"You are their emotional asset": Candace Owens’ Erika Kirk controversy takes another turn after explosive remarks

A social media post has reignited a sharp dispute surrounding Candace Owens and Erika Kirk, with Natalie Jean Beisner accusing Owens of using language that she believes crosses a line. The post, shared on September 9, focuses on Owens' remarks about Kirk and questions the way the controversy has been presented to the public. It has quickly drawn attention to the increasingly heated tone surrounding the debate.Natalie Jean Beisner calls out Candace Owens over Erika Kirk commentsThe post shows journalist Natalie Jean Beisner responding directly to comments attributed to Owens about Erika Kirk. Beisner argues that the language used against Kirk goes beyond political disagreement and could contribute to a hostile public atmosphere.Her post specifically highlights Owens' description of Kirk's connections and role, while also accusing Owens of repeatedly presenting Kirk in a dehumanizing way.Beisner wrote:“Candace Owens to Erika Kirk: “You work with the deep-state apparatus. You are their emotional asset.”Candace once again weaponizes dehumanizing language against Erika Kirk.This is how political violence comes to happen and to—perhaps worse yet—be excused and even celebrated. Candace has repeatedly and intentionally and sinsterly conditioned her audience to think of Erika as less than and something other than human. She is playing a dangerous game”The post reflects a wider argument over where political criticism ends and personal attacks begin. Beisner's central concern is not simply the disagreement between Owens and Kirk, but the potential impact of repeated rhetoric on an audience.That distinction matters because political personalities often have large platforms capable of shaping how supporters view opponents. Strong criticism can attract attention, but accusations that someone is being portrayed as less than human can trigger an entirely different debate.Candace Owens controversy draws questions over New York Times articleThe accompanying discussion also moves beyond Owens' comments about Kirk and turns toward a broader criticism of how recent developments have been covered.The speaker questions why a particular piece appeared in The New York Times and why readers were required to access it through a paywall. The criticism then shifts toward the perceived transformation of Turning Point and the way its current direction is being described.The full comment said:"Always same perspective that he held somehow immediately. That was something she reversed course on and felt comfortable having them in her home. Okay, fine.So right off the bat, we're just going, why is this in the New York times? Why is it behind a paywall? And why can't you just do anything that feels normal? And as Charlie was, I guess you've been honest, it's just turning point 2.0. It has nothing to do with turning point 1.0. It's a totally different organization. It's unattainable. You work with the department of war. You work with the deep state apparatus. You are their emotional asset. We get it.It just feels like you're laying it on thick. And like, maybe you could have just published a sub stack here that if I'm running your PRH to a sub stack about how you feel, don't put it behind a paywall. What you've learned about grief."The exchange illustrates how quickly one controversy can expand into a larger fight over media coverage, political organizations and public messaging. For now, Beisner's post puts the focus squarely on the language being used in the dispute involving Owens and Kirk, while the wider conversation continues to grow online.Catch the latest World News and Live updates. Download the TOI app.