JD,

When you come up with something that needs defending, I'll defend it.

But just asserting that if I do your job and search Google for something he did wrong isn't going to work.

So off you go. Scrounge through the WWW or beg Grok for help. Find something from Kirk that needs to be defended, and then I'll defend it or admit that he was wrong on that point. But just whining that he said things the left don't like isn't a cause that needs to be defended. Indeed its a reason to laud the man.

mhaze,

You keep moving the goalposts - first saying I provided no examples, then saying the examples don’t "need defending," and now telling me to bring you something specific that you’ll either defend or reject.

Let’s test your consistency. Here are three examples. Not paraphrased, not filtered - verbatim quotes from Charlie Kirk:

1. Demonising political opposition:

"The Democratic Party hates America."
- Charlie Kirk, speech at SAS2022 (Turning Point USA), July 2022
Source: C-SPAN video, timestamp ~14:00

Do you defend this? Is it reasonable, in your view, to declare that a major political party "hates America"?

2. Transphobic framing:

"Transgenderism is a mental illness."
- Charlie Kirk, repeatedly on his podcast, e.g. [Episode: "There Are Only Two Genders"]
Source: Audio snippet and transcript here

Do you defend this? Do you consider it a medically sound diagnosis, or inflammatory rhetoric designed to dehumanise?

3. Victim-blaming and mockery of school shooting survivors:

"David Hogg is a total fraud. He’s a crisis actor, basically. A puppet."
- Kirk on Hogg, a Parkland shooting survivor
Source: [Referenced in multiple outlets including Media Matters and Right Wing Watch]

Do you defend this? Do you think it’s fair game to call a school shooting survivor a "crisis actor" - or does that fall into the category of "stuff the left doesn’t like" too?

If none of this needs defending, say so. Just be honest about it: say you agree with all three, and that you’re fine with a public figure building their brand by demonising opponents, dehumanising minorities, and mocking teenagers who survived mass shootings.

If you don’t agree with one or more of these, then congratulations - you’ve just found something that does need defending. I’ll be waiting.

And let’s not pretend this is about censorship or "the left being offended." This is about rhetorical ethics. Civility in public life. And measureable harm. If you genuinely think Kirk was just a poor misunderstood intellectual, these quotes should be no problem for you to unpack.

Your move.

You're struggling to recognise the goalposts.

First off you tried to dodge the need to show Kirk actually saying things that you found abhorrent by relying on unsourced claims from the legacy press. Then you did get around to making a few specific claims which were again short on evidence and long on assertion, but were at least specific.

And I specifically rejected them as things Kirk said that needed defending. Now we have a slightly more scholarly effort, although abysmally thin on trying to show things that warranted Kirk getting a target on his back.

Still I'll address them. But don't think this is a defence since these things Grok gave you don't need defence. But I will explain it to you.

"1. Demonising political opposition:"
Since my trust in your sources is minimal, I wanted to see the alleged quote "The Democratic Party hates America." in context since you, unsurprisingly didn't provide a link. Neither Google, DuckDuckGO, nor ChatGPT could find an instance of Kirk saying that. Perhaps Grok is leading you down the garden path. Oh wait Grok couldn't find it either!!

To be fair, Kirk and great swathes of the American right say that the Democrats hate the current American dream and the history of the USA. Things like the 1619 Project, so beloved of the left, are examples. And I know Kirk has talked of the left's love of illegal immigration saying its because they want to change America into something they might like.

"Transgenderism is a mental illness."
Couldn't be bothered seeing if you made that up as well. But yes transgender is a mental dysphoria. Although as I recall, Kirk did say that often the illness was with the parents who were anxious to have the status symbol of a trans child than with the child itself.
/cont

I'm not struggling to recognise anything, mhaze. Here’s the progression:

1. You demanded specific quotes.
2. I provided them.
3. You claimed they didn’t “need defending” (because you apparently agree with them).
4. Now, you’re downplaying or dodging them.

I misremembered Kirk's comment on the Democrats. He demonised them by saying that they're "at war with America." So no, I wasn't lead down any garden paths.

http://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2505967656404419

You didn’t bother checking if Kirk had said transgenderism was a mental illness, but rushed to agree with the sentiment anyway - but with strategically different wording:

//But yes transgender is a mental dysphoria.//

A disphoria isn't a mental illness.

Either way, it wasn’t framed as a clinical concern. Kirk repeatedly used it as a cultural cudgel, accusing parents of chasing “woke status” and painting trans youth as a threat.

That kind of framing does need scrutiny, because it contributes to social stigma and mental health risks, especially among youth.

And you didn’t even address the The Parkland Survivor smear. Said on video. To his audience. About a school shooting survivor. Do you defend that?

Zooming out again: this was never just about isolated quotes. It’s about patterns of rhetoric - framing disagreement as treason, minorities as mentally ill threats, and victims as liars.

You’re right that Kirk wasn’t “unique” in doing this. But that’s not the defence you think it is. “Others do it too” is an excuse, not an argument.

You said:
“When you come up with something that needs defending, I’ll defend it.”

But you haven’t.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I take it you've abandoned your claims in support of Price now.

/cont

"David Hogg is a total fraud. He’s a crisis actor, basically. A puppet."

Do you really want to hang your hat on Hogg love? Hogg is a shooting survivor in his mind only. Yes he was in the school where the shootings occurred but wasn't within cooee of the actual event. But he played it for all he was worth and made a 'killing' out of his claimed near-death experience. All the way to the head of the Democratic National Congress where they quickly realised he was a fraud and a shyster and booted him out after 2 weeks!! Then he was forced to apologise for lying about Marco Rubio. Saying he's a crisis actor is almost too kind. But then Kirk was often too kind.

I don't need to hang my hat on Hogg, mhaze.

Kirk's demonisation of minorities and intolerance doesn't have to be encapsulated in neat little quotes. A divisive overall message is enough.

Regardless, you asked for a quote that "needed defending," so I gave you one. You've now responded, not by defending it… but by doubling down on the smear.

Let’s be crystal clear here:

- Hogg was a student at the school.
- He was present during the shooting.
- He took cover and helped other students shelter.
- He began campaigning shortly afterward.
- He was not in the same room as the shooter (which is true for most survivors of most mass shootings).

That doesn’t make him a "fraud." It makes him a survivor. And the smear portraying him as a crisis actor has been thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers across the spectrum. It’s also a textbook tactic used by grifters to discredit victims of politically inconvenient tragedies.

And your claim that he led the Democratic National Committee is false. He was elected as one of several vice chairs in early 2025, but stepped down after internal party disputes over the process - not because he was exposed or booted.

You said:

"When you come up with something that needs defending, I’ll defend it."

Instead, you:

- Repeated the smear.
- Invented a fake DNC position.
- Called him a liar for being afraid during a school shooting.

This isn’t defence. It’s deflection. Speaking of quotes, however, let's look at two you were hoping I'd cite out-of-context:

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."
- The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024

"If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?"
- The Charlie Kirk Show, 8 December 2022

Even when framed as critiques of DEI, these aren’t just clumsy, they’re corrosive. They feed into broader narratives that cast Black professionals as suspect and marginalised people as somehow overprivileged. That’s not an anti-woke message, that’s cultural resentment dressed up as commentary.