What Does the Charlie Kirk Fallout, Social Media, Wokeness, and Trump Have in Common?

They all endanger free speech and unity

Yes, I am going to talk about Charlie Kirk today, but this article is not about him. It is not about the shooting. It is not about his killer. It will not support or point fingers at either side to determine who's at fault or who has reacted properly or improperly. It's not that I don't have my opinions. I have a lot of opinions on these items but of everything that we're talking about, I think the most important aspect of what we have been learning this past week has been our position as a country on the purpose and limitations of free speech. Or perhaps it's that I hope it is.

Let's get my official position out of the way so as you read this, you are not inserting your guess as to how I feel or how I see Charlie Kirk and his murder. Otherwise, you might get the wrong idea about what I want you to get out of this.

In my opinion, Charlie Kirk was not a good person. He proved to be bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, close-minded, divisive, and, at best, spiritually and ethically mislead. (And for those of you who think I’m being disrespectful of the recently deceased, pointing out his failings “too soon” … well, it is never too soon to combat the harmful words and actions of a man being martyrized. There is only “too late”.)

His killer was not a good person either, but we have yet to learn if his moral turpitude was due to malice, mental illness, misled ideology, or a combination of these. I don't think Charlie Kirk was mentally ill, so he had no excuse for his behavior. His killer might have an excuse although it doesn’t make what he did at all excusable.

I absolutely do not condone the violence. However, I stop short of saying violence has no place in politics. One, because that is an absurd and false statement that suggests politics sits on some moral high ground. I wish violence wasn’t part of politics but, historically, politics is rife with violence, sometimes directly and physically, but much of the time indirect due to prejudice, greed, oppression, and silence, among other things. It would be more truthful to just say that violence is never the answer. Or that violence begets violence. And then one should not follow it up with words that incite violence. Seriously. We saw way too many examples of that this past week, more than once from our supposed leader.

What happened was a tragedy for every American, even those who rejoiced, if just a little bit, at Kirk’s absence from this world. His murder is a polarizing event that will do nothing to save or preserve our democracy or fight the bigotry and divisiveness. Quite the opposite. It gives radical conservative interests cause to further threaten our American way of life.

Kirk may be gone but he trained up a whole army of followers to spout his contentious rhetoric and now they have a martyr that will motivate and energize them. It could reunite the fractured MAGA and right-wing Christian communities as well, pulling back some of those straying out from under the shadow of Trump's influence due to things like inflation or the Epstein scandal.

Nothing brings people together like having a common enemy and even though we have found out that the Kirk’s killer is from a deeply Republican, pro-gun, Mormon family with no evidence of liberal or Democratic leanings (yet), the conservative factions are digging for crumbs that point to Robinson have a liberal position. It’s doubtful that this frenzy is to find those they can blame for their sorrow. For most of the right, it’s likely geared to finding ammunition to turn people against the left. So yes, while it is ethically wrong to celebrate his death, it’s deplorable to be weaponizing it.

If we apply the biblical instruction that, “He who is without sin can cast the first stone” then both sides have no grounds to be pointing fingers. Both ends of the political spectrum have had people who have done what each side is accusing the other of now. Those bad behaviors were not helpful in the past and they aren’t helpful now. Not if the goal is to heal this country.

And that brings me to the crux of this editorial. Kirk was a man of great faults, but he did do one thing that was a half a step in the right direction, if done for poor reasons. He invited conversation.

We have become a country of divisions so great, we don’t talk to each other. If someone has opposing views, people are quick to unfriend them, block them, or ignore them. People are quitting jobs because their boss supports Trump or may even stop eating at a business that has allowed a conservative group to just gather there. Why? What are you going to change from the outside, when you have no contact with the very people whose hearts and minds we need to save from the brain washing and slew of lies they’re being fed? When we get this country back (I am ever the optimist!) how will we heal when we’ve made so many of our fellow citizens our enemies?

Mind you, I am not saying Charlie Kirk was healing our division or was even listening to the people he invited into his conversations. The purpose of those conversations was to get his message out and to make the liberals look like fools. He was focused on beating them at what he saw as a game, aiming to shred his opponent’s logic with false claims and half-truths that might seem reasonable at first glance but for which he had no proffered substantiation. So, although he was having conversations, he had no intention of actually listening and weighing what the other person had to say.

What I appreciated though was that he wasn't afraid to talk to somebody of opposing views. He did not shy away from a conversation, perhaps because he knew they were not going to change his mind. Such strong beliefs would certainly add to one’s reserve of courage. You also see that in the die hard MAGA people willing to be interviewed by liberal journalists. They have their canned answers handed to them by their Taco-in-Chief and the nacho cheese trust at Fox News so, as long as they have those memorized, they can just keep spitting those out. Because, like Charlie Kirk, they don't listen. They just repeat the lies they know.

Now this next paragraph is where I might lose some of you. But if you believe in having civil discussions, if you believe in free speech, and if you have strong convictions, you will read this all the way through and weigh whether you think I have a viable point. And if you disagree, you will let me know and I will respectfully listen.

So, here's the thing. I believe liberals have probably done as much, if not more, to shut down discussion than the conservative end of the spectrum. Why? Mostly because the Woke movement got so out of hand. The initial intentions from which Woke arose were necessary and admirable, but, in the end, the movement left no room for discussion, no room for forgiveness, no reason for growth or a path for understanding left open for the people they targeted. That's not listening. That’s silencing people who live in a country whose greatest civil achievements were born of free speech.

If you believe in civil rights and want to save the progress we’ve made, you need to listen. And yes, you need to listen to contentious speech as well as just differing views. How are you going to know what is in the heart of your fellow citizens if you don’t let them speak? You don’t have to like what they say, and you can condemn it, but you can only fight it when you know it exists and where it exists.

Since the death of Charlie Kirk there have been numerous firings and censoring of people who said things about Charlie Kirk or the assassination that were viewed as negative or insensitive. Many of these firings occurred because of right wing pressure and outrage but don’t think the cancel culture of Woke didn’t help pave the way for such swift reactions.

Some of these fired people posted things that were incendiary or obviously geared to incite more violence and, of course, there needed to be consequences for saying things that could have resulted in direct harm. Others were just making a truthful observation--“hateful words lead to hateful actions” was uttered by political analyst Matthew Dowd before he even knew who was shot but he was fired anyways.

Some people were unsympathetic making comments like “Good riddance” and “ZERO sympathy” in response to the news. Yes, those were insensitive and in very poor taste at that point in time, but we live in a country of free speech so why has no one asked why these have to be firing offenses? Is that the only solution? I am asking, not judging because I don’t know the circumstances these people worked in, but this rampant shutting down of people’s opinions in the glass house that is our online lives is a formula for quietly brewing animosity.

Oh wait. I think that already happened and it’s now called MAGA.

I’m not saying Woke caused the MAGA movement, but I do think it increased the temperature of the unrest that was already there. No one was listening to those people. No one was saying, “Hey, some of your comments are hurtful and damaging and maybe I can show you a better way while you help me understand your troubles.” Which is why they gravitated to Trump. He listened, not out of concern but to learn what they wanted to hear. He was able to say what they were thinking out loud and no one could tell him he was wrong because he didn’t care. Those people wanted that so they voted for a time no one could cancel them or tell them what they think is wrong.

Of course, the radical right and Trump have done their share of quashing free speech. Trump continues to strong arm the media to suit his narrative, suing the universities into silence, banning books, and dictating what museums can show us. But before he did that, Woke shut down people for their ignorance, for their unpopular opinions, or for daring to explore a sensitive topic.

As I said, wokeness had a very necessary intention which was to raise the awareness of racism and challenge injustice. Somewhere along the way though, it got out of hand with cancel culture, misplaced accusations of cultural appropriation, and an unforgiving form of political correctness. It’s most effective form of stifling free speech was due to reactions so swift and broad, and sometimes with no reliable evidence to support the accusation, that many people became afraid to speak their mind or explore unpopular ideas.

Take the show 13 Reasons Why which examined the reality of bullying and suicide during its first season. There was a call to cancel it at one point because some people said it encouraged and glorified suicidal ideation by illustrating it with so much detail. Only that makes no sense. You can't have a meaningful discussion about suicide without talking about suicide so if you shut down an exploration of it, you shut down a potential avenue for someone who is hurting or has a loved one that is hurting to better understand it and find help. Netflix didn’t cave but what if it did? And what important topics have been avoided since then because cancel culture made it feel too risky?

That example highlights the core of this problem in the political and social arenas. If we keep saying no to discussions that are uncomfortable or include views we strongly oppose, we leave no path to educate those who don't know better. We can’t change minds without discussions that include us being willing to empathize and listen as well as encouraging reflection for those raised or indoctrinated into cultures of bigotry and intolerance. And we absolutely can’t do anything about the way other people think if we’ve cut them off or leave their orbit.

I know just being around Trump supporters is abhorrent to many pro-democracy people, but we won't survive as a country if we continue to be divided. If we want to see things change, we need to change people's minds which means inviting conversation. We have to set aside our resentment for those who voted this man into office and consider that many of them didn’t know what they were voting for and were constantly lied to. Many still don’t know the truth if they only get their news from Fox and Newsmax where those lies paint a rosy picture over the disaster of our landscape.

We really can open their eyes to reality, but it will take finding common ground and an earnest attempt to see things from their point of view. It’s actually quite surprising, the things you can learn from discussions with Trump conservatives. That’s an observation from personal experience. I have on-going discussions with two conservative Trump voters and although it’s uncertain at this point if I’ve changed their minds, I know they see things differently now, as do I in some ways. That’s moving things in the right direction.

I keep thinking that if each one of us could find one person who voted for Trump whose mind we could change, Trump and the GOP would be done. I'm not going to judge you if you're not ready to sit down with a Trump supporter. It can't be forced. But just as I saw some people recommending to Charlie Kirk fans that they need to learn from him and be open to discussing their beliefs with people of opposing views, those of us who are not his fans can counter his influence by showing how to do it right.

That means listening, not just speaking to persuade. We don’t need to prove them wrong, as Kirk was fond of doing. We just need to get them to listen and if we’re all doing that, if both sides learn to listen, we will have neutralized Trump’s biggest weapon—our division.