While I have my opinions, I try to stay away from the political fray. I’m registered as an independent and try to stay that way. While it has its advantages, it also has disadvantages.
For example, I did not know who Charlie Kirk was, and I had never heard of Turning Point, his organization.
Seeing all the media publicity, I decided to investigate. So, I studied his website and reviewed his podcasts. I never met him and never heard him speak.
Based on that bit of information, I found him to be an intelligent, charismatic man who had a passion for helping young people formulate healthy values and make good decisions. It looks like he was a bit of a free-thinker as well and believed in conversation with people who held different opinions.
With that as background, I am appalled by the celebration of his murder and perplexed at the charge that he was ‘hateful and divisive, and therefore it is good that he was murdered.” As an objective observer, I’m puzzled by that sheer lack of human decency those positions reveal.
Why is that? What explains this rash of contemptable behavior?
I have three possibilities:
1. The people who charge someone else as hateful and divisive are merely revealing their own nature.
I’ve been in business for over 40 years. I have interacted with tens of thousands of people in seminars and speaking engagements and have learned a lot. One lesson I have learned is this: When people demean someone else’s character, they say more about themselves than they do about the target of their rhetoric.
People project their own character onto others. So, liars think everyone is lying. Thieves expect others to have a larcenous heart; manipulators think everyone is manipulating them. And so it goes.
Hateful people charge others with being hateful.
I suppose it is a trait of human nature to assume that everyone thinks the way we do. Perhaps psychologists have some insight on that. Regardless, this is one of the lessons I’ve learned, and I think it applies to some people here.
This phenomenon has been around since people have inhabited the plant. You may recall that Jesus said,
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.(1)
2. Some people just don’t think very well (2) and have reacted to spurious internet claims without any due diligence. Stephen King is a great example. Following the murder, he posted that Mr. Kirk “advocated stoning gay people.” When he was shown the truth, he apologized for his lapse in judgement and said, “It won’t happen again.” (3) I applaud him recognizing his lapse of judgement. It is what I would expect of an educated and intelligent person.
There is something called “confirmation bias,” which basically holds that people search for things that will support their previous agenda, instead of objectively considering some issue. Politics on both sides is rampant with it.
They search for things that can be twisted to support their agenda, whether or not the item actual does. So, they look for things to confirm what they previously believed, without regard to the actual meaning of the item.
The greatest example of this is, of course, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, who was crucified by a mob of inflamed people because he challenged their beliefs – and this in spite of the miracles and all the people he touched.
I’m reminded of a Paul Simon lyric from the song, The Boxer, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. “”
I suspect that many of those who claim he was hateful are merely hearing what they want to hear, to confirm their previous position, regardless of the veracity of the item. That’s a lapse in judgement, and an indication of poor thinking.
3. I still remember my high school speech class! We were studying persuasive techniques, and one technique went something like this: “ If you can’t refute a person’s arguments, attack the person.” It’s the option of last resort for those who are unable to refute someone’s positions.
We see it all the time in politics.
From what I understand, Mr. Kirk advocated free speech and invited many to debates. Many of those who were unable to refute the strength of his arguments may have defaulted to ‘attack the person” as a frustrated last resort.
Regardless of the motivation, the callousness of the comments represents a low point in our society. As a country we have developed for 250 years. I would hope we would be better than this.
1. “Matthew 7:3-5 (NIV)
2. Five Thinking Errors and our Current Mess. By Dave Kahle. https://www.davekahle.com/thinking-errors-rational-thought
3. ‘Won’t happen again;: Stephen King apologizes for claim about Charlie Kirk”. as reported in USA Today here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/09/12/stephen-king-charlie-kirk/86123212007/
Dave Kahl
