Political Violence and the Death of Charlie Kirk: Tilly Middlehurst's Progressive Perspective on Empathy Across Ideological Lines
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Candace Owens Confronts Double Standards After Congresswoman Uses Racial Slur Against Black Conservative
0:35
Nate Freedman Confronts College Students About Charlie Kirk Assassination to Expose Campus Attitudes Toward Political Violence
29:02
Steven Crowder Returns to Change My Mind After Charlie Kirk Assassination with Bulletproof Security
1:24:42
Political Violence and the Death of Charlie Kirk: Tilly Middlehurst's Progressive Perspective on Empathy Across Ideological Lines
Progressive activist Tilly Middlehurst reflects on the shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk and the polarized reactions that followed. After debating Kirk in person and then witnessing his death, they found themselves caught between condemning political violence and facing backlash from their own side. This conversation explores the uncomfortable reality of humanizing political opponents, the troubling celebration of violence in some progressive circles, and whether meeting someone face-to-face changes how we process their death, even when we fundamentally disagreed with everything they stood for.
The discussion begins with a call to organize for important causes while acknowledging a broader conversation beyond simply whether one should empathize with Charlie Kirk. The speaker expresses disinterest in debating personal feelings about Kirk, noting that this was an event in global politics involving someone most people had never met, allowing them to process it however they choose.
The conversation turns to George Abaraonye, the Oxford Union president, who reportedly celebrated Kirk's shooting with an enthusiastic "let's effing go" response. In stark contrast, the speaker had posted something expressing concern about what happened to Charlie, which resulted in attacks from their own political side.
Understanding the Backlash
When asked what this backlash says about parts of the progressive movement, the speaker responds with understanding rather than defensiveness. They explain that most people never met Kirk in person, and watching a video of someone dying is a completely different experience when "your palms have touched." The speaker describes their unique situation: meeting someone they thoroughly disliked, debating them face-to-face, shaking hands, and then watching them die.
The speaker acknowledges that most people only knew Charlie Kirk as someone hugely responsible for the uptick in conservative politics among young people in the United States and globally, including places like South Korea and across East Asia. They note his significant influence, which many believed was for "totally the wrong reasons."
Kirk's Political Legacy and Controversial Positions
The speaker outlines several aspects of Kirk's political work that progressives found deeply problematic:
He was largely responsible for what happened with Roe v. Wade
He bused people to the Capitol insurrection
He celebrated and advocated for the public execution of individuals who had committed crimes
His rhetoric about gun violence was considered regressive
Despite these strong disagreements, the speaker maintains that Kirk was "a family man, a man with kids, and a man who I imagine meant well." They philosophically reflect that "the worst people in the world have meant well, the best people have meant well—everybody, I think, means well, apart from the occasional psychopath," and they doubt Kirk was one of them.
The Simple Message That Sparked Controversy
The speaker's basic message was straightforward: "Shooting someone in the throat is not good." Yet even this seemingly uncontroversial statement generated significant backlash from progressive circles. When pressed on whether this suggests an acceptable clamor for violence in progressive spaces, the speaker acknowledges understanding the concern.
Examining Political Violence Across the Spectrum
The conversation concludes with the speaker noting that when they examine evidence of conservative violence, they see "an overwhelming majority" on that side. They reference surveys among young people about political violence, noting that those on the left are statistically more likely to say political violence is acceptable in some circumstances, though the speaker appears to be building toward a more nuanced point about the gap between stated attitudes and actual violent actions.
This incomplete thought suggests a complex analysis of how different political movements discuss versus practice political violence, though the full argument remains unexplored in this fragment of conversation.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.