It started as a viral clip, the kind that moves through the digital ether of X and TikTok with the speed of a forest fire. Charlie Kirk, the face of Turning Point USA, sat behind his microphone and dropped a line that felt like a deliberate grenade in the culture war: I can’t stand empathy. He didn't whisper it. He didn't hedge it with a dozen "ifs" or "buts" at first. He just said it. For a lot of people, that was the ultimate "mask off" moment for modern conservatism. For his followers, it was a necessary broadside against what they see as the weaponization of feelings over facts. But if you actually look at the context of the 2023-2024 period where these comments peaked, the "I can't stand empathy Charlie Kirk" moment is actually a fascinating case study in how we define morality in a polarized age.
Words change. Or rather, our tolerance for how they are used changes. Kirk wasn't arguing for being a sociopath—at least not in the way he’d explain it—but he was making a specific, aggressive philosophical pivot that most people totally missed because they were too busy being rightfully shocked by the phrasing.
The Philosophy of "Anti-Empathy"
Kirk’s argument isn't entirely original. He’s essentially a loud, populist megaphone for a school of thought championed by people like psychologist Paul Bloom, who wrote Against Empathy.
Bloom’s argument, which Kirk mirrors, is that empathy is a spotlight. It’s narrow. It makes you care about the one person in front of you while ignoring the thousand people behind them. If you see a crying child, empathy makes you want to help that child immediately, even if doing so causes a greater systemic harm later. Kirk takes this academic concept and weaponizes it for political theater. When he says "I can't stand empathy," he's usually talking about public policy.
He argues that empathy is the tool the "left" uses to bypass the Constitution or economic logic. Think about the border. Think about student loan forgiveness. In Kirk’s worldview, when you show a video of a struggling person to justify a policy change, you are using empathy to "blind" the public to the long-term consequences.
It's a cold way to look at the world. Very cold.
But for the TPUSA crowd, this is seen as "intellectual discipline." They view empathy as a feminine or "weak" trait that has been elevated to a supreme virtue, replacing what they call "biblical justice" or "objective truth." Honestly, it’s a hard sell for most people because, well, empathy is what keeps society from being a total nightmare.
Why This Specific Quote Blew Up
The internet loves a villain.
When the clip of Kirk saying he can't stand empathy started circulating, it wasn't just political junkies watching. It hit the mainstream because it sounded so fundamentally counter-human. We are taught from preschool that empathy is the gold standard of being a "good person." To hear a major political influencer reject it so bluntly felt like a glitch in the simulation.
Kirk doubled down on it. He didn't back away.
🔗 Read more: Nate Silver Trump Approval Rating: Why the 2026 Numbers Look So Different
He started differentiating between "empathy" and "compassion." This is his favorite rhetorical trick. He’ll say empathy is "feeling with someone" (which he hates because it clouds judgment), while compassion is "suffering with someone" but maintaining the distance to make a "rational" decision. It’s a semantic distinction that allows him to keep the "I can’t stand empathy" brand while claiming he isn't actually a monster.
Does it work? For his base, yes. To everyone else, it sounds like linguistic gymnastics to justify a lack of basic human kindness.
The Impact on Young Conservatives
Turning Point USA is built for the campus.
When Kirk brings this "anti-empathy" message to universities, he’s trying to deprogram students from what he calls "social justice emotionalism." He wants a generation of conservatives who can look at a tragic situation and say, "That's sad, but the policy must remain the same."
This creates a very specific type of political activist. One who is insulated against emotional appeals. You see it in the way TPUSA speakers interact with protesters. There is a deliberate attempt to remain "unbothered." If you don't value empathy, you can't be "guilted" into changing your mind.
It’s an effective shield, but it’s also a massive barrier to reaching anyone who isn't already in the fold. Most voters—especially the moderates and independents who actually decide elections—respond to empathy. They want to know that a leader understands their pain. When Charlie Kirk stands on a stage and says empathy is a vice, he’s effectively telling the average person, "I don't care how you feel."
That's a tough campaign slogan.
The Biblical Argument (And the Contradictions)
Kirk often wraps his rhetoric in Christian nationalist themes. This makes his "I can’t stand empathy" stance even more confusing to outside observers.
How do you reconcile "Love thy neighbor" with "I can't stand empathy"?
💡 You might also like: Weather Forecast Lockport NY: Why Today’s Snow Isn’t Just Hype
Kirk and his circle argue that Jesus didn't use empathy; he used truth. They point to instances where Jesus was harsh or flipped tables in the temple. They argue that "woke" Christianity has replaced the "Truth of the Gospel" with a "sentimental empathy" that ignores sin.
Critics, including many conservative theologians, find this line of reasoning to be a massive stretch. They point out that the Gospels are filled with descriptions of Jesus being "moved with compassion" (which, in the original Greek splagchnizomai, refers to a deep, visceral emotional response). By trying to excise empathy from the conservative movement, Kirk isn't just fighting the left; he’s fighting centuries of religious tradition that views the ability to feel another’s pain as a divine gift.
The tension here is real. You have a movement trying to be "tough" and "rational" while simultaneously trying to claim the moral high ground of faith. Those two things don't always sit comfortably together.
What People Get Wrong About the Controversy
A lot of the backlash assumes Kirk is just being "mean."
While he certainly enjoys being a provocateur, the "I can't stand empathy" stance is a strategic choice. It’s part of a broader effort to redefine conservative "toughness" in the 2020s. In the Reagan era, it was "Morning in America." It was sunny and optimistic. In the Kirk era, it’s about a "battle for the soul of the country" where feelings are seen as a liability.
It’s also about the "Manosphere" influence.
There is a huge overlap between Kirk’s audience and the "alpha male" influencer world. In that subculture, empathy is often coded as "feminine" or "beta." By rejecting empathy, Kirk aligns himself with a specific brand of masculinity that prizes stoicism and dominance over connection and understanding.
- It's not a gaffe. He didn't misspeak. He’s said it multiple times across different platforms.
- It's targeted. He’s talking to people who feel "shamed" by modern social norms.
- It's a filter. It pushes away the "weak" and draws in the "dedicated."
The Long-Term Fallout
Will this hurt the conservative movement?
Politically, it’s a gamble. Most polling shows that "empathy" is one of the most desired traits in a leader. When you look at successful populist movements in the past, they usually rely on a high degree of empathy—or at least the appearance of it—toward their own "in-group."
📖 Related: Economics Related News Articles: What the 2026 Headlines Actually Mean for Your Wallet
By making "anti-empathy" a core part of his brand, Kirk risks isolating the movement within a very narrow, very intense bubble. It’s great for selling tickets to a conference or getting clicks on a podcast, but it’s potentially disastrous for building a broad coalition.
People want to be heard. They want to be felt. If the face of young conservatism is someone who says your feelings don't matter because they "can't stand empathy," you're going to have a hard time winning over the suburbs.
How to Navigate the Rhetoric
If you’re trying to understand or debate this specific Charlie Kirk talking point, you have to look past the shock value.
The goal of the "I can't stand empathy" line is to get a reaction. It’s designed to make you angry so that he can call you "emotional." Instead of falling for the bait, it’s more effective to look at the results of that philosophy.
Policies stripped of empathy often fail because they ignore the human element. They look good on a spreadsheet or a legal brief, but they fall apart when they hit the real world. A society that views empathy as a weakness eventually loses the "social glue" that allows for cooperation.
Actionable Insights for Engaging with this Topic:
- Define the terms. Don't let the "empathy vs. compassion" semantic trick slide. Ask why "feeling with someone" is inherently bad for decision-making. Usually, it's the opposite—it provides more data.
- Highlight the hypocrisy. Watch for moments where the same people who "hate empathy" use it to defend their own side (e.g., empathy for January 6th defendants or people losing jobs to vaccine mandates).
- Use the "Reasonable Man" test. Ask if a community, a family, or a business could actually function if every member "couldn't stand empathy." The answer is almost always no.
- Look for the source. When you see a clip, find the full 10 minutes surrounding it. Kirk often hides his most radical statements inside a sandwich of "common sense" rhetoric to make them seem more palatable.
The "I can't stand empathy" era of political discourse is a loud, jarring phase. It’s a reaction to a culture that Kirk believes has gone too far in the other direction. But in his rush to "fix" the problem, he’s advocating for a version of humanity that most people—regardless of their politics—find unrecognizable.
Empathy isn't just a feeling. It's a survival mechanism. Rejecting it might win you a segment on a cable news show, but it’s a lonely way to build a country.
Next Steps for Research
If you want to dive deeper into the intellectual roots of this, look into the debate between Paul Bloom and his critics regarding Against Empathy. You can also compare Kirk's recent speeches to the "Compassionate Conservatism" era of the early 2000s to see just how far the goalposts have moved in two decades. For a theological counter-point, research the concept of Imago Dei and how it relates to emotional connection in traditional Christian ethics.