It has been nearly a year since Charlie Kirk was shot in the neck and killed at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. The horrific and sudden nature of his death at age 31 sent shockwaves through the country. Unfortunately, it also inspired bad actors to wallow in either conspiracy theories or outright celebration at his murder.
The nearly 12 months since his death have done little to quiet the noise. At the very least, the volume hasn’t diminished.
Recommended Stories
It didn’t take long for the repulsive provocateur known as Candace Owens to use his assassination as fodder for her chosen mania. In the ultimate “he didn’t pick me” move, she has harassed Kirk’s widow, Erika Kirk, almost nonstop. Her claims about Erika Kirk are truly insane and reek of jealousy. Being called out by Turning Point USA and countless others hasn’t diminished her campaign. It is unknown whether she truly believes these things or is just doing it for fame and clicks. Neither possibility is good.
On the Left, there has been cheering since the fatal shots rang out. Some people think Kirk deserved it for the “crime” of holding and sharing unwanted opinions. Participating in or supporting political violence isn’t a new phenomenon for leftists. If someone says things that make you feel bad, violence against them is justified. At least this is the going mantra of too many in the very online crowd. We’ve seen Hasan Piker mock Charlie Kirk onstage during a recent appearance. And just this week, the Washington Post was forced to rehire columnist Karen Attiah, whose statements about Kirk got her fired last year.
It’s almost as if the passage of time has made these people worse. One thing that hasn’t changed? The fact that Kirk’s murder is a basic ethical litmus test.
Too many people exist under the impression that not liking someone is reason enough to wish them harm or cheer when ill befalls them. Nothing could be further from the truth. It takes no effort at all to show concern when a popular figure in your ideological camp is a target, literally or figuratively. That is no test of one’s moral fiber. The real exercise in ethics is when you share sorrow or extend sympathy for a person, like Kirk, with whom you did not see eye to eye. Doing otherwise should be a major red flag to everyone who observes it.
The assassination of Kirk didn’t so much create a new wave of conservatism and religiosity around the country as it did expose people for who they truly are. While this mostly shone a light on the bloodlust of the Left, it also revealed some true awfulness on the right. You are not given a free pass to celebrate murder and/or lie about what happened just because of personal animosity. Doing either is a clear indication that you are not to be trusted. There is nothing so basic as condemning the taking of an innocent human life.
In a time of social media dominance, when we know too much about everyone, keeping your wits about you is essential. We are conditioned not only to see and hear, but to react with glee at the misfortunes or even deaths of others. Different opinions are treated as reason enough to hate another human being. And before long, the adversaries we only know through words or media have been stripped of their humanity.
THE DATA CENTER PANIC IS BUILT ON LIES
Kirk didn’t deserve a violent, premature death. This holds true even if you disagreed with what he said and how he said it. There are still moral red lines that should not be crossed. They have become blurred in a time when those who are loudest and most offensive receive the most applause.
In the last year, we’ve seen conspiracy theorists and bad actors perform for likes. How one reacts to the murder of an ideological opponent reveals their true character. Too many have failed that test.