I find it disgusting when anyone celebrates a death. Whatever you thought of Charlie Kirk's politics, he was a father, a son, a husband. There are kids who don't have a dad now. There is nothing to cheer about in that, and people who treat it like a win have lost something in themselves.
I don't condone political violence from any direction. Two reasons. The first is simple... disagreement is not a capital offense, and the moment you decide it is, you've abandoned the only thing that makes a free society work. The second is that politics simply isn't worth it. These are arguments about tax policy and school curricula and who says what on a campus. They are not worth a human life. Anyone who has convinced themselves otherwise has lost all sense of proportion.
That said, I won't accept Charlie Kirk being placed in the same light as someone like Dr. King. Being killed for your beliefs tells you something about your killer, not about whether your beliefs were good. King's claim on our memory isn't that he died violently. It's what he was doing when it happened. He was trying to extend rights to people who had been denied them. He went to jail for it. He was surveilled for it. He asked for nothing for himself or his own group that he didn't want for everyone else. That's a specific kind of legacy, and it isn't conferred by a shared manner of death.
Charlie Kirk had every right to make his case, and the people who loved and admired him aren't wrong to grieve him. I'd never tell anyone their grief is misplaced, and plenty of people found real truth in what he said. That's fine. But my honest read is that his message drew a line around who belonged. You were part of it if you believed as he did, and outside it if you didn't. I believe more in uniting than dividing, and that's where I part ways with him. Not with his right to say it. With what it did to people who heard it and understood they weren't welcome.
...And I know what comes next.
He always invited people to come argue with him. True, but being welcome at the microphone is not the same as being welcome in the country he was building. One is an invitation to a debate. The other is whether you get to live as freely in America as he and his did. He was generous with the first. The vision he was selling was not generous with the second, and that's the part I can't get past.
RIP - Charlie Kirk