I get the impulse, truly. He spread hate and did real harm, and the anger at that is justified. But celebrating his death doesn’t hurt his cause, it builds it. The right has shown us the playbook: when left-wing leaders are killed, they shrug it off, Trump even said it ‘doesn’t matter.’ Yet with Kirk, before there’s even a suspect, they’re already framing it as the start of the left’s downfall. When we celebrate, we feed that narrative. We give the Nazis exactly what they want. The real strength is being better than them, and making sure their ideas lose.

Here’s the frustration and why this should not be celebrated:

Charlie Kirk spent years dehumanizing people, making lives measurably worse, and profiting from hatred. The cosmic irony of him being shot while calling trans people dangerous and minimizing gun violence feels like the universe delivering a punchline he wrote himself. There’s a cathartic release in seeing someone who seemed untouchable suddenly silenced by the very violence he dismissed.

But that catharsis is blinding, vile, and destructive. Every celebration post, every “rest in piss” meme, every “fucked around and found out” joke is already being screenshot and weaponized. The worst people imaginable, those eager to exploit violence, are being handed exactly what they want: supposed proof that “they were right,” justification for crackdowns, and, most dangerously, a martyr whose blood sanctifies every awful thing he stood for.

Celebration may feel like a dunk on fascism, but in reality it accelerates it. It may feel like strength, but it exposes a movement so strategically bankrupt that it mistakes emotional satisfaction for political victory. Kirk alive was one influencer among many; Kirk dead is a rallying cry that will outlive us all.

The rage at what he represented is justified. But celebrating his death guarantees those very ideas will flourish. American democracy is dying, and a gravedigger falling into the hole is no victory when it only deepens the grave.

His ideas needed to be defeated. Instead, they’ve been immortalized.

Free Gravel?

This one is clearly the best choice. That shit is expensive!

Start a gravel business, destroy the competition, and create a gravel empire.

Do you count more if you have sex 3 to 4 times a week?

Can testimony alone lead to a conviction?

In your scenarios, all of the plaintiffs are related to the accused in a similar way and would have a common incentive to make the accusation. That kind of situation naturally raises concerns about collusion or bias. By contrast, when multiple independent and unconnected individuals come forward with similar accusations, the evidentiary weight is very different. Courts recognize that corroboration from unrelated parties strengthens credibility, because it reduces the likelihood of a coordinated or self-serving motive.

For example, in United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978), the court noted that corroborating testimony from independent witnesses could significantly enhance credibility and probative value. Similarly, Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) allows prior bad acts to be admitted in limited circumstances, precisely because independent, consistent reports can establish patterns that are unlikely to result from mere coincidence or collusion.

Yeah but can you spew that nonsense at millions of people on your very own shitty platform? Gotta get on muskies level.

It’s so much more effective when you keep things as neutral as possible. I will often ask it to tear apart my argument as though I am my opponent and use its tendency to align with the user against itself.