Charlie Kirk dead
“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.” — 2 Timothy 4:7
Turning Point USA
GATouching... Tragic...
There is evil out there and so many are in the grips of it...
Its never to late... turn off the TV ...turn away from biased brainwashing media ... reclaim your mind as your own, challenge the hate within when it rises up ...
"Only in America can a young man with a dream change the world."
"I love to debate; I love the exploration of ideas..."
They didn't silence one voice... they amplified it... millions more will now hear it, consider it, contemplate the words spoken and the belief which drove it...GA, Thank you for posting that—it was truly beautiful. I’ve followed Charlie for quite some time, and he had a special way of lighting up minds, especially among the young. He brought clarity to tough issues and debated passionately for what he believed in, always with that unmistakable American boyish smile. Though he’s gone, his light still shines, and it’s up to us to keep it burning. Yes, I may be a bit “flowery,” as Cred often accuses me of, but honestly, I don’t think anyone who knew Charlie, listened to his show, or watched him on YouTube could feel any other way. This is just so deeply sad. Shar
Hi Shar,
Same.
This one is proving tough to get past.
Angie
Yes, I can’t help but feel the same; it’s been so hard to get past. Grief has its own way of settling in, and even though I know Kirk is with the Lord, the ache here on earth is still so real. I take comfort in God’s promise that we will see our loved ones again, but that doesn’t take away the missing right now. I’m praying for both of us that His peace will slowly ease this heaviness and bring us moments of comfort.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say this. Said the man who was a recruiter for MAGA and pipeline of young, brainwashed people directly to Trump. This Includes their MAGA hats and other merchandise, which really becomes a MAGA uniform. No wonder Trump was upset; he lost his best recruiter.
Charlie Kirk was a Republican, a conservative, and a strong supporter of Making America Great Again. Did you actually follow him, or did you just form your opinion after his death? Over the past few days, I’ve asked that question whenever I see disparaging remarks about Charlie. I feel compelled to ask because I consider myself an open-minded, fair, and pretty darn smart woman. And you know what? Nine times out of ten, the person admits they never really followed him, some even say they didn’t know much about him at all. My suggestion is always the same: head over to YouTube and watch a couple of his speeches, interviews, or shows in full before drawing conclusions.
In my view, Charlie Kirk was a good man, someone who always listened, respected that everyone had a voice, and carried himself with conviction and purpose. Even when he disagreed, he did so with clarity and passion, never shying away from standing up for what he believed in. That’s the kind of character that leaves a lasting impression. As it is very clear he did, millions respect and yes, love him... For the man he was, kind, respectful, and his courage to pursue his beliefs with a passion, not many in this world leave such a mark; he did. In my view, we don’t leave a mark with ill-bitter words or by belittling those we may not understand. We leave a mark by the way we live our lives, through the example we set. And words worth remembering.
Hopefully, you watched the clip GA posted. Did you? That was Charlie, and I feel I can say all I have, due to the fact that I followed him. I did get to know him well by tuning in.Everything you stated is wonderful about Charlie Kirk.
By now you must know that I use AI to research and analyze almost everything I post on political forums.
Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and a prominent conservative commentator, was known for making provocative statements that sparked intense debate.
---
On Gun Deaths and the Second Amendment
> “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”
— *TPUSA Faith event, April 2023*
- **Why it was controversial**: Critics saw this as callous, suggesting that gun deaths were an acceptable trade-off. Supporters argued he was defending constitutional rights, not endorsing violence.
---
On Empathy
> “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that does a lot of damage.”
— *Podcast episode, October 2022*
- Why it was controversial**: Empathy is generally seen as a positive trait. Kirk’s dismissal of it was interpreted as cold or dehumanizing, though he claimed he was critiquing performative empathy in politics.
---
On Birth Control
> “Birth control really screws up female brains… It creates very angry and bitter young ladies and young women.”
— *TPUSA Faith event, March 2025*
- **Why it was controversial**: This was widely condemned as misogynistic and medically inaccurate. Critics argued it stigmatized women’s health choices and promoted harmful stereotypes.
---
On Immigration and Race
> “America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years… We should be unafraid to do that.”
— *Bob Vylan concert fallout coverage*
The Democrat Party built their entire coalition on the great replacement reality.”
— *Charlie Kirk Show, June 2025*
- **Why it was controversial**: These statements were linked to the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, which many view as xenophobic and racially charged. Kirk’s framing suggested demographic change as a political threat.
---
On LGBTQ+ Issues
- Kirk frequently criticized transgender rights and gender-affirming care, often using dismissive or inflammatory language.
- He opposed same-sex marriage and DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, calling them “Marxist indoctrination.”
---
Legacy and Polarization
Kirk’s supporters saw him as a fearless truth-teller challenging liberal orthodoxy. His critics viewed him as a divisive figure who normalized bigotry under the guise of free speech. After his assassination in 2025, many of these quotes resurfaced, intensifying debates over his legacy."I use AI to research and analyze almost everything I post on political forums."
It's easier than thinking for yourself.When using AI, one has to ask the correct questions to get a valid response that is in proper context to the debate. Additionally, it brings up all the source links, to support the argument. Here are all the links thar were used to form my reply. It's a hell of a lot better than your radical right-wing opinion.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/cha … 48429.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/charlie-k … -1.7630859
https://www.mandatory.com/culture/16607 … al-moments
https://www.msn.com/en-ph/entertainment … r-AA1MA2eF
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 187901007/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 190006007/
The problem here is that you relied on AI. I actually followed the man, Charlie Kirk, and watched his live statements, hearing the full content and context behind his words. Many of the interviews that AI offered you, I watched. I needed no help from AI to form my view because I saw it all for myself.
What AI gives you are snippets, not the whole picture. You could take any one of those snippets and simply ask AI, “Can you provide the full context of Charlie Kirk’s words?” and you’d quickly see that a single sentence without context can be misleading. AI is a great tool, but it only delivers what is requested. Let me ask you directly: did you actually follow Kirk yourself, or are you just relying on secondhand bits from AI?
Shar,
The left is extremely jealous of Charlie Kirk.
Wouldn't they love to have someone like him?
The left has not one single person in their ranks who is capable of engaging in open and public debate with those who disagree with them.
They have not one person who has the ability to articulate their position in an intelligent way to make a valid point.
The only ability the left has is to yell, scream, threaten, and lie.
It is no wonder so many people are leaving the democrat party.
It makes absolute sense.I can absolutely see why they’d be jealous of a man like Charlie Kirk, he embodied everything they wanted to tear down. The truth is, they have no one who could even begin to compare with him. Since Charlie’s death, Turning Point has exploded in growth, going from just 2,000 chapters to more than 120,000. That speaks volumes about the direction America’s youth are leaning politically, and it’s a direction the left can’t control or stop.
Turning Point USA is throwing its own Super Bowl halftime show. The conservative political action organization, founded by the late Charlie Kirk, announced Thursday that it plans to host its own performance as counterprogramming to the NFL’s official show on Feb. 8.
The organization aims to celebrate "faith, family, and freedom," with a focus on music genres such as "Pop," "Americana," and "Worship."
As of now, Turning Point USA has not confirmed whether the “All American Halftime Show” will be broadcast on television. The event is scheduled for February 8, 2026, during Super Bowl LX, and will be streamed online. Specific platforms for the livestream have not yet been announced.
https://www.americanhalftimeshow.com/?u … hatgpt.comLOL So ridiculous.
I was going to post about the Bad Bunny drama... In a new thread (or in the Racism one).
So does he--- What are the chances he will?
"If you didn't understand what I just said. You have four months to learn" IB post
I replied --- so does he... Shar
Huh? Sort of right back at him-- get it?
And again, what are the chances he will learn to speak English?
I mean, you posted his photo, I just replied to your post.Again, I never mentioned him, and I’m not sharing any opinion about this entertainer; I don’t know anything about him, and I honestly don’t care. I was just pointing out an event that Turning Point is hosting. I like keeping up with what they’re doing, so I check their website regularly, and that’s where I saw the Super Bowl event. Their site didn’t mention Bad Bunny at all.
"And again, what are the chances he will learn to speak English?"
Let me remind you — you’re the one who posted the photo that included Bad Bunny’s Saturday Night Live quote, where he opened in Spanish and then joked in English: “If you didn’t understand what I just said… You have four months to learn.” Bad Bunny
Perhaps you understand satire — the kind that turns the tables on a statement.
However, after listening to the SNL clip, I noticed his English is somewhat broken. I ask only because you seem well-acquainted with this artist — does he ever perform in English? If so, then my mistake is very obvious.
He performs predominantly in Spanish, so my money is on yes.
With historic consistency, the multi-platinum Puerto Rican superstar has repeatedly shattered records in Latin music on the Billboard charts and beyond. His last four albums — Debí Tirar Más Fotos (2025), Nadie Sabe Lo Que Va a Pasar Mañana (2023), Un Verano Sin Ti (2022), and El Último Tour del Mundo (2020) — have all earned unprecedented No. 1s on the all-genre Billboard 200.
Streaming has been good to Bad Bunny. He’s consistently among the most streamed global artists, finding himself among acts like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Post Malone, Ed Sheeran and The Weeknd on lists of popular listens. In fact, his "Un Verano Sin Ti" is the most streamed album on Spotify. Ever.
Bad Bunny closed out his historic 31-night residency at San Juan’s El Choli on Sunday with a massive finale show that the whole world could watch online.
On Monday, Amazon Music revealed that the livestream for the concert — titled “Una Más,” which aired on the music streaming service, Prime Video, and Twitch — shattered viewership records for a single-artist performance.
While exact numbers have not yet been released, the show was the most-watched single-artist performance on Amazon Music to date, according to the platform.
Later this year, Bad Bunny will embark on the Debí Tirar Más Fotos world tour, which features more than 50 shows across four continents.
He has become a cultural icon, breaking barriers in fashion, film, and music — from co-chairing the Met Gala to collaborating with soccer megastar Leo Messi on a groundbreaking Adidas partnership — as well as starring in film projects alongside acclaimed directors and actors.I did not bring up his talent in any respect. I made no derogatory remarks regarding this entertainer. I made no mention of him--- so it's curious you would take offence.
I just posted an event that will be playing at this year's Super Bowl halftime... I felt this was the appropriate thread to post it on...It was an answer to the parts you edited/deleted... About not understanding why he was chosen, about how this is "America", about focus n english, etc.
Im sure the millions of people that enjoy his music are thrill about it.
That MAGA is melting about it is the icing on the cake. LOLBefore posting, I did some editing and removed my personal view. I did this because I hadn’t researched this artist and felt my bias was obvious — it wouldn’t have been appropriate to comment without any real knowledge of him.
It also seems that someone can actually reply before a post is fully submitted; I’ve noticed this happen before, which seems unusual. In any case, I’ll keep my opinion on this issue to myself.
Wondering if all of our devout Christians out there think that Jesus spoke English.....LOL. And was as white as photos of him....
I finally completed my analysis on the link between hate speech and hate crime. Here are the results: This study started as a result of the discussions surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk.
1. There is a background level of hate crimes even if there were zero measurable hate speech in the ecosystem. In my preferred regression, the point where the line crosses the y-axis — the intercept — corresponds to roughly 118 anti-LGBTQ hate-crime incidents per year (about 10 per month). That’s the baseline level the model predicts even when the hate-speech index is at its reference level.
2. The regression also shows a clear, statistically significant relationship between the level of hate speech and the level of hate crime. As more hate speech is pumped into the ecosystem, hate crimes increase; when hate speech cools off, hate crimes decline. In other words, changes in the hate-speech index are systematically associated with changes in the hate-crime index.
3. Unfortunately, the data are too noisy to cleanly separate out individual actors. Once you add terms for specific people like Trump, Kirk, DeSantis, etc., their individual effects get swamped by the overall variation in the broader hate-speech environment. So while the collective total of all their rhetoric clearly moves the needle, I can’t say, based on this dataset alone, that “Kirk’s speeches specifically increase hate crimes by X%” in a statistically reliable way.
4. What I can say is that, over the period I studied, Trump is responsible for roughly 80% of all measured anti-LGBT hate speech in the media ecosystem, on average. The next highest actor (DeSantis) is only about 8%, and everyone else is in the low single digits. So Trump dominates the anti-LGBT coverage; the others are riding in his wake.
5. The dataset I used to establish the link between hate speech and hate crimes covers multiple years of FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech data up through 2024, with the core regression built on the 2017–2024 window where the media index and the hate-crime series line up best.
So, what I can say about Kirk is this: as his hate-speech output ramps up, it feeds into the total level of anti-LGBT rhetoric in the system. If other actors aren’t simultaneously cooling off enough to offset him, that pushes the overall hate-speech index higher — and in my model, a higher total hate-speech index is associated with more anti-LGBT hate crimes.Interesting that ONLY "hate speech" from the right is included in this post and analysis. Was that because your definition of the term limited it to conservative, or "rightist" politics or was there something else that made you exclude any hate speech/actions from the left?
Your personal bias is showing pretty heavily...not a good thing for any kind of honest analysis.My take away from this so-called "analysis", Charlie Kirk is responsible for his death.
I wish I had not seen this post... but I did!I honestly wish I had never come across that post. Unfortunately, I did...
Unbelievable! Just when I think those on the left cannot sink any further, they prove me wrong, once again!
I have no desire to respond to the source directly, ever again, not in this lifetime!Angie, I truly understand. I’m honestly shocked by what I see coming from some people today. I genuinely believe that a virulent form of brainwashing has taken hold over the past ten years, something I never thought I’d say, yet I’ve come to believe it’s true. In my long life, I have never witnessed anything like this. From my perspective, this conditioning has left many people feeling morally justified in harming or dehumanizing those they disagree with, almost as if they’ve adopted a martyr’s mindset. That, to me, is deeply troubling.
I find Christianity, as well as Judaism, increasingly under attack, and I never thought I would witness that in a modern society. If someone had asked me years ago whether this could happen so openly, I would have said no. Yet here we are. I find it deeply unsettling to see religious faith, something that has guided and grounded societies for centuries, treated with hostility, mockery, or suspicion. In my lifetime, this shift feels unprecedented, and it raises serious questions about where we are headed as a culture.It goes beyond faith...
It is an attack on Western Civilization, from our forefathers to our beliefs...
On families and parent's rights...
On sanity... from two sexes to men cannot have babies to funding the deaths of millions in foreign wars while we allow our borders to stay wide open for anyone to come in...
At some point, we have to admit that the most dangerous enemies are within, and start calling out the traitors for what they are, and holding them accountable.
And that is the problem... no one is held accountable for knowingly and wantonly being traitors to the nation and the American Citizens.Ken, I completely agree; it absolutely goes beyond faith. What we are seeing is an assault on the very foundations of Western Civilization, on the values our forefathers built, on families, on parental rights, religion, and on common sense itself. From redefining basic biological realities to funding endless foreign wars while ignoring our own borders, it’s clear that the threats are not just external; they are coming from within.
In my view, the most dangerous enemies are indeed those who betray the principles and safety of our nation, yet they continue to act without consequence. Holding these people accountable is not just necessary, it’s urgent. Until we face this reality and demand responsibility, we will continue to see our society eroded from the inside out. And the cost is paid in real ways: lost trust, broken communities, and a culture that no longer protects its own citizens.
I would also add that defending faith, family, and common sense isn’t just nostalgia; it’s about preserving the values that make society stable and prosperous, and ensuring that future generations have a chance to thrive under them. The hate from the left is palpable.I think change is in the works...
I think the next three years is going to be interesting...
The benefit of not being plugged into "main stream media" news is that I pick up on a lot of things other people miss or never hear about.
Time will tell... nothing left to do but watch the show, if the Leftist cancer that is killing our country is agitated by what Trump has done in his first year, I suspect they will be extremely apoplectic a couple years down the road.
I can honestly say I saw very little truth in your comment. You listed multiple points that held no facts, just your view.
As I mentioned, I saw a few facts, though we clearly define facts differently. I consider facts to be verifiable and supported by objective evidence.
I responded to share my perspective, distinguishing what I saw as facts from your personal view. Opinions should be clearly presented as such, with proper context.
Here is your comment --- can you point to actully any facts?
I finally completed my analysis on the link between hate speech and hate crime. Here are the results: This study started as a result of the discussions surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk. Note (Here you admit your information is from your own analysis, and that the study is from discussions about Kirk's death. You offer nothing of a souse, who took part in the talks, or was it openly an opinon diccussion.)
1. There is a background level of hate crimes even if there were zero measurable hate speech in the ecosystem. In my preferred regression, the point where the line crosses the y-axis — the intercept — corresponds to roughly 118 anti-LGBTQ hate-crime incidents per year (about 10 per month). That’s the baseline level the model predicts even when the hate-speech index is at its reference level.
Note (again, no source, and no information to substantiate anything at all)
2. The regression also shows a clear, statistically significant relationship between the level of hate speech and the level of hate crime. As more hate speech is pumped into the ecosystem, hate crimes increase; when hate speech cools off, hate crimes decline. In other words, changes in the hate-speech index are systematically associated with changes in the hate-crime index.
Note ( nothing to substantiate your view)
3. Unfortunately, the data are too noisy to cleanly separate out individual actors. Once you add terms for specific people like Trump, Kirk, DeSantis, etc., their individual effects get swamped by the overall variation in the broader hate-speech environment. So while the collective total of all their rhetoric clearly moves the needle, I can’t say, based on this dataset alone, that “Kirk’s speeches specifically increase hate crimes by X%” in a statistically reliable way.
Note ( the full context of that paragraph is clearly a view --- nothing factual presented.
4. What I can say is that, over the period I studied, Trump is responsible for roughly 80% of all measured anti-LGBT hate speech in the media ecosystem, on average. The next highest actor (DeSantis) is only about 8%, and everyone else is in the low single digits. So Trump dominates the anti-LGBT coverage; the others are riding in his wake.
Note ( to make such an open accusation, you need to present evidence. This should have a source at best. )
5. The dataset I used to establish the link between hate speech and hate crimes covers multiple years of FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech data up through 2024, with the core regression built on the 2017–2024 window where the media index and the hate-crime series line up best. Note ( again, a source should have been added here)
So, what I can say about Kirk is this: as his hate-speech output ramps up, it feeds into the total level of anti-LGBT rhetoric in the system. If other actors aren’t simultaneously cooling off enough to offset him, that pushes the overall hate-speech index higher — and in my model, a higher total hate-speech index is associated with more anti-LGBT hate crimes.
Note ( this is a full out oinion, sorry, but I see no truth here. That is my opinion, and my opinion is no more factual than yours.
From your reply, it seems you may not clearly distinguish between opinion and fact, and may assume that logical conclusions drawn from opinion can become true. In my view, the main issue is the lack of clear context, which leads to misunderstanding. I see no truth in that comment, as it adds nothing that can be considered factual
While I do believe Kirk's anti-gay speech caused his own death by the hands of one of those he viciously attack on a regular basis, even a cursory reading of my post doesn't suggest that.
I recommend you go back and read it carefully this tim.
It shouldn't be surprising that it is concentrated on right-wing - we are talking about anti-gay speech, after all.
Also, the search didn't limit the anti-gay hate speech by political leaning, it looked for all occurrences.
If you did that kind of analysis, I wouldn't be surprised if your personal bias colored the results, but that is not the way I was trained..
I strongly reject this entire comment, and I’m honestly disturbed that someone would present this as serious analysis, especially in the context of a man who was murdered. I have to ask: who says things like this and thinks it’s acceptable?
From the start, I see assumption stacked on top of assumption, wrapped in academic language to give it the appearance of rigor. The author repeatedly admits they cannot isolate individual effects, cannot quantify Charlie Kirk’s impact, and cannot establish direct causation, yet still goes on to imply responsibility anyway. I don’t consider that analysis. I consider it insinuation.
I also take serious issue with how statistics are being used here. A regression showing correlation between two broad, subjective indices, “hate speech” and “hate crime,” does not establish causality. Both variables are politically constructed. FBI hate-crime data is inconsistent across jurisdictions and heavily dependent on classification standards, while GDELT “hate-speech” data reflects media tagging and editorial framing, not objective speech. In my view, this analysis is measuring media behavior, not actual rhetoric, and then drawing moral conclusions from it.
The claim that Trump accounts for “80% of anti-LGBT hate speech” further exposes this bias. That figure tells me far more about media fixation than about speech volume or intent. When one figure dominates headlines, clips, and social-media circulation, the dataset will inevitably skew in that direction. Conflating media amplification with speaker responsibility is a fundamental error, and using that framework to lump Charlie Kirk into the same narrative is unjustified.
What I find most troubling is the final implication, that Charlie Kirk’s own rhetoric somehow contributed to a climate of violence. I find that accusation outrageous. The author explicitly admits they cannot statistically demonstrate Kirk’s individual impact, yet still suggests his speech “feeds into” hate crimes. I see that as deeply irresponsible, and frankly slanderous. You cannot say “I can’t prove it” and then proceed as if you have.
On a personal level, I find this entire approach sad. Reducing a political assassination to a regression model and then using that model to morally implicate the victim reflects a loss of basic human decency. Violent criminals have agency. Murder is not an abstract output of a media index. Treating it that way shifts blame away from perpetrators and turns tragedy into ideological accounting.
I believe we should be demanding rigor, humility, and respect, especially when someone has lost their life. What I see here instead is confirmation bias, moral grandstanding, and a willingness to weaponize statistics to support a predetermined narrative. That isn’t justice, and it certainly isn’t truth.At least you took the time to write a rebuttal, I appreciate that. These one-liners are useless.
It is your choice to reject facts and common sense. But nevertheless, they remain the facts and common sense.
You said "From the start, I see assumption stacked on top of assumption, wrapped in academic language to give it the appearance of rigor. " - NAME SOME, I made zero assumptions.
You said "The author repeatedly admits they cannot isolate individual effects," - Yes, that is what I stated because good analysis requires I not make things up.
You said "cannot quantify Charlie Kirk’s impact, and cannot establish direct causation, yet still goes on to imply responsibility anyway. " - That is FALSE, I didn't imply anything
You said "The claim that Trump accounts for “80% of anti-LGBT hate speech” further exposes this bias. " - All I can say is the FACTS ARE THE FACTS. Of the 100,000s of examples of anti-gay hate speech it found, Trump, by GDELTs count was around 80%. Sorry if you don't like the TRUTH but it is truth nevertheless.
You said "That figure tells me far more about media fixation than about speech volume or intent." - and that answer tells me you did no research on the issue and are simply expressing a biased opinion.
You said "Both variables are politically constructed. FBI hate-crime data is inconsistent across jurisdictions and heavily dependent on classification standards," - Clearly, you no longer believe OFFICIAL gov't data, at least in this case. That is a switch, because you have relied on the same FBI data many, many times.
You said "while GDELT “hate-speech” data reflects media tagging and editorial framing, not objective speech. In my view, this analysis is measuring media behavior, not actual rhetoric, and then drawing moral conclusions from it." - Since you clearly didn't research GDELT, here is how it works, and it isn't what you surmise:
GDELT ingests coverage from thousands of sources in dozens of languages, every day. The “HATE_SPEECH” theme is triggered by automated text analysis across that global feed, not by the opinion page of one newspaper. Individual outlets have bias, but when you aggregate across the entire ecosystem, you can still extract a very robust signal about when and where hate-related narratives spike. - NOTE: I limited the pull to US-only sources.
The goal isn’t to certify, “this sentence is objectively hate speech.” It’s to track how often hate-coded frames, slurs, and narratives show up in mass-consumed media. If extremist rhetoric is being amplified, argued about, or condemned in mainstream outlets, that matters for exposure and social climate, even if some mentions are critical. GDELT is very good at capturing that kind of volume and visibility.
Because GDELT uses a consistent dictionary and coding scheme, whatever bias exists is applied the same way every day, across years. That makes it perfectly usable for comparisons across time and between actors. If the dictionary or media ecosystem has a certain slant, that’s baked into everyone’s scores; what matters for my analysis is whether Actor A’s share of hate-coded coverage jumps relative to the baseline.
A lot of “hate speech” coverage is indeed condemnatory (“X made a homophobic remark…”). But from a social-effects point of view, that still means the underlying slur or frame is being circulated, repeated, and amplified. If a particular figure keeps generating those stories, they’re contributing to the ambient level of hostile rhetoric, whether or not the article itself approves.
I’m saying:
– Use GDELT as a high-frequency, consistent proxy for hate-related content in the media environment;
– Combine it with other data (FBI hate-crime counts, surveys, etc.);
– Focus on patterns and changes (spikes, actor-specific surges, lead/lag relationships), not on the philosophical purity of each tag. AND THAT is exactly what I did.
You said "What I find most troubling is the final implication, that Charlie Kirk’s own rhetoric somehow contributed to a climate of violence." - I implied nothing and only presented the facts. [u]I could have said the data "suggested" that Kirk's rhetoric does impact the level of hate crimes, because that is what the data actually suggests. But I didn't because it didn't meet strength criteria to make the claim as near certain. All I can say for certain is that Kirk's hate speech accounts for about 4%, right behind DeSantis. The POINT of course is that Kirk did contribute to the volume of hate speech - that is a fact whether you like it or not.
You wrote "What I find most troubling is the final implication, that Charlie Kirk’s own rhetoric somehow contributed to a climate of violence. I find that accusation outrageous. " - WHY outrageous when it is the truth? I tried to present the logic but you either missed it or reject it. So let me try another way.
Total hate speech = the sum of hate speech from each individual actor, of which Kirk contributes 4%.
Total hate speech DRIVES total hate crimes.
LOGICALLY it can be said that if an individual actor is part of the total hate speech, and Kirk is, then they MUST be part of what is driving hate crime. THERE IS no way around that.
You said "On a personal level, I find this entire approach sad." - That implies to me that you have no interest in trying to find out what drives hate crime against the gay community. Is that what you are trying to imply?
You concluded with an objectively false claim that "I believe we should be demanding rigor, humility, and respect, especially when someone has lost their life. What I see here instead is confirmation bias, moral grandstanding, and a willingness to weaponize statistics to support a predetermined narrative. That isn’t justice, and it certainly isn’t truth."You offered a few facts. I looked over the context arefull... There is very little actual factual content. Most of it is interpretation, modeling assumptions, and opinion framed as analysis.
Here are the only two facts I found in your comment
The dataset … covers multiple years of FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech data up through 2024”
This is a factual claim about which datasets were used. Whether the data are accurate or representative is another matter.
“Core regression built on the 2017–2024 window”
Factual about the modeling timeframe. The only solid “facts” are about the datasets used (FBI hate-crime data, GDELT data) and the timeframe of the analysis.
All other statements, percentages, causal links, or moral interpretations are derived from the author’s model and personal assumptions, not independently verifiable facts.
Framing these model outputs as if they are objective fact, especially regarding individual people (Trump or Kirk), is misleading.
HERE ARE STATEMENTS that are interpretations or claims, not independently verified facts
“There is a background level of hate crimes even if there were zero measurable hate speech”
This is a model assumption or estimate (118 incidents/year) — not a directly observed fact.
“Regression shows a statistically significant relationship …”
This is the author’s model result, but without seeing the actual regression coefficients, p-values, or methodology, it cannot be independently verified.
“Trump is responsible for roughly 80% of all measured anti-LGBT hate speech”
This is a claim drawn from the dataset, but the methodology is unclear. For example, if GDELT measures media coverage rather than raw speech volume, this figure could be heavily influenced by media bias.
Claims about Charlie Kirk “feeding into the total level of anti-LGBT rhetoric”
You explicitly admit they cannot isolate Kirk’s effect, so the statement is speculative, not factual.I took the time to carefully review and critique your comment before sharing my own thoughts. I didn’t find any factual basis in it, but I did see that you were primarily expressing an opinion. So, at this point, I feel I’ve made my point and have nothing further to share.
- FatFreddysCatposted 4 weeks ago
0Eff Charlie Kirk. He was nobody special. He was just a Jesus freak podcaster. There are hundreds more where he came from.
The Right's continued efforts to turn him posthumously into someone of importance is both hilarious and baffling.
Sorry, not sorry. On Mr. Charlie Kirk, I still can’t get over the over the top reactions of conservatives, while ignoring assaults by the right winger fanatic on those from the other side. As I said before, anyone with his level of prominence who, by the way, I have never heard of prior to his assassination is found making racial and misogynistic slurs will never have my sympathy. (And they are more than just out of context soundbites that the right would have me believe) I would have been happy to see him fall, but not necessarily in this way. It creates a martyrdom that he did not deserve.
Excerpt from an Aljazzera article:
Republican response
Some Republicans want to go further still and have proposed deporting Kirk’s critics from the US, suing them into penury or banning them from social media for life.
“Prepare to have your whole future professional aspirations ruined if you are sick enough to celebrate his death,” said conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a prominent ally of Trump and one of several far-right figures who are organising digital campaigns on X to ferret out and publicly shame Kirk’s critics.
The wave of firings and suspensions has raised concerns over free expression, while far-right activists celebrate what they see as a campaign of accountability.
US lawmaker Clay Higgins said in a post on X that anyone who “ran their mouth with their smart**s hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man” needed to be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”
The US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said on the same site that he had been disgusted to “see some on social media praising, rationalizing, or making light of the event, and have directed our consular officials to undertake appropriate action.”
Republicans’ anger at those disrespecting Kirk’s legacy contrasts with the mockery some of the same figures – including Kirk – directed at past victims of political violence.
For example, when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was clubbed over the head by a hammer-wielding conspiracy theorist during a break-in at their San Francisco home shortly before the 2022 midterm elections, Higgins posted a photo making fun of the attack. He later deleted the post.Cred, you have the right to your view, as did Charlie Kirk. In my view, it is unfair that his views be discarded and labeled simply because they don’t suit yours.
I must push back on this portrayal of Charlie Kirk., anyone who suggests he was making “racial and misogynistic slurs” ignores the context of his public speaking. Kirk has always spoken from a place of calm, serious debate, presenting his views based on his religious beliefs and moral framework. He has the fundamental right to express his opinions under the First Amendment, and speaking his truth, especially in alignment with his faith, is not inherently hateful or deserving of condemnation.
It’s also important to note that Charlie Kirk was never violent, never advocated for violence, and never targeted individuals in a way that breaks the law. He debated ideas, policies, and cultural questions seriously, often engaging in thoughtful discourse that challenges prevailing narratives. Suggesting that he “deserved” to fall, or that his assassination could somehow be rationalized, is not only morally repugnant but also dismisses the principle of free speech itself. People are allowed to advocate for what they believe is right without fear of being physically attacked or posthumously slandered.
Additionally, framing Kirk as a “martyr he did not deserve” misses a critical point: he became a voice for millions of Americans who feel their values, particularly faith-based values, are under attack. His prominence grew precisely because he articulated positions calmly, seriously, and from conviction, not from anger or reckless rhetoric. Criticizing him because some disagree with his views is one thing; celebrating his death or twisting unsubstantiated claims of “slurs” to justify that celebration is another entirely, and it’s deeply disturbing.
Equating Kirk’s work with the actions of others who committed actual physical violence or harassment is unfair and misleading. His record shows a person engaging in civil discourse, advocating principles rooted in faith and reason. To ignore that and treat him as if he somehow invited violence against himself is not just intellectually lazy, it’s morally wrong.
Charlie Kirk deserves to be remembered for speaking his truth responsibly and advocating for what he believes is right, not for being unfairly vilified by those who either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent him.
He was a Christian who shared his beliefs openly and listened respectfully to others during debates. He expressed his views peacefully and with dignity. Tragically, he was killed for his beliefs, making him a true martyr.Must it always be the arrogance of white people that rule the day?
George Wallace and Lester Maddox had opinions too. Anyone making unwarranted racist slurs against me and mine are going to be discarded on the very face of it. Racism and misogyny is ALWAYS inherently hateful and deserving of condemnation.
Sharlee, I don’t care about his public speaking, did he or did he not make the comments that I have accused him of making? What you say is “unsubstantiated” is simply more along the lines of your not wanting to acknowledge what Kirk had said. Many of his statements past statements do constitute reckless rhetoric. He is free to express his religious beliefs as long as he does not restrict those having contrary beliefs to express theirs.
I did not rationalize his assassination, but I don’t particularly miss his or other voices saying much the same. Free speech, yes, but I am going to hold you accountable for what you say, and there will be no spin allowed.
Is Kirk the first political figure that has been posthumously slandered? There have been men and women far greater than he that have received such treatment.
He represented a group that is comfortable with racism, misogyny, homophobia and general exclusion. I have to oppose such people on principle.
As for “equating Kirks work”, I did not say any of that. I did say that Republicans and conservatives have no right to restrict speech that did not put Charlie on some sort of pedestal. The “principles” are based your understanding of faith and reason. Those rightwing ideals are hardly universally held or appreciated.
Those that express racist and or misogynist points of view can never be seen in positive light by yours truly…….
Again we are looking from opposite sides of the looking glass and I guess that we are just going to have to agree to disagree.Those that express racist and or misogynist points of view can never be seen in positive light by yours truly……. - And this White Liberal.
It is demonstrable that Trump is responsible for the vast majority of anti-gay speech running around the airwave. I bet if I didn't the same analysis on racist speech the result would be around the same. Ditto with mesogenic speech as well,
To me, it is simple - facts are facts no matter how much a person wishes they would go away.Thanks, ESO, excuse me for making blanket insinuations. There has to be many whites that oppose Charlie and Trump in general otherwise their ideology would be embraced and consumed by the entire country by now. And it is not…..
"It is demonstrable that Trump is responsible for the vast majority of anti-gay speech running around the airwave. I bet if I didn't the same analysis on racist speech the result would be around the same. Ditto with mesogenic speech as well, To me, it is simple - facts are facts no matter how much a person wishes they would go away." ECO
This is not factual; it is an opinion.
ChatGPT
My question ---- "is this factual "It is demonstrable that Trump is responsible for the vast majority of anti-gay speech running around the airwave. I bet if I didn't the same analysis on racist speech the result would be around the same. Ditto with mesogenic speech as well, To me, it is simple - facts are facts no matter how much a person wishes they would go away." ECO"
Short answer: no, that statement is not factual as written. It is an opinion presented as a demonstrable fact, and the evidence to support it does not exist in the way the claim suggests.
Here’s why, in plain, common-sense terms:
There is no credible, comprehensive analysis showing that Donald Trump is responsible for the “vast majority” of anti-gay, racist, or misogynistic speech on the airwaves. That is a measurable claim, and it would require clear definitions, datasets, methodology, and comparisons across media, politicians, activists, entertainers, and commentators. None of that has been produced in a way that supports this conclusion.
Trump has made statements that many people consider offensive or inflammatory, and those statements are fair to criticize. But being controversial or polarizing is not the same as being the primary source of all or most hateful rhetoric in public discourse.
Anti-gay, racist, and misogynistic speech long predates Trump and exists across political, cultural, religious, and media spheres on both the left and the right. Attributing “the vast majority” of it to one individual oversimplifies a much broader societal problem.
The phrase “I bet if I did the same analysis” is itself telling. A bet or assumption is not evidence. Facts require data, not inference or personal conviction.
Saying “facts are facts” does not make a claim factual. Facts still need to be demonstrated, not asserted.
A more accurate framing would be something like:
“In my view, Trump’s rhetoric has contributed significantly to hostile or divisive speech, and I believe it has had a negative influence on public discourse.”
That would be an opinion, and a defensible one. But the original statement crosses the line from opinion into an unsupported factual assertion.
Cred, I understand your concerns about racism, misogyny, and the responsibility people have for their words. I agree that those attitudes are unacceptable and deserve condemnation.
I did find some of Kirk's remarks something I did not appreciate or feel needed to be said. However, I weighed his words and took into consideration his staunch religious views, his political stance, and his overall perspective. I try to do this with everyone, looking at the full context rather than isolating statements.
At the same time, I think it’s important to separate the person from the larger discussion about ideas and historical context. While some of Kirk’s statements may have been controversial, my point about “unsubstantiated” claims is simply that we should rely on verified sources before judging someone’s legacy. I’m not trying to excuse harmful statements, just advocating for careful consideration of the facts.
I also agree on the principle that free speech should be protected, even when we strongly disagree with what is said. Holding people accountable for their words is important, but it can also be done without assuming the worst intentions or ignoring context.
Ultimately, I think we see these issues from different perspectives, and it’s fair to acknowledge that we may simply have to agree to disagree. I respect your commitment to opposing racism and misogyny, and I hope we can continue discussing ideas with that shared principle in mind.Don’t you think that Jesus would reject Kirk? Here’s why.
Jesus says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (Matt 5:44), doesn’t he? Or am I misreading that?
So let me ask whether the following examples of Kirk’s public behavior live up to that message:
Kirk’s brand is built on:
* Owning / humiliating opponents
During those televised “discussions” with students, supposedly to “debate,” he routinely turns questioners into punchlines. When students are critical, he tells the audience they’ve been “brainwashed by your Marxist professors”, says they “don’t understand basic economics,” and treats their questions as proof they’re “products of indoctrination” just to get laughs from the crowd. The goal isn’t understanding; it’s humiliation.
* Mocking vulnerable groups (LGBTQ people, migrants, ‘blue cities,’ etc.)
Kirk is well known for attacking LGBTQ people and Pride culture in ways that go far beyond policy disagreement—describing Pride or drag events as “disgusting,” “degenerate,” or “evil”, and framing migrants as an “invasion” rather than human beings in desperate situations. These aren’t slips; they’re recurring themes in his show and speeches.
* Publicly delighting in their misfortune
Kirk frequently gloats when liberal cities struggle, talking about places like San Francisco, Chicago, or NYC as “hellholes” or “failed cities” and saying they’re “getting exactly what they voted for” when crime, migrant pressure, or budget crises hit. He cheers when “woke” companies or institutions take a financial hit, as if ordinary workers and residents are just collateral damage in his culture war.
You and I both know I could go on for pages with examples of how Kirk flaunted the teachings of Jesus while wrapping himself in what, in my opinion, was a faux religiosity. But these are more than enough to make the point.
Am I sorry he is dead? Yes. Am I sorry his hate campaign is over? No.I disagree with your comment, both on factual grounds and on how it frames its argument. What’s presented here is not evidence-based criticism; it’s a collection of moral judgments, interpretations, and unsubstantiated claims presented as fact, without a single citation, date, quote, or source to support them.
The accusations about Kirk “routinely” humiliating students rely entirely on characterization, not verifiable evidence. No specific events are cited. No direct quotes are provided. No video clips, transcripts, or dates are referenced. Claims like “he tells the audience they’ve been brainwashed by Marxist professors” or that his “goal is humiliation” are assertions of motive, not facts. Without sources, this is opinion layered on interpretation, not proof. When making accusations such as you have, you need actual quotes.
The argument repeatedly conflates harsh rhetoric with moral condemnation while offering no standard of comparison. Calling cities “failed” or criticizing Pride events may be provocative, but provocation is not the same thing as hatred, and disagreement, even strong disagreement, is not evidence of rejecting Christian teachings. Nowhere does the commenter establish that Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” requires political figures to speak gently, avoid sarcasm, or refrain from sharp critique. That standard is asserted, not demonstrated.
The comment selectively interprets Christianity in a way that conveniently excludes correction, rebuke, or moral judgment, despite the fact that Jesus himself openly rebuked hypocrisy, challenged religious authorities, and used harsh language when condemning what he viewed as moral corruption. The commenter’s theology is not the only legitimate reading, yet it’s presented as definitive.
The section on “mocking vulnerable groups” again relies on vague language like “well known for attacking” without documentation. If someone wants to claim repeated use of words like “degenerate” or “evil,” the burden is on them to show when, where, and in what context those words were used. Absent that, this is rhetorical inflation, not substantiated critique.
In my view, this comment is not a good-faith critique. It offers no sourcing, no balance, no acknowledgment of context, and no distinction between documented behavior and personal interpretation. It replaces evidence with moral outrage and asks readers to accept conclusions without any proof. That’s not debate, it’s narrative construction.
If someone wants to argue that Kirk’s rhetoric conflicts with their understanding of Christian values, that’s a legitimate opinion. But opinions should be labeled as such, and serious accusations should be supported with serious evidence. Such as personal quotes. Without that, this comment is persuasive only to those who already agree with you, not to anyone looking for truth or fairness. Once again, you write to build a misleading narrative, and do it at a deas mans exspence. In my view, that is disgusting.Show me how "it is not factual". Show me how it "is not evidence-based". Of course it is both
"The accusations about Kirk “routinely” humiliating students rely entirely on characterization, not verifiable evidence. No specific events are cited. No direct quotes are provided. No video clips, transcripts, or dates are referenced. " - I didn't present all that stuff AGAIN because it is common knowledge. But, if you insist, here you go (As this will get quite lengthy, I'll just pick one of the for starters.)
These are one-offs but set up a common pattern
* If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
* If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022
* Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 19 May 2023
* If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 3 January 2024
* If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 13 July 2023
* "The great replacement strategy... is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different." (March 1, 2024)
* On transgender issues/LGBTQ: Called for "Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor" (April 1, 2024).
* In debates, he routinely dismissed students as brainwashed: "You're not getting economics education, you're getting an indoctrination." (Undated clip from campus tours, circulated widely post-death; part of his "Prove Me Wrong" challenge where he invited public humiliation.)I don’t know why in the hell we keep having to regurgitate the fact that Kirk has been documented making slurs and attacks on vulnerable groups in society.
There is no way to sugar coat it or minimize his words. Sharlee and I spoke about this before and there can be no subtle nuance representing the interpretation of words that were clearly uttered by Mr. Kirk. Are we now questioning whether he said these things or are we mistaken by taking his “positive words out of context”?
I have said that in my world any racial slurs particularly to the extent made by him are simply non-negotiable negating any other so called mitigating factor.
He was divisive rather than inclusive, why would I want a monument built for someone like this?It amazes me as well on how people can be so obtuse and not recognize what is obvious to you and me and most other people.
The GDELT database .... I just learned something very interesting.
GDELT does not interpret a string of words as "hate speech" itself. It is only tagged as hate speech if that phrase - hate speech - is actually in the article it is reviewing!
That means only a small portion of actual hate speech in the ecosystem is being counted. When somebody says "all transgenders should be removed from society" and the person writing the article doesn't call that hate speech, then it is not counted even though it is clearly hate speech.
Given that, if there is a statistically significant relationship between hate speech and hate crimes, then it must be understated and in reality, the relationship is even stronger.
In the period 2020 - 2024, GDELT found over 10 million articles where it was classified as anti-LGBTQ hate speech Of those, roughly 400,000 were from Kirk. That is not nothing as some want to make it out to be.
Doesn't it just boggle the mind how some people can take the recitation of facts and professional analysis and call it "opinion". I think a cult or sanity check is in order.
"facts and professional analysis"
Whelp, in a communist country... like China... or an information controlled country... like the UK... where you can be arrested for not agreeing with the official "facts and professional analysis", not to mention banned, deplatformed, etc... then you would be correct.
But in America, we still have the ability to sniff out total BS and do our own research... we still have the right to call insanity what it is, or an ideology disconnected from reality what it is.
I realize the Leftists absolutely hate that... and would do anything (including supporting murder) to be able to censor people, jail people, strip them of their rights for not agreeing with their ideological nonsense and lies...
But unfortunately for them, there will always be people like me in this country that will call a man a man, despite his belief that he is a woman, and tell him to F off, he is not going in the woman's bathroom... that will tell a person that they are not a Furry, even if they believe they are, so they can F off, we aren't putting a litter box in the bathroom for them... in general we will continue to say F off to the insanity the Progressive Left promotes with every fiber of their being.Nothing from your comment was factual. I suggest you run it through ChatGPT, as I was forced to do so due to your persistence. My simple question to ChatGPT: "Please critique for facts and opinion."
Copy and Paste from ChatGPT
Opening Statement:
"I finally completed my analysis on the link between hate speech and hate crime. Here are the results: This study started as a result of the discussions surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk."
Fact: None presented.
Opinion / View: The statement is framed as the author’s own analysis and reasoning. They admit the “study” comes from discussion, not from peer-reviewed or sourced research. There is no evidence provided for methodology, participants, or scope.
Point 1:
"There is a background level of hate crimes even if there were zero measurable hate speech in the ecosystem. In my preferred regression, the point where the line crosses the y-axis — the intercept — corresponds to roughly 118 anti-LGBTQ hate-crime incidents per year (about 10 per month). That’s the baseline level the model predicts even when the hate-speech index is at its reference level."
Fact: None verifiable. The specific number (118 per year) is presented without citing sources or providing raw data.
Opinion / View: The claim is based entirely on the author’s “preferred regression,” which is unsourced and unverifiable.
Point 2:
"The regression also shows a clear, statistically significant relationship between the level of hate speech and the level of hate crime. As more hate speech is pumped into the ecosystem, hate crimes increase; when hate speech cools off, hate crimes decline. In other words, changes in the hate-speech index are systematically associated with changes in the hate-crime index."
Fact: None verifiable. No source, no statistical data, no test of significance is provided.
Opinion / View: This is a conclusion drawn from their personal analysis, presented as fact but lacking supporting evidence.
Point 3:
"Unfortunately, the data are too noisy to cleanly separate out individual actors. Once you add terms for specific people like Trump, Kirk, DeSantis, etc., their individual effects get swamped by the overall variation in the broader hate-speech environment."
Fact: None. The paragraph explains the author’s limitation in analysis but doesn’t provide data.
Opinion / View: Entirely an interpretation of their own dataset. There’s no evidence presented to validate this claim.
Point 4:
"What I can say is that, over the period I studied, Trump is responsible for roughly 80% of all measured anti-LGBT hate speech in the media ecosystem, on average. The next highest actor (DeSantis) is only about 8%, and everyone else is in the low single digits."
Fact: None. Specific numbers are given without sources or methodology.
Opinion / View: This is an open accusation and unverifiable without citations.
Point 5:
"The dataset I used to establish the link between hate speech and hate crimes covers multiple years of FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech data up through 2024, with the core regression built on the 2017–2024 window where the media index and the hate-crime series line up best."
Fact: Potentially factual if the datasets exist (FBI hate-crime data and GDELT data are real datasets), but the author provides no citations or specific references, so it’s unverifiable in this context.
Opinion / View: The framing (“line up best”) is subjective and reflects the author’s view on their preferred analysis window.
Conclusion about Kirk:
"So, what I can say about Kirk is this: as his hate-speech output ramps up, it feeds into the total level of anti-LGBT rhetoric in the system. If other actors aren’t simultaneously cooling off enough to offset him, that pushes the overall hate-speech index higher — and in my model, a higher total hate-speech index is associated with more anti-LGBT hate crimes."
Fact: None. This is entirely the author’s model-based interpretation without supporting evidence.
Opinion / View: Fully an opinion. No verifiable truth; it reflects the author’s perspective and modeling assumptions.
Your Critique in Context:
"From your reply, it seems you may not clearly distinguish between opinion and fact, and may assume that logical conclusions drawn from opinion can become true. In my view, the main issue is the lack of clear context, which leads to misunderstanding. I see no truth in that comment, as it adds nothing that can be considered factual."
Accurate. The original comment presents personal analysis and interpretation as fact without citations or verifiable data.
Summary Table:
Section Factual Content Opinion / View / Unsupported Claim
Opening statement None Study is based on discussions, no sources
Point 1 None Baseline hate-crime number from personal regression
Point 2 None Claimed regression result, no evidence
Point 3 None Interpretation of noisy data and actors’ effect
Point 4 None Percentages attributed to Trump & others without sources
Point 5 Potentially factual datasets, but unverifiable Choice of regression window is opinion
Conclusion on Kirk None Entirely opinion / model-based interpretation
Bottom line: The comment contains almost no verifiable facts. Nearly all points are personal interpretations, modeling assumptions, or opinions, often presented as if they were factual.
If you want, I can also make a shorter, ready-to-post version that summarizes this critique in just a few clear paragraphs. Do you want me to do that?
Perhaps time to drop this conversation. I am unconfrotable pointing out that you your comment was not truthful.LOL, you stepped on it there.
First, I used ChatGPT to develop the study. So much for "I should have run it through ChatGPT!
Second, here is what my ChatGPT said about your use of ChatGPT from the project I built to run the analysis.
You’re reading way more into that ChatGPT response than it actually says.
The model you used there only saw the short snippet of text I posted. It did not see any of the underlying work I did our the data tables that were produced: you didn't provide any FBI tables, any GDELT queries, no regression output. In that situation, ChatGPT is trained to label almost everything as “opinion / unverifiable” unless it has a direct citation or link in front of it.
That’s an epistemic limitation ChatGPT, [b]not a verdict on whether my numbers are “not truthful.”
To be clear:
I did, in fact, run actual regressions using publicly available FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech indices. The “~118 incidents per year” is the intercept from that regression—i.e., what the model predicts when the hate-speech index is at its reference level. That’s a factual property of the model I estimated, not something I guessed.
When I say the regression shows a statistically significant relationship between hate speech and hate crime, that’s because the slope coefficients on the hate-speech index are significant at conventional p-value thresholds in my output. Again, that’s a factual description of my results, even if ChatGPT can’t see the p-values in a forum quote.
The “Trump ≈ 80% of anti-LGBT hate speech / DeSantis ≈ 8%” numbers come from a fractional-share dataset built out of GDELT coverage, where each actor’s share of anti-LGBT stories is computed and averaged. Inside that dataset, those percentages are just arithmetic; they’re not opinions about who I like or dislike.
I’ve been pretty explicit that the individual-actor effects (Trump vs Kirk vs DeSantis) are hard to cleanly identify in the regressions because the data are noisy and the hate-speech environment is highly correlated. That’s not me pretending to have proof I don’t have—it’s me telling you exactly where the limits of the data are.
If I were writing an academic paper, I’d include code, tables, and citations. In a forum comment, I’m summarizing the same analysis in English. your ChatGPT can’t verify that from a few paragraphs you gave it, so it calls it “opinion / unverifiable.” That doesn’t mean the work doesn’t exist or that the numbers are made up.
You’re welcome to disagree with my interpretation or ask for more detail, but saying “nothing you wrote is factual” is just not accurate. It’s a misreading of what the tool is actually saying.
At this point I’ve explained the methodology and limitations as clearly as I can, so I’m going to leave it there.
But, if you want, I can provide the additional detail it presented to develop that response."LOL, you stepped on it there.
First, I used ChatGPT to develop the study. So much for "I should have run it through ChatGPT!" ECO
First I have watched your posts you offer from ChatGPT --- I can say honestly, you do not have a grasp on how to use the site to obtain factual information.
ChatGPT is as good as the user's question. I asked a straightforward question, and asked only provide facts, nothing of opinion or biased thoughts. This ensures one can obtain facts. Keeping a question direct and on point will offer the most factual responses.
In my post, I offered you the question I asked ChatGPT: What is factual in this comment, and what is not factual, followed by a copy-paste of your comment. I offered a complete copy and paste of the reply. As I will repeat just below.
What is factual in this Comment, what is not factual? Here is the comment --- My Esoteric wrote:
I finally completed my analysis on the link between hate speech and hate crime. Here are the results: This study started as a result of the discussions surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk.
1. There is a background level of hate crimes even if there were zero measurable hate speech in the ecosystem. In my preferred regression, the point where the line crosses the y-axis — the intercept — corresponds to roughly 118 anti-LGBTQ hate-crime incidents per year (about 10 per month). That’s the baseline level the model predicts even when the hate-speech index is at its reference level.
2. The regression also shows a clear, statistically significant relationship between the level of hate speech and the level of hate crime. As more hate speech is pumped into the ecosystem, hate crimes increase; when hate speech cools off, hate crimes decline. In other words, changes in the hate-speech index are systematically associated with changes in the hate-crime index.
3. Unfortunately, the data are too noisy to cleanly separate out individual actors. Once you add terms for specific people like Trump, Kirk, DeSantis, etc., their individual effects get swamped by the overall variation in the broader hate-speech environment. So while the collective total of all their rhetoric clearly moves the needle, I can’t say, based on this dataset alone, that “Kirk’s speeches specifically increase hate crimes by X%” in a statistically reliable way.
4. What I can say is that, over the period I studied, Trump is responsible for roughly 80% of all measured anti-LGBT hate speech in the media ecosystem, on average. The next highest actor (DeSantis) is only about 8%, and everyone else is in the low single digits. So Trump dominates the anti-LGBT coverage; the others are riding in his wake.
5. The dataset I used to establish the link between hate speech and hate crimes covers multiple years of FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech data up through 2024, with the core regression built on the 2017–2024 window where the media index and the hate-crime series line up best.
So, what I can say about Kirk is this: as his hate-speech output ramps up, it feeds into the total level of anti-LGBT rhetoric in the system. If other actors aren’t simultaneously cooling off enough to offset him, that pushes the overall hate-speech index higher — and in my model, a higher total hate-speech index is associated with more anti-LGBT hate crimes.
NOTE RESULTS
Got it — I’ll do this strictly, with no “potentially factual,” no conjecture, no hedging. Only what is factual and what is not factual.
What IS factual in the comment
These statements are factual because they describe methods, definitions, or the author’s own actions, not claims about the external world.
“I finally completed my analysis…”
Factual as a statement of the author’s action.
“This study started as a result of the discussions surrounding the murder of Charlie Kirk.”
Factual as a statement of motivation.
Use of regression terminology
References to:
regression
intercept
y-axis
noise
inability to isolate individual effects
These are accurate statistical concepts and are factually described.
“The dataset … covers multiple years of FBI hate-crime data and GDELT-based hate-speech data … 2017–2024.”
Factual as a statement of what data was used and the time window.
“I can’t say … ‘Kirk’s speeches specifically increase hate crimes by X%’ in a statistically reliable way.”
Factual as a limitation the author explicitly acknowledges.
What is NOT factual in the comment
These statements assert real-world truths or causal relationships that are not facts.
“There is a background level of hate crimes even if there were zero measurable hate speech.”
Not factual.
A regression intercept is a model construct, not proof of real-world behavior.
“The regression shows a clear, statistically significant relationship…”
Not factual as stated.
Statistical significance is a claim about results that are not shown; without evidence, this is an assertion.
“As more hate speech is pumped into the ecosystem, hate crimes increase; when hate speech cools off, hate crimes decline.”
Not factual.
This states causation, which the analysis does not prove.
“Changes in the hate-speech index are systematically associated with changes in the hate-crime index.”
Not factual as presented.
Association is a claimed result, not a demonstrated fact in the comment.
“Trump is responsible for roughly 80% of all measured anti-LGBT hate speech.”
Not factual.
This is a model-dependent media-coding output, not an objective fact about speech or responsibility.
“So Trump dominates the anti-LGBT coverage; the others are riding in his wake.”
Not factual.
This is interpretive and metaphorical, not empirical fact.
“The collective total of all their rhetoric clearly moves the needle.”
Not factual.
This implies causal effect not established as fact.
Final paragraph linking Kirk’s output to hate-crime levels
Not factual.
It constructs a conditional causal chain the data do not establish.
One-sentence summary
The only factual elements in the comment are the author’s description of their methods, data sources, time frame, and acknowledged limitations; every statement that claims real-world relationships, responsibility, statistical results, or effects on hate crimes is not factual.
If you want, I can now:
rewrite the comment so only factual statements remain, or
mark it line-by-line as fact / opinion / inference for posting.
Will MAGA condemn his king? Will he be "fired" for his insensitive comments? LOL
Such hypocrites.
Trump bashes late director Rob Reiner, drawing immediate backlash
Less than a day after acclaimed film director Rob Reiner was found dead in his Los Angeles home, President Donald Trump posited without evidence that the Hollywood icon was killed because he was critical of Trump.
"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!"
The statement, even for Trump, was a shocking comment that came as police were still investigating the deaths of the beloved director and his wife as an apparent homicide. The couple were found dead at their home Sunday in Los Angeles. Investigators believe they suffered stab wounds and the couple’s son Nick Reiner, was in police custody early Monday.
The president's post drew immediate reactions on social media and from lawmakers.Jenna Ellis, a former lawyer for Mr. Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, condemned the president's message in a post on X.
"A man and his wife were murdered last night," she wrote. "This is NOT the appropriate response. The Right uniformly condemned political and celebratory responses to Charlie Kirk's death. This is a horrible example from Trump (and surprising considering the two attempts on his own life) and should be condemned by everyone with any decency."
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky wrote on X, "Regardless of how you felt about Rob Reiner, this is inappropriate and disrespectful discourse about a man who was just brutally murdered. I guess my elected GOP colleagues, the VP, and White House staff will just ignore it because they're afraid? I challenge anyone to defend it."
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who's been targeted by Mr. Trump for pressing the government to release files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, noted in response to the president's post:
“Rob Reiner and his wife were tragically killed at the hands of their own son, who reportedly had drug addiction and other issues, and their remaining children are left in serious mourning and heartbreak,” Greene said in the statement.
“This is a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies. Many families deal with a family member with drug addiction and mental health issues. It’s incredibly difficult and should be met with empathy especially when it ends in murder,” she added.
Raheem Kassam, editor of the conservative publication The National Pulse, posted on X over an image of Trump’s statement.
“Don’t love this, to be honest,” Kassam wrote."you write to build a misleading narrative, and do it at a deas mans exspence. In my view, that is disgusting."
"A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling, but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away, together with his wife, Michele, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS. He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Rob and Michele rest in peace!" -DJT
Yes. Agree. Trump is disgusting.
This is a tragic and heartbreaking situation. Regardless of politics or personal disagreements, the loss of life is always devastating, and my thoughts are with the family and loved ones affected. This is a moment for compassion and restraint, not speculation or point-scoring.
Tell that to Trump. He scores points with every chance he gets.
As the film world and people of good taste around the world mourn the sudden death of legendary director Rob Reiner and his wife Michele Singer, President Donald Trump jumped to make the apparent double homicide about himself.
In an early morning Truth Social post, the president wrote that the couple had "passed away," due to "the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME, sometimes referred to as TDS."
"He was known to have driven people CRAZY by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump Administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness, and with the Golden Age of America upon us, perhaps like never before," Trump added. "May Rob and Michele rest in peace."I understand your frustration, but my comment wasn’t about defending or condemning any political figure. My focus is on the human tragedy itself. Families lost loved ones, and that deserves compassion and respect. I don’t agree with what Trump said, but he, like anyone, has the right to express himself, and we all have the right to feel how we feel about his words.
We see murders of everyday people far too frequently—the Jewish families attacked over the weekend, the individuals at Brown University, public figures like Charlie Kirk, and now Rob Reiner and his wife. I view all victims the same way and have shared my condolences in the same manner for each of these tragedies. This is why I emphasize compassion and restraint, rather than speculation or political point-scoring. Tragedy should not become a vehicle for outrage, whether from politicians, commentators, or commenters. We can disagree strongly about political figures without losing sight of basic decency and the human loss at the center of these events.
On a lighter note, I hope you and your family are having a wonderful and joyful holiday season.
Shar
Their selective and fake outrage is so funny.
Remember all the drama about kimmel?
What Trump said was worse. Now MAGA is so equanimous and understanding. LOL
Btw, he doubled down on his nastiness and lack of humanity.
When asked later about Republican criticism over his post, Trump told reporters:
"I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned. He said that I was a friend of Russia, controlled by Russia. You know, it was the Russia hoax, he was one of the people behind it. I think he hurt himself, career-wise. He became like a deranged person — Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all, in any way, shape or form. I thought he was very bad for our country."
SMHIt appears that our throughly modern maidens, Generation Z women, are not keen on Erica Kirk and her message of subordination of their financial independence and autonomy to men. This will be a large schism as young men want the tradwife and handmaiden tale scenario and has supported the late Charlie Kirk. But the young women will have nothing to do with it. Why are conservatives thinking that they can really sell an “Ozzie and Harriet” scenario to young women? What right does anyone have to circumscribe someone’s life to conform with some cultural expectation?
Interesting article, have a look….
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/erika-ki … v2-HnwXTpmInteresting. Yes, she is a living hypocrisy. Shouldn't she be devoting her life to finding another husband to be subservient to?
I found this observation to be so telling of the whole female conservative mindset - and it is really insulting to young women if you ask me.
"“What I don’t want to have happen is women, young women, in the city look to the government as a solution,” she said. “To put off having a family or a marriage, because you’re relying on the government to support you, instead of being united with a husband, where you can support yourself and your husband can support [you], and you guys can all combine together.”"You’re projecting an entire social “schism” onto a narrative that isn’t supported by facts. Erica Kirk is not preaching financial subordination or demanding that women hand over independence to men. She has worked throughout her marriage, she is financially active, and she has made her own career and personal choices. So if your argument is that she represents forced dependency, her actual life contradicts that claim.
Disagreeing with a traditional model does not give anyone the right to caricature it as “handmaiden” culture. Some young women absolutely want high-earning careers, some want stay-at-home motherhood, some want hybrids. That’s called choice. Stripping legitimacy from any lifestyle you dislike is its own form of cultural coercion, the very thing you claim to oppose.
You also assume young women are uniformly rejecting conservative women. But polling has consistently shown that Gen Z women are splitting, some moving left, some becoming more traditional, especially around family, safety, and children. So there’s no “Ozzie and Harriet” fantasy being foisted on the masses. There are simply competing worldviews.
And here’s the bigger point:
Conservatism isn’t demanding that women revert to the 1950s. It’s arguing that if a woman chooses family first, that choice shouldn’t be mocked, penalized, or treated as inferior.
Your question, “what right does anyone have to circumscribe someone’s life to conform with some cultural expectation?” should be asked in both directions. If Erica Kirk wants to champion faith, family, or traditional marriage, why does that anger people? If women want full careers and zero domestic life, that’s their path too.
Freedom means pluralism, not one acceptable ideology about womanhood.
Erica Kirk lives as she chooses. She advocates what she believes. And she doesn’t control anyone’s life.
That used to be considered empowerment.What do these quotes from Erika mean to you?
""I get to serve my husband, I get to submit to my husband. He submits to the Lord."
"The enemy loves to make you feel like you’re running out of time, but you can always have a career, it is not going anywhere … but children, family, your husband, marriages, that is not a renewable resource... Don’t delay the eternal for temporary and do not sacrifice the sacred for the secular, it is not worth it."
""When you meet the right man, everything shifts, everything changes. When I met Charlie, that was it. I could care less about the career."
""It’s so hard to articulate the beauty of an Ephesians 5 marriage when you actually have a man that’s worth following." - this a reference to the wife submitting to the husband
"[I want to] 'release' girls from the anxieties of feminism, from the idea that they should chase a cozy corner office or a meaningless paycheck."
You are certainly correct that she can live her life but what she is also doing to impressionable young women is advocating from her bully pulpit for them to lead a life of subservience.
Applying this to you as a young girl - she is telling you you should have not gone to nursing school but just to get married, have kids, and do what your husband tells you. If you want to become a nurse, wait a few decades.Sharlee, I did not say the Erika does not have the right to express her point of view, but I reserve the right to question and challenge it. Erika is an advocate for a specific point of view. I pull back as I have not been able to document or prove that younger women would dismiss Ms Kirks ideas. But, I would tell my niece to do so, regardless.
Until I get more information one way or the other, I give you the bonus point on whether younger women resist Kirk’s views.
Are the quotes provided by ESO accurate? You don’t dispute those do you?I went back and looked at the article to make sure it presented evidence that young women, as a group, are reject the Tradwife roll. Of course, to some that subservient role is appealing, but not to most, at least according to that article.
ECO’s quotes may be accurate, but they are presented without the surrounding context in which Erika Kirk made them. I believe you have every right to share your views with your niece or anyone else — just as Erika Kirk has the right to share hers. And just as importantly, all women have the right to question, challenge, or reject those statements and decide for themselves what path aligns with their own values and lives.
The context is she is advising what young, impressionable girls should be doing with their lives. That is what she does.
More specifically -
1. "I get to serve my husband, I get to submit to my husband. He submits to the Lord."Source Event: Speech at the Young Women’s Leadership Summit (YWLS) in June 2025, hosted by Turning Point USA.
youtube.com
Context: This quote appears in a section where Kirk discusses submission as one of God's "strategic weapons" in spiritual warfare, tying it to biblical womanhood and obedience. She contrasts it with cultural pressures, urging women to model their lives after figures like Mary, who submitted to God's will despite challenges. Surrounding text: "Kirk discusses submission as part of God's strategic weapons in spiritual warfare, tying it to biblical womanhood. While not explicitly quoting on serving a husband in the provided transcript, she implies it through themes of obedience and surrender, as in Mary's 'yes' to God's assignment despite scrutiny. She contrasts this with cultural pressures, urging women to echo gospel truths and build families with 'holy defiance,' including loving husbands and teaching children to blaze trails of glory." The emphasis is on voluntary submission leading to family harmony and divine purpose, not coercion.
2. "The enemy loves to make you feel like you’re running out of time, but you can always have a career, it is not going anywhere … but children, family, your husband, marriages, that is not a renewable resource... Don’t delay the eternal for temporary and do not sacrifice the sacred for the secular, it is not worth it."Source Event: Speech at the Young Women’s Leadership Summit (YWLS) in June 2025.
youtube.com +1
Context: This is part of a broader advocacy for prioritizing family over career, viewing motherhood as sacred and non-renewable. Kirk warns against cultural distractions that delay family-building, positioning it as a spiritual battle. Surrounding text: "You can always have a career. It is not going anywhere. LLC's will always be able to be created... But children, family, your husband, marriages, that is not a renewable resource. That is not—don't delay the eternal for the temporary and do not sacrifice the sacred for the secular. It is not worth it." Context: Addressing college students feeling 'behind' per culture; degrees fade, but godliness endures. Prioritizes non-renewable family over secular pursuits." She shares this as advice to young women, encouraging them to reject societal timelines and focus on eternal legacies through family.
3. "When you meet the right man, everything shifts, everything changes. When I met Charlie, that was it. I could care less about the career."Source Event: Speech at the Young Women’s Leadership Summit (YWLS) in June 2025.
youtube.com +1
Context: Kirk uses this personal anecdote to illustrate how a godly partnership redirects priorities from independence to family. It's tied to her upbringing as self-reliant but transformed by marriage. Surrounding text: "When you meet the right man, everything shifts. Everything changes... I could care less about the career." Context: Personal anecdote from her life—wired for independence pre-Charlie, but godly partnership redirects priorities. Seed for encouragement: Motherhood launches, not wastes, potential." This fits into her message that family elevates one's calling, countering feminist anxieties about career sacrifices.
4. "It’s so hard to articulate the beauty of an Ephesians 5 marriage when you actually have a man that’s worth following."Source Event: Interview with The New York Times, published in September 2025 (post-eulogy context, reflecting on her marriage).
advocate.com +2
Context: This quote comes from a discussion of her "Ephesians 5" marriage (referencing the Bible verse on mutual roles in marriage, with wives submitting and husbands loving sacrificially). She describes it as a team dynamic, not domination, emphasizing her role as confidant and supporter. Surrounding text: "“It’s so hard to articulate the beauty of an Ephesians 5 marriage when you actually have a man that’s worth following,” she told the newspaper. “Your wife is not your servant. Your wife is not your employee. Your wife is not your slave. She is your helper. You are not rivals. You are one flesh working together for the glory of God,” Kirk said of her husband during the eulogy." In the interview, she notes Charlie's weekly love notes asking how to serve her better, fulfilling his role: “I knew my expectations and role, and he knew his... I wasn’t going to be the nagging wife... I wanted to create a sacred landing space for him.” This reinforces her view of marriage as enriching, not subordinating, when roles align biblically.
5. "[I want to] 'release' girls from the anxieties of feminism, from the idea that they should chase a cozy corner office or a meaningless paycheck."Source Event: Speech at the Young Women’s Leadership Summit (YWLS) in June 2025.
youtube.com
Context: Kirk critiques feminism as inducing anxiety and distraction, advocating release to focus on faith and family. This ties into rejecting cultural pressures for career primacy. Surrounding text: "I actually think that that's some form of feminism to be so caught up in I have to have this career... It just is it's a distraction. The enemy loves that... I think that that anxiety is what feminism is all about... They want you to be anxious. They want you to be on anti-depressants... I don't want you to be chasing a paycheck and a title and a corner office and sacrifice such a short window..." Context: For career-oriented women (including herself, with her Bible ministry), hold perspective—family first, then build platforms tenderly. Not wasting degrees by raising children with wisdom." She positions this as empowerment through biblical priorities over secular achievements.
Related Discussions
- 791
The Frightening Violence of the Left
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
During the last few months the violence of the left has been put on full display. A health care executive is executed outside his hotel, Tela's are firebombed, IVF clinics are torched, Governor Shapiro's house in Pennsylvania is set on fire.The common thread in all of these incidents is they...
- 52
What will the 2019 Trump Court do to American Civil Liberties?
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
With the addition of Justice Kavanaugh, the make-up of the Court is similar in temperament as the one that existed between 1840 and 1929. That Court destroyed American Civil Liberties then, and this Court will do the same. So let's see how the previous conservative Court ruled:* Prigg...
- 28
Accountability, Not Free Speech, When Educators Cheer Assassination
by Sharlee 3 months ago
"A conservative political action committee launched an effort to expose teachers across the country justifying Charlie Kirk’s assassination online and is pushing back on claims from the left that conservatives are being hypocritical about free speech.Stefano Forte, executive director of 1776...
- 12
Turning Point USA Surges Forward "I Promise You Baby"
by Sharlee 3 months ago
Erika Kirk’s Promise Sparks Unprecedented RequestsErika Kirk, widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, has publicly vowed to continue her husband's legacy following his tragic assassination on September 10, 2025. In her first public remarks, delivered from the studio in Phoenix where Charlie...
- 38
Should Ds Filibuster Gorsuch or Wait For the Next Nominee?
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering for Supreme Court nominees; just as Democrats...
- 79
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?
by Dwight Phoenix 9 years ago
Trump/Clinton....Are U happy to be an american with these odds?If Hilary wins america would have traveled back in time to the 1990s (bill clinton) and you'll probably be lied to everyday.If Trump wins he could start a War.Choose wisely..........................