i am definitely not convinced by the stick figure graphic unless it also has equal extension to right, where you are equally wondering why there are so many people under the 'conservative' umbrella that are doing/espousing things you find as hard to understand as those on the left extreme
i'd also challenge whether 'people call kirk X, but i've seen him do Y' would hold up for you if the things he seemed to believe were more at odds with your principles and he was arguing *against* you the majority of the time
now all that aside, i'm also:
a) 100% appalled by his murder and feel for his family
b) believe that it's my job as a citizen to figure out how to find common ground with broad ranges of people with whom i disagree on many areas. And that this is actually the only way forward, regardless of the outcome of any given election.
Many—perhaps most—so-called centrists lack any real anchors in their value system. They shift positions by the day, by what they read on X, or even while reading this very article. We may call it flexibility, open-mindedness, or neutrality. But often the root is not clarity—it is ambiguity. Defending genuine clarity is the greatest challenge for centrists.
You say, "The world needs more people like Charlie Kirk." Do you really mean that the world needs more people with the following morality?
“‘Investigate first, define the crimes later’ should be the order of the day,” Kirk declared in an editorial demanding the legal intimidation of anyone associated with the political left. “And for even the most minor of offenses, the rule should be: no charity, no goodwill, no mercy.”
I think this points out what I found troubling in your piece:
"It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth. That is why a slew of pundits and politicians have raced to portray Kirk’s activities, which harmed many vulnerable people, in a positive light—and to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not grant to anyone who wasn’t white, Christian, straight, and male."
Saying immoral, hateful, divisive, racist, false things in the form of "spirited discourse" does not excuse the evil in the words.
i am definitely not convinced by the stick figure graphic unless it also has equal extension to right, where you are equally wondering why there are so many people under the 'conservative' umbrella that are doing/espousing things you find as hard to understand as those on the left extreme
i'd also challenge whether 'people call kirk X, but i've seen him do Y' would hold up for you if the things he seemed to believe were more at odds with your principles and he was arguing *against* you the majority of the time
now all that aside, i'm also:
a) 100% appalled by his murder and feel for his family
b) believe that it's my job as a citizen to figure out how to find common ground with broad ranges of people with whom i disagree on many areas. And that this is actually the only way forward, regardless of the outcome of any given election.
Great post. Kyle.
Many—perhaps most—so-called centrists lack any real anchors in their value system. They shift positions by the day, by what they read on X, or even while reading this very article. We may call it flexibility, open-mindedness, or neutrality. But often the root is not clarity—it is ambiguity. Defending genuine clarity is the greatest challenge for centrists.
I wrote more on this here about "Black and White": https://swaang0.substack.com/p/black-and-white
You say, "The world needs more people like Charlie Kirk." Do you really mean that the world needs more people with the following morality?
“‘Investigate first, define the crimes later’ should be the order of the day,” Kirk declared in an editorial demanding the legal intimidation of anyone associated with the political left. “And for even the most minor of offenses, the rule should be: no charity, no goodwill, no mercy.”
No. We don't. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/opinion/charlie-kirk-assassination.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lk8.DpaW.bV_GXqL15V06&smid=url-share
I think this points out what I found troubling in your piece:
"It is rude of me to say all of this, because we live in a culture where manners are often valued more than truth. That is why a slew of pundits and politicians have raced to portray Kirk’s activities, which harmed many vulnerable people, in a positive light—and to give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not grant to anyone who wasn’t white, Christian, straight, and male."
Saying immoral, hateful, divisive, racist, false things in the form of "spirited discourse" does not excuse the evil in the words.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/charlie-kirk-assassination-maga/