There has been much revival lately of a quote by the character Tyrion Lannister on Game of Thrones, which goes:
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not making him a liar; you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
Once again, someone has tried to shut down opposing thoughts with violence. Once again, it has been met with supportive cheering from many in its cult. And once again, as has been the case the majority of times recently (not always), it has come from the raging, obsessive far-left.
Charlie Kirk was a father, a pundit, a husband, a debater, a son, and an organizer.
A human being.
He felt passionately about his beliefs and about convincing as many others as he could why they should believe the same. And he was killed for it.
He’s not the first one, and sadly, he won’t be the last - though the vitriol which abounds about why “he had it coming” is shocking, to say the least, especially for its sheer inaccuracy.
Which is exactly what he was fighting to change. So many people become obsessed with the righteousness of their points of view, often without bothering to experience the source of their scorn first-hand. They’re lazily content to absorb what their preferred talking heads spoon-feed them as political pablum and make preconceived judgments that they then carve into stone.
Kirk challenged these orthodoxies with intelligence, preparedness, and a deep knowledge base. He often caught his opponents in hypocritical quandaries and let them paint themselves into corners, from which they’d have no choice but to either rethink their positions or stubbornly slam their heads into walls. If you wanted to talk to him, you’d better have come prepared.
The criticisms of him, which called him hateful, racist, and transphobic, all seemed to be projections of what those critics felt must be the motivations of someone with his point of view. As has become all too common, commenters spew horrifying charges without even checking to see the actual definitions of the words they’re using, much like the contemporary overuse and misuse of words like Nazi, Fascist, and Apartheid.
I’ve seen many of Kirk’s Q&As. He freely exposed himself in “enemy territory”, bastions of progressivism like college campuses, to engage in spirited but safe debates with any and all comers rather than insulate himself amongst only like-minded individuals.
He was never “hateful” when discussing controversial topics with those who opposed him, whether speaking with a trans student about their identity or a black student about reparations. He showed them respect and caring, even while explaining articulately why he thought they were wrong. He only got combative - and even then, only verbally - when the questioner became aggressive, rude, or profane.
I found myself very impressed with this man who found such a sense of balance and composure at such a young age. Many of our youth (among those who were willing to listen) found his perspectives compelling, and he built an enormous following of critical thinkers who learned to question what the consensus was telling them, especially when they felt in their hearts that what it was telling them was wrong.
He gave them the confidence to speak their minds even when it went against the grain, and they soon discovered that their numbers were far greater than they’d thought when they were hiding in the shadows. He gave them courage that they didn’t need to hide their views, or be afraid, anymore.
Of course I did not agree with everything Charlie Kirk had to say. But that’s not the point, is it? I’ve never met a single person with whom I agreed about everything.
Kirk’s positions on some issues were a bit more extreme than my own. He often deferred to his Christian beliefs as foundation when defending his views. These are areas where he lost me somewhat, even at times when I agreed with the general crux of his positions.
However, his participation in our discourse, and the fallout from his death, go much deeper than that. It wasn’t always specifically about what Kirk said - though that was often quite relevant - but how he chose to communicate, and in doing so teach other young people how to best communicate as well. We can debate the merits of his views ad nauseam, but that was exactly his intent in sharing them in the formats he designed; he wanted debate, he wanted open discussion to convince others of the strengths of his perspectives.
And he was often quite successful in doing so.
His was not a life into which another person can just step in, “next man up”, to fill the void. He brought people together, and got them to recognize uncomfortable truths and to think critically. And he did so without being threatening, violent, or inciting others to violence.
His gifts were irreplaceable, and we are all, whether we agreed with him or not, the lesser for his passing.
Zephareth Ledbetter’s latest book, “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism - Rational Thoughts on an Irrational World”, is available cheap at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|