Freddie deBoer: Charlie Kirk's Murder Reveals a Cultural Sickness

Writer Freddie deBoer discusses the assassination of Charlie Kirk and his theory of "spectacular acts of public violence" on the final episode of Just Asking Questions.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Freddie deBoer: Charlie Kirk's Murder Reveals a Cultural Sickness

HD Video Download

Why must all good things come to an end? Just asking questions. 

This will be the final episode of the Just Asking Questions podcast. This discussion with Freddie deBoer about the assassination of Charlie Kirk and its aftermath felt like the kind of sincere, analytical, deeply meaningful conversation across an ideological divide that would be appropriate to call our last. Liz Wolfe and Zach Weissmueller offer their final thoughts and reflections on the series at the end of the episode, so if you've been with us on this journey, please stay after the final question to hear our closing statements. You can continue to read Liz's work every weekday by subscribing to the Reason Roundup. Zach will continue to produce documentaries, video essays, and interviews for Reason TV. You can also follow Liz and Zach on X for updates on their work, and the full Just Asking Questions archive will remain available here, on YouTube, and podcatchers.

Freddie deBoer joins us in today's episode to unpack the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk. On his Substack, he wrote a remarkable piece attempting to make sense of what he calls "spectacular acts of public violence."

The motive of Kirk's alleged killer has become clearer as text messages and family statements released by law enforcement reveal a young man in a relationship with a transgender partner, enraged by Kirk's supposed "hatred." But from deBoer's perspective, it's not ideology primarily spurring these public acts of political violence. A profound lack of meaning and wallowing in nihilistic online irony continually leads young men—often egged on by internet friends they barely know in real life—to desperately graft a semi-coherent grievance onto their final violent act in a doomed attempt to make it meaningful. 

DeBoer is a proud man of the left, and we ask him whether the pathology that led to Kirk's assassination is particularly characteristic of the left in an era where unapologetic celebrations of this murder and the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson late last year have appeared on social media with disturbing frequency. 

It's a conversation that we hope inspires you as it did us to reflect on what it is that's meaningful to you, what the effect of an increasingly digital and disembodied world has on that meaning, and how to avoid pushing our culture any further in the direction of one that produces rampant celebration and dehumanization of a father and husband who was killed for the words he spoke. 

Sources referenced in this conversation:

1. 1. Utah County Attorney: Charges against Tyler Robinson
   2. Ken Klippenstein: Leaked Messages from Charlie Kirk Assassin
   3. How acceptable are the following activities in response to a campus speaker? 2024 College Free Speech Rankings | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
   4. Institute for Economics and Peace: People who feel political violence is justified

 

 

• Producer: John Osterhoudt

Comments

[Chumby]

People believing words are violence, people believing they are entitled to physically harms those with whom they disagree, and people not taking responsibility for their actions as well as political gaslighting and promotion of violence puts the nation in a challenging spot.

[Quo Usque Tandem]

It's a supermarket of ideologies, grievances, and motives out there, particularly for those with no moral grounding or sense of purpose or direction. On the internet anything can be normalized and provide a virtual peer group to support it.

This shit is out of the bottle and on the ship that has sailed.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Add to that liberal DAs removing the right to defend oneself and the problem grows even more.

[Chumby]

The NAP only applied to team blue members who get triggered by words and follow the narrative that it is the same as violence and therefore their violence is justified.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Stochastic terrorism is much worse than terrorism terrorism.

[shawn_dude]

I agree! Look how bad it's gotten!

[MWAocdoc]

I have only one political rule: it is worth risking my life to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have given my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies. Having said that, it's a matter of opinion who the enemies of the Constitution are. I am only willing to risk my life to defend the Constitution against those who I believe are actually those enemies, and only if I see a reasonable chance of success. I do not believe that assassination will ever achieve that goal. I firmly believe in the right to self defense but I cannot imagine ever killing a stranger no matter how evil their speech might seem to me.

I believe that there have been generations of socialists who have gradually eroded the Constitution I have sworn to protect and defend and I consider them to be those enemies. There have also been generations of fascists who have tried to use religion and fear to gain power and that those actions were the original motivation for the Founders and the Framers to write the Constitution the way they did and it is why I swore an oath to defend their work.

[AT]

Having said that, it's a matter of opinion who the enemies of the Constitution are.

Nope. That's relativist claptrap. It rides on the false premise that The Constitution stands for what you think it should stand for, rather than what it says.

It's an excuse to define "your enemies" as whoever you want them to be. Which, you'll notice, has been the left's response to Kirk's murder. In media, in politics, in academia, in social reaction - all of it.

This is pretty cut and dry, MWA.

Charlie: wronged.
Shooter: wrongdoer.

Any attempt to obfuscate or deny that puts you on the side of the shooter. Simple as that.

[shawn_dude]

Not that simple, really. I agree that Kirk was wronged and that the shooter is a murderer who wronged him. And while you didn't mention this, I assume you'd agree that despite Kirk's speech, which many found deeply offensive, and despite his delivery, which was often confrontational and shocking, he was fully covered by the First Amendment and no one deserves to be murdered for their speech.

Where we deeply disagree is that "obfuscat[ion]" or "den[ial]" puts someone on the "side of the shooter." You offer a clear picture of victim and murderer and then use subjective terms to lump what would likely be a broad group of people into "on the side of the shooter." You can believe that Kirk was a bad person while simultaneously believing he also was wrongfully killed. You can disagree with Kirk's brand of Christian Nationalism while simultaneously empathizing with his surviving family. Framing anyone that "obfuscates" by recognizing the polarizing effect of Kirk and his organization as "on the side of the shooter" is just a continuation of the polarization itself and overly simplistic.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Can you give us specific examples of what was considered offensive? And who it was offensive to?

[Rick James]

Would that be the cultural sickness some of in the comments were increasingly talking about as far back as that Wednesday in 2015? That cultural sickness that we not only warned about but have been discussing its face-smashingly obvious ongoing existence for ten years... while everyone else shouted "hur durr kultur warr"?

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Cmon man. Those problems pointed out 20 years on university campuses would never extend to the rest of society.

[AT]

Erika Kirk is taking over TPUSA, per Charlie's wishes and approved by the board.

I do wonder if she'll take the same approach to it as he did, and whether the left will respond as they have to date by now creating orphans instead of just a widow.

Just Asking Questions.

The motive of Kirk's alleged killer has become clearer

Shh, don't tell the media. They want to still pretend it's unknown.

A profound lack of meaning and wallowing in nihilistic online irony continually leads young men—often egged on by internet friends they barely know in real life—to desperately graft a semi-coherent grievance onto their final violent act in a doomed attempt to make it meaningful.

Meaning, they're radicalized. Or groomed, I suppose. By the left.

DeBoer is a proud man of the left

Mm, not sure that's something you want to advertise anymore.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

It isnt just a men problem. See the female trannie shooters.

[AT]

Female according to them, or female according to reality?

[Chumby]

Depends on what their tranifestos indicate.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Reality.

[shawn_dude]

Are we pretending that a MAGA faithful didn't beat Mr Pelosi with a hammer and then right-wing pundits and the President's own son made jokes about it?

Are we pretending that a crazy MAGA shooter didn't assassinate a Minnesota Democrat and her husband?

The molotov cocktail thrown at the Pennsylvania Governor (D) Shapiro's home with his wife and kids inside?

Or the political violence on January 6th that resulted in several brutalized police officers by MAGA supporters and the death of a woman as she tried to break into the chamber where politicians were being secured? The chants of "Hang Mike Pence" by MAGA supporters? Or Trump pardoning those that committed that violence?

Maybe take a look at yourselves in the mirror, eh?

[creech]

U.S.A. Today said Balmer wasn't a Trump supporter. He "harbored hatred" for Shapiro because Shapiro, who is Jewish, didn't support Palestine, who Balmer claimed were "his friends."

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Ahh. I see your problem. Youre a retarded leftist shit who prefers false narratives to reality.

[Marshal]

Both sides have people who are mentally unbalanced. But only one side's mainstream movement intentionally radicalizes their acolytes in ways that can be expected to result in violence.

By Any Means Necessary has been an organizing call to arms for pushing 5 decades now. Calling specific people Hitler and the right generally fascist is a dogwhistle granting permission for violence.

I don't believe the majority of leftists want violence, although this is only because they realize it will not help them. But they know these and other radicalization techniques successfully drive long term voting and activist activity so they will not oppose the leftists who do support violence pushing their expendable members into it.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

House democrats were again screaming fascists and nazis today.