In the days following the shocking assassination of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, a firestorm erupted across political media, with one figure at the center of controversy: Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, known online as Destiny. The left-wing political commentator and livestreamer has faced intense scrutiny over his comments regarding the killing, his refusal to condemn it, and his subsequent claims about being silenced by conservative forces. The debate has not only highlighted the deepening ideological rifts in American discourse but also raised questions about the responsibilities of online influencers in shaping public opinion.
Destiny, whose real name is Steven Kenneth Bonnell II, is no stranger to controversy. His outspoken views and combative style have earned him a large following on platforms like YouTube, where he regularly debates political adversaries and discusses current events. But it was his recent appearance on Piers Morgan Uncensored on September 15, 2025, that thrust him into the national spotlight. During the panel, Destiny was pressed by host Piers Morgan about his stance on the assassination of Charlie Kirk. When asked if he would condemn the murder, Destiny replied, "I won't condemn anything until the president of the United States can go on air and say all of us need to calm down." This refusal to offer a straightforward condemnation sparked immediate backlash from fellow panelists and viewers alike.
Utah Governor Spencer Cox had, just a day earlier, asserted on NBC's Meet the Press that the alleged assassin, Tyler Robinson, had been "indoctrinated" with "leftist ideology"—a claim Destiny flatly rejected on air. "No, no, it's not true," Destiny insisted, interrupting Morgan. The host countered that investigators, according to Governor Cox, had established that leftist radicalization motivated the killing. Destiny, however, doubled down, maintaining that he would not pass judgment until then-President Donald Trump called for calm, arguing, "Because he's the president of the United States of America and the leader of the opposing political party."
Other panelists were quick to challenge Destiny's logic. Ana Kasparian, co-host of The Young Turks, criticized him directly, stating, "You have a huge audience. And because of the fact that you have a huge audience, you have a responsibility to not turn—" before being interrupted by Destiny. Kasparian shot back, "I actually care about the country and want to bring people together. You do the opposite. You represent the worst of us, Destiny." The exchange underscored the growing frustration among some on the left with figures who, in their view, refuse to take moral stands against political violence.
Destiny's comments did not stop there. On his YouTube channel, he made the incendiary claim that "you need conservatives to be afraid of getting killed when they go to events." According to Townhall, this statement was particularly alarming in the wake of Kirk's assassination, especially as some on social media appeared to celebrate the killing and call for further violence against conservatives. Clips of Destiny's remarks quickly circulated, with right-leaning outlets and commentators condemning him for what they saw as an endorsement of political violence.
Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor at Human Events, discussed Destiny's evolving rhetoric on the September 16, 2025 episode of The Alex Marlow Show. Posobiec claimed that Destiny "initially did not support violence, but after an event involving Butler, he celebrated the death of Corey Comperatore, a health care CEO who was murdered, saying he deserved it." Posobiec went further, alleging that Destiny said "Charlie Kirk had to die because you re-elected Donald Trump." These accusations, if true, mark a disturbing shift in tone from a prominent left-wing commentator, and have only deepened the controversy swirling around Destiny.
The fallout extended beyond Destiny's words. On September 16, 2025, Destiny took to X (formerly Twitter) to claim that Elon Musk and conservatives were responsible for him being banned from the Twitch streaming platform, lamenting, "My entire income is gone now. So much for the party of free speech." However, as PC Gamer and other outlets pointed out, Destiny had actually been banned from Twitch since 2022 for "promoting, encouraging, or facilitating the discrimination or denigration of a group of people based on their protected characteristics." The ban was reportedly related to his statements about transwomen competing in women's athletics and a debate he held with banned white nationalist Nick Fuentes, which violated Twitch's guidelines. Social media users quickly exposed the discrepancy, sharing screenshots and posts demonstrating that Destiny's ban was not recent, as he had implied, but rather a three-year-old sanction he was now invoking to gain sympathy and attention.
This pattern of provocative statements, refusal to condemn violence, and shifting narratives has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. While some on the left, like Kasparian, have called out Destiny for what they see as irresponsible and divisive rhetoric, many on the right have seized upon his comments as evidence of a broader problem within progressive circles. The debate has reignited long-standing arguments about the role of online personalities in stoking or calming political tensions, and whether those with large platforms have a duty to unequivocally denounce acts of violence, regardless of the perpetrator's ideology.
The controversy has also highlighted the challenges facing social media companies and streaming platforms in policing speech and behavior. Twitch's decision to ban Destiny stemmed from violations of its policies against discrimination and streaming with previously banned individuals. Yet, as Destiny's case demonstrates, enforcement is often uneven, and the lines between legitimate debate, hate speech, and incitement can be blurry. The fact that Destiny attempted to reframe his years-old ban as a recent act of political retribution speaks to the ways in which influencers can manipulate narratives to serve their own interests—or, at the very least, to rally their followers in times of personal crisis.
For many observers, the Destiny saga is emblematic of the broader malaise afflicting American political discourse. The refusal to condemn violence, the tendency to blame opponents rather than seek common ground, and the use of media platforms to inflame rather than inform have all contributed to an environment where outrage often trumps reason. As Piers Morgan put it during his exchange with Destiny, "You are inhuman, you are somebody who seems almost gleeful that a young firefighter with a family— with a wife and children who he was protecting as he was shot dead. That he deserved what was coming to him because he went to a President Trump rally."
In the end, the uproar over Destiny's comments serves as a stark reminder of the power and perils of online influence. With the country still reeling from political violence and deepening polarization, the question remains: will those with the largest megaphones use them to heal or to harm? The answer, it seems, is still up for debate.
