Part 1: Steven Crowder, Charlie Kirk, and the Rise of Political Violence
By Ryan “Dickie” Thompson
Introduction
When Steven Crowder walked back onto a college campus in 2025 for his first Change My Mind in years, it was more than a comeback. It was a statement.
Charlie Kirk, his friend and mentor, had been assassinated in cold blood. Not in a car accident. Not in some random tragedy. Murdered for being a conservative.
So Crowder returned to the table, but not like before. This time he was wrapped in Kevlar, backed by an army of private security, and surrounded by bulletproof glass. His sign read: “The Left is Violent. Change My Mind.”
That image—one man trying to have a conversation while encased in armor—is the perfect snapshot of where America is today.
And it hits me personally.
For years, I’ve gone out in public with nothing more than a microphone. On tax day, at drug court, at protests. Hosting radio shows, running pirate stations, putting myself in front of people who disagreed with me. I’ve always believed that civil discourse—not violence—is the way forward.
But what happens when one side of the debate starts using bullets instead of words? That’s the question we need to face.
This is Part 1 of my series on Civil Discourse vs. Political Violence. Today I’ll break down Crowder’s return, Kirk’s assassination, the double standards in how we talk about political violence, and why this matters for anyone who still believes in free speech.
Crowder’s Dangerous Return
Back in 2017, Change My Mind was revolutionary. A table. A sign. A man willing to listen. It sparked memes, debates, and even a few real conversions.
But the years since have been brutal. Security threats. Cancel culture. Physical attacks. It got so bad Crowder pulled back.
Until now.
And when he came back, he had to treat an open dialogue like a war zone. Bulletproof glass. Secret location drops. Millions spent on security.
Ask yourself: what does that say about America?
Have you ever seen Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or Kamala Harris shield themselves behind bulletproof walls just to speak on a campus? No. And they never will.
That difference isn’t about personality. It’s about who is actually under threat in today’s America. And the answer is obvious: it’s not the left.
What Counts as Political Violence?
Crowder started his discussion with an important question: what exactly is political violence?
The answer is simple but crucial: it’s violence committed for a political end.
- If you get drunk and hit someone in a bar fight, that’s crime.
- If you assault someone because of their political views, that’s political violence.
This distinction matters because the media constantly manipulates it.
- When a lunatic with no political motive happens to have once voted Republican, the media counts it as “right-wing violence.”
- When Antifa shoots a Trump supporter at point-blank range, it gets left out of the data.
Look at the numbers carefully and you’ll see the game being played.
Charlie Kirk: Murdered for His Beliefs
Charlie Kirk was not a violent man. He didn’t call for revolution. He didn’t rally mobs. He built Turning Point USA to encourage young conservatives to get active in the battle of ideas.
For that, he was hunted down and killed.
The assassin admitted it. He engraved “anti-fascist” slogans on his bullets. He said he killed Kirk because of his politics and wanted to terrify others into silence.
That’s not random. That’s not “mental illness.” That’s terrorism.
And yet, what was the reaction? Vigils for Kirk were vandalized. Conservatives mourning him were assaulted. Online, leftist activists celebrated.
Imagine for a moment if this had been reversed—if a left-leaning leader had been assassinated by a conservative. The media and the political class would have shut the nation down for weeks.
But because Charlie Kirk was conservative? Silence. Shrugs. Or worse—cheers.
The Numbers Tell the Story
Here’s the uncomfortable truth the mainstream won’t report: leftists are more likely to justify political violence.
After Kirk’s assassination, polling found:
- 62% of liberals said political violence was “somewhat to completely acceptable.”
- 77% of conservatives said political violence was “not acceptable at all.”
This same pattern shows up again and again:
- After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
- After BLM riots left billions in damage.
- After the firebombing of Tesla dealerships.
The left shrugs. The right condemns.
And yet the studies and think tanks that get cited—like the Prosecution Project—omit left-wing examples while overcounting right-wing ones.
They exclude:
- Aaron Danielson murdered by Antifa in Portland.
- 37 dead in the Floyd riots.
- The Waukesha massacre.
- The assassination of Charlie Kirk.
But they’ll include any act of violence by someone who once voted Republican, regardless of motive.
It’s a rigged game. And people are dying because of it.
Why Civil Discourse Still Matters
This is where I get personal.
I’ve gone out to the streets myself. On tax day, I’ve set up outside the courthouse. At drug court, I’ve asked tough questions. I’ve stood at protests with my recorder running. And I’ve opened up the phone lines on pirate radio, YouTube, and livestreams for anyone who wanted to call in.
I’ve had heated debates with people who disagreed with me. I’ve been yelled at. I’ve been threatened. But I’ve always believed that talking is better than fighting.
Civil discourse is messy. It’s uncomfortable. Sometimes it gets ugly. But it’s the only way out of the spiral we’re in.
That’s why Charlie Kirk’s murder hit me so hard. He represented that spirit—solving problems through conversation. And his life was stolen because of it.
The temptation in times like this is to give up. To say talking doesn’t work anymore. To arm up and prepare for conflict.
But I reject that.
The answer isn’t silence or surrender. It’s more dialogue. Harder dialogue. Riskier dialogue. Because if we stop talking, the other side wins.
Where We Go From Here
Steven Crowder’s return shows us what’s at stake. We’re in a country where one side of the debate literally has to armor up just to speak. That’s not freedom. That’s fear.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just about him. It was a warning shot to every conservative: “shut up or else.”
But here’s the truth they don’t want us to admit: if we stop talking, they win.
That’s why I’ll keep going out. I’ll keep hosting conversations. I’ll keep uploading shows at:
- YouTube: @xcannabiscom
- Pirate Radio: @utahpirateradio
- Community channels: @slu2com
Civil discourse is the best answer we have. It always will be.
Conclusion
This is Part 1 of a series. And it’s just the beginning.
Next, I’ll take you behind the microphone and into the streets with Part 2: “Civil Discourse in the Streets – Protests, Pirate Radio, and Public Debate.”
After that, I’ll close the series with Part 3: “Why Free Speech is Worth Fighting For—Even When It Hurts.”
Because here’s the bottom line: dialogue is dangerous, but silence is deadly.
10 Relevant Links for Further Reading & Viewing
- Steven Crowder’s Change My Mind (YouTube Archive)
https://www.youtube.com/@StevenCrowder - Charlie Kirk’s Official Turning Point USA
https://www.tpusa.com - Ryan “Dickie” Thompson – Protest & Radio Show Archives (@xcannabiscom)
https://www.youtube.com/@xcannabiscom/search?query=protest - Ryan “Dickie” Thompson – Radio Show Episodes (@xcannabiscom)
https://www.youtube.com/@xcannabiscom/search?query=radio%20show - Utah Pirate Radio – Community Broadcasts (@utahpirateradio)
https://www.youtube.com/@utahpirateradio - SLU2 Community Channel (@slu2com)
https://www.youtube.com/@slu2com - YouGov Polling on Political Violence
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/43113-political-violence-poll - Reuters: Survey on Acceptance of Political Violence in America
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-political-violence-survey-2022-09-01/ - Prosecution Project (TPP) Database of Political Violence
https://theprosecutionproject.org - Ludwig von Mises Institute – On Free Speech & Civil Society
https://mises.org
Spun Web Technology SMART SEO
