The Whatever Podcast Asks a Woman Directly How She Felt About Charlie Kirk's Death
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Tyler Robinson Confirmed as Radicalized Leftist in Charlie Kirk Assassination: Utah Officials Reveal Motive and Text Messages
28:48
Tim Pool and Blake Expose Media's Deadly Cover-Up of Left-Wing Violence Against Conservatives
23:30
Victor Davis Hanson Dismantles Left's False Narratives About Charlie Kirk Assassination on Utah Campus
7:26
The Whatever Podcast Asks a Woman Directly How She Felt About Charlie Kirk's Death
The Whatever Podcast revisits an interview to ask a woman directly how she felt about Charlie Kirk's assassination, pressing past a vague answer about gun control until she admits she giggled when she saw the video, despite saying she doesn't support killing people for their opinions. The conversation widens to include other interviewees, including one named Caitlyn, debating whether celebrating political violence online can ever be justified, with most landing on a similar position: they don't personally agree with killing people over politics, but they understand the impulse and won't pretend to mourn someone they disagreed with. The host pushes the group through a series of escalating hypotheticals, from killing a baby version of Hitler to whether they would date Luigi Mangione, the man charged with killing a healthcare executive, drawing out inconsistencies between their stated opposition to violence and their actual reactions to specific cases. The exchange captures a raw, unfiltered debate about where personal sympathy, political disagreement, and tolerance for violence intersect.
The Whatever Podcast Revisits a Reaction to Charlie Kirk's Killing
A host from The Whatever Podcast brings up Charlie Kirk's death with a woman during a street interview, asking for her reaction.
"What do you think about what happened to Charlie?" the host asks. "I think that we should have stricter gun protections to prevent things like that," she responds, prompting the host to push past what he describes as visible hesitation. "I don't like the rhetoric that he spread," she adds.
I Giggled at the Video
Pressed further on whether she was glad about Kirk's death, the woman initially says no, but the conversation takes a turn.
"I giggled a little bit at the video," she admits. The host responds with visible surprise, calling out the contrast between her stated values and her reaction. "You're the bulwark of moral... and you giggled when somebody was assassinated," he says.
Debating Whether Online Celebration of Political Violence Is Justified
The host turns to other interviewees nearby, asking whether they believe Kirk's killing, or public celebration of it, was justified. Each gives a similar answer: they don't personally support killing someone for their political views, but they say they can understand the reasoning behind the anger.
"I don't agree with killing someone ever," one interviewee says, while acknowledging, "I could see what thought process would lead someone to that, but I don't agree with it whatsoever." Asked whether people celebrating Kirk's death was justified, another responds, "Once again, I can see why, but I don't agree with it."
A Hypothetical About Baby Hitler
The host pivots to a classic hypothetical, asking whether the group would kill a young Hitler if given the chance, contrasting it with violence against political figures today. The group debates where exactly such a line would need to be drawn, with one participant suggesting the justification would only become clear once Germany became "a belligerent nation against the United States," while acknowledging the difficulty of applying that logic to an infant.
Would You Date Luigi Mangione?
The conversation shifts to Luigi Mangione, the man charged with killing a healthcare executive, with the host asking each interviewee whether they would date him if single.
"I have a boyfriend," one interviewee says, before admitting, when pressed on the hypothetical, "I don't know. Probably not." Another flatly says, "Hell no." A third hesitates: "I want to say yes, but I feel like I should say no."
On the killing itself, one interviewee draws a distinction between sympathy and endorsement.
"I don't think it was the right way to handle it. But I mean, I'm also not going to cry over a CEO who denies people health insurance getting shot," she says. "I shed no tears, but I don't agree with it."
Where the Conversation Lands
The host pushes back on the broader pattern in the group's answers, arguing that criticism of a system is different from endorsing vigilante violence against individuals within it.
"I think it's fair to be critical of the healthcare system and the health insurance system in the United States. That's totally valid... However, vigilantism, and just killing a CEO in the street, is completely incompatible with civilized society," the host says. When asked whether the same logic would apply to shooting the CEO of Planned Parenthood, one interviewee maintains her position against violence in general, while another, identified as Caitlyn, says she hasn't "done as thorough of an analysis" to compare the moral weight of the two hypothetical killings.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this video.