11. ....And the jackals cheered.

And that's your right. I just hope nobody shoots you one day for exercising it like they did Charlie.

by Dana Scully; 1760412664; Report

This, 100% of this. And so so many people are getting fired for the gross comments they've made about it or celebrating it, which tbh... I don't feel very bad for them. It's pretty common sense to not do something like that at work or on social media. And a lot of these people were teachers, daycare workers, DOCTORS... there was a doc from my state that got fired for it. Think about that. A DOCTOR was fired for openly celebrating someone's death, while in the hospital he worked at.

I wouldn't want someone like that taking care of me in a vulnerable position, or teaching my kids at school, or watching my kids while I'm at work. Hell no!

by Dana Scully; 1759192623; Report

YES, I've been trying to find someone who actually says what you said in the end!
If you don't care about Charlie Kirk, don't say anything about his death. I don't think we (as a society) should all mourn his death because some just don't care about it, and shouldn't be forced nor pressured to mourn.

Charlie Kirk's death being bad or good is subjective. But it's objectively less moral to celebrate his death publicly because others who do care are currently mourning. Even if you don't agree, spare their feelings for now at the very least.

All in all: death is crazy, most people in the US never met the man, respect other's opinions, don't be a d*ck 🫰

by Mas; 1759127707; Report

Grow up and learn how to spell before sticking your nose into politics.

by Dana Scully; 1759020126; Report

1. "defended pedophilia because a minor could be a ”minor attracted person.” "

Congrats on being the MOST misconstrued bullshit argument I've come across so far. In the actual debate you're pulling this from, a girl said she "doesn't subscribe to the idea of consequences for people's actions".

Kirk: "So then let me ask you a question: if you do not believe that there's a consequence to your action, why wouldn't you do the action?"

Girl: "See, that's again the ideology of consequentialism, I don't really subscribe to that."

Kirk: "Yes, there should be consequences."

Girl: "No but, I think that consequences-- your actions can exist outside the vacuum of consequences, right? We can't make our decisions based on whether or not we think the actions will lead to a certain outcome, because those will always be random, right? So I revolve more around we try to do things that we think will promote general pro-social attitudes."

Kirk: "Ok, let me ask you a hypothetical -- and this will tell me a lot -- is pedophilia wrong?"

Girl: "Pedophilia I consider to be wrong because it is actively damaging someone else, right?"

Kirk: "But what if they say they're a minor-attracted person and it's 'pro-social' to be with a young person? Why are they wrong?"

Girl: "Pro-social generally means like, working together, socialization..."

Kirk: "Well, they're socializing with an 8-year-old."

Girl: "That's not socialization and you know it." (She goes on to string together half-sentences that don't really make sense about "anti-social behaviors")

Kirk: "So then, should pedophiles go to prison?"

Girl: "Uh, pedophiles go.... I do not know what's the best way to handle pedophilia, because-- (crowd booing her) no, because-- how do we know-- I don't think that anyone should molest a child, god forbid, I really don't!"

Kirk: "But, WHY shouldn't a pedophile go to prison?"

Girl: "What??? That's-- again, we're getting really off topic, let's go back to the idea of good and evil...."

Kirk is showing her the flaw in her logic, because if there are no consequences, there is nothing to stop people (like pedophiles) from doing evil as long as they call it "pro-social" like she does. If anything, the student is the pedophile-sympathizer here, since she "doesn't know the best way to handle pedophilia" and doesn't want them to go to prison for their actions because that's a consequence... Here's the full clip so you can un-brainwash yourself. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GqXP0vbltHI

2. "black people were better off under slavery"

Amazing what changing one little word can do to a quote. What he *actually* said was "black people were better off AFTER slavery", around the 1920s - 1940s. During this time period, per capita, blacks had more ownership, more property and more power. Black Wall Street was in full swing, they had their own banks, they had their own everything -- so much so that the government was pissed because they were rivaling Wall Street in New York. They were so powerful during this time that the government literally had to come in and tear them down.

Black people were also more united and had more whole families back then, until the government pushed the black father out of the family in the 60s. Now we have broken homes, a higher rate of unwed mothers, and higher rate of teen pregnancies. There's more division and violence in their own communities.


3. "black women are too unintelligent to be taken seriously"

This misquote stems from Karen Attiah, a black former columnist who was fired from the Washington Post. Here's the false quote she posted on Bluesky: " 'Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot' -- Charlie Kirk"

The Post fired her on grounds of gross misconduct and endangering the safety of colleagues. Attaih of course complained, and seems to be oblivious of the fact that when you are a professional journalist working for a large outlet, you actually can't just put quotes around words that someone never said and claim they did. Furthermore, the fabricated quote is not actually what got her fired, as she led people online to believe -- it was the disparaging remarks about white people she often posted and her poor performance.

Now, she didn't just pull her fake quote out of her imagination -- she took a quote from Charlie Kirk's show and when it didn't look "bad" enough for her, she decided to chop part of it off and make up the rest. In the actual clip, Charlie is specifically talking about 4 women (Joy Reid, Michelle Obama, Sheila Jackson Lee, Ketanji Brown Jackson), and never once says the words "black women":

"If we (conservatives) would've said Joy Reid and Michelle Obama, and Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would've been called racist. But now they're coming out and saying it for us. They're coming out and they're actually saying, 'I'm only here because of affirmative action'. Yeah, we know -- you do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken seriously." He then goes on to play a video of Sheila Jackson Lee herself talking about it.

Here's a video that breaks down the whole situation pretty well, including the misleading "fact check" that Snopes did: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHY1hj_1owg


4. "said 1964 civil rights act was a ”huge mistake.” "

Congrats, you actually got one quote right! Unfortunately, you completely left out WHY he said it.

"There's parts of it that are good. But I'll give you an example: Merrick Garland (attorney general) recently said that states cannot have voter ID because it's a violation of the civil rights act. So, that's insane. Now, if you go to a Walgreens and someone says 'blacks shall not come in', that should obviously be illegal."

"Parts of the Civil Rights Act were great, but the way it's now being implemented to force men in female bathrooms, to push forward the trans agenda -- the intent of the Civil Rights Act is way beyond what it was originally authored for. So, the intent and the law are two different things. The intent was noble, which was to say that no American can be not allowed into a place of business based on the color of their skin or their ethnic heritage. Totally in agreement with that.... But what the Civil Rights Act did is that it went beyond disparate impact, and then went to disparate effect -- in the sense where if black Americans are not doing as well as white Americans in a certain category, you can now use the Civil Rights act and say 'that's a violation of the civil rights act', even though their might be other contributing factors."

TL;DR: He knows that the CRA was necessary and a good thing for its time, but it's now being used way beyond its original intention in bad ways, as a sort of "get out of jail free" card.




5. "gun deaths are necessary to protect the 2nd amendment"

Correct, except you again left out the rest. I already addressed this quote in a different blog post, but I'll put it here again:

Interviewer: "I just had a question related to 2nd amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But I'm seeing people argue from the other side that they wanna take our 2nd amendment rights away -- how do we convince them that it's important to have our right to defend ourselves?"

Charlie Kirk: "Yeah that's a good question, thank you. So, I'm a big 2nd amendment fan. But I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting -- I love hunting -- the 2nd amendment is not even about personal defense, but that is important. The 2nd amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. The people need an ability to protect themselves, to protect their communities, and to protect their families.

Now, we must also be real, we must be honest -- having an armed citizenry comes with a price. And that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50 thousand. 50 thousand people die on the road every year. That's the price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50 thousand less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving -- the accessibility, the mobility -- is worth the cost of 50 thousand people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear, that we're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them, by having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools.

We should have an honest, and clear, reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one. You will never live in a society where you have an armed population and not a single gun death. But I think it's worth it -- I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the 2nd amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

So then how do you reduce them? Very simple. People say 'oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings?' I dont know, how did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How did we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How do we stop all the shootings at gun shows -- notice how there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, where there's all these guns? Because everyone's armed.

If our money, and our sporting events, and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?"

I think this one is fairly self-explanatory. And I think the car analogy was the perfect comparison for this. I will also add another analogy -- 8 million people die from surgery every year. So does that mean we should just stop performing surgeries? No.



6. "abortion should be illegal"

...And? A ton of people hold that opinion. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a bad thing lmao. I have a whole ass blog about why it should be illegal (with certain rare exceptions).



7. "said parents should prevent their daughters from taking birth control."

Actually he didn't say this, he said "people should make sure their loved ones are not taking birth control" -- because of the laundry list of side effects that birth control has, some of which can irreparably damage a woman's fertility, especially if she began taking it at a young age. Birth control is regularly overprescribed by doctors for stupid stuff like acne. My primary doctor literally wanted to put me on hormonal BC at 13, "for pimples". It's absolutely NOT unreasonable for him to be cautioning people against it.



8. "child rape victims should be forced to give birth, even if it was his own daughter."

This is pretty much the only one on your entire list that you actually have a valid point on. I don't agree with his stance or statement on this particular part of abortion. In my own post about abortion I make it clear that I support exceptions for rape (for any age), incest or cases where the mother's life is at risk.




9. "suicide rates are higher because of the sentence ”you are enough.” "

Once again, something he never said. This comes from a debate he had with a student about whether baptism is necessary for someone to go to heaven.

Kirk: "I have a question, tell me about your shirt -- is that a theological statement, or...?"

Student: "This shirt? Yeah uh this shirt... (looks down at it) oh, it says 'you are enough'. I think the company that makes it is a faith-based company, and um this is just my message to everyone here is that you are enough."

Kirk: " 'You are enough' -- what does that mean though? It's like very new age-y."

Student: "Okay gotcha, um it's a company that is faith-based--"

Kirk: "I know, but what is the statement 'being enough'?"

Student: "Right right uh, it's to help suicide prevention."

Kirk: "Ah, okay."

Student: "So by saying someone is enough, you are enough, like... just the fact that you matter, that you're alive, and that alone makes you worthy of value."

Kirk: "Super noble cause! Do you think it's effective?"

Student: "I believe so, I've had lots of interactions on this campus while wearing this hoodie and it's been great."

Kirk: "Cool, I'm glad to hear that. I actually think that that's the reason we have so much suicide is those sort of messages, actually. I think that self-esteem actually drives people to think of themselves more than duty and obligation, and they look inwardly and not externally. But I know you mean well, so I don't want to bash you for that. But that's why I was interested, because it's not a Biblical thing to say people are enough, actually. -Jesus- is enough; you are not enough (on your own) actually."

Student: "That's true, that's true."

Kirk: "That's why I wanted to just ask you about that. The fact is we're far from being enough; we're sinners that should be in eternal damnation, and only thanks to the blood of Christ are we given eternal life. But I know you mean well so, I don't mean to bash on your good parade there."

It's important to note that BOTH Charlie and the student are Christians, so this conversation is entire video and conversation are based on a strictly Biblical view of the situation. It is Biblical that as a human, we are not enough on our own; without Jesus Christ we would be completely doomed. But Charlie respected the intention behind the student's message and said it was a noble cause.

Here's the full clip (starts at 2:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUCEkFqCMj4




10. "anti-vaccine ideology."

Again, acting like somebody having an opinion is bad. Your head might explode when I tell you I didn't get the jab. There are plenty of scientifically backed reasons why someone would be against vaccines -- I'll let you do your own legwork on that one.


11. "believed debunked ”13/50” statistics"

"Debunked" by who exactly? Because the only sources that come up are a garbage AI "fact checker", reddit threads, "know your meme", and articles on Medium by random people. Pardon me if I believe the FBI who actually has access to crime databases rather than somebody's aunt.

Also, y'all are way too focused on trying to discredit the statistic itself rather than discussing what factors contribute to it.




12. "abortion is worse than the holocaust."

Charlie Kirk is a Christian and believes an unborn child has the same value as a grown adult. 64,771,132 babies were killed via abortions between 1973 - 2024 (51 years). 6,000,000 people were killed in the Holocaust. So by his logic, yes, a difference of almost 59 million deaths makes abortion worse than the Holocaust in terms of loss of life, especially considering it still continues.

There are an average of 1,270,022 abortions performed every year. It would take less than 6 years for the same amount of lives to be taken. In the past 51 years, we've essentially had 10.7 baby Holocausts.




13. "wanted children to watch public executions."

First of all, he wasn't the one who said that -- it was someone else from the podcast he was being interviewed on.

Kirk: "By the way, this is my other problem with the death penalty -- it takes too long, too many appeals -- it should be public, it should be quick, it should be televised."

Other guy: "Honestly, that's like what we should be doing, I agree. It should be public,"

Kirk: "By the way, do you-- you could sell--" here he is interrupted by the other guy, who says "force kids to watch it". Kirk ignores it and finishes: "You could fund the government, you could have like 'brought to you by Coca-Cola'."

They are discussing the worst of the worst criminals here -- rapists, serial killers, people who have done absolutely heinous crimes. The reason they say it should be public is to deter people from committing those crimes. As the justice system stands right now, criminals spend YEARS on death row, getting to live off of taxpayer dollars without actually fearing the punishment that awaits them "eventually". Lethal injections are also incredibly expensive.




14. "thought gay people should be stoned to death."

Congrats, you fell for someone else's misquote again, this time from Stephen King, who is notorious for talking out his ass.

The misquote comes from an interview where Kirk was shown a clip of Ms. Rachel discussing scripture regarding homosexuality -- the interviewer asks Kirk for his take on it. In the video, Ms. Rachel defends her decisions to include trans creator Dylan Mulvaney and drag queens on her show, quoting "love thy neighbor" verses from the Bible.

Kirk likewise quotes the Bible to show that it does indeed condemn homosexuality. He uses Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them".

Stephen King later backpeddled and put out a half-assed apology, as celebrities tend to do.





15. "said most people are scared when they see a black pilot flying a plane"

He actually never said this at all, but I believe you're trying to pull from his debate about DEI and pilots. He was asked for clarification on some of his statements at a later event, and he said this:

"Okay, so this was in response first and foremost to United Airlines saying that half of all their new pilots are going to be women or people of color. Currently, they're 15%. So they want to go from 15% to 50%. A conversation then ensued about how every time 'affirmative action' is employed, standards have to be lowered. There's not a single instance where that does not occur. So then I said, 'Boy, if I see a black pilot, now I'm going to wonder is that individual qualified, or were they selected because of their race? But that's NOT who I am, but this (DEI) makes me think this way.' And I stand completely by that statement.
Secondly, DEI and affirmative action, what it does is it lowers the merit. It lowers the threshold of standards and increases things that do not matter, such as skin color and ethnic background. That is what I said. Now a more important question to ask me is, 'Charlie, do you believe that black pilots can be qualified?' OF COURSE. Any individual can be qualified. I want a hiring quota and program that ONLY cares about qualification, not skin color."

And here's the clip where you can watch it for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBiiQY0Rgpg




16. "taylor swift should reject feminism and submit to her husband"

This is just kind of funny honestly. I mean, she's tried everything else and clearly it hasn't worked out for her. It's a joke, live a little.



17. "no one should be allowed to retire"

I'm not sure where you got this one from tbh. I've been searching for a good 20 minutes and I can't find anything in regards to comments on retirement. The only scrap I was able to find was a short AI summary from "Factually", so take that with a grain of salt:

"The only source that mentions Charlie Kirk's views on retirement is [1], which suggests that he believes in personal investment over government-managed Social Security. Charlie Kirk discusses his views on Social Security and retirement, stating that he doesn't like the idea of retirement and thinks people should be able to opt out of Social Security payments, believing they can invest their money more effectively than the government".

Sounds like he's in favor of freedom of choice, and it doesn't say anything about "not allowing people to retire".


Honestly I'm not sure if there's a word/character limit on SpaceHey comments, and I have other shit to do, so I'm only going to address one more point for now -- but you get the idea. You've taken out of context, lied, misquoted, misconstrued or straightup pulled out of your ass pretty much all of the things on this list. I think it's time to step out of the echo chamber and think for yourself.


20. "said MLK Jr was an awful person."

While the things MLK stood for were good, he was indeed what most people would consider a bad person in his private life -- people have just chosen to ignore his history in favor of his message.

On May 30th 2019, David Garrow (Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer of MLK) uncovered FBI memos on the National Archive's website. These memos were initially sealed by court order until 2027, but thanks to the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, they were made accessible to the public. One of these memos details King witnessing a rape in a hotel room. Instead of stopping or reporting it, the transcripts show that he laughed and encouraged the attacker to continue. The full audiotapes, photographs and film footage corresponding with the memos will be unsealed in 2027.

Garrow explains in his article: "Without question, the agents had both the microphone-transmitted tape-recording and a subsequent full transcript at hand while they were annotating their existing typescript; in 1977 Justice Department investigators would publicly attest to how their own review of both the tapes and the transcripts showed them to be genuine and accurate. Throughout the 1960s, when no precedent for the public release of FBI documents existed or was even anticipated, the agents could not have imagined their jottings would ever see the light of day."

King married his wife Coretta Scott in 1953, and while on the outside they seemed a happy couple, King cheated on her countless times with many different women during his travels. This too was captured on FBI surveillance tapes due to their planting bugs in hotel rooms -- FBI records describe this as "intense, nearly constant sexual activities with countless women."

According to King’s closest friend Ralph Abernathy, just about everybody attached to King participated in similar activities with him. When King traveled to Oslo to receive the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize, for example, two of his associates nearly got themselves kicked out of the hotel when staff caught them chasing nearly naked prostitutes through the halls. According to another of King's associates, King was especially fond of arranging sex with women he met at his speeches.

These incidents did actually become common knowledge; even Jackie Onassis admitted that Robert Kennedy had told her all about the FBI recordings, and that what he knew appalled her. An anonymous person at the FBI even sent copies of the tapes to both King and his wife. King allegedly brushed off the exposure with a remark about being "surprised that they knew so much about him", while Scott later claimed that she couldn’t make out what she heard and ignored the whole thing.

Lastly, King had no qualms about hitting women. Abernathy in his 1989 book recalls an incident that happened on the very last night of King's life, in which he woke him at 8 AM asking for "help dealing with an angry woman who had been waiting for him all night long". This came after King had spent the entire night with two other women. Abernathy followed King back into his bedroom, where he witnessed the argument quickly become physical. He wrote that King eventually struck the woman "hard enough to knock her across the bed", and that she left soon after. Just 10 hours later, King was shot and killed on the balcony.

MLK also plagiarised whole paragraghs of his dissertation, plagiarised his entire first public sermon, and regularly appropriated other peoples' work without crediting them in his college assignments.

And yet, people refuse to acknowledge these facts. They're willing to acknowledge that Thomas Jefferson had children with a woman he owned, and that Benjamin Franklin owned slaves while being a proud member of anti-slavery societies, or that Theodore Roosevelt embraced eugenics -- but somehow it's not allowed to talk about MLK's serial adultery, complicitness in rape and assault, and blatant contradiction to his Christian messaging.

by Dana Scully; 1758965067; Report

I cant believe that someone took the time out of their day to write all of this themself and if you did then I think you're beyond help - talking about we "need to get unbrainwashed", i think its time to take your own advice here.. its blatantly obvious charlie kirk was a racist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, transphobic and homophobic bigot

https://wordinblack.com/2025/09/racism-rhetoric-charlie-kirk-reality/

by fozzy; 1758968671; Report

LMAO ah yes, the classic leftist tactic -- ignore, deflect, insult, repeat.

I would say you're a propaganda parrot, but at least parrots are smart. That's one up from whatever... -this- is.

by Dana Scully; 1758969726; Report

"hyperfixations, not enough brain" indeed.

by Dana Scully; 1758969778; Report

Hey Dana, just reading through. please don't say "blacks" when referring to black people it has the same connotation as negro. While not technically wrong it's still like... rude yk

by kiko!; 1758996215; Report

Duly noted, thanks for letting me know. I'll refrain from using that term in the future!

by Dana Scully; 1759020238; Report

That's a Silly THING TO BE HONEST HEY SPACE IS SPACING YOU TO THE BAN

by pasqualebitview; 1759129428; Report

Dana, you care way too much about Charlie Kirk. You took so much time out of your day to research, quote, narrate, and write all that shit, I'm honestly impressed. And I'm concerned. Who was Charlie Kirk to you? Bc you make it sound like he was your lover or son or smth.

by Mas; 1759129925; Report

"you care way too much about Charlie Kirk. Who was Charlie Kirk to you?"

Does it matter? I don't think there is a level of "too much" to care that a man is being defamed after being publicly murdered in front of 3,000+ people, and countless more like myself who saw it happen live online.

I don't think there's a level of "too much" to care about seeing a man's neck blown open by a bullet on livestream.

I don't think there's a level of "too much" to care about the -truth- and not misquotations, twisted words and lies.

I notice you didn't think Fozzy "cared way too much" when compiling their numbered list of false claims that they pulled from various BS sources.

by Dana Scully; 1759191189; Report

Believe it or not, words can do damage. Charlie Kirk spread anti-trans beliefs that spark others to spread even more hate and violence towards trans people. I am trans myself, and it's ridiculous to say that we must accept everyone's beliefs even if they spread hate and misinformation about entire groups of people. Transphobia isn't some "harmless belief" that has to be respected, it directly harms trans people. This isn't the only thing I disagree with, of course, but it's a very relevant example in the current political landscape. Stop sugarcoating his legacy just because he died. Political violence sucks, that doesn't mean I have to respect him just because he was a victim of it.

by Hikiru; 1758756715; Report

im not respecting him. i didnt like him either. but being sad someone was literally shot in the neck is wayyy different than respecting him. I am not pro charlie kirk, but pro free speech. Like, I think its wrong and whatever but people dont deserve to DIE cuz of it. its called free speech for a reason. yknow?

by Radioactive Lead Poisoning; 1758758026; Report

"Charlie Kirk spread anti-trans beliefs that spark others to spread even more hate and violence towards trans people"

This is like trying to claim athiests who say "Christianity is a cancer" are responsible for the genocide of Christians in Nigeria. If anything, I would argue that saying "Christianity is a cancer" is way more hateful than saying "there are only two genders".

Charlie Kirk never hated anyone, a fact he repeatedly said at many of his events: "I do not have hate for a group. I do not have hate for a people. How could I hate that which I have a heart for? And I might not agree with some of the lifestyle choices that some people make, but of course not. And if someone said, 'Charlie, what's your view on marriage?' I'd say I believe marriage is between one man and one woman. But if you ask me 'do I have hate in my heart for somebody that doesn't choose the lifestyle that I believe that God laid out in the scriptures'? Of course not."

He regularly conversed with trans students, one of whom he had this to say to after hearing her story: "First of all, thank you so much for that. So, I'm going to have an opinion that very few people will ever tell you. Which is I want you to be very cautious about putting drugs in your system in the pursuit of changing your body. I instead encourage you to work on what's going on in your brain first; I think what you need first and foremost is just a diagnosis, just someone that is going to listen to what you've gone through, and listen to what else is going on. My prayer for you, and again, very few people will say this -- I actually want to see you be comfortable in how you were born. I know that you might not feel that way, but I think that is something that you can achieve. I think that with the right team and the right people, you don't have to wage war on your body -- you can learn to love your body." https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FhzqKQzueKU

Exactly what part of encouraging people to love their bodies the way they are is "spreading hate" to you? Should people with gender dysphoria not love themselves? Or is loving their body only acceptable once they surgically/chemically alter themselves? How about the many detransitioners who were pressured into transitioning and now regret it? Is it not hateful to tell someone "you will only be able to love yourself if you do this"? Is it not damaging to tell someone they should simply change their body instead of addressing the root cause of their discomfort?

Your black-and-white worldview of "transphobia" becomes increasingly gray when you actually start examining it from all sides. By the way, the definition of the word transphobia is: "discrimination against, aversion to, or fear of transgender people." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transphobia) Charlie Kirk exhibited none of those.

by Dana Scully; 1758763522; Report

Dana there are a lot of transgenders killed for not wanting to kts because of dysphoria and wanting to live their life in the body they want. I didn't even read completely its not even worth reading atp i stopped at the christian part. You literally dont see us atheist killing christians just because they are Christian. Even then if that happened its rare. Transphobia is common and actually kills. Your argument from the very start was very wrong and fucking invalid. I can't believe how u think transphobia is more okay then some christians RARELY being told that their religion SOMETHING THEY CAN CONTROL is a cancer while transgenders are daily called sl.rs, bullied, beaten up even k1lvled, being forced to kts.

by Fresh; 1758866378; Report

" I didn't even read completely its not even worth reading atp i stopped at the christian part"

Ah right, that doesn't show your bias at all. And let me guess, you're going to puff out your chest with righteous indignation and lecture me without even reading 90% of it.

"You literally dont see us atheist killing christians just because they are Christian"
"Even then if that happened its rare"

Lmao oh, so which is it? Does it not happen at all, or does it "only happen rarely"? I'll give you a hint -- it's neither. Christians around the world are murdered every single day for, yes, just being Christians.

"Your argument from the very start was very wrong and fucking invalid"

Lmao, called it. Unfortunately, saying it doesn't make it true, babe -- I know that's how y'all wish it worked.

"I can't believe how u think transphobia is more okay then some christians RARELY being told that their religion SOMETHING THEY CAN CONTROL is a cancer"

The fact you aren't even willing to acknowledge that it's a common problem makes your ignorance glaringly obvious. Meanwhile you're trying to "school" me about how mean words are a worse problem than Christians being killed for their beliefs.

"while transgenders are daily called sl.rs, bullied, beaten up even k1lvled, being forced to kts"

Oh nooo, transgenders get bullied or called mean things? They get beaten up or killed? Welcome to the Christian experience! I dare you to go on literally any social media platform and take a peak at any Christian creator's comment section. I bet it'd make your hair stand on end.

In 2024, 350 transgender people were killed.

In 2024, 4,476 Christians were killed, and another 4,744 imprisoned. Over 380 million more faced persecution. So far this year, 1,600 have been killed. On average, over 13 Christians are killed each day -- that's 1 every 2 hours. These numbers are likely even higher, as many go unreported.

You have absolutely no legs or moral high ground to stand on in this argument, and that's exactly why you "didn't bother" reading the comment you dropped this shit take on.

by Dana Scully; 1758872720; Report

Dawg im sorry but... if Christianity, a deep rooted belief is something "they can control", then so is being Transgender by that logic. I am part of the LGBTQ, but calling a religion "something you can control" is illogical if you are using that same thought process to defend transgender people. People are social, people are individualistic, they are going to believe things, good or bad, it is not as easy as just controlling it.

by hespiec2007; 1758894972; Report

THIS. They act like people go around switching religions like they change clothes. Like no, your faith is something you're deeply tied to -- it's like telling someone they can just decide to believe the sky isn't blue anymore. Once you've woken up to the truth, you can't just stop believing it.

by Dana Scully; 1758932056; Report

End Times

by SafeInSanity; 1758749658; Report

Unfortunately it seems so

by Blackout; 1758757547; Report

Yep, I personally believe that if we aren't already, then we are certainly nearing the end times. Some argue that we're in the period of tribulation, but if that were the case then the Rapture would have already happened and I wouldn't be sitting here, lol.

I feel both anxiety and excitement -- of course I would love for Jesus to come back tomorrow. But I've still got one more soul to save.

by Dana Scully; 1758763938; Report

If God wills that our time is up then we will completely cease to exist and leave everything beind. Thanks be to Jesus that we've made it to where we are today by giving himself so that we could continue to grow outwards with peace and love rather than chaos and hatred, though there are some bad apples out there. And yes, as long as I wake in the morning and I have the power to do it I will continue to save at least one person even if it kills me.

by Blackout; 1758765987; Report

That's all Charlie was trying to do was deprogram these brain washed kids with lost souls and save them, but some evil loser trans kid had to kill him because he offended his tiny indoctrinated mind by telling them that there are only two genders and that it is a mental illness.

Boy, I guess he proved him wrong by murdering him! ... what a fucking dumb ass! All liberals are dumb asses!!!

by SafeInSanity; 1758804397; Report

hate speech is not an opinion

by manda; 1758563712; Report

Lil girl plz gtfo my face and cry me a river. Hold this block you sick freak

by Carvel; 1758568027; Report

do you disagree?

by manda; 1758571544; Report

"Hate speech" = anything you don't like LOL. That card isn't working anymore, sorry.

by Dana Scully; 1758573919; Report

youre ugly (this isn't hate speech)

by manda; 1758575334; Report

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

by Dana Scully; 1758587045; Report

thank you

by manda; 1758598120; Report

"All of this hatred and joking about his death feels like serial killer behavior" THIS. I felt the same way when people were worshipping Luigi Mangione, and the fact that the mods had to make a statement about it reminding them that glorifying murder is against the rules was INSANE. People saying "this person next" as if cheering on their favorite sporting event, as if these aren't real fucking people.

I'm convinced that if the government created a real-life Hunger Games, these people who see themselves as the rebels would actually be the ones watching, as long as the tributes were "the right people".

by Dana Scully; 1758414220; Report

That's a horrifyingly true statement, I'm afraid.

by clown; 1759356510; Report

Why wouldn't I care? A man was assassinated in broad daylight because he exercised his right to free speech. That affects me. It affects -everyone-. And I do care about other people that "die every day". Y'all aren't privy to everything in my life; I regularly post things on my personal social medias. And I have posted on here about other deaths or topics that I feel don't get enough attention. I've had this account for a couple years but only started actively posting recently. "making a post ain't gonna help or stop people from killing others" -- true, but it shows that there are still people out there who aren't freaks who celebrate peoples' deaths. The fact that it made it to the top blogs showed me that my previous impression that "everyone" on SpaceHey is celebrating it was wrong.

It benefits both myself and others -- myself because the support shows that people DO still care, they are just quiet. Others, because they might have wanted to say the same thing but were too afraid to.

When we stop talking, when we stop pushing back against evil, we become complacent.

by Dana Scully; 1758413924; Report

Hmm, okay, makes sense. Thanks

by Wes; 1758470583; Report

Lol let's be chill; like Erika said you can't fight hate with hate and I don't think Charlie would like that either. Side note REO Speedwagon is goated

by Dana Scully; 1758705264; Report