The Only Way to Beat a Bad Idea

 

It goes without saying that the murder of the American activist, Charlie Kirk on 10 September 2025, was horrible. Mr. Kirk, who was only 31 at the time of his death (only two-years younger than my youngest brother) leaves behind a wife and two children, who will undoubtedly live with severe trauma of seeing their father shot before their very eyes.

Mr. Kirk was a polarizing figure in death as he was in life. The President of the USA ordered that all flags should fly at half-mast (an honour usually reserved for figures whose contributions to a nation are undeniable) and the political right rushed to deify him as the political left rushed to do the opposite.

Allot has bee said about Mr. Kirk and whatever I say will not make a difference. I will however, say that Mr. Kirk’s murder, was a classic case in how not to deal with bad ideas.

With all due respect to Mr. Kirk, what you’d call the rational voice of allot of the “isms” that civilized people avoid indulging in. He most famously argued that the Civil Rights movement, which gave “Africa Americans” equal rights was mistake and that the leader, Dr. Martin Luther King wasn’t the saint that everyone made him out to be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGo7ogLHTTs

 

Mr. Kirk was masterful in espousing his views with an air of authority. He would travel around America’s campuses and swat away anyone who questioned him. He was a natural darling of the political right and whatever “isms” he may have displayed, always sounded almost like a stated fact.

So, it’s probably no surprise that the political right started trying to pin Mr. Kirk’s murder on the political left (even if the current suspect isn’t from the political left). Mr. Kirk is being turned into an icon of free speech who was murdered by an “illiberal-liberal” establishment that couldn’t handle the truth.

While the current suspect in custody isn’t exactly the model of a “liberal-murderer,” there were a number of commentators who mentioned that they didn’t feel sorry for Mr. Kirk based on the ideas he espoused, which was a polite way of saying he had it coming to him.

Well, while Mr. Kirk was prone to making some “interesting remarks,” his murder should lead to ask some fundamental questions about the notion of freedom of speech. If you will talk to enough people, you’ll find that people are often very “pro” freedom of speech, until someone comes up with something offensive. Then, you’ll have voices denouncing whatever they disagree with, and there will be calls to make that speech into a criminal act.

Yes, I’m not going to say that all speech is good. However, short of inciting horrible things, people should be able to say what they want, even if we disagree with it. I do believe in the concept of “I hate what you say but I will die defending your right to say it.”

We’re too often bound by the need to only be with people who agree with us. This isn’t freedom of speech. It’s freedom of being a robot. America in the era of Trump is a classic example, where people are either Red States or Blue States. In Singapore, it’s a case of “everything the government does is right” and “everything the government does is wrong.”

As someone who creates content, I will say that extremist views are fun. People are drawn to extreme positions. It gives them, dare I say, a sense of belonging. The reality is different. Outside Imperial Science (1+1 is always 2), life actually happens somewhere in between. Yes, I have been very critical of the government in Singapore but at the same time, I’m not critical for the sake of it. As a result, I’m branded as “anti-establishment” by the “government is always right crowd” and I’ve been accused of being a “b*** s***** of the ruling party by the “government is evil crowd.”

Which leads me the next point – how do you deal with “bad speech,” and “bad ideas,” two things which Mr. Kirk was filled with. The answer is inevitably by debating those ideas and showing them up for what they are; which is what happened to Mr. Kirk when he went to Cambridge to debate students who knew their stuff and not intimidated by Mr. Kirk’s moralistic debating style. Here, he found people who weren’t just not intimidated – they actually ran rings around him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3liIXGJXNs

 

The only way to beat bad ideas and bad speech is by presenting them with better ideas and better speech. I take the issue of the Nazi Holocaust denial as an example. In Germany and other parts of Europe, its actually illegal to publicly question to existence of the Holocaust. As bad as the Holocaust was, I believe that making the questioning of its existence illegal is not the way to go. At best, you make a martyr out of the holocaust denier and give credence to their views. The real way to deal with these people is to openly challenge them in a debate and present the evidence.

I think of the fact that the best commentary in America at the moment comes from comedians. The news commentators on both sides are busy preaching to the converted. The comedians are telling us things that we can relate to and getting the point across.

I think of characters like Medhi Hassan who actually go and challenge the people they disagree with and put the facts on the table:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo

 

 The record of bans and murders as a means of keeping “bad” speech ad “bad” ideas at bay is pretty grim. Challenge and debate have a much better track record.