Kristin Chenoweth and recent events- Page 4

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 8:38am

WhoCouldBeBlue said: "
May you all learn a well-deserved lesson on HATE while you’re standing in the unemployment lines. Conservatives vote with their pockets and they’re tired of feeding the hateful trolls."

Oh yes, Conservatives vote with their wallets. Its why inflation and unemployment is going so great right now. Absolutely GREAT!

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 8:47am

KrupYou said: "LGBTQ+ people

• He vocally opposed Pride month
• He called transgender identity a "mental disease".
• He refused to use correct pronouns and demanded a nationwide ban on gender-affirming care.
• He has cited scripture and called homosexuality an "abomination".

Immigrants

• Kirk frequently promoted the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, which alleges that non-white immigration is being used to replace white people.

Women

• He made demeaning comments about Black women.

"

He hated the Jews who he thought were "cultural marxists" and were funding "the great replacement" and had no problem with using anti-Semitic rhetoric to attack them but he supported Israel and Netanyahu's brand of white (Jewish) nationalism. So lots of MAGA Jews liked him. 

Charlie Kirk's anti-Semitism

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 08:47 AM

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:01am

"What did this deceased firebrand do to earn a place in heaven?"

Very simple Jay. He probably was a good husband and father. He treated people he disagreed with respect. Watch any you tube clip of him taking questions from college kids and he was great with them. You don't have to have a laundry list of accomplishments to go to heaven. Treat people as you want to be treated and overall be a good human being.

[round2]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:10am

Wait, I'm confused. Kristin Chenoweth has expressed "appreciation" of some of the views Charlie Kirk represented, while "disagreeing" with some of them. And then expressed confidence that he is now in heaven.

Isn't confidence that someone is in heaven for religious Christians saying you think they were essentially good people? Seems like we've seen so much dangerous and hateful rhetoric from him, it's not easy to understand someone saying that unless they support those views, no? Can no harm encouraged against other people stop someone from "getting into heaven?"

What were his views that she "appreciated?"

Not going to pretend any predisposition toward "Queen of Versailles" based on what I've heard so far. This is significantly more, shall we say, "off-putting?"

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 09:10 AM

[gibsons2]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:22am

binau said: "You don’t have to be upset that Charlie Kirk was assassinated. However, if you support his murder or otherwise believe that anyone should be killed for expressing freedom of speech - you are a terrorist.

This. Is. Terrorism.

You can’t see it because no terrorist thinks they are a terrorist - Islamist terrorists for example who shot upthe Charlie hebdo office would suggest it was a just moral cause because of the offensive use of freedom of expression. You similarly would say it’s justified because of the offensive use of freedom of expression.


It doesn’t matter. We have freedom of speech for a reason.

This is a dark, dangerous park to go down on and I’m 100% sure history will not see this as the moral virtuous act you think it is.

"

This is really hilarious that you think there's still freedom of speech guaranteed by A1 in this country. Republicans have been stomping on this supposedly guaranteed constitutional right since January. People will be disappearing for stating an opinion on social media. This happens in authoritarian countries daily. How many people have lost their jobs in the past 2 days for stating the fact Kirk was a bigot. It will get worse. People get their phones checked at the border for certain content. The fascism is already here and most people don't recognize it.

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:22am

TheatreFan4 said: "binau said: "You don’t need to have any sympathy but to stop the cycle of violence we ALL need to mutually agree that there is no justification for violence or threat of violence from people who are expressing their political views. Do you agree with that? Will you explicitly agree to the phrase I posted above theatrefan4? Or if you don’t say that you don’t so we can see where you stand."

I'm not playing your games and allowing you to choose my words, save it. This is political violence, but so are the ICE raids, so are threats from the President to invade Democrat Ran cities, so are school/mass shootings, so is the Genocide we're paying for in Gaza. Political violence is not just one person being shot. This has been the culture for a LONG time.

As someone else upthread said, go back to asking Trans people to wait their turn."

Do you want to be part of the problem, or do you want to be part of the solution? If you are saying that violence is acceptable and now part of the culture, it means that now no one can speak freely and that would include activists on all sides of the political spectrum. 

To me, the fact that you can’t agree to the statement and say they are ‘games’ is telling. 

All it takes is for you to condemn what happened using whatever words you want to use that emphasise there can be no violence towards free expression of political views, no matter how much you disagree with them (that’s the point). 

Basically every democrat leader has done this because they know this is the only way we can move forward. 

Will you, in your own words, condemn the shooting and agree that freedom of expression of political views cannot face violence or threats of violence? 

If we all can’t accept this, I think we are in for a very dark decade. Watch a right wing extremist shoot an LGBT activist soon and say ‘but Charlie Kirk’ Then I expect we’ll see another right wing hit and the cycle of violence continues. The cycle of violence must end. You are putting lives at risk. 

 

 

[BorisTomashevsky]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:26am

The majority of hatred towards Charlie Kirk around here is the perfect example of why ideological conversations go round in circles, and why point by point arguments are met with “You’re disgusting! Go to hell!”. And why people like Seb and myself are seen as hostile.

It’s all because fair argument is beneath many of you, and that’s how he conversed. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:28am

Zeppie2022 said: ""What did this deceased firebrand do to earn a place in heaven?"

Very simple Jay. He probably was a good husband and father. He treated people he disagreed with respect. Watch any you tube clip of him taking questions from college kids and he was great with them. You don't have to have a laundry list of accomplishments to go to heaven. Treat people as you want to be treated and overall be a good human being."

He treated people with respect? It’s only 9am so I’m probably not as high as you are but ex-fuuuuukin-cuse me?  And please spare me the “he sat down and listened to people who disagreed with him”  BS. He did it to “own the libs” while saying (among MANY other hateful things) a black woman flying his airplane would make him think twice about getting on that flight and if he daughter was raped (At age 10, is she?) she’d be made to carry to term. He said abortion was worse than the Holocaust (and correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Cheno’s comment on a video about him speaking on abortion?) and just a myriad of other things. 

And let’s not with the whole “but he was a husband and father so that automatically negates everything else he did in his life and those things mean he was a good man who is obviously sitting in heaven right now, “living” it up with Oskar Schindler and all the other people who made a positive impact on humanity. 

[gibsons2]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:28am

WhoCouldBeBlue said: "if anyone is wondering why the attendance numbers on Broadway are falling, just read these comments.

The Broadway community has preached so much hate against conservatives and President Trump, they are finally getting a long well deserved dose of KARMA.

May you all learn a well-deserved lesson on HATE while you’re standing in the unemployment lines. Conservatives vote with their pockets and they’re tired of feeding the hateful trolls."

You are really really stupid. You still don't understand cause and effect of economic collapse that is happening in this country. It's not because conservatives don't buy Broadway tickets. It's because foreigners and local tourists don't come anymore for economic reasons and out of fear of being detained because there are no more checks and balances. Trump and his boot lickers have tanked economy, again. I can't think of someone purposely causing so much harm to this country and its citizens like Trump.  

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:48am

Zeppie2022 said: "Treat people as you want to be treated and overall be a good human being."

How Charlie Kirk wanted people to be treated: 

"I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

I'm not celebrating anyone's death--I'm giving him, his family, and his supporters exactly the same amount of sympathy and kindness they offered Melissa Hortman, her husband, and anyone else who's died from gun violence in the past decade (or longer). But if you're claiming he treated people how he wanted to be treated, and he was completely dismissive of those gun deaths, that seems like even less reason to care about this. Or do you not think he wanted to be treated the way he treated others?

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 09:48 AM

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:49am

Jordan, that could all be true but will you still condemn the shooting and agree that he should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for saying those things? 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:57am

binau said: "Jordan, that could all be true but will you still condemn the shooting and agree that he should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for saying those things?"

Did Charlie Kirk ever condemn a shooting and agree the victim should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for any reason? (Spoiler: not a single Republican condemned the assassinations of Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman and her husband less than three months ago.) Why didn't you ever ask him or his supporters that? 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:57am

binau said: "Jordan, that couldall be true but will you still condemn the shooting and agree that he should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for saying those things?"

Why should I have to? What does it matter if I do? That’s like demanding Kerry Butler condemn what Israel is doing, before buying a ticket to see “Heathers”. Whether or not I think someone should be gunned down in public (and because it’s so important to you, I’ll let you know I don’t), it doesn’t mean that the same dude who said some people gotta die in order to keep the 2nd Amendment, getting exactly what he said the country needed doesn’t make me chuckle due to the irony.

Or that I like the fact that this one individual won’t be able to spread his bigotry anymore, even while recognizing they’re like weeds and the next ones have already popped up and will continue to do so. 

So for you my dear, there you have it. But saying someone who continually pushed propaganda to ensure threats of violence were perpetrated on people, shouldn’t have the same on them is a bit rich. 

[gibsons2]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 9:58am

binau said: "Jordan, that couldall be true but will you still condemn the shooting and agree that he should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for saying those things?"

Are you, for example aware, that there are four HBCU schools under lockdown currently due to threats from right wing. Kirk has been assassinated by a white man, in a white crowd, in almost entirely white state. As Saul Goodman said, wall to wall mayonnaise. Yet, minorities are being threatened again. But sure thing pal, we condemn the violence. Do you or is it selective?

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:03am

MemorableUserName said: "binau said: "Jordan, that could all be true but will you still condemn the shooting and agree that he should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for saying those things?"

Did Charlie Kirk ever condemn a shooting and agree the victim should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for any reason? (Spoiler: not a single Republican condemned the assassinations of Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman and her husband less than three months ago.) Why didn't you ever ask him or his supporters that?"

There actually was bipartisan condemnation of Hortman's murder, at least in Georgia. But the Republicans only condemned "political violence" and not "gun violence" as if guns were beside the point. 

https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/assassination-of-minnesota-lawmaker-is-met-with-bipartisan-condemnation-in-georgia/

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 10:03 AM

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:03am

It’s not about who did what or who is worse or who is a hypocrite because yes everything you are saying is probably true. However, if you are saying to me now that the mainstream dominant opinion held by the left and right apparently in the USA is that violence is an acceptable strategy for dealing with political disagreement you are saying that terrorism is ok and you are normalising terrorism. 

The consequence of this is anarchy. Genuinely. It’s terrible. It’s now the lowest point of USA culture I’ve ever observed and it’s shocking in every way. 

Not a single democratic leader agrees with you. This is anarchy. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:06am

Huh? I said i don’t agree with him being gunned down in public (even though he just recently said we need to bring back public executions). So how do lawmakers not agree with me?

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:08am

sinister teashop said: "MemorableUserName said: "binau said: "Jordan, that could all be true but will you still condemn the shooting and agree that he should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for saying those things?"

Did Charlie Kirk ever condemn a shooting and agree the victim should not have faced threats of violence or actual violence for any reason? (Spoiler: not a single Republican condemned the assassinations of Minnesota representative Melissa Hortman and her husband less than three months ago.) Why didn't you ever ask him or his supporters that?"

There actually was bipartisan condemnation of Hortman's murder, at least in Georgia. But the Republicans only condemned "political violence" and not "gun violence" as if guns were beside the point.

https://georgiarecorder.com/briefs/assassination-of-minnesota-lawmaker-is-met-with-bipartisan-condemnation-in-georgia/"

Thank you for letting me know. Good for the Georgia Republicans who signed on that for at least doing something. 

That just leaves national Republicans...and Charlie Kirk.

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 10:08 AM

[gibsons2]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:10am

binau said: "It’s not about who did what or who is worse or who is a hypocrite because yes everything you are saying is probably true. However, if you are saying to me now that the mainstream dominant opinion held by the left and right apparently in the USA is that violence is an acceptable strategy for dealing with political disagreement you are saying that terrorism is ok and you are normalising terrorism.

The consequence of this is anarchy. Genuinely. It’s terrible. It’s now the lowest point of USA culture I’ve ever observed and it’s shocking in every way.

Not a single democratic leader agrees with you. This is anarchy."

Trump had made a lot of things acceptable again. He has never once condemned the violence against liberals. He encourages it in fact. He sent national guard to intimidate and harass people in large blue cities.  Let me remind you, violence is also actions and words. All Trump's Project 2025 policies that he's implementing are to dismantle rights and freedoms of non white people, LGBTQ and women. 

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 10:10 AM

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:18am

Sorry Jordan that wasn’t explicitly in reply to you. Thank you - I DO think it’s important to acknowledge and I also agree with you that you shouldn’t necessarily have to feel sympathetic. But the reluctance for people to condemn this attack is quite scary and shocking to me. Too many people are saying ‘but they did’ ‘but they’. This is exactly the cycle of violence between Israel and Palestine. Unless SOMEONE takes the moral high ground, it will never end. Even if emotionally you feel ‘but they’ the whole point of condemning this violence is actually to protect us all. Because look at the extreme right wing who are triggered by the left wing public’s reaction to this. Look at the reddit comments saying they are scared about what is going to happen as a result.

If we cannot stop this we will see a trans activist shot next ‘’but look at what they did and how they reacted to Charlie Kirk. It’s war’ is what it will feel like and what will happen. 
 

Read this guardian article and think about what is to come. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-shooting-rightwing-media-reaction

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:30am

The problem is, you're demanding change from the incorrect party.

"The left" did not start this. "The left" did not attack the capitol on January 6. "The left" has not spent decades fomenting violence against their political opponents. "The left" have been the ones being attacked, being murdered in their homes, being targeted for assassination. You already pointed out that all the Democratic leaders have condemned this...while the Republican party is led by someone who is constantly calling for violence against those who disagree with him.

But suddenly one person on "the right" is killed and you suddenly care and are demanding something from "the left" and not the people who started this, and have been building this for decades, and who have been killing people on "the left" who they consider their inhuman enemies. Why is it always "the left" who has to take the moral high ground? Because you know "the right" won't?

Updated On: 9/12/25 at 10:30 AM

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:34am

It’s not about the past it’s about the future. If you want to be part of the solution you have to condemn violence it’s that simple. If you continue with a mindset ‘but they but they’ then you’re saying the cycle of violence should continue and it’ll never end. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:39am

So it’s solely up to the Left to change the culture of the Right?

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:43am

binau, I say this out of concern and respect, and I mean that.

 

You need to get a life.

[binau]

Posted: 9/12/25 at 10:48am

I think it’s always about asking yourself what goal are we trying to achieve? If we are trying to minimise violence yes it is important for someone to be the bigger person and stop. Look at what Israel are doing in Gaza and keep saying ‘but October the 7th’ to kill 100,000 people. Violence breeds more violence. Yes Israel were attacked first but they could have been the bigger person to respond differently. 

If it’s Charlie Kirk that is killed and the left say ‘but look at the democrats in Minnesota’ and then we see a trans activist shot and the right say ‘but look at Charlie Kirk’ and then we see another attack and they say ‘but look at the trans activist’ it will never end.