There’s saying the quiet part out loud—and then there’s saying it so loudly it echoes. On Piers Morgan’s show, the streamer known as Destiny managed the latter. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, his message condensed to an unmistakable signal: if prominent conservatives want to maximize their chances of survival, they should align with Democrats—or at least anyone not named Trump.
The implication is unmistakable, and corrosive. Safety, in this framing, isn’t a right secured by law and social norms; it’s a conditional benefit extended if you accommodate the preferences of your political adversaries.
Destiny just said the quiet part out loud:
“If you wanted Charlie Kirk to be alive, Donald Trump shouldn’t have been President for the second term.”
Mask fully off. pic.twitter.com/EzaManWe9C
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 15, 2025
That logic carries a familiar scent. It resembles a protection racket: back the “acceptable” faction, or accept elevated risk. It also functions as a heckler’s veto scaled up to political violence—rewarding the threat, and punishing the target, by insisting the solution is for the target to change.
In practical terms, it inverts responsibility. A public figure is murdered; the critique turns not to those rationalizing violence or feeding dehumanizing narratives, but to the victim’s movement for failing to sufficiently appease those who would harm them.
“Give us what we want or we’ll kill you…”
Is this that unity I’ve been hearing about? https://t.co/NFTeLjYkke
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) September 16, 2025
Destiny’s framing also lands in the broader pattern viewers have seen repeatedly in recent weeks: the quick pivot from condemnation to conditionality, from moral clarity to a forensic search for rhetorical culpability in the wrong place.
We’ve heard it applied to Trump’s near-miss, to Steve Scalise’s shooting, and now to Charlie Kirk’s assassination—an insistence that “both sides” are equally implicated, with the addendum that one side could lower the temperature by conceding to the other’s political demands. That is not de-escalation; it is incentive. It teaches would-be assailants that violence can extract concessions, and it teaches onlookers that survival is transactional.
Openly admitting to committing terrorism. https://t.co/JIjRc6m3zu
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) September 16, 2025
There’s a final, subtler harm in this posture. It collapses the distinction between debate and coercion. The entire premise of open discourse—what Kirk practiced regularly in rooms full of critics—depends on the guarantee that speech won’t be policed by bullets. When prominent voices suggest the path to safety runs through political capitulation, they are not just misdiagnosing the problem; they are redefining the rules in a way that rewards the worst actors and chills everyone else.
