We Can Condemn Murder Without Rewriting History

Political violence is wrong. So is pretending Charlie Kirk was something he wasn't.

I haven't written about Charlie Kirk's murder until now. Part of that was strategic — watching who'd get fired for what, waiting for actual facts about the shooting to emerge from the fog of speculation, waiting to see if anyone in mainstream media would pump the brakes on the hagiography express. Part of it was just exhaustion. Another political assassination, another round of discourse about discourse, another opportunity for people in America to weaponize a tragedy.

But mostly I stayed quiet because I knew this was coming. The sanitization. The rehabilitation. The transformation of a man who called trans people “abominations” into some kind of champion of civil debate.

---

---

Let me be absolutely clear: Charlie Kirk should be alive. His murder was horrific and wrong. Political violence poisons democracy. His kids deserve to have their father. All of that is true. And if there’s one thing you take away from this post, I hope it’s that.

Also true: Charlie Kirk dedicated his adult life to making people like me disappear from public life. He called for us to be purged from society. He said we should be handled “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s” — meaning lobotomies, shock therapy, and institutionalization. He built an empire on hatred and left behind a legacy of cruelty.

Both things can be true. We can condemn his murder without pretending he was something he wasn't. We can mourn the violence without erasing what he advocated for. We can say political assassination is wrong without declaring that everyone who refuses to perform grief is a terrorist sympathizer who deserves to lose their job.