The Her Campus National Editors write about products we love and think you’ll love too. Her Campus has affiliate partnerships, so we get a share of the revenue from your purchase. All products are in stock and all prices are accurate as of publication.
We should not feel sympathy for bigots — and that term is not being used lightly.
On Sept. 10, 2025, conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a student-led “debate” at Utah Valley University. Now, we are not going to sit here and say that the act of what happened — regardless of who was hurt — is justified. But we can separate what was done, and to whom it was done to.
There’s a reason why Kirk has been classified as a bigot. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a bigot is defined as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”
This definition of bigotry may seem like it’s an inherently explicit mindset, but that’s far from the truth. Especially now, bigotry is not only being used in unmistakable manners, but is also being subtly woven into what we perceive as neutral diction.
This kind of neutrality, and the allowance of this “nonpartisanship,” will inevitably halt any progressive change needed in America — and Kirk did an incredible job at normalizing this. We must remember that this “neutral diction” requires nuance and context to fully decode it.
Kirk had said many horrific things throughout his life; things specifically pertaining to people of color and women. Let’s look at a quick list.
1. Women only go to college to find a husband, never to actually study.
2. Black women need DEI initiatives because they lack the brain processing power needed to do it on their own.
3. Women are lying about being sexually assaulted, placing the blame of one in five women being raped on the integrity of women rather than the aggression of men.
And that’s just to name a few.
Let’s be clear here: Charlie Kirk was no American hero. He was a misogynistic, evangelical racist who manipulated the Bible to spew hate — and he often succeeded.
Kirk stood on a moral high ground of “encouraging” free speech, while saying that “the left” suppresses it. What is being misunderstood here is that the freedom of speech refers to the legality of such.
Someone telling you not to say something because it’s offensive does not limit your freedom of speech; you can still say these things without legal repercussions. What many, mostly right-wing, folks are failing to understand is that just because you can say something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you should — especially when not saying something is in the interest of compassion and inclusivity towards other people.
There should be no “agreeing to disagree” when it comes to bigotry on any front. We should not have to sympathize with people like Kirk — A.K.A. oppressors — because he had shown throughout his lifetime that he had no sympathy for anyone, period. Respectability politics have no place in this conversation when Kirk had built his platform on the subjugation of marginalized communities and profited from it as well.
Complying with this new wave of “neutrality” is dangerous. It encourages the idea that the hatred that is permeating throughout our country is “just another opinion.”
We are at a point in our country’s history where if you support what’s going on within our current administration, your opinion may be too solidified to be altered. But what you must understand is that none of what is going on is normal — and that, at the very least, should be a concern.