Kristin Chenoweth and recent events — Page 4

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.