Distorted language about Kirk and Kimmel — Worthwhile Language Advice
Worthwhile language advice
Have a question about language at work?
You can send it to admin@worthwhileconsulting.com
All questions are anonymized.
If you’re wondering about it, chances are good someone else is wondering about it too!
Here is a question I asked myself in the days after Charlie Kirk was killed and Jimmy Kimmel’s show was suspended. “In a time of so much anger and polarization, when so many people feel fearful and victimized, what can I write about language that would help?”
I ended up writing a post for LinkedIn that ended up being my second-most-popular post ever. (The most popular is my January 7, 2021 analysis of distorted language used by the media to report on the January 6 armed insurrection in DC).
Because so many people have been finding the analysis useful, here is a slightly expanded version as this month’s advice column.
People have been using distorted language to talk about Jimmy Kimmel and Charlie Kirk. But if you want a civil and functional society or workplace, you need to recognize and respond to language distortions.
First is what I call inflating language. This is when you distort reasonable behavior so it sounds unacceptable.
In a public statement, Brendan Carr, the FCC chair, called Kimmel’s 9/15 monologue “the sickest conduct possible.” He then threatened to revoke ABC affiliate licenses, which resulted in ABC/Disney suspending Kimmel’s show. Carr is a Trump loyalist who authored the chapter on the FCC in Project 2025.
The big question is: was Kimmel’s monologue actually “sick conduct”?
In his monologue, Kimmel did not negatively assess Kirk’s life or legacy. And he did not comment on Kirk’s murder itself. Note that on the day Kirk was killed, Kimmel posted this statement on Instagram: “Instead of the angry finger-pointing, can we just for one day agree that it is horrible and monstrous to shoot another human? On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents, and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence.”
Photo from Wikimedia Commons
Let’s look at Kimmel’s actual televised words regarding Kirk’s murder: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.”
Kimmel also showed video of Trump being asked how he had been holding up since Kirk’s killing. Trump responds, “I think very good,” and then immediately starts talking about the new White House ballroom. After the clip, Kimmel says, “Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief: construction.” He continues, “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a 4-year-old mourns a goldfish, okay?”
Carr’s assessment of “sickest conduct ever” is clearly inflating language. Kimmel’s remarks are just mild criticism of highly politicized and seemingly callous responses to a murder.
On the flip side, many posthumous discussions of Kirk are filled with what I call softening language. This is when you describe inappropriate (and sometimes criminal) behavior in softer ways in order to make it sound palatable.
For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, “The best way to honor Charlie’s memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse.” And ostensibly liberal New York Times columnist Ezra Klein wrote that Kirk “practiced politics the right way,” with “moxie and fearlessness.”
Is this an accurate description of how Kirk worked and practiced politics? It is not.
If Kirk hadn’t been self-employed, he might have been fired for just one of the things he said, let alone the aggregate. Because many of his statements violate most companies’ codes of conduct.
Photo via Wikimedia Commons
Just a few things Kirk said (more information, the context, and additional statements can be found here and here):
Some Black women, like Michelle Obama, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joy Reid, and Sheila Jackson Lee “do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot…”
“If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’
“The ‘Great Replacement’ is not a theory, it’s a reality.”
Trans people are “a throbbing middle finger to God” and “an abomination.”
LGBTQ+ identification is a “social contagion.”
Kirk positioned himself as a debater and often hosted debate events at college campuses. (In fact, this is what he was doing when he was killed.)
But Kirk’s debate performances were not high quality, and many of his statements could be characterized as false information, discriminatory, bad faith, and hate speech.
I quite like Paul Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, where he shows what is and isn’t effective and high-quality argumentation.
Lowest on the hierarchy is name calling, which Kirk did with real frequency. Kirk also used the second-lowest form of disagreement, ad hominem attacks. This is when you attack the authority or characteristics of the speaker but don’t actually address the substance of their argument. What you don’t find in Kirk’s debates are the highest levels of the hierarchy: counterargument, refutation, and explicitly refuting the central point.
On the public stage, Kirk’s performance was inflammatory but protected by free speech. But in a US workplace, Kirk would be creating real legal risk, as his comments are clearly discriminatory against protected classes and would create a hostile work environment.
Softening language and inflating language usually come together in a one-two combo.
Softening language excuses Person A’s bad behavior.
And then, inflating language punishes Person B for pointing out Person A’s bad behavior and saying it’s not ok.
The result? The offender who should face consequences is protected and rewarded. And the critic or the target of the bad behavior is unfairly punished.
I have seen this pattern again and again and again in the workplace. Sometimes it is done deliberately, like in carefully crafted press releases or company statements designed to deflect attention. But often it isn’t conscious at all — when the distortions match a decision maker’s distorted mental models and slanted world view, they might seem reasonable, normal, and unremarkable.
Stanford professor Bob Sutton has documented how damaging it is to not fire toxic employees (he uses a stronger word). In the workplace, when language distortions lead to bad judgments, there is usually a heavy price to pay. This includes lowered morale, lower engagement, good employees driven out, bad employees retained, and a much higher risk of discrimination and harassment lawsuits.
The better equipped people are to recognize and correct distorted language, the more civil and functional our society and our workplaces will be.
Copyright 2025 © Worthwhile Research & Consulting
Can your organization’s managers and HR staff make accurate decisions about language in the workplace? Or are they likely to support distorted language and make decisions that increase legal risk?
Worthwhile offers a workshop that can help: Recognize and Correct Distorted Language at Work. Post-workshop support includes a Language Assessment Checklist and dedicated time where experts answer questions and give guidance. Email admin@worthwhileconsulting.com to learn more.