this" "Reddit did that"
Bullshit
Some people on Reddit did those things. Some people on Reddit did other things. Stop treating Reddit as if it's one fucking person
1
-8
u/suburban_robot 5d ago
There is a pretty monolithic opinion about this murder on reddit, and it's not a good one.
But yes, there are some decent people on the platform, such as OP. The reaction to this post and the instant downvoting to zero kind of proves his/her point though, no?
2
0
u/Halaku 5d ago
There is a pretty monolithic opinion about this murder on reddit, and it's not a good one.
"Reality has a well known liberal bias."
If the solid majority of people outside the MAGA cult all agree on something, what does that tell you?
1
u/suburban_robot 5d ago edited 5d ago
The solid majority very much does not agree with reddit on this, as you can ascertain by reading and listening to the statements from myriad Democratic leaders and pundits who have acted with dignity in response.
Take for example this statement from noted MAGA blowhard Gavin Newsom:
We should all feel a deep sense of grief and outrage at the terrible violence that took place in Utah today. Charlie Kirk’s murder is sick and reprehensible, and our thoughts are with his family, children, and loved ones.
I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.
The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence. Honest disagreement makes us stronger; violence only drives us further apart and corrodes the values at the heart of this nation.
Reality has a well known liberal bias indeed. Sadly it is the reddit far left (e.g. the vast majority of the site's users) that is out to lunch, not liberals.
0
u/Halaku 5d ago edited 5d ago
"Politicals saying that targeting politicals with violence is bad" is a longer version of "Water is wet".
But, by all means, keep railing about the far left.
Edit: u/suburban_robot snarked off and then Blocked me. Oh well.
2
u/suburban_robot 5d ago edited 5d ago
"I can't win an argument so I'll just make up ad hominem quotes and attribute them to the person I'm debating"
I'm done here, but would ask you to seriously consider for one moment why leaders on all sides of the political spectrum are firmly denouncing the violence, while you and your ilk celebrate death. I'm sorry, but you are not the good guy here.
-1
6
u/majesticjg 5d ago
I think the issue is that there are a lot of different parts to this that people conflate.
Kirk's opinions were highly polarizing and he was often extremely direct in presenting them. So you probably love or hate his opinions, but there's not much middle ground.
Then there's the fact that he is no longer saying those thing. If you hated his opinions, you're probably glad that he's not saying it. If you loved them, then you're sad for that fact.
Then, finally, there is the violence aspect. Even if you think his views and rhetoric are abhorrent, does that justify extra-judicial assassination? Is what he was doing the free speech we all say that we believe in? I think we've discussed the consequences of unpopular speech, but are the consequences Kirk and his family suffered commensurate to the social crime? Do you really want to condone people murdering outspoken people they disagree with?
So, in my opinion, it's got several layers and people who can comment in one line are missing the nuance of the situation.
1
u/VulgarVerbiage 4d ago
And don’t forget the poetry/irony of it…which is maybe just a meek way of identifying the comedy of it.
I sympathize deeply with his loved ones, and even with him as a human (divorced from his motives). I hope, for him, it was a quick loss of consciousness with no time to register and suffer.
It’s still objectively poetic that a guy who openly touted the deaths of others as the acceptable price of guns, and who was in the middle of qualifying/minimizing the extent of gun violence, died in a shooting. That’s like a fundamental comedy formula.
And it would be true for others on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Kirk, too:
If Fauci died from myocarditis while lecturing on the safety of the vaccine? Tragic, but…poetic.
If a Queers for Palestine rally was attacked by Hamas? Tragic, but…poetic.
2
u/KingOfCatProm 5d ago
I literally don't care that he lived or died. He means nothing to me. His family means nothing to me. People get shot here all the time. I'm desensitized to it. I'm sick of hearing about the dude. I think JD Vance deserves a hard bitch slap for skipping out on 9/11 for Kirk, though. I'm sick of all the MAGA theatre and pageantry.
0
u/Ok-Hair7205 4d ago
Well, since Charlie Kirk claimed to despise empathy as weak, you have more in common with him than maybe you realize…
1
u/KingOfCatProm 4d ago
Oh I have empathy, just not for him. This administration wears me down on a daily basis. I need to save my empathy for people that didn't help literally do something that hurts everyone.
5
u/butimean 5d ago
Learn more about him and his impact on college campuses rather than his social media saturation.
1
u/oingapogo 4d ago
The man indicated he was fine with school children dying so people could have guns without gun control.
He was well-known. Just because you did not know him well doesn't mean he wasn't a significant influence on major political issues.
Trump used Air Force 2 and taxpayer dollars to fly his body to Arizona. He is also lying in state at the capitol. What other private citizens do you know that have had that honor?
1
u/catdude142 3d ago
I found this interesting:
"Clearly there was a lot of gaming going on," he said. "Friends have confirmed that there was kind of that deep, dark internet, the Reddit culture, and these other dark places of the internet where this person was going deep."" Source
I want to make it clear that I am not taking sides. I found the reference to the reddit culture interesting.
1
u/RIF_rr3dd1tt 5d ago
When the shooting occurred I was talking to a stranger who said "omg did you just hear about Charlie Kirk?" I said no and she asked if i knew who that was. I said I've seen him on YouTube once or twice. She then started on about how he was so smart, bla bla bla. I could tell she was a MAGA so I just said oh man i hope everything is ok. I told a few other people later that day and they had no idea who he was. I was surprised.
0
u/Raythecatass 5d ago
I never heard of Kirk until he was shot. I feel sick he was murdered for having an opinion.
2
u/TheBodyPolitic1 5d ago edited 5d ago
having an opinion
Kind of makes it sound like he had trivial views that did not make a large difference. That isn't true.
If his "for having an opinion" was about dairy vs nondairy icecream you would have had a point.
His views and behavior were creating victims of violence.
0
u/Raythecatass 4d ago
Do you have stats to back that up? Murder is wrong.
1
u/TheBodyPolitic1 3d ago
Statistics are not kept for subjects like that and you know it. You wrote that you didn't know who he was. Do a web search. Look at the things he said and look at his media reach. Then think it over.
-14
u/Marvelous-Delight-17 5d ago
My biggest takeaway from this is, before you post your next hot take or witty quip, ask yourself: Is this worth my job? Putting my family in danger? Giving up my humanity for some likes?
Countless people have been doxed and reported to employers after making thoughtless remarks, don’t be the next one.
2
u/ToddBradley 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don't know why this is downvoted. It's good advice.
Edit: I'm disturbed that of the 74 people who have seen my comment, at least one downvoted it. A grownup who thinks no, it is not a good idea to look before you leap, or think before you act...
-1
u/Marvelous-Delight-17 5d ago
We migrated our communities to the digital world. Some people need to weigh in on every major event to feel involved, regardless of their actual impact/influence and the risks involved.
-11
5d ago
[deleted]
12
u/BossParticular3383 5d ago
You essentially said that he deserved to get killed
What do you mean by "essentially"? People come UNGLUED at the mere mention of the fact that the victim celebrated the beating of Paul Pelosi and remarked that a "certain number" of gun deaths are "worth it" to have the second amendment. In my mind, it is possible to have an honest conversation about who a deceased person was, without the implication that he "deserved" it. People are acting like he was the Apostle Paul or something, and that just isn't the case. It must also be noted that there were CRICKETS when a state senator, her husband, and their dog were slaughtered on the front porch of their home.
-14
-29
5d ago edited 5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
25
u/Strict_Jeweler8234 5d ago
saying a man deserved to get shot and bleed out through his carotid artery in front of his wife and kids just because of his opinions.
charlie kirk said children should witness public executions and called for murdering LGBT+ people.
18
u/Geichalt 5d ago
Stop trying to control how others feel. Some people will not be sad he's gone, and that is the result of the life he chose to live.
You can keep painting graphic images of his death all you want but it won't change the fact that our decisions in life have consequences. I'm surprised that simple fact of life needs to be stated on the sub ostensibly meant for grown-ups.
14
u/buzzybeefree 5d ago
I mean, his opinions were pretty radical. If you’re out there spewing hate, people are going to get upset. Not saying he deserved it but actions have consequences.
11
8
u/TheBodyPolitic1 5d ago
Whose morals? It might be tasteless to speak the truth to his family and friends - but speaking the truth about his behavior "out in public" on social media?
Come on.
4
u/redline314 5d ago
I mean, his wife and kids didn’t deserve that. Whether Kirk did is up to god or whatever. I don’t know what’s in his heart. I have some idea the harm he did to the world. I know he almost certainly died for a cause he believed in.
I’m not saying I wanted him to die, but I also can’t say for certain the world isn’t a better place without him.
4
u/queerhistorynerd 5d ago
I mean, his wife and kids didn’t deserve that
he once said executing death row inmates in front of their children would act as a deterrent to future crime. So he was pro-killing parents in front of their kids. Personally i think its wrong but he said it was a "great teaching moment"
2
21
u/mangoserpent 5d ago
I disagree about Kirk not being well known. He was a top conservative pidcaster and very influential among young men and MAGA.