This essay is a classic example of red-pilling through affective identification and selective framing, made all the more striking because it comes from someone who would, by any objective measure, have been excluded from Charlie Kirk’s political vision of a properly ordered society.
Let’s unpack the rhetorical and ideological moves happening here:
"I don't have a big enough victim complex to believe that he would have hated me."
This is a privatization of politics—a move from structural critique to interpersonal projection. Rather than engaging with what Kirk’s policies and messaging advocated for in practice, the speaker projects an imagined friendship, one in which Kirk "wouldn’t have hated me," thereby absolving him of ideological accountability. This is akin to saying, “My uncle is racist but he loves me.” It erases the public implications of someone's political platform in favor of personal feelings of imagined rapport.
2. Strategic Mischaracterization of Critics
"People began spreading the falsehood that he advocated stoning gays to death."
This straw-man move allows the speaker to dismiss all critique as grotesquely exaggerated. By highlighting an absurd or unrepresentative accusation, she delegitimizes the broader and far more accurate charge: that Kirk promoted a worldview rooted in Christian nationalist sexual ethics, which excludes, delegitimizes, and ultimately aims to roll back the rights of gay families like hers.
This is not misrepresentation; it’s textbook reactionary ideology with a polished delivery system.
3. The “Tone” Defense & Civility Trap
"He was firm in his beliefs but tempered in his approach to others."
This common red-pill maneuver prioritizes tone over substance. Kirk may not have shouted slurs (in public), but he worked tirelessly to advance anti-LGBTQ+, anti-immigrant, and anti-democratic rhetoric and policy goals. This framing treats style as character, which is both politically naïve and deeply dangerous in a time when extremist politics are increasingly dressed up in soft affect.
4. Libertarianism as a Shield
"I'm ideologically a libertarian at heart, but I'm also not an idealist..."
Libertarianism often functions as an exit ramp from solidarity. In this case, it allows the speaker to opt out of hard political questions by cloaking her worldview in neutrality, despite having already made a clear value judgment in favor of someone who sought to deny her family’s legitimacy.
5. Victimhood Inversion
"Normal people with normal views have been elevated to the level of literal Nazis, which excuses violence against them."
This is a classic inversion of victimhood. Kirk, who spent years calling LGBTQ+ people a threat to children and pushing disinformation about elections, is now portrayed as a “normal” man persecuted by a hysterical left that allegedly “equates disagreement with Nazism.”
This rhetorical move obscures the reality that Kirk, while not a Nazi, aligned himself with deeply authoritarian and anti-pluralist forces—and did so with precision, calculation, and massive influence.
6. Sentimentality as Political Cover
"He was a husband and a father of two young kids, and it’s all just really sad."
This is where pathos becomes manipulation. The tragedy of the murder is real—but it is being used here to foreclose legitimate critique, to sanitize Kirk's ideology, and to portray those who maintain political memory as somehow monstrous for not participating in the grief. The speaker allows no space for truth-telling in the face of death—only myth-making.
Final Thought
This person has been emotionally red-pilled by a potent blend of mourning, media ambiguity, and liberal discomfort with moral clarity. And because she presents herself as a reasonable, complex, tolerant person, her position becomes especially seductive to other centrists, liberals, or identity liberals looking for a way to dodge uncomfortable truths about the right.
This is precisely how red-pilling works in 2025: not with jackboots, but with podcasts, parenting photos, and imagined friendships with people who would happily legislate away our rights—gently, but completely.
So well written and heartfelt. I could not agree with you more and am so thankful at least some of us are speaking out and pushing back on the horrible justification of Charlie's murder by so many on the left. It is a great sadness that many cannot find their compassion for the inexcusable shooting of Charlie.... and in front of his small children and family to boot. I did not know him. However, it is beyond disturbing to find that so many people are gleeful about his death and/or justifying it with endless quotes of what he may (or may not) have said and there are often no sources given. It seems quite possible (and in my thinking likely) that quotes attributed to him or video of him could have been edited and taken out of context. But the truth is that none of that really matters the most. What matters is that he was murdered because someone didn't agree with his viewpoints. Inexcusable. And a terrible, terrible tragedy. We have got to find a way to stop making those we disagree with the enemy. They are simply human.... just like us. America is in a very dark place. I hope we can find our way back to compassion and dialog and not only allowing divergence of opinions.... but celebrating it.
Charlie would have welcomed you into his movement and highlighted all your common areas of agreement. ❤️
I think so ♥️
This essay is a classic example of red-pilling through affective identification and selective framing, made all the more striking because it comes from someone who would, by any objective measure, have been excluded from Charlie Kirk’s political vision of a properly ordered society.
Let’s unpack the rhetorical and ideological moves happening here:
1. Affective Identification Overrides Structural Reality
"I don't have a big enough victim complex to believe that he would have hated me."
This is a privatization of politics—a move from structural critique to interpersonal projection. Rather than engaging with what Kirk’s policies and messaging advocated for in practice, the speaker projects an imagined friendship, one in which Kirk "wouldn’t have hated me," thereby absolving him of ideological accountability. This is akin to saying, “My uncle is racist but he loves me.” It erases the public implications of someone's political platform in favor of personal feelings of imagined rapport.
2. Strategic Mischaracterization of Critics
"People began spreading the falsehood that he advocated stoning gays to death."
This straw-man move allows the speaker to dismiss all critique as grotesquely exaggerated. By highlighting an absurd or unrepresentative accusation, she delegitimizes the broader and far more accurate charge: that Kirk promoted a worldview rooted in Christian nationalist sexual ethics, which excludes, delegitimizes, and ultimately aims to roll back the rights of gay families like hers.
This is not misrepresentation; it’s textbook reactionary ideology with a polished delivery system.
3. The “Tone” Defense & Civility Trap
"He was firm in his beliefs but tempered in his approach to others."
This common red-pill maneuver prioritizes tone over substance. Kirk may not have shouted slurs (in public), but he worked tirelessly to advance anti-LGBTQ+, anti-immigrant, and anti-democratic rhetoric and policy goals. This framing treats style as character, which is both politically naïve and deeply dangerous in a time when extremist politics are increasingly dressed up in soft affect.
4. Libertarianism as a Shield
"I'm ideologically a libertarian at heart, but I'm also not an idealist..."
Libertarianism often functions as an exit ramp from solidarity. In this case, it allows the speaker to opt out of hard political questions by cloaking her worldview in neutrality, despite having already made a clear value judgment in favor of someone who sought to deny her family’s legitimacy.
5. Victimhood Inversion
"Normal people with normal views have been elevated to the level of literal Nazis, which excuses violence against them."
This is a classic inversion of victimhood. Kirk, who spent years calling LGBTQ+ people a threat to children and pushing disinformation about elections, is now portrayed as a “normal” man persecuted by a hysterical left that allegedly “equates disagreement with Nazism.”
This rhetorical move obscures the reality that Kirk, while not a Nazi, aligned himself with deeply authoritarian and anti-pluralist forces—and did so with precision, calculation, and massive influence.
6. Sentimentality as Political Cover
"He was a husband and a father of two young kids, and it’s all just really sad."
This is where pathos becomes manipulation. The tragedy of the murder is real—but it is being used here to foreclose legitimate critique, to sanitize Kirk's ideology, and to portray those who maintain political memory as somehow monstrous for not participating in the grief. The speaker allows no space for truth-telling in the face of death—only myth-making.
Final Thought
This person has been emotionally red-pilled by a potent blend of mourning, media ambiguity, and liberal discomfort with moral clarity. And because she presents herself as a reasonable, complex, tolerant person, her position becomes especially seductive to other centrists, liberals, or identity liberals looking for a way to dodge uncomfortable truths about the right.
This is precisely how red-pilling works in 2025: not with jackboots, but with podcasts, parenting photos, and imagined friendships with people who would happily legislate away our rights—gently, but completely.
So well written and heartfelt. I could not agree with you more and am so thankful at least some of us are speaking out and pushing back on the horrible justification of Charlie's murder by so many on the left. It is a great sadness that many cannot find their compassion for the inexcusable shooting of Charlie.... and in front of his small children and family to boot. I did not know him. However, it is beyond disturbing to find that so many people are gleeful about his death and/or justifying it with endless quotes of what he may (or may not) have said and there are often no sources given. It seems quite possible (and in my thinking likely) that quotes attributed to him or video of him could have been edited and taken out of context. But the truth is that none of that really matters the most. What matters is that he was murdered because someone didn't agree with his viewpoints. Inexcusable. And a terrible, terrible tragedy. We have got to find a way to stop making those we disagree with the enemy. They are simply human.... just like us. America is in a very dark place. I hope we can find our way back to compassion and dialog and not only allowing divergence of opinions.... but celebrating it.