All: if you can't respond in a non-violent way, please don't post until you can.
By non-violent I mean not celebrating violence nor excusing it, but also more than that: I mean metabolizing the violence you feel in yourself, until you no longer have a need to express it aggressively.
The feelings we all have about violence are strong and fully human and I'm not judging them. I believe it's our responsibility to each carry our own share of these feelings, rather than firing them at others, including in the petty forms that aggression takes on an internet forum.
If you don't share that belief, that's fine, but we do need you to follow the site guidelines when commenting here, and they certainly cover the above request. So if you're going to comment, please make sure you're familiar with and following them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.
My favorite poem, my -- my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country ...
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of [people] in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
>> Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! [April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee]
Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
So perhaps a better excerpt in light of recent events would be
>> And another reason that I'm happy to live in [the second half of the 20th century] is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.
His point was that once the physical power individuals/governments hold exceeds a threshold, a pluralistic society cannot coexist with violence being an acceptable option.
In the context of the 1960s, governments and nuclear weapons. But more broadly the same holds true for individuals.
Either we learn to live together despite our differences, or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other.
Society can be shockingly resilient to personal violence especially if it’s primarily people at the top in terms of status, wealth, or political power are regularly getting assassinated. Recently gangs have been shockingly stable despite relentless violence but historically duals between gentlemen etc where quite common.
By historical standards we’re living is a near paradise of non violence and that’s worth persevering at significant cost.
ethbr1 says "...or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other."
That isn't possible without bio-warfare. I sometimes hear people foolishly speak of a shooting "race war" in the USA but always remind them that the active phase of such an event would last about 15 minutes.
The tragedy is that several players in the transformer market went out of business because they ramped up due to the building boom before the financial crisis.
If I weren’t busy I’d go buy one of those old factories and open it back up. Great boring business to be in.
I think when it becomes normal for 10% or more of the citizens of a country to say they wouldn’t be upset if some member of the opposing political party were to die or when it becomes normal for that portion of the people to make fun or celebrate the death of someone from an opposing party or their murderer, everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” Because these people are not murderers or accomplices, and they are generally good people. These aren’t people that would lynch anyone or burn a cross in someone’s yard.
It’s awful that anyone dies.
Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.
> everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?”
It's easy to get sucked into a learned helplessness doing this, though. We know exactly why it happens - Charlie Kirk explained it himself:
"You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense, [...] But I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
America means guns. It's written in our constitution, reinforced through our history, reflected in our multimedia franchises and sold to American citizens as a product. The only way out of this situation is through it - we can't declare a firearms ban in-media-res without inciting even more violence and dividing people further. At the same time, America cannot continue to sustain this loss of our politicians, schoolchildren and minority populations. The threat to democracy is real, exacerbated by the potential for further "emergency powers" abuse we're familiar with from both parties.
When people push for firearms control in America, this is the polemic they argue along. You can say they're justified or completely bonkers, but denying that these scenarios exist is the blueprint for erasing causality.
> despite the involvement of the FBI and other agencies.
Many such cases. We're still looking for D. B. Cooper, aren't we? Did the FBI ever dig up Hoffa's body? The feds are hardly a panacea with these things.
Not everything is about the firearm itself and not even the shot, that many people focus on.
And you need more context and the training required to take such a shot and then evade the local cops and FBI, with a solid escape plan from a fuckton of witnesses and so forth. And I did not mention that most people would probably panic and mess up, let alone take the shot and escape. It is much more complex than that. When you look at the pattern fit, it no longer looks like a spur-of-the-moment act by a "typical gun owner".
They gave us some 22 years old kid as the person who pulled this whole operation, allegedly, and acted alone. Even if someone had been shooting since childhood, the rooftop selection, escape route, and casing inscriptions suggest deliberate operational planning and situational awareness, not just trigger skill. Shooting skill alone doesn't cover the logistics and environmental awareness. Plus a 22-year-old who "trained since childhood" might have technical skill, but most young adults still lack the composure and foresight to execute a high-stakes assassination with minimal mistakes, especially under the psychological pressure of killing a person in a public setting.
FWIW, some cases remain unsolved for decades because of scarce evidence, degraded scenes, or lack of witnesses, which does not come into play here at all. Modern investigations, by contrast, often benefit from immediate CCTV, cell-data, social media, and so forth.
What is irregular about the firearm? The only details I've seen are the engraving, everything else is reportedly COTS. Please give me links to the information you're looking at if I'm missing anything.
> but most young adults still lack the composure and foresight to execute a high-stakes assassination with minimal mistakes
This is conjecture, unless you can back it up with a source. The history books are filled with 22-year-old kids shooting politicians and getting away with it, famously the Red Guard uninstalled an entire government with this strategy. With a bunch of riled-up students.
I spent a lot of time at the range when I was a kid - hitting a 200yd shot from an elevated platform is not difficult with a M1903. A modern 63mm loading can easily push 3,000fps in a long-barrel rifle and if you reloaded the cartridge for a single-use assassination, I see no reason you couldn't push 5,000fps if the barrel doesn't explode from overpressure. With those kinds of ballistics its not a very tough shot unless you're shooting into a hurricane. All you need then is a hunting scope, and that can be bought for $170 in cash at Cabelas.
> Modern investigations, by contrast, often benefit from immediate CCTV, cell-data, social media, and so forth.
This I absolutely agree with. It sounds like the only reason they found him is because his friend turned in his Discord DMs, he might still be on the loose if not for the digital breadcrumb trail he left behind.
Bit of a harrowing precedent for online privacy, but I presume that will fall on deaf ears.
Not everything is about the firearm and the shot, I am more interested in everything else (all the patterns and requirements) to pull this operation, including the composure I mentioned. There are many other things as well.
> This is conjecture, unless you can back it up with a source. The history books are filled with 22-year-old kids shooting politicians and getting away with it, famously the Red Guard uninstalled an entire government with this strategy. With a bunch of riled-up students.
Sure, it is, and I cannot back it up. He was operating alone, which is much different from doing it as a team, I believe.
> It sounds like the only reason they found him is because his friend turned in his Discord DMs, he might still be on the loose if not for the digital breadcrumb trail he left behind.
I thought it was his dad that turned him in, but regardless, the Discord messages are suspicious, because he went to great lengths as to successfully complete the mission, but he would talk about it on an online platform? Something makes me skeptical about it, but who knows. It is just pure speculation from me at this point, but it does not align well with the rest of his behavior, IMO.
I get that criminals make mistakes, and perhaps it was just that. We will never truly know.
This is quite backwards. Right now revolts in France are useless. When they were useful back in the days, a lot of citizens had guns. Guns laws changed to reduce their powers
They are not useless in the sense that they are visible and at some point the state cannot only respond with more violence from police force forever or else the dictatorship becomes assumed.
But current protests aren't revolts nor violence anyway. There is side/peripheral violence but that is not the point of the protests
We are 68 million and between hunters and sport shooters we have 5 million firearms owners for 10 million firearms. It's not on par with the US of course but I'd say firearms are pretty common (and it's not even counting illegal ones) and frankly it's not difficult nor long to acquire a good bolt action rifle and learn to shoot an apple at 200m. Long story short: I don't think lack firearms control is the issue in the US, there must be something else.
Many people here will tell you that cartoons represent violence, some types of speech represent violence etc. France no longer has free speech rights unless it is coming from the left
The most sustainable vision wins eventually. If history has anything to teach us, is that it's full of extremely unpleasant periods between the stable ones. And things aren't looking like they're improving.
That's what's happening. Neoliberalism is slowly drifting into fascism, as it has already done multiple times in the past. Maybe what comes after will be actually stable, and not just metastable.
That would be a great world if that vision could materialize. But as long as people continue polarizing society, exploiting emotions, and using divide and conquer[1] tactics to gain political power, not much will change, and things may even get worse. Social networks have amplified this dynamic more than ever before.
GP is currently the highest comment, and on other sites I've visited, while too many people cheer this or call for violent retaliation, most of the highly-upvoted comments (both liberal and conservative) condemn it and argue for de-escalation.
Anger and fear are powerful emotions, but so is hope. Barack Obama campaigned on hope and became President, winning his first election with the highest %votes since 1988. Donald Trump also became President in part due to hope; his supporters expected him to improve their lives, while most of Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris's supporters just expected them to not make things worse. Now lots of people desperately need hope, and if things get worse more will.
Irrational hope can be dangerous: all the time, people make decisions that backfire horribly, and deep down they knew those decisions would backfire horribly, but they made them anyways out of desperation for an unlikely success. Perhaps this is another example, where the assassin delusionally hoped it would somehow promote and further their desires, but it will almost certainly do the opposite.
But hope can also be rational, and unlike anger and fear (which at best prevent bad things), hope can intrinsically be for causing good things. If a group or candidate that runs on hope for a better world gets enough attention and perceived status, it could turn public perception back to unity and optimism.
Have we considered that the assassin, directly or indirectly, is a seditious third party actor trying to destabilize the US?
I am not claiming this is true. But merely that if I was employed to destabilize the US, I would claim to have been responsible for a number of recent events in order to please my boss.
I am hoping the possibility of a joint common enemy can perhaps unite people in America a bit.
There's also a possibility that a democratic country in the Middle East with the letter I is involved here, because Charlie Kirk began publicly questioning and speaking about the billions in financial aid it receives. Seems pretty petty on the surface but apparently this country cannot afford to take further hits to its image worldwide, especially in the US.
How would you define "third party" in this case? We now know that the assassin was a follower of Nick Fuentes, acting on the suggestion of Laura Loomer. Both are working with Donald Trump on destabilizing the US. On top of that, the victim itself was also a seditious actor trying to destabilize the US.
In that light, does it really matter what tier party the assassin belonged to? The joint common enemy you allude to is already inside the white house, and as long as that is still up for debate, the country has no future.
Yes, I was considering that just now, and I thought it's probably not Russians, anyway. There's been a series of actual Russian attempts to destabilize France, including one in the news currently, and they're crude and easily traced because they're carried out by hiring Serbians and Moldovans and Bulgarians to make a relatively short journey and do something relatively easy and low-risk, motivated by money.
The guy who shot Trump in the ear had (arguably) no particular ideology or goal, just an interest in assassinations and a possible depressive disorder.
I believe that social media tapped inadvertently into the most effective way ever existed to do this.
None of the billionaires really wanted them, I think it was just a happy accident. But instead of recognizing that, they all doubled down with gaslighting and toxicity, because admitting they created a monster would just go against them becoming powerful and rich.
And also, let's admit it, because they genuinely can't see it as the monster it is, because it doesn't affect them directly.
While I like that quote, i just went to lookup the speach and was sadden to learn you “sanitized” it. Taking out the phrase “vast majority of white people and vast majority of black people”
That too says something about our times. Maybe a few things. From being unable to trust things without verifying, to people’s willingness to alter the truth to make a point, to how people fear discussing race and gender loud even in passing.
It think it says something that you'd be willing to jump to conclusions. You "learned" it was sanitised and make a point about people willing to alter the truth, then you personally attach some meaning to it. You made up your own reality, when the word "[people]" literally indicates that the OP did change the quote. Instead of assuming malice, you could have also just asked why they changed it, or looked up why words would be in brackets, or give the OP the benefit of the doubt.
If you selectively put words in [brackets] and remove others without adding ellipses you can alter anything to have any meaning.
I for one read this and assumed RFK was just discussing gun control in general, only weeks before he was killed. Adding in the context the speech was regarding MLK gives it a whole different meaning. Still powerful, but different.
Attributing “The only thing we [experience] is fear itself” to FDR suggests he said something a little different. That FDR needs to see a therapist for his anxiety.
This assumes facts not in evidence. While the posted quote is sanitized, the assumption that the poster did the sanitization vs. copying from a sanitized source isn't necessarily supported.
Fair enough. But no need for the faux-legalese, it isn't clear whether the OP sanitised it or copied it that way. That changes nothing about my comment though, just who sanitised it.
And the "those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black" which has always stuck in my mind because of the iconic phrasing.
Frankly I find creating an analogue between the death of MLK and Kirk in bad taste only magnified by scrubbing race from an MLK tribute.
Kirk would have celebrated MLK's death as he did the Pelosi hammer attack. Kirk called MLK "awful" and "not a good person" and the Civil Rights Movement "a huge mistake.".
It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.
Given his comments on the Pelosi attack, it's clear that he didn't believe that people should be safe from violence for their political beliefs. Given his comments on trans people[1], it's clear that he didn't believe that they should be safe from violence for the crime of... Being trans.
He would fail to meet the standards of civility set for this thread, or for this forum.
Politics is a barrier that protects us from political violence. The worst practitioners of it know this, and act to encourage escalation that will obliterate that barrier. So far, they've been rewarded by wealth and power for their efforts.
---
[1] Charlie Kirk has called for "men to handle" trans people "the way they did in the 50s and 60s."
Is this how someone just harmlessly opening up a civil dialogue behaves?
>It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.
What is sad is that his views were degenerate, reprehensible and abhorrent, yet that seems to get ignored.
Hey all you Kirk fans - LGBTQ+ are humans. Trans are humans. Black people are humans. Palestine exists. Jews are humans. Muslims are humans. Women can do more than make babies, cook, and clean. Democrats aren't anti-america, don't hate the country, and by and large don't call for violence or celebrate those that do. Not everyone is some crazed extremist. Nobody is a second class citizen and nobody deserves to suffer because of what they look like or how they were born or who they pray to or anything. Get over it.
While I don't condone violence at all, if you advocate for gun violence, you reap what you sow.
If you preach extremism, don't be surprised if you're met with extremists.
You can't claim to have given your life to Christ when you openly preach hate. This man was a devout preacher of the gospel of Supply-Side Jesus. Kirk and his ilk are the types that if the actual Jesus of Nazareth appeared in middle America, they'd call him a commie sand n-word and call ICE.
Kirk was the epitome of a bully albeit one who bullied others under the guise of "debate".
I have a ton of sympathy for the children shot at a school yesterday. If I want to really feel bad, I feel for those who were shot with assault weaponry at Sandy Hook and likely died and bled out in the same way Kirk did.
Just because he was a rich white "christian" dude with a blonde wife, doesn't mean he wasn't a reprehensible piece of shit.
there is a time and place to try to heal the damage you believe that he did to society -- but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.
You seem to be nonplussed about his suffering, you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience, and are implying that his beliefs on gun control somehow balanced his death.
Doesn't that help fuel the narratives about his political opposition that he tried to drive while living?
>Not everyone is some crazed extremist.
...maybe so, but the death of this dude sure did pull some out of thin air.
There's nothing in the parent post that celebrates the assassination. It expresses no empathy for him, but lack of empathy is not a celebration.
It does outline the various ways in which Kirk worked to make the world a worse place, but an accounting of it is not a celebration of a public killing.
"Religious beliefs" is not a weapon or a shield that you can just raise to deflect all criticism of a man's actions. It rings especially hollow for one whose behavior was so highly un-Christ-like.
I see nothing "celebrating" anything in that comment. Just some facts about someone who's ideologies they found reprehensible - as most should by the sounds of it.
> but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.
I'm not celebrating anything. I'm pointing out irony. You call for gun violence, thinking you're untouchable (because of your skin color and political ties), but you're not.
>you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience
Hang on here. Let's unpack this. This is actually pretty humorous.
Let's take the story of Jesus of Nazareth. A poor, brown skinned Jewish guy from Israel born out of wedlock who worked as a carpenter and preached love, compassion, and understanding, whose supposed miracles included healing the sick and disfigured. He worked to feed the needy, clothe the naked, advocated for paying taxes, and treating one's enemies with compassion as if they were their own kin. This person was executed by being nailed to a cross and in his final moments, still asked his followers to forgive his executioners.
We have a rich white dude, raised in a wealthy first world major city suburb using the above gentleman's message to preach hate, racial superiority, phobia, and outright bigotry, all under the guise of "asking tough questions". This dude would go around and "debate" young adults (and children) half his age and use "gotcha" tactics and quick speaking to overwhelm and gish gallop his opposition into giving up. He would then selectively edit the "debates" and post them online to create a strawman for his political allies to punch.
I had never heard of this guy and thanks to the Streisand effect I learned that he was a piece of shit.
And now het gets canonised like MLK?!
Tells you a lot about right wing America.
Removing the black and white people part makes it more relevant to the current times when it is not just black and white people but non negligible numbers of Hispanics, first peoples, Asians, Arabs and other minorities.
But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.
The whole idea of intersectionality makes it hard to build coalitions and turns everything into a problem that’s impossibly complex to solve and difficult to build a coalition around.
It’s the basic reason many leaders who the majority of a country dislike rise to power. Because that majority can’t put their differences aside.
Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.
He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).
He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.
This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).
RFK probably studied Aeschylus in the original Greek, and did an on-the-fly translation. A more literal translation is:
"Zeus, who guided men to think, who has laid it down that wisdom comes alone through suffering. Still there drips in sleep against the heart grief of memory; against our will temperance comes. From the gods who sit in grandeur grace is somehow violent."
There's no "turning the other cheek here." It claims violence does indeed beget violence, and there's no human way around that.
To be clear, I'm not advocating violence, or even criticizing RFK. I'm simply defending the purity of Aeschylus.
What saddens me is people take different political views as hatred, and medias run with it. I can't remember how many times a person is labeled fascist or communist just because their views are different.
Kirk didn't deserve to die for having or expressing hateful ideas, but his views were not merely "different."
Charlie Kirk speaking about a trans athlete: "Someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s[0].
And [1]:
> America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
And [1]:
> The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
Charlie Kirk was a theocrat. He hid behind freedom of speech with the intent to remove it for everyone else once in power. Freedom of speech is completely incompatible with theocracy. The reason people like Peter Thiel prop him up isn't to make people smart - it's to dumb them down and legitimize the worst in people for political gain.
The people crying fascist are sometimes correct. The people crying communist genuinely seem to think it applies to Democrats. Democrats are a center-right party by European standards.
There's a side that is genuinely, factually, deliberately misled by their politicians on a routine basis and it plugs into Fox News. This isn't a political statement. It's documented up and down.
Unfortunately that is not true anymore. Some far-left policies have been implemented or originated first in the US, in the democrat environment and later imported to Europe with more or less success.
It is funny that every side believes that the other side is genuinely, factually and deliberately misled by their politicians on a routine basis.
Aeschylus is a great greek poet. For our purposes here I might advocate for Jung (paraphrasing from memory)
In the end there is no going forward in the current context; there are no solutions there. It requires renewed vigor to move to a higher, better frame where growth is possible.
For us americans: political identity (libs v. Trump) has no solutions. Better: the political parties need to serve us. Dead kids or abused kids by adults (Epstein) cannot stand. What can 3.5 std deviations of center left and right get together over? Kids surely. And the knowledge (as Aeschylus narrates well elsewhere with the furies) that violence begets violence surely.
edit: it's funny to see my post above offended(?) people who want to believe that americans are kind and loving, despite uh being on a post where everyone is arguing about how bad the political violence and polarization situation is in the US
History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.
I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.
====
Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Something I like to remind myself of is that all past wars, even ones thousands of years ago, took place in as vibrant colors and fluid detail as we experience today, not in grainy black and white photos or paintings.
Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
> Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
As someone whose parents, grandparents, and entire family lived in Italy through WWII (and one grandfather who lost an eye in WWI), nobody liked talking about it.
If they did talk about it, it was usually brief and imbued with a feeling of "thank God it's over. what a tragedy that we were all used as pawns by the political class for nothing more than selfish ambitions."
Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
There was a prominent component of political scheming to his rise to power, and it was a totalitarian state that murdered political opponents even before it got to genocide, but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society.
> but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society.
I can't tell you what my relatives were like leading up to the war (I certainly wasn't born at that point), but they were illiterate peasants from the south, far removed from the cities and politics.
My suspicion is that, if anything, they were like most southern Italians, who seem to have a profound distrust of the government and politicians.
If I'm honest, they didn't have any moral objections to the war--they just felt used.
People forget that the popularity of being anti-war is relatively new, like maybe 100-150 years old. World War 1 popped off so quickly specifically because moral objections to war from the standpoint of "violence is wrong" were just not even part of the discussion. Even during World War 2, most objections within the US to entering the war were based on it just not being our problem.
Up until the last century, violence was seen as just another necessary part of living, and morality only came into play when it involved you're own community.
Up to some point not that long ago, public opinion as we know it didn't exist, and for some time after that it didn't matter much. I'm mentioning this because the poster you are responding to is writing about Italy. Italy's entrance into WW I was deeply unpopular in the south of Italy, and not all that popular elsewhere, I gather.
Just some other fascinating things about WW1 and Italy. Mussolini was heavily was heavily in the Italian socialist party. His family was socialist. World War 1 breaks out, he leaves/get kicked out of the party for his support of WW1. And it wasn't just Mussolini, it caused a huge fracture in the socialist party. The main party line was neutral with a heavy anti-war stance. Which I would suggest leads Mussolini to what would become Mussolini and perhaps with a lot less opposition. I would say there is probably some evidence there giving credit to the claim that today it is probably much more easier to maintain an anti-war stance than in the past.
> Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
And there's no doubt about it - it was a myth. Most of Germany stood behind him, and were outraged by the failed July 20th coup... In 1944. Ivan and Uncle Sam were kicking down the door, extermination camps were working overtime, yet most people were still fully behind him.
The hardest thing for people to admit is that they've been duped.
And they liked it so much that 1918 nearly resulted in revolution.
Anyone picking up the paper could tell that the war wasn't going to be won by them in 1944. It was two years after Stalingrad, a year after Kursk and Italy's surrender, France was being liberated, Finland was collapsing, and Germany was fighting a three-front war.
Compared to all that, 1918 at the time of the armistice looked down-right optimistic.
And it is not the only case. The French people went to war in 1914 "la fleur au fusil"[0]. Jean Jaurès is assassinated for his pacifism and (his assassin would be found not guilty - despite being totally guilty - in 1919).
I wouldn't necessarily call it comforting fantasy, people change their minds all the time. I think we're all to some extent able to justify some negative sides of any political movement as tensions rise.
I've felt this myself a few times now. Both when Trump was attempted assasinated and now with Charlie Kirk. I am sad that public discourse and our democracies are kind of unraveling these days and that this is just a sad reality of that fact. As far as Trump or Charlie Kirk go, I have no sympathy what so ever.
I'm not sure I really want to blame anyone for things becoming like this, it all seems like par for the course in the world we've created for ourselves. I just wish we were able to stop before this.
> Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
Another way this observation is manifested is how out of nowhere you have countries voting in extremist parties and politicians.
As a point of fact, Germans never elected Hitler. The National Socialists never achieved a majority, and their share of the vote had been decreasing over successive elections.
Hitler was appointed to the chancellorship by senior political leaders (the president and the former chancellor) who thought they could control him. Unfortunately Germany at the time embraced the "unitary executive" theory of government.
Probably more fluid details than today where someone can push a button and level a building 1000 miles away without seeing the faces of any of the people torn to shreds. Maybe there would be less appetite for war if people had to still physically hack up their enemies with a sword or axe.
There was an idea that the key to the nuclear launch codes should be surgically implanted adjacent to the heart of the president’s assistant. If the president should desire to launch the nukes, they would have to personally cut down a man and pull the key from the man’s entrails.
It was essentially not done because it would be too effective.
I think there is a general distance to a lot of things in today's society. Very few of us have to farm or hunt for our own food, or clean an animal carcass. I don't have a strong view on the moral aspects of eating animals (I'm not a vegetarian or vegan), but I think it'll probably do some good if anyone that eats meat at some point slaughters, cleans and butchers one of the animals they eat.
I agree, a society shielded from blood either grows callous to it as long as the blood is somebody else's or becomes too traumatised to even defend itself even if the aggressor is perfectly fine killing them
It’s John von Neumann’s idea, at least from the biography I read. Before too much praise is heaped upon him, he also strongly argued for a nuclear first strike on Soviet Union before they got their own nuclear weapons because it was best strategy from game theory POV.
I think it was Call of Duty 2 (when the franchise was still WW2-based) when they would show, in my recollection, an anti-war message including this one every time your character died. I think this was absent from later incarnations of the franchise.
And the quotes showed up longer, like 5 seconds, so you could read them in full. Later games would display the quote for 1-2 seconds, which often wouldn’t be enough time to process the full text
Cod 4, World at War, and MW2(?) also did this to my memory. At least one of them did for sure. Not always necessarily anti-war, but historical quotes related to war.
I suspect that for every grandpa who likes telling war stories, there are probably a hundred who get quiet and sullen when the war comes up and have to excuse themselves and go be alone for a while.
I was at Auschwitz in summer. It was beautiful weather, the birds were singing, flowers everywhere. Hard to connect this to the conditions in a concentration camp. It would have been much easier in winter.
I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau in February of 1995. It was well below freezing and there was some type of ice ball precipitation, perhaps because it was too cold to snow. I was the only person there.
I walked all the way back from the famous entrance gate, along the train tracks, to the monument at the back. The place was huge and imagining people suffering there during that type of weather was especially heartbreaking. I was luckily able to convince the taxi driver to wait for me. I have some black and white photos I took of it somewhere on my shelves. That visit sticks with me more powerfully than almost anywhere else I've been.
It is so well preserved, because those who were liberated from it, were so horrified at what they witnesses, that they did not want anyone to forget. It was a herculean effort, many wanted to bury it,because of the pain, and many more wanted to bury it, like it never happened.
A personal salute to all those who fought to preserve it.
There is a great video on the Poles who worked to preserve it. A lot of it is ... Unspeakable.
I was at Dachau a couple summers ago in similar weather. I actually found it worse and hit harder because it was such a pleasant day as I watched people stroll around the grounds, taking selfies, kids running around playing. It made me feel like I couldn't even breath.
I too was at Dachau on a day like that, over a decade ago. My partner recently asked me about it, and just thinking back to how I felt made my skin crawl. It's terrible to remember, and I hope I never forget.
It might have reflected the experience of the guards. One of the most astonishing facts i heard was that the guards used to get prisoners to play music for them and would even be moved to tears!
It reveals something deep about the human condition. Auchwitz was a perfectly lovely place for many of the employees as long as they disassociated themselves from all the suffering and evil around them.
I was fortunate enough to once have the daughter of a client I took care of in a nursing home ask me if I would escort her dad and her on a day trip as he needed help into the bathroom and such. We ended up going to a Ukrainian hall in Vancouver BC where he was going to meet some old friends.
The older ladies busy making handmade perogies was such a delicious treat.
But I also got to meet Stefan Petelycky. He wrote the book:
Into Auschwitz, for Ukraine
He ended up there and was one of the lucky ones who made it out. When he pulled up his sleeve and showed me his tattoo, the number he was given there, a chill crossed my entire body and an overwhelming sense of sadness hit me.
I of course had heard about the concentration camps but seeing a tattoo in person made the event much more real where I could connect to the tragedy in a way I never did.
I visited Dachau years and years ago. It was a nice summer day, but a pallor fell over when we went inside the camp. It felt like the sky darkened and the color drained from the entire environment.
A lot of war stories get embellished and no one is going to challenge it.
There's the story about the guy who says he was the hardest working man in Vietnam, and then when pressed about what he did, he states he was a trucker to the great surprise of anyone listening.
When asked why he thought that, he says "well I was the only one."
The story wasn't actually about the trucker being hard working (or not), though I'm sure he was. He wasn't actually trying to make people believe he literally was the hardest working.
The joke is that everyone else he went to war with was claiming to be something else, so he must have delivered all the supplies himself.
The response is interesting to me, because having fought in a war, though I am not a US veteran -- I instantly got it. And the place I heard it from was more veteran dominated, and everyone instantly understood/appreciated the joke.
I didn’t get it until you explained it. It makes a lot of sense - people who have actually gone to war know of stolen valor and embellishments - you can sniff them immediately. People who have never been and don’t hang around military types much have much less of this kind of context
We've always been on a knife edge it's just streamed straight into your eyes balls 24/7 now and social media means everyone has to have a black or white opinion about everything.
While that may be true to an extent, the 24/7 nature of it now is the equivalent of constantly red lining the engine. It used to be you'd go to meetings/gatherings of like minded people to get hopped up and your engines revved up like that, but they would for the most part cool back down after getting back home. Now, the engine never gets back to idle and stays red lined. At some point, the engine will break down, only instead of throwing a rod or ceasing up, something non-engine related will happen.
> It used to be you'd go to meetings/gatherings of like minded people to get hopped up and your engines revved up like that
I would go so far as to say going to meetings physically was also a counterbalance.
When you're around other people, even ones who share your beliefs, and say 'I think we should murder that guy!' then in most crowds someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
It's when you exclusively socially exist in online spaces that the most extreme actions suddenly become encouraged.
Or as Josh Johnson recently quipped, "The internet is all gas no brakes."
> someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
We might be thinking of different types of gatherings/meetings. Specifically, I was thinking of someone with a particular set of extremist ideals that get together for a monthly meeting with others with those same extremist ideals. Someone in that group would likely not say "are you okay" rather they'd say "hellzya brother!" or whatever they'd actually phrase it. These types of meetings are also known to have someone speak intentionally seeking to get a member to act as a lone wolf to actually carry out the comment you're hoping someone would tamper. Now, one doesn't need to go to meetings for that encouragement. They just open up whatever app/forum.
I was at a political rally a long time ago. One of the speakers said "let's hang all the people in <rich suburb>". As I remember it no one spoke out against him but neither did people cheer. Anyway I realized the rally was a bit too much for me and left. The speech was entirely inconsequential - no violence resulted nor was anyone arrested.
I'm telling this story because I think it's how things usually go, and I think you are quite mistaken.
> When you're around other people, even ones who share your beliefs, and say 'I think we should murder that guy!' then in most crowds someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
There are crowds where that guy is not there, is not heard, or doesn't speak up at all.
In those crowds, people reach out for their pitchforks and outright murder people.
If you take a frank look at history, you will notice those are all too frequent. Even in this century.
Anything I say on the internet, someone will always have a compelling but sometimes wrong argument as to why im wrong. If you listen to them for confirmation you'd never be able to do anything, and im not exaggerating. I could probably say the earth is round here on HN and some astrophysics PhD would tell me I failed to consider the 4th dimension or something and it's actually unknown if we can call it round.
Where are these people going that they just see encouragement without resistance?
Maybe not only encouragement, but it's certainly easier to quickly label any opposition as bots/trolls/idiots/woke/boomer/racist/commie/nazi/etc, ignore them, and move on online. Someone's single sentence to you wasn't a perfect pattern match for your acceptable criteria? No need to interact with them, just ignore them and move on. Better yet, get a quick swipe in on them to score some points with your in-group.
Being right all the time on the internet is such a curse. Those damned learned people with PhDs thinking they know things going up against such an obviously more intelligent person. They should have their degrees revoked!
There doesn’t even need to be anyone saying no. When you’re standing with a crowd shouting “murder! murder!” it’s much harder to say “I’m not one of the bad guys” than when you’re online and you can say “well OK, there are a few bad apples in our group, but I’m not one of them!”
From a personal point of view I agree, it's completely unhealthy, but from a global perspective it's always been fucked up all the time, open a wiki page for any year between 1900 and now and you will find loads of assassinations, terrorist attacks, wars, famine, genocides, coups d'états, &c.
There aren't many times when there's quite as much happening at the same time.
Over the last week or so we've had: serious riots in France, catastrophic riots in Nepal, a scandal in the UK featuring the ambassador to the US, hostile drone incursions into Poland, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the ICE raid on visiting South Korean workers, soldiers on the streets of DC and a threatened incursion into Chicago, a school shooting, revelations about the biggest paedophile scandal of the century and its links to the rich and famous, including the current president, and Israel attacking most of the countries around it.
In the background is the continuing war in Ukraine, China's increasing militarisation and threatened technological lead over the US, the situation in Gaza, the disassembly of the established US federal system of government, existential and economic dread over the impact of AI, and climate change.
If everyone's feeling a little edgy, there may be good reasons for that.
Interesting how different circles see different things though. Around me the biggest thing prior to Charlie Kirk was the murder of the Ukrainian refugee on a train in Charlotte.
My parents had the cold war, petrol crisis, September 11, dotcom, 2008, my grandpa fought in wars in the 60s, my grandma was born right before ww2 and talked to German soldiers when she was 6 and her village was occupied, &c.
Young westerners get scared because they're used to people dying far away, now that it's getting a bit closer they think it's the end of the world, the truth is that it's always been fucked up, we just got locally lucky for a bit
Get out of the news cycle, it really isn't that terrible out there
Your comment sounds like a new verse in Billy Joel's "we didn't start the fire" song. When Trump was elected, I knew, at least, that the news wouldn't be boring for the next four years.
Granted, I live under a rock, but I only knew of one of those events you mentioned (Kirk’s death). I intentionally dont read or watch news. It does absolutely wonders for my peace of mind.
I'll take my chances waiting for something to affect me directly rather than watching news channels 24/7 to get outraged every single second of my life about random shit happening in places I mostly can't even locate on a map or spell.
Men of Virginia! pause and ponder upon those instructive cyphers, and these incontestible facts. Ye will then judge for yourselves on the point of an American navy. Ye will judge without regard to the prattle of a president, the prattle of that strange compound of ignorance and ferocity, of deceit and weakness; without regard to that hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
As I've grown older and gone back through history I've realized why so many decisions and actions seem kind of irrational to outside observers. This is why I think study of ancient history is so important, because we have so few connections, that the analysis does not seem personal.
Nevertheless, I realize that it's usually a zeitgeist more than any particular thing that really flows through history.
I agree. It's hard to capture 'the vibes' in a history book. For example, I firmly believe that in 70 years, almost no one will be able to explain 'wokeness' or the anti-wokeness backlash.
I’ve come to realize how sad it is nobody alive today will be alive to see how what’s occurring fits with a multi-century arch of history. The way we examine the Middle Ages or Byzantine Empire.
It would be fascinating to see how 2001-2025 fits into that.
Yeah, Etsy is funny. On the basis of what I bought I got an ad for a spell to transform into a fox but if they had really looked at what I bought they would have realized I already had the material list.
haha, yes, the president dismissing anyone in the federal government who disagrees with him, and trying to turn the national guard into his own personal police department, and inciting a riot/revolt 4 years ago but the US populace still elects him again, and allowing Elon Musk access to all the federal government which he slashes to bits in less than a couple of months (including science research) and having that same person soon after turn on president and the multiple assassination attempts, successful and unsuccessful... and it's only been 8 months since he took office. Crazy times we live in
On Sunday, I was talking a Mexican friend about how politicians get killed in our countries (Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico). Just in June, presidential hopeful Miguel Uribe was shot and killed in Bogota. In the head, in front of a crowd.
I remember being grateful about how that doesn't really happen in the US (Trump being the most recent, but he survived). I guess I was wrong... and, in that case, Garcia Marquez might agree with you.
The US had one killed within the last two months, with an attempt on another, and the attacker had a list of other targets.
You could be forgiven for not knowing, since the collective coverage and attention to it since has probably been less, total, than what this received in the last couple hours.
Also there was a string of events of a guy shooting at offices of a certain political party in Arizona not that long ago and also a candidate who lost who also tried to hire a hitman to kill the person they lost to.
A few years ago, a would-be assassin went to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's house and — when he couldn't find her — beat her husband with a hammer. Here's what Charlie Kirk had to say about that [1]:
> By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks. Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.
The US is in the process of turning into a stereotypical Latin American country, caudillo and everything else. Driven by the same economic and social forces, and in some cases the same people.
This is now the 5th comment saying the same thing, so I'll respond. I'm aware of these and they were terrible. In a just world, they would get as much if not more media attention.
The difference is the public nature of the execution. That is what makes it more similar to, say, Colombia or Venezuela _to me._ Within the context of 'magical realism', it is the perspective and mass dissemination of the violence that heightens that feeling.
Going back to the original topic, there is a reason that most of 100 Years of Solitude's pivotal moments happen around the staging of public executions (and not so much the off-screen violence, of which there is some but it's not focal).
1975-1988 we lived in the Cold War and the potential of nuclear strikes. The African, gay and trans communities (in particular but not exclusively) dealt with the AIDS epidemic. Iran moved to theocracy. In the 90s, we had the Iraq war that was not bad for the US but massively destabilized the region. In the 2000s we had 9/11 and let's not understate the fear from the Muslim community here. Africa has lived through famine and the pains of decolonization after their wealth was stripped and stolen over centuries.
This is worse, but we have always lived in "interesting times" depending on where you were in the globe.
What's the Pindar quote again?
"War is sweet to those who have no experience of it. But the experienced man trembles exceedingly in his heart at its approach"
Yeah, COVID showed me more than anything that our core need of belonging and need for conformity (the one that can drive cultist behavior) is not something that everyone can overcome with knowledge and experts and awareness. You truly can't make a horse drink, even if they are dehydrated.
> You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Do you know what Harding's famous "Return to Normalcy" stump speech in the 1920 campaign was about? I bet you don't; few do. My U.S. history textbook in high school mentioned it, but did not explain what it was about.
Of all the days I've been alive, if I could pin point one that I remember vividly with every bit of detail and emotion, that'd be 9/11... I was 14, and all of the sudden, even that younger version of myself, understood every single thing was about to change...
We already did, on October 7th, 2023. Israel did not learn from our example, and they currently find themselves in a quagmire where they're spending billions to kill thousands of the people they're supposed to be saving from an authoritarian, terrorist-harboring regime, with almost no real benefit to their national security, and where they have most of the rest of the world bearing down on them diplomatically for their conduct and alleged war crimes. (This is the most charitable characterization I can muster.)
The response to 9/11 was one of the most foolhardy possible, and it's astounding that any other nature would attempt the same with it still in living memory.
Take a better look at it from Israels perspective. Any other response after Oct 7 would have been unthinkable. No israeli is particularly happy with what's happening in Gaza (a massive understatement) but there is still broad support there for the war, because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
The rest of the world haven't been shy lately about expressing their opinion of the war, something that Israel recognises and care about, but they have provided no way out for israel to take any other course of action.
Our ideas and opinions should be as harmonious as possible with reality. If Israel was understood better and her concerns and fears engaged seriously it would go a long way to ending the war.
In the context of this assassination i feel the path forward is not empty platitudes of "deescalation" rather greater empathy and understanding of people you disagree with. This is mainly an internal process, but also one that should have outward expressions too.
> there is still broad support there for the war, because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
A phrase like "the war" glosses over a lot. If the IDF were not deliberately shooting children¹, would the Israeli public be clamouring, "shoot more children"? If food shipments were not being blockaded², would the public be demanding that Gazans be starved?
I didn't see anywhere in the article anything about israelis calling for more dead children. Even if that happened it's the actions of a fringe group, not idf policy. Food shipments are being restricted because it's not generally accepted that you have to feed your enemies while you're at war with them. In any case the GHF was set up to deal precisely with this problem and is doing a great job.
On the charges of genocide... Again what you say should be in harmony with reality. In truth all those sources have an anti israel bias. One can't help but think they started with a conclusion and found the evidence to fit in with it, which is the wrong way round. In any event other bodies like the UK government don't agree. Genocide requires intent and there is simply no intent for genocide from the Israeli government. One can also argue that if indeed genocide was the goal the war would have been much faster. anyway i hope that gives you a better perspective of Israels point of view and interpretation of events. Their stated goals in gaza are destroying hamas and ensuring gaza is no longer a security threat. Hamas is very large and quite well embedded in the civilian population and has a lot of infrastructure which means that even waging a war will lead to a lot of civilian casualties. Something that hamas exploits and people who claim genocide ignore.
>Food shipments are being restricted because it's not generally accepted that you have to feed your enemies while you're at war with them.
Funny way to put it.
You do not feed the enemy, rest of the world feeds the enemy.
You make all effort to prevent the enemy being fed, to starve the enemy to death.
Starving the enemy is generally accepted as a war crime, but Israel disagrees.
Oh yeah, and enemy in this case includes infants.
>> because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
How do you think Palestinians have felt living in an open air prison next to genocidal maniacs with zero ability to control themselves for the past 50 years. USS Liberty should’ve been the end of things, but it wasn’t.
>because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
It objectively isn't and that's what's so tragic. Israel doesn't need to be understood, it needs to work harder to understand. And, per 9/11, it specifically needed to understand that taking Hamas' bait was a straight shot to dashing international goodwill and benefit-of-the-doubt.
There's some far-off timeline where Israel negotiated in good faith for the return of all of the hostages without dropping a single bomb. The anti-war movement that finds one of its most fervent centers in Israel itself is driven by the dawning horror that many of those hostages are never coming home precisely because Israel (again) chose blind fury over reason. And that's not a matter of perspective, it's a simple fact.
I think the point being made is that you can create your own enemies. In this case, meaning enemies of the United States or politics of the United States. Many of the radicals of the world become that way due to harm that became them or their family.
If your family lived in a village in middle east and the military of another country came and seemingly killed your parents, you would think that the person would grow to have certain opinions on the things and certain enemies.
A lot of the policies being enacted have the potential to create a lot of enemies. Just to name a few, there have been thousands of people fired from federal government. Those people and their families have had their lives changed. You have people from other countries who have lived here their entire lives who are now being separated and sent to other countries. You have people playing politics with Ukraine where many people are dying due to something that the rest of the world has the power to solve. Or people in Palestine being murdered while some talk of building a wealthy paradise on the land where they were raised.
I'm not taking a side on these things. But you have to agree that these tactics have the habit of making very determined and malicious enemies. Many political policies, and the people who have strong opinions on them, have to realize that their opinions and the policies they support, do impact the lives of real people. Potentially causing devastating repercussions, death and suffering. If said people are determined to enact revenge, it is no surprise that feel justified in doing so.
I'm not justifying their thoughts or actions. But you can understand that people who have felt these impacts aren't acting particularly rationally or are stable.
> You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Not sure what the comparison with COVID is supposed to be. Spanish flu was not created in a lab. There was no vaccine for the Spanish flu. The only real similarity is social distancing, quarantines, and masks -- we did that back then too.
1. Nobody suggested we exclude inconvenient intelligence organisations.
2. Irrelevent because:
3. Low confidence, but probable merely implies plausibility, at least a somewhat higher likelihood than a wild previously unencountered zoonotic.
Based on all publicly available information it does seem more likely, the CIA will be better informed than the public, if they (and others) concur then I don't see why we need to dismiss it.
> The review offered on Saturday is based on "low confidence" which means the intelligence supporting it is deficient, inconclusive or contradictory. There is no consensus on the cause of the Covid pandemic.
Yes, and their report was buried. It didn't say that they changed their minds.
From further in the article: "But the once controversial theory has been gaining ground among some intelligence agencies - and the BND is the latest to entertain the theory. In January, the US CIA said the coronavirus was "more likely" to have leaked from a lab than to have come from animals."
Clearly world leaders were afraid of anti-Chinese sentiment, didn't want to be seen "siding" with Trump, or just didn't want to piss China off.
Funny, back then Americans didn't wear masks for much the same reasons they wouldn't during the last pandemic, and they died in their thousands for much the same reasons.
Why do we think we’re passed an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment? Trump is more than ready to use his secret police.
RIP Charlie Kirk, no human deserves that. The rest of us left are still not necessarily better people after that exact moment, hopefully everyone takes a pause.
Constantly fear-mongering that every event that occurs is a prelude to a repeat of history's worst atrocities is exactly the type of rhetoric we should avoid.
Do you think we have a Presidency with the same sensibility? They sent the national guard with zero pretense all over the country. This is about to get serious.
Targeted vs untargeted violence. The former almost always comes with a broader message to society at large.
A school shooter isn’t trying to say “shut down all schools”.
But a terrorist flying a plane into one of the most important symbols of your most important city is certainly trying to send your society a message.
Same with this killing
Think about how you would feel if some guys beat you and your friends up in a bar fight, vs someone individually stalking you and beating you up outside your own house. You got beaten up in both cases, but the bar fight beating will unlikely make you feel as vulnerable and scared to leave the house as being stalked and targeted individually
I'm not too caught up with politics, but a (presumably) political shooting has the issue of being disruptive to the government and therefore the nation as a whole, since the USA is built on democratic ideals. And since it's a(/the) global superpower, its issues result in serious international problems as well.
What about all of the other violence I listed? It's orders of magnitude more severe. We don't know the motive of the shooting, but it could very well be someone who's related to the victims of the violence Kirk endorsed.
The main reason is that the side he's on his pretty unhinged and they think it's more important than all the other violence listed.
It's like when a conservative person is canceled they throw an absolute fit, then turn around and cancel someone on the left, without making any connection.
Events like this have often been used as trigger to implement measures that were already planned. The nazis did that a lot (Reichstagsbrand, Kristallnacht), You could argue that Israel used the October 7 attacks to accelerate efforts to get rid of the Palestinians. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld used 9/11 to invade Iraq which they had wanted to do long before.
I am definitely worried what Trump and republicans will do as a response.
HN has thousands of comments debating the justification for killing tens of thousands of non-combatants in Palestine.
More posts debating the justification for killing 11 people in a boat in the Caribbean who did not pose an imminent threat.
HN rules do not prevent any of these discussions.
But here we have a individual who advocated those killings.
Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
On HN it's perfectly fine to justify all this violence, to argue that the violence is regrettable but necessary, but any equivalent discussion about this one individual is somehow beyond the pale.
> Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
I'm an outside observer, but isn't that the point of the right to bear arms in your constitution? I don't think the people who wrote it were naive enough to not understand guns could be used for evil purposes, so inherently they supported the price of the deaths of innocents as a trade off for the benefits of guns, right?
1. The goal of the second amendment was never "everyone should be able to have as many guns as they have, and if people use a gun to kill a dozen children then so be it", it was "it should be illegal for the government to take away people's weapons because the first step a tyrant would take is to disarm the populace so they couldn't fight back." That goal doesn't hold water anymore in a world where a computer geek working for the US military in a basement in Virginia can drone strike a wedding on the other side of the world. Instead, the NRA has made "guns good" into something that too many people make their whole personality, and the people who are actually trying to destroy society use that as a weapon to prevent any positive change when someone murders a dozen kids by making people feel like the only choice is between "anyone can have guns and children are murdered every day" or "the government takes your weapons and forces any dissidents into siberian-esque gulags".
2. Firearms were far less common, far less accessible, and far less deadly than they are now. Compared to what was available at the time, modern-day weapons like the AR15 are effectively weapons of mass destruction. If you went into a school with a civil war-era rifle and tried to kill as many people as you could, you'd maybe get one shot off which might not even kill someone if you hit them, and then you'd get tackled while you were trying to reload.
They were also loose powder hand loaded weapons, you could fire three rounds a _minute_ if you were really skilled. Everyone in town had to store their powder in a (secure) communal location because it was, duh, an explosive.
I think you've moved the goalposts here a little. You are making (good) arguments on why the second amendment maybe shouldn't apply any longer and that guns of now are different. You're arguing for gun reform.
However I was speaking in the context of the tradeoffs of danger and the awareness of what blood you get on your hands for agreeing. Although the writers of this bill couldn't forsee AR15s and drone strikes, I'm sure they could forsee that there was a cost to freedom to bear arms.
And yet the founding fathers made it pretty clear that they were all for every able-bodied man having guns, including private citizens owning artillery.
The relative lethality of a particular style of rifle doesn't seem to matter. Better guns than muskets were available at the time, and they didn't seem to think it necessary to limit that amendment.
I don't think your opinions about the history and purpose of the second amendment holds water.
I think it’s worth posting the actual wording of the 2nd amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There’s endless legal debate how this should be interpreted, but it’s not obvious that there was an assumption that there would be mass individual gun ownership.
The Second Militia Act of 1792 clarified that assumption somewhat when it specified all free able-bodied white male citizens must be part of their local militia and are required to own a gun among other things.
What they couldn't have predicted is that the Bill of Rights would also apply to the individual state and local governments since that wasn't true until the 14th amendment almost 100 years later and didn't really kick off until the 1900s. This is obviously important to understand what the original amendments mean.
The supreme court ruled that the first clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor text. We aren't going to be Switzerland, which has an actual armed militia where kids take military-issued guns into their community to support it (on the train even! although the bullets are kept somewhere else to reduce a suicide problem they had a few years ago).
I was responding to an assertion that the amendment authors must have known the implications of what they were writing. It’s irrelevant what a subsequent Supreme Court interpretation was to that point.
The Supreme court formally declared that the amendment authors wrote the amendment with the first clause of the second amendment as meaningless flavor text. It is obviously revisionist and I hope it doesn't hold for more than a few generations or so (assuming the USA survives).
I think that’s pretty much the only way you can make that work? I’m against gun ownership, but I feel like you really need to stretch things to read that any other way than ‘people shall be allowed to own their own guns’
I almost don’t want to respond since this is well trodden ground, but I would say that “a well regulated militia” casts doubt on the individual gun ownership interpretation. You have to decide who the militia exists to fight and therefore who should regulate them. It’s obviously not obvious though.
The term "well-regulated milita" predates the constitution and traces back to the days when white people were often a substantial minority compared to the populations of enslaved black people they lived among.
On St Croix where a young man named Alexander Hamilton grew up, the ratio was 1 free person to 8 slaves, so the well-regulated militia was to assemble at the fortress if they heard a blast of the cannon: they were required to come with their weapons in order to put down a slave revolt.
Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.
It's also probably worth mentioning that "people" in "the right of the people" certainly excluded slaves from the right to own weapons, making the text even more burdened by its own history
My point is: what the founders understood was that some gun violence was the unavoidable cost of maintaining the system of slavery, itself a system of formalized/normalized political violence.
It's not. "The people" is a collective term, so this unambiguously says that collectively the people have the right to keep and bear arms, i.e. as a group. For example, maybe this guarantees that a well regulated militia of the people has the right keep and bear arms. An example of a less ambiguous statement would be: "the right of all individual people to keep and bear arms".
That's interesting. What is a reasonable alternative interpretation of "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" than individual gun ownership though?
"The people" here were the states - the point was that the states could maintain their own militia (the modern day national guard). The 2nd amendment has been bastardized by a radical judiciary that is now unfortunately too entrenched to fix without repealing the 2A.
"Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country. When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere, etc. etc.), I feel like that description applies pretty well to our times as well.
That being the case, I would say their opinions and beliefs are pretty important to the current national climate.
> "Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country.
Wilder, in the sense of less Organization, less infrastructure, slower transportation and communication. People had to protect themselves, because there was nobody around who could do it. But today, the majority of people can be reached in a matter of minutes.
> When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere,
You don't understand that guns are the major reason for this?
It was also written at a point in time when the absolute peak of firearms technology was a musket.
The logic behind the 2nd amendment doesn't hold once Uncle Sam has nuclear tipped icbms and I'm not allowed to have them. I'm also not allowed to have tanks or rocket launchers or even high rate of fire Gatling style guns.
To paraphrase, "if you think the 2nd amendment is what's keeping the government off your back, you don't understand how tanks work"
You don’t need to take guns away to solve gun violence. He’s 100% right. Start dealing with crime. Stop allowing criminals into the country. Stop releasing criminals back onto the streets. Stop ignoring people with violent tendencies.
I agree to your logic, but scanning social media gives a totally different view: People feel like they need to take action now. The murder of the ukranian girl set a social fire, and the killing of charlie kirk put gasoline over it. You can feel the rage. I've never seen so many upvotes and likes for quite radical opinions like in the last hours on TikTok and X.
I think COVID proved we're not smarter now in multiple ways and from either side. Human nature is a weird thing that we clearly are still grasping to understand
We had the technology to push out a vaccine in less than a year. Modern medicine is of course smarter than it was a century ago.
What went poorly is our society's collective response. From the medical and governmental establishment, there was much hemming and hawing over what measures to take for way too long (masking, distancing, closing of public spaces, etc). Taking _any_ countermeasures against the spread of the virus also somehow became a culture war issue. I'm assuming GP meant "left or right" by "either side" so make of that what you will.
Yeah but, at least in my bubble in Europe, being for or against covid measures had little to do with left or right. It was about listening to mainstream media or having alternative source of information
I followed the mainstream media exclusively and still realised immediately that nobody actually had a clue what they were doing. My trust in MSM died then. Most alternative sources are even less reliable but i believe spreading a wider net gives me a better judgement. Whatever you do, don't exclusively outsource your opinions and judgement to the MSM. Too often they take up the same wrong narratives. This is easier said then done. Read the opinions and news even from people you despise and be honest with yourself.
Try to participate in any government...went to a town hall in a US city and both the company I worked for and unions were having people hold spots in line for FIFO comments body swapping for 'natural' opinion people. Media didn't report on it...ruined any trust I had in them.
I don't think "push out a vaccine in less than a year" is such a good flex especially when they also demonized and rigged the studies of the alternative drugs that must not be named
Fauci himself was known to say that vaccine development takes at least 5-10 years or something like that (and never mind the fact we had Event 201, that the virus contains code BY MODERNA) or else all hell breaks loose (he was also known to say masks aren't effective)
> depending on what "side" you were on during covid
It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.
> It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue.
It's a political issue no matter how you look at it, and it was a very political issue at that, considering what the state (throughout the Western world and elsewhere too) proposed doing.
To paint it as merely a "public health issue" is doing people who don't agree a tremendous disservice, and it is very much part of the othering that has led us here. Please stop it.
Clearly, illnesses and diseases are public health issues as are systems to manage food safety. People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic, though that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on particular approaches e.g. masks may or may not be effective (though they seem to have now been shown effective in masking ICE agents which is ironic).
Certain methods of dealing with public health issues have historically been shown to be incredibly effective (e.g. vaccination, milk pasteurisation etc), so it's disconcerning when there's a political movement that pushes an agenda that is clearly based on fear and not rational evaluation of the issues. It seems to me that there's a push to make the poorest sections of society become less healthy and more vulnerable.
> People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic
That's rich. People who want raw milk are sociopaths? Etc? Once again we have name-calling as a way to shut down debate. Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you, and I bet you have done just that. These false equivalences and exaggerations are in fact incitements to violence. You and all who do this should be ashamed of yourselves.
I didn't intend it as name-calling, but as a more literal statement. Not caring about other people's health is a trait often exhibited in sociopathy.
I can understand people wanting raw milk and that's fair enough as it goes, but selling it or providing it to others is risking their health to some degree - this is shown by the relatively high level of people falling seriously ill from drinking raw milk - this is due to the high level of bacteria that is often found in it. If someone does care about the health of others, but believes that raw milk is safe to consume, then it's more a case of ignorance than sociopathy.
> Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you
Hmm, the number found online is that Covid killed 1.2 million in the US, so guessing the shutdown and vaccines probably saved millions. But your take is different. Guessing you disagree with the the 1.2m deaths figure? (not trying to be pushy, just curious on your take)
The 1.2m number is what’s reported, but whether shutdowns and mandates prevented multiples of that is something we can’t actually prove. What we do know is that shutting the country down caused deep economic, educational, and mental-health damage that will take decades to unwind.
I’m not sure it’s right to say we didn’t know what to do. Beaches and playgrounds were closed even though the risk of outdoor spread on surfaces was minimal. Those kinds of choices made the shutdown damage worse without clear public health benefit. We had the science to tell us that viruses don’t survive on beach surfaces for example
It was frustrating to have some of the outdoor ban stuff at a point when it was pretty clear that things were safe in highly ventilated environments. But in my opinion, that was relatively harmless compared to the backlash against common sense precautions, like properly fit N95 masks when sharing enclosed space.
There's a lot of criticism of places that kept schools closed for longer than was necessary, in retrospect. But we really didn't know whether it would always be the case that the risks to children were low. The virus could have mutated in a way that brought more risk. Or there could have been chronic effects that could only be seen after the passage of time. Given the infectiousness of the virus, it could have been so much worse.
I get the vaccine hesitancy. But I think a lot of people were not willing to accept that vaccination is not just about their own safety, but a collective safety issue.
> We had no idea what we were dealing with. It was unprecedented. People were doing the best they could.
So public policy should have reflected that, instead of going into counterproductive authoritarian clampdown mode. In my country the authorities literally switched overnight from threatening to jail parents who took their kids out of school to announcing mandatory school closures.
I don't disagree with you, but the Spanish Flu killed 50 million. That's twice as much as died in WWI. Seems like it was, overall, a reasonable trade off, to save possibly tens of millions, the world went into a protective state.
And the next time this happens (which it probably will given the statistics), the US will probably handle it much better and the lock down will be less severe. I'm Korean American, and something like 10 years before covid, Korea had gone through an earlier pandemic (swine flu?), so when covid hit, it wasn't that big a deal. They already all knew what to do and the lock down wasn't as severe.
Yeah, our lockdown was overkill in many instances, but it was all so new to us. There's a good chance it'll be a lot better managed the next time.
Would you, personally, be willing to die to save the economy? Or is your expectation that others would die to save the economy for you? The opposite end of completely unrestrained COVID spread could've been the Spanish Flu, which decimated and destroyed entire areas.
It’s not about letting people die. The issue is that broad shutdowns caused massive long-term harm, and targeted protection would have been a better balance.
Some would argue that the deaths by covid are the same as every year deaths by other pulmonary infectious diseases. I've read a ton of books and analysis done by statisticians. So I doubt we should have went crazy like we did.
Interesting. Just looked into it and it seems like there are some researchers who estimate the lockdowns saved a lot of lives, but the economic toll and subsequent deaths from this toll may not have been worth it (as you mentioned). But they also said that now, "we have more tools to battle the virus. Vaccines and therapeutics are available, as are other mitigation measures." Implying we wouldn't have to do lockdowns in future pandemics.
So yeah, I do see your point in the lockdowns were probably unnecessary, but as others have mentioned, pandemics were new to the US at the time, and we didn't have the knowledge and procedures on how to best deal with it. Yeah, we did probably go overboard, but what happened is understandable given how deadly Covid was.
We know now that social distancing and masks (for those that are willing) would probably have been enough, as other countries used to pandemics already know, like South Korea.
People who are scared award power to leaders, and leaders use that power to advance their social agenda rather than merely try and solve the problem that scared people. It was ever thus.
Public health is not a technocratic field where there's always clearly one right answer. It presents itself as deciding on things that may hurt individuals but help the collective, and so it naturally attracts collectivists. In other words it's a political field, not a medical one. That then takes them into the realm of sides.
If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it causes every infected person to melt in a puddle of grease with near 100% probability in about a week, with near 100% probability of transmission via any casual contact with infected persons at any stage of their infection. You just watch everyone scramble to the same side!
I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics. However, during the initial COVID outbreak, there was a lack of knowledge and statistics about it, so there was some element of guesswork involved (e.g. face masks may be effective as they help with some other infectious diseases, so let's try wearing them to see if that helps).
There is a difference between 'lets try something out' and we will use the force of law to compel you to do something. A lot of people seem worried about over use of law enforcement but really its not a general problem with law enforcement but rather a problem with what laws are being enforced. They are happy to have law enforcement cracking down on people flouting a mask mandate but less happy when law enforcement is going after shop lifters.
Yes, there's often a lot of discussion about law enforcement priorities.
In general, law enforcement is used to prevent harmful behaviour that disrupts society, so preventing theft is typically high up on the list. I think the people decrying shop lifters being targetted are highlighting the hypocrisy of societies that celebrate people who can steal huge amounts of money (e.g. not paying for work/services provided due to them being a large organisation) and yet demonise people who are struggling to survive and end up stealing food.
I was somewhat on the fence about mask mandates (I'm in the UK by the way) as I didn't think the evidence for masks being effective was particularly strong, but I had no issue with wearing a mask in public as it seemed like a sensible precaution that wouldn't cause me any harm. Then, we had social distancing laws introduced which were fairly draconian, but most people tried to observe them. The real kicker was when Boris Johnson and his cronies were caught not following the laws that he himself had introduced.
I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics
In most debates I follow, each sides have their own statistics to back their reality. And from a purely rational and scientific point of views, statistics do not prove anything when they mean something, they are always manipulated and most qualities of our existence cannot be measured / put into quantities anyway. Stats are not a tool to prove you're right at all.
> Stats are not a tool to prove you're right at all
I agree - stats are a tool to try to figure out non-obvious links and trends to figure out what is actually happening. They can certainly be distorted (see mainstream media), but we shouldn't allow bad actors to prevent us making use of probably the best way to investigate population level effects.
Absolutely not playing a semantic game. I chose my side of this crisis -- but steelmanning your own argument and understanding the other side is good to do
It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.
People without ethical limits = people not wearing masks and not practicing social distancing
weaponize fear and discomfort = get close to others (masked) in public and breathe in front of them
One thing that history shows again and again is people being killed for their beliefs. Charlie always spoke from his heart, from his deeply held intellectual and spiritual beliefs. He died, literally on a stage defending those beliefs.
According to that study, 23% approved of the statement "I approve hostile activism to drive change by threatening or committing violence". It's even higher if you only focus on 18-34 year olds.
This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way.
The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.
I believe that was after 19 students, non-violent protestors, were gunned down by security forces.
It's a tough proposition. The goal is for the elite to have the awareness, humility, and political courage to not let things get so bad. But that point is well before Dauphines lose their heads. It's when peasant children are asking for bread and not getting any. Maybe before even that. Don't reach that tipping point and you won't careen towards the other atrocities.
They were not intentionally killed, the security forces were untrained in the use of rubber bullets and shot them directly at protestors rather than having them ricochet off the ground.
That statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of small arms. If you shoot at someone, regardless of whether you're using less-than-lethal ammunition, death or serious injury is always possible. This was absolutely intentional by the soldiers and those who gave the orders. Don't try to claim it was some kind of accident, regardless of training or lack thereof.
I really love the rising justification as of late of "they didn't know" for reckless manslaughter.
They're called "less lethal" for a reason. It's not a paintball that splatters on impact (and even then, those can also harm). Even a properly shot rubber bullet carries injury risk if you're too close. What's all that police training for?
if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, then they die from injuries caused by the shot you fired, you killed them. what goes on in your little secret heart between you and jesus might matter to you, but to the real world everyone else lives in you killed them. whether you meant to shoot them in a non-killing way is irrelevant, doubly so if you never learned how to but decided you were qualified to do it anyway.
As in the case of the United Healthcare CEO, we are very quick to demonize the immediate violence and killing, and rightly so.
But in doing that, we definitely overlook the many thousand uncountable lives that the behavior of the single person might have indirectly killed.
That is all hypothetical. Everyone with certain level of power and wealth could then hypothetically be accountable to thousands of deaths just by mere action or lack of action. Every single politician with power to decide on budgets could be accounted for it. And that still does not justify the death of any of them.
I agree that it's quite hard to draw a line and it's a slippery slope, but what UH was doing certainly isn't comparable to cutting state budget for political or financial reasons.
>And that still does not justify the death of any of them.
Surely everyone is the physical cause of everything that results his action or inaction? We differentiate the world through all the interactions and then we get some langrange multipliers and whatnot, or we do it more carefully taking non-linear effects into account to still get some notion of responsibility.
Surely these people you mention are in fact responsible, and surely that should make them targets in case they increase deaths, destroy people's potential etc?
Except that United is doing the same thing it was before, with only a few months where they dialed back the pressure until their stock price started lagging.
Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. It removes the process for peaceful and civil change. The protestors had to go there as a result. But revolutions also tend not to result in something better most of the time.
And yet many of the greatest accomplishments of humanity over the past few centuries have been shepherded by violence - abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonizatiom.
Only if you cherry pick. Abolition of slavery in Britain occurred without mass violence or war. Decolonization happened through violence and revolution in some instances. In many others the colonizers simply grew weary of the colonies and left.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but humanity has not abolished slavery. Most recent stats estimate ~28 million people worldwide in the forced labour category that most would mentally associate with the term. That rises to nearly 50 million going by the modern definition that includes forced marriage, child rearing, and subservience without recourse.
Yes, in 2025.
Sadly the United States abolishing slavery for ~4 million within its own borders in the 1860s did not represent humanity as a whole.
On paper the problem is solved because it’s illegal to openly buy and sell another person. In practice the exact same treatment and de facto ownership and exploitation of other people remain without any meaningful enforcement in many parts of the world.
Going from institutionalized forms of slavery common around the globe for thousands of years to the almost complete absence of it in today's world is still a major accomplishment. Three hundred years ago, slavery was seen as natural by many, today that would be an absolute fringe position almost no one would feel comfortable stating out loud. That is progress, even if it is not yet enough.
I’m sure modern slaves appreciate the fact that their situation, while in practice virtually indistinguishable from past eras, is no longer institutionalized.
Prison labor = slave labor, not slavery. Prison = slavery.
I blame how slavery is taught for the confusion. Slavery itself is a legal state where one's autonomy is fully controlled by another. Forced labor is something people commonly use slaves for, but the absence of labor didn't make one free - a slave allowed to retire was still enslaved as was a newborn born into slavery even before they're first made to work.
Many slaving countries were democratic as it was understood at the time. All modern democracies disenfranchise some people e.g. the young, people with criminal convictions in some countries.
At least in the case of the USA, then, there's still no universal democracy. Corporations have far more powerful and influence, in basically every election you can only vote for a neoliberal, and plenty of people get disenfranchised.
> Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible
The use of social media to spread misinformation with a specific agenda also makes democracy impossible.
There has to be a line, however fuzzy, somewhere. Remember Trump used misinformation to steer a crowd who then stormed the Capitol. Incitement should never be covered by free speech protection.
Nepal isn't a good comparison to the US. Nepal has been extremely politically unstable now for years and was wracked by a giant earthquake too. Nepal doesn't have stable governing institutions. In 2001 a disgruntled member of the royal family massacred the rest of the family, kicking off 20 years of instability.
corruption is only made worse by angry mobs tearing things down. what is erected afterwards is almost always worse ironically. the only way corruption is reduced is citizens becoming smarter somehow and slowly allowing the elite to get away with less and less bad behaviour while also creating an intelligent incentive structure for the elites as well as everyone else to drive productive, pro-social behaviour. whats going on in most of the world and nepal is the opposite of that
As you stated, one avenue of resolution has the prerequisite that 'citizens become smarter somehow', however that seems unlikely, particularly since the ruling power is actively sabotaging education.
the common people are cheering on the damage so i wouldnt say it meets the criteria of sabotage. more like enabling it. and yes its unlikely thats why things are so terrible
Kudos for citing actual facts/studies. But these are about sentiment, which in a digital age where personality has been reduced to opinion and thus amplified for effect, might be both manipulated and less significant.
By contrast, acts of bombings and other political violence were both more common and widespread in the 1970's and 1980's than now.[1] In those cases, people took great personal risks.
[Edit: removed Nepal, mentioned in other comments]
"threatening or committing violence" could mean almost anything.
It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?
Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant.
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
If a mafia boss orders a hit, he is no less guilty than the one who pulls the trigger. If a CEO orders vital funds to be withheld from those who are entitled to them, knowing many will die, he is similarly guilty of murder. The mafia boss can be sent to jail, the CEO won't. The corporate veil may keep you pristine inside the cynical circles of power, but all the people see is impunity. When murderers act with impunity, what redress is there but counter-violence?
It is unfortunate, but many people have lost hope the system can change, so revolution is getting more likely, and revolutions are seldom peaceful.
The CEO of a healthcare insurer is not involved in "withholding" funds. At best, he sets up policies that distribute a limited amount of funds among millions of claimants who are all in need of help to some degree, but he does that job poorly. If this juvenile logic is applied further, aren't you guilty of the same crime? There are people in need of life-saving drugs and treatments, yet you're just sitting behind your computer withholding funds.
This sounds like airlines saying they have a right to bump people who paid for a ticket because the airlines couldn't figure out a business model that earned them an acceptable amounts of money without doing it. UHC does that, except instead of denying you the seat you paid for, they deny you care you paid for, and you suffer and die.
The problem is the conclusion that we must allow this so that their business economics can be sound, so that they can continue to exist. We should instead conclude that being horrible to people is bad, and any business model that requires it should not exist.
Brian saw a company that he knew ahead of time was horrible to people, that he knew ahead of time decided that many of their customers must die, and indeed this was critical to the company's economics and business model, and thought, 'You know what? I want to be a part of that. I like that so much that I want to be the one in charge of it.'
Why that job, instead of the millions of others? Well, we can take a gue$$. He had to make his nut, no matter who he hurt along the way, right?
Meanwhile, as an arguably less-horrible person, I see a job posting for startups that use AI to scan terminal cancer patient records for timely funeral business leads in exchange for offering crypto credits that can be applied towards a coupon for palliative care AI chat or whatever, or makes drones and AI systems for tracking and identifying government critics for later persecution, and I have to click 'next' because my soul is worth more than the salary. What a fuckin' chump I am.
1/ There is no "distribute a limited amount of funds". There is even less a "distribute a limited amount of funds after shareholder profit and massive executive paychecks". Customers have bought coverage; if the company overissued policies, they make a loss, or they go bankrupt and their own insurers cover the existing claims. Anything else is privatised profit and socialised losses, which even a callous teenager just blown away by their first glimpse at Ayn Rand should find objectionable.
2/ I carefully said "entitled to" to avoid a debate about personal responsibility and limit the conversation to "paid for a life-saving service they did not receive", which everyone will agree is wrong.
3/ If you think the CEO did not issue orders to make it as difficult to claim as possible, and drag the process as much as possible, you are a fool.
Denying help to a human is one thing. Denying them help after they paid for the help so you can buy a yacht another thing entirely.
Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
Depends on what you consider to be "support", but this report is pretty interesting and says something like 24% of US adults sympathize greatly with Mangione, and 63% have some non-zero level of sympathy for him. Outright approval for his actions isn't directly quantified by this poll but is undoubtedly lower than that 24% figure.
One interesting thing is sympathy for Mangione doesn't seem very strongly influenced by income level or level of education. The two biggest mediators seem to be political alignment and age. It seems the vast majority of US adults under 50 have a significant amount of sympathy for him, with only 28% expressing no sympathy at all.
I think it would be much higher than 23%. I think most people would argue justification in using violence to oppose violence. The question would be what percent view the utilization of profit driven policy resulting in deaths as violence, and I think that too is pretty high.
>Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?
Oh yea. A guy was murdered with an illegal handgun and an illegal silencer. and not one single Democrat usually so hot to call for more gun control did so.
I’d encourage you to do a bit more research. An entire state banned ghost guns and bump stocks following the CEO’s murder, just 9 days after it happened… and it was Democrats, as it always has been, that passed the law over majority Republican objection. You can find loads of articles about Democrats continuing to push for gun reform. https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/gun-reforms-among-m...
Michigan has been trying to ban 3D printed guns for years before UnitedHealth CEO was murdered. That was just during the session and a coincidence, not cause.
> I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt.
Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous.
Also the cost of the funeral was 1.6 billion yen, which is definitely not "a few yen." It's crazy to think that taxpayers would be just fine with that.
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
That incites violence. Thinking we're oppressed when we're living lives that are immensely better than that of any oppressor of the past... We must stop that.
Its sad but most gouvernement also truly don't change (especially when they protect class inequalities) unless theres an actual threat of actual violence through social upset.
I tell you that as a french person.
The myth of possible peaceful changes at the political level is nothing but a myth precisely.
Shooting people like kirk does not seem particularly useful for such goals tho
The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent
When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
You make a good point. For example, the rule of law in North Korea or Equatorial Guinea is whatever the HMFIC says it is. And that's written in law, the police and courts enforce it, all proper and aboveboard in a legalistic sense. Just not in common sense.
As far as the poorest 10%, though: There is always a poorest 10%. And a poorest 50%. If you're in the middle class or higher, you have every reason to prevent the poor from revolting and taking what you have. This can be accomplished by a vast array of carrots and sticks. Some countries lean more toward the carrot - we call them liberal democracies. Autocratic states use the stick.
But although greater wealth inequality may be a good indicator of the tendency of the lowest 10% to become lawless, it is not a good indicator of which method is used to keep them in check. Cuba has pretty amazingly low levels of wealth inequality - essentially everyone's poor. Keeping them from rebelling, however, is all stick, precisely because any kind of economic carrot would undermine the philosophy that it's better for everyone to be poor than to have wealth inequality.
For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states.
Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).
> Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population.
I think it does the opposite. Those services were mostly built during the last century after the war when conditions were just right for people to get those policies implemented. Since then the wealthy have mostly been lobbying against those services, dodging taxes, spreading propaganda justifying the inequality, etc. Now we're seeing the results of this work by the wealthy.
I also think it's wrong to assume the wealthy are the creators of that wealth just because they have it. It can also be the result of using positions of power to get a larger share of a pie baked by a lot of people.
The top 1% of highest income in Canada pays 21-22% of the taxes. Their share of the income is about 10%. So they "rich" are paying for services everyone else is getting.
The top 10% pay 54% (!) of the taxes. Their share of income is about 34%.
The top 0.1% pays about 8-9% of the taxes.
So in Canada the rich are absolutely paying for the services everyone else gets. That's before accounting for their indirect contributions to the economy by running businesses, employing people, taxes paid by companies, etc.
Maybe some random billionaire has some scheme that reduces their taxes. But most of the the rich pay way more taxes than others.
I wouldn't call people working for a salary rich, which most of the people in those groups are. They pay plenty of taxes and many of them probably support funding public services as well. I meant the actually wealthy, who use their political power to reduce those services and the taxes they need to pay. They don't help fund them unless they are forced to, and currently they are not because the political power of their wealth has become larger than the political power of regular people.
Most people in the top 0.1% are quite rich. There are quite a few CEOs and founders of large companies that are billionaires from income they got from those companies (and paid taxes on).
Maybe you need to give me more examples. Who are "actually wealthy" people in Canada who do not pay any taxes whatsoever and contribute nothing to the local economy/country? e.g. they avoid paying GST or HST, they avoid paying property taxes, they don't pay capital gains taxes?
I do agree that some rich people (and also not rich people) campaign for a smaller government and less taxes. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. There is a sweet spot for taxation and taxes in Canada are quite high. It's not a zero sum game (e.g. we have people leaving Canada to go to lower tax countries like the US).
There are many books on this, you can start by picking up eg. Marianna mazucato and rutger bregmann to get some contemporary views.
In unequal societies governance is controlled by less people and they tend to divert money into activities that increase their wealth instead of benefitting everyone - this has in particular happened in the west over the past 40 years.
Everything I see around me, in data and anecdotally, tells me that in my unequal society (Canada) everyone is doing better and governance is not controlled by rich people. The current government that won the elections would not be the preferred government of the ultra rich who want to make a little more money on the backs of everything else (which honestly is not a thing as far I can tell).
Marianna Mazucato's writings look interesting but I'd have to dig in more. Rutger Bregman seems like much less of an expert in the domain and I'm not sure his ideas vibe with me but might take a look.
Thomas Piketty has collected that data. He showed that the rate of return for capital is larger than the rate of growth, meaning capital owners are getting an ever increasing share of the economic output. Income inequality doesn't really account for this, look into wealth inequality. The wealthy are also good at hiding their wealth to avoid taxation and publicity, I'm not sure how much the studies consider that.
"The wealthy are hiding their wealth" sounds like a conspiracy theory. I think we have pretty good visibility into the really wealthy (e.g. we know pretty well who is on the short list of billionaires in Canada and more or less what they own). Banks report any movement of money >$10k, real estate is tracked, company ownership is tracked. That there is some large number of really wealthy people hiding in plain sight doesn't compute. We can't disprove the idea that some person living on the streets in East Vancouver is actually a billionaire hiding their wealth but even if so that percentage of those people in the total population isn't going to move the needle vs. all the known rich people who can't really "hide". If there are ways to legally not pay taxes then we'd hear about them and use them. Billionaires do have some options most of us can't pursue but I think the idea that the rich hide their wealth and don't pay taxes is mostly a myth. Prove me wrong...
This has consistently improved since the 1950's which doesn't seem to support the theory that the broad population is doing worse.
If you think you have a better metric that shows that most people are worse off due to the increasing wealth/income gap then let's see it.
Random by the way is that I just saw an article today about the wealth distribution in Canada and the data point there was that the top percentiles wealth has declined since 2019. Obviously the top 0.1%/1%/10% still own a lot of the total wealth (I think the figure was something like 56% of the wealth in the top 10%) but that's what you'd expect in a free capitalist system.
Another random by the way observation is that I think the ability of some random person to get ahead is probably unprecedented. Never has knowledge been so accessible (Internet) and various means of production be so accessible and cheap (content creators, apps, prototyping equipment, etc.).
So their after tax income is far higher than their share of the population? Give me 50% of a country’s income and I will be more than happy to pay 60% of the tax.
The percentages really don't tell you that much. To illustrate with an extreme exemple, if the top 0.1% earns a million, and the government taxes a single dollar on them and nothing on anyone else, the top 0.1% would pay 100% of the taxes. But it obviously would not be enough to help people in need.
I don't know the particular situation for Canada, but I know that welfare benefits are getting worse in my country (France)
Try for just one minute and don't think about this in terms of money, and you will see why your argument is completely failing.
It is clear that one rich person who leisurely spend their morning getting ready for a business meeting does not provide any care to any elderly.
Your comment is clear example of the type of misinformation that got us here.
In the end money is an institution. You can only get things done, I if someone are willing to take money for work. And that only works when there is a certain level og equality.
Interesting how this is always about how liberal democracy (namely European supremacist nations like yours) who control the world as the global north and are the primary reasons for the “autocracy”
I don’t know where you can even think the bottom 10% of the west/liberal democracies are better than “most” in those other countries. That’s a wild thing to think. Seems like typical western centrism and chauvinism.
The average income in Egypt is ~$1900 USD a year (it's probably worse now but this is a number I've seen). Low income threshold in Canada is about $20k (EDIT: CAD) a year and that's about the bottom 10%.
So not sure what your point is re: wild thing to think. Do you think the average Egyptian is better off than the low 10% Canadian?
How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency? If Liberal democracies so control the world how come some countries have been able to do better (China e.g.)
>> How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency?
This is exactly how I would have responded to the above comment. I'd just add that there is tons of evidence for liberal democracies attempting to help or entice those countries to become less corrupt, more transparent and more democratic. Saying that countries that have been independent of colonial rule for a hundred years, which incidentally were mostly handed democratic systems, have become autocracies because of liberal democracies want them that way is sheer insanity.
Your point about agency should be the standard rebuttal to all forms of third-worldism that attempt to blame homegrown problems on external actors. But having someone external to blame for homegrown repression isn't just post-hoc rationalization. It actually serves to reinforce the oppression in those states, both as a pressure-release valve for autocrats, and the failure to evaluate internal problems serves as an underlying reason why they have not successfully overthrown those regimes and transitioned to democracy.
Mostly, though, that type of talk comes out of the mouths of Westerners who know nothing about the situation in, e.g. Egypt.
As a society we have a capacity to work, and we divide that work using money.
Your observation thst rich people pay for services is indicative of an oligarchy. When rich people pay, then it is not a plethora or small businesses, a democratic chooses government, or a consortium of investors bundling together to do something great.
You are literally pointing out the failure of the west.
I don't think so. This is the success of the west. It's the least worse of all the other alternatives. Which other option has worked out better for everyone?
Oligarchy would be the rich controlling the countries in the west. Other than in people's imagination and conspiracies there is no evidence of that actually happening. Was Trump the favorite candidate of the rich in the US? I very much doubt it. Do the rich gain more influence with their money - sure. But not more influence then the rest of the population. The 99.9% have more influence than the 0.1% in aggregate.
The west is the only place on this planet where the corrupt rich do not have absolute control (see Putin). Is it perfect, no? Is it better than those failed attempts to make everyone equal, strong yes.
The top 0.1%, 1%, 10% are still a lot of people. This includes many successful small businesses, it includes large businesses, it includes many. Those people have varied opinions on how countries should be run, just like all of us. But they also have a vested interest in having a safe and free and well functioning society.
> Hate begets hate; violence begets violence[...]Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate[...]but to win[...]friendship and understanding.
> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence[...]
Well if surveys are to believed the predominant view in the US is that morality is dictated by God. I'm skeptical, but also, I have met people like that.
I think the argument for not committing violence when you are able to do so without any form of repercussion comes down to a morality issue, you don't do it because it is wrong. That works at an individual level, At a societal level you cannot assume all people to be moral. When faced with the inevitability of not all people being moral (or not agree on the same set of morals) you need a secondary reason to prevent violence. I suspect quite a lot of people would accept the morality of violence to prevent more violence. That is where individual morality might weigh in on the aspect of whether violence is appropriate to establish or protect the rule of law.
A more likely explanation is that pro-violence propaganda began swamping social media in 2016, which is 9 years ago. 18 year olds have been exposed to it nonstop since they were 9 and 34 year olds since they were 25.
The people who are disposed to anger and violence move along the radicalization sales funnel relatively slowly. But already once you've shown interest, you start seeing increasingly angry content and only angry content. There is a lot of rhetoric specifically telling people they should be angry, should not try to help things, and should resort to violence, and actively get others to promote violence.
Being surrounded socially by that day in and day out is a challenge to anyone, and if you're predisposed to anger it can become intoxicating.
A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
The same sort of campaigns were run at a smaller scale during the Cold War and have been successful in provoking hot wars.
I think you're right. Couple it with the increasing isolation driven by everyone being online 24/7 in lieu of interacting with each other in person and you have a recipe for disaster. Even though it's possible to be social on the internet, it has a strong distance effect and a lot of groups benefit by forging internet bonds over hatred, criticism, or dehumanization of others (who cares about the "normies"). In addition, in many cases one doesn't even need to interact with people for most needs (amazon etc) further contributing to isolation and the illusion that you don't need others. It's the perfect storm to make the barrier to violence really low—it's easy when you have no connection to the victims and you see them as less than human or as objects "npcs".
Your mention of "normies" and "npcs" reminds me of an unfortunate change I saw happen in autistic communities a few years ago.
Those spaces used to be great places for people to ask questions, share interests, and find relief in a community that understood them. But over just a year or two, the whole atmosphere flipped. The focus turned from mutual support to a shared antagonism toward neurotypical people, who were often dehumanized.
It was heartbreaking to watch. Long-time members, people who were just grateful to finally have a place to belong, were suddenly told they weren't welcome anymore if they weren't angry enough. That anger became a tool to police the community, and many of the original, supportive spaces were lost.
I am not in these spaces so it's nice to get your summary. I agree that is tragic.
I've wondered about this kind of shift being an inevitable response to the growing online trope of autism being the boogeyman used to shill everything from not getting vaccinated to making your kids drink your urine.
The head of us health regularly talks about autistic people as a terrible tragedy inflicted on their parents and a net negative to society. I expect that kind of rhetoric would fuel hostility across any group.
I don't know that but it predates the current head of US health being a major public figure.
At the time I did some data analysis on the usernames of people promoting these ideas. Before the Reddit API changes you could get statistics on subs that had an overlap of users. What I noticed was there was an overlap with fringe political subs. The autistic subs with more anger issues had more fringe political people in it and as the subs became angrier the overlap increased. Inevitably the most vocal and pushy angry people were active in those political subs. You can see similar things with the angrier comments on HN.
I don't think it's an inevitable response to the things you mention. But it may be related. For example there's the term "weaponized autism" [e.g. 0]. That is, politically fringe and extreme groups talk and joke regularly about weaponizing autistic people as trolls. I think the autism forums became part of the recruiting funnel for this sort of extremism. At least that's the hypothesis that seemed to best explain all the factors.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35947316/ # I don't know if this paper or journal are any good. It's just the top hit that seemed relevant. One of the authors is Simon Baron Cohen, a well known autism researcher.
I'm very sympathetic to this as well but I'm curious if you know any leads on research investigating this area as I hesitate to draw a conclusion with a feeling. I participate in a lot of hobbies that have autistic folks in it and I watched the same anger spread into those communities along with the predictable good-vs-evil rhetoric that autistic folks tend to fall into.
Specifically about autism, I don't. There is an academic literature on trolling and social media, which you can find on google scholar or talking to ChatGPT or Gemini for introduction points. The papers I've read haven't been outstanding, but it's better than nothing.
I thought about building tools to track it on Reddit, but with the API changes most of the existing tools have been shut down.
There also used to be sites that tracked foreign influence activity but they've mostly stopped from what I can tell.
I did use some of those tools to track inorganic activity in other forums (not autistic spaces at the time) and got a feel for what inorganic activity looked like. Then when I saw the changes in autistic spaces I was able to see the patterns I had already seen elsewhere.
On Reddit at least, what usually happens is trolls try to become moderators. Or, failing that, they complain about moderators and fork the subreddit to a new sub they can moderate. Typically they'll show up as unproblematic power users for a few months before it becomes clear they're trolls. Once they have moderation powers it's basically over.
At any rate, with LLMs it's impossible to track now. Your best bet if you're interested is to study how it works in known cases and then use your own judgment to decide if what you're seeing matches that pattern.
>A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
Hmm, interesting thesis. I'm aware something like half of the Whitmer Kidnapping plotters were feds/informants, to the point a few were exonerated in trial. There's certainly some evidence the government is intentionally provoking violent actors.
Yes that's correct. In particular, not just run of the mill division, but impersonating right and left wing militants both calling for violence.
For example, just one that turned up at the top of a quick Google search
> And the analysis shows that everyone from the former president, Dmitry Medvedev, as well as military bloggers, lifestyle influencers and bots, as you mentioned, are all pushing this narrative that the U.S. is on the brink of civil war and thus Texas should secede from the United States, and that Russia will be there to support this.
These studies are interest but should equally be interpreted as the desire for change - and I think it is reasonable to say that there is a huge desire for change.
In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality.
If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.
If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media:
> If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms"
He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd. It is way different from "gun deaths are worth having the 2nd amendment".
The implicit part of your question was answered. I just ignored the part where you misparaphrased parent.
He didn't say Kirk advocated violence but that he was indifferent towards it in favor of the 2nd amendment. Isn't it interesting how a pro-lifer like Kirk didn't care that much about lives if it's about gun ownership?
Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.
The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives".
It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur.
He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either.
> the price of allowing a population to arm themselves
It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about.
So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives.
By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you.
Sure. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and have lived in the US for 2.
In London, someone grabs your phone, threatens to take your watch with a machete, or tries to rape your child. In New York someone marches down the street wanting to punch anyone that gets close. You let yourself be victimised and then report it.
In Texas, they generally don't do these things because they might get shot. People defend themselves.
In exchange, we accept there will be some unwanted violence. Kirk made an analogy here: we don't want road deaths, yet we don't ban cars. We don't want school shootings, but we don't ban guns.
South Africans in London have similar perspectives regarding being able to defend themselves.
London has got worse, that is true. Or at least, that is the impression you get from the media. Personally, I lived in central London for years and didn't feel unsafe.
But the rest of the UK is extremely safe. Compared to the US? Very! And we don' have guns to defend ourselves. How does that work? And it is the same in many, many countries that don't have guns - a lot safer than the US.
So that argument for guns just doesn't work. There must be something deeper to it. It must really be something that triggers a deeper response in people.
London has gotten worse, do you think this is debatable today? Plus I do not think that the "I feel safe" has much merit. It has some, but not that much. What if I told you I did not feel safe in London? You felt safe in some area, I did not feel safe in some other. I do not think this conversation would be fruitful if we focused on this alone.
Check the statistics[1] with regarding to robbing, knife crimes, homelessness, and so on. Perhaps that is a better starting point?
I have been told by many locals to not wear an expensive watch around designer stores, or touristic hotspots because robbery happens on a daily basis, it depends on the time of the day and which day it is, of course.
I have watched many YouTubers visiting London as well and they tell quite the story, too.
I had two terrorist attacks on my neighbourhood (London bridge) and one on the way to work (Westminster bridge) in fifteen years. If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot.
You're a programmer. You understand statistics. I think your ideology is clouding your ability to talk about this honestly. From the very casual look I took, you're 4 times more likely to die as a result of violent crime in the US than the UK.
So picking these incidents and citing them as a reason for owning guns, while ignoring the whole picture strikes me as dishonest.
I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.
In any case, I think the argument that was brought forward in favor of guns does not hold true universally for every places. For example, in Hungary, you do not need guns as a deterrent.
Perhaps London would benefit from it, I actually have no idea and I do not know if I could have any way of telling.
> I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.
It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe. Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.
I live in the UK. It is objectively safer to live in the UK where we are not allowed to own guns. To us, it is absurd to claim we need guns to be safer when we look at what actually happens in the US as a result of guns.
I don't think this is really a controversial take.
That is why the argument for gun ownership actually happens at a deeper level in the psyche.
It is not a cherry-picked example at all. That is the essence of the mentality. It is used as a deterrent. If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot.
I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?
I am Eastern European, no guns here either, and as I said, it may not universally apply to all countries, or even cities within one country.
> I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?
Sure, I can read English, I can understand the actual English words you're typing and the point you're trying to make. I just think it isn't true, and an honest reading of statistics would show that.
But I don't think we're going to get honesty here.
This does not imply what I said though, it just confirms that more guns does not imply more gun violence.
You did not leave an answer to "If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot." though.
You wanted to know the mentality behind it, and this is the mentality behind it, so now you know why people say and believe these things. As I previously have said, this probably cannot be universally applied to all countries, but it theoretically could be, especially if we consider the fact that "more guns -> more gun violence" is just simply not true. I have a feeling it is a cultural thing. How come Serbia (among other countries) have lots of guns yet no firearm-related violence? Many other countries have much less guns per 100 people (as per statistics), yet gun violence is through the roof. We have to look at it from many different aspects. We need ask ourselves "why?" or "why that is?", what are the differences? What are the cultural differences?
Just to be sure, I am not in favor of guns, but I do believe in that guns can be a deterrent in some places at the very least, and we know that more guns do not lead to more firearm-related homicides, so theoretically it could work in some or many places. I do not know much about Serbia. I wonder how come they have lots of guns yet barely any related crimes.
> It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe.
It obviously makes the argument that Texas isn’t New York or London and has little street crime, as a result of gun ownership. You wanted to understand the mentality? That’s the mentality. No road men in Austin.
> Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.
Yes you can. That’s a fine argument, I agree with it. I’ve made comments about not wanting to die because someone had a bad day earlier in this thread supporting exactly this argument. You’re arguing with someone else rather than reading my responses.
What ideology? I thought we were having a civil discussion of how the UK compares to the US.
The US has a lot of violent cities, I live in NY (in a very good area) and there’s still more street violence than you’d expect in a similar area in London. But that’s a coastal city. People don’t have guns here.
If someone walked down the street in Austin threatening to kill people that wouldn’t happen. Honestly.
I think you're making disingenuous arguments, which is why I attributed it to ideology. But you're correct, this just started off with a casual comment from me, so I don't think I should be going into that territory, apologies.
Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.
I’m not sure if I have an answer one way or the other - I’d like it if I could buy milk in NY without someone threatening violence, and don’t think it’s right for jihadists to stand in the middle of London saying they’ll kill all the jews without the police doing anything, but I also don’t want to live somewhere where someone snaps and they have access to an automatic weapon.
Check out both tables and you will see that the facts do not say what you think they say, at all.
Homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants (2017):
Jamaica - 47.857
United States - 3.342
Serbia - 0.415
Ranking by country for civilian-held firearms per 100 population (2017):
Jamaica - 8.8
United States - 120.5
Serbia - 39.1
Those are just to compare three countries, but you will see a similar trend for all other countries.
It shows that Serbia has loads of guns, yet barely any firearm-related homicides, whereas Jamaica has much less guns, yet homicide rates by firearm are way higher than the US.
Thus, the statement that "More guns -> More gun-related violence" is evidently false.
I live in central London. It mostly feels safe although I did get a phone snatched once.
I also visited Austin Texas and spent a night staying in the center on 6th street and didn't feel safe. Aggressive black guys shouting and stuff. I googled that location when I got to the lodging and someone was shot there a year earlier.
I guess it depends the area but I wouldn't say guns have made Texas a haven of peace.
Bingo. Same logic applies to car jackings or home invasions. Just the fact that the next potential victim could be armed and many states have laws that allow victims to use lethal force to defend themselves has a massive deterrent effect.
Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license.
What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns?
According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety.
I'm very late to this thread, because I just didn't have anything I felt was valuable. But now i have.
At first I also had thr reaction of thinking "he asked for it" , and all that schadenfreude feeling.
However, now I think it was a great loss and hope the killer gets the whole extent of the law.
See, in a society that is tending more and more to the extremes, polarization and radicalism, we NEED people to TALK.
Being from outside of the US, I don't know the ideas this guy was spewing; However, from what I've read, what he did was basically talking and debate. We need that. We need to be open to talk ideas, even if we dont agree. Where are we when someone who speaks his mind gets killed for that?
I am socialist and anti-US-imperialism in general, but I tend to frequent r/conservative and r/ccw and even patriots.win subteddits. Because im interested in a different point of view.
I get sad that most posts in r/conservative block externals, as I would love to interact in some of the posts. But... after this guys assassination... I dont blame them. People should feel safe to talk and discuss their ideas.
I'm to stupid to be able to debate against this guy, or the other guy.that speaks too fast and always looks angry (anti abortion American dude). But ... why isn't someone smarter and with opposing views debating them?. We need it.
I don’t disagree with your point overall but the sad reality is that Charlie Kirk was not there to have a discussion. He went around trolling people and provoking big responses at universities so he could farm it out on social media. A huge part of his income was being a troll.
That does not mean he deserved to die. He didn’t. But he did not die undergoing some noble endeavor or engaging in free speech in some profoundly brave way.
But that's my point. Where is the guy with the opposing view and sharp tongue that's able to talk back to him? The fact that its monetized is good. Talking should be attractive to people. I'm all in favor of that.
But it’s not talking it’s rage baiting and selectively clipping your successes, deleting the failures, and using the former to stoke flames online for profit.
Modern political commentators and influencers are strategic about who they will engage with and how they engage.
You can see this with Ben Shapiro when he walked out of an interview with conservative BBC host, Andrew Neil. Shapiro was unprepared for a real challenge and his go-to of speaking fast, gish galloping, and calling out the “radical left views” of his opponent didn’t work because the host was a conservative.
It always baffles me how indignant people like Shapiro get when you simply read their words back to them. They act like you sprung a bear trap around their ankle and are viciously mocking them while they bleed out on the ground. It’s this performative outrage that is meant to distract you from what they’re outraged about, which again is simply quoting what they said. They depend on being able to try on opinions like hats and discard them when they no longer fit the specific argument they are engaging in in that moment, and they get mad when they can’t swap hats.
The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor.
I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.
That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?
Feels like your second paragraph negates the first. That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual, using the backdrop of college campuses to lend legitimacy to his divisive ideas. That is not what college campuses are for, and it is not a debate.
I’m not American, I never heard of this guy before. But I saw the video of the last moments and it’s a telling snippet. He was incredibly dismissive in his answers which were vague and devoid of information, while being clearly rage bait meant to be cheered on by his base.
As I've said in a few other comments, I agree it's a poor "debate". But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere. I hope for better, but I can't help but think his killing doesn't help.
>But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere.
Why can't we strive for a proper environment and expel those who don't want to foster it? Schools are not entitled to give "equal platform" to unequal ideas.
He didn't deserve to die but I don't like how racist rhetoric somehow became honest political discussion. The elevation of racist ideology to being just another political opinion deserving of respect worries me.
> That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual
I'm not convinced political debates are good for anything else. Most people believe in things without really thinking about them. Especially politics.
If you stop and actually reason this stuff out, you're going to reach some deeply disturbing conclusions which border on wrongthink. If you try to spread the nuggets of truth you discovered, you just fail miserably at first. People will not be convinced.
They probably won't really refute you either. Maybe it's because you're right, maybe it's because they didn't even think about what you said and just responded emotionally, there's no way to know for sure because trying to test ideas in debates just doesn't work with the vast majority of human beings.
If you insist on this path, people start thinking you're acting superior to them with your unconventional ideas. At some point you start getting flagged and downvoted on sight. Then you start getting personally called out. Labeled as some "extremist". Maybe one day you become such a nuisance authorities actually knock on your door and arrest you. Maybe your ideas offend someone so much they assassinate you.
So I don't blame this guy at all for debating like a politician. If he debated seriously and won, would his opponents revise their entire belief systems and start following his logical footsteps? Of course not.
The Chomsky-Ali G debate is also worth watching. For other reasons perhaps.
There are better and worse debates but I question the validity of an argument about the quality of debates of someone who likely got shot for a political argument.
At least his argument seemed to hit some spot. (I don't know a single one, didn't even know the victim).
Are you expecting that all debates reach the level of a Chomsky-Foucault debate and to discard anyone below it?
Are you even able to meet that level yourself? This is non-sense. Obviously we all would love to reach that level of knowledge, introspection and speaking capability of Chomsky/Foucault, but it is absurd to expect it at all times.
It is not just about quality but how they are fundamentally different. One appears to be a debate the other is a debate. The person who got flagged made the same point which I responded to.
Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles.
It is like comparing a mediocre magician who is ok at giving an illusion of a debate that gets a reaction from an audience vs people who give thought provoking points.
A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?".
The whole point is you either answer A) no, and get a reaction from the audience for looking bad cause hitler or B) yes, and now you have conceded.
What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make.
If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't.
This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing.
The problem in his argument is not that there is objective morality. It's that whatever strain of Christianity he belongs to today is the source of objective morality.
That's not the trick here. The trick is that the format of his talks - and the typical lack of preparation on the part of the typical college student - prohibits nuanced answers.
The correct answer there (to someone who, unlike me, does not believe in objective morality) is something like "I oppose everything Hitler did and stood for. Notwithstanding that, your question is incoherent." What unprepared 20 year old comes up with that on the spot? Much less be prepared to back it up, only in sound bites (because that's what works in the format)?
If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious?
> If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion?
You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral.
Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality.
You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes.
If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic.
> Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating.
No but having the student admit objective morality exists is debating. You know this. I know you know this. You know the audience reaction is to the person losing the point too. You know you are being deceitful pretending the audience reaction is the debating technique not the actual technique that caused the reaction. I know you are being deceitful too. Stop posting, go outside.
Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds".
It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate.
Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans
The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals.
Yes when one political party is using his death as an opportunity to manufacture a martyr for free speech. If they are going to say, "we need more people like him," then we are right to critically assess who he was.
Sure. Our own mainstream media is very guilty of doing the same things with regard to editing down reality for the sakes of entertainment or pushing an agenda. I guess one admirable difference, to offer him some defence, is he is an appproachable guy. Literally. If you so disired you could go and view his debates or even debate him yourself. He has the right to make himself look good on his own channel.
He was only approachable as long as you were feeding him content. Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour.
I read an account of the "debate" immediately preceding his murder, it was quips and dodges. If that's at all representative of his conduct, he actively hurt the national dialogue by convincing people that that's what a debate looks like.
Steelmanning that position, though, would go like this. The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind. Good debate makes good viewing, which is why debates have audiences. And young people in particular tend to be impressionable because they don't have a lifetime of commitment to one position.
So if you want to engage people politically via debate, then university campuses are a good place to do that and thus - to someone extraordinarily uncharitable - any such debate could be described as "trolling immature leftist college students to score YouTube views". The same activity done by an academic would be described as "presenting the youth with mind-expanding dialogue", and they'd be doing it to score tuition fees, but nobody would quibble with that phrasing.
> The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind.
Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together. Unless you're very, very careful and good faith, and your counterpart is very, very careful and good faith, debates are a race to the bottom of psychological manipulation. They're not contests of facts; there's no way to objectively score them; they're not good ways for participants or bystanders to learn.
Facially, they're theater. But a system's purpose is what it does, and these performances serve as a venue/foundation to hone/push messaging. You'll almost never see right-wing "debaters" go up against "big" left-wing names like an Ezra Klein or Destiny (Ben Shapiro is kind of the exception, but he's far more conciliatory with someone like Klein--he did do one with Destiny, it went pretty badly for him, so it of course became a one-time thing).
Kirk et al lose--they lose frequently! You rarely see it because they have far bigger megaphones than their victorious rivals. But have these (many) losses changed their views? No. Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together.
Debates SHOULD be about 2 parties seeking truth. In reality, it's about brining people over to your viewpoint and garnering support.
There's many ways to do that, but centuries of debate etiquette describe bad form and dishonest means to "win a debate". Despite the events here, it is generally bad form in an exchange of words to incite violence against an opponent. And that's often what Kirk does, or did.
>Facially, they're theater. But a system's purpose is what it does, and these performances serve as a venue/foundation to hone/push messaging
Yes. Before we sigsrcoated it, we just called this propaganda. Propaganda is not a debate. The most dangerous discovery in early social media was that a spewing of propaganda (aka, arguments not all based on reason nor a goal to further humanity) will still get you a following, no matter how badly you use. Becsuse saying those words rouse the thoughts of those who are either prone to propaganda, or simply embolden those who already had those thoughts but werre too scared to admit it.
A decade of refinement later, and look where we are.
One could say the same about this very debate you're participating in. And since that's how you see debates, one has to immediately assume that you're not acting in good faith.
A position like his doesn't really take well to steelmanning… It's not really the kind of viewpoint that's meant to be spelled out explicitly. You're supposed to shroud it in euphemisms.
I guess the steelmanned version of his beliefs would be something like, "racial and sexual minorities are an enemy to the white Americans who own this country; they threaten things we value about our culture and society, and we have no obligation to tolerate or accommodate them if we don't want to."
He spoke out against the Civil Rights act. He said the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory (that immigration is a deliberate attempt to dilute and ultimately replace the white race) is "not a theory, it's a reality." He said the Levitican prescription to stone gay men is "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Social_policy)
Coverage of Kirk's killing has largely skirted around his views, because to describe them at all feels like speaking ill of the dead. If you bring up the fact that Kirk was a loathsome hatemonger, it somewhat tempers your message that political violence is never acceptable
He absolutely shouldn't have been murdered and the rise of political violence is terrifying for the country's future.
However, he has directly stated that empathy is bad and that shooting victims are an acceptable price to pay to avoid gun control.
I refuse to feel sympathy for someone who vigorously argued against doing anything to prevent what happened to him and who vigorously argued against caring about the people it happened to.
The terms mean different things, and he is very clear that one is good and the other is bad in his eyes, and that’t the reason for his opposition to the use of the one term.
His argument was that we shouldn't disarm just because evil exists and guns can be mis-used. Using that as a way to suggest his death is justified or whatever people are implying is just gross and disgusting. Dude was 31 years old and had 2 young kids and simply went and talked to people. He was assassinated in front of his family for nothing more than talking. Nothing that he ever did was even close to deserving violence. If people can't take someone politely debating their ideas, then they're a whiny entitled baby and they're the problem.
People that don't like Charlie don't need to have sympathy for him, but not having sympathy and being douche bags in mass is something totally different.
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually," he continued. "I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."
As one of the people against whom his hate was routinely monged, I agree wholeheartedly. I won't mourn him personally because he was proud to tell us all how thrilled he would be if me and my partner got what he got, but I'm also not gonna engage in the gloating and performative grossness that the more hideously online seem to enjoy whether they're left or right. The people I love aren't safer because of this. In fact, we've already been tried and found guilty.
He wasn't even a hate monger though? Just because he was a republican means he's a hate monger and racist? I don't get it. I haven't seen one person accusing him of this stuff actually cite a quote that seemed like hate speech or racism? They just don't like facts being used in a debate that hurt their feeling. It's ridiculous. People need to grow up. There is a complete lack of maturity on the part of his critics. They want to live in a censored thought bubble and don't value the first amendment (or seem to understand it).
> I haven't seen one person accusing him of this stuff actually cite a quote that seemed like hate speech or racism?
You can peruse the "political views" section on his Wikipedia page if you want something comprehensive, but here's an example for you to chew on:
In one podcast interview, Kirk cited Leviticus 20:18 (he paraphrases as "if thou liest with another man, thou shalt be stoned") and called it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." That's a pretty explicit endorsement of the death penalty for sodomy. If that isn't hate speech, what is?
> They [...] don't value the first amendment (or seem to understand it).
I think you're the one misunderstanding it. The first amendment protects people from government censorship, not infamy and disgrace.
> A position like his doesn't really take well to steelmanning… It's not really the kind of viewpoint that's meant to be spelled out explicitly. You're supposed to shroud it in euphemisms.
> I guess the steelmanned version of his beliefs would be something like, "racial and sexual minorities are an enemy to the white Americans who own this country; they threaten things we value about our culture and society, and we have no obligation to tolerate or accommodate them if we don't want to."
What you are doing here is quite literally the opposite of steelmanning.
Here's an attempt to steelman just one of the things you bring up: the great replacement theory.
The United States, like many developed nations, is experiencing a fertility crisis: it doesn't produce enough families and resulting children to sustain it's current population.
The US could take steps to address the underlying problems that result in declining fertility for it's current population, but it's unlikely to do so for several reasons that all boil down to political realities where the people that are most incentivized to vote (retired people who earn social security) would probably bear the brunt of the (significant) costs of such solutions. See the idea of "concentrated benefits, diffuse costs".
So instead the US uses immigration to fill the gap left by declining fertility rates (an option not equally available to all developed countries), resulting in young US citizens continuing to struggle to form families, and producing a fraying of the social fabric that such an inability to form families is likely to have on a society.
So you can see why some people would be duped into such a conspiracy theory, which purports to explain what people are seeing with their very eyes.
That's not really steelmanning. You can't steelman a position by saying it's not the real position but it dupes the rubes.
The great replacement theory is the theory that there is an intentional effort to dilute or replace the capital-W White, meaning the historical English/Scottish/Scotch Irish, population of the US, with immigrants and former slaves, and it usually involves a part that says that it is being done to weaken the country against its international competitors. A third part that is usually involved is that the process is being facilitated by and for the benefit of people like "international bankers", "cosmopolitans", "elites", etc., terms which have an antisemitic history.
To steelman it, you would have to steelman at least the intentional dilution part. Not just to say that it is hard to meet our demand for labor without immigration but that someone is coordinating it. Further, I don't think it has any meaning without the part that says it is being done to weaken the country, which you would have to show that not only would it weaken the country, but that is the intention of these coordinators.
Without that, you just have a demographic argument. If "Whites" do not have many children, and the population would otherwise shrink as a whole, while immigration is needed to satisfy demand for labor, then their proportion will shrink, but it is not "great replacement" without it being intentional/directed.
Not of the conspiracy itself (I'm not interested in that, since the literal version isn't even well agreed upon by most of its believers) but of the observable pressures that make the conspiracy attractive.
I think I could convince an average believer in the great replacement theory (who would be a casual believer that doesn't know many of the specific details you've listed at length of the "official" version) that my restatement of the issue is what they're actually concerned about. In fact, I have had productive conversations with right wingers who express such a casual belief in this theory by telling them what I've written here in the comment you're replying to.
>So instead the US uses immigration to fill the gap left by declining fertility rates
Because that is working so good for Europe? At some point you need to understand that replacing a population is not the solution for low fertility population.
I think we agree, but in case I wasn't clear I will restate this more plainly: patching over the problem of fertility with immigration is toxic to the social fabric of a nation.
If anyone reads this and think it's not the fault of the politicians, or at least the boomers for "not wanting to help their children/grandchildren", it's pretty clear that their goal wasn't to solve the fertility crisis.
On top of that I don't even think most boomers need to be inconvininced. Increase capital taxes, remove the ceiling for SS taxes, give wokers a 4 day workweek, raise minimum wage, invest in 3rd places. A few steps give people the time and energy to meet and make families.
But it seems like we really will just go to civil war before we make sure rich people contribute to the nation.
I disagree that the measures you're suggesting will move the needle on fertility, since they will be enjoyed by singles, dinks, and families alike.
If you want more children you have to reward mothers directly and significantly in line with their potential earnings. Not a paltry few thousand dollars, but more than enough to offset the price of daycare in hcol cities. I want to mimic social security but for families, and that means concentrated benefits (that directly incentivize voting turnout and interest group formation).
At the same time I want our country to continue to be competitive globally when it comes to business, and not turn into whatever Europe has become. We can't just add this as a line item to our budget. We are not that rich and we have financial problems that are looming.
If a Baptist tells me I’m sinning because I smoke and drink whiskey, I don’t hate him, I just dismiss him. If Charlie Kirk said a male cannot be a woman, then the response was hate and was felt to be completely justified.
The hate mongering is from those who bow down to the zeitgeist of the age.
My hope is that Charlie Kirk bravely speaking the truth in the face of so much hate, even though it cost him his life, inspires many more to not fear for their lives to speak the truth, and raise their kids to be the same, until society turns and rejects what is false.
It's just that a lot of people argue badly, either because of lacking skill or lacking goodwill.
That doesn't mean their arguments are necessarily wrong. It is necessary to try to reframe such badly made arguments in a way that presents the message properly in order to be able to actually compare competing ideas and find truth.
If you compare one well-crafted argument to a poorly crafted argument, the well-crafted argument would seem to come out on top even if its underlying ideas were actually wrong.
E.g. if I say "Apples are good because my grandma loved apples and you are stupid!"
And my opponent says "Apples are bad because there are other fruits that can be grown much more efficiently and feed people better"
Then my opponent would probably "win" the argument. But that doesn't mean apples are actually bad. Try to remake the argument for why apples are good in a better way, in order to fairly compare the two sides and find the truth.
I've seen this jargon around and use it myself but now that you ask I'm not sure where I first saw it.
tl;dr - good faith requires you to understand and do your best to represent the other side, not cherry pick sneaky "wins"
When I use the term my intent is to frame the opposing argument as strongly and clearly (and fairly!) as possible so that you can make your own point strongly and fairly. The critique of a "strawman argument" is a metaphor about arguing/fighting a training dummy instead of an actual enemy, usually by addressing only part of an argument or by ignoring context or using logical fallacies like motte and baily or false dichotomies. The idea is that it's very easy to look like your point wins when you fight the scarecrow; if it's actually a good argument face it off against the knight in armor actually fighting back.
I use steelmanning to connect across cultural divides. This way I don't end up writing off half the country as deplorables. If I simply wrote them off in this way it would be contributing to the decay of our social fabric. So instead I intend to mend the social fabric by attempting to understand the emotional place that these deplorable ideas come from, which by themselves are often quite reasonable. Isolation is often how people end up with these ideas, so it's important to connect to them, and ultimately to love them.
That goes for both sides of our political system, and beyond to the rural urban divide, the gender divide, the racial divide, the class divide, etc.
I think I found out about by reading rationalist stuff. E.g. Less wrong and slatestarcodex.
The kind of individual who shoots someone for saying things he doesn't like is a narcissist.
Ideas anger narcissists because if they are counter to what they already believe, they are a personal affront, and if they cannot reason the challenge away because - quite simply, they're wrong and the other person is right - it creates a great anger in them.
And narcissism is prevailing in our culture currently. People far prefer to call the other side bad, stupid, etc, rather than introspect and consider that maybe you're not that smart, and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness.
The problem of course is that the only way opposing narcissists can overcome each other is by force. So there'll be less argument, and more go-straight-to violence.
>and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness.
I have coworkers lying low so they don't get deported from the country. And many were born here. I beyond exhausted of this "both sides" narrative as if I need any introspection on the prospect of "maybe we should exile people based on skin color".
Can you explain your argument further? I don't think it makes much sense, and I think you would struggle to find actual sources blaming narcissism outside your own conjecture.
A world where pugilism prevails over debate would look markedly different. I doubt Kirk would bother holding events if any of what you said was fundamentally true about politics.
There are a number of outspoken people on the other end of the political spectrum from me, that I vehemently disagree with. While I would love to see their words either ignored or condemned by the masses; I have no desire to see them killed or harmed in any way.
I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Either committing or supporting violence against those we disagree with, has no place in a civil society.
> I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way.
Agreed. Sadly the leader of one side openly and repeatedly calls for violence against anyone who disrupts his speeches [0]. The former leader of the other side condemns political violence and even calls his opponent after an attack out of concern for his welfare. [1]
This is a really disingenuous and biased selection of sources. One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc.
Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard.
>One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics
Show me one example of any of those figures you listed inciting violence. I'm waiting. "inflammatory rhetoric" is not the same as saying "the Left is a national security problem"
Ok, since you are waiting, I'll spend a few minutes fetching you easily available quotes.
Obama:
- "If they bring a knife to the fight, we're going to bring a gun." [0]
Biden:
- "If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him" [1]
- "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." [2]
- the whole "Darth Biden" event speech was filled with statements framing political opponents as enemies of the country, kinda sinister from the head of the most powerful state in the world, no? ("Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.", etc) [3]
Waltz:
- "When it’s an adult like Donald Trump, you bully the shit out of him back." [4]
- "I tell you that... because we need to whip his butt and put this guy behind us." [5]
Newsome:
- "But right now, with all due respect, we’re walking down a damn different path. We’re fighting fire with fire. And we’re gonna punch these sons of bitches in the mouth." [6] (apologies for the Twitter link, didn't find direct video elsewhere)
Those comments are in poor taste. Biden himself apologized after the attempt on Trump's life.
That said, these pale in comparison to Trump's many, many endorsements of or acceptance of violence. Even mocking an attack on Pelosi's husband. I've never heard Trump apologize for his words, actions, or inactions. He could not even be bothered to call the governor of a state whose elected representatives were attacked, saying even to speak would be a "waste of time". Only when one of his sycophants is harmed does he suddenly see a serious problem.
In fact Trump pardoned those who violently attacked national police as the attackers sought to disrupt the transfer of power. (Some of whom went on to rape and murder others.) The very people he urged to "fight like hell", and he endorsed by waiting to see whether they would succeed before changing his tune.
Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
Trump acts like a mob boss. Doing and saying whatever he wants, and punishing those who oppose him with whatever means he thinks he can get away with. Even boasting that his supporters would stand by him if he shot someone on a famous public street.
Sure, they are in poor taste. What is telling, however, is bias: Trump gets labelled as 'fascist' for saying 'fight like hell', but Waltz just gets a pass because for the exact same words, because that was just poor taste.
It is also telling that you weren't content with just stopping after the words 'disrupt the transfer of power', but felt necessary to add smear about rape and murder. I am not willing to even verify the veracity of this claim, and will just ask you this: how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right? Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support?
> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
No, they don't. They do, however, openly prosecute their political adversaries for fabricated crimes. It was quite characteristic that democrat-friendly talking heads spent months in late 2020-early 2021 how Trump is going to issue a presidential pardon for himself and his allies, and then Biden, four years later, did just that.
I am not Trump supporter. I'm just telling you that you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil. That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all!
> Trump gets labelled as 'fascist' for saying 'fight like hell', but Waltz just gets a pass because for the exact same words, because that was just poor taste.
Waltz should not speak that way. Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed. Waltz also doesn't express the desire to be a dictactor, plans to give police unlimited power, ask foreign governments to hack his opponents for his gain, shake down foreign leaders for dirt on his opponents and their families, or openly weaponize the DoJ / ICE / IRS to persecute anyone who opposed him.
>> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
> No, they don't.
I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count?
> ...how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right?
Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder?
> Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support?
If there is a discussion on political violence and how seriously leaders handle it, then I'd say the consequences of pardoning such actors is in scope.
> ...you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil.
If there is a disagreement, then thinking the other person may be wrong is common, no? I don't presume every disagreement is because of stupidity or evil. Though I do believe evil exists (not in any spiritual sense), and that evil is more manifest in some actions than others. Assassination is quite evil for example. I try not to hold any beliefs too strongly, since I've been very wrong in the past.
> That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all!
You know what inspired Kirk's killer? Perhaps you should inform the FBI. I'll wait for the facts because it's not clear to me what motivated this attacker. It's just as likely he played a lot of Helldivers, surfed 4chan, and thought Kirk wasn't far enough to the right.
That said, rhetoric like mine is far less likely to inspire violence than say a "Professor Watchlist" which--in practice--functions something like a who-to-harrass-or-kill list.
> Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed.
Yeah, tweeting non-stop urges for protesters to stay peaceful. It is a certain kind of delusion to think that this 'riot' was at attempt to overthrow the state. Of course, Democrat propaganda bent over themselves to present it that way, but anyone with critical thinking understands, that even if Capitol was taken over by the unarmed protesters, then what? Oh, Senate would capitulate and declare Trump God Emperor? Please.
If we stop talking about fabricated mythology of a horribre horrible coup attempt, and look at reality, Jan 6 riot was a relatively peaceful affair, far more peaceful than BLM protests from the previous summer. I happened to watch it all live, on youtube, as it happened, it culminated in QAnon shaman strolling down the halls saying 'God bless you' to every security guard who were just standing there and doing nothing.
It is no wonder that all these livestreams were promptly scrubbed off all social media afterwards, because if anyone would watch it, as it happened, the narrative of a coup would just fall apart.
> I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count?
I don't know who are the first two, but Eric Adams is a name I know, and from what I understand he mas prosecuted after he broke ranks with the Dems on the migration issue.
So yeah, they prosecute insignificant pawns and those who broke rank, and they also fabricate criminal cases against their chief political opponents, trying to deny him the right to be a candidate in presidential elections. However, these attempts were found unconvincing by the supreme jury - people of the US, whe majority of whom voted to re-elect Trump as president.
> Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder?
Why would he need to pardon people who were neither prosecuted nor convicted?
You would struggle to find a single example for any of those. Find two inflammatory quotes for each.
There hasn’t been a day in the last decade that Trump wasn’t making the news for a new insanely inflammatory remark—including in the last 48 hours. To help you remember when that was: that’s when he called for War on an American city, using the visual language of Apocalypse Now, a movie about war crimes. That was in the same breath as his new “Secretary of War” detailing that war would be violent, pro-active and excessive. This is true for almost everyone in his cabinet: daily dehumanizing remarks, threats, calls to attack.
One vs. many thousands: There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.
You want to prove me wrong? Give me one date, a single date in the last ten years and if I can’t find Trump publicly insulting to someone that day, I’ll concede.
The only examples of call to violence you can find are people quoting Trump and his enablers, or mocking their style. Those horrible things you read? Those insanely callous dismissal of Charlie Kirk, victim of gun violence? Those are quotes of Charlie Kirk, reacting to mass shootings.
You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.
> There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.
Not really.
One can only agree with this statement if he considers that calling Trump and his supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc, is not an inflammatory rhetoric, but a totally acceptable objective truth that just truthfully describes them. (Btw, do Nazis deserve to be shot on sight?)
However, if one doesn't consider this an objective truth, but a violent dehumanizing rhetorics, then suddenly he finds that one side routinely smears the other in the worst ways possible, and that the total amount of such rhetoric vastly drowns the messaging from another side.
> You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.
That's a nice straw man you made. Please, refrain from messaging me again, if you don't plan to argue in good faith.
you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this
And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then
> it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history.
I'm not from the US, and do not have a horse in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
(btw, speaking from my non-US experience, when a leader is cuddled by the press, it is a bad sign, not a good one)
Of course, the press does cuddle its darlings. Compare any first-term Trump's press conference with Biden's press conference: a pack of wolves that screamed and shouted suddenly morphed into cute fawning puppies: "what kind of ice cream do you like, mr president?"
Regarding your accusation that I work for Kremlin, you should be ashamed of yourself to say such things to a person who was literally beaten by Putin's polizai for protesting his policies. In your simplistic mindset, anyone who has a differing opinion from you surely must be a paid troll working for evil people. It is very fitting that you exhibit this attitude in a discussion about a person who was killed for his views. Should I be shot, too? I surely have it coming, right?
The word you are looking for is coddle, not cuddle. You cuddle a pet or a spouse. You coddle your favorite politician with preferential coverage.
Good on you for protesting his policies. But maybe don’t spread his propaganda for free? I never celebrated, excused or wished death on anyone. Shame on you for implying that.
No, thank you, but the word I needed was something that would describe a warm, loving embrace, like when you take a pet in your arms and caress it (I even pushed this metaphor further in the next comment, about loving puppies), and I believe that "cuddle" is the exact word for that.
Well, it is indeed jarring when supposedly objectively and truth seeking journalists suddenly turn into adoring fans, so maybe my metaphor works on more than one level.
>I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama.
You want to know why a lot of those people, who are reactionary by nature, thought Obama was so divisive?
It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.
>The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
You'll notice that Obama was roundly (and rightfully) criticized by the left for his actual policies, and was criticized by the right for his skin color. For those who focus on policy ramifications, Obama was repeatedly critiqued. The problem is the right wing media machine couldn't outright drop a hard -er or call him "boy", so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally. Forget about actual policy, especially because his signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was copied verbatim from enacted GOP legislation.
> One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc.
Damn, sounds like more terrible people who encourage violence then, wish they didn't encourage it either, kinda sounds like a problem America and its politics has in general.
77% of Republicans believe it is always unacceptable to feel joy at the death of someone they oppose, while only 38% of Democrats share this view (YouGov)
Actually, I think this opinion IS shared by most of the people on the other side. (Notice that I didn't mention which side I am on. I don't think it really matters.) But, to be sure, SOME of them feel differently.
The GOP and its entourage actively cheered on the Hortmans getting assasinated in their home by a republican guy disguised as a cop [1]. Trump was golfing during their funrerals and used the occasion to dunk on Tim Walz to the press. He didn't order that flags should be at half mast as he did for Charlie Kirk, depsite him not being a lawmaker. They also turned the attack on Paul Pelosi into a running gag [2], which lasted for years. There is no question as to which side of the political spectrum is normalizing and encouraging political violence, and I wish people scould stop with this very misplaced bothsideism.
It is wild that I completely forgot about the fire that endangered Shapiro and his family this year. Just to me, shows how crazy this year has been with events.
The number of people I’ve seen basically condoning this act is sickening. This guy had views I 100% disagree with, and wish did not have a platform to espouse them.
But his children no longer have a dad in their life. That is just heartbreaking to me. It’s hard for me to understand people who are so wrapped up in political rhetoric that they think taking a person’s life is acceptable.
There is an astute comment floating around here that describes the tendency for human psychology to absorb information first through the limbic/emotional center first before the logical part. It is unsurprising to see horrible reactions after tragedies through social media. Living too close to the edge of the present brings out the worst in people. My faith in humanity hopes that many of these people will reconsider and regret some of the things they say and post.
Similar sentiments here. I can't find much common ground with Charlie Kirk but that doesn't merit an assassination. Unfortunate all around, and a situation not too dissimilar from the Mangione case (in the context of what happened, not necessarily why).
That said, while I don't condone it I can't say I'm surprised by it. It seems stoking divisions is a large part of the modern media landscape and all it takes is one person with the motive and the means.
When I see sentiment like "we need to shut down every Left institution" from political figures in reaction to this, all while we have not as of now even caught the shooter: I can't really blame them.
I don't care about Kirk or his family, they can take care of themselves. I'd like this country to no self destruct in this glee for wanting to start another Civil War, though.
Honestly, these kind of sane comments are very rare to find. A lot of other social media platforms have basically become a breeding ground for the very kind of hate that causes one side to lash out at the other in such means.
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow
> TPUSA has been described as the fastest growing organization of campus chapters in America, and according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, is the dominant force in campus conservatism.
They've been quite influential, and those campus efforts likely contributed to the Gen Z turnout that helped win in 2024.
Im not american, but consume american media because you guys are the world leaders. But charlie had the number 1 youth conservative movement in the country , he is pretty influential
I would say both are true. Kirk had the number 1 youth conservative movement. But, even with that, he isn't as well known as some people think because very few of the youth are engaged in politics. Most of the people I know who know of him are the terminally online YouTube politics watchers. Which is not a large group. I would say the same would be said of whoever the most influential leftist young political thinker is, maybe Hasan. They are big in a circle, but its not really a that big of a circle.
I saw his videos occasionally on youtube/facebook. I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration most of the time, though I thought some of his other arguments on other topics were thought provoking at least, and I also thought it was cool that he always had an open mic for anyone that wanted to debate him. Seemed like he had an encyclopedic memory when it came to things like SCOTUS cases or historical events.
I watched the start of the debate, having never heard of Charlie before the shooting. His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on your career one.
> His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on you career one.
Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations. Some want to be doctors, nurses, chefs, electricians, plumbers, or artists. Saying that women should get married and raise lots of children denies those aspirations, and says to me that those who ascribe to that model have no consideration for women as human beings. Let women pursue their own definition of happiness rather than prescribing one for them.
I'm not comparing anything to 1950s America. I am disagreeing with your assertion "His position seemed fairly reasonable ...". Kirk insinuated in the video that women in America would be happier if they had a belief in the divine and a lot of kids (which may correlate with beliefs from the 1950s, but that's besides the point) when he compared what women in America have to what women in sub-Saharan Africa have. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. (edited to fix a typo)
> Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations.
No. They are right. When you survey people, most women are happier working for their children rather than their boss. Most women feeling that way doesn't preclude other women feeling differently. Not does it prescribing a definition of happiness for women that want to work for their boss.
Happiness is not a single metric you can use to determine what is best. The most rewarding lives are ones where you can sacrifice for something meaningful to you. Sacrificing to have a rewarding, independent life without children may not be the easiest life, but it’s definitely not an any way inferior to a “happier” one raising kids. Because of this, that statistic, even if accurate, doesn’t matter. And doesn’t suggest that anyone should go raise a family.
Aren't man also happier when they are married and have kids? So according to that logic also man should stop focusing on their career and instead get married and have kids.
Whether or not that may be statistically true, it's offensive for a man to tell a woman what they'll be happier doing with their life. Not your choice.
His position was idiotic in his broader philosophical framework because his economic stance is that the poor should struggle and the rich should reap the benefits of their investments. It literally isn't possible to have a 1950s style familial relationship given his economic stances.
That might be one account of that debate, but certainly many disagree with you and the video. I watched the original and I think he did well in the debate. You posting a video that is clearly against him is only evidence of your stance.
> I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration
I haven't heard him say anything about immigration in general, merely illegal immigration which (should be) the exception, and should be a matter of crime not a matter of 'pro or con'.
At the moment he was shot, he was answering for questions about transgender shootings. If the timing was calculated, it could be a political message or very strong personal hatred in this context.
“Too many” sounds like a valid answer for any question about the number of mass shooters. Remove “trans” from the question and it’s still a valid answer. Substitute in any other demographic, and it’s still a valid answer (assuming someone from that demographic has been a shooter). Even one mass shooting is too many.
It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer.
It's not a loaded question in itself, as much as a direct question to counter the anti-lgbtq propaganda that is being pushed. This question didn't start a narrative, it is asked to point out that an existing narrative is intentionally misleading.
This is a misrepresentation of the exchange. "Do you know how many are trans" "Too many" doesn't imply that there would be fewer mass shooting, it implies that the situation would be better if the same amount of mass shootings were happening, but the identities of the shooters would be different.
It's not an uncharitable interpretation, but a literal one. Even then, I can see a world where we could let it go, because people sometimes just misspeak, public setting or not.
But in this current case, the speaker's political background fits the interpretation perfectly, so I don't think that we need to explain it away.
> If you've every watched any of those person's footage
Yes, that's exactly your problem. You built an image in your mind, and you interpret according to that image. If you built your image the same way you interpret this reply, well...
With politics, if you after the truth, you have to consider context. Coded / indirect speech is common, and it's also common to say an acceptable thing, while meaning an entirely different thing, aka dogwhistling (like "family values").
Don't you think this approach might be the reason for the extreme polarization of the politics in US? If one side demonizes the other based on "considering context".
I don't. What would be the alternative, believe the face value outright? That's not just a bad approach to politics, where everything is about controlling narratives, but a bad life advice in general. Or do I misunderstand what you mean?
> It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer.
I honestly don’t know what the actual factual answer to the question is. 1? 2? But the question warranted an answer, even if it was “I don’t know.” Given that the answer to many questions about mass shooting, specific or otherwise, is “too many,” the answer he gave offered no factual data. Maybe he was prepared to offer something more fact-based and nuanced. But to me the answer he gave comes off as dismissive, lacking in additional data, and possibly ideologically-motivated.
I imagine the question was posed because many in the community adjacent to Kirk are looking for an excuse to see trans people further isolated and stripped of their rights. Forcing the debate - if we can call it that - into the world of facts doesn’t seem problematic to me.
It might be a valid answer if he had not previously explicitly said that several deaths is not too many, the opposite of what you're implying he meant.
> "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
"Too many" is kind of a hilarious answer. It implies that there's a good or right mix of demographics for mass shooters, and, to Charlie, that mix should include fewer trans people. "Mass shooters should be cisgendered!" is a logical reframe of his position and it's just, like … what are you even saying?
I like this interpretation. The right is saying that being trans is a mental illness removing their right to bear arms. But what if they're simply saying that being trans should remove your right to be a mass shooter? That the right to be a mass shooter should be something that is reserved solely for cisgendered individuals?
I thought he took it in good sport. They didn't exactly hold back on him.
Given that and the fact that we're in the middle of a new South Park season, a show known for its last-minute incorporation of real-world news into storylines, it will be interesting to see how the show handles this tragic development.
They have moved to a 2-week cadence for the season. Next episode should be a week from today which does give them plenty of time to incorporate this development.
You are wrong. As well as organizing a large conservative movement on college campuses, he organized a large chunk of financing for the January 6 2021 riots in DC, north of $1m. This report outlines the financial infrastructure, you'd have to delve into the investigative commission documents for testimony about how he raised the money, I can't remember the name of his wealthy benefactor offhand.
Interesting to see someone whose decision making is so disordered that they manage to carry out a shot from 200 meters and then disappear. That looks more like a carefully planned crime than madness.
I keep seeing this. Why do people keep making the point that if you can make an accurate shot from 200 yards with a rifle that makes you a sane person?
People generally use really crude (and incorrect) heuristics when judging others. "He was a family man/good christian/nice to me at work/etc, I don't know how he could have murdered his family!" Mental illness gets it even worse b/c most people don't have any good framework for understanding it.
There are still conflicting reports about whether the shooter is in custody.
The first person of interest was detained, but released.
FBI director says a suspect is in custody. That governor says a person of interest is in custody. Local police say the shooter is still at large. This is what Reuters was reporting as of 1 hour ago.
I don’t know why this is downvoted. It’s not incorrect. I posit that everyone who’s willing to kill someone in cold blood is at least a little off their rocker.
It’s interesting that you used a vague term, not a DSM term.
Also, I would argue that it has more to do with mental framing than “being crazy”. Police and military leadership hire selectively and craft training to ensure that people aren’t mentally ill and still willing to kill.
That stance would make every police station, military base, and legislature madhouses. Heck, we could expand that a step further, and declare everyone who voted for those politicians mad.
People decide to kill people all the time. People order others to kill people all the time. People advocate for others to order yet others to kill people all the time. Some violence is legitimate. Some violence is justified. Plenty of violence is neither. But to ignore the violence of the state as sanctified, while condemning all violence against it as madness results in an alarming ethical framework with abhorrent conclusions.
There are also lots of Republicans and right wing media figures who wrongly identified Democrats as “at war with the right.
Mental illness isn’t the only explanation. When people are indoctrinated into stupidity and no longer believe in truth or reality, it’s possible to convince them to both believe “I support police / military” while attacking police officers (several of the worst offenders of Jan 6).
Perceived desperation is a better explainer than some generic mental illness.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
I think a difficulty in searching for such answers is assuming that it was a well reasoned decision. I'm not sure how often attempting to take a life is a purely rational decision, devoid of intense emotional motivations (hatred, self-preservation, fear, revenge, etc.). And that's all assuming the assailant was of somewhat sound mind.
I think one of the dangers of more and more extreme divisions in society is that those divisions cloud our mental processes, threaten our emotional health, and take away opportunities for meaningful civil discourse. All of which can lead to more heinous acts that we struggle to make sense of. One of the scariest parts for me is that this can all be too self reinforcing ("Their side did this bad thing to our side, let's get them back!!!" repeat/escalate...). How do we break the cycle?
In naive political terms he wasn't all that important but I think two points in response to that:
1. He was influential in a influential circle of people who roughly speaking drive what gets discussed and shown to a wider audience. In a favourite-band's favourite-band sense. His jubilee video just recently got 31 million views on youtube and probably a billion more on tiktok and reels.
2. If he wasn't killed by some nut who thought the flying spaghetti monster told him to do it then this is a really clear example of online politics and discourse jumping violently into the physical world. That's a real vibe shift if I have it right that it's basically the first assassination of that kind.
It wouldn't shock me at all if the driving topic here was actually gaza rather than domestic politics.
Charlie Kirk never really presented him this way but he was the founder & head of one of the largest think-tanks that is up there with Heritage Foundation. TPUSA was responsible for translating conservative values to Gen-Z/YA who were an all-but-forgotten demographic by mainstream GOP.
Arguably this is because of the reactions of Republicans, gaslighting us about CK’s actual beliefs, turning the temperature up (blaming Democrats, “this is war”, calling Democrats terrorists, likening it to the Reichstag Fire, and a Republican Congressman declaring that anyone making light of it should be cancelled permanently from social media / government / society).
I would argue CK was somewhat influential among getting lots of young Christians to vote for Trump, who clearly doesn’t live Christian beliefs, but the shooting is being catastrophized for political value.
I think he was more influential to the younger generation. I saw Gavin Newsom interview Kirk, and Newsom opened by saying his son followed Kirk to a certain extent.
I think you're out-of-touch. It felt like he was the single most popular non-politician non-podcaster political commentator on social media for Americans under 30, and I'm not even in the target demographic that he's popular with.
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
Yes, you're wrong there (no offense). He's quite popular beyond X (formerly Twitter), particularly amongst the young (~20s) conservative movements. For example, he has almost 4 million subscribers on YouTube and similar on TikTok.
I'd say X isn't even his most popular platform. He's much more popular on video platforms, due to his open campus debates.
I attended one of Charlie's debates this past year and they pretty much let anyone walk up to the mic. It wasn't scripted or censored, that I saw.
He was also very good at superficially solid rebuttals and responses that were hard to counter without providing a short course on the history and context of the issue at hand. I never thought of him as a "good" debater and I vehemently disagree with his public views, but he was very effective in the media and event situations he operated in.
Agreed and well said. I also disagreed with a lot of his views. But, at the same time when I started watching his content, I realized his detractors overstretched the truth about a lot of what he said. Not all of it, but a lot of it.
> Mom, you don’t understand. I’m getting really good at this. I have my arguments down rock solid. These young college girls are totally unprepared, so I can just destroy them and also edit out all the ones that actually argue back well. It just feels so good.
I think that there's great insight in your observation.
To me what's been going on is a shakedown run of the new mediums and how they exploit cognitive defects and lack of exposure in audiences.
In a total Marshall McLuhan "The Medium is the Message" kind of way some people like Shapiro, Trump, and Kirk just naturally groove in certain mediums and are able to play them like Ray Charles plays the piano.
And because society doesn't have any sort of natural exposure to this they're able to gain massive audiences and use that influence for nefarious purposes.
I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is though.
On the one had I think that there is going to be a natural feedback mechanism that puts keeps their population in check (which is basically what we just saw today) but that isn't the most desireable outcome.
its scripted in terms of that he had a script that he would run.
that cambridge woman had prepared for exactly what he would say in the same order than he said it and what order he would change topics in. he practiced his script a ton, even if the other person with a mic wasnt on a scrip
I think his clips were consistently viral on platforms like Tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram reels, etc., both by those who agreed with him and those who were doing reaction videos against him.
He gave an invited speech at the Republican National Convention on its first night, and is credited with helping Trump get elected. “Very influential” might even be an understatement.
The problem is that that kind of influence often goes under the radar for people outside the circles in question, because influence is no longer mediated as centrally as it used to be, it’s more targeted and siloed. That’s a big part of how the current political situation in the US arose.
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
Yes, you are wrong, he was the leader of the most powerful campus conservative movement group in the country, was an extremely prominent figure in right-wing media, to the point where he is a central figure in pop culture images of the right, and a central target for being too soft of organizing figures for even farthe-right groups.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
Motives for assassinations (attempted or actual) of politicial figures are often incoherent. Political assassins aren’t always (or even often) strategic actors with a clear, rationally designed programs.
Yes, you're wrong. He was very influential and a leader of the youthful conservative movement in our country. TPUSA is extremely popular. This was an abhorrent, horrifyingly public assassination of a very popular figure -- one who has been honestly quite milquetoast in terms of conservative ideology compared to other well-known figures. He wasn't even running for political office, he simply encouraged political participation, open debate, and the free exchange of ideas in a public forum. He grew TPUSA into a bastion of grassroots revitalization in community-first politics. Truly truly sickening.
Dude, if you followed his teachings you wouldn’t feel this way…
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up. new age term, and it does a lot of damage.” - Charlie Kirk
Dude, that quote is out of context. He said he prefers "sympathy" to "empathy" and went on to call out those who push selective empathy when it suits their political agenda. He was right.
In my country Australia, there's a backlash on self-destructive "empathy" decisions in criminal courts. Violent repeat offenders are granted bail or short sentences for violent crime, why? Because the judge empathises with their traumatised upbringing, for example when they come from a war-torn country. This pattern of "justice" has spiked crime rates including violent home invasions and stabbings.
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
I’d heard of him-I’ve lived my whole life in Australia, and although I have a Twitter/X account, I almost never use it, and that’s not a new thing, I dabbled with it but never committed.
Do most Australians know who he was? I don’t have any hard data, but my “No” to that is very confident. But I remember briefly discussing him (in person) with one of my old friends from high school, who is deep into right-wing politics (he’s a member of Australia’s One Nation party, which a lot of people would label “far right”, yet mainstream enough to have a small number of seats in Parliament)
As a comparatively politically aware Australian, I had absolutely no idea who he is/was, but then I don't have any Twitter or general social media presence or consumption.
My (limited) knowledge of him was mainly from reading the traditional US media, not from social media… I swear I’d read some article about him in the NY Times or the Atlantic or something like that. My brain files him next to Ben Shapiro
Me too! I follow politics, elections, and world affairs very closely, but I am embarrassed to admit - I had no idea who he was. Although I had heard about 'Turning Point USA'.
My wife had no idea who he was when I said his name… but when she saw a photo, she remembered him from videos which appeared on her Facebook feed in which he argues about abortion and transgender issues. She is Facebook friends with a lot of right-wing Americans, she doesn’t share their politics, but they connected due to a shared interest in Farmville
Why do so many school shootings happen in the US? Often its simply that people who should never have access to lethal firearms are able to get them easily.
Paranoid time: Target him because he's notable for being willing to actually talk to the other side. Without people like him, all we have is people on both sides yelling at each other as hard as they can.
Why would someone target him? If they want more division. Maybe even if they want a civil war.
Who would want that? Maybe someone in government who wants disorder as an excuse to impose order by force. Maybe someone in Russia who wants a world order not let by America.
He was the public face of Turning Point USA, a political organization that focused on getting more youth in the USA to turn conservative / Republican, to vote, and to adopt a more conservative culture. By “public face”, I mean he was 17 when he cofounded it with an octogenarian and a billionaire funder.
I think he and the org were active on Twitter, but they were MUCH more active on YouTube, and short form video (Instagram, TikTok).
It’s not even clear we know who the shooter is (still conflicting reports about whether the suspect has been arrested, let alone a confirmed identity). Too soon to know what the motive is.
You probably target the ones you have a chance of getting at? Trying to do this to Trump would theoretically be preferable to the shooter, but a great deal harder.
I'd never heard of him and now I hear flags across the US will be at-half mast. He's was a billionaire-sponsored influencer if I understand it correctly?
Yes, I'd say you are wrong. If you look at a lot of the clips of the right wing folks giving some of their most right wing comments, the stage they are on will have the Turning Point logos on them. So if not him specifically, his organization is very influential.
I first heard about him in around 2016, shortly after Trump was elected the first time. I'm pretty chronically online, but I was never very active on Twitter and I was still pretty aware of him. I've always found him pretty insufferable, though not as bad as Nick Feuntes or Steven Crowder.
My dude, the article in the Washington Post starts out with…
“Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, died Wednesday after being shot at an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump said.”
He influenced the US President, that seems pretty influential to me. Anecdotally, my kid in high school surprised me by knowing quite a lot about them.
Twitter and the terminally online need to touch grass and overemphasize things that the real world doesn’t care about, but, to an approximation, it is the vanguard and real world talking points, political trends, etc, are all downstream from there. So yes, someone very influential with the Twitter crowd is influential.
He was literally influential for touching grass on college campuses across the country, peacefully engaging in open discussions with people who disagreed with him.
Conservative, but definitely not alt-right. Kirk was a strong supporter of Jews and Israel, which put him at odds with the antisemitic alt-right.
Kirk regularly spoke out against antisemitism on both the left and right. So much so, in fact, Israeli Prime Minister tweeted[0] his condolences, praising Kirk as a strong, positive force for Jewish and Christian values.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
This would be a relevant question in many nations, but it's a bit beside the point in the US. Violence is a deeply respected and loved core of the culture for its own sake. It's an end, not means. Nearly all the US's entertainment, culture and myths are built around a reverence for violence. Even political violence has been pretty much the norm through most of the US's history. Celebrated cases aside, there's been something of a lull since the mid 1970s, but if as now likely it increases again, this will be a boring old reversion to the US's norm.
pragmatically, you can't kill an idea with bullets. terrorism does one thing only: it triggers retaliation. nihilistic accelerationists who want a war can use terror to provoke one.
some of Charlie Kirk's last words:
> ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?
> KIRK: Too many. [Applause]
I don't think the shooter was trans. but I'm trans, and I don't see this going well for me, or for my community. the DoJ was already talking about classifying us as "mentally defective" to take our guns. now there's a martyr. the hornet's nest is kicked.
murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
I vehemently disagree with all that Kirk seemed to advocate for, but agree that this debate, not murder, is the solution.
That said, Kirk, in this exchange was not engaging in debate so much as theatrics. The question that was posed to him was intended to force him to acknowledge that being trans doesn’t seem to be associated with a unique propensity to engage in mass shootings. Instead, he responded in a way that was ideologically motivated. Quite a few people praised Kirk for engaging in debate, but if this is exemplary of his format, not bringing in facts, then I would call it more performative than debate.
Regardless, this is awful; and I hope the repercussions for the trans community aren’t dire.
murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
Depends what your objective is. If your goal is to accelerate political violence and set Americans at odds to an even greater degree than they already are, it's completely rational. I have no idea who did it; it could be domestic extremists, foreign actors, cynical strategists. It might be some isolated murderous person with a chip on their shoulder who totally hated Kirk, but that seems like the least likely possibility because of the fact that they've made a clean getaway - 12 hours with no CCTV imagery or even a good description is unusual for such a public event.
that's a good point. honestly, very little. though the lawmakers almost certainly had a smaller, and less.. vigorous.. fanbase than Mr. Kirk. and it could be my bias, but I think the Right is more likely to react vigorously to assassinations than the Left.
You triple-posted this comment that "The Right cheered when 2 MN lawmakers were killed..." Literally the only thing the Right said was that the killer claimed Tim Walz paid him to kill them and someone else; how did y'all manage to hear about the Right's "celebrations" when y'all never leave your echo chambers?
As an outsider, how did trans people get dragged into the gun debate?! Did I miss a major mass shooting by a trans person? Was their gender relevant to the shooting?
Being transgender is not relevant to shootings, but there are voices that are trying to make that happen.
My opinion on why it gained traction: the group is already marginalized, is part of a larger, also marginalized group (lgbtq community), and shootings are unpopular, while guns are, so it benefits the speaker to connect the two. There are also narratives floating around that are in synergy with this connection, such as the tragic statistic that trans people have a very high suicide rate, and the false narrative that being transgender is a mental illness.
> murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
We heard what happened on July 13th, and even from this far, culturally and physically, we could see (and this is not to play down an attempt on someone's life) – ah, there goes that election.
How the impulsive acts of violence have changed the course of history too many times, how people in power, people looking to take power twist and use such events. We don't learn from all that history, do we?
I saw this post a day ago and upvoted; totally agree with your comment.
I too am trans.
Unfortunately, and you probably have already heard. ATF leaked that the rounds were etched with pro-trans messaging and the shooter is allegedly a trans man.
Assuming this all turns out to be true. This will lead to greater hatred; far more than before.
Hard to predict what will happen but let me give examples from history each time this has happened.
Christians were thrown to the lions in Ancient Rome.
Many times through history for the jews.
Muslims and crusader kings of spain.
Irish and chinese, the chinese exclusion act of 1882?
armenian ?genocide?
rwanda tutis.
We now have a situation where government must do something about the trans shooter issue. LAwfully they'd have to take each trans person to court to prove mental illness to ban them from 2nd amendment right. Technically... DSM5 is pretty clear about it...
> Unfortunately, and you probably have already heard. ATF leaked that the rounds were etched with pro-trans messaging and the shooter is allegedly a trans man.
fortunately, this was bogus! the "pro-trans messaging" was that the bullets were stamped with "TRN," which was the manufacturer's mark, and the shooter was a 22yo cis Mormon male.
Assassinations, opposed to terrorism, can cause more positive? political change.
The effect would be subtle, but following Peter Turchin's theory of elite overproduction, assassinations of union elites after the civil war supposedly blunted the effects of the reconstruction.
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. I'm not going to ban you for this right now because so many other accounts are doing that and worse in this thread, but I do want to let you know that it is a line at which we ban accounts - see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
The issue isn't just about one thread, it's about the overall pattern of using the site.
Looking at recent events through a historical lens: the 1960s saw the assassinations of MLK, RFK, JFK, and Malcolm X during a wave of progressive change. Today’s assassination attempts and targeted violence seem to follow a similar pattern during periods of significant social and political shifts.
As RFK said after MLK’s death, we must choose between “violence and non-violence, between lawlessness and love.” His call for unity and rejecting hatred feels as urgent now as it was then.
Violence is never the answer. But understanding these tragic patterns might help us navigate our current moment with hopefully more empathy.
This is dangerous false equivalency. Charlie Kirk was not advocating for the rights of the downtrodden. He was a right wing provocateur, and he’s on the record saying that “some gun deaths are ok” in service of the 2nd amendment, and in making light of the nearly deadly political attack on the Pelosi family.
Political violence, especially deadly violence is not ok. But comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK is also not ok.
"Some gun deaths are okay" is saying the quiet part out loud, but it's not wrong. When you let a large group of people have access to something dangerous then some number of them will die and kill using the dangerous thing, whether the thing is cars or paracetamol or wingsuits or guns.
I say this as an Australian. We have a far more restrictive system of gun control than the US and yet we still see tens of gun deaths a year, because some gun deaths are okay even if we set the number a lot lower than the US does.
By my understanding he said that though unfortunate, gun deaths are sometimes a price to pay for the right to bear arms. Noting that less than half that gun killings in the US are committed by people that legally owned that gun.
And I have the sensation that all the ones we drive a car nowadays are engaging in a similar type of risk acceptance, we know there's too many people dead every year in car accidents, but we still believe that overall having access to cars outweighs the risks, without meaning that car accidents are acceptable and trying to improve the safety of the cars and roads meanwhile.
Kirk thought in a similar way that gun control and possession were definitely good for the US population and that gun deaths were still a price to pay for it.
BTW, gun possession is also legal in all EU countries. It just not considered a right, but a privilege. And this is accepted by most parties in EU, both left and right.
I'm not an American, I'm an Australian. Our gun deaths sit at 0.9 per 100000 people instead of 14 per 100000 and I approve of our gun laws. In that sense, I guess I'd say that roughly 6% of this gun death was okay.
In a broader sense, it is of course not okay to shoot someone, but that's taking the quote out of the context of gun control measures.
It isn't okay for anyone to die from gun violence, but if we're gonna have to expect people to be sacrificed on the altar of the gun nut lobby, then it makes the most sense that the gun nuts should be the ones to suffer the consequences of the policies they support. The tree of liberty and blood blah blah blah.
Yeah I don’t really get the 2A people who want guns to protect from a tyrannical government. To do that you’d need to make a whole lot of other things legal like tanks, anti aircraft missiles, artillery, etc, and allow civilian groups to get together and practice using those things for combat. Without that, the intent of the 2A has sailed long ago.
Would you say that some car deaths are OK in service of transportation or that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents?
Tradeoffs between rights and safety are always made. I interpret "some gun deaths are ok" as to mean that they are inherently dangerous, and that seeking 0 accidental deaths is too high of a standard for something to be allowed. And we don't hold other parts of daily life to this standard, like vehicles or medicine. If you want to get into degrees, that's fine, but a blanket shutdown on the sentence doesn't do that.
Transportation is required for daily life for almost all Americans. Gun ownership isn’t.
If it were upto me, we wouldn’t have such a car dependent culture. It is absolutely possible to invest in public transportation/multimodal transport and reduce this number significantly.
They certainly are, police cause gun deaths all the time in service of maintaining law and order.
But to middle class snobs who think they're morally above it all, such dirtiness is a reality they can wave away with a dismissive comment of superiority, safe from all that messiness, in their nice suburb homes.
So long as they intentionally ignore these lower class facts that some wrongdoers exist who can literally only be stopped by deadly force, they can continue to put their chins up and lament the inferior-to-them simpletons who think guns have to be a thing, in between taking long savouring sniffs of their excrement after every bathroom visit.
Speaking as an amoral low-class snob who grew up in Detroit, the prevalence of concealed carry didn't make me feel any safer than I felt in Windsor. Lot more gunfire at night on the stars-and-stripes side of the river too, which always struck me as rude when people are trying to sleep.
And why exactly do police need to have guns on them at all times? Right, because each citizen they meet has a high chance of having one. In contrast, UK police don't carry guns. Let that fact sink in.
I'm not surprised. The UK police prefer to arrest people for mean tweets, and let the knife criminals run around Scot-free. Perhaps if they had guns they'd do their jobs properly (joke - they still wouldn't).
Police worldwide, where guns are usually illegal, are usually armed.
> that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents
We totally should. I mean it isn't even controversial idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero . If we start with "all traffic related deaths are excessive" then trying to get rid of them in any way possible is only natural. Shame that 2nd amendment fans will be against any requirements for gun owners, event if they are similar to European commercial drivers tests.
Psychological test before buying a gun? What a heresy.
You've missed the parent's point. Society routinely accepts some level of risk, even when it leads to deaths, in exchange for other values. For example, dogs kill about 43 people annually in the U.S., yet we still allow them as pets. Electricity causes over 1,000 deaths a year, yet we don’t ban it. Kirk's position was simply that gun deaths are an acceptable price for the right to own guns - a fairly mainstream view in the US.
You can keep poor people in more desperate circumstances, and fantasise about how you and your militia will resist a tyrannical federal government and restore the country.
> tyranny prevention and respect of the constitution.
Haha, sure. One, the tyrannical government is taking roots day by day and no one does shit. Two, even in this fantasy world where half the people wasn't on board with the destruction of our democracy, if the people as a whole were to take arms, they'd be going after a professional army whose budget is many orders of magnitude higher than this citizens militia's.
> they'd be going after a professional army whose budget is many orders of magnitude higher than this citizens militia's
History shows that an underfunded militia can still tie down or even outlast the U.S. military in a guerrilla context - Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all examples.
To that I would say that the relationship between vehicle speeds and deaths is not linear. Lowering speeds (via infrastructure, not limits) in cities to 20mph / 30km/h would probably cut deaths by 80% without affecting average travel times much.
It is a great analogy though, in both cases the issue comes down to ease of access to deadly weapons capable of killing a lot of people in a short time period. I remain ever surprised that we think the average person is qualified to handle such weapons, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Even if we ignore the gun topic, he was extremely anti abortion, including in rape situations. He argued for heinous perspectives and oppression.
He didn't deserve to die, but he wasn't advocating for a world of opportunity and hope. Just oppression and hate. Let's not act like he was some saint helping people.
But the problem is what you're saying doesn't follow. Charlie Kirk believed that abortion involves murdering a human being, violently, which it does. He believe in the rare circumstance of a pregnancy occurring from rape that the child is still innocent and should not be killed. That is explicitly advocating for life and non-violence, whether you agree with the premise or not. I think the left really has to reckon with something extremely important. As much as the left is pompous and pretends to be so much more "educated" that conservatives, they have a hard time following through positions logically, which is seems quite odd for supposed intellectual superiors.
> hard time following through positions logically,
Spoken like a person who either doesn't know or doesn't care that current anti-abortion policies in several red states have women scared to get pregnant, despite wanting to do so voluntarily, because doctors are refusing life saving procedures on the mother if the state can possibly perceive it as abortion, leading to many scenarios of live births to dead mothers, including one case of a corpse being artificially kept alive for weeks for the sake of the baby.
The abortion laws of most blue states are already a rational compromise (still a very conservative leaning one) between the practical rights of women and the religious beliefs of far right totalitarians.
What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them? the government doesn't make it easy to give a kid up for adoption and also doesn't make it easy to adopt kids. The kid will likely not have a good life, especially as the government cuts benefits. Is it really worth bringing a child into this world if you're setting them up to fail? Is that really the correct thing to do? Are you really being kind to the child by kicking it in the teeth from birth?
What if the birth will kill the mother? Is that not okay either?
It's not even political. You just follow the logic and you kind of have to support abortion. There isn't really a logical reason not to.
I actually believe the world is really messy and you have to have solutions that deal with the messiness. Being absolutist in any direction will never be right. Taking the extreme opposite position of mandated abortions is equally stupid and quite frankly as childish. It's surprising anybody on this site would defend something so illogical.
> What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them?
I think a pro-lifer would say that intentionally terminating a human being would still be wrong. I have a very hard time disagreeing with them on that.
> What if the birth will kill the mother?
To my knowledge the vast majority of abortions are not because of this and all pro-lifers I know would be in favor of saving the mother. Most are for "convenience" and that is what pro-lifers are against. Again, I have a hard time disagreeing with them on this topic as well.
I don’t get why people are downvoting this. It is factually true, even if it’s uncomfortable to point out on the day of his murder.
Kirk was not a benevolent truth seeker. He was a political provocateur and propagandist dressed as a debater. And Paul Pelosi was one of the victims of his smears.
He was advocating for the rights of the living yet unborn. He was advocating for the downtrodden youth who are being unnecessarily overburdened with massive college debt and unable to afford a home. He was advocating for citizens who are being put last by their electorate.
He was helping the "unborn" by advocating for stripping womens of their rights and sending them back to the house.
He was helping students by supporting the most anti-intellectual party ever, that cancelled student debt relief and help programs.
He was helping the downtrodden by supporting the most billionaire-friendly administration ever, giving tax breaks to the rich and dismantling the last of our social safety nets.
Get real. I don't even buy that you believe all that shit.
A small but important correction. The debt was never cancelled, but socialized and payed by all the American citizens. A loan that was taken voluntarily by adults was arbitrarily reassigned and forced upon the rest of the American citizens, including all those who never had accepted to take such debt.
Completely violating the principles of personal responsibility.
It is very easy to be generous and altruist with someone else's money and then even take the credit for it.
Public higher education yields more skilled workers, who contribute more to society, thereby being a net positive overall. That's how it works in civilized country anyways. Too bad the average American can't think further then "Me no share, fuck you".
"Public higher education yields more skilled workers" as compared to what? Laborers or trade-skill workers? I think people overestimate the ROI of a college diploma.
Let's just assume you are correct. The solution should be universities lower or eliminate tuition. Not exponentially increase it. Not pay presidents and coaches millions and millions of dollars. And not stick taxpayers with the bill - or devalue our currency with government spending.
Right it’s more that it’s odd that there’s all these assassinations of conservatives (UnitedHealthCare etc). And previously there were many assassinations of progressives. I think it’s just the leaders in a dominant part of a force in society become casualties. Loss of life is always tragic even if we disagree with everything they stand for. But anyway the historical part (if that is what is happening - hard to tease out if there’s just more gun violence in general) helps me make sense of it. The dominant wave has breaks or we see them more somehow.
It's the Hortmans who were killed, the Hoffmans survived their attack. It's easy to confuse them because the assassin was working his way through an alphabetized list of democratic politicians.
Just the other day I was reading about the Italian "Years Of Lead" [1] which I wasn't old enough to understand myself at the time in the UK. I was wondering if we could see something similar as various forces internal and external strained at the seams of western democracies. For context, there is quite febrile atmosphere in the UK at the moment so I feel it is useful to attempt to calibrate these things for stochastic effects.
Without knowing what happened, it's difficult to make the comparison between the Italian Years of Lead and what happened earlier today at Utah Valley University.
My understanding of the Italian political climate of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is that there were political groups/cells (on both the far right and far left) that organized around violent acts to further their political goals (which involved the eventual authoritarian takeover of the Italian government by either the far right or far left). For example, you can think of the Red Brigades to be akin to the Black Panthers, but with actual terrorism.
In contrast, most political violence in America has been less organized and more individual-driven (e.g., see the Oklahoma City Bombing). For better or worse, the police state in the US has been quite successful in addressing and dispersing political groups that advocate for violence as a viable means for societal change.
This was an intentional adoption of leaderless resistance[0] in response to the vulnerabilities in centrally administered organisations of the 60-80s.
Resistance orgs across the ideological spectrum were systematically dismantled after decades of violence because their hierarchical command structures made them vulnerable to infiltration, decapitation and RICO-style prosecutions.
The Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, European Fascist groups and many white supremacist groups all fell to the same structural weaknesses.
Lessons were codified by the KKK and Aryan Nations movements in the USA in the early 90s by Louis Beam[1] who wrote about distributed organisational models.
This was so successful it cross-pollinated to other groups globally. Other movements adopted variations of this structure, from modern far-right and far-left groups to jihadist organisations[2]
This is probably the most significant adaptation in ideological warfare since guerilla doctorine. There has been a large-scale failure in adapting to it.
The internet and social media have just accelerated its effectiveness.
"Inspired by" vs "carried out by" ideological violence today is the norm.
The KKK has been a distributed movement from the beginning, though, starting as isolated remnants of Confederate forces acting as terrorist cells in tandem with local officials and businessmen (e.g., plantation owners), and resurgent in the 20s and 30s (obviously sans the direct Confederate connections, replaced with local law enforcement).
It's not so much that we haven't been able to adapt to it as we've simply refrained from doing so. Their violence was in line with the interests of local elites.
Timothy McVeigh got his start watching Waco burn, hanging out with groups around the US "militia movement", and reading The Turner Diaries, and had like 3 accomplices.
Actually, it has been proven that at least two of the major terrorist attacks that happened in Italy during the lead years were actually false-flags attacks organized by a deviated part of the secret services (that were politically aligned with the far right), funded and supported by the US, in order to isolate politically the Brigate Rosse movement and stop any advance of communism in Italy.
The British government is much better placed to crush dissidents than probably almost any other of comparable maturity. They crushed the miners, they'll be able to deal with any nationalist movement if the institutional will is there.
I posted this article about political violence from Politico 3 months ago. It got 3 votes and sank. But it resurfaced on their website today because of this event (they revised the title of the front page link to make the subject more clear) so I'll bring it up again:
The author's point is that political violence does occur in cycles, and one thing that makes a cycle run down is when it gets gets so awful that universal revulsion overtakes the political advantages of increasing radicaloric and action.
He gives examples, which may be within the living memory of older HN readers (like me):
"I can remember back in the ’60s, early ’70s, it felt like the political violence was never going to end. I mean, if you were an Italian in the ’60s or the ’70s, major political and judicial figures, including prime ministers, were getting bumped off on a regular basis. And it seemed like it was never going to end, but it did. It seemed like the anarchist violence of the early 20th century — it lasted for a couple of decades, killed the U.S. president — it seemed that was never going to end either, but it does. These things burn themselves out."
and:
"You had the assassination of the U.S. president, of Martin Luther King, of Bobby Kennedy. And then it stopped. People shied away from political violence. Exactly why it stopped, I don’t know, but it did. It wasn’t just assassinations, it was also street violence. And then things calmed down."
This is not particularly optimistic, but it it's an interesting analysis.
Nick Fuentes built his entire empire on hating Charlie Kirk, and his fans (groypers) are insane. Laura Loomer just came out and attacked Kirk a couple days ago. It's entirely possible he was fragged from the right.
I’ve thought this as well. There is a lot of disagreement within political parties. Given the polarization, I’d wager this is more true today.
You may be stuck with extreme people you disagree with despite leaning one way or another. You just want to dabble in politics but supporters of the parties can be rabid. It can be even harder to get a word out within the echo chamber.
It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.
Nick Fuentes has repeatedly condemned political violence for years, he and his followers have also been trying to get Kirk to debate him, so killing is counter-productive from that perspective. Furthermore, the "attacks" by Laura Loomer that I've seen don't get anywhere near calling for violence.
> It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.
Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors. Turns out it's the people who buy the most guns who are the most violent.
> Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors.
It did not "turn out to be a groyper". There is zero substantial evidence for this claim, its a complete fabrication. Elle Reeve, a journalist at CNN who has followed the far-right since the infamous Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally in 2017, said of those claiming that the shooter was a Groyper that, "It’s like they’re grasping at vapor."
Saying "there is zero substantial evidence" is cope at this point, they caught the guy. There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person. Now that they have the person, all evidence is pointing the other way: terminally online/incel/white/Mormon/rural/gamer/gun nut. Those people aren't leftists, they're groypers. So you have to update your estimate from "very unlikely" to "actually pretty likely".
> There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person.
I've did not claim it was someone who is trans, an immigrant, or woke, however all evidence currently available points to him being a leftist. Some people early on were lead to believe that the shooter was trans due to reports of "trans-ideology" being found on the casings, but that was a rash, pre-mature extrapolation. The relevant text can be attributed to a wider array of groups/online sub-cultures (notably, the text cannot be clearly attributed to the groypers).
There is, however, evidence that the shooter was on the far-left.
1. Terminology used by the radical-left-wing to slander Kirk found on the casings ("hey fascist! CATCH!"). No Groyper would ever use such a phrase, they don't think of Kirk as a fascist and themselves get accused of being fascists.
2. Reference to an anti-fascist song most often played by far-left figures, particularly those identifying themselves as "anti-fascist".
3. A high school friend described the killer as being left-leaning on issues and that he was the only member of his family who was a leftist. This is hearsay so I take it with a grain of salt, but its still important evidence which fits perfectly with the other points.
Furthermore, all of the "evidence" you put forward cannot be considered by any reasonable person to be evidence that someone is a Groyper.
1. Being online a lot isn't evidence that someone is a Groyper. Massive numbers of apolotical, right-leaning, and left-leaning people are "terminally online".
2. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was an "incel" in the sense that the term is typically used.
3. Being white does not make someone a Groyper. Funnily enough, on the contrary, among the online far-right the groypers are often accused of being non-white due to their relative openness to other racial groups.
4. Being Mormon is not evidence of being a Groyper. On the contrary, Catholics are most represented among the groypers with only a few figures being Mormon.
5. Playing video games is not evidence that someone is a Groyper.
6. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was a "gun nut". Furthermore, even if he was, this would not be evidence that he was a Groyper since guns are not one of the primary issues addressed by groypers and would only tangentially be related.
In summary, none of what you said is evidence of your claims. I am begging you, and others, to engage honestly about this instead of spreading false claims.
An individual remix of a song added to a playlist, which most people have never heard of, multiple years ago does not make it a "groyper meme".
Before the other day when this misinformation campaign began, nobody ever associated the song with groypers. Its always been associated with anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi groups, which contain a completely different set of beliefs. In recent history the only people to ever use the song for political purposes have been left-wing groups: Protestors against the AfD in Germany, communist priest Andrea Gallo, movement against Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, left-wing protests against Meloni in Italy.
Combining the lack of substantial evidence of association with groypers with the history of the song being used by left-wing movements, in addition to the evidence in my post above and elsewhere, its clear that this cannot be reasonably associated with groypers by any evidence-oriented person.
Here's the shooter in a groyper halloween costume that his sister says is "from some meme": https://imgur.com/XeYByuq
"hey fascist! Catch! Up arrow, right arrow, three down arrow" is a video game reference from a video game called Helldivers 2 that groypers use all the time.
Every bullet casing had a different groyper meme on it. It's either a groyper or a really elaborate groyper false flag. Those are the only two options.
Acting like it's all a coincidence is just spreading disinfo. Thankfully the bots don't make it to HN very often, or this place would be a disaster.
If you were going to have an organized hit from some kind of unnamed leftist extremist group, I could think of a dozen more impactful targets than Kirk off the top of my head. So I don't know how much sense that theory makes either.
If it's a lone nut, that could come from anywhere.
You should move out of the US if you're here, since political violence is a cornerstone of this country since day 1. How people are acting like this is unique are really baffling to me.
>political violence is a cornerstone of this country since day 1
The violence was tame compared to something like the French or Russian or Chinese Revolutions. For example, after the Continental Army and Minutemen surrounded the Brits at Saratoga (in New York State) in the first of the two great victories made by the American revolutionaries, the Brits were not killed or even made prisoners of war: many thousands of British soldiers were allowed to travel on foot through Massachusetts to Boston (which was firmly in the control of the Brits for the entire duration of the war) if they promised not to harass any Americans in their path and if they promised to stop participating in military action against the American colonies (i.e., to personally go back to England).
Winning through "reason" seems kind of naive given today's social landscape. Are our politics broken because the facts simply aren't known? The misinformation-firehose/attention-economy/propaganda-machines are simply too powerful to be countered by merely being correct.
I'm not saying murdering everyone is the right alternative, but if you think trying to balance political power by "winning debates" or something seems reasonable, that ship has long sailed.
I think this is overblown. Most people do have reasons for what they believe.
I know everyone hates it when people “both sides” things these days, but one thing I do see both sides having in common is a refusal to honestly engage with and comprehend the other position. This doesn’t mean agreeing. It means understanding what someone believes and how they might have gotten there.
Where the echo chambers and other things that you mention do come in is in reinforcing that dynamic, in reinforcing each side seeing only a straw man version of the other.
Charles Manson was convicted for murders he didn't do himself, so there is obviously a limit in how much damage you're allowed to do with words.
Many dictators didn't kill anyone themselves, they just talked others into it.
Or think of the Hamas leaders who talked their people into the actrocity of the October 7 attacks.
I just want to know where people draw the line.
BTW the whole MAGA thing is based on the assumption of damage that is caused by words. You know the whole LGBTQIA2S+, DEI and climate change stuff our kids get indoctrinated with by schools, universities and the liberal media.
Words can and do cause a lot of damage, up to and including destroying a nation. But in the US, we're supposed to be tough enough and Constitution-loving enough to handle it.
But I wouldn't bet any money on us, given what I've seen in the last 10 years.
I didn't claim that a great replacement startegy is under way.
What do you think happens if people believe such nonsense.
I also don't think that he American Democrat party hates this country and wanna see it collapse.
And I definetly don't think a 10-year should conceive the baby after a rape.
And don't forget in Kirk's own words:
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Harder to get guns would likely have saved his life.
BTW how can I be the problems, it's just words, isn't it?
It's simple, there is no limit on what someone can say until they should be shot in public. That's what the justice system is for.
And yeah of course it's ironic what he said about the 2nd amendment, but I don't think he'd change his answer if someone asked him about if HE was shot and killed.
I don't like Kirk, I'm a democrat, but I think the left is pretty deranged at the moment. They have a way of changing the definition of of terrible things (Nazi, racist, facist), and labeling all convervatives those things, which is a great way to dehumanize people. Which leads to... murder.
I went to college at this place (when it was Utah Valley State College [UVSC], before it was UVU). I spent a lot of time in that part of the campus over several years. How strange to see these events unfolding there. Kirk seems to be a person with whom I have scant philosophical agreement, but I prefer to converse with such people rather than watch them die. What an awful mess this all is.
these people don't argue to uncover the truth, they just provoke you into some debate-bro logical gotcha that is simply borne in ignorance.
it's not even if you agree or not with him, he has no intention of ever learning your side, it's just a smorgasbord of conservative bs on repeat.
murder bad. but this guy was a provocateur who tried to get the most "impact" for his side. that is why his hot takes are so insane. they aren't points to argue against, they are dog whistle rallying points for all the racists and misogynists to think society is theirs. so let's not defend his work as "just having opinions i disagree with" ...
I am a liberal person who lives in a deeply conservative area (Utah). I have had many conversations with staunch conservatives, some of them close friends and family. One-on-one is different from the one-to-many format, or the one-to-one-in-front-of-others format. It's quite possible to have a civil conversation about such things when there isn't an audience.
I have seldom (probably never) seen anyone have a big change of heart from such discussion, but often both sides concede a little, and it feels like progress toward common ground, minuscule though it may be.
It sounds like you’ve never watched any debating, whether at a world class university, parliament, or a high school. They’re no greater or lesses than Kirk’s debates were.
There is an increased amount of energy in the system. This is a bad thing. The amplitudes of the fluctuations are too high. Time to bring things back down to normal. Political violence cannot be accepted: Luigi Mangione, the Hortmans' killer, Kirk's killer all have to be brought to justice by the law. And from the rest of us, they all have to be denounced.
Increased political violence is bad. The state starts breaking down since the price for everything is death so action stalls.
This cannot be an explanation since the 2008 Financial Crisis did not have a similar rise in political violence and that was far greater economic disruption.
2008 did have an rise in political violence. you're seeing the results of it right now. we never climbed out of that hole and we're still living in the aftermath of 2008 and its effects on our society
I have such disdain for the e/acc crowd given that I believe that "we do not understand the consequences of what we are building".
But now I'm not sure if it's fair to ignore the consequences of building Twitter, or even the internet. Seeing people's behavior during this event has been incredibly disheartening.
The wikivoyage page for the United States explicitly advises that neither politics nor religion should be discussed when meeting people in this country.
I don't think we ever left? The KKK was still marching in the annual parade in my home town when I was born, in 1994. Emmett Till was lynched in 1955, and still - to this day - racists make a habit of shooting at the memorial sign. [0]
Forget don't talk about politics or religion, there's still large portions of the US where you should avoid being visibly black or gay if you want to stay safe.
When I say "how did we get here", I don't mean "how did we end up with these opinions (e.g. racism) on our soil". I mean something more like:
1. Why is discussing these things so difficult? So many internet forums are a pure deluge of unkindness, anger, and dishonest discussion.
2. There was a video of someone promoting their social media handle and asking people to subscribe with the backdrop of the shooting. How does someone end up acting like this?
I do not think there will be a time where racism is eradicated like a disease, but I think it's possible to confine it to small spaces and individuals. Similar to how I believe the majority of views like pedophelia: people with those mindsets exist, they don't form (huge) groups, and are generally consistently condemned. With the values I believe the US to have (tolerance of opinions and religion) this will always be a constant struggle.
Continuing with this disease analogy, the internet + social media has removed all possible herd immunity strategies to stupid ideas. People with any kind of ideology can search up their groups and commiserate, without ever encountering a differing viewpoint.
Furthermore, people are offloading their thoughts more and more to LLM's, so much so that we're becoming the mental equivalent of those wall-e humans [0].
We're not thinking for ourselves. Other people are thinking for us, delivering those thoughts to us, pre-digested. This leads to reactionary behavior, I think. And in an environment with such a reactionary populace, populism becomes so easy to exploit.
P.S. Sorry for the rambling. You're not wrong that the US has been, and still is, incredibly hostile to specifically identifiable groups of people. However, I think that the ability to discuss how to go about solving/remedying/containing this has been uniquely hampered in the last 20 years.
> I have such disdain for the e/acc crowd given that I believe that "we do not understand the consequences of what we are building".
> But now I'm not sure if it's fair to ignore the consequences of building Twitter, or even the internet. Seeing people's behavior during this event has been incredibly disheartening.
For at least the last 5 or so years I've been right there with you with the same thoughts and concerns. I'm completely convinced after what I saw today that global social media platforms were and still are a mistake. Especially so for the younger generations that have never known a world without them.
I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.
That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
> even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe
ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is the number of mass shootings per year in the USA, and in Japan. I did't know the answer but asked Gemini.
The most recent year for which there is data, apparently, is 2023, during which there were 604 mass shootings in the USA, and 1 in Japan. Given the respective population counts, the per-capita rate of mass shootings in the United States was about 225 times higher than in Japan.
Given that, are you confident that your observation that "one guy made a gun once in Japan" is a strong refutation of the idea that the US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
I think you're basically ignoring my point - that increasing numbers of targeted assassinations are not really a gun control issue (today's was seemingly a single shot, so things being discussed in this thread seem pretty not related), but a sign of major societal problems that need to be addressed.
Your response seems very off topic in focusing on "mass shootings" which are at best an ill-defined marketing term created to lump family annihilation suicides with more public mass casualty events like the pulse nightclub shooting in order to launder dubious policies.
But my whole original comment said nothing about mass shootings to begin with.
Strong gun regulations have a couple of orders of magnitude impact on one type of gun violence, but you think that’s irrelevant and off-topic to whether strong gun regulations would have an impact on another form of gun violence?
You didn’t clarify that by “everything that’s happening” as the preface to your suggestion that gun control is pointless you specifically meant “political assassination and no other gun deaths”. It’s reasonable that someone would see you say that gun regulation wouldn’t have an effect on gun deaths and think that you were talking about gun deaths generally.
It would actually be bizarre for a reader to read “everything that’s happening” and think “the person that wrote this is referring to the first shooting at a school today and specifically excluding the second shooting at a school today”
You’re quoting statistics that are irrelevant to the point. Mass shootings are not political violence.
I can come up with a multitude of political violence examples in countries with strict weapons laws - New Zealand, France, Japan. Then if you add in other weapons - cars, knives, bombs, the list gets even longer.
The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.
> The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.
Technically true. But gun control means political violence will have to engage much closer and is less likely to be as deadly. Do we want more or less death+maiming in our political violence?
Just to be clear political violence is a broad umbrella of many actions, including violent protest and political assassinations. One can be more of an issue than the other. Personally, in my opinion it’s hard to political violence as a whole is an “issue” when looking from a historically context. However, I do think that political assassination specifically is something that has been an issue historically.
Am I? The forest view is that political violence is an inevitable part of life. And that outlawing guns makes them less accessible and therefore less likely to be used in any violent interactions.
there are plenty of regulations already. what we need is to start enforcing them. and also mental heath destigmatization and assistance, since it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
Why cannot it be both? You definitely have a gun problem, and also a mental health problem. And you even have a mentality problem by thinking that gun is fine on you just to be safe, which is quite acceptable thought over there - the reaction of Americans vs Europeans to the fact that somebody has a gun on them in a friendly group is quite stark. But you have also a stochastic terrorism problem, a grifter problem, an inequality problem, an almost zero social net problem, many monopoly problems. All of these exaggerate your murder problem.
And you clearly have a “too few people want to solve these” problem. Most of you even voted to the person who campaigned that he wants to make these worse.
This won’t be solved, and will it be made worse in America for the next decade for sure.
Sorry, upon re-reading my comment, I communicated my thought incorrectly.
My intention was to point out that the not-mass shooting overshadowed the mass shooting in the news. Obviously both are bad, but 3 people dying in a single shooting incident is worse than 1 person dying in a single shooting incident, yet the 1 person dying is the one that gets the news coverage.
I think that points out something even more horrifying about the American news cycle. A social media influencer being killed vs high school students being killed. Perhaps that's a bit reductive but I feel like the HS shooting ought to be a LOT more shocking, if it weren't a headline that we sadly have become somewhat blind to.
How come there’s no gun violence in prison but plenty of stabbings? Prison is the highest concentration of violent criminals and yet no gun violence. To quote the great Eddie Izzard, “you can’t just walk up to someone and yell BANG. The gun helps”.
There’s positives to cars that far outweigh the cost of drunk driving. Gun ownership does not “far outweigh” its consequences.
I will just casually ignore your reductionist argument, I’m sure you’ll understand. Reasonable people don’t argue that way as all arguments would just … boil down to nothing.
It's hard to take your argument seriously given that (a) prisons are an intentional police state and a generally unpleasant abode, (b) people are still violently dying in them anyway (well over double non-prison homicide rate even with somewhat effective dangerous property restrictions), (c) there's no sane way to apply prison levels of property restriction to the public at large outside of prisons (and we live in a world where the ability to fabricate weapons at home grows day by day), (d) whether gun ownership outweighs its downsides is as similarly complex and judgement driven a question as whether cars do: both have complex downside and benefits with situational and unclear boundaries. That people can with a straight face "why should anyone need a gun" in a country with food deserts and regions with deer overpopulation problems while often treating "why should anyone need a Lamborghini?" as an offensive or silly question only illustrates.
> US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
How? without decreasing access for sane people or using any of the previous talking points that have been rejected previously. now’s the time to suggest real change that could have an effect but suggesting the tired “no black rifles” will still go nowhere.
The US is an outlier in how many guns we own, with about 1/3 of American adults owning guns, and we are also an extreme outlier in mass shootings unless you compare us to places that lack rule of law. How many more people need guns before that mass shooting number goes down to 0, do you think?
Given your link, I'd say every shooting where the bad guy didn't get shot is evidence in the opposite direction? Seems to me there's more of those than your 11 examples.
That would only be true in a world where every single human is able to regulate their angry emotions immediately. But that is so far away from human nature...
> remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders. IMO it's clearly worth the tradeoff. Very few of us live in a place where only guns can solve our problems.
The fact that occasionally someone goes to great lengths to kill doesn't mean we should make it easier for everyone.
So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole.
In which case you'd need a strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen by following up on leads and tips.
Well... not to get political, but I think we're hollowing that out too?
> So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole.
My point isn't that outlawing guns would stop every possible scenario. Rather it would make killings of all kinds far less likely, which is a win for everyone--even hate-spewing pundits.
Well, you wouldn't be able to reproduce such a long-range kill with a shabbily constructed firearm. You would have to be up close, which would be harder to do.
I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people down south that would be happy to smuggle guns back up North. And trying to control the ammo would be even more unrealistic. The gun culture America created over the past 100+ years is a massive mistake, and I don't think there is any undoing of it. Should have been more control immediately post WWII imo.
I'm not from the US so I only have an outsider's view of the culture, and FWIW I'm also not from Australia although I have emigrated here now.
Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK.
Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did.
Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.
I live in the US. I don't hold much hope in gun control changing after recent years. Recent federal and state policy is trending towards less regulation and removal of the previous administrations regulations.
In 2024, estimated 16,576 deaths in the US from guns (excluding suicide, which is a very large addition on top of that), and 499 mass shootings.
Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.
100%. The US took all that capability and could not win in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan against such a force. Same in Vietnam.
The US populace is vastly larger and better armed and capable than Afghanistan.
The US military requires a massive economy to function. If it tries to attack itself, those little armed people could stop it, the economy would crash, and the US military would crumble without needed support and supplies.
A final issue is the US troops would lose a lot of soldiers if they were told to go attack fellow citizens. The soldiers would quit, would hesitate, would not want to kill people they view as their own people.
So armed citizenry absolutely have major power against the govt.
Finally, if you were in a country where the govt set out to kill its citizens, would you rather have arms or be completely unarmed?
>The US took all that capability and could not win in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan against such a force.
We had no military objective in Afghanistan.
Our only goal there was to enrich contractors who had stockholders working at the highest levels in the Pentagon and White House. That goal was achieved spectacularly.
The US military would be the defending force, though, which would put The People at a disadvantage. Pushing through the defenses of a multi-trillion dollar military with AR-15s seems unlikely. I don't even think that China's armed forces could defeat the US military, let alone civilians armed with AR-15s
All being said, I am no military guru and I could be wrong
Citizens should be allowed to own UAVs, nukes, tanks, helicopters, and jets. It says in the text: "shall not be infringed."
Besides that, who do you think is going to do the fighting, exactly?
The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.
The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...
The bill of rights are about personal freedoms, as is made clear during the discussion leading up to them. All states copied these in some form into their own constitutions, and if you go look at those, most are quite explicit this is a personal right. The claim otherwise is a very recent claim.
Congress around 1982 had the Library of Congress issue a study about this in great depth, with millions of citations to historical documents, which give ample evidence and quotes. You may have to dig to find it, but it's a good read to gain more understanding.
Also the second militia act of 1792 actually required all able bodied men to own guns, and this was the law for well over the following century.
The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.
I've read the Bible at least four times. I'd rather not stone people for being born different. Nor inspire PTSD in children or adults with silly stories about punishment in eternal flames.
Good and evil are even more subjective than how people perceive colors. I hope we can at least agree that murder is wrong, and the tools which facilitate the most murder should be the most heavily regulated.
Might have read it but clearly didn't understand the point of the sacrifice and the new covenant. You shouldn't be telling young children they're going to burn in hell for eternity any more than you should talk to them about sex.
Murder is wrong.
Every citizen worth a damn should own guns and the idea that they should not be regulated by the government is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Every gun law created since is an abberation that should be abolished.
I'm not personally against individuals owning guns, but the part that is somehow vehemently opposed is the "well-regulated" part. There's effectively no regulation, and somehow the 2nd amendment has been warped to leave out the part of regulation, to make folks believe they're entitled to guns without limit.
[As a necessity for a free state, A well trained and in good working order group of able bodies citizens capable of fight for defense of self and state, is required], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Militia is just the people. Oxford 1800s has well-regulated to mean “in good working order”.
And when those countries run into issues because the government is incompetent, people start wishing they had guns again. It's all well and good to give up guns when the system works, but when it doesn't, you lose self determination.
Japan is, famously, a country where the system generally works. Hell, a late train would get you a letter for your boss. It's a bit different in places where the police don't have the resources, or dangerous individuals aren't removed from the public.
My post wasn't about keeping the government honest, it was about the individual's right to protect themselves from anyone, including the government. Guns empower the individual to defend themselves without having to rely on the effective intervention of government, because they're an equalizer. This matters when the government loses effectiveness, either because resources are stretched thin (so, ineffective policing) or because incompetence or ideology creeps in (the judiciary does a poor job of removing dangerous individuals from the public). In places with effective governance, guns aren't really necessary, and it's tempting to trade them in for a small gain in security. The issue is that governments change over time, and effective systems can become ineffective. When that happens, people suddenly find themselves wanting guns again.
The debate over guns actually hinges on the extent to which the individual should be empowered to defend themselves, and historically, it hasn't just been about guns, but about all weapons, and even martial arts (which have also been banned at various points in history). Governments don't like to empower the individual, because they want to maintain a monopoly over violence (for many practical reasons), and because empowering individuals often creates its own set of trust problems (which is true for anything -- how many drivers are trustworthy, for example). Defenseless individuals are easier to govern from an administrative perspective, and if a government is good at protecting the populace from threats, it works. In fact, it can be better for the population as a whole, at least while the government is competent. But life is messy, and there are points where individuals need to defend themselves. As systems break down, not only does the need increase, but also the effectiveness of the means, because the threats you have to defend yourself against by definition don't play by the rules.
This, imo, is the real point of the second amendment. The Bill of Rights is essentially a declaration that certain rights are derived from a higher authority than government, which is why they are inalienable. No one needs permission to defend themselves, and it's my belief that the right to bear arms was put in there to ensure that should the system fail or become ineffective, the people would still be able to exercise one of their most fundamental natural rights. It certainly wasn't an accident, because it was the second thing that they added. The verbiage around government and militias makes sense in the context of having just fought a war of independence, but it also makes sense when you consider that it's often well-meaning governments that take this right away.
> Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders.
So let’s define what your definition of strict gun control is. Also, if you want people to care more, stop including suicides because it drastically changes the numbers.
I see where you are going there, but I'm not so sure that rings true. Not to get too dark, but IIRC, Japan has higher suicide rates. And most are non-gun methods, like hanging, throwing oneself in front of a train, etc.
I did not check into SK, but Japan has consistently been about the same or higher with the US for many years. Even with a drop in the last year, still very similar to one another.
The purpose of my original comment was that the US dwindles Japan in firearms, but Japanese still manage to kill themselves just fine. So it's not a strong point by the parent I responded to. If Japan maintained that decrease for several more years, I think this would be worth revisiting, but for now it doesn't have much weight.
South Korea is really high. Japan used be high but is much lower now (comparable to the USA). You can make your point more quickly today with South Korea’s suicide rate, which is really really bad. Mental health is important, the higher suicide rates in red states could just be about them being more depressed (eg from higher poverty, or overwork?) and having less access to mental health resources than just having more access to guns. Poverty might explain it, which is why New Mexico (the poorest blue state) is so high, but then you have Utah which is usually the exception red state, and Colorado, which is a richer blue state, in the 20/100k list. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Note that Montana, the worst state for suicide, is about the same as South Korea at 28/100k.
I say this sadly as having had a friend kill herself in High School via a gun her dad had lying around. And ya, it was a red state (Mississippi).
suicide is championed by progressives outside this country, and machines have been built to increase nitrogen to give a comfortable death. the left is not against suicide, they are finding reasons to disarm people. this is why they will lose, their arguments are not rational.
Japan has strict gun control and an extremely high rate of suicide. The US has more homicides per capita by simply beating someone to death by ones bare hands than many countries have total homicide rate (check data in FBI UCR). Restricting suicides and homicides to only those with guns is a dishonest comparison when the rates without the gun restriction are more useful and flip the outcomes of the discussion. I doubt a murder by non-gun is fundamentally different to a family or society than one by a gun, or any other method.
The Obama CDC study on gun control concluded that guns are used to stop far more crimes than they are used for in crimes. It concluded that a household with a gun saw far less bad outcomes than a household without during home invasions. It concluded a lot of things that didn't sit well with the left, so after all the fanfare to make it, it was downplayed by that admin. Read it, it's quite interesting.
Trump was golfing instead of attending the funeral of the Hortmans and used their death to insult Tim Walz. He didn't order flags flown at half mast like he's now done with Kirk. Notable conservative publications like National Review barely covered the Minnesota shooting. He also mocked the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband.
So I would say the reaction will be quite different, given that Kirk was a political ally and not a Democrat.
Some years back, I had a discussion with an older woman who struck a conversation with me innocently enough about weather or something. She turned the topic to politics and volunteered an opinion, her tone and expression indicated to me that she expected me to agree with her statement. I told her that I respectfully disagreed with her and I also told her why. Her expression soured and she told me that because she was a schoolteacher she thought guns should be banned because too many children had been killed by people using guns on them. I agreed with her that it was tragic and that I hoped we could live in a world where kids wouldn’t die from people using guns on them. In my life I want to be rational and honest and I want to listen to people. I listen to people and I hope they listen to me because that’s how ideas are exchanged. I asked her how I myself could avoid becoming the victim of a genocide without guns. I wonder this myself. I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership. A few years ago our car was stolen in Portland, the police did not help and the 911 phone service was down at the time. The only way I could get the car was to physically go and pick the car up, a car surrounded by criminals, of course I needed a gun to make sure I was safe. I think about natural disasters or occasions where government is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens - how will good people defend themselves against evil people? I’ve seen violence firsthand so many times that I have a visceral reaction to the thought that someone would take my guns away - I simply wouldn’t let it happen because I know if I did then I wouldn’t be able to prevent myself from being killed and dumped in an unmarked mass grave by a 19 year old kid who thinks he’s doing the right thing because of a mandate from a politician, and I wouldn’t be able to stop evil people.
She disagreed, I disagreed with her, she made points I feel were unfair oversimplifications “guns have more rights than women,” but we had a respectful discussion but she didn’t want to talk with me anymore after that. I would’ve talked with her after because I value what people have to say and I want to have discussions. I think we can have discussions but we should never take away the rights of citizens.
This comes across a lot like you're saying that your personal feeling of safety for you and your family is worth more than the actual safety of innocent schoolchildren who are being mass murdered.
I am personally concerned that I may be the victim of genocide, and far more people have died from genocide perpetrated by governments than by school shootings. I’m not trying to be dense, I’m simply saying that history of demonstrated this. I’m also concerned that I will be the victim of violent crime and I’ve also had to defend myself from violent criminals in the past. Have you had any of these experiences? I’m curious to hear your thoughts if you’ve ever feared for your life in this way? Call me selfish, but I personally don’t want to be hurt. Thank you for your response.
You've talked about your feelings a lot, which is the point.
Guns make people feel safe.
They don't actually make you safer.
You're more likely to be killed by your own gun than someone else's.
Realistically, you have no hope of protecting yourself with a gun if you're surrounded by gangbangers with a bunch of guns all pointed at you.
Etc, etc...
The gun debate isn't a debate about facts, it never was. It's a debate about feelings, and scared people won't change their minds unless they stop being scared.
Nobody in America right now is trying to make people feel safe, not in an era where the President of the United States feels it is appropriate to personally attack... anyone for any perceived slight, in public, with verbal violence and in the case of anyone looking even vaguely hispanic, physical violence.
I get where you’re coming from, but I lived in Portland for years where the police were essentially suppressed by the district attorney Eric Schmidt (and other factors that were occurring during this time in Portland and in America). This led to violent criminals essentially controlling the city at night and which lead to unfortunate outcomes for my family. Simultaneously this came at a time where the previous president was threatening my job and livelihood with mandates and I was receiving emails from our national HR that we may lose our jobs if we did not comply. These two events did not make me feel safe for years, I do feel safer with the current president.
I have had a gun pointed at me, and I've been where guns have been fired in anger around me.
I'm kind of surprised to hear somebody in America think it's a likely enough thing to happen to be worth the obvious societal cost of the wide spread weapons.
Realistically, if they did come for you, how much use would your weapon be? Do you believe that it would mean the difference between your life and death, or just that you'd feel better going having been able to put up some defence? Several genocides have happened in neighbouring countries from where I live in living memory, and it isn't at all clear that having access to a weapon allowed anybody who was targeted to survive.
The cost in mass shootings (now nearly two per day in the US) is a real cost borne by society at large. Your cost is still only hypothetical, and of unclear value if the worst did happen.
It seems you have been around violence but have concluded differently than I have.
I think that all rights are hypothetical until they are used. People in America have the right to free speech and assembly but depending on your perspective these rights are hypothetical for most people because they don’t use their speech or right to assembly very often or to the fullest extent. In some states, women have the right to have an abortion but many don’t use that right so hypothetically for them it doesn’t have any value. I think with the right to keep and bear arms it’s the same, for a good person defending themselves with a gun this hypothetical right becomes applied and has an immeasurable value to them. I don’t think we should discard any of our rights even if they are rarely used. I don’t think the risk of a genocide or civil war is infinitesimal, I think these sort of events happen often and are guaranteed over a long enough timeline. I think that people who are well armed would be better off in these situations and may even be the people who put something like a genocide to a stop.
You're misinterpreting what I said. I said that your ability to defend yourself and your family with a gun was hypothetical.
I can see that you like to think of yourself as a rational thinker about this, but you're refusing to answer the actual criticism: actual people are being killed every day due to the availability of weapons in your society. There are nearly two mass shootings per day. So far this year that has led to 250 deaths and more than a thousand injuries[1]. These are not hypothetical abstractions, which is all you seem interested in engaging with. These are real people, many of them children, who find themselves victims of gun violence. You are arguing that your feeling of safety is more important than their actual safety. All of your arguments amount to a continuation of your position that you put your own feelings ahead of the actual deaths of people in society around you. This is a very selfish way to engage in your society.
I understand your position, it is terrible that adults and children die by the hands of others. Genocides have happened all over the world and have led to tens of millions of people dying. These events aren’t hypothetical they’re historical but happen in big chunks rather than uniformly distributed and frequent but comparatively small events. I would suggest the statistics indicate that a person is likelier to die from a genocide than from a mass shooting by a factor of >100 and that small arms ownership and competence is more helpful rather than harmful since these tools can enable individuals to defend themselves against state actors or violent groups, or by their existence prevent groups with malicious intent from acting out on their genocidal or authoritarian desires. Something I agree with is the FBI’s assessment that people don’t commit crimes if they thinks it’s likely that they’ll be caught. I think that the collective individuals in our government (these United States of America) wouldn’t want to mandate concentration camps or a genocide because of the concentration of citizens with diverse mindsets who would provide feedback through resistance. There are of course other factors like recency bias that come into play.
Rhetorical: What does it say about America that a large portion of its citizens (assuming OPs feelings are not unique) fear being a victim of genocide? Can't say I've met anyone from any other "developed" nation who share the same dread by simply existing as part of their country.
In other words, the sum total of America's values have resulted in a citizenry that lives with existential dread. Maybe those values need a second look?
My thoughts on this is that genocide has been common outside of America in the last ~100 years and that Americans need to act differently than the rest of the world in an effort to keep it from happening here.
This of course plays into the fear US gun advocates have of any attempt to remove their gun rights. If it were to happen though, then maybe as a prepper type with a house and lands in the woods you'd stand a chance against an armed mob that came for you, but certainly not the government. If you're defending your sub-urban house (or even worse flat), I suspect that the gun you have for self defense would make very little difference to the final outcome, but might make you feel a bit better about it.
Did the gun actually make you safer when retrieving your car or did it just make you feel safer? Did having the gun actually solve any problem, or just increase the chances of someone dying over a parked car?
Aren't there other potential ways to fix society from your example of your stolen car other than "we should just arm everyone"? Shouldn't the answer be we should have police actually help these situations and we should do more to reduce the rates of people living lives where they're more likely to steal a car in the first place?
In my case, the criminals physically left because I had a firearm. That week the police response time was anywhere from three hours to three days. This was in Portland, Oregon and our car had been stolen three times before, my girlfriend‘s bike was also stolen and my car was broken into three times, my other car was totaled by a drunk driver without any repercussions. We left Portland shortly after meeting a British person who had been kidnapped and forced to withdraw money from ATMs.
I would love to live in a world where everybody has what they want but we don’t live in that world. That being said there is no excuse for somebody taking something that does not belong to them. I was deeply hurt by these experiences and forever changed in the way that I think and act. I learned that sometimes when I told people about the things that had happened to us, I felt that that person had sympathy for the criminals and no sympathy for me. I learned that it is a fact that police cannot be everywhere, they cannot react instantly, and even if they can react sometimes they won’t for political reasons. I still think of the time where I was sucker punched by some man on the street for no reason which is what initially lead me to purchase a firearm for self-defense. I can’t fix society, but I can protect myself and my loved ones.
There aren't any other solutions that empower the individual. The problem is when the police are underfunded and don't show up, or the judiciary continually lets dangerous individuals out on bail. We should be able to rely on the system, but it's not hard to see why people want firearms when the system fails.
> how will good people defend themselves against evil people
The problem is in people assuming that they are “good”. That’s hubris. The reality is that everyone is equally capable of evil—we’re just looking at taking guns out of the equation so that gun violence becomes highly unlikely.
>I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership.
No gun will save you during genocide if you are a target. Best case scenario you kill few attackers and die anyway.
Genocides are not committed solely by governments. An armed and divided populace is just as likely to commit a genocide as they are to stop one. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the mass shootings we have here by white supremacists.
All it takes is an armed populace that stands by while “those people” (their neighbors) are killed by extremists (their other neighbors).
In my head I'm praying it's not a Franz Ferdinand. But the trajectory in the cycle of economic booms and bust, it feels at least possible. I hoping I'm wwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
> I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
... having said that, isn't it funny just how much gun violence there is in the one developed country that allows for open slather gun ownership. It's like, yes, you can never stop a determined person from doing violence, but by reducing the availability and power of fire arms you do stop a lot of fools from doing "mass shooter" levels of damage.
> I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.
Trump has already issued a statement blaming his political opponents for the death before the perpetrator has even been identified.
"It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that funded and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country."
> That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
The event was set up so nobody could have direct access to Kirk, which would have been required for the "home-made shotgun" approach. There were barricades and bodyguards in front of him, and a waiting car in case he had to be whisked away. Shooting someone from 200+ yards requires more precise weapons than someone can make themselves. I think it's also important to note that Utah literally started allowing open carry on college campuses a few weeks ago. Not only did all those "good guys with guns" not prevent the assassination, having a large number of armed people in a crowd makes finding the shooter more difficult, as we've seen from police arresting the wrong suspect multiple times.
There's video of the police carrying someone away, with his pants down. They drop him on his face at one point. Apparently the wrong guy.
Utah has what they call "constitutional carry." Extremely permissive gun laws. I'd bet there were several people carrying concealed in that crowd, not counting security and police.
Reports are that the single shot came from ~200 yards/meters away, which is basically the worst case scenario for good-guy-with-a-gun. In an active shooter situation, an armed bystander could in principle stop an attacker from continuing, but the only way that an armed bystander could hope to stop an assassination is if they were walking around looking for trouble.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject of concealed carry, I don't think its controversial to say we shouldn't be encouraging untrained/unvetted folks to go seek out would-be assassins before they have demonstrated themselves to be a danger. That's exactly how "armed security" shot and killed an actual bystander at the Salt Lake City 50501 demonstration earlier this year.
I'm certainly not encouraging armed individuals in a crowd to do anything. My point was that having a significant number of armed people in a crowd like that makes finding a shooter that much more difficult. I am not surprised the wrong person was grabbed. It could've been much worse.
I misunderstood you then. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Even so, most folks who carry prefer concealed carry for tactical reasons, one of which being that unless you have your rifle in a ready position, its not very useful in a self-defense situation, and simply marks you as "shoot this one first". And it turns out that walking around with a rifle in a ready position is generally perceived as aggressive, regardless of actual intent, even by those comfortable with firearms (consider a police officer approaching with a holstered weapon vs one in their hand).
So in the context of this shot, it ought to be relatively easy to pick out the shooter in the moment, the problem is that a ~200m radius around the tent where Kirk was speaking covers a lot of territory, and that's a lot of ground to cover effectively without obviously interfering with students' free movement about their college campus.
The shot was clearly with a long gun (a rifle). There’s no way to make a shot at 200 yards with a hand gun (okay yes it’s possible, but disqualifyingly difficult and unlikely). And nobody concealed carries a long gun because it’s not physically possible.
Correct, no right to bear arms people think it stops bad guys shooting people, only that it caps the deaths - i.e. you'll have a few killed then the bad guy is dropped, rather than they get to go killing dozens of people at leisure without resistance until the cops arrive (and presumably, wait outside while the bad guy continues killing, to "secure the perimeter" or whatever).
The theory then is that this will act as a deterrent - an angry bad guy wants to go out taking dozens of people with him - a few people wouldn't be "enough" for his grandiose end.
Yeah, this happened with the shooting at the SLC protest earlier this year. A protestor with a gun was shot at by security, then accused of shooting the person who died. Open carry is allowed in Utah. Whether or not you think marching while openly carrying is a good idea. Unfortunately I understand the stress of the moment and it can be hard to figure out who is responsible while acting quickly.
I bang on a lot about not saying things like "this person is a threat to democracy" and other such apocalyptic statements. This right here is a perfect example of why: when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.
If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.
You start your comment saying we should avoid making apocalyptic statements and end it by saying "the cycle is going to destroy our society".
My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. The view is nearly impossible to avoid in context. How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? To the point where assassinating political opponents is justified?
It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.
I think they're politely asking for the far left to stop with the language inflation. Use words with appropriate and proportionate meanings. Do not try to gradually be more and more dramatic and impactful.
It's not clear that "existential" threat and "destruction of society" are the same. A society can be "destroyed" via a lapse in the social contract, turning it into a "society" or a different nature, or a non social population.
> My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
This is a nonsense argument. It is possible that constantly making apocalyptic statements can result in an apocalypse, and saying that people should stop doing that is not contradictory.
The words you use matter. If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated. If you're not advocating for murderous escalation, then stop using those words (for example).
> If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated.
Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat, who/what maintains the list of words which can replace "democracy" in that section, and what happens when someone disagrees with the maintainer of that list?
Those are all great questions, and why the point under discussion is whether or not we should choose our words more carefully and stop making apocalyptic predictions.
I wholeheartedly disagree - we need to be less concerned with who might say something and more concerned with how we teach society to react to it. Whether or not someone is making apocalyptic predictions should not define our ability to hold back from assassinating.
I'd agree there are aspects of how we say things which can reinforce how to react about it, but I don't think that's a good primary way to teach how to engage with polarizing content and certainly not via the way of avoidance of the types of statements bigstrat2003 laid out. I.e. there are very reasonable, particularly historical, examples of belief of potential threats to democracy which turned out to be true, so I don't inherently have a problem with that kind of discussion. I actually think calling that kind of statement as the problem would actually drive more extremism.
At the same time, I do believe there are ways to share such statements while also reinforcing healthy ways to react at the same time. kryogen1c's example ending in "he should be assassinated" crosses the line from bigstrat2003's talk of apocalyptic claims to direct calls to violence about them - the latter of which I agree is bad teaching (but I'd still rather people be encouraged to openly talk about those kinds of statements too, rather than be directly pressured to internalize or echo chamber them).
This is why the first question posed about the statement from kryogen1c was "Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat". The follow on questions were only added to help highlight there is no reasonable answer to that question because it's the call to assassination which is inherently problematic, not the claim someone is a threat to the democracy here. The latter (talking about perceived threats) is good, if not best, to talk about directly and openly. It's the former (calling for assassination about it) which is inherently incompatible with a stable society.
I agree with this, and, as a result, I don't believe there is any possible approach which results in 0 people assassinating political figures for what other people say. I think the same conclusion can even be reached if people were supposed to be expected to be perfectly rational beings.
I do believe education on how to effectively engage against an idea which feels threatening is better equipped to handle this apparent fact than bigstrat2003's approach of teaching people to not say certain beliefs because they'd be worth killing about. That doesn't mean it results in a perfect world though. Some may perhaps even agree with both approaches at the same time, but I think the implication from teaching the silencing of certain beliefs from being said for fear they are worth assassinating over if believed true ends up driving the very problem it sets out against. Especially once you add in malicious actors (internal or external).
It can be both simultaneously true that the current administration and its supporters are genuinely dangerous to our democracy and that political violence is not an acceptable way to effect social change.
Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.
If they really were such a danger why did the opposing party not try to save it with a democratically elected candidate instead of forcing an unpopular one down people’s throat?
politicial violence in this case will be quite effective in terms of later voting results - kirk was a good story teller who could get people enthusiastic about ideas. attempts to make it such that a similar event dont happen again will be much more likely to succeed now that hes dead than they were while he was alive
Is it bad to be a threat to democracy? Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better. I don't agree but it's actually a popular point of view. Are we supposed to be so afraid to point that out that we censor ourselves?
> Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better.
Well, since they don't believe in democracy, I suppose they won't be too concerned when their opinions are discarded. What do they want, representation?
The othering that is so very common in online discussion is genuinely dangerous. It's incredibly common and almost benign at this point because it's just everywhere.
It is historically proven as the first step to violence. People seem to think that words don't matter.
They matter very much. Just because you can read millions of words a day, doesn't mean they're not powerful.
Support him or no, he didn't deserve to die for his political beliefs.
Do we know if this violence is politically motivated yet? (Other common motivations are mental health issues, paranoia, revenge, desire for fame etc). Of course it seems likely, but it also seems premature to jump to trying to use this as proof of a particular personal position.
I definitely believe that people should be more understanding of each other, and less quick to jump to insults and othering, but we know so little about this situation, to be so confident that it was caused by speech seems extreme.
I am also aware that a lot of the political violence of the last few years ended up not being motivated by the reasons one might naturally expect.
> Do we know if this violence is politically motivated yet?
How many long-range rifle shot assassinations do you know of that were not politically motivated? Jilted lovers and such don't do that. In context it's hard to take this assassination as anything other than politically motivated.
I guess that largely depends on how one qualifies "politically motivated". By some definitions it's easy to include any of what you listed as also part of a politically motivated attack, by a narrower definition one could just as easily choose to exclude them. E.g. whether an attacker is paranoid is orthogonal to whether the attack involved the victim's political views/activity in some way.
At the root I agree in principal though. It's, for example, still possible he picked a bad fight with an unstable individual in a bar last night (over something not politically related) and they followed him to the event he was speaking at to shoot him. I'm not as convinced I've seen that kind of thing happen "a lot", but it's true we don't have post validation yet.
my basic guess would be that its epstein related, which is still politically motivated in some sense, but "killed him for protecting pedophiles" is quite different from "killed him for being right wing"
Isn't it more likely that this is a false flag operation designed to distract from the Epstein birthday card signed by Trump? The timing is suspicious and there's certainly a lot of bandwidth given over to a single shooting, compared to the school shooting on the same day (three shot).
Kirk would seem like an ideal target as he has a high media profile and is not involved in running the government. I would guess that the aim is to promote civil war and thus provide an excuse for martial law.
Violence should not be how we settle our disagreements. But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. Fear that someone may act violently should not cause us to suppress our genuine fears about the future of our democracy.
> But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion.
All claims I see of a person being "a threat to democracy" are super exaggerated, and almost always of the "a thread to our democracy" (which makes one wonder: who is "us" in that phrase, and what about everyone else?).
Exaggerating threats is itself an incitement to violence. Maybe tone it down?
This may be true for Kirk specifically, but in general I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say there are threats to "our" (meaning all Americans) democracy when there's frequent attempts to subvert and even overthrow election results.
See: January 6th insurrection, trump's call to the GA secretary of state, increased gerrymandering, and attempts to throw out certain ballots.
Wild exaggerations don't help. No one at J6 had a weapon -- if they haad, we'd know. Don't mention the pipe bomber, because that's been looking a lot like a false flag. Blah blah blah. Oh, and gerrymandering is rich: the blue states are more gerrymandered than the red states. These are not threats to democracy considering that:
- J6 was not in fact an insurrection (no weapons, no plan, just a crowd acting like a mob)
- all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means (even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)
- gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start
- "attempts to throw out certain ballots" has "attempts to stuff ballot boxes" on the flip side, which you ignore.
>all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means
And all 70-something accusations across the country, when they had to be held to actual factual basis, were rejected, and the candidate continued to lie and say he won when he did not.
>(even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)
Wrong.
>J6 was not in fact an insurrection
Wrong.
>gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start
One political party in the past generation has advocated for eliminating it, while another political party is explicitly and proudly using it to weaken democracy. No pretense, just "We need to keep Republicans in power, and so we will do everything we can to that end, even if it is undemocratic".
One political party wants to make elections more accurate and representative by changing to things like ranked-choice or approval voting, and one political party defends the status quo because anything that gives voters more options would disenfranchise extremists.
- There were many weapons in fact, and there were vague plans, but not detailed ones. An insurrection is according to Webster's "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government".
Even if there were no weapons, the events of the day still satisfy that.
- Just because something was deemed to be legal, does not mean it's okay and therefore not a threat to democracy.
- I never stated that gerrymandering was exclusive to Republicans. I know it happens on both sides, but it is a threat to democracy either way. My point about it being "increased" is because it is now being done mid-decade by Republicans rather than just when the census occurs.
- You frame this as if the second negates the first. Let me be clear, they are both threats to democracy. Thank you for providing me with another point of evidence towards my argument.
I remember when the tone started to shift. The onslaught of lies, hate and hyperbole. It only got worse since then, and things that are acceptable politically today were unthinkable then.
There have been no consequences, no corrections, no apologies for blatant lying and spreading hate. There’s not even a pretense of honesty anymore.
> when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.
Well, yes. People point this out regularly with mass shootings. Sometimes the shooters helpfully leave a list of all the violent rhetoric that inspired them. Anders Breivik claimed to be acting against an "existential threat". Those words get used a lot.
The problem is, existential threats are more common than not in politics. Nearly every decision can kill, or change who gets killed, on a scope that varies from individual, to global, to more abstract, e.g. values that are just as important as life (freedom, language, culture, family, nature, take your pick - many have given their lives for each of these).
Deport an illegal immigrant? They may get killed back in their more dangerous home country (or die slowly due to less access to medicine), or grow their home economy instead of yours. Let them stay? Maybe they're a dangerous criminal and will kill someone here. Don't deport any? Your culture and nation get diluted into nothing - some value those things highly, others don't, but to the former, that's an existential threat.
Tax fossil fuels? The economy slows, there's less money for hospitals, more crime due to poverty, this can easily kill people, or maybe it's harder to keep up with China. Don't tax them, and now you're taking your chances with global warming.
Spy on everyone's communication? You've just made it much easier for a tyrannical government to arise, and those have killed millions, and trampled values many hold as dear as life itself. Don't spy? Well maybe you miss a few terrorist attacks, but you also have a harder time identifying hostile foreign propaganda, which could have devastating but hard to isolate effects.
Simply put, death, existential threats, threats to democracy, etc., are common in politics, and one cannot talk honestly about it while avoiding their mention. I would say that, unless you cannot keep a cool head in those circumstances, you shouldn't get into politics in any capacity. But of course, those that need this advice won't heed it.
How can we not call a spade a spade? The United States government is being destroyed from within, openly and proudly. A handbook was written saying it would be done this way.
If someone or something is a threat to democracy and rule of law, then they are. Period. I think pretending the ruling political party in the US is not intentionally destroying the government is not a valid strategy.
This is not an endorsement of what happened today. I worry this will have a big chilling effect on political speech in the country.
> because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder
As someone of Eastern European origins I would celebrate Vladimir Putin's murder, especially since he's responsible for the murder for so many in Ukraine today (both Russians and Ukrainians). I think the reality is a touch more nuanced than the absolutist ethical stance.
Perhaps you are unclear on the devestation in Ukraine that Vladimir Putin is responsible for, and continues to be responsible for while he lives.
Could you say the same if he murdered your friends, family, children? All for what? That man has no respect for human life, civilization or diplomacy.
While within a civilization we can afford each other grace, it remains important for the very security of our civilization that we retain our malice and use it sparingly on those who seek to destroy it. Otherwise i fear that we only believe in it because its convenient or makes us feel morally superior. Do really believe in it if you're not willing to get your hands bloody to defend it? If you were capable of defending it, would you not celebrate the victory?
Putin being murdered tomorrow would create a significant opportunity for peace in the region and spare many, many lives. Such an event would be worthy of cheer.
And yet huge portions of America celebrated Sadams and Osamas death. One must be cautious in believing that all people around them will maintain decorum and act civilized.
> we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds
I genuinely can’t tell if you realize that this is a description of the victim, and your comment could easily be construed as a justification for what happened, or if you condemn the action so heartily you missed that.
Which leads to my point: there are discourses around this that completely miss each other. That’s a huge problem because so many people will loudly express strongly held emotions and two people will read completely opposite view points. US public discourse is at a point where language, without copying context, is failing.
Saying “both sides miss each other” isn’t true either: I’m convinced one side is perfectly capable of quoting leaders of the other, even if they find it absurd, but the reciprocal isn’t true. Many people can’t today say what was the point of one of the largest presidential campaign. They’ll mention points that were never raised by any surrogate or leaders. But they can’t tell that because the relationship is complete severed.
I don’t think there’s a balanced argument around violence, either: one side has leaders who vocally and daily argue for illegal acts violence, demand widespread gun possession vs. another where some commentators occasionally mention that violent revolution is an option, but leaders are always respectful. The vast majority of people who commit gun violence support one particular political movement, even the violence against the leaders of that same movement. If that’s not obvious to you, I can assure you that you are out off from a large part of the political discourse about the US, not just around you, but internationally.
I understand the thrust of your comment, but why is "this person is a threat to democracy" an apocalyptic statement, but "... or the cycle is going to destroy our society" not? Seems like you're being rather selective in what's considered apocalyptic statements and what's not.
There is no inherent threat of violence in saying "this person is a threat to democracy". This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.
> This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.
The First Amendment is about stopping the government from stopping you from saying the things you want to say. The First Amendment says nothing about social norms. People in this thread are asking for people to tone down the rhetoric, something that seems eminently reasonable. Think of it this way: if you want to insist that so and so are "a threat to democracy", what's to stop them from similarly inciting violence towards you? Generalized violence would not be good for anyone, including those who might currently feel safe from it.
My core objection is the claim that saying so and so is "a threat to democracy" is inciting violence. Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not? One doesn't seem any more extreme than the other to me.
To be fair, you can incite violence and that speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as there is no risk of imminent violence.
So, yes, your speech saying so and so is a "threat to democracy" is protected speech, but it is in fact inciting violence.
> Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not?
The quote was:
| We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.
Indeed that is very much not incitement to violence but actually incitement to de-escalation. The "or the cycle is going to..." part is not specifically a threat against any one person, unlike the "so and so is a threat to democracy".
Likewise, raising awareness of threats to our democracy implicitly and explicitly appeals to the threats to stop threatening democracy. It is not incitement to violence.
Incitement to violence is what I see when the president explicitly tells his supporters to beat up his opponents, which he does. Unfortunately, that is one of the smallest incitements to violence we've seen from the right over the years.
"What you're doing is threatening our democracy, you have to stop" vs "What you're doing is going to destroy our society, you have to stop". What's the difference between those in terms of inciting violence?
what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?
> what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda
The answer to bad speech is more speech. If you refuse to do that then you are not convinced of being right -- you lose the argument when you resort to violence or justify resorting to violence over speech.
The comment I replied to was making a blanket statement that could be extended to more than just Charlie Kirk, including folks who do things that undermine democracy beyond just fearmongering.
I'm more concerned with the fact that billionaires have a monopoly on the incentives that create policy and can afford to fund large scale social engineering operations to get whatever they want. Charlie Kirk doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peter Thiel funded him and Thiel has said openly he wants a dictatorship. That is why Kirk was in the propagandist role he was in, and why he is now dead.
I think you may have missed their message. That they self censored for fear of violent retaliation makes strong ridicule of the threatening group. It exemplifies its contrast with a free society.
It essentially says, "They are so lacking of basic compassion that even jokes are not allowed."
It also highlights to normal society that there are indeed people whose beliefs are so absurd that they get worked up and want to kill people over a stick figure.
Telling the truth did not cause this. The Nazi regime, a machine that is systematically crushing the working class and minorities & driving large swaths of the population to despair - is what caused this. The idea that we can just adjust the way we speak to avoid the inevitable outcome of worsening material conditions under fascism is patently absurd.
Because the other comment was flagged by people acting in anger, I want to make sure you knew that several folks are speaking up from both sides of the aisle. Here are two quotes from people whom you consider your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
I don't quite understand why you have to put words in my mouth. I didn't claim anyone to be my political enemy. In fact I have close friends on both isles of the political spectrum, and I don't identify myself with either of them. I just wish people would defend things out of principle, rather than just what currently supports the things that I (perhaps wrongly) presume to be their political identity.
Why was the first thing you reached for a claim that Democrats are bad because you hadn't yet heard any sympathies from Democratic politicians (alleged creators of the term stochastic terrorism)? That seems extraordinarily unreasonable.
As a former Republican, it makes me sad to see people supporting a party that claims to have values be extraordinarily unfair to their fellow countrymen. Toss aside all the other nonsense in the political arena for the moment. Democrats have been advocating for gun control for years. Years! Why would an attack about someone being killed by the very thing they warned about even enter the brain of a reasonable person, if not for the poison of propaganda?
This happened a few hours ago while the decedent was commenting on 5/5700 mass shootings being performed by trans people being enough to take rights, which the decedent normally argues should not be abrogated, away, and that most shootings were gang violence. This is after a few years long history of promoting inaction on guns despite clear Constitutionality and clear need.
Ironically it was at a school, making it a school shooting. Unironically, there was a school shooting in Colorado occurring at the same time.
Guns are the problem. Everyone knows this. Some try to justify it anyway, Mr. Kirk among them.
Like I said, I simply don't understand why someone's response mere hours after a deadly shooting is "I blame my political enemies who are wholly uninvolved and tried to help prevent these types of occurrences."
---
Edit --
Here are two quotes from, as you said, your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
Agree sad, but not because he was reaching across the intellectual divide. Kirk's debate responses/performances were very often bad faith. It seemed more performative than an actual debate - "owning the libs" and not an intellectual exercise. I really don't think there was a true willingness to listen to contrary viewpoints. For example, his positions did not evolve on most all positions, even when confronted with compelling arguments.
This is untrue. There are many cases of his debate where he acknowledged strong points made by his counterpart and commended them on the quality of their argument.
You may have seen one of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. Those exist, as do many examples like the below:
Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
Even if someone concedes "good point", it does not mean they frequently are debating in good faith. My view of the "very often in bad faith" is not being aware of a single position where he evolved. For example, not only saying "good point" but also "you're right."
Your retort, my comment, the comment I responded to all seem very predictable. Charlie Kirk's debates seem to be a Rorschach test.
Google AI says similar when asked "how often did Charlie Kirk debate in bad faith". The response lists lots of criticisms, but also that defenders point out that Kirk did at least engage in open debates (which is commendable even if not always done in good faith, it was some level of dialogue at least).
There are other sources that indicate there are quite a few of these bad faith examples (not just my words, not just my anecdata):
> "When we found out about his death, I wanted to know if I misjudged him, so I looked again on YouTube," she said. [1]
> "But I found the way he talks to people in a debate is not opening up any genuine discussion – especially when he debates with a woman. He tends to talk very fast and talk over them," she said. [1]
I've seen debates with Pastors, and others, where opinions do change - the tenor of those debates is all quite different. I don't see the same talking points constantly brought out even after someone thoroughly debunks one (from a previous debate).
> Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
No, because he WAS reaching across an intellectual divide.
Would be curious to your reply to hnewsenjoyer's comment, as it captures my thoughts well. His willingness or lack of willingness to change his mind doesn't mean he wasn't facilitating the exchange of ideas or bridging intellectual gaps. He was doing politics the way it was supposed to be done in a liberal democracy.
Much of the commentary of “it’s not a real debate” or “it’s not good faith” feels like an attempt to disqualify him for violating some technicality about how a “proper” exchange of ideas should occur, eliminating the need to actually respond to opposing ideas. A type of “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
The fact is, he facilitated many frank exchanges of ideas. Whether he was willing to change his own mind during them is immaterial. Anyone could discuss any topic with him, and arguments needed to be made by both sides in front of an audience that observed and evaluated. Those sorts of interactions are the lifeblood of a pluralistic liberal democracy.
Imagine if Trump refused to debate for the presidency? That would be terrible, regardless of the fact that no presidential candidate would meet any of your standards for “good faith.”
Be that as it may, this is a political rally and not a moderated debate. People don't take these seriously because they're always engineered to drum up advertising over everything else. And that's okay! It's just clearly not a debate.
For whatever it's worth, there are liberal and neocon commentators who are hated for doing this same thing (and rightfully so).
"Bad faith" is choosing the weakest, least useful, or intentional misinterpretation of a position. Typically this is then used as the starting point for a rebuttal.
> Wikipedia:
> A bad faith discussion is characterized by insincerity and a lack of genuine commitment to the exchange of ideas, where the primary goal is not to seek truth or understand opposing viewpoints, but to manipulate, deceive, or win the argument regardless of the facts
Discussion is most useful when parties attempt to make the strongest arguments for and against each other's positions to find an optimally logical position and/or to clarify ideological beliefs that underpin those positions. Good faith discussion enables that. Bad faith exchanges are often used to derail, to generate strawmen, to mischaracterize another party's beliefs or thinking, et al.
I think this because I saw him go on a college campus, give a microphone to liberal students, and give them a chance to defend their views while also providing an alternative point of view.
Because you are able to watch a carefully staged piece of theater and mistake it for reality. I thought most people, in general, were able to discern the difference, but you and many aren't
He was very civil and gave people the opportunity to express themselves. But it often had the result of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with.
You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion.
The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed.
He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in.
This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale.
Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation.
The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in constructive conversations. This video is ABSOLUTELY an example of a constructive conversation.
Constructive conversation would be you asking why we didn’t think this was, learning from our perspective. It’s when you use questions marks for something else than snark.
You don’t seem to know what that looks like, so you telling me WITH BIG SHOUTY LETTERS that ABSOLUTELY it is… That feels a bit self-defeating to stay polite.
You are the one using him as a reference. Neither of you care to understand what the other person is saying and grow from others’ experience; you only care to pretend to debate with people who already agree with you, and find witty quips if not.
Otherwise, you would have stopped your reply at the first line. That could have been a great question if you cared enough to read to the answer before dismissing it.
He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge.").
Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash.
The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.
This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion.
I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that.
Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before.
Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props.
Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back.
It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
I reacted to the context of that video. You ignoring that and telling me that I didn’t do it is a nice illustrations of the problem I have with pretend debate.
There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available.
Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted them and was paid for them, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy.
There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. Did Charlie Kirk build a business around it with clickbait titles about "owning the libs?" Yep. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative.
There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements.
You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
yes, the conversations need to be honest and on equal footing. Not rage/click-bait to further divide society, which is exactly what Kirk did. His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".
> There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.).
Qanon, January sixth, Pizzagate, Plandemic, Birther and other conspiracy theories, the attacks on democrat politicians, the rhetoric around George Floyds murder and BLM, the rage against black athletes doing something as simple as taking a knee. See a pattern? Hell Trump's own words and those of his cabinet are radicalized rhetoric, so I really don't know what to tell you when you say "the left rejects dialogue and is violent". "The left" has tried for years to explain the world via fact checking and educational content, lots of good that has done!
> “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.”
Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion. His whole career was based on "prove me wrong", an obvious challenge to prove that he is right, and nothing can sway him. Give me one time where he changed his mind through dialogue. Even when shown a dolphin foetus and mistook it for human, he did not accept that he was wrong.
So yea, excuse me if I don't think you are arguing in good faith, just like i don't think Charlie Kirk ever was.
It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith. This is a convenient scapegoat for you to ignore strong counterarguments, since all it takes to dismiss the speaker is their "lack of good faith." With your brilliant reasoning, after all, how could anyone of good faith disagree?
> His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".
There are many counterexamples to this. If you're arguing in such good faith, you should explore those.
> lots of good that has done!
Even this is a good example of what I'm talking about. It sounds like you're giving up on dialogue, which is precisely my point. Don't give up on it. Commend those who seek it.
> fact checking
Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious, if you have the good faith to look.
> Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion
You may be correct, but that doesn't even matter. The proposition that no one was swayed by his dialogue would be outrageous, and I doubt you would make such an argument. So even if he would never change his mind, he's still contributing to dialogue.
I asked you before -- What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?
> It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith.
I gave you about 10 examples of "the right" being unhinged, violent and espousing radical rhetoric. You conveniently ignored all of them and continue claiming it's "the left" that does not want dialogue. That is bad faith.
> There are many counterexamples to this.
I am really not about to waste my time going through that dreck. If you have examples i'll have a look.
> Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious,
Again, going to need sources. Is "get out of your bubble" the constructive discourse you were mentioning earlier?
> What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?
That I do not know, people have been radicalized by insane conspiracy theories over the last 10 - 15 years that I don't think much can be done to help them at this point.
Just for context, here some constructive statements from Charlie Kirk:
- If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
- Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
- Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
- The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
The right does not have a monopoly on hateful, violent people/rhetoric. The idea that they do is a soothing story people on the left like to tell themselves.
I don’t defend those things he said, or those things hateful rightwing things you cited. The fact that you think of them as a response to “look at this bad thing on the left” is very telling. The existence of bad things on the right have no bearing on the observation that there are bad things on the left.
You should think more deeply about what to do about all those Americans who agree with Charlie Kirk. “Force them to change their minds” is not an option available to you.
I encourage you to read the thread you jumped in on, which begins with the example you asked for. The first comment you responded to, which perhaps you stopped reading partially through, explains my position, and it’s not “Charlie Kirk is the good guy here.” You don’t have to like him, you can disagree with everything he thinks, but he was doing politics the right way: through debate and discussion. Classifying that as somehow invalid is an attempt to insulate yourself from challenges to your worldview.
Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.
I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.
Kirk spread misinformation and voiced opinions that were contributing to making the lives of several demographic groups more unsafe, repeatedly, for years, to a massive audience.
Violence isn't the answer and I wish yesterday's event didn't happen, but his actions were a far cry from just "saying something someone might not like"
The first amendment is important, but it has boundaries, and Kirk made a living from being very close (arguably sometimes over) these boundaries. I think his message, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, will be carried on by others, as is their right. But I hope they do it in ways that are more firmly within the healthy boundaries of the first amendment. And if they don't, it should be the courts that decides if they should be penalized, not a lone armed civilian.
> opinions that were contributing to making the lives of several demographic groups more unsafe
Mere opinions cannot do this, even in principle.
As I'm sure you're aware, merely voicing opinions doesn't cause people to agree, either.
> The first amendment is important, but it has boundaries, and Kirk made a living from being very close (arguably sometimes over) these boundaries.
The boundaries are far tighter than you imply. Nothing I have seen him say comes anywhere close at all. Even the most uncharitable representations being spread around of his out-of-context excerpts would absolutely be protected speech in the USA. I am not a lawyer but I have spent a lot of time researching this. When Kirk and others like him say that US law does not recognize a concept of "hate speech", they are objectively correct. Wikipedia agrees:
> Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.[1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.[2]
Note that this was a unanimous reaffirmation, in quite recent, very ideologically polarized history.
Correct. To the extent "hate speech" has legal meaning, it's that its presence in a defendant's history where they are accused of another crime (such as assault) could raise that crime to the level of "hate crime." A hate crime differs from a regular crime in that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a racially-motivated mens rea: they weren't transgressing against a victim for reasons such as personal grudge, but because they have a broad hatred of people in a category the victim is a member of and committed the crime because of that.
Saying "America is better off without black people in it" is not a crime by itself. Having a prosecutor dig up the Twitter post where you said that while you're defending a battery charge can turn a six months in jail / $2,000 fine crime into a one year / $5,000 fine crime.
>"And if they don't, it should be the courts that decides if they should be penalized, not a lone armed civilian."
And what happens when the courts are to no longer be trusted for impartial or otherwise reasonable verdicts? We use randomness to control corruption in courts through the likes of juries, but First Amendment civil cases are almost always bench trials decided by a judge, or motions via summary judgement. Not juries. What's our fallback and our "check" there?
A therapist once explained to me that the human mind first processes things through the emotional regions of the brain (limbic) and only afterwards can it reach the logic center (pre frontal cortex).
This has helped me to understand a lot of human behavior and social media posts and reactions (also propaganda, cults, sales, etc)
You may think you have come to a logical conclusion about political issue x or political party x, but very likely the vast majority of us are first having a triggered emotional reaction and later using our pre-frontal cortex to logically create a narrative on why we feel this way and justify it.
Taken to extremes I think you can see things like today happen and see how people react.
Sometimes I catch myself defending someone or a position and later realize I am just wrong, it’s just that I had an emotional reaction felt a possible connection with the person or a cause or vibe they expressed or are connected with and then my attorney brain kicks into overdrive trying to make it all add up.
It also explains a lot of domestic issues, if you are upset or scared your brain stays in the limbic center and is literally incapable of rational thought until you calm down or feel safe.
Another way to frame the same observation that I like goes:
"A magician, asked how he comes up with his magical tricks, asks back: are human rational or irrational? It's a trick question, we are rationalizers. We make up our minds, and then come up with a reason why that's right.
Magical trick is all about understanding this dynamic and guiding the reasoning to the conclusion you want it to make"
There's going to be a colossal manhunt. Every possible technology will be mobilized. And it's very hard not to slip up on opsec. Unless the guy leaves the country very quickly, I would expect him to be caught (or killed resisting arrest, the common fate of mass shootings).
When I was in college a kid used a computer in a lab to send a death thread against Bill Clinton to whotehouse.gov. I recall this in part because it was the lab I did most of my hours in both as an employee and because it was near my friend’s appt so we would study there. Dude sent it from a computer two rows back from where I usually sat.
Someone got up to use the bathroom and didn’t lock the machine. Dude thought he was being funny. But of course since he logged on to the adjacent machine he put himself on the suspect list and got caught. And in a hell of lot of trouble as I recall. I think he got expelled, too.
That was for a prank, not an assassination.
The thing some crime dramas don’t get right is that while circumstantial and tainted evidence cannot get you a conviction, it is absolutely possible for it to be used to prioritize manpower used to narrow you down to the top of the list.
There’s a thing in law enforcement called Parallel Construction. It can be used to protect confidential informants such as in undercover operations, but it can also be used to replace evidence that was found illegally, such as illegal recording or theft by a neighbor.
They just need to find something that follows process front to back. They don’t need to do that in order to figure out it was you in the first place.
Statistics say the spouse or partner almost always committed the murder. Even lacking any evidence they look really really hard at these people. It’s not illegal or unfair to do so. It’s triage. If I’m looking at Mrs Fredrickson’s murder, I’m not looking at any cold cases or spending effort on many other active cases. It’s unfortunately a numbers game.
Pedantic, but...why is this an assassination and not just a murder? Because he was more than likely targeted? Tupac was targeted (for some street-level bullshit), but I don't think anyone would call his demise an "assassination".
Assassinations are surprise killings of prominent individuals for political purposes. Targeted gang killings are an interesting case, because they are political within the context of intra- and inter-gang politics, but not viewed in that light in a broader context. If I was watching a documentary about two rival gangs, I probably wouldn't blink twice at someone referring to a hit on a rival leader as an assassination. In every day conversation, it would probably be weird, because the normal assumption is of the broader political sphere.
People are calling this an assassination because they are making the (probably reasonable) guess that the reason to shoot Charlie Kirk during a political speech is to make a political statement.
very likely he will be caught by his friends or family- everyone that does something like this slips up. The guy that shot United Healthcare's CEO was outed partially by his own mom in fact.
Depends on shooter's background. For state actors the easiest way to undermine US is to continue pushing towards more political violence in US via any and all means.
Regardless of your take on political violence. Studying the history of especially the French and Haitian revolutions is instructive. Going down the road of civil war sounds good to some of us, but the reality of civil war is incredibly bleak. The Haitians have still not recovered after 225 years.
It’s mind boggling how violent and destructive it can get once people completely give up on the humanity of other people.
So, let’s keep trying for more peaceful lives. Even angry peace is better.
Yes - even most of the people who made those jokes wouldn’t want to live in a world where that’s true. I remember some guys smiling at the assassinations in Minnesota because the shooter targeted Democrats and it was like … guys like that will add someone you like to the list sooner or later. Nobody is safe for long in that world.
Not my timeline. It's either people condemning political violence while noting they're not fans of Kirk, or people whining about how political violence is only condemned by both sides when the target is on the right.
> Seems like you have to look pretty hard to find it.
Here's a list of the top posts on Reddit in the last 24 hours:
Shooting at a Colorado school (More important than that other thing)
Charlie Kirk has just been shot
Charlie Kirk says gun deaths "unfortunately" worth it
If you preach hate, don’t be surprised when it finds you.
In an attempt to remove Banksy's art, the UK government has created a more iconic symbol of injustice in the UK.
Kirk once said gun violence is “part of liberty.”
Why do you think President Trump ordered all US Flags at half staff for the death of a Political Commentator, but not for the death of actual Legislators?
He died doing what he loved: trying to get other people killed
Bad Bunny Says He Didn’t Include U.S. in Tour Dates Due to Fear of ICE Raids
Ironic he dies in a school shooting.
Senate investigating Peter Thiel’s money ties to Epstein
“I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage” -Charlie Kirk
Agree. To me the general reaction seems to be mourning or indifference. I don’t see why the latter is a problem - there are so many gun deaths in the US; I believe there was yet another school shooting the other day too.
I haven’t seen any of this, anecdotally. Don’t confuse indifference with celebration. You all had a school shooting the other day too and I’ve hardly heart about it because it is overshadowed by this news.
As an outsider, I can only offer my hope that somehow you all manage to collectively take a breath, agree that you're heading down a dark path, and take a few steps back towards consensus and compromise. Godspeed.
I wonder how quickly the gunman will be found. I've always wondered if the authorities would ever be able to find someone who patterned themselves after a character like The Jackal.
I had a convo about law enforcement's tools with a California detective last month. He was very clear its only a question of resources, and if the federal gov't is motivated to find them, they will.
You know I’ve generally thought it’s is true. You WILL get caught. Then I wonder if the government knows who Satoshi is. I know he didn’t kill someone but I wonder if the resources exist to figure it out if they truly wanted.
"The government" is not a monolith. It is an organization staffed by people who have different opinions, motivations, goals, etc., and often work at cross purposes. It's entirely possible that some in the government know who Satoshi is and aren't telling others (especially higher-ups) about it.
I hope you're talking about the original The Jackal. That's a great movie that has fascinated me essentially because of the theme you've identified. A truly motivated, highly-intelligent person could commit horrendous acts without detection. So far, whoever committed this assassination has succeeded; but I suspect, there is simply too much surveillance in 2025 to get away with it.
edit: regarding the surveillance issue, wonder what the retention on google earth/maps logs is for the location of the shooting?
Leaving personal feelings about the person. What exactly does 2nd amendment guys think using guns to fight "tyranny" looks like? People rising up to a group of people clad on black clothes and an eerily fascist reminiscent symbol ala rickandmorty?
Some people using guns to defend themselves against who they believe are the harbingers of this authoritarian State is 2nd amendment working as intended. Not a "tragic but necessary sacrifice" as some will put school shootings, but actually what right to bear arms is supposed to be about.
And it's immaterial if you ultimately disagree to whether this administration is authoritarian, but these things will keep happening as long as enough people believe that to be the case. It's a feature, not a bug.
You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.
>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.
You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk?
They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions.
This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC.
If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable.
And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you.
Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty.
Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.
Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.
Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was:
- Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14)
- Virulently anti-Jewish
For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points.
I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
The guy who said “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”? That Charlie Kirk?
> I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
Other than Fuentes and his farther-right faction that historically has attacked Kirk for being too wishy-washy and soft in his White nationalism, who do you think this “share far more political DNA with the Nazis” description concretely applies to?
> it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents
This is a very strong claim to make without support, especially given the history TPUSA had with people who were at best pushing the boundaries of the right. No historical comparison is going match perfectly but it’s hard not to see parallels in the attempts to subvert a democratic political system, demonize minorities, or the justifications they use. TPUSA frequently provided a place for fringe right people to circulate with the larger Republican sphere so while there were worse groups, they certainly weren’t trying to fight that trend.
I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it.
I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?
Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.
For me personally, the through line is that chester cheetah, along with most other spokespeople, was not advancing a political organization that demonized and persecuted outgroups, or that tried to subvert and consolidate power.
I believe those things are true of both the MAGA movement and of Nazis, albeit in different amounts of severity.
> anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions
According to what policy, cited where? What are "the wrong questions", and how did they apparently not include the ones Kirk was addressing when he was shot?
I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.
The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.
I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.
As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.
That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.
Apropos, you can listen to Charlie Kirk answering that precise question, during the Biden presidency in 2021. (I assume Kirk is fairly a representative voice of the far-right movement?)
He was asked this question: "When do we get to use the guns?" "How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?" [sic]
I think it's best to watch his answer in full, and decide the nuances for yourself.
From my PoV, he agrees with the spirit of that comment. His response to "When to do we get to use the guns?" is to concede: "We *are* living under fascism. We *are* living under this tyranny" [sic]. In the context of that 2nd Amendment question about shooting tyrants, he identifies President Joseph Biden as a tyrant.
It's not ambiguous who these people think deserve to be shot.
I think it's highly remarkable that in that answer, Kirk actually never once condemns political violence. Listen to it and hear: not a word breathed to say killing political opponents is wrong, or immoral, or abhorrent to civics or American democracy, or, well: murder. His non-response is in a qualitatively different direction: he explains to the "When do we shoot them?" guy that murdering leftists would instigate a draconian law-enforcement response (by that same US government he had identified as "fascist" and "tyrannical"), and that that would set back far-right causes. That is, beginning to end, the entire substance of his response to "Why not shoot them?": fear of consequences.
Never really followed this guy and only knew of him because he'd randomly be mentioned in news stories.
Regardless of your political bent, this sort of shit is sickening and genuinely disturbing, particularly when it occurs at (as this did) at a university whose ostensible raison d'etre is to ventilate different ideas, offensive or not. I realise this event wasn't a 'debate' per se but nevertheless it's the ethos and optics that matter.
There's also the incredibly myopic immaturity inherent in using violence for the sole or primary purpose of silencing the speaker and signalling to others that violence is somehow an acceptable form of dialogue. The myopic absurdity of this is of course that it is a cycle that can never end if all participants share that view, ensuring that it is inevitably self-defeating. Violence can make sense under certain circumstances - coups, revolutions, wars - but in the context of mere rhetoric it's abhorrent to witness.
Just a grotesque reflection in a long list of them that we as a species, or very many of us - perhaps more than we want to admit - are extremely violent and brutal.
Sickening and sobering, and again you could plug in any speaker/polemicist from whichever part of the political spectrum in here and it would be no less true.
The only reason I know of him is the master debate episode from South Park. I wanted context. Fwiw, he was a bad debater but he openly said he didnt know about something in public and thats something I dont see people doing often. I appreciated that.
I wasn't overlooking mankind's potential to do amazing things. I'm reflecting on the fact that despite our ability and propensity to do amazing things, we are also at base more violent, far more violent, than I think we give ourselves credit for. I'm sure this sentiment isn't new. I can remember the opening page of Blood Meridian being a newspaper clipping from Arizona reporting on the fact that, essentially, we've been scalping (ie violently brutalising) one another for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps it's a sine qua non of being human.
Despite all our fancy gadgets and fancy thinking and fancy philosophies, we aren't really all that different from those who lived a thousand or ten thousand years ago.
My 2 cents from Australia. At the very least he encouraged debate, and motivated others to challenge and vigorously discuss ideas, data, history, politics and perspectives. That's healthy, not dangerous. We're meant to defend the right of such activities.
I didn't agree with his religious convictions that underpin much of his arguments, but that's because I'm not religious. He presented other arguments on various social issues that sounded sensible. He also respected anyone who fronted his events, listening & engaging intellectually in a civil manner.
Apparently his last word spoken was "violence" (unconfirmed). Anyone celebrating his death is an extremist, and if that turns out to be a lot of people, then we have a bigger extremism problem than people care to admit. How to fix that? We need more bipartisan condemnation and unity across the floor - in my country too. Sounds like they couldn't even agree on a moment of silence without a shouting match. The division is fuel for extremism.
>In one interview with Gaines on Real America’s Voice, Kirk railed against “the decline of American men” and blamed it for transgender equality. Then he added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s."
Or take some from his last words
>At about 12:20, he is asked by a member of the crowd: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?"
>He replies: "Too many."
Do you think he would have said the same when someone would have asked the same question about gun owners or would have said something like:
"I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
He recommend the one about Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded
So how did we handle that in the 50s and 60s opposed to the 70s, 80s and 90s, the times when being anything else than being straight slowly wasn't considered a crime anymore?
Given he preceded that with "I blame the decline of American men" and followed it with "as testosterone rates go down and men start acting like women", it seems that in his worldview, the decline of masculinity started in the 70s. A high school swimming coach from the 1950s or 60s likely wouldn't have permitted a biological male in the women's locker room.
Kirk didn't say "I miss everything about the 50s-60s". He did none of those things, nor did he encourage them. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and the spread of such misinformation may have partly contributed to creating the deranged individual who thought he deserved to be murdered.
He doesn't need to say it, but for many of his fans the so not so good parts (if you're non white or female) resonate. You do know what a dog whistle is?
And talking about the spread of misinformation, Kirk spread the lie of the stolen election that led to the January 6 riots and caused multiple deaths.
BTW maybe you can comment under some of the other commenters where I try to explain than words aren just words and can cause damage, you seem to have the same opinion, whereby my reach is far below Kirk's so I think I have a much lower risk of creating a deranged individual than people like Kirk have.
Trump or Kirk spreading misinformation is not an excuse for yourself spreading misinformation. No matter his opinions, Kirk was a peaceful, non-violent person.
Show one who got influenced by me. That would be really interesting.
That I spread misinformation has to be proven.
He referenced the 50s and 60s on purpose, the good old times and he knows his peers and what the associate with that time period. So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive. Given all what he said there is a clear subtext you try to ignore.
Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
> So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive.
I disagree - you're extrapolating from very little. If you take into consideration his whole life and the context of the conversation, it's very clear that he did not believe in violence and did not advocate it.
Does that look like someone who wishes violence against gay or trans people? Be real.
>You're both bad guys for spreading misinformation.
>Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
Interesting change. Don't forget my reach and his.
And I never spread the lie about the Great Replacement.
The first clip sounds more like don't tell than real acceptance and it's quite ironic that accoring to this clip he says people aren't defined by their sexuality but every time a homosexual couple is show in a kids movie right wingers whine because now they have to talk about anal sex with their kids. What they don't have, like you don't have to explain hetero sex if a hetero couple is shown. The right is obsessed with the sexuality of gays. And calling it a lifestyle, that's one of the biggest misinformations often used to blame the victims of anti-gay violence for their bad "choice".
Maybe watch this clip where he quotes Leviticus 18
Sure he had typical right wing and religious views, but did not advocate violence.
Again that clip you linked was just him pointing out the irony of using Bible verses to support homosexuality while ignoring other very violent verses towards them. He was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals.
FWIW, I disagree with Kirk on probably most topics (e.g. guns, religion, abortion, homosexuality being a bad "lifestyle") so there's no need to debate me.
The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.
I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation.
His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on.
I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers.
I find it interesting how he tries to dismiss the core message of Christianity with a reference to the old testament.
Seems right wingers know the old testament pretty well but rarely quote the new one and even rarer live by it. It's often that authoritarian god, you know, the one who gave us the rainbow after multiple genocide and who said later on
>Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Let's see those Christian values in action when they catch the shooter.
You're right, but this man did not share your opinion.
When Nancy Pelosi and her husband were targets of political violence, Charlie Kirk's response was to suggest that whomever bails the attacker out would be a national hero. [1]
To her credit, her response to the attack on him is much more dignified than his was.
-----
[1]
"Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy (David DePape) out..." - Charlie Kirk
I just listened to the clip. The remark was made jokingly, though arguably in poor taste. Immediately afterward he described the attack as "awful" and "not right," and then pivoted into a rant about how it's too easy to bail out suspects.
it was the performance of a guy "owning libs". It is not much of an honest debate if the guy enters it with a set of pre-packaged ideas that never get updated.
I don't think you should be killed for performances either
If you/society see the performance as beyond the pale, inciting violence then you should arrest the person and give them due process, or change the laws to reflect your beliefs
You seem to implicate "you/society" as the issue, but I didn't shoot anyone. So really it's society's issue, and we're in this situation because the Overton window is so irrevocably wide. Moreso than ever before, our bipartisan system is chock-full of extremists. People who want to kill CEOs, people who want to kill politicians, people who want to kill minorities.
The ordinary response is always "well, some gun violence is tolerable" but that doesn't seem to be reflected at all in this comment section. Many people are treating this as entirely unacceptable - so, from square one, how do we want to legislate a solution?
Their comment wasn't a strawman. The "event" in question was a political rally, not a moderated debate. He was there to promote his platform, anything else he did was part of the performance.
While I'm not a fan of Charlie's beliefs, actions and his brand of conservatism, he was willing to go across the political divide and foster debates with those that do not share his values.
Condolences to his young family and everyone close to him.
I'm interested to know who you think is a leftist Ben Shapiro/Charlie Kirk type who debates right wing students. I haven't heard of any, but I'm sure they exist.
What's disingenuous is substituting my "this" for whatever one pleases, when in context it was obviously the concepts referred to in the post it replied to - debating for one's own advantage, and milking wins against weak interlocutors.
This network of far-right influencers was begging for it, it fuels their narrative even more
It’s interesting that these kinds of things happen in the US, the very country that keeps blaming and justifying interference & invasion in nations where similar events occur
So, which country should now deploy its military to the US in an attempt to restore law and order?
Sure seems more and more like some person or nature is seeking to destabilize us. Seems anti-American to blame the other side and not realize we are better together.
I don’t need to “rule out” nation state actors. The onus is on someone to prove it involves nation state actors (and which nation is pretty important, too).
haven't seen it, so I shouldn't comment, but from the reviews they went out of their way to make the movie apolitical, or at least to obfuscate the setting's relation to our current zeitgeist. which resulted in a tortured, implausible scenario.
if that was their goal, it would have been better to never explain the conflict in the first place. just start in medias res, with asemic dialogue and references.
My takeaway was civil war isn't something to be desired in any way, not even journalists who might gain (money, work, notoriety) regardless of the outcome.
The shock seems to be the point.
Quite different from all the documentaries my dad was really into about the US civil war. (Many of which lionized the southern generals.) Or annoying "states rights" points that he seems to have picked up from some YouTube gutter.
It may make no difference but as of now we have no idea who did this or why. We still have no idea what was the motive of the man who shot Trump's ear.
We don't have "no idea". We have god knows how many hours of the dead guy spewing his opinions in 1080p and 4k. And for all of those variety opinions we know who gets pissed off by them.
I mean, sure, it could've been a crazy ex or a former business partner or whatever. But how many crazy ex's can one guy have? And he's pissed off god knows how many people by saying things? Strictly by the numbers this was almost certainly someone who hated him for what he said.
Statistically most people don't go out like Ozzy (i.e. spend a good chunk of your life doing something likely to be the death of you only to get dead by something completely unrelated)
If we're placing bets, you'd bet on political motive but we're not placing bets. I'll throw out one option that's been very popular on the right wing conspiracy circuit and maybe it was a false flag to set the stage for Martial Law. I have no proof it's true and no proof it isn't.
Martial law has never been applied nation-wide, and it would likely not work at all but rather it would set the stage for some states to refuse federal authority, possibly leading to civil war. I know many fantasize that Trump wants all of that, but any sober observer realizes those are just that: fantasies.
I think it's unwise to be reflexively dismissive when norms that were previously taken for granted turn out to be ephemeral. I find a useful heuristic/gut check is to imagine explaining news from the previous week/month/year to someone who had just woken up from an extended coma.
You specifically talked about martial law and I gave you a relevant and recent remark Kirk made about that topic, and explained why I thought your analysis was flawed.
I think it's not likely at all but we've been knocking down precedents one by one. Due process is buckling. He just murdered 11 Venezuelan civilians to see if anyone would stop him. He has deployed troops to US cities. He has endowed ICE with an unprecedented amount of money. Project 2025 has been implemented bit by bit and it endorses abusing the Insurrection Act. And he already attempted a violent coup before. It may not happen but it's not fantasy.
We don't know how motive? He didn't shoot Trump's ear, he shot Trump, because he wanted to kill Trump... I don't get how much clearer a motive could be!
The biography of the kid shows no coherent political beliefs. He appeared to be interested in also killing Biden. It just so happens, Trump’s campaign event was very close to Crooks’ home.
His actions aren't a motive. They turned his life upside down and didn't find any strong political opinions and no indication he hated Trump. People also do stuff like this to get attention. The guy who shot at Reagan wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
I don't think attitudinal surveys are of much value here. If you ask someone whether they support murder very few are going to give you an affirmative answer. Even people who advocate for political violence will jump through wild rhetorical hoops when challenged about it, eg arguing that communists aren't people and therefore killing them isn't murder.
I think it's better to look at the actual incidence of violence than to extrapolate from weakly correlated leading indicators.
My theory on this and other recent shootings of this type: it is driven by the over medication of our youth, convincing them something is wrong with them for not wanting to sit still in factory schools. Our medical understanding of the drugs prescribed to kids that affect their brains is far smaller than it should be for how pervasive these drugs have become.
We don't know that yet, but it might be also driven by social media radicalization. I'm also curious of the shooter's motives. Judging from the bullet engravings he might have thought he was shooting an awful person, but still, why waste your own life like this? Their wife and kids who were at the scene and maybe some other individuals will probably become radicalized now. Why? It doesn't make any sense.
I completely disagree with Charlie Kirk's rather unsympathetic preachings on many topics. But this act - it gives me a very sinking feeling. What worries me more than the yet undetermined identity of the killer is how a lot of people are responding to the news.
Why do some people celebrate his death? This was not a person who was declared as an enemy of the state. He was someone holding a public political debate. Can't they see that this incident is going to have extreme repercussions on their own welfare and the values they stand for? Can't they see the fear, pain and tears on the other side, that's gradually getting replaced by outrage and resentment? How do politics make people so blind to the suffering of the others? Doesn't the nation exist to support opposing ideas without such carnage? I know that Kirk has expressed opinion that downplayed the value of human life (like in case of gun rights). But how does that make the side that advocated for dignity, equality and empathy just suspend those values in his case?
You can't seriously convince any opponent with violence or hatred. And guns aren't the best tools for genuine persuasion. The mockery of their pain will only lead to their conviction and resolve. And at some point, it will become irreversible. Please don't let politics and bias cloud your judgment. This isn't a victory for your cause.
And no matter what sort of a person Kirk was, his role in this world is over rather abruptly. His grizzly demise displayed around the world leaves terrible wounds in the psyche of his family, friends, followers and numerous others. I hope that their pain doesn't mutate into destructive energy. I hope that they find the strength to overcome it and find peace.
They celebrate it because that's the kind of beings that they are, and they can do no better.
They feel that someone communicating ideas that challenge theirs is such an affront - such a disturbance to their self-assured sense of personal rightness and superiority - that that person's death is a good solution.
Or to put it another way - they're like this because they're confident they won't receive comeuppance for being so. It's like a "what you gonna do?" frolic.
I thought there was something wrong with me because of how many people were celebrating an assassination! But realized it was not, when people from my native culture were all shocked and surprised by the same. In spite of being bad at processing emotional signals from the others, I can easily imagine myself on the other side and see how such responses will affect them. How much empathy do you need to be able to do that?
It's like an entire generation is suffering from a serious emotional malady. It feels like the entire society got derailed morally and ethically. What happened? Did education fail everyone that much?
I know that Kirk has expressed opinion that downplayed the value of human life (like in case of gun rights). But how does that make the side that advocated for dignity, equality and empathy just suspend those values in his case?
His supporters are getting a taste of their own medicine. As you said 'the fear, pain and tears on the other side [is] gradually getting replaced by outrage and resentment', but so what? Outrage and resentment has been the staple food of the right wing for decades. So has laughing at the suffering of others, for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rush-limbaugh-s-true-l...
The right is already well on the way to turning the US into a police state, and I've lost count of the number of mass shootings where people were murdered because some right winger hated some aspect of their identity, whether that's religious, racial, sexual, whatever. Sometimes the two combine; in Florida, the state recently decided to paint over a rainbow crosswalk that the state itself had put in place to commemorate the victims of a mass shooting, and now they're arresting people for replacing the memorial with chalk: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/pu...
As far as I'm concerned, the right used up all their forgiveness tickets quite a while ago. If they dislike the position they currently find themselves in, maybe it's their behavior that needs to change.
The guy was the embodiment of the "prove me wrong" meme.
His choice of getting in to the middle of people and answering anyone's questions in a situation where there's no re-takes, no edits, even if he might've felt overbearing, was quite a fire test of the commenter's arguments versus his counter-arguments.
His assassination really is a direct attack on debate itself.
There really isn't a world where the sick people cheering this have any real respect for democratic values of a free world full of all kinds of thinkers. Maybe for something more akin to that one dialog "choice" in Avowed. You know if you know.
I'm not seeing that death date. And history shows that even traditional news outlets can be badly wrong in the immediate aftermath of a shooting. James Brady didn't die in 1981 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady#Shooting - even with "all major media outlets" (per Wikipedia) saying that he did.
Watching the video of his shooting may change your perspective. I don't advise you do, though I'll absolutely confirm it would be miraculous to come back from something like what the video shows.
It was an absolutely brutal video to watch. I agree. Even with the absolute best field first aid, EMS and surgical response, arterial bleeding I think has a 60% survival rate? Again, if everything goes perfectly, timed perfectly etc.
TIL there's a term for this! I've always been quite troubled by this propensity some people have to be the first to report the death of someone famous.
You're right! Let's stop talking about it and move on. Survivor is coming on on NBC soon. I can't wait to head to nbc.com and get my official merchandise! Nothing need be discussed; the media has already decided for us.
many on the left point out charlies comments on gun crime, school shootings. this has nothing to do with any of that because it was a political assassination. this is not gun violence in the colloquial sense. you could ban guns fully and there would still be political assassinations using rifles because these people are either enabled by high level political forces or highly motivated in an idealistic, political manner and will do whatever is necessary to get a rifle unlike most common criminals.
Assassin by gun is objectively more difficult in a country that bans them outright. His ardent support for private gun ownership contributed to the continuation of a nation filled with more guns than humans.
I do think the United States needs to overhaul its firearms laws, however:
There are very few countries that ban firearms outright. The type of weapon used in this attack was a bolt-action hunting rifle. You can buy that sort of weapon on the basic firearm license in Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc.
The entire gun debate in this country which usually revolves around tightening restrictions on handguns and semi-automatics is not really relevant to this case. Virtually nobody running for public office, even among Democrats, is talking about a total ban on private firearms ownership.
I don't know who this is, but given the number of comments, seems to have mattered. Only point of this comment is assure others who don't know his work that you are not alone.
I have only seen Charlie Kirk on this interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom. Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view. And he made many valid points that made the Governor squirm and agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XJ6rQDRKGA
> Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view.
Definitely:
> "I think the Democrats do not believe in the nuclear family, and they've already destroyed it in the macro, and now they're trying to destroy it in the micro."
And this is what I found in 10 seconds. Really fostering that political diversity. He's just another twitter/youtube pundit in the Fox News classic style, and there's endless hours of him talking just like this.
I think there’s a kernel of truth in what he said, surrounded by some exaggeration. The rural parts of the country, where people get married under 25 years old and have a higher fertility rate, probably do place a higher value on having a family than the urban parts of the country where career is prioritized. Good politicians (like Barack Obama did in his prime) take pains to acknowledge truths from the other side.
> I think there’s a kernel of truth in what he said, surrounded by some exaggeration
lol that just means you agree with him, not that he's encouraging a marketplace of ideas.
Your claim was "he was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view". Saying "your political point of view has and is destroying the nuclear family" isn't promoting tolerance of it.
The rural parts of the country, where people get married under 25 years old are overwhelming divorced by 35. If you call that "place a higher value on having a family" than the low divorce rates of educated, high earning women, then we disagree on definitions.
If you're accustomed to combat footage or other videos of victims of violence, this is pretty tame in the grand scheme of things that people are subjected to.
For those who want to know without exposing themselves:
He's sitting in a chair when he takes a round to the neck. Clean exit. It's over within three seconds.
I watched the video of the Christchurch shooting and while I don't regret seeing those horrors, there is a particular moment of it that is so horrifically callous that it sticks with me and is particularly haunting (for those that know; its that moment near the curb).
For anyone else who's accidentally watched the video and feels uncomfortable with the gore, immediately go do a high focus activity to not let it settle in your mind, can be something like Tetris.
I've seen a paper or two supporting the claim, but I remember that I didn't put much faith in them at the time. Seems plausible enough though, and probably wouldn't hurt anyone so until there's a ton of of high quality evidence for it'd still be worth a shot.
I don't want to watch it, and I'm glad I haven't seen anything more than a still yet.
I always wonder if media hiding gore allows people to not get more upset about violence. The lynching of Emmett Till would not have had the same impact without his mother having an open casket funeral. Would things have gone differently if more people had been exposed to images from Sandy Hook?
many are desensitized, for anyone reading, if you consider yourself that way it’s not haunting or giving feelings of sickness, it depicts a predictable outcome of a high powered shot that hits an artery in a neck. No ability or physical capability for your body to react no matter who you are.
It is graphic and shows how fragile we are, how it will go down if you are in that situation
The one thing that Aphantasia is good for. I accidentally saw it on Reddit. No clue, how normal people deal with being forced to see stuff like this over and over again.
Yep, a friend shared the link and a low resolution blurry screenshot, and though I usually click anyway, I kind of just knew that this one would be a bit too graphic to move on from easily.
Even though I have an extremely negative opinion of Charlie, I'd feel too bad thinking about the pain his family would be experiencing. The family (especially children) don't deserve that.
What does it say about me that I've seen so much stuff like this that it barely affects me? I'm in my 30s and have had unfiltered internet access since I was about 8.
Gore definitely made me a depressed person in grade school, but the only reaction I'm having to this is concern about:
- conservatives getting ready for violence
- the state getting ready to use this to further erode civil liberties
- the left fanning the flames for conservatives
Desensitization isn't a profound or "bad" phenomenon in of itself. Humans adapt to their environment and focus more on concerns of a surprising nature.
TBH I think as a society we have become so desensitized to violence because the only exposure we have to it is glamorized in movies and TV.
If we saw death up close and personal, perhaps we could become a bit more empathetic. I seriously wonder if, for example, we published the horrific photos of the aftermath of a school shooting, that would result in more honest discourse in this country on gun control.
And if we got the horrific photos after the Nice truck attack or the Christmas Market attack in Germany we might realize that being killed by a truck is no less horrifying.
Evil people are going to use whatever tools they can get their hands on to commit mass murders. Whether it is flying planes into the world trade center, a truck into a crowded market, or shooting up Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons of Mohammed. These barriers can be overcome by the ideologically motivated. Japan has very strict gun control and Shinzo Abe was still assassinated by a firearm, even if it was an improvised one
No, please WATCH IT! It's important to learn how reality really is. This is the process of using 100% of available information. You have been trained to block, censor and avoid everything that doesnt do good on you, but it's extremely important to open your eyes as wide as possible, and let your brain process this, then build conclusions on this data.
Well you obviously don’t have an understanding of how people can be permanently debilitated by mental anguish and trauma. This happens to be an unnecessarily gruesome thing for me and it certainly doesn’t teach me anything to watch it that I didn’t already know.
I know how reality really is, and it's already hard enough to deal with. I don't need it made more visceral. When bad things happen, you don't have to stare into them with your eyes wide open, any more than you have to maximise your photon intake by staring into the sun.
Yes, I feel sick because I cannot process all of reality, and increasing the burden of what I have to process does not make that task any easier.
I agree with you. It's easy to become desensitized to tragedy when you're only reading words. Regardless of opinions, it's hard not to empathize with a man shot dead before your eyes. I think it does a lot of good to remove that degree of separation, and reflect on it instead of purging it from your mind.
if you go to https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours as of right now (11 sep 2025 2145h utc) you actually can't find this dude's death in the list any more, and that list includes minimum 51 victim deaths since his
every one of those victims is infinitely more deserving of attention and sympathy than this absolute chucklefuck
I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc. We've all been taught since grade school it was a good thing to kill Nazis, even in small percentages there are mentally unstable people who will hear you call someone a Fascist and take the logical step from "it's good to kill nazis" to "they're a nazi so I should kill them". I am both very pro freedom of speech and right to bear arms, and I think where Canada and the UK have gone with hate speech laws are too far, but I don't know how you solve this.
>It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless
>By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.
It of course has a technical/historical definition but it's not used in that principled way by most people.
Just like "neoliberal" this is a kind of buzzword that generates a particular emotional reaction for those on the left. Meaning people being labeled with them are not just bad but really bad.
We are an excellent example of what happens when the Hegelian Dialectic is applied successfully by the small minority.
We are also an example when a people becomes completely divorced from their cultural and religious heritage. Without a moral anchor, we are a people cast adrift, lost in confusion, calling evil good and good evil, all trying to do our own thing and benefit ourselves, consumed by greed, by self-interest.
Freedom of speech, or lack there-of, plays no role in what is happening in the United States. This country and its founding charters were written for a moral people. That the country is byzantine, crumbling, has more to do with a people who have lost their way than it has to do with this-or-that law that the government no longer heeds.
america is not a country founded on a religious heritage. and regardless of what you may think of the beginnings of the country, it very quickly became a country of immigrants. there is no religion that should be placed at the head of the country’s belief system.
It's not even a matter of calling people fascists or nazis - there's been plenty of violence towards the politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, too. Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Melissa Hortman, John and Yvette Hoffman earlier this year.
If it was just a matter of people internalizing that killing fascists is fine and thus that calling people fascists is dangerous, then we would not see the same sort of violence being perpetrated against other politicians not getting the same label.
Kirk himself suggested that a "real patriot who wanted to be a midterm hero" should bail out the man who nearly killed Pelosi's husband. The rhetoric around political violence in this country has been ratcheted up to an insane degree, with or without any accusations of fascism, and this will continue or get worse as long as that remains the case.
No one shot the Skokie march Nazis and they literally showed up at a Jewish dominated town at a time when there weren't even background checks for guns. The ACLU even defended them in court, which is unthinkable that they would stand on their principles and do that today.
There's just less tolerance for discussing or exhibiting "extreme" or highly unpopular opinions, nowadays, it seems. Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
> Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
I mean, you're almost there realizing the recency bias. The 1970s, when the Skokie Affair occurred, were arguably the high point for political violence in the post-WWII US.
You could've stopped your sentence at "I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive."
The main downside of abusing the words nazi and fascist is that it gives an out to the actual fascists out there. When it comes to gun violence, there are a lot more (self proclaimed) neo-nazis killing innocent people than people killing them.
“It’s good to kill Nazis” — this is certainly the prevailing sentiment in modern culture, reinforced by the vast number of books, stories, movies, and video games that support the premise. But something important is often overlooked in this view of righteousness:
1. People who believe they could never become Nazis are often the most unknowingly susceptible to it.
2. People who believe they can confidently identify a Nazi are often wrong — a mindset akin to witch hunts, where everyone is seen as a witch.
I'm old enough to recall MSNBC in 2011 cropping video footage of an Obama townhall protestor to only show his long-sleeve shirted back with slung open-carry rifle. They used it to immediately launch into a pundit discussion claiming that the protestors were motivated by racial animus. Turned out the protestor was black.
News manipulating footage to cast aspersions to historical boogeymen is routine. All it takes is one pundit mentioning an imagined similarity to play the edited B-roll.
I’ll throw my hat in on another comment on this thread - my last wasn’t well received but ask you take it honestly.
Circa 2017 during then “punching Nazis” era of social discourse, I started a new job. The first week in I went for lunch with a Junior teammate and was told “violence against ‘Nazis’” is fine, it’s justified. I asked how. I was told, my brain is a part of the body, so if someone says something so stupid that it ‘hurts the brain,’ the speech is now assault, so counter-violence is justified.
I, with hint of irony, told my new coworker that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard and asked if I should now assault them for hurting my brain… and was met with hostility.
I don’t quite known I’m going with this exactly, but I feel folks are not giving the world around them an honest assessment, no matter their Ivy diploma. Politics isn’t a “gotcha game” and please stop tying to make it such.
"Hate speech" isn't just hateful speech, it's a specific term with a specific meaning. Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.
No when it's a label deliberately misapplied to run of the mill conservatives. That's defamation with the purpose of generating hate against those people.
Isn't the whole point of the MAGA, non woke right, not to tone police people? How are you going to stop people from abusing other who they don't agree with? That is the basics of free speech.
> I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc.
The same way it did for the last 250 years as the world's oldest Democracy. By respecting and upholding our Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
It's crazy to me how many people are lost talking about gun violence on here when he died as a victim of political violence. The problem is the mainstream narratives that are making people's brains melt who then go out and shoot people who disagree with them. Go read any comments to Kirk's videos on X. It is literally a fucking mental asylum.
It was likely both, at least we know for sure it was gun violence, we don't know the motivation of the shooter yet. In the Trump shooting attempt the motivation didn't seem very political so much as a loser type wanting fame and power.
Off-topic, but I was about report a very hateful response before I refreshed and saw that it had already disappeared. Thank you to @dang and HN's other admins!
Indeed, but in general I'm ashamed at HN. I've read several hundred comments already at this point and have not seen a single word of sympathy for the wife and two babies that he's left behind. Everyone's in such a rush to draw their political lines in the sand...
It's incredibly accurate as most such events go, with the grade of shooters and weapons typically seen. It's not terribly remarkable for a trained shooter with a good rifle. A 1 MOA or better rifle with a reasonable optic makes such shots highly feasible given a stationary target.
So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.
If the reporting is correct, the shot was at 200 yards. Anyone who hunts with a rifle is (or should be) capable of making that shot, it's not exceedingly far (and like you said, if your rifle isn't junk and you're shooting 1 MOA, that's only a 2" difference @ 200 yards).
No serious training or equipment would be required for this close of a shot. I've taken deer over 200 yards away with my $500 rifle, no training other than shooting on and off since I was a kid.
I believe this underestimates the difficulty of such an attack and the value of training. This isn't deer hunting where little to nothing is at stake. It's a homicidal attack in the midst of an urban area, with armed law enforcement in the vicinity, the risk of discovery, the knowledge that aggressive pursuit will be immediate, and extreme consequences for the crime.
High pressure.
Under pressure, a poorly trained person is unlikely to be capable of this. It takes some degree of training to simultaneously deal with this pressure and still perform.
Completely untrained yes but there’s lots of people with these skills. I do IDPA matches with my son at a tactical range near Waxahachie TX, people there do these kinds of drills constantly. There’s also lots of ex-military instructor led close quarter and urban combat training available to anyone. Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think. It’s sort of like martial arts, some people are just really into it.
Yes, this is the level of training I imagine as sufficient. A match applies pressure: you're on a clock, there is an audience, you have a safety regime and people scrutinizing you on it, and at the end, there is a score. I don't claim Fort Benning sniper school is necessary. Only that you likely can't just wander out of a gun shop with your scoped deer rifle at any price and snipe targets at range under pressure: there is more to it than the weapon.
> Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think.
I listed a wide variety of people with the training I believe is sufficient.
It was reportedly a 200 meter shot on a pretty static target. At that distance a competent shooter can place it within a couple inches all day with a decent rifle. This shot didn't require special skill.
Not directly relevant, but it should be noted that we live at a time when someone who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a scope basically doesn't need to learn how to shoot.
He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.
Modern firearms don't really require that much training to hit a static man sized target at 200m from a supported position. This is well within the "point blank" range, meaning that vertical deviation of the bullet is too small to bother adjusting for, and wind effects on rifle (i.e. very fast moving) bullets at this range are also fairly limited. So long as the rifle is zeroed, lining up the scope with the target and pulling the trigger without jerking it is basically all it takes, and those kinds of skills can be acquired in a few trips to the range.
The shooter wasn't likely aiming "anywhere on the body" as the target... they were likely either trying to hit the center of the head, or the chest. In either case, they were off quite a bit and that they made a deadly hit as much as they did was most likely still luck as much as anything.
Aiming for the head is most likely. For reference, a military M16 is considered within spec if it can produce a 4 minute-of-angle group from a prone supported position (but aimed and fired by a human, not fixed in a gun sled). At 200 yards, that would be a circle of around 8 inches. However pretty much any hit with a rifle bullet within that circle is likely to be lethal if it's centered on the head...
Anyway, the point is that it's really not a difficult shot at all, and only requires very rudimentary training that is readily available to anyone who can make a few trips to the range.
I'm not sure that most people are disciplined enough to make that shot all the same. I don't know anything about the shooter in particular though. Mostly in that from the center of the head to the neck is still a bit away. It could just as easily have missed altogether.
I'm guessing center of head. It is common for right-handed shooters without a lot of training to jerk the trigger down and to the right, which will show up as displacement at 200 meters.
Can you do this? Like, I’ve killed every animal I’ve shot at so far (legally, while hunting) and I know I couldn’t make that shot. The nerves alone Jesus. I’m always surprised and dubious when I hear this claim repeated. A blood vessel in a human from 200 yards. After a few trips to the range. Really.
Who says he was targeting that specific place? In fact, it seems likely that the target was his head and the shooter pulled the shot a bit but was still within tolerances (with a 1 MOA scope @ 200 yards you're only looking at 2" of variance).
I've killed deer beyond 200 yards sitting on a stump with a cheap rifle, it's not actually that hard if you've shot a bit before. The nerves though... you're right there, I couldn't imagine.
I'm not a particularly skilled shooter (don't get to practice as much as I'd like.) And I can hit a target at 300m using a $500 AR-15 and a $300 optic. It's not that hard at the range.
Generally putting a single shot on target is something most people can do with a decent rifle and optic. It's doing that consistently when firing multiple rounds and/or under pressure that is difficult.
The bullet drop at this distance with say a .223 is 3-9 inches depending on the exact velocity and basically nothing else has significant effect at this distance.
At say 3000fps velocity, time to target is less than 450ms.
This is almost point and shoot. It’s entirely possible someone fairly untrained just aimed at the forehead and ended up with neck
Supposedly the shot was taken from 200 yards away.
In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.
Call me crazy, and maybe I'm just out of touch, but something seems... off with the reaction to this. The amount of people on reddit that I'm seeing gloating, openly celebrating this, it's really just something I have never seen before. Not even the Trump assassination attempt had this kind of reaction.
All I'm saying, is that if I was a US adversary, I would absolutely be spinning up a million LLMs to post the most provocative possible stuff. The technology absolutely exists - just yesterday sama@ was talking about the dead internet theory. I'm worried that someone is going to see that horrifying video of the shooting, and then see all these horrifying comments online, and do something equally horrifying.
Yeah, fair enough. No doubt there is some real-ness to the sentiment. I do think it's an easy way to hurt the US to fan the flames of divisive things like this. But at the end of the day flame doesn't exist without kindling... I guess it's just the world we live in. How depressing.
One quote of Charlie’s that resonates deeply with me is:
"""
When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts.
When marriages stop talking, divorce happens.
When civilisations stop talking, civil war ensues.
When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.
What we as a culture have to get back to, is being able to have reasonable disagreement, where violence is not an option.
"""
This belief in the power of conversation over conflict defined Charlie’s work. He didn’t just preach ideas; he lived them, fostering discussions that encouraged understanding despite disagreement. I did not agree with all his standpoints, but what I admired most was his insistence that dialogue could bridge divides.
I’m Canadian, and US politics is a massive distraction and influence on ours. It gives me an objective view of their system because their problems often spill over into ours. I usually try to avoid diving into US politics, so I didn’t follow Charlie. Still, he was deeply respected by all of my political allies in Canada. I don’t know all of his positions, but I’d bet we agreed a lot.
One thing that’s shifted in my lifetime is the polarization of US politics. Republicans edged somewhat left because several outspoken anti-gay senators were later revealed to be gay. But Democrats swung much further left, and it’s been costing them elections. The polarization worsened as Democrats regularly dehumanized and attacked Republicans as fascists and racists. My expectation is that the recent attack of charlie kirk by south park is a key factor in this political assassination.
Charlie’s mission was to break that cycle. He stood for open discussion without violence. He often said the great failure of today’s politics is that Democrats and Republicans can’t even talk to each other. And when husband and wife stop talking, they end up divorcing.
The democrats/liberals ended that yesterday. There's no 1 entity to blame here. But how can anyone risk their NECK trying to have proper democratic conversations and debate anymore? You cant. The conversation is over. Divorce is coming.
> Democrats regularly dehumanized and attacked Republicans as fascists and racists.
But a lot of Republicans are not only fascists and racists, but liars and demagogues beyond any hope of discussion in good faith. What can be done about them apart from trying to convince the public that they are bad?
I'm also Canadian. Your interpretation of Kirk's "mission" is curious.
To the rest of us, his "open discussion" was clearly and obviously rhetorical. The public performances that made him famous were undoubtedly designed specifically to incite college students into making clumsy arguments they weren't prepared for. Not only is that bad faith and predatory in the context of political debate, but Steven Crowder came up with that schtick.
Blaming democrats/liberals for his death is also curious. Could you expand on how you're so sure about that? As far as I know, no suspect nor motive is known at this time.
>I'm also Canadian. Your interpretation of Kirk's "mission" is curious.
Obviously i recommend watching the countless videos that confirm and prove this mission correctly. I'll never debate this subject.
>To the rest of us, his "open discussion" was clearly and obviously rhetorical.
You're speaking for everyone? Or do you mean you think. He had open mics that let anyone speak any subject really. What's rhetorical about it? Are you confusing him with steven crowder who has a 'change my mind' on a specific issue that he has deeply researched and knows he's correct?
If your mission is to have democratic debates, this is how you do it.
>The public performances that made him famous were undoubtedly designed specifically to incite college students into making clumsy arguments they weren't prepared for.
So you're against this? You're against having democratic discussions which lead to greater understanding? Im guessing your point of view are out of context 30 second funny clips of the dumbest comments. Those go viral sure, but isnt representative of many hour long events.
>Blaming democrats/liberals for his death is also curious.
when i use a general label, im not saying all even vaguely identifying liberals in canada are responsible for the death. I'm saying the institutions of the Liberal party of Canada and Democratic party in usa are responsible for the political violence.
I can of course be more specific. John Stewart probably is your original root cause for the polarization of the left wing. His style of discourse is funny from him in his comedy show but when people took his style into proper democratic discussions, it falls apart very quickly into polarization.
South Park's recent attack on charlie kirk no doubt is the recent incitement to violence. Yes they pulled the episode. They are likely to be paying hundreds of millions of $ to Kirk's family in a few years from now. Their publishers likely ending their contract for south park now. The lawyers yesterday and today are putting together the settlement offer before they even get served no doubt.
I can also blame the democratic journalists who lie and convinced their readers to hate charlie and republicans as racists and fascists thusly justifying murder. Good on MSNBC to fire Dowd immediately after his outrageous comment.
A great deal of people got fired yesterday and even more are getting fired today. Liberals losing their jobs are only going to radicalize them more towards violence unfortunately.
>Could you expand on how you're so sure about that? As far as I know, no suspect nor motive is known at this time.
When i wrote that comment there was no motive, but political assassinations are trivial to conclude as political.
There is a motive now, ATF leaked that it's a trans shooter. I will be shocked if there arent massive consequences for trans people in the usa.
I will note as well. Lets not forget Melissa Hortman. The political violence is on both sides now.
The way to fix this was Charlie's mission of having conversations. That's impossible now. Nobody can deradicalize the liberals from their violence now. IT will now escalate.
Another note since we're both Canadian. In the summer, Sean Fuecht tried to have simple public performances. Liberals used government power to silence his speech. That's not something you're allowed to do; but they violated his charter rights based of "safety" concerns. Which were valid, there was multiple bombs at his shows by antifa.
All the conspiracy theorizing is silly, imo. This is just another shot fired in the long history of American assassination. Charlie Kirk should be proud. The is the America he asked for. And this may be the beginning of a very violent period in American politics.
I personally believe that every violent death is tragic and should be avoidable.
But how many of us can say that they died for what they believe in? [1] Isn’t this really a personal victory for him at the end of the day?
> I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
I hope he had solace and peace in his final moments, knowing that he kept true to his words right up until the end. Thanks for the sacrifice for our god given rights to stand up to a tyrannical government!
And dude had kids and a wife that aren't going to see him again. That kinda kicks me in the feels. You don't have to be in his political camp to feel bad about that.
I find myself pondering how the families of victims of stochastic terrorism feel, do they try to rationalize why their loved ones died?
I am in the unfortunate situation to have found myself a victim of hatred — nearly got abducted — found myself threatened and discriminated against on the basis of my sexuality and appearance, had people spread rumours about my birth sex, and I wonder, do the perpetrators of stochastic terrorism ever feel any remorse? Are they capable of seeing us as fellow humans? Have they a heart that can feel pain for people they can’t relate to any more than just being other people?
Obviously witchcraft doesn't actually work, but the timing on this Jezebel article "We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk" is darkly comical.
The day that terrorists tried to bomb the World Trade Center with a moving truck in the parking garage, one of the cartoonists for The Onion had made a joke about how one of his characters was going to go blow up the World Trade Center. He got a brief but uncomfortable visit from the Feds.
> For the “POWERFUL HEX SPELL,” I had to provide Kirk’s date of birth for “accuracy.” The witch performed the hex, but her response was unsettling: “I just completed your spell, and it was successful. You will see the first results within 2–3 weeks. However, I did notice disturbances… negative energy not only from you, but projected at you. Likely from toxic family members, co-workers, or new acquaintances.”
That's something I wonder about. Wouldn't people who believe in this stuff demand punishment for the publication and the witches?
Let's say it wasn't witchcraft thing but something more widely accepted like prayer session at mainstream church/mosque or something of this sort. Wouldn't the devout people see this as a contract killing? What if the soother says he felt possessed? Shouldn't then he be let go in a religious society?
It seems strange to me to say "but shouldn't people who believe in things that require a tremendous load of cognitive dissonance be more logically consistent?"
> Wouldn't people who believe in this stuff demand punishment for the publication and the witches
Many of the witches who believe in this stuff also believe that what you put out into the world will come back to you, typically with a multiplier.
Presumably, some of the Christians who believe in this stuff also believe "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and that ultimately God alone must and will mete out punishment with the wisdom of divine omniscience.
None of this stopped people who claim to be witches from taking money to curse a guy, and in my experience, people who claim to be Christians love judging others and their zeal for punishment often seems fetishistic
I guess it'd be for the courts to decide... But yesterday I saw the words "Supreme Court" and I thought about the "Supreme Ayatollah of Iran", who's a guy who says God speaks to him.
And with our Supreme Court, who knows if they'll say witches casting spells are assassins after all.
Wikipedia says the pilot was filmed in March 2001, and production began in July 2001, so the broad strokes of the show were maybe mostly written prior to 9/11, but most of the actual filming likely happened after (which means writers also had time to rewrite at least some things).
I find it interesting that 24 format, total chronological order, allowed them to react to that 9/11 if it was required. Kinda like South Park episodes are at most 2-week old when aired. South Park it's easy since episodes aren't connected and due to how it's made, but the idea is the same.
I'm not a very TV or movie oriented person but I do find the way things are produced quite amazing. I lived in Los Angeles for years and saw many things being filmed as a result. It was always a treat, an extra fun when I saw it on TV later on.
Everything and everyone involved does incredible stuff, IMO.
As far as I can recall it was a very convoluted prison-break for someone thought to be dead that included an attempted revenge assasination, distraction bombing of a federal agency, kidnappings and multiple double agents.
One thing I noticed here and elsewhere online today is that I've not seen any memories of Charlie.
It's all been about the politics and ramifications of the assassination. But nothing about the man himself and how he positively impacted the lives of others, no matter how small.
I'm certain this is my filter bubble, but it's still strange nonetheless.
If anyone has any positive things to say about the man, I'd love to know them. As I'm on his political opposite, I never really engaged with his content or knew much past any controversy that boiled over.
I turned on the Daily Wire’s live coverage briefly to see what they were saying. They were talking about Charlie as a person and holding back tears. The one guy was recounting a one-on-one basketball game they played where he thought he’s school Charlie, but quite the opposite happened.
The other guy was mentioning how he loved to debate, not just in the forums like the schools, but even with his friends. And how he’d debate them even harder in private, and was willing to change his mind, searching for truth.
They also talked about his faith for a while.
I didn’t watch for too long. When I was switching it off they were brining a woman on and it sounded like she was going to tell some of her own stories about him.
I think these people were actually friends with him vs the talking heads on many other networks reporting who only knew him through his work. If you want to hear the real stories, you need to get them from the people who were closer to him.
He also had a wife and kids, I can only assume he has some positive impact on their lives. His kids would have no concept of what he is professionally, he’d just be “dad”.
Whichever side of whatever fence you're on, it's universally a bad thing when politicians, political activists and political representatives get assassinated.
Yes, he constantly debated left wing people, sometimes nice, sometimes extremely rude, and almost always seemed to find ways to pull conversations back from ad hominem stuff or thoughtless claims to something useful and uniting between him and the person he was speaking to. The people were generally college students, more used to memorising and repeating still, but he did sometimes seem to spark a genuine thought out of them.
If this turns out to be real, a direct shot to the left carotid artery. Theoretically could be survivable but not without serious deficit and stroke. Agree likely fatal.
He lost conscious immediately which is not explainable with blood loss alone that fast - which may indicate that there was a higher impact from the shot.
It's not a case of losing blood, it's a case of failing to move blood to the right place. If the shot took out the carotid, then (nearly) 50% of the blood supply to his brain is gone because of a piping failure. That can absolutely cause instantaneous loss of consciousness, no direct brain trauma necessary.
This is very different than bleeding from, say, a major artery in a leg. In that case the issue isn't loss of piping to the brain, it's losing blood until the total blood volume in the body isn't sufficient to maintain a workable blood pressure, and yes that can take multiple minutes before a person loses consciousness.
I am a physician, so I can say this with a high degree of confidence.
That snippet is referring to the circle of Willis*, which is a "backup" circuit that can route around a blockage to the blood flow to the brain on one side.
The thing is the circle of Willis is tiny and near vestigial (there is a substantial fraction of the population where it doesn't even make a full circuit), whereas the carotid is one of the largest blood vessels in the body. The circle of Willis isn't nearly large enough to reroute all that flow. It has to be made bigger over time
through a process called collateralization, and that's a process that happens over months to years, not minutes or seconds.
In short, the circle of Willis will save you from years of high cholesterol that lead to a huge cholesterol plaque completely blocking off one of your carotids. It won't save you from your carotid being severed by a bullet.
*And some other tinier vessels, but mainly the circle of Willis
Not a physician, medical examiner, or the like. But a paramedic who has attended more than one fatality shooting. My educated wild ass guess is that hitting the neck with a high-velocity rifle would cause the shockwaves of the impact to be very, very close to the brainstem and to have a significant effect on it.
[Graphic description] What kind of gun could that have been? Incredible amount of kinetic energy—you can actually see a hydraulic pressure wave oscillating through his entire chest. This was obviously fatal, if anyone wasn't sure. Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).
Really any kind of deer hunting rifle will do that. Any .30 cal or larger rifle is going to cause catastrophic damage to almost everything within atleast an inch of the bullets path, and massive bruising to 4 inches out around it, and that wound area only goes up as you go up through .30 cal bullet sizes. You have to go down into medium and lower handgun calibers for bullet wounds to start becoming mostly localized to the hole itself
Ironically the prevalence of AR-15s has made people underestimate the amount of power and damage that most deer hunting rifles possess. 5.56 is like the bare minimum you can get away with to reliably disable or mortally wound a human or similarly sized animal, which is why the military used it because it saves weight so soldiers can carry more of it even if they have to hike 20 miles to their objective. Most hunting rifles are serious overkill for killing their target because hunters want instant take downs, not an animal that is able to stand up and get an adrenaline boost and sprint away if even for just 15 seconds into the brush because the shot was a half inch to the left. .30_06, a common deer round and used in the M1 Garand of WWII, is just under twice the muzzle energy of 5.56.
Go watch high speed footage of anyone shooting a gun at ballistic gel (ballistic gel is a material selected for having a similar density and fluid dynamics behavior to mammalian flesh.)
A lot of the damage of a bullet is this concussive damage, not the piercing damage. Hollywood has been lying to you (apparently real gun experts hate the movie “shoulder shot” because there’s a lot of things to damage there, especially once you take the concussive force into consideration).
For those who are on the fence, don’t watch it. I just did and I regret it. Suffice it to say that the blood loss alone will be critical condition at the very best.
There are many different kinds of ammunition design. Some pierce and punch holes, some fragment and tumble, some balloon and expand, some cause large tears and cavities.
Ballistic science is actually a fairly complicated rabbit hole
Any hunting rifle round will do this as well, except the smallest calibers like .22 LR that are meant for hunting squirrels and the like.
But also, no, the smaller rounds don't have a "tendency to bounce around in the body". It sounds like you're referring to the phenomenon known as tumbling, where the wound track ends up being curved because the bullet loses stability as it hits. This happens because bullets are heavier at the base and thus unstable; while in air, they are stabilized by rotation imparted on them by the rifling, but once they hit anything dense (like, well, human body) it would take a lot more spinning to keep them stable, so all bullets do that. It does not involve any bouncing, however.
Light and fast bullets like 5.56 are particularly unstable and will do it faster, though. But even then, for 5.56, the primary damage mechanism is from bullet fragmentation: between the bullet being fairly long and thin, and high velocity of impact, the bullet literally gets torn apart, but the resulting pieces still retain most of kinetic energy. Except now, each piece, being irregular, travels on its own random trajectory, creating numerous small wound channels in strong proximity, which then collapse into one large wound cavity. But, again, this is mostly a function of bullet velocity and construction (e.g. presence or absence of cannelure), not caliber as such.
Yes. People should have the choice to watch and understand what political violence. This is a powerful video and one that I don’t recommend everyone watch (that is a personal choice). If you are a person who has chosen to cheer on political violence, then I do suggest you watch. It’s is important to have a clear understanding of what that entails and the realities of that choice.
Fair points. I guess some level of uneasiness can be a good thing for some folks.
But I also recognize it can possibly trigger anxiety (overwhelming, in some cases) for some folks, even if you don't realize that it might (until it's too late).
Not suggesting we turn to censorship. But at the same time, I guess I'm mostly looking out for folks that may not be aware of the effects it could possibly have (e.g. naive and/or not taking warnings seriously enough).
Others are watching and expressing interest. I have similarly chosen not to watch the video, which is the responsible choice for me if I think I will find it disturbing (I probably will).
There are handungs used for defense against brown bears, look at 10mm, or even 500 mag, 454 casull, you can shoot this from a handgun. It's very unlikely to be the case here but you wouldn't be able to tell just from the damages
The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.
Part of the problem is that many claim violence has been done ... with words, and in so doing they incite actual violence. If we want violence to stop then we need to:
- talk to each other about politics (as we used to) so as to moderate each other's opinions
We also need to unequivocally defend free speech. Not violence or criminality but free speech. We shouldn’t tolerate uncivilized counter rioting or other aggressive ways of dealing with others’ opinions - it’s a path to exactly this kind of violence.
I agree. And funny enough the top comment in this thread describes Hans potential replies to this news as “violent”. It’s a form of newspeak. Peach is never violent. Come up with a thousand other words, but that’s what violence is to mean we then need another word for actual violence.
> But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
could you give some examples of good, civil conversations he's had with people he strongly opposed? I'd like watch them. I think it's a skill we all need to cultivate.
Just look up his college campus debates. He would do a very unique round table debate format where he would have 20 college kids sit in a circle and each while get a minute to debate with him. It’s very wholesome and civil.
I agree with you. There should not be sides in the American political system. Yet here we are, because the people we elect seem to want to create a boogeyman in the other "side" and blame all of society's problems on them. Maybe that's just a reflection on American society.
And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.
The news networks and social networks have determined that controversy increases engagement which increases profit.
You could imagine a different algorithm that promoted peaceful, thoughtful interactions. But that would have led to the death of Facebook, twitter, news networks, etc.
We may in fact be here due to sheer greed. The media companies have profited by creating discontent in our society rather than content.
This really can't be stated loudly enough and they studied it and figured this out with A/B testing and implemented it. It's on the level of tobacco companies covering up cancer.
In another HN post about New Mexico offering free childcare, there was a comment that basically hit on the same point [1]. Capitalism has really fucked our society in so many ways.
I have news for you: it's not just American politics that has "sides". In fact, it's exceedingly surprising to me how much politics has aligned (not necessarily in terms of party names and labels) throughout the entire Western world in the past several decades.
I don't disagree. I don't know anything about the political systems of other countries. I'm just talking about what I am familiar with, which is the American political system.
You're right, though. Americans actually agree on most things [1]. In that sense, there is really only one "side." Yet the media exploits the small differences that people don't agree upon to create a giant divide.
Anecdote:
I firmly believe Trump is going to destroy our democracy, or at least put it to its absolute limits. Yet, I have many friends who voted for Trump. They're great people. We don't ever talk politics, but whenever we talk about economics, or society, we actually agree about most things. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be friends.
Yet the talking heads on TV would have us believe that democrats and republicans are enemies. And that may very well be a self fulfilling prophecy.
I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:
- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"
- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."
- "While I'm not a fan..."
Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.
There is only one "side", and they're die-hard. The left is a rag-tag group of misfits who simply don't identify as conservative for one reason or another, which is part of the reason it's so hard for the democratic establishment to find a message that resonates with such a varied and untethered group.
So no, no one is talking about "sideS." A single, cohesive group of people has been building an unearned narrative of persecution and victimhood as a pretext to lash out at and antagonize every person who isn't them.
treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what
I don't understand this. Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time. And the better team that day wins - enjoy and go home. What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
> What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
In my experience, a lot of sports fans love to debate and argue, claim some strategy was "unfair" when used against their team, argue whether some penalty was justified or not. People who are die-hard for their team will usually defend their team no matter what.
> Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time
This is the thing. Politics has basically become a form of entertainment these days. You have talk-shows covering politics and making fun of the political news of the day, you have YouTubers and streamers who make a living off of making political content. Artists make comics that are varying degrees of witty political satire and, in America at least, the democratic and republican conventions are basically a political sideshow circus. To top it off, how many people have taken this situation as a reason to post on social media? Regardless of if you like or dislike Charlie Kirk and his idea's, using his death as a reason to post something on social media, positive or negative, is just using the situation for entertainment purposes.
How many people these days can honestly say they engage in politics to talk about policy, and not as a form of entertainment?
It’s also stupid to be talking about “sides” when we don’t even have a handle on the shooter.
It could be a random crazy person, a Democrat, Trump supporter pissed off that Kirk was trying to help Trump move past the Epstein stuff or any number of in-betweens.
And you can knock off the white washing of Kirk’s political life. In recent memory, he has advocated for military occupation of US cities, making children watch public executions, and eschewed the idea of empathy. This “well, he said it in calm voice” handwaving is spineless.
The Enlightenment directly led to violent revolutions in the US and France. Political violence has never not been a part of political society in some capacity. What is effective is not always what is right, and violence is often effective (not in this case, in my opinion).
> and violence is often effective (not in this case, in my opinion).
Depending on your interpretation of "effective" I'm not sure I entirely agree. Political campaigners on both side of the political spectrum have a lot of respect for Charlie Kirk and his ability to raise funds and make a difference in his political activism. From what I've heard, the stuff he did on camera was actually the weaker part of his skill set, its his off-camera work that the GOP will sorely miss.
As an outside observer of US culture I disagree, the normalisation and glorification of violence has always seemed to be a distinctly American value to me.
Have we? The culture and values that built this country are stained in blood, violence, and subjugation. I feel we are actually losing the enlightenment that came afterwards and regressing back.
As a kid in the UK one of the main ideas I had of the US was Cowboys vs Indians either as a show or a game, and the establishment of the US was largely that - white guys killing the native Americans and taking the land.
Well only a couple countries participated in the creation of the Atlantic slave trade, and very few in history have engaged in chattel slavery to the scale the USA did.
Seems like a very Americentric perspective. There's still plenty of chattel slavery out there right now[1]. In that respect, the idea that the US is uniquely bad is like the "evil twin" version of American exceptionalism[2].
It's hard to find other examples of it (or at least the inherent natural inferiority of one group of residents) being written into the country's foundational legal document. We are indeed exceptional in that regard.
It's time to get off your high horse. If you eat meat, future humans will regard you the same way as we regard the slave owners of yesteryear. Perhaps even worse.
Judge people by the ways in which they push their society's morals forward, not retroactively after hundreds of years of morals evolving.
No. Slavery is a unique evil and people knew it was a unique evil since the time of the ancient Greeks.
I refuse to accept "it was just the way things were at the time" when there were people opposed to slavery thousands of years ago. Aristotle wrote about them:
> others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.
There were abolitionists in the first days of the United States through to the civil war. People knew it was wrong or had ample opportunity to hear it argued that it was wrong, and furthermore, the inherent wrongness of it should be obvious to anyone that encounters it, and I don't give a moral pass to anyone that brushes it off because it was common any more than I do for American politicians that brush off school shootings because it's common.
Incorrect. There were some people that understood slavery to be a unique evil. The vast majority of humanity understood it to be "just how things were."
Really, not much different from how we view factory farming today.
Slavery is evil though. It's pretty straightforward. People that participated in it were wrong to do so, and that should be self evident to all participants. I don't accept any excuse for participating in the slave trade. I'm not special or unique to point this out, it's obvious no matter the century.
Would you like to argue that it isn't? The floor is yours. Otherwise your point about consensus is moot. Evil then, evil now, evil forever.
Slavery was obviously wrong but you cannot judge those that didn't understand this. Consensus matters. The morals of the time matter. It was a societal failing over a personal one.
If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve.
You never answered the question: are you vegan, or do you contribute to the immense suffering and death of ~70b sentient beings a year? The suffering hours inflicted every few days exceed that of any atrocity in human history. It is the industrialized torture of billions of innocent beings for your pleasure.
If veganism becomes the norm, is it fair for future humans to judge your whole life by your consumption of meat, leather, or other animal products when there are so many people today that recognize it as a "unique and horrifying evil?"
It is a strange form of exceptionalism for you to judge those in the past but not yourself, because the delta will be similar over long enough timeframes, and if you do partake in any of these things you won't be seen as much different.
> If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve.
We can judge them by their peers at the time. The U.S. founding fathers didn’t unanimously support slavery, many of them opposed it but were committed to the idea of unity against England. Part of why we can be comfortable judging the slave owners is because their position was primarily based on greed - if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient, a ton of people would stop eating beef but there was no doubt or ambiguity about black people in that regard, only ruthless awareness of how rich you could get without paying your workers.
> if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient
People eat beef mostly because they’re used to it and they think it’s good for them. Everybody knows cow are sentient, there’s a strong intuition (why wouldn’t they like other animals ?) but also tons of literature. There’s not much doubt about it neither.
I agree with the slave owners, however the spectrum of acceptance is large where it’s part of the society. What about someone that make profit by doing business with the slave owner? Someone that buy products coming ~probably~ from that work?
Or someone assisting an "indigene showcase" because they know nothing about this humanoid that look, speak and act differently than the people they used to known (that are from 100km away max). Not different than a zoo, and both are tremendously cruel.
Everyone knows cows are sentient (not sapient) in a way not dissimilar to a pet, everyone knows factory farming causes immense cruelty and suffering to them, our peers call this out and the text+video evidence is well documented and freely available, 20% of humans abstain, but most people eat it to satisfy their taste buds.
So the cases are not dissimilar at all because your contemporaries do call this out. If causing such immense death and suffering for pleasure in the face of easily available alternatives is not greed, what is?
You are only highlighting my point how you are seeing something as acceptable that will probably be viewed as an unspeakable cruelty in the future, and yet you feel comfortable judging past humans by an increased standard whereas you clearly are not comfortable applying an increased standard to yourself.
You are a product of your society as much as the slave owners of the past were of theirs. This is why it is senseless and hypocritical to paint past peoples acting within the accepted mores of their society as evil - as if we are any better, relatively speaking!
It makes sense to celebrate those that push things forward, as opposed to condemning those that are simply doing what they know to be normal.
Sorry, yes, I did mean to write sapient. I'm not sure that's a conflict, however, as much as further along a spectrum. Whether or not eating cows is ethical is possible to debate because there is valid question about how much of a mind they have but that was never honestly in question for humans. The people who kept slaves had to invent things like the “mark of Cain” theology _because_ they knew their victims were intelligent, feeling creatures like themselves and had to justify treating them in a very profitable way. All of those elaborate “the gods want this” constructions exist to get people to override their natural instinct to recognize someone as a person.
This point is moot because chattel slavery of humans is worse by a large degree than eating animals. We don't need to debate whether eating animals is bad, that's a distraction.
We can judge past slaveholders. The shared humanity of another human is self evident the instant you behold a slave, whether 300 years ago or 3000.
I think you're just deliberately being obstructionist and entirely avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Calling the core point of the argument a "distraction" is very convenient for you.
Torture is bad no matter how you cut it, and it's especially bad if you torture a sentient being for your own pleasure. Can we agree on that?
Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions.
When you kill an animal, you can see it struggle, cry, suffer, die. You can hold and see its pain in your hands. To do so for your taste buds is another level of evil. To make it live an entire life of suffering? That's really not much different in terms of badness.
The fact that you can't acknowledge this highlights the double standard you apply to people that came before you but not yourself. Everyone is wrong to participate in the systematic torture and murder of 70,000,000,000 sentient beings a year. Does that make all the participants evil?
> Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions.
I'm not trying to engage in oppression Olympics, I'm just saying, slavery is basically the worst things people can do, so far beyond the morality of whether or not it's ok to kill animals, or even torture them, that I'm just confused why it's brought up as if it's relevant.
I don't think killing animals is a great thing to do, and factory farms are awful. But humans are humans, and constantly just hitting this "what about animals" things is bizarre to me. I'm not trying to be rude, I just simply don't see the relevance. Slavery being just about the worse thing humans can do means that all the other bad things pale in comparison.
I'm not saying it's always valid to apply modern ethics to people from various time periods - it's bad, but understandable, that people used to beat their kids, or waste food by sacrificing animals and leaving them out to rot "for the gods." My point is that slavery simply is a massive exception, it's second-to-second murder, taking a human and trying to make them not-human. So that's why anything you could throw at me that we do today that people in the future might say is wrong - jailing people, not housing the homeless, killing animals for sport, engaging in capitalism, you name it, none of them come close to slavery in terms of sheer evil. And my point is that this isn't modern ethics, this is as self-evident a moral fact as is possible for morality. Many things in morality are grey, debatable. Not slavery. It's the One of Two things that are bad in every century, alongside rape. The wrongness of slavery, and rape, are immediately evident no matter what culture or era you come from.
And the reason people do this is usually to justify slavery. "Well they didn't know any better, so they had slaves." Justifying slavery with ANY reason is also bad. So I refuse to accept any attempt to do so, including comparisons to other things that happen to be bad, or possibly considered bad in the future.
The humanity of a human is self evident to any other human instantly. The humanity of an animal is debatable to this day. That's why slavery is inexcusably bad - the badness of it is also immediately self evident upon encountering it.
I don't think "the humanity of something" is a factor that plays any role in whether something is morally okay or not. Suffering is the factor that matters.
The reason slavery is bad isn't because of suffering, depending on how you define suffering. There were "house slaves" that had relatively comfortable lives. Slavery is bad among other reasons because it strips away someone's humanity and completely takes away their liberty, subjecting their life to the will of someone else. It's a constant ongoing theft of a human life, a reduction of a human life to property.
I'm glad you brought up suffering, I'm realizing better now why so frequently I hear these two ideas brought together by people inadvertently finding themselves on the same side as folks minimizing slavery in attempts to argue against harming animals (by engaging in debate about moral relativism). Purely from a suffering standpoint slavery doesn't necessarily have to be "that bad."
Drawing comparisons between it and arguments against harming animals are nonsensical because we're not talking about suffering, we're talking about other things that can only possibly involve humans. Thank you for sticking around and exploring your viewpoint with me so I could understand that better.
The things you listed have always been with us, sure. What we’ve lost is the ability to see objective truth. And maybe people celebrated senseless killing in the past too and we just didn’t have access to their sick mentality before the internet.
Mobs of white people (including children) used to gather around the town square to hang black people. They would literally have picnics while doing it. I feel like the majority of our population is historically illiterate. On the scale of senseless killings, this doesn't even rank.
This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought. The things you mentioned are found in the history of every nation. It's important to keep track of what should be improved, while also acknowledging what worked well and why.
> This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought.
Hard disagree. Ignoring it is what allows systemic injustice to persist -- why do we care, today, what Eugenicists in the early 1900s had to say? Jim Crow implementers and supporters? Daughters of the Confederacy?
If the reality of history undermines your respect for American philosophical thought, then perhaps the American philosophical thought is not quite worthy of the pedestal it was placed on.
You’re right that it’s important to acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by bad policy and practices, and it’s important to examine what went wrong so we don’t repeat those mistakes.
That said I think it’s important to separate good ideas from their troubled past and use them where they still apply. People are not perfect, but a good idea is good no matter where it comes from. Those good ideas shape culture and shape the destiny of nations. That’s what happened in America, and there’s a lot to be learned from the past. Unless the point is to undermine the recipe that made America into what it is today, then it doesn’t make sense to measure people who didn’t live in our time by our sensibilities, morality or ethics.
We can learn their good stuff, and improve on what they didn’t do well.
Maybe it would help to pluck out the few good ideas from the bad slop. What do you consider specifically unique in the American experiment that transcends the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engages in?
> the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engage
Seems extremist to take that view, especially when all nations have just as bloody or dark histories.
But a lot of what shaped initial American thought were Enlightenment ideals, primarily the works of John Locke. So the foundation is solid enough, but is there more that can be done to produce effective implementations? Definitely.
It’s important to note that there are good ideas everywhere, and no one culture or nation has had hegemony or monopoly on producing the best works over time.
I personally also like the fact that the way the American revolutionaries thought shaped the progress of American science up to the 20th century. Here’s a recent lecture on this, but there’s no recording that I can find.
First off, not extremist. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt there, perhaps you simply didn't recognize you undercut your credibility in a discussion when you dismiss people having a different view of history by assigning them to an extremist bucket -- nowhere left to learn or discuss when you start there. Further, mild whataboutism doesn't support your case either.
Second, the Scottish enlightenment wad wonderful! Not unique to America, so recognizing that the darkest parts of our history are decidedly not representive of the Enlightenment, my classical liberal ideals, and I suspect yours too, does nothing to the case that America did a good job adopting some of the ideals of the Enlightenment in the constitution. We could have gone the French route with the horrors of Robspierre, but we didnt, whether due to lack of population density, aristocracy, or any number of factors.
We agree completely that cultural differences, known as diversity, have outsized benefits.
I'll review the science idea.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We really aren't far apart. I simply see slavery, genocide, and other horrors of the American past as necessary to recognize in order to set context, and in no way does that diminish the astonishing success of our American experiment. Indeed, in spite of these stains on our history, we remain a nation that does the right thing, as Churchill puts it, after exhausting all other options. And that's a uniqur thing to history.
In my view, if we can't acknowledge our past deficits, in no way can we comprehend the present flaws sufficiently to motivate action and collaboration.
It’s better for people to acknowledge that such a problem can span all types of people and cultures, so we can perform root cause analysis without being biased or disingenuous.
For example, see the hesitation of scholars in classifying Mongol invasions as a genocide. Is it the case that only white settlers committed genocide across history? If we think of it that way, then we’re ignoring atrocities committed by inter-group violence (war crimes), or same ethnicity violence. The goal should be to prevent violence between groups of people.
Regarding slavery, again it’s a problem that has occurred across time and cultures. Why were different ideologies and cultures unable to prevent slavery? It’s a disgusting stain on human history.
Many of those values were not coherent nor beneficial.
Slavery, patriarchy, indentured servitude, excessive religiosity, monarchy, rejection of other cultures, all these seem to be good things to leave in the rearview mirror.
Slavery was in the culture for thousands of years. In fact, it is that culture that is the only culture that ended the practice of slavery (largely, it does still exist in places where allegedly never did).
I feel tremendously sad for his death. I also feel desperated when right-wingers talks about vengeance or backlash because it is not clear or doesn't matter if the murderer is left-winger. I thought they were totally silent against gun control when school shootings and latest Democratic politician assassin.
I am not American but looking at society trust falling down does not feel good man.
"On September 10, 2025, at approximately 12:24PM, Conservative political influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at the Utah Valley University in Orem, UT. Mr. Kirk was speaking at the University as part of the American Comeback Tour. Multiple SLC I and III agents responded immediately. The suspect fired one shot from an elevated position on a rooftop in an adjacent building on the campus and surveillance video shows the suspect, jumping off and fleeing the area on foot. ATF and other law-enforcement located an older model imported Mauser .30-06 caliber bolt action rifle wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the campus. The location of the firearm appears to match the suspects route of travel. The spent cartridge was still chambered in addition to three unspent rounds at the top fed magazine. All cartridges have engraved wording on them, expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology. An emergency trace has been submitted an ATF SLC is working leads generated by the trace. The firearm and ammunition have been taken by the FBI for DNA analysis and fingerprint impressions. Upon completion of forensics, the firearm will be disassembled for additional importer information. Multiple people of interest having contacted or detained because of eyewitness testimony and review of video footage. The primary suspect is yet to be identified. ATF is assisting the investigation with multiple other federal, state, and local partners and the case is co-led by the FBI and Utah SBI."
I watched a few clips of Kirk on college campuses leading up to the election.
On campuses today, there’s no shortage of professors, student activists, and guest speakers beating the drum of modern liberalism, but very few brave enough to take an alternative view.
So I respected him for getting students to question and defend their beliefs.
The argument that I keep hearing that he was just a guy talking does not quite fly.
The most horrible people in history did not do any physical harm to other people themselves. Many were also very nice to hang out with and had lovely families. But they definitely inspired and ordered others to do unimaginably horrible acts.
Things are not healthy in the USA, and have not been for a long time. It's all about scoring points now, owning the other side, getting soundbites, etc. It's sad that it's progressed to this.
From an outsider, it really feels like there's no middle ground in American politics. You either commit yourself to the full slate of beliefs for one side, or you're the "enemy".
I hope that Americans on both side start to see that either they need to tone down the rhetoric, work together and reach across the aisle, or just take the tough step of a national divorce due to irreconcilable differences.
Part of that is to stop giving a voice to the insane rhetoric, and stop electing *waving vaguely*.
If you look closer, I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side", think the whole situation is incredibly stupid, and wish the politicians would just shut up and actually...govern...instead of playing silly games and pandering to the crazy people (on either "side").
However, both the established parties seem to have become totally incompetent to do that, in very different ways. One party got taken over by people who make public statements on a daily basis that would have been immediately disqualifying at any time since 1950 or so. The other party is so bad at doing politics that they're beaten in elections despite running against those people.
> I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side",
Many of us don't vote either. And our two party systems have created extreme partisanship. I wish it could be different because I do love this country, but our politics are so broken by the two party system, fueled with misinformation through these partisan news networks + social media algorithms (the way Youtube turns one person into an extremist of either side is an example...)
Violence has plagued US politics since literally the creation of the country. Four sitting presidents killed and a few other close calls, governors and senators shot, almost in every decade. So it’s not like horrific events like this are new to us and we are just recently starting to fall into an unknown downward spiral of violence.
I do see many comments at the bottom that appear to have been deleted, but I can't see what they said, so it isn't possible to know if it was deserved.
A lot of people here are no better than reddit. Worse in some ways because they wrap their gravedancing in an additional layer of pseudointellectualism.
I think the main problem of social media in general is that it allows for people to find things to instigate them. In essence, a single person's opinion can be amplified. This leads to at least two outcomes. One being that people "on the side" of that opinion will unite into an echo chamber of people with that opinion. Two being that people "on the other side" of that opinion will use it to justify the need for their unification and propagate it through their echo chamber.
Prior to social media, or the internet in general, it was quite difficult to amass large numbers of people in your echo chamber without becoming a person of power (like a president or equivalent). But today, it isn't uncommon for someone with views towards conspiracies or extreme viewpoints to become a "popular" voice in social media. In fact, one might argue that it is easier to become popular by being divisive. Even though most people aren't on either side. The ability to grow a "large enough" side is enough to become an existential threat to the other side. And they end up justifying their own existence.
I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't even know how to reduce it at this point.
Yes the two extremes feed off each other, and make everything worse for the rest of us.
Personally I think there needs be laws regarding social media, perhaps limiting the number of followers/viewers for anyone engaged in social or political commentary, and/or making promotion of political content illegal if it is false or misleading. Something akin to the fairness doctrine that used to exist for television prior to 1987.
Yea it becomes a vicious positive feedback loop unfortunately, amplified by social media. Moderate voices gets drowned out because they're boring. Some outlandish thing on one "side" gets some strong reaction from the other side, which gets some strong reaction from the other side and so on. The whole system is set up for amplifying extremes.
The national divorce was tried once in 1860. Hundreds of thousands died to effectuate it or stop it.
When people say the north fought to preserve the union, I always thought it meant the physical union. But recently, I saw a lecture by Gary Gallagher at the UVA that shone a brighter light on what union meant in 1860. It's worth a listen, search for it on YT.
America is founded on the principle of human selfishness. People are selfish, so let’s harness it instead of pretending that people are utopian selfless creatures.
More recently, selfishness has taken second seat to hurting the “other” (whatever other happens to be) even to the detriment of one’s own self interests. America is not built for this.
A lot of mythologizing about the US, its constitution, and its government has come crashing down in the past 20 years, pretty much since 9/11 and the rise of the internet. I think this is overall less a story of America is unhealthy now than US citizens have been believing comforting lies about its nation/government since the actual victory in WW2 and the cultural victory in the aftermath/cold war. The internet and 9/11 really woke people up I think.
The truth is the US has been seen periods of extreme rhetoric and even political violence, including most obviously an actual civil war, and also key periods like the labor movement and civil rights movement. It will happen again even if things cool.
Political violence and assassinations are obviously terrible and should hopefully not happen as debate allows consensus or at least compromise to be reached, but the reality seems to be if you allow the people a stake in their government, passion and anger will be instilled in some subset of those people cause government policies have real world implications, and the end result is extreme acts, many of which are detestable like this one. I don't see a way forward other than to prosecute crimes and let the debate rage on.
America has had political violence for a long time. The unique combination of post-war economic prosperity and centralized mass media (radio, TV) imposed an unnatural coherence on an incoherent body of people. This was a trade-off that paid off wildly for the baby boomers, and provides most of the backdrop for American nostalgia in a way that Reconstruction, for example, does not. The advent of the personalized, always-there screen has brought viewpoint diversity back into the body politic with such ferocity that it has caused wholesale abandonment of shared reality. In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way, and are frantically grabbing at anything as a substitute.
The best we can hope for is that the convulsions will be short and sharp and no foreign power takes advantage of our convalescence. In 1945 the Germans learned a hard lesson about fascism, and learned it well; we can hope that Americans will learn something too, and at less cost.
Maybe its time...we consider separating? We seem to be evenly divided, with neither side making any ground in more unifying the American people. Trump leans into division (he has never been a unifier, and screws up any chance he has to call for unity rather than going after his enemies), the Democrats seem to either have moribund leadership or leadership that are taking lessons directly from Trump and won't be unifiers either. Both sides are getting more angry, maybe we just shouldn't be one country?
How are you going to split the country up? Because it certainly doesn't make sense to do it by state. Rural California is as conservative as urban Texas is liberal.
There would never be an agreement of terms. Talk about separation is generally based on the fantasy that states would just each go their own way, which is both absurd and a terrible precedent to set, do you think California would agree to part with much of its wealth? Because I don't, and something like that would be a basic requirement.
The economic engine that powers everyone's lives depends on being one country, and even in heavily R/D districts there are people on the opposite side of the fence. It's never going to happen.
No it really doesn't. You have rich countries that are much smaller with less diverse industries than a blue or red America. I get that the red parts of the country still wants wealth transfer payments from the richer blue parts, but that is just hypocrisy on their part.
It looks like Trump's term is going to end in either the end of America as we know it or a constitutional convention anyways. Anything is on the table given how America is currently being torn apart anyways.
How? If we split by political grouping all the major population centers go Blue everywhere else goes Red? Unless we have a very polite split (unlikely in this case) the Blue side is just signing up to starve to death.
No there really isn't, especially not in the timeline needed to prevent a city from starving. Seriously New York, Chicago, LA are all 2 weeks of supply chain disruption from foot riots. It takes a nation to supply mega cities like those.
Separating across what lines? Within group difference might be more severe than between group differences even. Most people identify as independents, there are more than two sides, and even if there were two sides, we're geographically intertwined. Conservatives threaten conservatives and liberals threaten liberals all the time, maybe even moreso! and that's not to mention religious conservatives vs libertarian conservatives, lefists, centrists, etc et. al.
I actually think it’s possible a national divorce makes the problem worse. Lots of these killers have not had clear motives or “sides”
You censored conversations about the genocide in Gaza because "this is just a tech blog" but now we can talk about this (an assassination that I consider a tragedy BTW)
I'm sorry to say this but I just enjoy the irony of it all. His last words were "Counting or not counting gang violence?". He literally died arguing for less gun control, saying mass violence and death is acceptable. I guess he found out the hard way the consequences of spreading hateful, bigoted, divisive, evil shit. Ben Shapiro cancelled a bunch of his visits to college campuses, I think that's hilarious - I wouldn't shed any tears for him, either.
What if Trump is behind this, and he had him killed to distract from the Epstein files business? He could also blame it on the liberals and the left, and make his own party look like victims.
The american state was brought into existence and persists through unrelenting political violence - internal and external. The estimated 90% of Indigenous population that perished; persistent excess deqths of indigenous peoples https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1698152/; persistent racialized violence perpetrated by the state on Black communities; the exploitation and arbitrary state violence upon documented and undocumented non-citizen workers (or those perceived to be non-citizens); the 5 million that have perished during GWOT; the 5 million or so excess USSR deaths from US policies during the early 1990s; the violence of carceral warfare (the so-called “mass incarceration”) against racialized populations.
Aime Cesaire called it “imperial boomerang”; Malcolm X said “chickens coming home to roost”.
Yet the only form of violence that legible to the bourgeoisie is even the prospect of resistance & counterviolence - most of the recent attacks upon capitalists & those labeled as “right wing” seem to have not come from “the left”.
2 Minnesota lawmakers shot in politically motivated killings, governor says (cbc.ca)
102 points by awnird 88 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments
Interesting to see the 100x(!) attention that this gets on HN, likely representative of similar media reach on more mainstream channels, when it's not even lawmakers in this case.
The comparison with the Minnesota lawmaker murders submission sounds political and you seem to care about this aspect a lot to mention it 3 times
If you’re genuinely curious why this event is likely getting so much attention, I’d wager it has less to do with politics than it has with the fact that this occurred in front of thousands of people, mainly young students, and was recorded by many on their phones. It was also being broadcast I believe. Multiple angles of a very graphic video of a person getting murdered are all over the internet
It’s terrible when innocent people are murdered. In this case, many people watched it happen too
so this is the end of the debate bro culture he pioneered? i dont imagine any other right wing thought leaders are going to want to put themselves at risk of being shot over and over again, now that its happened.
I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in basic standards.
Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.
It was actual political violence when MN state representative Melissa Hortman was killed. It was political violence when Gabby Giffords was shot. Actual political violence has been happening. We live in a politically violent time.
I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am concerned about the increasing frequency of such events more than anything else, because, to your point, why things did happen in decades prior, it was not nearly as common.
Gabby Giffords's shooting was tragic. But thankfully it was an isolated incident.
In the past year-or-so we have seen two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of the CEO of an insurance company, the assassination of Rep. Hortman, and now this. That's five political assassinations/attempts in a year.
It would seem fair to argue we are now firmly in a state of contagion which is unlike the situation in 2012 when Giffords was shot.
Additionally, I’ve seen a troubling amount of online sentiment positively in favor of the Trump assassination attempts, the murder of Brian Thompson. The sentiment in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder looks like it might be similarly troubling.
The rhetoric on Paul Pelosi's hammer attack was unhinged - it also was political violence.
I don't doubt the same figures who made lurid comments, mocked or ridiculed the attack will now act more measured and asking for decorum due to the victims "team".
January 6 was mass political violence, and I my unprofessional opinion is that the pardons marked a turning point in how engaging in political violence is viewed; all is forgiven if/when your team wins.
Hyper-partisanship, and choosing not playing by the rules when it benefits you will be America's downfall. At some point, people on the other side of the political fence stopped being seen as opponents,but became "enemies", I think cable news/entertainment shoulders much blame on this, but the politicians themselves know outrage turns out the vote. I wonder if they'll attempt to lower the temperature or raise it further.
I agree that the Pelosi attack was political violence and the rhetoric was unhinged, and I agree that January 6 was mass political violence. I didn’t include them (or some others that came to mind) since I was keeping it to the parent post’s “past year-or-so.” But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift. I remember when Gifford was shot; the discourse was all about assigning blame for the bad thing, as opposed to saying it was a good thing. Feels like we’re moving in a bad direction, as your examples and my examples both illustrate.
> But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift.
There has been widespread discontent for a while now - it's the vein Obama and Trump tapped to win their respective first terms. AFAICT, it is an evolving class war[1], with American characteristics.
1. One could argue which side tore up the social contract first, and quibble with the definition of what counts as "violence"
It was political violence when Trump was shot on stage too.
I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
> I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
If you haven't noticed a difference between his first and second terms may I suggest you go for a vacation outside the US and try coming back in? For bonus points make a mistake on your forms.
US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports.
I know plenty of people who will be giving NeurIPS a miss _on the advice of their governments_. This _did not_ happen during his first term.
> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11
You mean that time when millions of American citizens were placed on the No Fly List with no recourse essentially at random? You can't be serious. After 9/11 was far worse.
I've been in and out of the US several times this year through several ports of entry and it has been hassle-free so far. They don't even ask me questions, they just wave me through.
He and his enablers played that argument during his 2024 campaign as well, but everyone is missing a crucial aspect of it. During his first term, he was surrounded by a large number of career administration staff, who put guardrails around him. This time it's all 'Yes men' and his well-wishers. Notably, no one from the previous admin staff had endorsed him for 2024. That should have given a clue to people. But, nope.
> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports
Apologies, but "citation needed"?
(As a non-US citizen) I flew into JFK earlier this year and did my (first) Global Entry interview. It was the shortest and most polite immigration interview I've ever had anywhere, and I've had a few.
The country may have fundamentally changed, but I suspect that comment was about Trump. Everyone knew they were planning to destroy the place if he got a second term, they wrote a book explaining it.
Yes, I was referring to Trump, not the state of the country. Republicans have full control this time around, but the goals and rhetoric have not changed. Trump was not "radicalized."
The differences we’re seeing were all planned years in advance. This time around Trump had the time and experience to build his own team instead of taking the team the Republican establishment handed him. As for policies, it’s all in Agenda 47, his manifesto, including universal and reciprocal tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, immigration crackdowns, he laid out exactly what he was going to do back in 2023.
Heh. You know. I don't want to be too flippant, but I will respond to this, because it raises an interesting point.
I would like to hope that you recognize that registration of political affiliation is just one data point. Spring it does not make. You know how I got registered as a republican? I got incorrectly registered as one during judge election volunteering.
I am not saying it means nothing. What I am saying is: some nuance is helpful in conversations like this.
PA has closed primaries though, so he likely would have fixed it if it was a mistake. In any case, if you're looking for nuance, there's not a lot of it in political violence in the US.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Adkisson, Dylan Roof, the Tree of Life shooting, J6, the 2022 Buffalo shooter, Jacksonville 2023, Allen, TX 2023, etc.
Nearly all political violence in the US is committed by people espousing right wing ideology, so if it walks and talks like a duck, is telling you it's a duck...
The moment trump was shot (or whatever ricocheted and hit his face) and the picture was taken of him with the flag, I knew he had the election won. There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.
I don't give a single fuck about the wellbeing of Crookes, which might be immoral, but I can tell you from the perspective of usefulness of the photo op, it doesn't appear your concern reached a position of influence.
Believe it or not 4 out of the last 30 Presidents were assassinated, an additional 3 were shot, and a few more were shot at or otherwise survived attempts. There's a long history of political violence in the US (and the world). We've been in a bit of a lull of late but what we're experiencing today is not all that abnormal.
Yes - makes me think of the assassination of Shinzo Abe.
The gunman made his own gun, in a country with ultra-strict gun laws. The Unabomber made his own bombs. The Seattle mall Islamist knife attacker refused to stay down after being shot multiple times.
My takeaway: political terrorists are particularly motivated. Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.
You might want to look into what happened in Japanese politics after the Abe assassination. Public opinion was not unfavorable to the plight and motivations of the attacker.
I just wanted to mention that. Recently I was wondering what was that even about, and I was surprised to read this on Wikipedia:
> Yamagami told investigators that he had shot Abe in relation to a grudge he held against the Unification Church (UC), a new religious movement to which Abe and his family had political ties, over his mother's bankruptcy in 2002.
> The assassination brought scrutiny from Japanese society and media against the UC's alleged practice of pressuring believers into making exorbitant donations. Japanese dignitaries and legislators were forced to disclose their relationship with the UC, (...) the LDP announced that it would no longer have any relationship with the UC and its associated organisations, and would expel members who did not break ties with the group. (...) [The parliament] passed two bills to restrict the activities of religious organisations such as the UC and provide relief to victims.
> Abe's killing has been described as one of the most effective and successful political assassinations in recent history due to the backlash against the UC that it provoked. The Economist remarked that "... Yamagami's political violence has proved stunningly effective ... Political violence seldom fulfills so many of its perpetrator's aims." Writing for The Atlantic, Robert F. Worth described Yamagami as "among the most successful assassins in history".
Risk mitigation; statistics and funnels. It's all just trying to reduce the likelihood and severity of bad outcomes, not preventing them altogether. Same story as seatbelts and stoplights.
No, they're the same thing from a risk management perspective. As a defender, you do not (or at least should not) care about motivations. Seatbelts protect against genuine mistakes (by you or others), mechanical failures, road rage, etc.
There's a long funnel of all the things that could happen, probability of each, and total resulting probability. That's no different for being in a car wreck or being shot at.
Now, on a moral level, sure, malice is different from negligence is different from coincidence.
> As a defender, you do not (or at least should not) care about motivations
The motivation is not the important part. Sentience is. This person is playing a chess match trying to defeat you.
Consider biology. Cancer is a hard problem to solve, but it's not scheming against you with an intelligence. What about someone in a lab engineering bioweapons?
It's only an accident when taken out of the bigger picture. There is a reason it's often called car collision (or similar nowadays): Because it's a statistical inevitability when taken in aggregate.
There are whole continents of countries showing how effective gun control is. At this point you've got to be ignoring it on purpose.
It's not some statistical difference between almost no violence and no violence. It's night and day. Orders of magnitude. Teens walking back from parties through the middle of the city at 1 am with their parents permission vs clan wars.
> And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would.
Disclaimer that this is early and I may be wrong, but I read that he had a security detail (which seems rather likely). I doubt an attacker with a knife would have had success.
Obviously attacks happen even without guns. But it is harder to kill someone without a gun, and harder to kill multiple people or from a distance without one.
Guns aren't as generally useful as knives. So it makes little sense to have 1.2 guns per person, or really any private gun possession. The price of mass murders, shooter drills, and firearm accidents aren't worth what marginal benefits guns may bring.
I've tried to tease that apart and failed. All of the sites hosting statistics I could find count suicide and justifiable homicide as in self defense in the statistics as homicide. I wish I could find a trust worthy source that differentiates in a truly unbiased scientific manor.
Cross, I know we interacted before. I sincerely hope you do not advocate that ends justify the means. "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine ( more resources at their disposal to ensure that happens ). They always are fine. You know who actually does suffer? Regular people.
Regular people suffer no matter what the problem is, they have always been the front line to blunt the effects of economic, political, or military tolls. The whole reason people resort to political violence is to inflate a problem so large that not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it. If someone feels they are suffering or dead without doing anything, then suffering or dieing from actually taking action against your perceived oppressors seems like a decent option.
> "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine
I meant the bourgeoisie as in the middle class. A lot of idiots think rolling out guillotines will hurt the rich and help the poor.
It won’t. It almost never has in the last millennium. If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
I actually wish that were the case.
The problem today is that we've scaled up the damage that a single attacker can do. I won't go too far into it, but think of it this way, what happens when someone wakes up to the fact that they can use autonomous ordinance (e.g. - Drones)?
We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse. In retrospect, it's kind of obvious that it set us on a slippery slope.
> We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse
I remain a fan of bringing back the Athenian institution of ostracism. If more than a certain fraction of voters in an election write down the same person’s name, they’re banned from running for office or have to leave the country for N years. (And if they can’t or won’t do the latter, are placed under house arrest.)
I've always thought that the middle class were proles as well, or petit-bourgeoisie at best. I don't think you're wrong, but one thing that I've noticed in my time of thinking about and discussing societal problems in the US is that nothing ever really seems to help the poor anyway.
Hello. I witnessed racial and religious persecution.
I can tell you my stories. But I always wonder what is the alternative when someone like me is attacked? Should I give my left cheek? Should I attempt to be a pacifist?
People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged because they never have to witness someone’s head roll down. So they don’t know how it feels to be the receiving end of suffering.
<< People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged
I think you misunderstand the point. My argument is that each act of political violence ( especially on a national stage ) further degrades existing society. That ongoing degradation is a real problem and, yes, individual suffering is irrelevant to it, because, society is a greater good.
You may say those say it are privileged, but to that I say that I like having working society. It keeps being us civil. I like it to stay that way.
If you feel otherwise, please elaborate. It is possible, I am misunderstanding you.
Haitian Revolution comes to mind of "the bourgeoisie" that were actually in country, basically got slaughtered, at least the white ones. If you frame it to include the ones even higher up on French soil, maybe not though.
>If you work in tech, you’re part of the American bourgeoisie. If you have a college degree, you’re bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the middle class.
What does the middle class even mean nowadays?
By Marxist definition, the bourgeoisie are the business owners, the landlords. The class that owns the means of production. If you need a salary to survive, you're working class.
A lot of people in tech are salaried employees. They might have some money in investments, but not enough to live off of. Many tech workers are just highly compensated members of the working class.
I'm of the strong opinion that statism is the way of corrupting any ideological revolution. From communism, to democracy.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion as to why letting the status quo be is a good thing. The path society is on is clearly towards a cyberpunk distopia, than anything that would unburden and improve the human existance of the many.
In the USA: There are more suicides than murders every year. The ratio is typically 2:1. The "deaths due to gun violence" statistic includes suicides. It's not exactly that plain and simple either.
"Firearms are the most lethal method of suicide attempts, and about half of suicide attempts take place within 10 minutes of the current suicide thought, so having access to firearms is a suicide risk factor. The availability of firearms has been linked to suicides in a number of peer-reviewed studies. In one such study, researchers examined the association between firearm availability and suicide while also accounting for the potential confounding influence of state-level suicidal behaviors (as measured by suicide attempts). Researchers found that higher rates of gun ownership were associated with increased suicide by firearm deaths, but not with other types of suicide. Taking a look at suicide deaths starting from the date of a handgun purchase and comparing them to people who did not purchase handguns, another study found that people who purchased handguns were more likely to die from suicide by firearm than those who did not--with men 8 times more likely and women 35 times more likely compared to non-owners."
It has been stated before, but perhaps we should only allow older people to have guns, probably 40ish. Of course that filters out all but one mass murders - Las Vegas (at least from brain memory).
I would think addressing the reasons people commit suicide leads to a better society. I would think that simply removing a popular tool for them only hides a symptom of a broader problem.
The other break in your statistic is people who own guns and commit suicide, and people who own guns and have a family member steal them to commit suicide. The later is far more common. Which suggests that part of the issue is unrestricted access to firearms by children in the home of a gun owning parent.
> I would think addressing the reasons people commit suicide leads to a better society.
Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
"The rate of non-firearm suicides is relatively stable across all groups, ranging from a low rate of 6.5 in states with the most firearm laws to a high of 6.9 in states with the lowest number of firearm laws. The absolute difference of 0.4 is statistically significant, but small. Non-firearm suicides remain relatively stable across groups, suggesting that other types of suicides are not more likely in areas where guns are harder to get."
> Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
This is perhaps one of the worst ways of looking at it. People kill themselves slowly by many means, including alcoholism, smoking, risky activities (reckless driving, etc.). These are grouped broadly under the term "Deaths of Despair" (see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221228/). It may be more informative to look at other countries, such as Russia, Norway and Finland, which have incredibly high rates of alocholism leading to a high rate of deaths of despair.
There are many ways to reliably kill yourself. Guns are just the quickest. A serious discussion on the topic cannot avoid this fact.
The faster the method, the less time there is to change your mind. An alcoholic can go to rehab. A smoker can take up vaping. The guy with a shotgun wound to the face… is in a spot of bother.
Yes but addressing it as far as "can go to rehab" misses the point: deaths from chronic fatty liver and its complications or lung cancer are dramatically elevated in these countries. It is quite literally "too late". The problem needs to be addressed much earlier.
I do but why is the argument you presented is about how guns are the cause of the deaths. The deaths of despair occur with or without firearms. The focus on the firearms par of "firearm suicides" does not reduce suicides.
Again, the statistics demonstrate that the non-gun suicide rates are about the same between highly and lightly regulated American states. That is a hard point to dodge.
With respect, I think you ignored the point I'm making for the sake of pushing an agenda. Suicides are deaths of despair. Whether someone ultimately kills themselves with a firearm or a needle is secondary to the policy goal: to attempt to make America better for people to not want to kill themselves (barring an inherent medical issue related to chemical imbalance causing depression).
Are those "suicides" in the classical sense? No. But they are deaths of despair, and from a public health and policy standpoint, must be approached in a manner similar to suicide.
I don't believe you have even attempted (or acknowledged) an opposing point exists on this topic. Your points amount to banal agenda pushing as opposed to seeking to understand the root causes of many challenges today. This is emblematic of (and partially why) there is such division in the USA today: a lack of willingness to study and understand societal problems, particularly those that are multifaceted and require broader reasoning about the topic.
guns are a very efficient tool for murder or suicide. They absolutely will increase the number of deaths due to their effectiveness. Whether that's worth the societal price is up to the people.
Sure but the people asking to track gun deaths properly are rebuffed by the people who want to keep guns, so even the guys who want to keep guns infer better stats will make them look worse.
So we can conclude that proliferation of guns are a necessary but not sufficient condition for excessive gun violence. Remove the necessary condition, remove the violence.
According to that Wikipedia link there are 1 million registered firearms in the USA and 400 million unregistered firearms. Could somebody explain these numbers, since they seem very odd?
I'm not sure how Wikipedia is distinguishing them but for the most part firearms do not have to be registered in the United States. Some states require firearms to be registered but most do not. Unregistered firearms can nonetheless be counted because they are inventoried and sold legally (firearms dealers must be licensed and regulated), even though the end purchaser is not registered anywhere.
Federally, only specific categories like fully-automatic machine guns and short-barreled rifles have to be registered.
Only a tiny minority of firearms need to be registered. My guess is that covers NFA weapons like machine-guns, which are uncommon. Virtually all typical firearms people own don't need to be registered.
No one really knows how many firearms there are in the US or who owns them. Just the fact that something like 15 million firearms are sold every year in the US gives a sense of the scale. The number of firearms in the US is staggering, no one knows the true number, and they have an indefinite lifespan if stored in halfway decent conditions.
Certain kinds of firearms are required to be registered, like machine guns, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns.
Tons of guns are not those limited categories, so they are not required to be registered.
Its entirely possible to sell a gun in the US without any kind of paperwork depending on the type of firearm sold, the buyer of the firearm, and the seller of the firearm. I'm in Texas, so I'll use that as an example. Lets say I want to sell a regular shotgun I currently own to a friend. IANAL, this is not legal advice, but my understanding from reading the applicable laws would be all I have to do is verify they are over the age of 18 and that I think they are probably legally able to own a gun (I have no prior knowledge of any legal restrictions against them owning the gun). We can meet up, check he's probably over 18 and can probably legally own a gun and is a Texas resident, he can hand me cash or whatever for trade, I can give him the gun, and we go our separate ways. I do not need to do a background check. I do not need to file any registration. Nobody would know this guy now owns this gun. I do not need to keep any record of this sale at all. This shotgun has been an unregistered gun for its entire exstence.
This wouldn't necessarily be true if I trade some certain amount of guns as then I would probably need a federal firearms license and thus have some additional restrictions on facilitiating a sale. This also isn't necessarily true in other states which have additional restrictions on gun sales. But if I haven't done any gun sales in a long while, such restrictions wouldn't apply (according to my current understanding of the law, IANAL, not legal advice).
You can email hn@ycombinator.com to verify, but I'm willing to bet the charged comment mob flagged it before a mod had a chance to see the post and protect it. This jives with other posts, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277177, being "allowed". The second may have met the same fate, or possibly have been considered a dupe by some users who had already seen the other postings of the same story active.
If you can catch posts you think are unfairly flagged as they happen you can also send them to hn@ycombinator.com. Even if it's a day late they can unflag it, second chance it, and/or watch the comments.
The mods hold a strong opinion that making the moderation log public in some way (so these kinds of things can be seen directly) would cause more problems and discontent than it would solve. I strongly disagree, but I respect that the mods have always delivered satisfactory answers for me when using the emailing process - which is their main counterpoint to the need for a public log.
Your second link stayed up and was quite popular. The first one is clearly not in the same category: the CBC reporting on current events is quite apart from an Axios editorial.
Based on my memory, GP's second link did not show as being up when they shared it and seems to have only changed after the fact. I also find this (much older) archive which at least showed [flagged] when it was at 75 votes https://web.archive.org/web/20250614213042/https://news.ycom...
Another shameless note that this is the kind of thing I think a public moderation log would really help.
We're talking about the same site that constantly has submissions from politically biased sources alluding to various ways that the orange man is bad, where comments pushing standard right-wing talking points are frequently flagged and killed within minutes, and a recent Ask HN seriously entertained the question of whether HN is "fascist" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598731) because the "orange man is bad" posts get flagged?
Not fair. Its not right wing or any wing. I think the decent thing to do is not speak ill of the dead. I didnt like him, I barely took notice of what he did. He was not on any side just on the side of opportunity. But there is no solution to be found in violence.
I’ve noticed a trend where posts that paint conservatives in a bad light are quickly flagged before getting any traction here. And then this one doing the opposite is one of the most voted and commented on ever for this website. It blew up during work hours when this board is usually quite slow too.
Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but... this extremely unfortunate event is going to be a very telling test for the media and society at large.
A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered and another attacked by the same man only a couple of months ago, back in June. How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
My cynical side suspects we are about to hear a lot about "violence from the left" in a way we did not about the right back in June.
This is so true and so sad at the same time that it almost portends a kind of tragic fatal destiny to the US. You can almost see factions warring for no other purpose than to gain "followers" and "likes". (Might even make an argument that we're already there?)
What you’ve described sounds like the logical outcome of Democracy in a post-digital world. I can envision a world where the future Secretary of State was a former Reddit moderator. Or worse. A Lemmy maintainer.
Yeah, guess they really are unknown. By the way, there are 7,386 state congressmen. A lot of Americans probably aren't even aware that their own state even has a congress. You don't even know about it and you're bringing it up.
I'm glad this was shared and that this did not go unnoticed, it made me know where things were going. Figureheads weren't even pretending to care anymore - escalations are in order way before any call for de-escalation will be made.
We fail this test over and over and the fact that you don't realize it is telling in and of itself. Not as a remark on you, but on the media in general.
There was no presidential message expressing sympathy and outrage then and complete radio silence from Republicans in general. And the amount of misinformation from the right was incredible. Even in this thread of nominally intelligent people, they're still repeating falsehoods.
Any expression of shock and dismay from conservatives now is pure theater. The right wing is absolutely fine with violence. Accusations of the violent left is of course a talking point projection as usual.
> How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
I couldn't have named Kirk if I saw him or heard about him before he shot and it entered the news. Not sure what that tells us -- we should know more who our representatives are, or know about various "influencers" in politics and such?
EDIT: I saw you initially mentioned two representatives who were murdered but now it looks like there is only one. So even though you criticize others for not knowing who these murdered representatives were, it seems you don't even know who they were or if they were even murdered.
> Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but...
Well this is how usually talking in bad taste early starts ;-). It's kind of like saying "No offense, but ... $insert_offense_here".
One key difference here is that the MN Democrats killed and injured were relatively niche/local participants in the Democratic party in MN (none of that that makes their death or injury any more acceptable or less appalling). Kirk is a highly significant figure in the right wing media world.
And how many people outside of Minnesota you think would know her. I bet the majority of people in MN wouldn't didn't know who she is.
For instance do you know Brandon Ler, the Montana House of Representatives speaker? Or, say, Nathaniel Ledbetter, the Alabama House of Representatives?
Are they "niche" politicians? In their states, no. But, absolutely yes when it comes to people from other states and more so from across the world.
I made no claim that she was a national figure. Merely pointing out that calling a politician holding one of the highest offices in state government a niche, local politician intentionally diminishes them.
I suspect that unless you live in New Mexico, you have no idea who the speaker of the NM House is. That's not a diminshment of the office or the person holding it, it's a recognition that while such positions come with significant power within the context of a state, they are quite hidden from residents of other states.
The other thing you're leaving out is that Charlie Kirk was actively provoking people with outrageous takes, perhaps as a social media strategy.
It doesn't justify death, but it certainly makes it less surprising and more understandable.
Imagine if a democrat went into the deep south and said "The confederacy was a stupid joke you should be ashamed of, it only existed for 4 years, get rid of the flag already." etc etc and posted it to social media while talking over people trying to engage in debate.
Then that would be an apples-to-apples comparison. Not an elected representative.
No, they weren't US congressmen. Funny you just like that other whining guy don't even know anything about the subject. "They" (actually only one) was a MINNESOTA CONGRESSMAN, not a US CONGRESSMEN. You probably aren't even aware there is a Minnesota congress.
> MN Democrats were not random “niche” “Democrats” but US CONGRESSMEN
reply
> Minnesota is part of Canada now? Must have missed that… :)
When you've dug yourself into a hole it's good idea to stop digging and get out instead of keep digging. As the GP pointed out, a US member of Congress refers to representative in the US Congress (that one from Washington, DC).
In addition to the US Congress, states have their legislative bodies. Melissa Hortman was a member of such a state legislative body -- the Minnesota House of Representatives.
So on one hand you sound like you know a lot about her and want her to be more well known, on the other hand you don't even know what legislative body she was a representative in. So that's pretty confusing.
> How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines?
I don't know - how long did these stories stay in the headlines?
A 26 year old man from Irondale, Alabama was later arrested and charged in connection with the bombing. Prosecutors stated that prior to the bombing, the suspect had been spotted placing stickers on government buildings, displaying "antifa, anti-police and anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement sentiments" and had expressed "belief that violence should be directed against the government" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Marshall#Bombing
10 arrested after ambush on Texas ICE detention facility [..] When an Alvarado police officer arrived on the scene, one of the individuals shot him in the neck. Another individual shot 20 to 30 rounds at the facility correction officers, according to Larson. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-arrested-after-ambush-texas-ice...
Last but not lest, there was also an assassination attempt on Trump, though I concede that one did get plenty of attention.
The motives in that case don't seem to immediately be as clear cut yet. I've been waiting for this trial or more information myself because that shooter has made some very bizarre claims. He admitted that he was a Trump supporter and pro-life, but that had nothing to do with why he did it. He then made the claim that Tim Waltz had hired him to carry out the execution. It's very odd- but I can't say why media orgs didn't cover it for very long at all.
Think of it as a hardening. From outsider perspective, IMHO your left is very weak and inconsistent and it's not even left from a European perspective.
The far right developed stars, stallions and philosophers that are effective in the popular culture no matter how vile some of those can be. There are up and coming leftist Americans but they will need to hustle to develop intro strong leaders. The mainstream figures from the American left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are just too lightweight.
Edit: funny how this comment fluctuates between 0 and 2 points. This edit will probably tip the balance though :)
> and it's not even left from a European perspective.
This is a meme that needs to die. Its just not true.
The Democratic party in the US is right in line with Labor/Socialist/Whatever Mainstream Leftist Party you want to point at in Europe. It has members who end up on various sides of the left-wing spectrum. There are no "far left" parties in the US because we have a two party system.
There are obviously topics where this is not true. But that goes both ways: almost no country on Earth has the level of abortion access that the Democratic party in the US demands. And there are examples of European right wing parties who fight for zero abortion access, which is not the GOP platform currently.
Yeah, there are just so many mismatches it doesn't make sense.
- Nearly all European countries have and support a very high consumption tax (VAT). In the US, nobody would be really for this (although some conservatives favor such taxes), but US liberals would be extremely against it due to the regressive nature of consumption taxes.
- The majority of EU countries institute voter ID laws, something supported only by conservatives in the US. States with voter ID laws almost always allow some valid voter ID to be gotten for free, but they are still opposed by liberals.
There are plenty of other examples when you start thinking about it.
What is actually a meme is this need to squash the entire universe of unrelated political beliefs into a single axis of "left vs right".
The Democratic party is just as, if not more socially progressive than many European "left wing" parties on certain issues, that's true, but that's not what anyone is talking about. Issues like abortion and LGBT rights concern personal freedom, they're orthogonal to the left-right axis.
When we say that the Democratic party is to the right of every European left-wing party, and to the right of most right-wing parties, what we're talking about are the economic policies that affect the lives of everyday people.
US democrats can't even get behind table stakes leftist issues like universal healthcare, social safety, progressive taxation, and wealth inequality. They know who pays for their re-election campaigns and who controls the media - it's not the working class. Democrats aren't leftist, they're liberal, which is a night and day difference.
Democratic Party voters seem to be more aligned with Euro-style socialist policies, but among elected Democrats this is a small minority view.
European socialists usually advocate for direct state ownership of certain industries, sector-wide union contracts, universal (not means-tested) child allowances, fully public health care, wealth taxes, free college, etc. There are a handful of elected Democrats that sign on to some of these views, but these have never been in the actual party platform, since the mainstream of the party roundly rejects these. Democrats are only somewhat radical in certain social/bioethical issues like abortion and LGBT rights (although the latter is being tested, with some influential Dems defecting); otherwise, the better European analogue would be Macron's Renaissance party (formerly En Marche), the UK's Lib Dems, the Nordic countries' social liberal parties.
I don't think there's particularly good alignment even on that "axis" (it isn't really an axis, because most things are not inherently one or the other.) A good example of that is the "sector wide union contracts" thing. The default "leftist" position in the US is that things that apply to an entire sector should be legislated rather than negotiated by workers
The US does have child allowances, by the way - during Covid, it was even increased and paid out monthly instead of annually. Increasing it as of late seems to be an "R" policy, at least on the Trump wing.
Are there European countries that offer free college regardless of academic achievement during high school?
I agree that we should not try to resolve America's current problems with violence. (And to be clear, I am an ardent pacifist and urge change in the ways of King, Gandhi, etc.)
Still, violence has been the answer in many (most?) political revolutions, including the American revolution and separation from Britain.
I'd recommend you watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N1HT0Fjtw) video by Norman Finkelstein about Gandhi. A lot of people get him wrong apparently; he wasn't a pacifist in the way you are suggesting.
TL;DW Gandhi knew that to resist the British, they would need a critical mass of people resisting (armed or not). Armed resistance against a superior force is futile. His whole idea of Satyagraha was intentionally self-sacrificial for the nonviolent protestors who would die, because he knew it would stir the masses to action.
I also agree that violence is tragic and we should always take care not to glorify or idealize it, but we should also contextualize it when used by people resisting systems of oppression. As Nelson Mandela said:
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle,and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.At a point, one can only fight fire with fire
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a point, one can only fight fire with fire.
Which often leads to this point, as in Lord of War:
> Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, the Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
another book (that i have admittedly been dragging my feet on finishing) that covers this idea is 'The Wretched of the Earth' by Frantz Fanon. i have never personally been directly exposed to the ill effects of state-imposed violence to the degree that others have. it's eye-opening to more-seriously consider the positions of those who have.
That pacifism was very much required though. The whole projection of India as this "mystic peaceful place full of peace-loving meditating sadhus that the Beatles and Steve jobs were so enamored by" was instrumental for the way we got independent with minimal balkanization[1], our ability to stay non-aligned in the cold war (which btw, is the original definition of a third world country!) and maintain strategic autonomy throughout the following decades - which we exercise quite well today. Of course, it was nothing but a political image, and we built nukes behind the scenes (by order of the very same politician nehru), but gandhis pacifist outlook and the heavy marketing of this in western countries (see Nehru's rallies in USA at the time), as well as in soviet Russia, was very necessary. People like to say we shouldn't have been socialist back then, but the Soviet help that arose out of that was really useful. In geopolitics there are no morals, so it is also completely OK that we took a U-turn from all that a while later. The only interest is self-interest.
My point is, a lot of these political positions are simply projections cast in order to achieve a certain goal, meaning to look at it from a moral standpoint is useless.
This is true for any political position held in any country anywhere in the world at any point in history.
[1] If you think the partitions were bad... the rest of india would have had a much worse fate had foreign interests gotten involved. Think: other cold war battlefields of the late 20th century. The number of secessionist states at the time in india...the cia and the kgb would have had a field day.
> In geopolitics there are no morals, so it is also completely OK that we took a U-turn from all that a while later. The only interest is self-interest.
> My point is, a lot of these political positions are simply projections cast in order to achieve a certain goal, meaning to look at it from a moral standpoint is useless.
Claims like this can easily be used justify Nazism (which is alarmingly prescient considering the direction India's been going in recent decades)
I agree that many people use disingenuous moral outrage as a way to drive some political outcome, but many people with moral outrage are coming from a place of sincerity in reaction to the moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the world's leading powers.
> Nazism (which is alarmingly prescient considering the direction India's been going in recent decades)
This practice of assigning the same label to two things with absolutely no similarity is how words like Nazism lose all meaning. The reason folks like you do this is to try to forcefully elicit the same emotional response one would have to the original situation in Germany, and make any rebuttal sound like a rebuttal against that.
Let's end this discussion here. Not interested in engaging with someone this disingenuous.
Martin Luther King was regularly labeled as a violent rabble-rouser during his lifetime; just look at some of the contemporary political cartoons about him. It was only after his death that he was recast as a figure of absolute peace who made racial progress happen just by giving thoughtful speeches.
Anyone who says violence is _never_ the answer is frankly, naive to history and power.
Violence and politics are both on a spectrum and means to the same end of asserting your will. Vom Kriege is obviously not the forefront of philosophy anymore but it’s a good place to start if anyone reading this hasn’t come across that idea and wants to learn more.
Even your non violent examples of King and Ghandi has very violent wings on the side showing society that if a resolution wasn’t achieved by peaceful ends then violence it is. Remember that the civil rights act didn’t get enough support to be passed until after King was assassinated and mass riots rose across the nation
“…and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city of Savannah, and its dependent forts, and shall wait a reasonable time for your answer, before opening with heavy ordnance.
“Should you entertain the proposition, I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah…”
- W. Tecumseh Sherman’s ultimatum to the garrison of this city, December 1864
Sherman’s March to the Sea was an apotheosis of political violence. It deliberately targeted non-military infrastructure.
How long would American slavery have persisted without the march (the war to which it belongs)?
How could non-violence have triumphed in the same crusade?
Unfortunately headlines and memories are extremely short-lived. Not sure anyone will be talking about this in a month or two. Which is a lesson I try to remind myself whenever I take myself too seriously.
> what retribution measures his death will be the justification for
To be fair, crazy people will justify their craziness with anything. The problem is less what this may be used to justify and more that it creates a more-permissive environment for further political violence.
But it also moves the line for what can be sold as an appropriate reaction that may not look unquestionably crazy on the surface:
> And more may be to come: some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech. Conservative activists are collecting and publicizing social media posts and profiles that they say "celebrated" his death and are calling for them to lose their jobs.
Depending on how you turn the lens, the Civil War is an excellent example of violence not being the answer.
The Confederacy tried to replace their Constitutional government and the policies instituted by the leaders elected by the people with a violence-enforced new state inside the territory of their existing one and got (justifiably) multi-generationally brutalized for their trouble. The town I grew up in and moved away from was still raising funds to rebuild some of the places that were burned to the ground in the war. That was fundraising in the 1980s.
Every time someone points to the 1776 war as a success story I feel compelled to point out that half the descendants of that war's victors tried a very similar thing in 1861 to absolutely ruinous result.
(On this topic: Fort Sumter is an interesting story. While it was never taken during the war, it basically became a target-practice and weapons field-test location for the Union navy: every time they had a new technique or a new cannon they wanted to try out, they'd try it on the fort. By the end of the war, the fort was "standing" only in the sense that the bulk of its above-ground works had been blasted flat and were shoved together into an earthworks bunker; the Confederates were basically sheltering in a hole that a lobbed shell could fall into at any time.
And while the fort and its northways sister kept Union ships out of the harbor, it didn't stop them from firing past the fort into Charleston itself, since "war crimes" and "civilian populations" weren't really a concept yet.
People very much went into that war thinking there wouldn't be consequences for ordinary folk. They were very much wrong.)
Okay but black people were freed from chattel slavery. It's true that it was followed closely by jim crow south, but given an option between the 2, none of us are picking chattel slavery right?
No, of course not. My point is that the South started a war because they believed they were so right that the only recourse was political violence. Their reward for it was to lose everything they feared they were going to lose... And more.
Americans have this unfortunate tendency towards exceptionalist self-image. They remember the Revolutionary War and forget the Civil War. They remember World War 2 and forget Vietnam. They believe when they wield violence it is because they are right and the cause is just, when history shows that, even for them, the victor in such conflicts tends to have very little to do with just cause and a lot more to do with dumb luck (or, if I'm being a bit more generous, "material and strategic reality divorced from the justness of the casus belli").
Ah I see, you're saying it was a bad decision for the South to start the war.
I agree history records fort sumter as the official start of the war, but I guess I was looking at it big picture that "a war was on it's way" regardless of the singular event that sparked full war.
My perspective on the civil war is "good thing it happened and the Union won, otherwise who knows how long black people would have been enslaved". It would have been nice to end slavery without the war, but Lincoln tried to negotiate to this end extensively and couldn't secure it.
Also, yes I agree the vietnam war is severely undertaught. And in the modern era, Afghanistan.
I mostly agree, though I think slavery likely would have ended with industrialization anyway, a few decades later.
It's also worth noting that most people don't realize there are more black people enslaved today than in the US Civil War, not to mention other enslaved groups.
Depends on how you feel about a foreign occupied military outpost in your state/country that you've broken ties with.
This isn't in support of the reasons the ties were broken, but I can absolutely see if say Germany leaves the EU, then they'd probably want an EU military occupied base in Germany to leave said base.
There's actually a case to be made that black Americans would have been freed sooner if the Colonies had never won the Revolutionary War, since Britain ended up outlawing slavery before the US did.
(... but that's historical fiction speculation; there's also a case to be made that but for the pressure put upon Britain by the colonies slipping through her fingers, she'd have insufficient pressure put upon her to outlaw it... Especially if she had one of her largest colonies declaring loudly that a full have of its economy necessitated the practice).
It was impossible because one side of the national debate got tired of talking and started shooting, sadly.
Once that happened, it really wasn't up to Congress or the President any longer. The capture of Fort Sumter and declaration of succession moved the conversation from "How much slavery can America tolerate" to "this insurgent government has stolen half of the country's territory." The response to that threat was as self-evident as it would have been if that territory had been taken by another existing nation.
impossible you say. could the side that started shooting done nothing else either?
It is strange to me that you take such a fatalistic approach to history, where nothing else was ever possible.
of course at some point there is no turning back, particularly after the deed is done.
If nothing else is possible, what does that say about the current state and our choices about our future? what will be will be? might as well stay home watching netflix and see what happens?
As an example to illustrate your definition, do you believe that it was possible to find peace with Hitler and Nazi Germany without having to fight WWII in Europe?
I'll express my answer on the American civil war with the framing of your definition of 'fatalistic approach to history'.
Chances diminish as events get closer. Do you think the holocaust was unavoidable the day Hitler was born? 100 years beforehand?
I'm objecting to the statement that the civil was was inevitable. Full stop. That nothing could be done differently, by anyone, at any time, to avoid it.
I agree that any future expected event is uncertain. For example, I think there’s a small chance a black hole traveling at 0.1c smashes our solar system overnight and the sun never rises again.
To answer the question, I think the civil war was exactly as avoidable as you think world war 2 was. It’s more a question of semantics at this point, given they are unchangable past events.
I mean... The difference between history and the future is you can't change history. There is no other way it happened; "could have happened" is the realm of speculative fiction.
If we want to turn the stories of the past into questions about what we could do differently right now, that's an interesting conversation to me. "But what if the South had just decided not to get into a shooting war with the North?" is fodder for a stack of books on the "New Fiction" table at Barnes and Noble but not much more.
Turning the lens to the present: I think it is worth noting that decades of negotiation, political horse-trading, and compromises had been attempted prior to the breakout of the War. It isn't that talking wasn't tried, it's that one side got tired of having the conversation every single generation (and were perceiving that the zeitgeist were turning against their position). So one useful question is "What are the divisions in this era that mirror the kind of irreconcilable difference that was 'a nation half-slave and half-free?'" One candidate I could suggest is the question of gun control; I suspect it is not, as practiced in the US, a topic where people can agree to disagree, the Constitutional protection (and judicial interpretation of it) distorts the entire conversation, and I think there's real nonzero risk of one side responding to a sea-change in the zeitgeist conversation with violence.
Which side, I do not yet predict. A major ingredient in the slavery debate was existential fear (the belief in the South that a freed black population would form either a power bloc that would destroy its former masters politically or vigilante posses that would do violence to their former masters). It's one of the reasons John Brown's raid was so terrifying to the Southerners because Brown was a white man who committed political violence in the name of ending slavery; they perceived him as a signal that the North was done talking (even though he was not acting as an agent of the government). In modern America? A lot of Americans are terrified of random gun violence. That kind of terror lowers the bar on willingness to commit violence, because the survival drive runs hot. And, similarly, gun owners are terrified that the government could strip their capacity for self-defense from them and they'd then be vulnerable to violence they could not defend themselves from.
If you're looking for a lesson from the past on how to diffuse such a volatile situation... Unfortunately, I don't think the story of the Civil War will give it to you. That's a story of failing to diffuse it.
And it was even a failure for the North - sure, in theory they won, and in practice they just let the South stay as they were but poorer and with a few Black people able to leave.
> The confederates should have been punished, publicly.
No, it would have led to decades or centuries of resentment between the north and the south and eventually another civil war among those lines. It would have destroyed the union for good. The only purpose of the civil war for the North was to save the union, humiliating the south would have ensured that it would never really happen.
The North 'saved' the union by allowing the South to continue its brutal practices against the freedmen leading to almost a hundred years of violence, lynching and the Black Codes designed to keep control over the 'freed' slaves.
Thaddeus Stevens was proven correct in his opinion that the south should've been treated like a conquered state and the land forcibly given to the freedmen.
“Here we are”, indeed. Lynchings, massacres, expulsion, mass criminalization, a slave workforce for the plantations…and I’m only talking about the immediate aftermath for black southerners, not the centuries of continued violence.
I don't think parent poster is arguing that point. I think parent poster's point is that all of those things happened and the alternative, had the South been brutally subjugated, decimated, or humiliated, would have been objectively worse.
I think it's a really silly point to be made because they would have to either ignore or downplay how absolutely criminal the conditions were for the freedmen. I cannot imagine a situation much worse.
I agree with you. Violence is never the answer. Same goes for all the wars including the ones going on right now. And same for implicit and explicit violence and physical harm to make money.
In the context of recent action on exploring removing 2nd amendment rights for trans individuals on mental health grounds AND getting 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' classified as a mental illness, it's difficult to imagine this playing out in a mundane way.
It's not a gun problem that we have in this country. Iryna Zarutska was murdered with a pocket knife. What we have is a spiritual sickness, which cannot be legislated...
The only thing I can think of that the government can do is to clamp down hard on violence, including speech which advocates for violence (e.g. glorifying Luigi Mangione, calling everyone a Nazi/fascist, etc.). Freedom of speech ends where it actually turns into violence.
you might have some blind spots yourself though. the biggest set of spiritual sickness and violence are whats happening to immigrants by ICE, and the support americans are giving to israel to do mass horrors to gazan civilians.
theres tons of violence going on thats much more current than talking about luigi or calling somebody who is a fascist a fascist
I'm not sure we have a "the government" with all the federation involved; and a treacherous administration.
Reducing rights to speech that advocates for violence makes some sense, but what I'd like to see is reducing the lies and disinformation. Install a duty of candor to everyone who speaks in greatly public ways
>Turning Point USA CEO and co-founder Charlie Kirk said of gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."<
It is a matter of public record that he encouraged his followers to pay the bail of the man who attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer. He fought for that man's freedom, because of the violence he committed.
Kirk did not stand for or promote nonviolence; quite the opposite. To suggest as much is to forget the things the man did in life.
In much the same manner, he would not want his death used to weaken 2nd amendment protections.
People who get excited enough about politics in this country to shoot someone are stupid. Love him or hate him, Charlie is just somebody's puppet. If you see them on twitter or television, they are puppets. Puppeteers are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight. There is only one person in recent memory who was smart enough to go after a puppeteer.
> If you see them on twitter or television, they are puppets. Puppeteers are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight. There is only one person in recent memory who was smart enough to go after a puppeteer.
Sounds like you know more than you're saying. So it's someone controlling him or blackmailing him or something? Who's puppet do you think he is?
I never watched him and only vaguely remembered his name when it just hit the news.
Attempts to do something like that "softly" via communication with the previous administration arguably boosted the vote counts of the party who came out strongly against that kind of restraint.
Do leftists, especially the ones one reddit, not realize that to a normal person, Kirk wasn't George Lincoln Rockwell, but just some boring, establishment Christian, conservative dweeb doing the well-worn campus "debate me bro" shtick of Shapiro and Crowder before him, and that the optics of them celebrating his death are really, really bad?
Adult Utah Valley University student here. CS-Humanities dual major. My two cents.
I feel sick to my stomach. Charlie was a pundit but he didn't deserve this. Not at our university. I've always felt in danger at UVU as the whole complex makes Michel Foucault look like a Hebraic prophet. I wasn't on campus at the time- I'm currently attending a guest class at BYU across town.
I'm going to drop out of university. There's no point anymore. The society I wanted to live in as a child has started to eat itself. What makes me sick is that before the announcement my attitude was very, "let's make cynical jokes; he'll most likely be ok..." this all happened 15 minutes away from my house. I'm afraid of violence toward my left-leaning family. I'm currently battling chronic illness (lungs, throat, stomach. Don't smoke!) and I can't take this stress anymore. I love you uncle Douglas Engelbart; I wanted to take on the work Alan Kay did in his life. I wanted to make tools to expand human intellect. I wanted to help make good on the Licklider dream. Now my dream is manipulate a doctor into giving me a diagnosis so I can enter into palliative care and take Methadone until I die.
You and your fellow students experienced something extremely traumatic. Perhaps go to therapy first to process how you are feeling before making any significant life choices.
Yikes, that's a rough outlook. Not disagreeing with it, just poking at it a bit from a distance, and hoping that you experience a change in direction after a couple days.
I'd just like to say that I feel you and understand you. I'm a university student as well, feeling a similar way. I'm in Electrical Engineering, and I feel disillusioned with the way society is degenerating. Best of luck, friend. There still are good people out there. We may not be able to cure or fix society or even stop it from degenerating, but you can always build a life with loved ones and create your own world <3
All: if you can't respond in a non-violent way, please don't post until you can.
By non-violent I mean not celebrating violence nor excusing it, but also more than that: I mean metabolizing the violence you feel in yourself, until you no longer have a need to express it aggressively.
The feelings we all have about violence are strong and fully human and I'm not judging them. I believe it's our responsibility to each carry our own share of these feelings, rather than firing them at others, including in the petty forms that aggression takes on an internet forum.
If you don't share that belief, that's fine, but we do need you to follow the site guidelines when commenting here, and they certainly cover the above request. So if you're going to comment, please make sure you're familiar with and following them: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond these rather difficult times.
My favorite poem, my -- my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote:
"Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country ...
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of [people] in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people.
Bobby Kennedy, 1968
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2kWIa8wSC0
Speech made in April, 1968, assassinated on June 5, 1968. Wild.
>> Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land! [April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee]
Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
So perhaps a better excerpt in light of recent events would be
>> And another reason that I'm happy to live in [the second half of the 20th century] is that we have been forced to a point where we are going to have to grapple with the problems that men have been trying to grapple with through history, but the demands didn't force them to do it. Survival demands that we grapple with them. Men, for years now, have been talking about war and peace. But now, no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence. That is where we are today.
this is the complete transcript of that excerpted speech, often titled "I've Been to the Mountaintop"
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemou...
It turns out, at least so far, we can still choose violence.
His point was that once the physical power individuals/governments hold exceeds a threshold, a pluralistic society cannot coexist with violence being an acceptable option.
In the context of the 1960s, governments and nuclear weapons. But more broadly the same holds true for individuals.
Either we learn to live together despite our differences, or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other.
Society can be shockingly resilient to personal violence especially if it’s primarily people at the top in terms of status, wealth, or political power are regularly getting assassinated. Recently gangs have been shockingly stable despite relentless violence but historically duals between gentlemen etc where quite common.
By historical standards we’re living is a near paradise of non violence and that’s worth persevering at significant cost.
It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurra...
ethbr1 says "...or we use our newfound great power to annihilate each other."
That isn't possible without bio-warfare. I sometimes hear people foolishly speak of a shooting "race war" in the USA but always remind them that the active phase of such an event would last about 15 minutes.
Distributed mass hunting rifle shots on high voltage transformers.
Unguarded. Scattered around the country. Any oil leaks potentially destroy them. Manufacturing backlogs of multiple years.
https://www.energy.gov/oe/addressing-security-and-reliabilit...
The only thing that's kept domestic terrorism to a minimum is that anyone smart enough to do it well has better economic opportunities.
The tragedy is that several players in the transformer market went out of business because they ramped up due to the building boom before the financial crisis. If I weren’t busy I’d go buy one of those old factories and open it back up. Great boring business to be in.
I think when it becomes normal for 10% or more of the citizens of a country to say they wouldn’t be upset if some member of the opposing political party were to die or when it becomes normal for that portion of the people to make fun or celebrate the death of someone from an opposing party or their murderer, everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?” Because these people are not murderers or accomplices, and they are generally good people. These aren’t people that would lynch anyone or burn a cross in someone’s yard.
It’s awful that anyone dies.
Let’s not escalate this on either side. We don’t need another Hitler, and we don’t need a French Revolution either. We just need people that stop trying to outdo each other.
> everyone needs to take a step back regardless of which side you’re on and say “Why?”
It's easy to get sucked into a learned helplessness doing this, though. We know exactly why it happens - Charlie Kirk explained it himself:
America means guns. It's written in our constitution, reinforced through our history, reflected in our multimedia franchises and sold to American citizens as a product. The only way out of this situation is through it - we can't declare a firearms ban in-media-res without inciting even more violence and dividing people further. At the same time, America cannot continue to sustain this loss of our politicians, schoolchildren and minority populations. The threat to democracy is real, exacerbated by the potential for further "emergency powers" abuse we're familiar with from both parties.When people push for firearms control in America, this is the polemic they argue along. You can say they're justified or completely bonkers, but denying that these scenarios exist is the blueprint for erasing causality.
No it's not because of the guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe
Shinzo Abe's killer was captured immediately, he had to walk right in front of him to get a shot off.
Charlie Kirk's assassin is still at-large and fired from a standoff distance, with a conventional long-barrel firearm.
Make of that what you will.
You added the term "conventional", except nothing about this is conventional.
You said it yourself that the shooter is still at large... despite the involvement of the FBI and other agencies.
The firearm certainly seems conventional. Early reports suggest it was a bolt-action Mauser: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/what-we-know-about-weapon-u...
Is there something I'm missing here?
> despite the involvement of the FBI and other agencies.
Many such cases. We're still looking for D. B. Cooper, aren't we? Did the FBI ever dig up Hoffa's body? The feds are hardly a panacea with these things.
Not everything is about the firearm itself and not even the shot, that many people focus on.
And you need more context and the training required to take such a shot and then evade the local cops and FBI, with a solid escape plan from a fuckton of witnesses and so forth. And I did not mention that most people would probably panic and mess up, let alone take the shot and escape. It is much more complex than that. When you look at the pattern fit, it no longer looks like a spur-of-the-moment act by a "typical gun owner".
They gave us some 22 years old kid as the person who pulled this whole operation, allegedly, and acted alone. Even if someone had been shooting since childhood, the rooftop selection, escape route, and casing inscriptions suggest deliberate operational planning and situational awareness, not just trigger skill. Shooting skill alone doesn't cover the logistics and environmental awareness. Plus a 22-year-old who "trained since childhood" might have technical skill, but most young adults still lack the composure and foresight to execute a high-stakes assassination with minimal mistakes, especially under the psychological pressure of killing a person in a public setting.
FWIW, some cases remain unsolved for decades because of scarce evidence, degraded scenes, or lack of witnesses, which does not come into play here at all. Modern investigations, by contrast, often benefit from immediate CCTV, cell-data, social media, and so forth.
...thus I remain skeptical.
What is irregular about the firearm? The only details I've seen are the engraving, everything else is reportedly COTS. Please give me links to the information you're looking at if I'm missing anything.
> but most young adults still lack the composure and foresight to execute a high-stakes assassination with minimal mistakes
This is conjecture, unless you can back it up with a source. The history books are filled with 22-year-old kids shooting politicians and getting away with it, famously the Red Guard uninstalled an entire government with this strategy. With a bunch of riled-up students.
I spent a lot of time at the range when I was a kid - hitting a 200yd shot from an elevated platform is not difficult with a M1903. A modern 63mm loading can easily push 3,000fps in a long-barrel rifle and if you reloaded the cartridge for a single-use assassination, I see no reason you couldn't push 5,000fps if the barrel doesn't explode from overpressure. With those kinds of ballistics its not a very tough shot unless you're shooting into a hurricane. All you need then is a hunting scope, and that can be bought for $170 in cash at Cabelas.
> Modern investigations, by contrast, often benefit from immediate CCTV, cell-data, social media, and so forth.
This I absolutely agree with. It sounds like the only reason they found him is because his friend turned in his Discord DMs, he might still be on the loose if not for the digital breadcrumb trail he left behind.
Bit of a harrowing precedent for online privacy, but I presume that will fall on deaf ears.
Not everything is about the firearm and the shot, I am more interested in everything else (all the patterns and requirements) to pull this operation, including the composure I mentioned. There are many other things as well.
> This is conjecture, unless you can back it up with a source. The history books are filled with 22-year-old kids shooting politicians and getting away with it, famously the Red Guard uninstalled an entire government with this strategy. With a bunch of riled-up students.
Sure, it is, and I cannot back it up. He was operating alone, which is much different from doing it as a team, I believe.
> It sounds like the only reason they found him is because his friend turned in his Discord DMs, he might still be on the loose if not for the digital breadcrumb trail he left behind.
I thought it was his dad that turned him in, but regardless, the Discord messages are suspicious, because he went to great lengths as to successfully complete the mission, but he would talk about it on an online platform? Something makes me skeptical about it, but who knows. It is just pure speculation from me at this point, but it does not align well with the rest of his behavior, IMO.
I get that criminals make mistakes, and perhaps it was just that. We will never truly know.
Just because you can cite an example of a killing without a gun says nothing about the reality about gun violence and gun culture in the USA.
Which example are you referencing here?
[flagged]
The French Revolution was such an abject failure that within a decade they abandoned their republic and willingly made Napoleon a dictator.
However France has strict firearms control so the scale of violence is still in control and shooting political figures is not common nowadays.
This is quite backwards. Right now revolts in France are useless. When they were useful back in the days, a lot of citizens had guns. Guns laws changed to reduce their powers
They are not useless in the sense that they are visible and at some point the state cannot only respond with more violence from police force forever or else the dictatorship becomes assumed.
But current protests aren't revolts nor violence anyway. There is side/peripheral violence but that is not the point of the protests
Revolts don’t need guns. Look at Nepal. Look at Bangladesh. Look at the Arab spring.
When people are so pissed off that millions of people take to the streets governments fall.
We are 68 million and between hunters and sport shooters we have 5 million firearms owners for 10 million firearms. It's not on par with the US of course but I'd say firearms are pretty common (and it's not even counting illegal ones) and frankly it's not difficult nor long to acquire a good bolt action rifle and learn to shoot an apple at 200m. Long story short: I don't think lack firearms control is the issue in the US, there must be something else.
That's only because they cut back on the cartoons they draw.
Many people here will tell you that cartoons represent violence, some types of speech represent violence etc. France no longer has free speech rights unless it is coming from the left
I don't know how to properly apply that to the situation in Ukraine.
Tragic, what a waste.
The most sustainable vision wins. And this is a great vision. Thanks for posting. Helped clarify how to think about today.
The most sustainable vision wins eventually. If history has anything to teach us, is that it's full of extremely unpleasant periods between the stable ones. And things aren't looking like they're improving.
If that's the case, then the most sustainable vision gradually devolves into unsustainability.
That's what's happening. Neoliberalism is slowly drifting into fascism, as it has already done multiple times in the past. Maybe what comes after will be actually stable, and not just metastable.
"democracy leads to fascism leads to war" - just watched the movie Eden by Ron Howard
And that vision can be dark or realistic.
That would be a great world if that vision could materialize. But as long as people continue polarizing society, exploiting emotions, and using divide and conquer[1] tactics to gain political power, not much will change, and things may even get worse. Social networks have amplified this dynamic more than ever before.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_conquer
There is hope.
GP is currently the highest comment, and on other sites I've visited, while too many people cheer this or call for violent retaliation, most of the highly-upvoted comments (both liberal and conservative) condemn it and argue for de-escalation.
Anger and fear are powerful emotions, but so is hope. Barack Obama campaigned on hope and became President, winning his first election with the highest %votes since 1988. Donald Trump also became President in part due to hope; his supporters expected him to improve their lives, while most of Hillary Clinton's and Kamala Harris's supporters just expected them to not make things worse. Now lots of people desperately need hope, and if things get worse more will.
Irrational hope can be dangerous: all the time, people make decisions that backfire horribly, and deep down they knew those decisions would backfire horribly, but they made them anyways out of desperation for an unlikely success. Perhaps this is another example, where the assassin delusionally hoped it would somehow promote and further their desires, but it will almost certainly do the opposite.
But hope can also be rational, and unlike anger and fear (which at best prevent bad things), hope can intrinsically be for causing good things. If a group or candidate that runs on hope for a better world gets enough attention and perceived status, it could turn public perception back to unity and optimism.
Have we considered that the assassin, directly or indirectly, is a seditious third party actor trying to destabilize the US?
I am not claiming this is true. But merely that if I was employed to destabilize the US, I would claim to have been responsible for a number of recent events in order to please my boss.
I am hoping the possibility of a joint common enemy can perhaps unite people in America a bit.
There's also a possibility that a democratic country in the Middle East with the letter I is involved here, because Charlie Kirk began publicly questioning and speaking about the billions in financial aid it receives. Seems pretty petty on the surface but apparently this country cannot afford to take further hits to its image worldwide, especially in the US.
How would you define "third party" in this case? We now know that the assassin was a follower of Nick Fuentes, acting on the suggestion of Laura Loomer. Both are working with Donald Trump on destabilizing the US. On top of that, the victim itself was also a seditious actor trying to destabilize the US.
In that light, does it really matter what tier party the assassin belonged to? The joint common enemy you allude to is already inside the white house, and as long as that is still up for debate, the country has no future.
Yes, I was considering that just now, and I thought it's probably not Russians, anyway. There's been a series of actual Russian attempts to destabilize France, including one in the news currently, and they're crude and easily traced because they're carried out by hiring Serbians and Moldovans and Bulgarians to make a relatively short journey and do something relatively easy and low-risk, motivated by money.
The guy who shot Trump in the ear had (arguably) no particular ideology or goal, just an interest in assassinations and a possible depressive disorder.
> But hope can also be rational
it's not, poor parents can't feed their children with hope
Can be rational. Not everyone is inescapably poor, and for those with opportunities, hope can motivate them out while despair leaves them stuck.
I believe that social media tapped inadvertently into the most effective way ever existed to do this. None of the billionaires really wanted them, I think it was just a happy accident. But instead of recognizing that, they all doubled down with gaslighting and toxicity, because admitting they created a monster would just go against them becoming powerful and rich. And also, let's admit it, because they genuinely can't see it as the monster it is, because it doesn't affect them directly.
While I like that quote, i just went to lookup the speach and was sadden to learn you “sanitized” it. Taking out the phrase “vast majority of white people and vast majority of black people”
That too says something about our times. Maybe a few things. From being unable to trust things without verifying, to people’s willingness to alter the truth to make a point, to how people fear discussing race and gender loud even in passing.
It think it says something that you'd be willing to jump to conclusions. You "learned" it was sanitised and make a point about people willing to alter the truth, then you personally attach some meaning to it. You made up your own reality, when the word "[people]" literally indicates that the OP did change the quote. Instead of assuming malice, you could have also just asked why they changed it, or looked up why words would be in brackets, or give the OP the benefit of the doubt.
If you selectively put words in [brackets] and remove others without adding ellipses you can alter anything to have any meaning.
I for one read this and assumed RFK was just discussing gun control in general, only weeks before he was killed. Adding in the context the speech was regarding MLK gives it a whole different meaning. Still powerful, but different.
Attributing “The only thing we [experience] is fear itself” to FDR suggests he said something a little different. That FDR needs to see a therapist for his anxiety.
This assumes facts not in evidence. While the posted quote is sanitized, the assumption that the poster did the sanitization vs. copying from a sanitized source isn't necessarily supported.
Fair enough. But no need for the faux-legalese, it isn't clear whether the OP sanitised it or copied it that way. That changes nothing about my comment though, just who sanitised it.
And the "those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black" which has always stuck in my mind because of the iconic phrasing.
Frankly I find creating an analogue between the death of MLK and Kirk in bad taste only magnified by scrubbing race from an MLK tribute.
Kirk would have celebrated MLK's death as he did the Pelosi hammer attack. Kirk called MLK "awful" and "not a good person" and the Civil Rights Movement "a huge mistake.".
https://www.wired.com/story/charlie-kirk-tpusa-mlk-civil-rig...
It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.
Given his comments on the Pelosi attack, it's clear that he didn't believe that people should be safe from violence for their political beliefs. Given his comments on trans people[1], it's clear that he didn't believe that they should be safe from violence for the crime of... Being trans.
He would fail to meet the standards of civility set for this thread, or for this forum.
Politics is a barrier that protects us from political violence. The worst practitioners of it know this, and act to encourage escalation that will obliterate that barrier. So far, they've been rewarded by wealth and power for their efforts.
---
[1] Charlie Kirk has called for "men to handle" trans people "the way they did in the 50s and 60s."
Is this how someone just harmlessly opening up a civil dialogue behaves?
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/this-must-stop-tpusas-cha...
>It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.
What is sad is that his views were degenerate, reprehensible and abhorrent, yet that seems to get ignored.
Hey all you Kirk fans - LGBTQ+ are humans. Trans are humans. Black people are humans. Palestine exists. Jews are humans. Muslims are humans. Women can do more than make babies, cook, and clean. Democrats aren't anti-america, don't hate the country, and by and large don't call for violence or celebrate those that do. Not everyone is some crazed extremist. Nobody is a second class citizen and nobody deserves to suffer because of what they look like or how they were born or who they pray to or anything. Get over it.
While I don't condone violence at all, if you advocate for gun violence, you reap what you sow.
If you preach extremism, don't be surprised if you're met with extremists.
You can't claim to have given your life to Christ when you openly preach hate. This man was a devout preacher of the gospel of Supply-Side Jesus. Kirk and his ilk are the types that if the actual Jesus of Nazareth appeared in middle America, they'd call him a commie sand n-word and call ICE.
Kirk was the epitome of a bully albeit one who bullied others under the guise of "debate".
I have a ton of sympathy for the children shot at a school yesterday. If I want to really feel bad, I feel for those who were shot with assault weaponry at Sandy Hook and likely died and bled out in the same way Kirk did.
Just because he was a rich white "christian" dude with a blonde wife, doesn't mean he wasn't a reprehensible piece of shit.
there is a time and place to try to heal the damage you believe that he did to society -- but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.
You seem to be nonplussed about his suffering, you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience, and are implying that his beliefs on gun control somehow balanced his death.
Doesn't that help fuel the narratives about his political opposition that he tried to drive while living?
>Not everyone is some crazed extremist.
...maybe so, but the death of this dude sure did pull some out of thin air.
There's nothing in the parent post that celebrates the assassination. It expresses no empathy for him, but lack of empathy is not a celebration.
It does outline the various ways in which Kirk worked to make the world a worse place, but an accounting of it is not a celebration of a public killing.
"Religious beliefs" is not a weapon or a shield that you can just raise to deflect all criticism of a man's actions. It rings especially hollow for one whose behavior was so highly un-Christ-like.
I see nothing "celebrating" anything in that comment. Just some facts about someone who's ideologies they found reprehensible - as most should by the sounds of it.
> but you're clearly celebrating the death of the man in a thread about his assassination.
I'm not celebrating anything. I'm pointing out irony. You call for gun violence, thinking you're untouchable (because of your skin color and political ties), but you're not.
>you're criticizing the way a dead man expressed his religious beliefs to the audience
Hang on here. Let's unpack this. This is actually pretty humorous.
Let's take the story of Jesus of Nazareth. A poor, brown skinned Jewish guy from Israel born out of wedlock who worked as a carpenter and preached love, compassion, and understanding, whose supposed miracles included healing the sick and disfigured. He worked to feed the needy, clothe the naked, advocated for paying taxes, and treating one's enemies with compassion as if they were their own kin. This person was executed by being nailed to a cross and in his final moments, still asked his followers to forgive his executioners.
We have a rich white dude, raised in a wealthy first world major city suburb using the above gentleman's message to preach hate, racial superiority, phobia, and outright bigotry, all under the guise of "asking tough questions". This dude would go around and "debate" young adults (and children) half his age and use "gotcha" tactics and quick speaking to overwhelm and gish gallop his opposition into giving up. He would then selectively edit the "debates" and post them online to create a strawman for his political allies to punch.
Religious beliefs, eh? Come on.
I had never heard of this guy and thanks to the Streisand effect I learned that he was a piece of shit. And now het gets canonised like MLK?! Tells you a lot about right wing America.
But still: murder is murder.
Removing the black and white people part makes it more relevant to the current times when it is not just black and white people but non negligible numbers of Hispanics, first peoples, Asians, Arabs and other minorities.
There were non-negligible numbers of those people in MLK, Jr’s time, too. That has nothing to do with why he talked about white and black.
EDIT: It’s particularly funny to imagine that First peoples somehow only became a thing in America sometime after Dr. King’s time.
But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.
The whole idea of intersectionality makes it hard to build coalitions and turns everything into a problem that’s impossibly complex to solve and difficult to build a coalition around.
It’s the basic reason many leaders who the majority of a country dislike rise to power. Because that majority can’t put their differences aside.
> But advocating for the struggles of one group and not another shouldn’t make one bad.
He didn't advocate for but against. He advocated against people who weren't his version of correct. He advocated for suppression, not liberation.
I don't think you're saying he advocated for the struggles of any marginalized group, but your comment could be read as such.
Charlie Kirk was a bigot who wanted his political "enemies" to suffer.
Why does a group have to marginalized to be worthy of advocacy? Charlie only ever expressed his opinion in written and verbal form. That is the bare minimum requirement for free speech. Once you start getting to “oh but this is hate speech” or “ free speech, but XYZ” then there is no free speech. The first amendment becomes meaningless.
He never suppressed or oppressed anyone like what DEI has been doing by openly discriminating against people based on their skin color (and therefore presumed financial status).
He had no version of correct and he didn’t want anyone to suffer. He merely spoke and wrote his opinion and for that “crime” and that alone, someone decided to hate him so much that they decided to silence him forever.
This is sad and shameful (as have been the attacks and assassinations of any elected official or public figure in the past many months).
> He never suppressed or oppressed anyone..."
Really?
"Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge." [1]
"...he didn’t want anyone to suffer."
Really?
"We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately." [1]
"He had no version of correct..."
Really?
"The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white." [1]
1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...
Why, shouldn’t we be able to adapt the struggles of one ear to those of another? And understand things with nuance.
A nitpicky note: Aeschylus didn't say that.
RFK probably studied Aeschylus in the original Greek, and did an on-the-fly translation. A more literal translation is:
"Zeus, who guided men to think, who has laid it down that wisdom comes alone through suffering. Still there drips in sleep against the heart grief of memory; against our will temperance comes. From the gods who sit in grandeur grace is somehow violent."
There's no "turning the other cheek here." It claims violence does indeed beget violence, and there's no human way around that.
To be clear, I'm not advocating violence, or even criticizing RFK. I'm simply defending the purity of Aeschylus.
Thanks, this is what I needed to hear.
> what we need in the United States is not hatred
What saddens me is people take different political views as hatred, and medias run with it. I can't remember how many times a person is labeled fascist or communist just because their views are different.
Kirk didn't deserve to die for having or expressing hateful ideas, but his views were not merely "different."
Charlie Kirk speaking about a trans athlete: "Someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s[0].
And [1]:
> America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
And [1]:
> The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
0. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/this-must-stop-tpusas-cha...
1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...
> What saddens me is people take different political views as hatred
Some political views are hatred, and ignoring that doesn’t serve any useful purpose.
Charlie Kirk was a theocrat. He hid behind freedom of speech with the intent to remove it for everyone else once in power. Freedom of speech is completely incompatible with theocracy. The reason people like Peter Thiel prop him up isn't to make people smart - it's to dumb them down and legitimize the worst in people for political gain.
Do you think some political opinions can be hateful
The people crying fascist are sometimes correct. The people crying communist genuinely seem to think it applies to Democrats. Democrats are a center-right party by European standards.
There's a side that is genuinely, factually, deliberately misled by their politicians on a routine basis and it plugs into Fox News. This isn't a political statement. It's documented up and down.
Unfortunately that is not true anymore. Some far-left policies have been implemented or originated first in the US, in the democrat environment and later imported to Europe with more or less success.
It is funny that every side believes that the other side is genuinely, factually and deliberately misled by their politicians on a routine basis.
Like what, seriously? I don't remember Kamala going on about seizing land and killing landlords. Get fucking real.
Aeschylus is a great greek poet. For our purposes here I might advocate for Jung (paraphrasing from memory)
In the end there is no going forward in the current context; there are no solutions there. It requires renewed vigor to move to a higher, better frame where growth is possible.
For us americans: political identity (libs v. Trump) has no solutions. Better: the political parties need to serve us. Dead kids or abused kids by adults (Epstein) cannot stand. What can 3.5 std deviations of center left and right get together over? Kids surely. And the knowledge (as Aeschylus narrates well elsewhere with the furies) that violence begets violence surely.
[flagged]
Source?
I think feelings on immigration show that there isn't a "vast majority" of people who want to "live together" and "abide" each other
35% of americans are happy with how the current administration has been handling immigrants
https://news.gallup.com/poll/692522/surge-concern-immigratio...
approval of ICE is around 40%
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/08/27/republicans-...
edit: it's funny to see my post above offended(?) people who want to believe that americans are kind and loving, despite uh being on a post where everyone is arguing about how bad the political violence and polarization situation is in the US
Immigrants or illegals?
History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.
I feel we're riding a knife's edge and there's a hurricane brewing in the gulf of absurdity.
====
Incidentally, I feel like this is why it is so hard to actually learn from history. You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Something I like to remind myself of is that all past wars, even ones thousands of years ago, took place in as vibrant colors and fluid detail as we experience today, not in grainy black and white photos or paintings.
Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
> Also, if your grandpa likes telling war stories, it's only because he survived.
As someone whose parents, grandparents, and entire family lived in Italy through WWII (and one grandfather who lost an eye in WWI), nobody liked talking about it.
If they did talk about it, it was usually brief and imbued with a feeling of "thank God it's over. what a tragedy that we were all used as pawns by the political class for nothing more than selfish ambitions."
Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
There was a prominent component of political scheming to his rise to power, and it was a totalitarian state that murdered political opponents even before it got to genocide, but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society.
> but he was enthusiastically supported by a large portion of the German society.
I can't tell you what my relatives were like leading up to the war (I certainly wasn't born at that point), but they were illiterate peasants from the south, far removed from the cities and politics.
My suspicion is that, if anything, they were like most southern Italians, who seem to have a profound distrust of the government and politicians.
If I'm honest, they didn't have any moral objections to the war--they just felt used.
People forget that the popularity of being anti-war is relatively new, like maybe 100-150 years old. World War 1 popped off so quickly specifically because moral objections to war from the standpoint of "violence is wrong" were just not even part of the discussion. Even during World War 2, most objections within the US to entering the war were based on it just not being our problem.
Up until the last century, violence was seen as just another necessary part of living, and morality only came into play when it involved you're own community.
Up to some point not that long ago, public opinion as we know it didn't exist, and for some time after that it didn't matter much. I'm mentioning this because the poster you are responding to is writing about Italy. Italy's entrance into WW I was deeply unpopular in the south of Italy, and not all that popular elsewhere, I gather.
I was just adding color to the statement that they didn't believe their family's objections were necessarily moral objections.
Just some other fascinating things about WW1 and Italy. Mussolini was heavily was heavily in the Italian socialist party. His family was socialist. World War 1 breaks out, he leaves/get kicked out of the party for his support of WW1. And it wasn't just Mussolini, it caused a huge fracture in the socialist party. The main party line was neutral with a heavy anti-war stance. Which I would suggest leads Mussolini to what would become Mussolini and perhaps with a lot less opposition. I would say there is probably some evidence there giving credit to the claim that today it is probably much more easier to maintain an anti-war stance than in the past.
Some book on WW I, I think by Alistair Horne, claims in passing that the French bought Mussolini.
Same in Sweden, the majority popular opinion started shifting away from supporting Germany late in the war as they were obviously losing.
Citation please.
> Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
And there's no doubt about it - it was a myth. Most of Germany stood behind him, and were outraged by the failed July 20th coup... In 1944. Ivan and Uncle Sam were kicking down the door, extermination camps were working overtime, yet most people were still fully behind him.
The hardest thing for people to admit is that they've been duped.
> Most of Germany stood behind him, and were outraged by the failed July 20th coup... In 1944.
Most of Germany had seen the defeat of 1918. Once a war is started the only way is forward.
And they liked it so much that 1918 nearly resulted in revolution.
Anyone picking up the paper could tell that the war wasn't going to be won by them in 1944. It was two years after Stalingrad, a year after Kursk and Italy's surrender, France was being liberated, Finland was collapsing, and Germany was fighting a three-front war.
Compared to all that, 1918 at the time of the armistice looked down-right optimistic.
And yet mention any of that to your husband/wife would likely get you and all your relatives killed.
And it is not the only case. The French people went to war in 1914 "la fleur au fusil"[0]. Jean Jaurès is assassinated for his pacifism and (his assassin would be found not guilty - despite being totally guilty - in 1919).
[0]: a more nuanced take that is illuminating can be read here: https://www.france24.com/fr/20140730-grande-guerre-poilus-vr...
I wouldn't necessarily call it comforting fantasy, people change their minds all the time. I think we're all to some extent able to justify some negative sides of any political movement as tensions rise.
I've felt this myself a few times now. Both when Trump was attempted assasinated and now with Charlie Kirk. I am sad that public discourse and our democracies are kind of unraveling these days and that this is just a sad reality of that fact. As far as Trump or Charlie Kirk go, I have no sympathy what so ever.
I'm not sure I really want to blame anyone for things becoming like this, it all seems like par for the course in the world we've created for ourselves. I just wish we were able to stop before this.
Fascism was quite fashionable at the time.
> Isn't that just a comforting fantasy, though? Germans also embraced the myth of Hitler as a guy who just somehow hoodwinked everyone and made good people do terrible things.
Another way this observation is manifested is how out of nowhere you have countries voting in extremist parties and politicians.
"Out of nowhere" just like how the Germans elected Hitler for no reason at all.
As a point of fact, Germans never elected Hitler. The National Socialists never achieved a majority, and their share of the vote had been decreasing over successive elections.
Hitler was appointed to the chancellorship by senior political leaders (the president and the former chancellor) who thought they could control him. Unfortunately Germany at the time embraced the "unitary executive" theory of government.
We all know how that worked out.
No single human is smart enough to manage unitary executive an optimal long term form of government
The German people certainly elected the coalition government, which the NSDAP was the leader of.
You’re completely correct about the conservatives and others thinking they could control Hitler
I don't think anyone remembers war fondly, but least of all those who lost.
Probably more fluid details than today where someone can push a button and level a building 1000 miles away without seeing the faces of any of the people torn to shreds. Maybe there would be less appetite for war if people had to still physically hack up their enemies with a sword or axe.
There was an idea that the key to the nuclear launch codes should be surgically implanted adjacent to the heart of the president’s assistant. If the president should desire to launch the nukes, they would have to personally cut down a man and pull the key from the man’s entrails.
It was essentially not done because it would be too effective.
I think there is a general distance to a lot of things in today's society. Very few of us have to farm or hunt for our own food, or clean an animal carcass. I don't have a strong view on the moral aspects of eating animals (I'm not a vegetarian or vegan), but I think it'll probably do some good if anyone that eats meat at some point slaughters, cleans and butchers one of the animals they eat.
I agree, a society shielded from blood either grows callous to it as long as the blood is somebody else's or becomes too traumatised to even defend itself even if the aggressor is perfectly fine killing them
It’s John von Neumann’s idea, at least from the biography I read. Before too much praise is heaped upon him, he also strongly argued for a nuclear first strike on Soviet Union before they got their own nuclear weapons because it was best strategy from game theory POV.
"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee
I think it was Call of Duty 2 (when the franchise was still WW2-based) when they would show, in my recollection, an anti-war message including this one every time your character died. I think this was absent from later incarnations of the franchise.
And the quotes showed up longer, like 5 seconds, so you could read them in full. Later games would display the quote for 1-2 seconds, which often wouldn’t be enough time to process the full text
Cod 4, World at War, and MW2(?) also did this to my memory. At least one of them did for sure. Not always necessarily anti-war, but historical quotes related to war.
Thanks, I didn’t recall
I suspect that for every grandpa who likes telling war stories, there are probably a hundred who get quiet and sullen when the war comes up and have to excuse themselves and go be alone for a while.
I was at Auschwitz in summer. It was beautiful weather, the birds were singing, flowers everywhere. Hard to connect this to the conditions in a concentration camp. It would have been much easier in winter.
I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau in February of 1995. It was well below freezing and there was some type of ice ball precipitation, perhaps because it was too cold to snow. I was the only person there.
I walked all the way back from the famous entrance gate, along the train tracks, to the monument at the back. The place was huge and imagining people suffering there during that type of weather was especially heartbreaking. I was luckily able to convince the taxi driver to wait for me. I have some black and white photos I took of it somewhere on my shelves. That visit sticks with me more powerfully than almost anywhere else I've been.
It is so well preserved, because those who were liberated from it, were so horrified at what they witnesses, that they did not want anyone to forget. It was a herculean effort, many wanted to bury it,because of the pain, and many more wanted to bury it, like it never happened.
A personal salute to all those who fought to preserve it.
There is a great video on the Poles who worked to preserve it. A lot of it is ... Unspeakable.
I was at Dachau a couple summers ago in similar weather. I actually found it worse and hit harder because it was such a pleasant day as I watched people stroll around the grounds, taking selfies, kids running around playing. It made me feel like I couldn't even breath.
I too was at Dachau on a day like that, over a decade ago. My partner recently asked me about it, and just thinking back to how I felt made my skin crawl. It's terrible to remember, and I hope I never forget.
It might have reflected the experience of the guards. One of the most astonishing facts i heard was that the guards used to get prisoners to play music for them and would even be moved to tears!
It reveals something deep about the human condition. Auchwitz was a perfectly lovely place for many of the employees as long as they disassociated themselves from all the suffering and evil around them.
I was fortunate enough to once have the daughter of a client I took care of in a nursing home ask me if I would escort her dad and her on a day trip as he needed help into the bathroom and such. We ended up going to a Ukrainian hall in Vancouver BC where he was going to meet some old friends.
The older ladies busy making handmade perogies was such a delicious treat.
But I also got to meet Stefan Petelycky. He wrote the book: Into Auschwitz, for Ukraine
He ended up there and was one of the lucky ones who made it out. When he pulled up his sleeve and showed me his tattoo, the number he was given there, a chill crossed my entire body and an overwhelming sense of sadness hit me.
I of course had heard about the concentration camps but seeing a tattoo in person made the event much more real where I could connect to the tragedy in a way I never did.
I visited Dachau years and years ago. It was a nice summer day, but a pallor fell over when we went inside the camp. It felt like the sky darkened and the color drained from the entire environment.
Much much smaller scale but we did a 'Salem Witch Trails' tour and it was a grey dreary autumn day and I felt it complimented the story.
A lot of war stories get embellished and no one is going to challenge it.
There's the story about the guy who says he was the hardest working man in Vietnam, and then when pressed about what he did, he states he was a trucker to the great surprise of anyone listening.
When asked why he thought that, he says "well I was the only one."
If you're talking about the ones who drove supply trucks during the war years, the hardest working men were women.
https://vietnamnews.vn/sunday/features/947180/female-drivers...
The story wasn't actually about the trucker being hard working (or not), though I'm sure he was. He wasn't actually trying to make people believe he literally was the hardest working.
The joke is that everyone else he went to war with was claiming to be something else, so he must have delivered all the supplies himself.
The response is interesting to me, because having fought in a war, though I am not a US veteran -- I instantly got it. And the place I heard it from was more veteran dominated, and everyone instantly understood/appreciated the joke.
I didn’t get it until you explained it. It makes a lot of sense - people who have actually gone to war know of stolen valor and embellishments - you can sniff them immediately. People who have never been and don’t hang around military types much have much less of this kind of context
When history becomes prehistory, we have to go through it again
We've always been on a knife edge it's just streamed straight into your eyes balls 24/7 now and social media means everyone has to have a black or white opinion about everything.
While that may be true to an extent, the 24/7 nature of it now is the equivalent of constantly red lining the engine. It used to be you'd go to meetings/gatherings of like minded people to get hopped up and your engines revved up like that, but they would for the most part cool back down after getting back home. Now, the engine never gets back to idle and stays red lined. At some point, the engine will break down, only instead of throwing a rod or ceasing up, something non-engine related will happen.
> It used to be you'd go to meetings/gatherings of like minded people to get hopped up and your engines revved up like that
I would go so far as to say going to meetings physically was also a counterbalance.
When you're around other people, even ones who share your beliefs, and say 'I think we should murder that guy!' then in most crowds someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
It's when you exclusively socially exist in online spaces that the most extreme actions suddenly become encouraged.
Or as Josh Johnson recently quipped, "The internet is all gas no brakes."
> someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
We might be thinking of different types of gatherings/meetings. Specifically, I was thinking of someone with a particular set of extremist ideals that get together for a monthly meeting with others with those same extremist ideals. Someone in that group would likely not say "are you okay" rather they'd say "hellzya brother!" or whatever they'd actually phrase it. These types of meetings are also known to have someone speak intentionally seeking to get a member to act as a lone wolf to actually carry out the comment you're hoping someone would tamper. Now, one doesn't need to go to meetings for that encouragement. They just open up whatever app/forum.
I was at a political rally a long time ago. One of the speakers said "let's hang all the people in <rich suburb>". As I remember it no one spoke out against him but neither did people cheer. Anyway I realized the rally was a bit too much for me and left. The speech was entirely inconsequential - no violence resulted nor was anyone arrested.
I'm telling this story because I think it's how things usually go, and I think you are quite mistaken.
> When you're around other people, even ones who share your beliefs, and say 'I think we should murder that guy!' then in most crowds someone is going to say 'Hey fellow, are you okay?'
There are crowds where that guy is not there, is not heard, or doesn't speak up at all.
In those crowds, people reach out for their pitchforks and outright murder people.
If you take a frank look at history, you will notice those are all too frequent. Even in this century.
Anything I say on the internet, someone will always have a compelling but sometimes wrong argument as to why im wrong. If you listen to them for confirmation you'd never be able to do anything, and im not exaggerating. I could probably say the earth is round here on HN and some astrophysics PhD would tell me I failed to consider the 4th dimension or something and it's actually unknown if we can call it round.
Where are these people going that they just see encouragement without resistance?
It's not perfectly spherical, actually.
The shape of the earth depends on your speed
If you walk slow the earth looks like a plane
If you go faster the earth looks like a sphere
If you travel really fast the earth looks like a dot. A tiny blue one.
Maybe not only encouragement, but it's certainly easier to quickly label any opposition as bots/trolls/idiots/woke/boomer/racist/commie/nazi/etc, ignore them, and move on online. Someone's single sentence to you wasn't a perfect pattern match for your acceptable criteria? No need to interact with them, just ignore them and move on. Better yet, get a quick swipe in on them to score some points with your in-group.
Being right all the time on the internet is such a curse. Those damned learned people with PhDs thinking they know things going up against such an obviously more intelligent person. They should have their degrees revoked!
There doesn’t even need to be anyone saying no. When you’re standing with a crowd shouting “murder! murder!” it’s much harder to say “I’m not one of the bad guys” than when you’re online and you can say “well OK, there are a few bad apples in our group, but I’m not one of them!”
From a personal point of view I agree, it's completely unhealthy, but from a global perspective it's always been fucked up all the time, open a wiki page for any year between 1900 and now and you will find loads of assassinations, terrorist attacks, wars, famine, genocides, coups d'états, &c.
There aren't many times when there's quite as much happening at the same time.
Over the last week or so we've had: serious riots in France, catastrophic riots in Nepal, a scandal in the UK featuring the ambassador to the US, hostile drone incursions into Poland, the murder of Charlie Kirk, the ICE raid on visiting South Korean workers, soldiers on the streets of DC and a threatened incursion into Chicago, a school shooting, revelations about the biggest paedophile scandal of the century and its links to the rich and famous, including the current president, and Israel attacking most of the countries around it.
In the background is the continuing war in Ukraine, China's increasing militarisation and threatened technological lead over the US, the situation in Gaza, the disassembly of the established US federal system of government, existential and economic dread over the impact of AI, and climate change.
If everyone's feeling a little edgy, there may be good reasons for that.
Interesting how different circles see different things though. Around me the biggest thing prior to Charlie Kirk was the murder of the Ukrainian refugee on a train in Charlotte.
Are you saying you didn't know/hear about any of those things or that your circle didn't consider them very important?
This is business as usual. Look at the 20th century section of this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
And that's just the big events in Europe, if you looked at newspapers you'd see hundreds of horrible things happening every single day.
Even terrorists attacks are way lower than not so long ago: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Terroris...
My parents had the cold war, petrol crisis, September 11, dotcom, 2008, my grandpa fought in wars in the 60s, my grandma was born right before ww2 and talked to German soldiers when she was 6 and her village was occupied, &c.
Young westerners get scared because they're used to people dying far away, now that it's getting a bit closer they think it's the end of the world, the truth is that it's always been fucked up, we just got locally lucky for a bit
Get out of the news cycle, it really isn't that terrible out there
Your comment sounds like a new verse in Billy Joel's "we didn't start the fire" song. When Trump was elected, I knew, at least, that the news wouldn't be boring for the next four years.
Granted, I live under a rock, but I only knew of one of those events you mentioned (Kirk’s death). I intentionally dont read or watch news. It does absolutely wonders for my peace of mind.
I genuinely hope none of the bad stuff reaches you or the folks you care about under your rock.
I'll take my chances waiting for something to affect me directly rather than watching news channels 24/7 to get outraged every single second of my life about random shit happening in places I mostly can't even locate on a map or spell.
That's what people did for 99.99% of humanity btw
Luckily those aren't the only two options!
Yup - you’d just never hear about all the ones that weren’t right next to you. At least in gory detail while they happened.
Here, I get to read all about the latest insanity in the last 24 hrs from…. 4 major countries in Crisis?
Tchau, from central Brazil (today).
Insanity...
Men of Virginia! pause and ponder upon those instructive cyphers, and these incontestible facts. Ye will then judge for yourselves on the point of an American navy. Ye will judge without regard to the prattle of a president, the prattle of that strange compound of ignorance and ferocity, of deceit and weakness; without regard to that hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."
-- James Callender, The Prospect Before Us, 1800
As I've grown older and gone back through history I've realized why so many decisions and actions seem kind of irrational to outside observers. This is why I think study of ancient history is so important, because we have so few connections, that the analysis does not seem personal.
Nevertheless, I realize that it's usually a zeitgeist more than any particular thing that really flows through history.
I agree. It's hard to capture 'the vibes' in a history book. For example, I firmly believe that in 70 years, almost no one will be able to explain 'wokeness' or the anti-wokeness backlash.
It’s not a historically unique phenomenon. The Weimar Republic ended 87 years ago. Progress isn’t monotonic. There are often periods of regression.
I’ve come to realize how sad it is nobody alive today will be alive to see how what’s occurring fits with a multi-century arch of history. The way we examine the Middle Ages or Byzantine Empire.
It would be fascinating to see how 2001-2025 fits into that.
I think we will be remembered for our chemistry, physics, engineering and materials science. There is going to be a lot that is forgotten because:
1) There is an eternal power struggle among people that is only obliquely acknowledged and seems willfully forgotten.
2) There is a lot of useless crap based on predatory psychological cues that will be weeded out through natural evolution.
I'd suggest a 3rd reason -
In the arc of history, it's not that different from any other time. We just have a recency bias.
I really don't like how interesting these times are.
I don't like that I'm starting to understand Magical Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_realism
For a wild alignment of timing - https://www.jezebel.com/we-paid-some-etsy-witches-to-curse-c... - published September 8.
Yeah, Etsy is funny. On the basis of what I bought I got an ad for a spell to transform into a fox but if they had really looked at what I bought they would have realized I already had the material list.
haha, yes, the president dismissing anyone in the federal government who disagrees with him, and trying to turn the national guard into his own personal police department, and inciting a riot/revolt 4 years ago but the US populace still elects him again, and allowing Elon Musk access to all the federal government which he slashes to bits in less than a couple of months (including science research) and having that same person soon after turn on president and the multiple assassination attempts, successful and unsuccessful... and it's only been 8 months since he took office. Crazy times we live in
On Sunday, I was talking a Mexican friend about how politicians get killed in our countries (Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico). Just in June, presidential hopeful Miguel Uribe was shot and killed in Bogota. In the head, in front of a crowd.
I remember being grateful about how that doesn't really happen in the US (Trump being the most recent, but he survived). I guess I was wrong... and, in that case, Garcia Marquez might agree with you.
The US had one killed within the last two months, with an attempt on another, and the attacker had a list of other targets.
You could be forgiven for not knowing, since the collective coverage and attention to it since has probably been less, total, than what this received in the last couple hours.
Also there was a string of events of a guy shooting at offices of a certain political party in Arizona not that long ago and also a candidate who lost who also tried to hire a hitman to kill the person they lost to.
A few years ago, a would-be assassin went to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's house and — when he couldn't find her — beat her husband with a hammer. Here's what Charlie Kirk had to say about that [1]:
> By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out, I bet his bail’s like thirty or forty thousand bucks. Bail him out and then go ask him some questions.
[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-...
It would be therefore fitting if someone started a conspiracy theory that Charlie Kirk was shot by his gay lover.
I mean a lot of people are saying that. Big if true etc.
The US is in the process of turning into a stereotypical Latin American country, caudillo and everything else. Driven by the same economic and social forces, and in some cases the same people.
>I remember being grateful about how that doesn't really happen in the US (Trump being the most recent, but he survived).
Excuse me? Melissa Hortman and John Hoffman were less than 3 months ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_le...
> I remember being grateful about how that doesn't really happen in the US (Trump being the most recent, but he survived).
You are clearly not paying attention.
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgv4y99n7rt
This is now the 5th comment saying the same thing, so I'll respond. I'm aware of these and they were terrible. In a just world, they would get as much if not more media attention.
The difference is the public nature of the execution. That is what makes it more similar to, say, Colombia or Venezuela _to me._ Within the context of 'magical realism', it is the perspective and mass dissemination of the violence that heightens that feeling.
Going back to the original topic, there is a reason that most of 100 Years of Solitude's pivotal moments happen around the staging of public executions (and not so much the off-screen violence, of which there is some but it's not focal).
What times were not interesting?
He's semi-quoting the proverb "May you live in interesting times".
1992-94
Los Angelinos would disagree https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
Just off the top of my head
Ruby Ridge was 1992, Waco was 1993.
1993 was the bombing of the world trade center.
In the US, from about 1975 to 2015 were less "interesting" (in the sense of "may you live in interesting times") than current times.
1975-1988 we lived in the Cold War and the potential of nuclear strikes. The African, gay and trans communities (in particular but not exclusively) dealt with the AIDS epidemic. Iran moved to theocracy. In the 90s, we had the Iraq war that was not bad for the US but massively destabilized the region. In the 2000s we had 9/11 and let's not understate the fear from the Muslim community here. Africa has lived through famine and the pains of decolonization after their wealth was stripped and stolen over centuries.
This is worse, but we have always lived in "interesting times" depending on where you were in the globe.
I was restricting my imaginings to internal unrest because that is what caused most of the death and suffering historically in China.
I'd say that nothing since the collapse of the USSR has been as existentially threatening as the Cold War.
At least one year in that range where something happened.
IDK, man, the '70s sounded pretty wild: https://status451.com/2017/01/20/days-of-rage/
Which is why I wrote "1975" and not "1970" or "1972".
Like if nothing happened a day exactly 24 years ago...
Yes, I for one am thoroughly tired of living in interesting times.
So are all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.
> what to do with the time that is given us.
Doomscrolling, mostly.
Have you tried a mix of hyperfixation and eBay browsing?
IMHO, you're correct on many counts.
What's the Pindar quote again? "War is sweet to those who have no experience of it. But the experienced man trembles exceedingly in his heart at its approach"
We may be smarter, but we certainly are not wiser.
There are facts, skills, smarts and then there is wisdom. The latter is in short supply and is orthogonal to the other three.
Yeah, COVID showed me more than anything that our core need of belonging and need for conformity (the one that can drive cultist behavior) is not something that everyone can overcome with knowledge and experts and awareness. You truly can't make a horse drink, even if they are dehydrated.
We know more now, but we're not smarter now.
> You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Do you know what Harding's famous "Return to Normalcy" stump speech in the 1920 campaign was about? I bet you don't; few do. My U.S. history textbook in high school mentioned it, but did not explain what it was about.
History books don't tell you what happened but a particular interpretation/opinion of it.
This is where poetry comes in: WH Auden's "September 1, 1939" (https://poets.org/poem/september-1-1939) comes to mind.
> History books can tell you facts that happened, but they can never truly tell you how it feels.
Great quote. I feel the same way about 9/11 - the feeling of confusion, like "wtf is going on?!" IMHO, only those who lived it can really relate.
Of all the days I've been alive, if I could pin point one that I remember vividly with every bit of detail and emotion, that'd be 9/11... I was 14, and all of the sudden, even that younger version of myself, understood every single thing was about to change...
I can recall that day almost minute by minute starting with learning of the first plane hitting the WTC.
I don't live in the U.S but I watched 9/11 live from the television, and I can still feel it and remember it. It was so big deal.
It's time to revisit 9/11 and think about what it means in the modern context
We already did, on October 7th, 2023. Israel did not learn from our example, and they currently find themselves in a quagmire where they're spending billions to kill thousands of the people they're supposed to be saving from an authoritarian, terrorist-harboring regime, with almost no real benefit to their national security, and where they have most of the rest of the world bearing down on them diplomatically for their conduct and alleged war crimes. (This is the most charitable characterization I can muster.)
The response to 9/11 was one of the most foolhardy possible, and it's astounding that any other nature would attempt the same with it still in living memory.
Take a better look at it from Israels perspective. Any other response after Oct 7 would have been unthinkable. No israeli is particularly happy with what's happening in Gaza (a massive understatement) but there is still broad support there for the war, because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
The rest of the world haven't been shy lately about expressing their opinion of the war, something that Israel recognises and care about, but they have provided no way out for israel to take any other course of action.
Our ideas and opinions should be as harmonious as possible with reality. If Israel was understood better and her concerns and fears engaged seriously it would go a long way to ending the war.
In the context of this assassination i feel the path forward is not empty platitudes of "deescalation" rather greater empathy and understanding of people you disagree with. This is mainly an internal process, but also one that should have outward expressions too.
> there is still broad support there for the war, because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
A phrase like "the war" glosses over a lot. If the IDF were not deliberately shooting children¹, would the Israeli public be clamouring, "shoot more children"? If food shipments were not being blockaded², would the public be demanding that Gazans be starved?
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-... [2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gaza-malnutrition-children-blo...
I'm sure some form of military action was necessary in the aftermath of the October 7th attacks. Genocide³ ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ was not.
[3]: https://www.fidh.org/en/region/north-africa-middle-east/isra... [4]: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/un-special-committee-pre... [5]: https://amnesty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Amnesty-Intern... [6]: https://msf.org.uk/issues/gaza-genocide [7]: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/28/middleeast/israeli-human-righ...
I didn't see anywhere in the article anything about israelis calling for more dead children. Even if that happened it's the actions of a fringe group, not idf policy. Food shipments are being restricted because it's not generally accepted that you have to feed your enemies while you're at war with them. In any case the GHF was set up to deal precisely with this problem and is doing a great job.
On the charges of genocide... Again what you say should be in harmony with reality. In truth all those sources have an anti israel bias. One can't help but think they started with a conclusion and found the evidence to fit in with it, which is the wrong way round. In any event other bodies like the UK government don't agree. Genocide requires intent and there is simply no intent for genocide from the Israeli government. One can also argue that if indeed genocide was the goal the war would have been much faster. anyway i hope that gives you a better perspective of Israels point of view and interpretation of events. Their stated goals in gaza are destroying hamas and ensuring gaza is no longer a security threat. Hamas is very large and quite well embedded in the civilian population and has a lot of infrastructure which means that even waging a war will lead to a lot of civilian casualties. Something that hamas exploits and people who claim genocide ignore.
>Food shipments are being restricted because it's not generally accepted that you have to feed your enemies while you're at war with them.
Funny way to put it. You do not feed the enemy, rest of the world feeds the enemy. You make all effort to prevent the enemy being fed, to starve the enemy to death. Starving the enemy is generally accepted as a war crime, but Israel disagrees. Oh yeah, and enemy in this case includes infants.
>> because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
How do you think Palestinians have felt living in an open air prison next to genocidal maniacs with zero ability to control themselves for the past 50 years. USS Liberty should’ve been the end of things, but it wasn’t.
>because most israelis feel it's a matter of survival.
It objectively isn't and that's what's so tragic. Israel doesn't need to be understood, it needs to work harder to understand. And, per 9/11, it specifically needed to understand that taking Hamas' bait was a straight shot to dashing international goodwill and benefit-of-the-doubt.
There's some far-off timeline where Israel negotiated in good faith for the return of all of the hostages without dropping a single bomb. The anti-war movement that finds one of its most fervent centers in Israel itself is driven by the dawning horror that many of those hostages are never coming home precisely because Israel (again) chose blind fury over reason. And that's not a matter of perspective, it's a simple fact.
Bush threatened the Taliban, and they responded. How many is donald threatening?
The modern context is we have gone from a benevolent nation to a blidgerent nation. Not really progress. But the context is decisive.
Eh?
I think the point being made is that you can create your own enemies. In this case, meaning enemies of the United States or politics of the United States. Many of the radicals of the world become that way due to harm that became them or their family.
If your family lived in a village in middle east and the military of another country came and seemingly killed your parents, you would think that the person would grow to have certain opinions on the things and certain enemies.
A lot of the policies being enacted have the potential to create a lot of enemies. Just to name a few, there have been thousands of people fired from federal government. Those people and their families have had their lives changed. You have people from other countries who have lived here their entire lives who are now being separated and sent to other countries. You have people playing politics with Ukraine where many people are dying due to something that the rest of the world has the power to solve. Or people in Palestine being murdered while some talk of building a wealthy paradise on the land where they were raised.
I'm not taking a side on these things. But you have to agree that these tactics have the habit of making very determined and malicious enemies. Many political policies, and the people who have strong opinions on them, have to realize that their opinions and the policies they support, do impact the lives of real people. Potentially causing devastating repercussions, death and suffering. If said people are determined to enact revenge, it is no surprise that feel justified in doing so.
I'm not justifying their thoughts or actions. But you can understand that people who have felt these impacts aren't acting particularly rationally or are stable.
every dynasty and empire after the last was the “smartest” compared to the one before, yet they all still collapsed.
> You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.
Not sure what the comparison with COVID is supposed to be. Spanish flu was not created in a lab. There was no vaccine for the Spanish flu. The only real similarity is social distancing, quarantines, and masks -- we did that back then too.
> Spanish flu was not created in a lab.
Neither was covid-19: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
Your article is a little out of date. The general consensus of spy agencies is that it was definitely leaked from the lab. Created in a lab? Maybe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7vypq31z7o.amp
The article you linked says that BND thought the lab leak was likely in 2020. You're the one with out of date information.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9qjjj4zy5o
1. That's the CIA
2. The lab leak hypothesis is geopolitically convenient for the US
3. They explicitly state "low confidence" in their affirmation of this hypothesis
1. Nobody suggested we exclude inconvenient intelligence organisations.
2. Irrelevent because:
3. Low confidence, but probable merely implies plausibility, at least a somewhat higher likelihood than a wild previously unencountered zoonotic.
Based on all publicly available information it does seem more likely, the CIA will be better informed than the public, if they (and others) concur then I don't see why we need to dismiss it.
> The review offered on Saturday is based on "low confidence" which means the intelligence supporting it is deficient, inconclusive or contradictory. There is no consensus on the cause of the Covid pandemic.
The article literally says there is no consensus.
I was merely addressing your accusation of "out-of date information", I'm not the original commenter.
Yes, and their report was buried. It didn't say that they changed their minds.
From further in the article: "But the once controversial theory has been gaining ground among some intelligence agencies - and the BND is the latest to entertain the theory. In January, the US CIA said the coronavirus was "more likely" to have leaked from a lab than to have come from animals."
Clearly world leaders were afraid of anti-Chinese sentiment, didn't want to be seen "siding" with Trump, or just didn't want to piss China off.
It has not been conclusively established that COVID came from a lab: https://www.who.int/news/item/27-06-2025-who-scientific-advi...
> Spanish flu was not created in a lab.
This seems vague. Can you elaborate on the claim you’re making?
Funny, back then Americans didn't wear masks for much the same reasons they wouldn't during the last pandemic, and they died in their thousands for much the same reasons.
Which reasons are you referring to? I've never heard this comparison between masking during two pandemics 100+ years apart.
It's quite well documented. Try this site:
https://liberalarts.vt.edu/news/articles/2020/08/virginia-te...
Why do we think we’re passed an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment? Trump is more than ready to use his secret police.
RIP Charlie Kirk, no human deserves that. The rest of us left are still not necessarily better people after that exact moment, hopefully everyone takes a pause.
Constantly fear-mongering that every event that occurs is a prelude to a repeat of history's worst atrocities is exactly the type of rhetoric we should avoid.
I agree with you.
Do you think we have a Presidency with the same sensibility? They sent the national guard with zero pretense all over the country. This is about to get serious.
I don’t think you two agree.
[flagged]
Targeted vs untargeted violence. The former almost always comes with a broader message to society at large.
A school shooter isn’t trying to say “shut down all schools”.
But a terrorist flying a plane into one of the most important symbols of your most important city is certainly trying to send your society a message.
Same with this killing
Think about how you would feel if some guys beat you and your friends up in a bar fight, vs someone individually stalking you and beating you up outside your own house. You got beaten up in both cases, but the bar fight beating will unlikely make you feel as vulnerable and scared to leave the house as being stalked and targeted individually
The killing of Palestinians is targeted.
Which is why it feels so much more despicable and awful than all the other conflicts that are currently ongoing in the world.
There was a school shooting in Colorado within about an hour of when Kirk got shot
I'm not too caught up with politics, but a (presumably) political shooting has the issue of being disruptive to the government and therefore the nation as a whole, since the USA is built on democratic ideals. And since it's a(/the) global superpower, its issues result in serious international problems as well.
He was a Youtuber, not a politician though.
Martin Luther King Jr. was just a preacher, I don't understand the the big deal about him getting shot. /s
Charlie Kirk is more analogous to Jerry Springer than Martin Luther King Jr.
It's a big deal because he's very important to part of the 30% that supports DJT.
This is the sort of violence that begets more violence.
What about all of the other violence I listed? It's orders of magnitude more severe. We don't know the motive of the shooting, but it could very well be someone who's related to the victims of the violence Kirk endorsed.
The main reason is that the side he's on his pretty unhinged and they think it's more important than all the other violence listed.
It's like when a conservative person is canceled they throw an absolute fit, then turn around and cancel someone on the left, without making any connection.
The US is already well into this cycle, e.g., the killing of Melissa Hortman.
Events like this have often been used as trigger to implement measures that were already planned. The nazis did that a lot (Reichstagsbrand, Kristallnacht), You could argue that Israel used the October 7 attacks to accelerate efforts to get rid of the Palestinians. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld used 9/11 to invade Iraq which they had wanted to do long before.
I am definitely worried what Trump and republicans will do as a response.
HN has thousands of comments debating the justification for killing tens of thousands of non-combatants in Palestine.
More posts debating the justification for killing 11 people in a boat in the Caribbean who did not pose an imminent threat.
HN rules do not prevent any of these discussions.
But here we have a individual who advocated those killings.
Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
On HN it's perfectly fine to justify all this violence, to argue that the violence is regrettable but necessary, but any equivalent discussion about this one individual is somehow beyond the pale.
> Here we have an individual who publicly justified school massacres by saying those senseless deaths are a worthwhile price to pay for gun rights in the US.
I'm an outside observer, but isn't that the point of the right to bear arms in your constitution? I don't think the people who wrote it were naive enough to not understand guns could be used for evil purposes, so inherently they supported the price of the deaths of innocents as a trade off for the benefits of guns, right?
The distinction is:
1. The goal of the second amendment was never "everyone should be able to have as many guns as they have, and if people use a gun to kill a dozen children then so be it", it was "it should be illegal for the government to take away people's weapons because the first step a tyrant would take is to disarm the populace so they couldn't fight back." That goal doesn't hold water anymore in a world where a computer geek working for the US military in a basement in Virginia can drone strike a wedding on the other side of the world. Instead, the NRA has made "guns good" into something that too many people make their whole personality, and the people who are actually trying to destroy society use that as a weapon to prevent any positive change when someone murders a dozen kids by making people feel like the only choice is between "anyone can have guns and children are murdered every day" or "the government takes your weapons and forces any dissidents into siberian-esque gulags".
2. Firearms were far less common, far less accessible, and far less deadly than they are now. Compared to what was available at the time, modern-day weapons like the AR15 are effectively weapons of mass destruction. If you went into a school with a civil war-era rifle and tried to kill as many people as you could, you'd maybe get one shot off which might not even kill someone if you hit them, and then you'd get tackled while you were trying to reload.
They were also loose powder hand loaded weapons, you could fire three rounds a _minute_ if you were really skilled. Everyone in town had to store their powder in a (secure) communal location because it was, duh, an explosive.
I think you've moved the goalposts here a little. You are making (good) arguments on why the second amendment maybe shouldn't apply any longer and that guns of now are different. You're arguing for gun reform.
However I was speaking in the context of the tradeoffs of danger and the awareness of what blood you get on your hands for agreeing. Although the writers of this bill couldn't forsee AR15s and drone strikes, I'm sure they could forsee that there was a cost to freedom to bear arms.
And yet the founding fathers made it pretty clear that they were all for every able-bodied man having guns, including private citizens owning artillery.
The relative lethality of a particular style of rifle doesn't seem to matter. Better guns than muskets were available at the time, and they didn't seem to think it necessary to limit that amendment.
I don't think your opinions about the history and purpose of the second amendment holds water.
I think it’s worth posting the actual wording of the 2nd amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There’s endless legal debate how this should be interpreted, but it’s not obvious that there was an assumption that there would be mass individual gun ownership.
The Second Militia Act of 1792 clarified that assumption somewhat when it specified all free able-bodied white male citizens must be part of their local militia and are required to own a gun among other things.
What they couldn't have predicted is that the Bill of Rights would also apply to the individual state and local governments since that wasn't true until the 14th amendment almost 100 years later and didn't really kick off until the 1900s. This is obviously important to understand what the original amendments mean.
The supreme court ruled that the first clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor text. We aren't going to be Switzerland, which has an actual armed militia where kids take military-issued guns into their community to support it (on the train even! although the bullets are kept somewhere else to reduce a suicide problem they had a few years ago).
I was responding to an assertion that the amendment authors must have known the implications of what they were writing. It’s irrelevant what a subsequent Supreme Court interpretation was to that point.
The Supreme court formally declared that the amendment authors wrote the amendment with the first clause of the second amendment as meaningless flavor text. It is obviously revisionist and I hope it doesn't hold for more than a few generations or so (assuming the USA survives).
I think that’s pretty much the only way you can make that work? I’m against gun ownership, but I feel like you really need to stretch things to read that any other way than ‘people shall be allowed to own their own guns’
I almost don’t want to respond since this is well trodden ground, but I would say that “a well regulated militia” casts doubt on the individual gun ownership interpretation. You have to decide who the militia exists to fight and therefore who should regulate them. It’s obviously not obvious though.
We know who the militia existed to fight.
The term "well-regulated milita" predates the constitution and traces back to the days when white people were often a substantial minority compared to the populations of enslaved black people they lived among.
On St Croix where a young man named Alexander Hamilton grew up, the ratio was 1 free person to 8 slaves, so the well-regulated militia was to assemble at the fortress if they heard a blast of the cannon: they were required to come with their weapons in order to put down a slave revolt.
Source: Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow.
It's also probably worth mentioning that "people" in "the right of the people" certainly excluded slaves from the right to own weapons, making the text even more burdened by its own history
My point is: what the founders understood was that some gun violence was the unavoidable cost of maintaining the system of slavery, itself a system of formalized/normalized political violence.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I dunno, this one is a whole lot less open to interpretation than the first sentence
It's not. "The people" is a collective term, so this unambiguously says that collectively the people have the right to keep and bear arms, i.e. as a group. For example, maybe this guarantees that a well regulated militia of the people has the right keep and bear arms. An example of a less ambiguous statement would be: "the right of all individual people to keep and bear arms".
That's interesting. What is a reasonable alternative interpretation of "the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" than individual gun ownership though?
"The people" here were the states - the point was that the states could maintain their own militia (the modern day national guard). The 2nd amendment has been bastardized by a radical judiciary that is now unfortunately too entrenched to fix without repealing the 2A.
That constitution was written 250 years ago, after a war. Those people lived in different times, wilder times. How does their opinion matters today?
"Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country. When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere, etc. etc.), I feel like that description applies pretty well to our times as well.
That being the case, I would say their opinions and beliefs are pretty important to the current national climate.
> "Wilder times" is an interesting description of the early days of the country.
Wilder, in the sense of less Organization, less infrastructure, slower transportation and communication. People had to protect themselves, because there was nobody around who could do it. But today, the majority of people can be reached in a matter of minutes.
> When I look around at the violence the last several years (mass rioting, looting, uptick in murder pretty much everywhere,
You don't understand that guns are the major reason for this?
It was also written at a point in time when the absolute peak of firearms technology was a musket.
The logic behind the 2nd amendment doesn't hold once Uncle Sam has nuclear tipped icbms and I'm not allowed to have them. I'm also not allowed to have tanks or rocket launchers or even high rate of fire Gatling style guns.
To paraphrase, "if you think the 2nd amendment is what's keeping the government off your back, you don't understand how tanks work"
You don’t need to take guns away to solve gun violence. He’s 100% right. Start dealing with crime. Stop allowing criminals into the country. Stop releasing criminals back onto the streets. Stop ignoring people with violent tendencies.
I agree to your logic, but scanning social media gives a totally different view: People feel like they need to take action now. The murder of the ukranian girl set a social fire, and the killing of charlie kirk put gasoline over it. You can feel the rage. I've never seen so many upvotes and likes for quite radical opinions like in the last hours on TikTok and X.
Looks like a storm is coming.
Just like when Trump got shot, right?
I think COVID proved we're not smarter now in multiple ways and from either side. Human nature is a weird thing that we clearly are still grasping to understand
"Either side"? The virus or humanity?
We had the technology to push out a vaccine in less than a year. Modern medicine is of course smarter than it was a century ago.
What went poorly is our society's collective response. From the medical and governmental establishment, there was much hemming and hawing over what measures to take for way too long (masking, distancing, closing of public spaces, etc). Taking _any_ countermeasures against the spread of the virus also somehow became a culture war issue. I'm assuming GP meant "left or right" by "either side" so make of that what you will.
Yeah but, at least in my bubble in Europe, being for or against covid measures had little to do with left or right. It was about listening to mainstream media or having alternative source of information
I followed the mainstream media exclusively and still realised immediately that nobody actually had a clue what they were doing. My trust in MSM died then. Most alternative sources are even less reliable but i believe spreading a wider net gives me a better judgement. Whatever you do, don't exclusively outsource your opinions and judgement to the MSM. Too often they take up the same wrong narratives. This is easier said then done. Read the opinions and news even from people you despise and be honest with yourself.
Try to participate in any government...went to a town hall in a US city and both the company I worked for and unions were having people hold spots in line for FIFO comments body swapping for 'natural' opinion people. Media didn't report on it...ruined any trust I had in them.
I don't think "push out a vaccine in less than a year" is such a good flex especially when they also demonized and rigged the studies of the alternative drugs that must not be named
Fauci himself was known to say that vaccine development takes at least 5-10 years or something like that (and never mind the fact we had Event 201, that the virus contains code BY MODERNA) or else all hell breaks loose (he was also known to say masks aren't effective)
I wish it was as simple as this :(
This comment too can be interpreted either way. Well done, I guess.
> depending on what "side" you were on during covid
It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.
> It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue.
It's a political issue no matter how you look at it, and it was a very political issue at that, considering what the state (throughout the Western world and elsewhere too) proposed doing.
To paint it as merely a "public health issue" is doing people who don't agree a tremendous disservice, and it is very much part of the othering that has led us here. Please stop it.
Calling something a public health issue doesn’t take anything away from people who don’t agree (with what, exactly?)
> with what, exactly?
The measures.
Clearly, illnesses and diseases are public health issues as are systems to manage food safety. People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic, though that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on particular approaches e.g. masks may or may not be effective (though they seem to have now been shown effective in masking ICE agents which is ironic).
Certain methods of dealing with public health issues have historically been shown to be incredibly effective (e.g. vaccination, milk pasteurisation etc), so it's disconcerning when there's a political movement that pushes an agenda that is clearly based on fear and not rational evaluation of the issues. It seems to me that there's a push to make the poorest sections of society become less healthy and more vulnerable.
> People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic
That's rich. People who want raw milk are sociopaths? Etc? Once again we have name-calling as a way to shut down debate. Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you, and I bet you have done just that. These false equivalences and exaggerations are in fact incitements to violence. You and all who do this should be ashamed of yourselves.
I didn't intend it as name-calling, but as a more literal statement. Not caring about other people's health is a trait often exhibited in sociopathy.
I can understand people wanting raw milk and that's fair enough as it goes, but selling it or providing it to others is risking their health to some degree - this is shown by the relatively high level of people falling seriously ill from drinking raw milk - this is due to the high level of bacteria that is often found in it. If someone does care about the health of others, but believes that raw milk is safe to consume, then it's more a case of ignorance than sociopathy.
> Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you
You're out of order with that comment.
[flagged]
Hmm, the number found online is that Covid killed 1.2 million in the US, so guessing the shutdown and vaccines probably saved millions. But your take is different. Guessing you disagree with the the 1.2m deaths figure? (not trying to be pushy, just curious on your take)
The 1.2m number is what’s reported, but whether shutdowns and mandates prevented multiples of that is something we can’t actually prove. What we do know is that shutting the country down caused deep economic, educational, and mental-health damage that will take decades to unwind.
We had no idea what we were dealing with. It was unprecedented. People were doing the best they could. All the anger didn't help.
I’m not sure it’s right to say we didn’t know what to do. Beaches and playgrounds were closed even though the risk of outdoor spread on surfaces was minimal. Those kinds of choices made the shutdown damage worse without clear public health benefit. We had the science to tell us that viruses don’t survive on beach surfaces for example
It was frustrating to have some of the outdoor ban stuff at a point when it was pretty clear that things were safe in highly ventilated environments. But in my opinion, that was relatively harmless compared to the backlash against common sense precautions, like properly fit N95 masks when sharing enclosed space.
There's a lot of criticism of places that kept schools closed for longer than was necessary, in retrospect. But we really didn't know whether it would always be the case that the risks to children were low. The virus could have mutated in a way that brought more risk. Or there could have been chronic effects that could only be seen after the passage of time. Given the infectiousness of the virus, it could have been so much worse.
I get the vaccine hesitancy. But I think a lot of people were not willing to accept that vaccination is not just about their own safety, but a collective safety issue.
> We had no idea what we were dealing with. It was unprecedented. People were doing the best they could.
So public policy should have reflected that, instead of going into counterproductive authoritarian clampdown mode. In my country the authorities literally switched overnight from threatening to jail parents who took their kids out of school to announcing mandatory school closures.
You can vaguely understand it by looking at hospitals overwhelmed by mass casualty events and then imagine it happening over the course of a year.
I don't disagree with you, but the Spanish Flu killed 50 million. That's twice as much as died in WWI. Seems like it was, overall, a reasonable trade off, to save possibly tens of millions, the world went into a protective state.
And the next time this happens (which it probably will given the statistics), the US will probably handle it much better and the lock down will be less severe. I'm Korean American, and something like 10 years before covid, Korea had gone through an earlier pandemic (swine flu?), so when covid hit, it wasn't that big a deal. They already all knew what to do and the lock down wasn't as severe.
Yeah, our lockdown was overkill in many instances, but it was all so new to us. There's a good chance it'll be a lot better managed the next time.
Would you, personally, be willing to die to save the economy? Or is your expectation that others would die to save the economy for you? The opposite end of completely unrestrained COVID spread could've been the Spanish Flu, which decimated and destroyed entire areas.
It’s not about letting people die. The issue is that broad shutdowns caused massive long-term harm, and targeted protection would have been a better balance.
Some would argue that the deaths by covid are the same as every year deaths by other pulmonary infectious diseases. I've read a ton of books and analysis done by statisticians. So I doubt we should have went crazy like we did.
Interesting. Just looked into it and it seems like there are some researchers who estimate the lockdowns saved a lot of lives, but the economic toll and subsequent deaths from this toll may not have been worth it (as you mentioned). But they also said that now, "we have more tools to battle the virus. Vaccines and therapeutics are available, as are other mitigation measures." Implying we wouldn't have to do lockdowns in future pandemics.
https://record.umich.edu/articles/lockdowns-saved-lives-but-...
So yeah, I do see your point in the lockdowns were probably unnecessary, but as others have mentioned, pandemics were new to the US at the time, and we didn't have the knowledge and procedures on how to best deal with it. Yeah, we did probably go overboard, but what happened is understandable given how deadly Covid was.
We know now that social distancing and masks (for those that are willing) would probably have been enough, as other countries used to pandemics already know, like South Korea.
People who are scared award power to leaders, and leaders use that power to advance their social agenda rather than merely try and solve the problem that scared people. It was ever thus.
Public health is not a technocratic field where there's always clearly one right answer. It presents itself as deciding on things that may hurt individuals but help the collective, and so it naturally attracts collectivists. In other words it's a political field, not a medical one. That then takes them into the realm of sides.
If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it causes every infected person to melt in a puddle of grease with near 100% probability in about a week, with near 100% probability of transmission via any casual contact with infected persons at any stage of their infection. You just watch everyone scramble to the same side!
> If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it [...]
Interesting phrase. "Engineer the pathogen".
> If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, (...)
Why do you believe a pandemic has sides?
I believe it was recently observed.
It was mainly observed in parts of the USA
1. Yes, parts of the USA inhabited by people.
2. Divided attitudes with regard to the locus of issues around Covid-19, and public policies, are far from exclusive to the USA.
And look. The government doesn’t have to do anything!
It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.
Your sentence can also be applied to both ‘sides’
I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics. However, during the initial COVID outbreak, there was a lack of knowledge and statistics about it, so there was some element of guesswork involved (e.g. face masks may be effective as they help with some other infectious diseases, so let's try wearing them to see if that helps).
There is a difference between 'lets try something out' and we will use the force of law to compel you to do something. A lot of people seem worried about over use of law enforcement but really its not a general problem with law enforcement but rather a problem with what laws are being enforced. They are happy to have law enforcement cracking down on people flouting a mask mandate but less happy when law enforcement is going after shop lifters.
Yes, there's often a lot of discussion about law enforcement priorities.
In general, law enforcement is used to prevent harmful behaviour that disrupts society, so preventing theft is typically high up on the list. I think the people decrying shop lifters being targetted are highlighting the hypocrisy of societies that celebrate people who can steal huge amounts of money (e.g. not paying for work/services provided due to them being a large organisation) and yet demonise people who are struggling to survive and end up stealing food.
I was somewhat on the fence about mask mandates (I'm in the UK by the way) as I didn't think the evidence for masks being effective was particularly strong, but I had no issue with wearing a mask in public as it seemed like a sensible precaution that wouldn't cause me any harm. Then, we had social distancing laws introduced which were fairly draconian, but most people tried to observe them. The real kicker was when Boris Johnson and his cronies were caught not following the laws that he himself had introduced.
> Stats are not a tool to prove you're right at all
I agree - stats are a tool to try to figure out non-obvious links and trends to figure out what is actually happening. They can certainly be distorted (see mainstream media), but we shouldn't allow bad actors to prevent us making use of probably the best way to investigate population level effects.
No, I do not think so. I am genuinely curious whether you actually mean it ... or whether you are playing semantic game.
Absolutely not playing a semantic game. I chose my side of this crisis -- but steelmanning your own argument and understanding the other side is good to do
People without ethical limits = people not wearing masks and not practicing social distancingweaponize fear and discomfort = get close to others (masked) in public and breathe in front of them
There’s nothing wrong with disagreement and discourse. As long as it’s founded in fact not emotion.
What’s sad today is how much of “sides” today is based on emotion not fact.
Very few facts in life are absolute.
One thing that history shows again and again is people being killed for their beliefs. Charlie always spoke from his heart, from his deeply held intellectual and spiritual beliefs. He died, literally on a stage defending those beliefs.
I was just at a conference today where one of the presenters referenced the "Trust barometer": https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer
According to that study, 23% approved of the statement "I approve hostile activism to drive change by threatening or committing violence". It's even higher if you only focus on 18-34 year olds.
Full report here: https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-0...
This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way.
The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.
"Not peaceful" is an understatement. They burned innocents alive.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former... ("Former Nepal PM Jhala Nath Khanal’s wife Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar burnt alive as protesters set his house on fire")
IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.
I believe that was after 19 students, non-violent protestors, were gunned down by security forces.
It's a tough proposition. The goal is for the elite to have the awareness, humility, and political courage to not let things get so bad. But that point is well before Dauphines lose their heads. It's when peasant children are asking for bread and not getting any. Maybe before even that. Don't reach that tipping point and you won't careen towards the other atrocities.
They were not intentionally killed, the security forces were untrained in the use of rubber bullets and shot them directly at protestors rather than having them ricochet off the ground.
That statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of small arms. If you shoot at someone, regardless of whether you're using less-than-lethal ammunition, death or serious injury is always possible. This was absolutely intentional by the soldiers and those who gave the orders. Don't try to claim it was some kind of accident, regardless of training or lack thereof.
I really love the rising justification as of late of "they didn't know" for reckless manslaughter.
They're called "less lethal" for a reason. It's not a paintball that splatters on impact (and even then, those can also harm). Even a properly shot rubber bullet carries injury risk if you're too close. What's all that police training for?
if you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, then they die from injuries caused by the shot you fired, you killed them. what goes on in your little secret heart between you and jesus might matter to you, but to the real world everyone else lives in you killed them. whether you meant to shoot them in a non-killing way is irrelevant, doubly so if you never learned how to but decided you were qualified to do it anyway.
No difference. Not knowing does not excuse responsibility. Should have figured it out after first death.
As in the case of the United Healthcare CEO, we are very quick to demonize the immediate violence and killing, and rightly so. But in doing that, we definitely overlook the many thousand uncountable lives that the behavior of the single person might have indirectly killed.
That is all hypothetical. Everyone with certain level of power and wealth could then hypothetically be accountable to thousands of deaths just by mere action or lack of action. Every single politician with power to decide on budgets could be accounted for it. And that still does not justify the death of any of them.
I agree that it's quite hard to draw a line and it's a slippery slope, but what UH was doing certainly isn't comparable to cutting state budget for political or financial reasons.
>And that still does not justify the death of any of them.
Surely everyone is the physical cause of everything that results his action or inaction? We differentiate the world through all the interactions and then we get some langrange multipliers and whatnot, or we do it more carefully taking non-linear effects into account to still get some notion of responsibility.
Surely these people you mention are in fact responsible, and surely that should make them targets in case they increase deaths, destroy people's potential etc?
Except that United is doing the same thing it was before, with only a few months where they dialed back the pressure until their stock price started lagging.
of course the question is where's the line between public-money-gold-digger and innocent wife?
Jhala Nath Khanal was PM for less than 1 year in 2011.
But he was still in politics, leading party that was part of the governing coalition.
Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible. It removes the process for peaceful and civil change. The protestors had to go there as a result. But revolutions also tend not to result in something better most of the time.
And yet many of the greatest accomplishments of humanity over the past few centuries have been shepherded by violence - abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonizatiom.
Only if you cherry pick. Abolition of slavery in Britain occurred without mass violence or war. Decolonization happened through violence and revolution in some instances. In many others the colonizers simply grew weary of the colonies and left.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but humanity has not abolished slavery. Most recent stats estimate ~28 million people worldwide in the forced labour category that most would mentally associate with the term. That rises to nearly 50 million going by the modern definition that includes forced marriage, child rearing, and subservience without recourse.
Yes, in 2025.
Sadly the United States abolishing slavery for ~4 million within its own borders in the 1860s did not represent humanity as a whole.
On paper the problem is solved because it’s illegal to openly buy and sell another person. In practice the exact same treatment and de facto ownership and exploitation of other people remain without any meaningful enforcement in many parts of the world.
Going from institutionalized forms of slavery common around the globe for thousands of years to the almost complete absence of it in today's world is still a major accomplishment. Three hundred years ago, slavery was seen as natural by many, today that would be an absolute fringe position almost no one would feel comfortable stating out loud. That is progress, even if it is not yet enough.
I’m sure modern slaves appreciate the fact that their situation, while in practice virtually indistinguishable from past eras, is no longer institutionalized.
Prison labor = Slavery.
Prison labor = slave labor, not slavery. Prison = slavery.
I blame how slavery is taught for the confusion. Slavery itself is a legal state where one's autonomy is fully controlled by another. Forced labor is something people commonly use slaves for, but the absence of labor didn't make one free - a slave allowed to retire was still enslaved as was a newborn born into slavery even before they're first made to work.
> abolition of slavery, the global transition to democracy, and decolonization
It's notable that all of those are pre-democratic.
Many slaving countries were democratic as it was understood at the time. All modern democracies disenfranchise some people e.g. the young, people with criminal convictions in some countries.
Could you please clarify your statement?
>> Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible.
GP stated this.
Parent replied with a list of scenarios where violence created progress, albeit none of which featured universal democracy before the violence.
IOW, they are loudly agreeing with each other.
At least in the case of the USA, then, there's still no universal democracy. Corporations have far more powerful and influence, in basically every election you can only vote for a neoliberal, and plenty of people get disenfranchised.
It seems like bike-shedding to equate complete lack of franchise with vote dilution.
They are very different levels of democratic access.
> Attacks on free speech - like social media censorship or bans - makes democracy not possible
The use of social media to spread misinformation with a specific agenda also makes democracy impossible.
There has to be a line, however fuzzy, somewhere. Remember Trump used misinformation to steer a crowd who then stormed the Capitol. Incitement should never be covered by free speech protection.
Nepal isn't a good comparison to the US. Nepal has been extremely politically unstable now for years and was wracked by a giant earthquake too. Nepal doesn't have stable governing institutions. In 2001 a disgruntled member of the royal family massacred the rest of the family, kicking off 20 years of instability.
Didn't the government open fire on protesters killing over a dozen people the day before the protesters turned violent?
Translation: The government lost support of the military. GenZ were allowed to topple the government.
corruption is only made worse by angry mobs tearing things down. what is erected afterwards is almost always worse ironically. the only way corruption is reduced is citizens becoming smarter somehow and slowly allowing the elite to get away with less and less bad behaviour while also creating an intelligent incentive structure for the elites as well as everyone else to drive productive, pro-social behaviour. whats going on in most of the world and nepal is the opposite of that
As you stated, one avenue of resolution has the prerequisite that 'citizens become smarter somehow', however that seems unlikely, particularly since the ruling power is actively sabotaging education.
the common people are cheering on the damage so i wouldnt say it meets the criteria of sabotage. more like enabling it. and yes its unlikely thats why things are so terrible
Kudos for citing actual facts/studies. But these are about sentiment, which in a digital age where personality has been reduced to opinion and thus amplified for effect, might be both manipulated and less significant.
By contrast, acts of bombings and other political violence were both more common and widespread in the 1970's and 1980's than now.[1] In those cases, people took great personal risks.
[Edit: removed Nepal, mentioned in other comments]
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP...
"threatening or committing violence" could mean almost anything. It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?
Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant.
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
If a mafia boss orders a hit, he is no less guilty than the one who pulls the trigger. If a CEO orders vital funds to be withheld from those who are entitled to them, knowing many will die, he is similarly guilty of murder. The mafia boss can be sent to jail, the CEO won't. The corporate veil may keep you pristine inside the cynical circles of power, but all the people see is impunity. When murderers act with impunity, what redress is there but counter-violence?
It is unfortunate, but many people have lost hope the system can change, so revolution is getting more likely, and revolutions are seldom peaceful.
The CEO of a healthcare insurer is not involved in "withholding" funds. At best, he sets up policies that distribute a limited amount of funds among millions of claimants who are all in need of help to some degree, but he does that job poorly. If this juvenile logic is applied further, aren't you guilty of the same crime? There are people in need of life-saving drugs and treatments, yet you're just sitting behind your computer withholding funds.
This sounds like airlines saying they have a right to bump people who paid for a ticket because the airlines couldn't figure out a business model that earned them an acceptable amounts of money without doing it. UHC does that, except instead of denying you the seat you paid for, they deny you care you paid for, and you suffer and die.
The problem is the conclusion that we must allow this so that their business economics can be sound, so that they can continue to exist. We should instead conclude that being horrible to people is bad, and any business model that requires it should not exist.
Brian saw a company that he knew ahead of time was horrible to people, that he knew ahead of time decided that many of their customers must die, and indeed this was critical to the company's economics and business model, and thought, 'You know what? I want to be a part of that. I like that so much that I want to be the one in charge of it.'
Why that job, instead of the millions of others? Well, we can take a gue$$. He had to make his nut, no matter who he hurt along the way, right?
Meanwhile, as an arguably less-horrible person, I see a job posting for startups that use AI to scan terminal cancer patient records for timely funeral business leads in exchange for offering crypto credits that can be applied towards a coupon for palliative care AI chat or whatever, or makes drones and AI systems for tracking and identifying government critics for later persecution, and I have to click 'next' because my soul is worth more than the salary. What a fuckin' chump I am.
Airlines operate under completely different optimization (game) theory, which makes for an absolutely horrible choice in your analogy.
1/ There is no "distribute a limited amount of funds". There is even less a "distribute a limited amount of funds after shareholder profit and massive executive paychecks". Customers have bought coverage; if the company overissued policies, they make a loss, or they go bankrupt and their own insurers cover the existing claims. Anything else is privatised profit and socialised losses, which even a callous teenager just blown away by their first glimpse at Ayn Rand should find objectionable.
2/ I carefully said "entitled to" to avoid a debate about personal responsibility and limit the conversation to "paid for a life-saving service they did not receive", which everyone will agree is wrong.
3/ If you think the CEO did not issue orders to make it as difficult to claim as possible, and drag the process as much as possible, you are a fool.
Denying help to a human is one thing. Denying them help after they paid for the help so you can buy a yacht another thing entirely.
Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
Absolutely, and I am sure that is exactly why speech is claimed to be violence. It's to enable and legitimize violent retribution.
> Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?
I hope not, because that would mean people would already forgot why supporters were describing it as reacting towards violence with violence.
Depends on what you consider to be "support", but this report is pretty interesting and says something like 24% of US adults sympathize greatly with Mangione, and 63% have some non-zero level of sympathy for him. Outright approval for his actions isn't directly quantified by this poll but is undoubtedly lower than that 24% figure.
One interesting thing is sympathy for Mangione doesn't seem very strongly influenced by income level or level of education. The two biggest mediators seem to be political alignment and age. It seems the vast majority of US adults under 50 have a significant amount of sympathy for him, with only 28% expressing no sympathy at all.
https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/mangione-suppor...
I think it would be much higher than 23%. I think most people would argue justification in using violence to oppose violence. The question would be what percent view the utilization of profit driven policy resulting in deaths as violence, and I think that too is pretty high.
probably the best point that has been made is that there are a lot of younger people who think killing someone is a way to solve a conflict or problem
>Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare?
Oh yea. A guy was murdered with an illegal handgun and an illegal silencer. and not one single Democrat usually so hot to call for more gun control did so.
Must have slipped their minds.
I’d encourage you to do a bit more research. An entire state banned ghost guns and bump stocks following the CEO’s murder, just 9 days after it happened… and it was Democrats, as it always has been, that passed the law over majority Republican objection. You can find loads of articles about Democrats continuing to push for gun reform. https://bridgemi.com/michigan-government/gun-reforms-among-m...
Thanks, but I live here.
Michigan has been trying to ban 3D printed guns for years before UnitedHealth CEO was murdered. That was just during the session and a coincidence, not cause.
> I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular.
Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
Opposing his state funeral is very different from supporting his assassination.
Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
His public image took a nosedive after his death.
I think that had far more to do with it than saving a few yen.
I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt.
Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous.
https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html
Also the cost of the funeral was 1.6 billion yen, which is definitely not "a few yen." It's crazy to think that taxpayers would be just fine with that.
https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/politics/20220921-OYT1T50164/
I put it down to the diverging opinion between gov and people on the effectiveness of Abe's policies (Abenomics, defense, etc)
It will be a range of opinions within that area, but even at the tail there are a concerning number of people.
One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.
Because one person in a thousand is equivalent to a small military force.
That would be much larger than a "small" force. In the US that would approach the size of the active duty Army.
Only if armed and organized
If you read the linked pdf, “attack someone online” is a separate subcategory (27%)
> It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence.
That incites violence. Thinking we're oppressed when we're living lives that are immensely better than that of any oppressor of the past... We must stop that.
Its sad but most gouvernement also truly don't change (especially when they protect class inequalities) unless theres an actual threat of actual violence through social upset.
I tell you that as a french person.
The myth of possible peaceful changes at the political level is nothing but a myth precisely.
Shooting people like kirk does not seem particularly useful for such goals tho
Is it possible that violence is just more rational for today's 18-34 y/o than it was at some other points in recent history?
The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent
When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
Rule of law in itself is not a worthwhile institution - and is not enough to keep violence at distance.
You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law.
I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.
Rule of law is necessary but not sufficient.
The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.
You make a good point. For example, the rule of law in North Korea or Equatorial Guinea is whatever the HMFIC says it is. And that's written in law, the police and courts enforce it, all proper and aboveboard in a legalistic sense. Just not in common sense.
As far as the poorest 10%, though: There is always a poorest 10%. And a poorest 50%. If you're in the middle class or higher, you have every reason to prevent the poor from revolting and taking what you have. This can be accomplished by a vast array of carrots and sticks. Some countries lean more toward the carrot - we call them liberal democracies. Autocratic states use the stick.
But although greater wealth inequality may be a good indicator of the tendency of the lowest 10% to become lawless, it is not a good indicator of which method is used to keep them in check. Cuba has pretty amazingly low levels of wealth inequality - essentially everyone's poor. Keeping them from rebelling, however, is all stick, precisely because any kind of economic carrot would undermine the philosophy that it's better for everyone to be poor than to have wealth inequality.
Very good points.
For the most part, the bottom 10% in most liberal democracies are much better off than most people in most autocratic states.
Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population. Yet I saw a poster the other day titled "class warfare" with a picture of graveyard saying that's where the "rich" will be buried. People don't understand at all how counties and economies work and how this system we live in works vs. the alternatives (I'm in Canada btw).
> Wealth inequality isn't great but the existence of wealthy people in successful countries helps fund service for the entire population.
I think it does the opposite. Those services were mostly built during the last century after the war when conditions were just right for people to get those policies implemented. Since then the wealthy have mostly been lobbying against those services, dodging taxes, spreading propaganda justifying the inequality, etc. Now we're seeing the results of this work by the wealthy.
I also think it's wrong to assume the wealthy are the creators of that wealth just because they have it. It can also be the result of using positions of power to get a larger share of a pie baked by a lot of people.
This is factually not true. For example: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=111000...
The top 1% of highest income in Canada pays 21-22% of the taxes. Their share of the income is about 10%. So they "rich" are paying for services everyone else is getting.
The top 10% pay 54% (!) of the taxes. Their share of income is about 34%.
The top 0.1% pays about 8-9% of the taxes.
So in Canada the rich are absolutely paying for the services everyone else gets. That's before accounting for their indirect contributions to the economy by running businesses, employing people, taxes paid by companies, etc.
Maybe some random billionaire has some scheme that reduces their taxes. But most of the the rich pay way more taxes than others.
I wouldn't call people working for a salary rich, which most of the people in those groups are. They pay plenty of taxes and many of them probably support funding public services as well. I meant the actually wealthy, who use their political power to reduce those services and the taxes they need to pay. They don't help fund them unless they are forced to, and currently they are not because the political power of their wealth has become larger than the political power of regular people.
Most people in the top 0.1% are quite rich. There are quite a few CEOs and founders of large companies that are billionaires from income they got from those companies (and paid taxes on).
Maybe you need to give me more examples. Who are "actually wealthy" people in Canada who do not pay any taxes whatsoever and contribute nothing to the local economy/country? e.g. they avoid paying GST or HST, they avoid paying property taxes, they don't pay capital gains taxes?
I do agree that some rich people (and also not rich people) campaign for a smaller government and less taxes. I don't think that's an unreasonable position. There is a sweet spot for taxation and taxes in Canada are quite high. It's not a zero sum game (e.g. we have people leaving Canada to go to lower tax countries like the US).
There are many books on this, you can start by picking up eg. Marianna mazucato and rutger bregmann to get some contemporary views.
In unequal societies governance is controlled by less people and they tend to divert money into activities that increase their wealth instead of benefitting everyone - this has in particular happened in the west over the past 40 years.
Show me the data.
Everything I see around me, in data and anecdotally, tells me that in my unequal society (Canada) everyone is doing better and governance is not controlled by rich people. The current government that won the elections would not be the preferred government of the ultra rich who want to make a little more money on the backs of everything else (which honestly is not a thing as far I can tell).
Marianna Mazucato's writings look interesting but I'd have to dig in more. Rutger Bregman seems like much less of an expert in the domain and I'm not sure his ideas vibe with me but might take a look.
Thomas Piketty has collected that data. He showed that the rate of return for capital is larger than the rate of growth, meaning capital owners are getting an ever increasing share of the economic output. Income inequality doesn't really account for this, look into wealth inequality. The wealthy are also good at hiding their wealth to avoid taxation and publicity, I'm not sure how much the studies consider that.
That is the wrong question to ask and.
"The wealthy are hiding their wealth" sounds like a conspiracy theory. I think we have pretty good visibility into the really wealthy (e.g. we know pretty well who is on the short list of billionaires in Canada and more or less what they own). Banks report any movement of money >$10k, real estate is tracked, company ownership is tracked. That there is some large number of really wealthy people hiding in plain sight doesn't compute. We can't disprove the idea that some person living on the streets in East Vancouver is actually a billionaire hiding their wealth but even if so that percentage of those people in the total population isn't going to move the needle vs. all the known rich people who can't really "hide". If there are ways to legally not pay taxes then we'd hear about them and use them. Billionaires do have some options most of us can't pursue but I think the idea that the rich hide their wealth and don't pay taxes is mostly a myth. Prove me wrong...
Here's some data to try and support my claim:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/467384/percentage-of-pop...
The % of the population in low income families has been declining. Here's a broader time horizon:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/467276/number-of-persons...
We'd need to plot that against income/wealth inequality but I expect that has increased over this period.
This isn't consistent across Canada, for example in Alberta: https://www.statista.com/statistics/583120/low-income-popula...
There's virtually no movement since 1976 (the percentage is somewhat lower today).
I'm assuming the threshold for low income represents some more or less equal standard of living.
We can look at some other metrics like life expectancy:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/can/can...
This has consistently improved since the 1950's which doesn't seem to support the theory that the broad population is doing worse.
If you think you have a better metric that shows that most people are worse off due to the increasing wealth/income gap then let's see it.
Random by the way is that I just saw an article today about the wealth distribution in Canada and the data point there was that the top percentiles wealth has declined since 2019. Obviously the top 0.1%/1%/10% still own a lot of the total wealth (I think the figure was something like 56% of the wealth in the top 10%) but that's what you'd expect in a free capitalist system.
( I think the article was related to this report: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/13-605-x/2025001/article... )
Another random by the way observation is that I think the ability of some random person to get ahead is probably unprecedented. Never has knowledge been so accessible (Internet) and various means of production be so accessible and cheap (content creators, apps, prototyping equipment, etc.).
So their after tax income is far higher than their share of the population? Give me 50% of a country’s income and I will be more than happy to pay 60% of the tax.
Why should they pay for more than they get? Not fair.
Start a successful business, take some chances, and maybe you'll pay more tax. Heck- many software engineers are likely in the top 10% in Canada.
Heck I will gladly pay 90%
The percentages really don't tell you that much. To illustrate with an extreme exemple, if the top 0.1% earns a million, and the government taxes a single dollar on them and nothing on anyone else, the top 0.1% would pay 100% of the taxes. But it obviously would not be enough to help people in need.
I don't know the particular situation for Canada, but I know that welfare benefits are getting worse in my country (France)
when you calculate their share of wealth you only include income. when you calculate their share of taxes do you only include income tax?
Try for just one minute and don't think about this in terms of money, and you will see why your argument is completely failing.
It is clear that one rich person who leisurely spend their morning getting ready for a business meeting does not provide any care to any elderly.
Your comment is clear example of the type of misinformation that got us here.
In the end money is an institution. You can only get things done, I if someone are willing to take money for work. And that only works when there is a certain level og equality.
Interesting how this is always about how liberal democracy (namely European supremacist nations like yours) who control the world as the global north and are the primary reasons for the “autocracy”
I don’t know where you can even think the bottom 10% of the west/liberal democracies are better than “most” in those other countries. That’s a wild thing to think. Seems like typical western centrism and chauvinism.
Let's look at one example.
The average income in Egypt is ~$1900 USD a year (it's probably worse now but this is a number I've seen). Low income threshold in Canada is about $20k (EDIT: CAD) a year and that's about the bottom 10%.
So not sure what your point is re: wild thing to think. Do you think the average Egyptian is better off than the low 10% Canadian?
How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency? If Liberal democracies so control the world how come some countries have been able to do better (China e.g.)
>> How is it that because liberal democracies "control the world" that Egypt is forced to be an autocracy? Do they have no agency?
This is exactly how I would have responded to the above comment. I'd just add that there is tons of evidence for liberal democracies attempting to help or entice those countries to become less corrupt, more transparent and more democratic. Saying that countries that have been independent of colonial rule for a hundred years, which incidentally were mostly handed democratic systems, have become autocracies because of liberal democracies want them that way is sheer insanity.
Your point about agency should be the standard rebuttal to all forms of third-worldism that attempt to blame homegrown problems on external actors. But having someone external to blame for homegrown repression isn't just post-hoc rationalization. It actually serves to reinforce the oppression in those states, both as a pressure-release valve for autocrats, and the failure to evaluate internal problems serves as an underlying reason why they have not successfully overthrown those regimes and transitioned to democracy.
Mostly, though, that type of talk comes out of the mouths of Westerners who know nothing about the situation in, e.g. Egypt.
As sibling commentors say, this is just not true.
As a society we have a capacity to work, and we divide that work using money.
Your observation thst rich people pay for services is indicative of an oligarchy. When rich people pay, then it is not a plethora or small businesses, a democratic chooses government, or a consortium of investors bundling together to do something great.
You are literally pointing out the failure of the west.
I don't think so. This is the success of the west. It's the least worse of all the other alternatives. Which other option has worked out better for everyone?
Oligarchy would be the rich controlling the countries in the west. Other than in people's imagination and conspiracies there is no evidence of that actually happening. Was Trump the favorite candidate of the rich in the US? I very much doubt it. Do the rich gain more influence with their money - sure. But not more influence then the rest of the population. The 99.9% have more influence than the 0.1% in aggregate.
The west is the only place on this planet where the corrupt rich do not have absolute control (see Putin). Is it perfect, no? Is it better than those failed attempts to make everyone equal, strong yes.
The top 0.1%, 1%, 10% are still a lot of people. This includes many successful small businesses, it includes large businesses, it includes many. Those people have varied opinions on how countries should be run, just like all of us. But they also have a vested interest in having a safe and free and well functioning society.
Relevant:
> Hate begets hate; violence begets violence[...]Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate[...]but to win[...]friendship and understanding.
> The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence[...]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_begets_violence#Words....
It is, however, frequently the way by which countries reset themselves.
> The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone.
If you subscribe to Kant perhaps, but most people's argument against violence (and morality in general) is probably not Kantian.
Well if surveys are to believed the predominant view in the US is that morality is dictated by God. I'm skeptical, but also, I have met people like that.
I think the argument for not committing violence when you are able to do so without any form of repercussion comes down to a morality issue, you don't do it because it is wrong. That works at an individual level, At a societal level you cannot assume all people to be moral. When faced with the inevitability of not all people being moral (or not agree on the same set of morals) you need a secondary reason to prevent violence. I suspect quite a lot of people would accept the morality of violence to prevent more violence. That is where individual morality might weigh in on the aspect of whether violence is appropriate to establish or protect the rule of law.
They also might be least aware of the consequences as they've grown up during the least violent time in US and human history.
I think a lot of them have a very romantic view about revolutions and their place in them
Revolutions harm the poor and the disabled far more than they harm the able bodied and the privileged
No one is making insulin when society collapses
unlikely.
A more likely explanation is that pro-violence propaganda began swamping social media in 2016, which is 9 years ago. 18 year olds have been exposed to it nonstop since they were 9 and 34 year olds since they were 25.
The people who are disposed to anger and violence move along the radicalization sales funnel relatively slowly. But already once you've shown interest, you start seeing increasingly angry content and only angry content. There is a lot of rhetoric specifically telling people they should be angry, should not try to help things, and should resort to violence, and actively get others to promote violence.
Being surrounded socially by that day in and day out is a challenge to anyone, and if you're predisposed to anger it can become intoxicating.
A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
The same sort of campaigns were run at a smaller scale during the Cold War and have been successful in provoking hot wars.
I think you're right. Couple it with the increasing isolation driven by everyone being online 24/7 in lieu of interacting with each other in person and you have a recipe for disaster. Even though it's possible to be social on the internet, it has a strong distance effect and a lot of groups benefit by forging internet bonds over hatred, criticism, or dehumanization of others (who cares about the "normies"). In addition, in many cases one doesn't even need to interact with people for most needs (amazon etc) further contributing to isolation and the illusion that you don't need others. It's the perfect storm to make the barrier to violence really low—it's easy when you have no connection to the victims and you see them as less than human or as objects "npcs".
Your mention of "normies" and "npcs" reminds me of an unfortunate change I saw happen in autistic communities a few years ago.
Those spaces used to be great places for people to ask questions, share interests, and find relief in a community that understood them. But over just a year or two, the whole atmosphere flipped. The focus turned from mutual support to a shared antagonism toward neurotypical people, who were often dehumanized.
It was heartbreaking to watch. Long-time members, people who were just grateful to finally have a place to belong, were suddenly told they weren't welcome anymore if they weren't angry enough. That anger became a tool to police the community, and many of the original, supportive spaces were lost.
I am not in these spaces so it's nice to get your summary. I agree that is tragic.
I've wondered about this kind of shift being an inevitable response to the growing online trope of autism being the boogeyman used to shill everything from not getting vaccinated to making your kids drink your urine.
The head of us health regularly talks about autistic people as a terrible tragedy inflicted on their parents and a net negative to society. I expect that kind of rhetoric would fuel hostility across any group.
I don't know that but it predates the current head of US health being a major public figure.
At the time I did some data analysis on the usernames of people promoting these ideas. Before the Reddit API changes you could get statistics on subs that had an overlap of users. What I noticed was there was an overlap with fringe political subs. The autistic subs with more anger issues had more fringe political people in it and as the subs became angrier the overlap increased. Inevitably the most vocal and pushy angry people were active in those political subs. You can see similar things with the angrier comments on HN.
I don't think it's an inevitable response to the things you mention. But it may be related. For example there's the term "weaponized autism" [e.g. 0]. That is, politically fringe and extreme groups talk and joke regularly about weaponizing autistic people as trolls. I think the autism forums became part of the recruiting funnel for this sort of extremism. At least that's the hypothesis that seemed to best explain all the factors.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35947316/ # I don't know if this paper or journal are any good. It's just the top hit that seemed relevant. One of the authors is Simon Baron Cohen, a well known autism researcher.
I'm very sympathetic to this as well but I'm curious if you know any leads on research investigating this area as I hesitate to draw a conclusion with a feeling. I participate in a lot of hobbies that have autistic folks in it and I watched the same anger spread into those communities along with the predictable good-vs-evil rhetoric that autistic folks tend to fall into.
Specifically about autism, I don't. There is an academic literature on trolling and social media, which you can find on google scholar or talking to ChatGPT or Gemini for introduction points. The papers I've read haven't been outstanding, but it's better than nothing.
I thought about building tools to track it on Reddit, but with the API changes most of the existing tools have been shut down.
There also used to be sites that tracked foreign influence activity but they've mostly stopped from what I can tell.
I did use some of those tools to track inorganic activity in other forums (not autistic spaces at the time) and got a feel for what inorganic activity looked like. Then when I saw the changes in autistic spaces I was able to see the patterns I had already seen elsewhere.
On Reddit at least, what usually happens is trolls try to become moderators. Or, failing that, they complain about moderators and fork the subreddit to a new sub they can moderate. Typically they'll show up as unproblematic power users for a few months before it becomes clear they're trolls. Once they have moderation powers it's basically over.
At any rate, with LLMs it's impossible to track now. Your best bet if you're interested is to study how it works in known cases and then use your own judgment to decide if what you're seeing matches that pattern.
You should totally write up what you were able to get. It's always helpful to understand how these kinds of influence campaigns start.
At the very least researchers can build models off older insights even though places like Reddit are now closed off.
thanks for the suggestion, I am planning to at some point. or at possibly make a video about it.
>A lot of people want to say marketing doesn't work or that filter bubbles don't matter. But the bare facts are that we've had nearly a decade of multiple military intelligence agencies running nonstop campaigns promoting violent ideology in the US. And it would be naive to think that didn't make a difference.
Hmm, interesting thesis. I'm aware something like half of the Whitmer Kidnapping plotters were feds/informants, to the point a few were exonerated in trial. There's certainly some evidence the government is intentionally provoking violent actors.
I believe parent was referring to the US government and other national governments.
It's on record that Russian and Chinese propaganda campaigns in the US were aimed at sowing division generally, more so than any particular viewpoint.
Yes that's correct. In particular, not just run of the mill division, but impersonating right and left wing militants both calling for violence.
For example, just one that turned up at the top of a quick Google search
> And the analysis shows that everyone from the former president, Dmitry Medvedev, as well as military bloggers, lifestyle influencers and bots, as you mentioned, are all pushing this narrative that the U.S. is on the brink of civil war and thus Texas should secede from the United States, and that Russia will be there to support this.
https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2024-02-14/russian-propaga...
Government employees are just trying to get promoted. So they entrap crazy people that they can then stop.
Rational by what calculus?
These studies are interest but should equally be interpreted as the desire for change - and I think it is reasonable to say that there is a huge desire for change.
In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality.
If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.
There was a school shooting on the same day as Kirk's death: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/students-wounded-shooti...
If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms", brushing it aside to be forgotten. He of course did so many times in life, notably in 2023 when he was quoted doing so in the media:
https://www.newsweek.com/charlie-kirk-says-gun-deaths-worth-...
Kirk's death has already overshadowed the news of that school shooting, which will indeed be forgotten by most long before we stop talking about him.
One final victory for Charlie Kirk, I guess.
> If he were still alive, he would be writing and speaking about how such violence is unfortunate but ultimately acceptable— even necessary— to "preserve our freedoms"
He would have really advocated for violence, or school shootings? That seems odd. It is way different from "gun deaths are worth having the 2nd amendment".
Did he question the 2nd amendment beacuse of school shootings? If not then school shooting deaths are part of his costs of his 2nd amendment defense.
I should have known better than to reply under this submission. HN is no different from Twitter or Instagram when it comes to anything political.
My question was not answered, and my comment was ignored.
Good job for everyone here for not being able to hold a rational, non-heated conversation.
The implicit part of your question was answered. I just ignored the part where you misparaphrased parent.
He didn't say Kirk advocated violence but that he was indifferent towards it in favor of the 2nd amendment. Isn't it interesting how a pro-lifer like Kirk didn't care that much about lives if it's about gun ownership?
Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.
The reason you're getting the interactions you are is because you set up a false dichotomy. Kirk's moral calculus involves accepting that possibly some more people will die, beyond what would happen otherwise, in order to guarantee what he considers an essential right to everyone. This is perfectly compatible with "caring about lives".
It's interesting that you mention driver's licenses. Would you say that intellectual consistency would require a "pro-lifer" to be in favour of nobody being allowed to own a car? After all, sometimes fatal driving accidents occur.
Oh wow no reply to your excellent car analogy. This is my shocked face.
He did care about lives. Allowing some evil from gun deaths is the price of allowing a population to arm themselves. At the time he made the point that allowing some road deaths is worth allowing the population to drive. It doesn’t mean he endorses road death either.
> the price of allowing a population to arm themselves
It is very hard for someone living in the UK to understand things from the US context. It just comes across as bizarre that people accept that school children will relatively frequently die for this. I do not feel impelled at all to own a gun. It isn't something that I ever think about.
So when you say things like the phrase above, it is very alien to most people from the UK. We just don't understand what the benefits are of owning guns that justify the negatives.
By the way, this isn't an attack, it is just me sharing a state of mind with you.
Sure. I lived in the UK for 15 years, and have lived in the US for 2.
In London, someone grabs your phone, threatens to take your watch with a machete, or tries to rape your child. In New York someone marches down the street wanting to punch anyone that gets close. You let yourself be victimised and then report it.
In Texas, they generally don't do these things because they might get shot. People defend themselves.
In exchange, we accept there will be some unwanted violence. Kirk made an analogy here: we don't want road deaths, yet we don't ban cars. We don't want school shootings, but we don't ban guns.
South Africans in London have similar perspectives regarding being able to defend themselves.
London has got worse, that is true. Or at least, that is the impression you get from the media. Personally, I lived in central London for years and didn't feel unsafe.
But the rest of the UK is extremely safe. Compared to the US? Very! And we don' have guns to defend ourselves. How does that work? And it is the same in many, many countries that don't have guns - a lot safer than the US.
So that argument for guns just doesn't work. There must be something deeper to it. It must really be something that triggers a deeper response in people.
London has gotten worse, do you think this is debatable today? Plus I do not think that the "I feel safe" has much merit. It has some, but not that much. What if I told you I did not feel safe in London? You felt safe in some area, I did not feel safe in some other. I do not think this conversation would be fruitful if we focused on this alone.
Check the statistics[1] with regarding to robbing, knife crimes, homelessness, and so on. Perhaps that is a better starting point?
I have been told by many locals to not wear an expensive watch around designer stores, or touristic hotspots because robbery happens on a daily basis, it depends on the time of the day and which day it is, of course.
I have watched many YouTubers visiting London as well and they tell quite the story, too.
[1] See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44914081
I had two terrorist attacks on my neighbourhood (London bridge) and one on the way to work (Westminster bridge) in fifteen years. If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot.
You're a programmer. You understand statistics. I think your ideology is clouding your ability to talk about this honestly. From the very casual look I took, you're 4 times more likely to die as a result of violent crime in the US than the UK.
So picking these incidents and citing them as a reason for owning guns, while ignoring the whole picture strikes me as dishonest.
I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.
In any case, I think the argument that was brought forward in favor of guns does not hold true universally for every places. For example, in Hungary, you do not need guns as a deterrent.
Perhaps London would benefit from it, I actually have no idea and I do not know if I could have any way of telling.
> I think "If they tried stabbing people in Texas they’d have been shot." was the most important part in the comment.
It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe. Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.
I live in the UK. It is objectively safer to live in the UK where we are not allowed to own guns. To us, it is absurd to claim we need guns to be safer when we look at what actually happens in the US as a result of guns.
I don't think this is really a controversial take.
That is why the argument for gun ownership actually happens at a deeper level in the psyche.
It is not a cherry-picked example at all. That is the essence of the mentality. It is used as a deterrent. If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot.
I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?
I am Eastern European, no guns here either, and as I said, it may not universally apply to all countries, or even cities within one country.
> I do not think it is that difficult to grasp either. Do you understand now?
Sure, I can read English, I can understand the actual English words you're typing and the point you're trying to make. I just think it isn't true, and an honest reading of statistics would show that.
But I don't think we're going to get honesty here.
You want statistics? Check out https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45240145.
This does not imply what I said though, it just confirms that more guns does not imply more gun violence.
You did not leave an answer to "If people (thieves, criminals) think "this guy may have a gun", then others are less likely to rob him to avoid getting shot." though.
You wanted to know the mentality behind it, and this is the mentality behind it, so now you know why people say and believe these things. As I previously have said, this probably cannot be universally applied to all countries, but it theoretically could be, especially if we consider the fact that "more guns -> more gun violence" is just simply not true. I have a feeling it is a cultural thing. How come Serbia (among other countries) have lots of guns yet no firearm-related violence? Many other countries have much less guns per 100 people (as per statistics), yet gun violence is through the roof. We have to look at it from many different aspects. We need ask ourselves "why?" or "why that is?", what are the differences? What are the cultural differences?
Just to be sure, I am not in favor of guns, but I do believe in that guns can be a deterrent in some places at the very least, and we know that more guns do not lead to more firearm-related homicides, so theoretically it could work in some or many places. I do not know much about Serbia. I wonder how come they have lots of guns yet barely any related crimes.
> It is a cherry picked example and has nothing to contribute to the overall argument that gun ownership makes the US safe.
It obviously makes the argument that Texas isn’t New York or London and has little street crime, as a result of gun ownership. You wanted to understand the mentality? That’s the mentality. No road men in Austin.
> Otherwise I can point to the many mass shootings in the US and say that would never have happened in the UK.
Yes you can. That’s a fine argument, I agree with it. I’ve made comments about not wanting to die because someone had a bad day earlier in this thread supporting exactly this argument. You’re arguing with someone else rather than reading my responses.
What ideology? I thought we were having a civil discussion of how the UK compares to the US.
The US has a lot of violent cities, I live in NY (in a very good area) and there’s still more street violence than you’d expect in a similar area in London. But that’s a coastal city. People don’t have guns here.
If someone walked down the street in Austin threatening to kill people that wouldn’t happen. Honestly.
I think you're making disingenuous arguments, which is why I attributed it to ideology. But you're correct, this just started off with a casual comment from me, so I don't think I should be going into that territory, apologies.
Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.
I’m not sure if I have an answer one way or the other - I’d like it if I could buy milk in NY without someone threatening violence, and don’t think it’s right for jihadists to stand in the middle of London saying they’ll kill all the jews without the police doing anything, but I also don’t want to live somewhere where someone snaps and they have access to an automatic weapon.
> Thanks for the apology, I assure you I absolutely believe what I write.
That the US is safer than other places because it has guns? I guess you can sincerely believe that, but the facts say something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Check out both tables and you will see that the facts do not say what you think they say, at all.
Homicide rates by firearm per 100,000 inhabitants (2017):
Ranking by country for civilian-held firearms per 100 population (2017): Those are just to compare three countries, but you will see a similar trend for all other countries.It shows that Serbia has loads of guns, yet barely any firearm-related homicides, whereas Jamaica has much less guns, yet homicide rates by firearm are way higher than the US.
Thus, the statement that "More guns -> More gun-related violence" is evidently false.
[flagged]
I live in central London. It mostly feels safe although I did get a phone snatched once.
I also visited Austin Texas and spent a night staying in the center on 6th street and didn't feel safe. Aggressive black guys shouting and stuff. I googled that location when I got to the lodging and someone was shot there a year earlier.
I guess it depends the area but I wouldn't say guns have made Texas a haven of peace.
Bingo. Same logic applies to car jackings or home invasions. Just the fact that the next potential victim could be armed and many states have laws that allow victims to use lethal force to defend themselves has a massive deterrent effect.
Interesting metaphor because we changed the cars to make them safer, improved the roads, added speed limits and added requirements to get a driver license.
What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns?
According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts but cared about lives. I doubt that he thought like that when it came to road safety.
> What makes gun death so special, that we don't do the same for guns?
Kirk's point was that we do for guns (domestic violence etc red flags). But like cars we don't ban them.
> According to your logic Kirk was against speed limits, driver licenses and seat belts
No.
So he was pro mandatory weapon training, limits on gun power and capacity?
That would be the equivalent of what we did against traffic deaths.
Red flags have the disadvantage they come after the damage.
> Seems like it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun.
I do not think that he was against regulation, and keep in mind that criminals inherently do not care about gun laws or regulation.
Oh yeah man these guys are all leftwing brainwashed idiots. Never forget
When is there not a school shooting?
Good point. What a great society it must be, where school shooting has become normality - a part of everyday experience.
I'm very late to this thread, because I just didn't have anything I felt was valuable. But now i have.
At first I also had thr reaction of thinking "he asked for it" , and all that schadenfreude feeling.
However, now I think it was a great loss and hope the killer gets the whole extent of the law.
See, in a society that is tending more and more to the extremes, polarization and radicalism, we NEED people to TALK.
Being from outside of the US, I don't know the ideas this guy was spewing; However, from what I've read, what he did was basically talking and debate. We need that. We need to be open to talk ideas, even if we dont agree. Where are we when someone who speaks his mind gets killed for that?
I am socialist and anti-US-imperialism in general, but I tend to frequent r/conservative and r/ccw and even patriots.win subteddits. Because im interested in a different point of view.
I get sad that most posts in r/conservative block externals, as I would love to interact in some of the posts. But... after this guys assassination... I dont blame them. People should feel safe to talk and discuss their ideas.
I'm to stupid to be able to debate against this guy, or the other guy.that speaks too fast and always looks angry (anti abortion American dude). But ... why isn't someone smarter and with opposing views debating them?. We need it.
I don’t disagree with your point overall but the sad reality is that Charlie Kirk was not there to have a discussion. He went around trolling people and provoking big responses at universities so he could farm it out on social media. A huge part of his income was being a troll.
That does not mean he deserved to die. He didn’t. But he did not die undergoing some noble endeavor or engaging in free speech in some profoundly brave way.
But that's my point. Where is the guy with the opposing view and sharp tongue that's able to talk back to him? The fact that its monetized is good. Talking should be attractive to people. I'm all in favor of that.
But it’s not talking it’s rage baiting and selectively clipping your successes, deleting the failures, and using the former to stoke flames online for profit.
Modern political commentators and influencers are strategic about who they will engage with and how they engage.
You can see this with Ben Shapiro when he walked out of an interview with conservative BBC host, Andrew Neil. Shapiro was unprepared for a real challenge and his go-to of speaking fast, gish galloping, and calling out the “radical left views” of his opponent didn’t work because the host was a conservative.
https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E?si=GX9TcG7gOgUQH3Bo
If you want a someone who would be an effective counter, look to Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo.
It always baffles me how indignant people like Shapiro get when you simply read their words back to them. They act like you sprung a bear trap around their ankle and are viciously mocking them while they bleed out on the ground. It’s this performative outrage that is meant to distract you from what they’re outraged about, which again is simply quoting what they said. They depend on being able to try on opinions like hats and discard them when they no longer fit the specific argument they are engaging in in that moment, and they get mad when they can’t swap hats.
The sad irony is that he's at a college campus debating/arguing with people. At their best that's what college campuses are for. I know they haven't been living up to it lately but seeing him gunned down feels like a metaphor.
I know he liked to publicize the exchanges where he got the best of someone, and bury the others, and that he was a far, far cry from a public intellectual. Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.
That should be something that we strive for, but I fear we'll see it less and less. Who'se going to want to go around and argue with people now?
Feels like your second paragraph negates the first. That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual, using the backdrop of college campuses to lend legitimacy to his divisive ideas. That is not what college campuses are for, and it is not a debate.
I’m not American, I never heard of this guy before. But I saw the video of the last moments and it’s a telling snippet. He was incredibly dismissive in his answers which were vague and devoid of information, while being clearly rage bait meant to be cheered on by his base.
As I've said in a few other comments, I agree it's a poor "debate". But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere. I hope for better, but I can't help but think his killing doesn't help.
>But sadly it's the sort we've got now in the public sphere.
Why can't we strive for a proper environment and expel those who don't want to foster it? Schools are not entitled to give "equal platform" to unequal ideas.
What is an “unequal” idea?
They pretty clearly meant "ideas", plural, which are pairwise not equal to each other in some metric (presumably,merit).
He didn't deserve to die but I don't like how racist rhetoric somehow became honest political discussion. The elevation of racist ideology to being just another political opinion deserving of respect worries me.
> I don't like how racist rhetoric somehow became honest political discussion.
It didn't.
> The elevation of racist ideology to being just another political opinion deserving of respect
This has not occurred.
This is also irrelevant, because Kirk has not made racist claims.
To dismiss him as being “devoid of information” is lazy and cheap. He had scholars on his team shape his message.
> That he wasn’t honestly debating ideas but fishing for soundbites to spread hate and appear intellectual
I'm not convinced political debates are good for anything else. Most people believe in things without really thinking about them. Especially politics.
If you stop and actually reason this stuff out, you're going to reach some deeply disturbing conclusions which border on wrongthink. If you try to spread the nuggets of truth you discovered, you just fail miserably at first. People will not be convinced.
They probably won't really refute you either. Maybe it's because you're right, maybe it's because they didn't even think about what you said and just responded emotionally, there's no way to know for sure because trying to test ideas in debates just doesn't work with the vast majority of human beings.
If you insist on this path, people start thinking you're acting superior to them with your unconventional ideas. At some point you start getting flagged and downvoted on sight. Then you start getting personally called out. Labeled as some "extremist". Maybe one day you become such a nuisance authorities actually knock on your door and arrest you. Maybe your ideas offend someone so much they assassinate you.
So I don't blame this guy at all for debating like a politician. If he debated seriously and won, would his opponents revise their entire belief systems and start following his logical footsteps? Of course not.
It is a performance that appears as a debate.
Is that relevant? Could be said about any public debate or speaker.
Of course it couldn't. Go and compare these two. You may as well compare fruit loops to wagyu beef.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyAqMIZdX5g ("Charlie Kirk Hands Out L's")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpVQ3l5P0A4 ("Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice")
The Chomsky-Ali G debate is also worth watching. For other reasons perhaps.
There are better and worse debates but I question the validity of an argument about the quality of debates of someone who likely got shot for a political argument.
At least his argument seemed to hit some spot. (I don't know a single one, didn't even know the victim).
Getting killed over politics is not an index for "debate" quality. Giving someone such credit because they died is nonsense.
Are you expecting that all debates reach the level of a Chomsky-Foucault debate and to discard anyone below it?
Are you even able to meet that level yourself? This is non-sense. Obviously we all would love to reach that level of knowledge, introspection and speaking capability of Chomsky/Foucault, but it is absurd to expect it at all times.
It is not just about quality but how they are fundamentally different. One appears to be a debate the other is a debate. The person who got flagged made the same point which I responded to.
Charlie Kirk was a 30 year old political activist. You pick the finest minds of the last century, a famous debate between them, and somehow compare that to Kirk advocating whatever he advocates. It's like comparing a middle school math teacher against a college math teacher (professor) and their teaching styles.
It is like comparing a mediocre magician who is ok at giving an illusion of a debate that gets a reaction from an audience vs people who give thought provoking points.
A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?".
The whole point is you either answer A) no, and get a reaction from the audience for looking bad cause hitler or B) yes, and now you have conceded.
It amounts to a party trick.
[flagged]
What part of trying to corner you using the reaction of the audience the moment you argue against objective morality the Socratic method? Obviously no one wants to appear as a Nazi sympathiser especially in public when that is not the point they are trying to make.
If he fails to corner you, then comes the escape hatch where he brings up God and how God defines morality. Now the debate is over because you either believe in God or you don't.
This is a script that turns the whole thing into a rigged game not a method for arguing.
The problem in his argument is not that there is objective morality. It's that whatever strain of Christianity he belongs to today is the source of objective morality.
> What part is the Socratic method?
This part:
> A quick example: Someone says they don't believe in objective morality. He responds with "do you think hitler was objectively evil?".
> B) yes, and now you have conceded.
Yes, it makes the person look silly because the only answer that seems correct is yes, because there is obviously objective evil.
That's not the trick here. The trick is that the format of his talks - and the typical lack of preparation on the part of the typical college student - prohibits nuanced answers.
The correct answer there (to someone who, unlike me, does not believe in objective morality) is something like "I oppose everything Hitler did and stood for. Notwithstanding that, your question is incoherent." What unprepared 20 year old comes up with that on the spot? Much less be prepared to back it up, only in sound bites (because that's what works in the format)?
If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion? Which choice is wrong and which is right? What makes it "objective"? Why did the Germans not all think that Hitler was "objectively evil" even though to us it seems obvious?
> If objective morals exist then what is objectively moral when it comes to abortion?
You don’t understand the discussion. Kirk is saying objectively morality exists. We can all agree that murdering a one month old child is objectively immoral. Not that all situations are objectively moral or immoral.
Your emotions on what feels obvious are not an argument for objective morality. Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating. The person in the video themselves answered A) no, which then led to the whole script about Charlie's beliefs of God and how God defines morality.
You yourself seem to be the one trying to bend what objective morality means by claiming it only applies sometimes.
If it were so obvious it would not be something worth debating in the first place which has been debated far better by far greater people. This is not a novel topic.
> Trying to use the audience to corner someone is not debating.
No but having the student admit objective morality exists is debating. You know this. I know you know this. You know the audience reaction is to the person losing the point too. You know you are being deceitful pretending the audience reaction is the debating technique not the actual technique that caused the reaction. I know you are being deceitful too. Stop posting, go outside.
Your comment seems to imply that Kirk was simply not as good at holding a good-faith debate as the "finest minds".
It's not a question of skill or aptitude, but rather that he actively sought performative "owning the libs" arguments than genuine rigorous intellectual debate.
Kirk's operation was about giving bullying lessons (read: Republican talking points) to Young Republicans
The point of his videos is to teach Young Republicans to identify weaker, more easily targeted members of the liberal tribe, alongside a set of disingenous talking points they could use to harass and ideally embarass those individuals.
Yes when one political party is using his death as an opportunity to manufacture a martyr for free speech. If they are going to say, "we need more people like him," then we are right to critically assess who he was.
Every debate is a performance, so of course it was.
Not true. You can debate in private in a way where two people are searching for truth.
The sad thing is if people debate like it’s a performance when it’s not.
I agree with that. As I said elsewhere it's a shame that we don't get better.
If you compare it with the more sober, reflectful sort (eg russell vs copleston on the existence of God [0]) you can see how far we've fallen.
Nevertheless, his killing I think will make us slide even further.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpADrtr85iM&pp=ygUlYmVydHJhb...
Not really.
Sure. Our own mainstream media is very guilty of doing the same things with regard to editing down reality for the sakes of entertainment or pushing an agenda. I guess one admirable difference, to offer him some defence, is he is an appproachable guy. Literally. If you so disired you could go and view his debates or even debate him yourself. He has the right to make himself look good on his own channel.
He was only approachable as long as you were feeding him content. Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour.
>Turn the cameras off and the "debate" is over. It was a strictly transactional exchange in his favour.
Are you claiming Kirk was just shilling, as was imagined about Ann Coulter[0]? (Very NSFW).
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_12j-sPO4
I read an account of the "debate" immediately preceding his murder, it was quips and dodges. If that's at all representative of his conduct, he actively hurt the national dialogue by convincing people that that's what a debate looks like.
how would you steelman his position?
I wouldn't. It's a position selected specifically to troll immature leftist college students and score youtube views.
Steelmanning that position, though, would go like this. The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind. Good debate makes good viewing, which is why debates have audiences. And young people in particular tend to be impressionable because they don't have a lifetime of commitment to one position.
So if you want to engage people politically via debate, then university campuses are a good place to do that and thus - to someone extraordinarily uncharitable - any such debate could be described as "trolling immature leftist college students to score YouTube views". The same activity done by an academic would be described as "presenting the youth with mind-expanding dialogue", and they'd be doing it to score tuition fees, but nobody would quibble with that phrasing.
> The purpose of debate is to challenge people's views, even if they strongly disagree, in order to convince if not participants then bystanders to change their mind.
Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together. Unless you're very, very careful and good faith, and your counterpart is very, very careful and good faith, debates are a race to the bottom of psychological manipulation. They're not contests of facts; there's no way to objectively score them; they're not good ways for participants or bystanders to learn.
Facially, they're theater. But a system's purpose is what it does, and these performances serve as a venue/foundation to hone/push messaging. You'll almost never see right-wing "debaters" go up against "big" left-wing names like an Ezra Klein or Destiny (Ben Shapiro is kind of the exception, but he's far more conciliatory with someone like Klein--he did do one with Destiny, it went pretty badly for him, so it of course became a one-time thing).
Kirk et al lose--they lose frequently! You rarely see it because they have far bigger megaphones than their victorious rivals. But have these (many) losses changed their views? No. Debates are not two parties seeking the truth together.
Debates SHOULD be about 2 parties seeking truth. In reality, it's about brining people over to your viewpoint and garnering support.
There's many ways to do that, but centuries of debate etiquette describe bad form and dishonest means to "win a debate". Despite the events here, it is generally bad form in an exchange of words to incite violence against an opponent. And that's often what Kirk does, or did.
>Facially, they're theater. But a system's purpose is what it does, and these performances serve as a venue/foundation to hone/push messaging
Yes. Before we sigsrcoated it, we just called this propaganda. Propaganda is not a debate. The most dangerous discovery in early social media was that a spewing of propaganda (aka, arguments not all based on reason nor a goal to further humanity) will still get you a following, no matter how badly you use. Becsuse saying those words rouse the thoughts of those who are either prone to propaganda, or simply embolden those who already had those thoughts but werre too scared to admit it.
A decade of refinement later, and look where we are.
One could say the same about this very debate you're participating in. And since that's how you see debates, one has to immediately assume that you're not acting in good faith.
Only a small subset of conversations are debates, and personally I don't feel like I'm arguing with anyone (including you!), just discussing
A position like his doesn't really take well to steelmanning… It's not really the kind of viewpoint that's meant to be spelled out explicitly. You're supposed to shroud it in euphemisms.
I guess the steelmanned version of his beliefs would be something like, "racial and sexual minorities are an enemy to the white Americans who own this country; they threaten things we value about our culture and society, and we have no obligation to tolerate or accommodate them if we don't want to."
He spoke out against the Civil Rights act. He said the "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory (that immigration is a deliberate attempt to dilute and ultimately replace the white race) is "not a theory, it's a reality." He said the Levitican prescription to stone gay men is "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Social_policy)
Coverage of Kirk's killing has largely skirted around his views, because to describe them at all feels like speaking ill of the dead. If you bring up the fact that Kirk was a loathsome hatemonger, it somewhat tempers your message that political violence is never acceptable
I'm comfortable saying both that charlie kirk was a loathsome hatemonger and that he also shouldn't have been murdered. This hurts everyone.
He absolutely shouldn't have been murdered and the rise of political violence is terrifying for the country's future.
However, he has directly stated that empathy is bad and that shooting victims are an acceptable price to pay to avoid gun control.
I refuse to feel sympathy for someone who vigorously argued against doing anything to prevent what happened to him and who vigorously argued against caring about the people it happened to.
He never once stated that “empathy is bad”. He had plenty of bad takes, but no need to misrepresent.
He was simply saying that the term empathy is overused vs sympathy
The terms mean different things, and he is very clear that one is good and the other is bad in his eyes, and that’t the reason for his opposition to the use of the one term.
His argument was that we shouldn't disarm just because evil exists and guns can be mis-used. Using that as a way to suggest his death is justified or whatever people are implying is just gross and disgusting. Dude was 31 years old and had 2 young kids and simply went and talked to people. He was assassinated in front of his family for nothing more than talking. Nothing that he ever did was even close to deserving violence. If people can't take someone politely debating their ideas, then they're a whiny entitled baby and they're the problem.
People that don't like Charlie don't need to have sympathy for him, but not having sympathy and being douche bags in mass is something totally different.
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually," he continued. "I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage. But, it is very effective when it comes to politics. Sympathy, I prefer more than empathy. That's a separate topic for a different time."
How can you not be a douche bag to someone who wants to kill you? How are homosexuals supposed to feel about this guy?
Ah yes... he wanted all homosexuals murdered[citation needed]. Good thing the good guys killed him eh?
As one of the people against whom his hate was routinely monged, I agree wholeheartedly. I won't mourn him personally because he was proud to tell us all how thrilled he would be if me and my partner got what he got, but I'm also not gonna engage in the gloating and performative grossness that the more hideously online seem to enjoy whether they're left or right. The people I love aren't safer because of this. In fact, we've already been tried and found guilty.
I agree wholeheartedly.
He wasn't even a hate monger though? Just because he was a republican means he's a hate monger and racist? I don't get it. I haven't seen one person accusing him of this stuff actually cite a quote that seemed like hate speech or racism? They just don't like facts being used in a debate that hurt their feeling. It's ridiculous. People need to grow up. There is a complete lack of maturity on the part of his critics. They want to live in a censored thought bubble and don't value the first amendment (or seem to understand it).
> I haven't seen one person accusing him of this stuff actually cite a quote that seemed like hate speech or racism?
You can peruse the "political views" section on his Wikipedia page if you want something comprehensive, but here's an example for you to chew on:
In one podcast interview, Kirk cited Leviticus 20:18 (he paraphrases as "if thou liest with another man, thou shalt be stoned") and called it "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." That's a pretty explicit endorsement of the death penalty for sodomy. If that isn't hate speech, what is?
> They [...] don't value the first amendment (or seem to understand it).
I think you're the one misunderstanding it. The first amendment protects people from government censorship, not infamy and disgrace.
> A position like his doesn't really take well to steelmanning… It's not really the kind of viewpoint that's meant to be spelled out explicitly. You're supposed to shroud it in euphemisms.
> I guess the steelmanned version of his beliefs would be something like, "racial and sexual minorities are an enemy to the white Americans who own this country; they threaten things we value about our culture and society, and we have no obligation to tolerate or accommodate them if we don't want to."
What you are doing here is quite literally the opposite of steelmanning.
Here's an attempt to steelman just one of the things you bring up: the great replacement theory.
The United States, like many developed nations, is experiencing a fertility crisis: it doesn't produce enough families and resulting children to sustain it's current population.
The US could take steps to address the underlying problems that result in declining fertility for it's current population, but it's unlikely to do so for several reasons that all boil down to political realities where the people that are most incentivized to vote (retired people who earn social security) would probably bear the brunt of the (significant) costs of such solutions. See the idea of "concentrated benefits, diffuse costs".
So instead the US uses immigration to fill the gap left by declining fertility rates (an option not equally available to all developed countries), resulting in young US citizens continuing to struggle to form families, and producing a fraying of the social fabric that such an inability to form families is likely to have on a society.
So you can see why some people would be duped into such a conspiracy theory, which purports to explain what people are seeing with their very eyes.
That's not really steelmanning. You can't steelman a position by saying it's not the real position but it dupes the rubes.
The great replacement theory is the theory that there is an intentional effort to dilute or replace the capital-W White, meaning the historical English/Scottish/Scotch Irish, population of the US, with immigrants and former slaves, and it usually involves a part that says that it is being done to weaken the country against its international competitors. A third part that is usually involved is that the process is being facilitated by and for the benefit of people like "international bankers", "cosmopolitans", "elites", etc., terms which have an antisemitic history.
To steelman it, you would have to steelman at least the intentional dilution part. Not just to say that it is hard to meet our demand for labor without immigration but that someone is coordinating it. Further, I don't think it has any meaning without the part that says it is being done to weaken the country, which you would have to show that not only would it weaken the country, but that is the intention of these coordinators.
Without that, you just have a demographic argument. If "Whites" do not have many children, and the population would otherwise shrink as a whole, while immigration is needed to satisfy demand for labor, then their proportion will shrink, but it is not "great replacement" without it being intentional/directed.
It is what I consider steelmanning.
Not of the conspiracy itself (I'm not interested in that, since the literal version isn't even well agreed upon by most of its believers) but of the observable pressures that make the conspiracy attractive.
I think I could convince an average believer in the great replacement theory (who would be a casual believer that doesn't know many of the specific details you've listed at length of the "official" version) that my restatement of the issue is what they're actually concerned about. In fact, I have had productive conversations with right wingers who express such a casual belief in this theory by telling them what I've written here in the comment you're replying to.
>So instead the US uses immigration to fill the gap left by declining fertility rates
Because that is working so good for Europe? At some point you need to understand that replacing a population is not the solution for low fertility population.
I think we agree, but in case I wasn't clear I will restate this more plainly: patching over the problem of fertility with immigration is toxic to the social fabric of a nation.
If anyone reads this and think it's not the fault of the politicians, or at least the boomers for "not wanting to help their children/grandchildren", it's pretty clear that their goal wasn't to solve the fertility crisis.
On top of that I don't even think most boomers need to be inconvininced. Increase capital taxes, remove the ceiling for SS taxes, give wokers a 4 day workweek, raise minimum wage, invest in 3rd places. A few steps give people the time and energy to meet and make families.
But it seems like we really will just go to civil war before we make sure rich people contribute to the nation.
I disagree that the measures you're suggesting will move the needle on fertility, since they will be enjoyed by singles, dinks, and families alike.
If you want more children you have to reward mothers directly and significantly in line with their potential earnings. Not a paltry few thousand dollars, but more than enough to offset the price of daycare in hcol cities. I want to mimic social security but for families, and that means concentrated benefits (that directly incentivize voting turnout and interest group formation).
At the same time I want our country to continue to be competitive globally when it comes to business, and not turn into whatever Europe has become. We can't just add this as a line item to our budget. We are not that rich and we have financial problems that are looming.
If a Baptist tells me I’m sinning because I smoke and drink whiskey, I don’t hate him, I just dismiss him. If Charlie Kirk said a male cannot be a woman, then the response was hate and was felt to be completely justified.
The hate mongering is from those who bow down to the zeitgeist of the age.
My hope is that Charlie Kirk bravely speaking the truth in the face of so much hate, even though it cost him his life, inspires many more to not fear for their lives to speak the truth, and raise their kids to be the same, until society turns and rejects what is false.
I've never heard of the "steelman" thought experiment
I'm familiar with the "strawman" concept that it derives from, although in my experience this is typically presented as a logical fallacy.
What is the purpose of "steelmanning" a political actor's political perspectives?
What is this supposed to achieve?
Where did you and the people responding to this comment hear about this concept? Are there articles out there making the case for "steelmanning"?
It's just that a lot of people argue badly, either because of lacking skill or lacking goodwill.
That doesn't mean their arguments are necessarily wrong. It is necessary to try to reframe such badly made arguments in a way that presents the message properly in order to be able to actually compare competing ideas and find truth.
If you compare one well-crafted argument to a poorly crafted argument, the well-crafted argument would seem to come out on top even if its underlying ideas were actually wrong.
E.g. if I say "Apples are good because my grandma loved apples and you are stupid!"
And my opponent says "Apples are bad because there are other fruits that can be grown much more efficiently and feed people better"
Then my opponent would probably "win" the argument. But that doesn't mean apples are actually bad. Try to remake the argument for why apples are good in a better way, in order to fairly compare the two sides and find the truth.
I've seen this jargon around and use it myself but now that you ask I'm not sure where I first saw it.
tl;dr - good faith requires you to understand and do your best to represent the other side, not cherry pick sneaky "wins"
When I use the term my intent is to frame the opposing argument as strongly and clearly (and fairly!) as possible so that you can make your own point strongly and fairly. The critique of a "strawman argument" is a metaphor about arguing/fighting a training dummy instead of an actual enemy, usually by addressing only part of an argument or by ignoring context or using logical fallacies like motte and baily or false dichotomies. The idea is that it's very easy to look like your point wins when you fight the scarecrow; if it's actually a good argument face it off against the knight in armor actually fighting back.
I use steelmanning to connect across cultural divides. This way I don't end up writing off half the country as deplorables. If I simply wrote them off in this way it would be contributing to the decay of our social fabric. So instead I intend to mend the social fabric by attempting to understand the emotional place that these deplorable ideas come from, which by themselves are often quite reasonable. Isolation is often how people end up with these ideas, so it's important to connect to them, and ultimately to love them.
That goes for both sides of our political system, and beyond to the rural urban divide, the gender divide, the racial divide, the class divide, etc.
I think I found out about by reading rationalist stuff. E.g. Less wrong and slatestarcodex.
See for example: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/youre-probably-wonderi...
before "how" the question is "why" would you steelman his position? should you?
> what a debate looks like
Debates take all forms, and Charlie's form was just as valid as yours or anyone else's. Gatekeeping is falling out of fashion, just sayin...
That is simply not true.
I think that's the point.
The kind of individual who shoots someone for saying things he doesn't like is a narcissist.
Ideas anger narcissists because if they are counter to what they already believe, they are a personal affront, and if they cannot reason the challenge away because - quite simply, they're wrong and the other person is right - it creates a great anger in them.
And narcissism is prevailing in our culture currently. People far prefer to call the other side bad, stupid, etc, rather than introspect and consider that maybe you're not that smart, and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness.
The problem of course is that the only way opposing narcissists can overcome each other is by force. So there'll be less argument, and more go-straight-to violence.
>and maybe you don't know everything, and maybe what you believe is actually naive and just a manifestation of your sillyness.
I have coworkers lying low so they don't get deported from the country. And many were born here. I beyond exhausted of this "both sides" narrative as if I need any introspection on the prospect of "maybe we should exile people based on skin color".
If here is the US and they were born here, they are citizens, no? Why would they be worried about deportation?
Can you explain your argument further? I don't think it makes much sense, and I think you would struggle to find actual sources blaming narcissism outside your own conjecture.
A world where pugilism prevails over debate would look markedly different. I doubt Kirk would bother holding events if any of what you said was fundamentally true about politics.
> Still, he talked to folks about ideas, and that's something that we should have more of.
no he didn't, and this is absolutely self-evident, he trolled and victim-blamed and had no interest in talking to anyone about any kind of idea
In light of the top post by "dang", I'd like to apologize for my own comments. Forgive me brothers and sisters, I was obviously on edge.
In particular I'd like to apologize to one individual whom I insinuated was posting rage-bait.
To close, this is a tragic time in America. Each act of violence is one act too many.
I'm glad to see people following their instinct to de-escalate. Kudos.
Good on you for owning that.
There are a number of outspoken people on the other end of the political spectrum from me, that I vehemently disagree with. While I would love to see their words either ignored or condemned by the masses; I have no desire to see them killed or harmed in any way.
I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Either committing or supporting violence against those we disagree with, has no place in a civil society.
> I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way.
Agreed. Sadly the leader of one side openly and repeatedly calls for violence against anyone who disrupts his speeches [0]. The former leader of the other side condemns political violence and even calls his opponent after an attack out of concern for his welfare. [1]
[0] https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/bide...
This is a really disingenuous and biased selection of sources. One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc.
Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard.
>One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics
Show me one example of any of those figures you listed inciting violence. I'm waiting. "inflammatory rhetoric" is not the same as saying "the Left is a national security problem"
Ok, since you are waiting, I'll spend a few minutes fetching you easily available quotes.
Obama:
- "If they bring a knife to the fight, we're going to bring a gun." [0]
Biden:
- "If we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him" [1]
- "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye." [2]
- the whole "Darth Biden" event speech was filled with statements framing political opponents as enemies of the country, kinda sinister from the head of the most powerful state in the world, no? ("Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.", etc) [3]
Waltz:
- "When it’s an adult like Donald Trump, you bully the shit out of him back." [4]
- "I tell you that... because we need to whip his butt and put this guy behind us." [5]
Newsome:
- "But right now, with all due respect, we’re walking down a damn different path. We’re fighting fire with fire. And we’re gonna punch these sons of bitches in the mouth." [6] (apologies for the Twitter link, didn't find direct video elsewhere)
Would that be enough?
[0]: https://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/obama-guns-and-the-untouch...
[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/21/politics/Joe-biden-donald...
[2]: https://nypost.com/2024/07/15/us-news/biden-defends-bullseye...
[3]: https://www.newsweek.com/read-everything-joe-biden-said-his-...
[4]: https://www.startribune.com/in-key-2028-state-tim-walz-says-...
[5]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/tim-walz-brea...
[6]: https://x.com/amuse/status/1958827049348407350
Those comments are in poor taste. Biden himself apologized after the attempt on Trump's life.
That said, these pale in comparison to Trump's many, many endorsements of or acceptance of violence. Even mocking an attack on Pelosi's husband. I've never heard Trump apologize for his words, actions, or inactions. He could not even be bothered to call the governor of a state whose elected representatives were attacked, saying even to speak would be a "waste of time". Only when one of his sycophants is harmed does he suddenly see a serious problem.
In fact Trump pardoned those who violently attacked national police as the attackers sought to disrupt the transfer of power. (Some of whom went on to rape and murder others.) The very people he urged to "fight like hell", and he endorsed by waiting to see whether they would succeed before changing his tune.
Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
Trump acts like a mob boss. Doing and saying whatever he wants, and punishing those who oppose him with whatever means he thinks he can get away with. Even boasting that his supporters would stand by him if he shot someone on a famous public street.
Sure, they are in poor taste. What is telling, however, is bias: Trump gets labelled as 'fascist' for saying 'fight like hell', but Waltz just gets a pass because for the exact same words, because that was just poor taste.
It is also telling that you weren't content with just stopping after the words 'disrupt the transfer of power', but felt necessary to add smear about rape and murder. I am not willing to even verify the veracity of this claim, and will just ask you this: how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right? Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support?
> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
No, they don't. They do, however, openly prosecute their political adversaries for fabricated crimes. It was quite characteristic that democrat-friendly talking heads spent months in late 2020-early 2021 how Trump is going to issue a presidential pardon for himself and his allies, and then Biden, four years later, did just that.
I am not Trump supporter. I'm just telling you that you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil. That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all!
> Trump gets labelled as 'fascist' for saying 'fight like hell', but Waltz just gets a pass because for the exact same words, because that was just poor taste.
Waltz should not speak that way. Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed. Waltz also doesn't express the desire to be a dictactor, plans to give police unlimited power, ask foreign governments to hack his opponents for his gain, shake down foreign leaders for dirt on his opponents and their families, or openly weaponize the DoJ / ICE / IRS to persecute anyone who opposed him.
>> Meanwhile Democrats prosecute their own for violence and corruption.
> No, they don't.
I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count?
> ...how many of those who took part in BLM riots were convicted for rape and murder crimes, likely quite a few, right?
Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder?
> Should we bring that in every conversation on every action supported by the politicians that you support?
If there is a discussion on political violence and how seriously leaders handle it, then I'd say the consequences of pardoning such actors is in scope.
> ...you are extremely biased and unwilling discuss politics in good faith: you just know what truth is and consider everyone who disagrees as being wrong or stupid or evil.
If there is a disagreement, then thinking the other person may be wrong is common, no? I don't presume every disagreement is because of stupidity or evil. Though I do believe evil exists (not in any spiritual sense), and that evil is more manifest in some actions than others. Assassination is quite evil for example. I try not to hold any beliefs too strongly, since I've been very wrong in the past.
> That is exactly kind of mindset and rhetoric that inspired someone to kill Kirk. He was such a bad fascist, after all!
You know what inspired Kirk's killer? Perhaps you should inform the FBI. I'll wait for the facts because it's not clear to me what motivated this attacker. It's just as likely he played a lot of Helldivers, surfed 4chan, and thought Kirk wasn't far enough to the right.
That said, rhetoric like mine is far less likely to inspire violence than say a "Professor Watchlist" which--in practice--functions something like a who-to-harrass-or-kill list.
Yead, the bias immediately kicks in:
> Perhaps he is given more grace since his words didn't incite an insurrection which he watched closely and refused to intervene for hours in the hope it would succeed.
Yeah, tweeting non-stop urges for protesters to stay peaceful. It is a certain kind of delusion to think that this 'riot' was at attempt to overthrow the state. Of course, Democrat propaganda bent over themselves to present it that way, but anyone with critical thinking understands, that even if Capitol was taken over by the unarmed protesters, then what? Oh, Senate would capitulate and declare Trump God Emperor? Please.
If we stop talking about fabricated mythology of a horribre horrible coup attempt, and look at reality, Jan 6 riot was a relatively peaceful affair, far more peaceful than BLM protests from the previous summer. I happened to watch it all live, on youtube, as it happened, it culminated in QAnon shaman strolling down the halls saying 'God bless you' to every security guard who were just standing there and doing nothing.
It is no wonder that all these livestreams were promptly scrubbed off all social media afterwards, because if anyone would watch it, as it happened, the narrative of a coup would just fall apart.
> I guess the prosecutions of Quintez Brown, Robert Menendez, and Eric Adams don't count?
I don't know who are the first two, but Eric Adams is a name I know, and from what I understand he mas prosecuted after he broke ranks with the Dems on the migration issue.
So yeah, they prosecute insignificant pawns and those who broke rank, and they also fabricate criminal cases against their chief political opponents, trying to deny him the right to be a candidate in presidential elections. However, these attempts were found unconvincing by the supreme jury - people of the US, whe majority of whom voted to re-elect Trump as president.
> Did Biden pardon BLM protesters who then went on to rape and murder?
Why would he need to pardon people who were neither prosecuted nor convicted?
You would struggle to find a single example for any of those. Find two inflammatory quotes for each.
There hasn’t been a day in the last decade that Trump wasn’t making the news for a new insanely inflammatory remark—including in the last 48 hours. To help you remember when that was: that’s when he called for War on an American city, using the visual language of Apocalypse Now, a movie about war crimes. That was in the same breath as his new “Secretary of War” detailing that war would be violent, pro-active and excessive. This is true for almost everyone in his cabinet: daily dehumanizing remarks, threats, calls to attack.
One vs. many thousands: There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.
You want to prove me wrong? Give me one date, a single date in the last ten years and if I can’t find Trump publicly insulting to someone that day, I’ll concede.
The only examples of call to violence you can find are people quoting Trump and his enablers, or mocking their style. Those horrible things you read? Those insanely callous dismissal of Charlie Kirk, victim of gun violence? Those are quotes of Charlie Kirk, reacting to mass shootings.
You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.
See in another branch. However, regarding this:
> There are three to four orders of magnitude of difference in how inflammatory each side is.
Not really.
One can only agree with this statement if he considers that calling Trump and his supporters Nazis, fascists, racists, etc, is not an inflammatory rhetoric, but a totally acceptable objective truth that just truthfully describes them. (Btw, do Nazis deserve to be shot on sight?)
However, if one doesn't consider this an objective truth, but a violent dehumanizing rhetorics, then suddenly he finds that one side routinely smears the other in the worst ways possible, and that the total amount of such rhetoric vastly drowns the messaging from another side.
> You are wagging your finger and scream "Here’s a monster!" but what you are looking at is a mirror.
That's a nice straw man you made. Please, refrain from messaging me again, if you don't plan to argue in good faith.
> One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics
Can you link some examples?
Sure, in another branch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45223772
you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this
And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then
[0] https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...
> it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history.
I'm not from the US, and do not have a horse in this fight, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama. The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
(btw, speaking from my non-US experience, when a leader is cuddled by the press, it is a bad sign, not a good one)
The press does not “cuddle”. Did the Kremlim cut the budget for English classes?
Of course, the press does cuddle its darlings. Compare any first-term Trump's press conference with Biden's press conference: a pack of wolves that screamed and shouted suddenly morphed into cute fawning puppies: "what kind of ice cream do you like, mr president?"
Regarding your accusation that I work for Kremlin, you should be ashamed of yourself to say such things to a person who was literally beaten by Putin's polizai for protesting his policies. In your simplistic mindset, anyone who has a differing opinion from you surely must be a paid troll working for evil people. It is very fitting that you exhibit this attitude in a discussion about a person who was killed for his views. Should I be shot, too? I surely have it coming, right?
The word you are looking for is coddle, not cuddle. You cuddle a pet or a spouse. You coddle your favorite politician with preferential coverage.
Good on you for protesting his policies. But maybe don’t spread his propaganda for free? I never celebrated, excused or wished death on anyone. Shame on you for implying that.
No, thank you, but the word I needed was something that would describe a warm, loving embrace, like when you take a pet in your arms and caress it (I even pushed this metaphor further in the next comment, about loving puppies), and I believe that "cuddle" is the exact word for that.
I guarantee you no native speaker would ever use the word cuddle like you did. That is why it was so jarring to read.
Well, it is indeed jarring when supposedly objectively and truth seeking journalists suddenly turn into adoring fans, so maybe my metaphor works on more than one level.
>I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of people in the US who believe that the most inflammatory and divisive leader America had in modern history was Obama.
You want to know why a lot of those people, who are reactionary by nature, thought Obama was so divisive?
It's because they couldn't stomach being led by someone who wasn't white.
>The main difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump is teared apart by the media, while Obama was cuddled by it.
You'll notice that Obama was roundly (and rightfully) criticized by the left for his actual policies, and was criticized by the right for his skin color. For those who focus on policy ramifications, Obama was repeatedly critiqued. The problem is the right wing media machine couldn't outright drop a hard -er or call him "boy", so they had to use emotional cues to insult him personally. Forget about actual policy, especially because his signature policy, the Affordable Care Act, was copied verbatim from enacted GOP legislation.
> One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc.
Damn, sounds like more terrible people who encourage violence then, wish they didn't encourage it either, kinda sounds like a problem America and its politics has in general.
Throwing tomatoes.
> I have no desire to see them killed or harmed in any way.
As long as you understand that this opinion is wholeheartedly NOT shared by them at all.
Not wanting to see people murdered for their opinions is a belief that can coexist with knowing the other side might want to kill me for mine.
I don’t think people want to murder for opinions, but rather the actions they take because of this opinions.
77% of Republicans believe it is always unacceptable to feel joy at the death of someone they oppose, while only 38% of Democrats share this view (YouGov)
The difference is, while those 77% will say that, they will unilaterally rally behind the party leader that does the opposite.
Actually, I think this opinion IS shared by most of the people on the other side. (Notice that I didn't mention which side I am on. I don't think it really matters.) But, to be sure, SOME of them feel differently.
The GOP and its entourage actively cheered on the Hortmans getting assasinated in their home by a republican guy disguised as a cop [1]. Trump was golfing during their funrerals and used the occasion to dunk on Tim Walz to the press. He didn't order that flags should be at half mast as he did for Charlie Kirk, depsite him not being a lawmaker. They also turned the attack on Paul Pelosi into a running gag [2], which lasted for years. There is no question as to which side of the political spectrum is normalizing and encouraging political violence, and I wish people scould stop with this very misplaced bothsideism.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Misinfor...
Yeah, even cold, spineless Claude thinks one side / person is the most responsible for political violence https://claude.ai/share/46db846e-e701-4d79-8b28-9133cbfd4f73
It is wild that I completely forgot about the fire that endangered Shapiro and his family this year. Just to me, shows how crazy this year has been with events.
Why would Claude be an authority in this subject?
The number of people I’ve seen basically condoning this act is sickening. This guy had views I 100% disagree with, and wish did not have a platform to espouse them.
But his children no longer have a dad in their life. That is just heartbreaking to me. It’s hard for me to understand people who are so wrapped up in political rhetoric that they think taking a person’s life is acceptable.
There is an astute comment floating around here that describes the tendency for human psychology to absorb information first through the limbic/emotional center first before the logical part. It is unsurprising to see horrible reactions after tragedies through social media. Living too close to the edge of the present brings out the worst in people. My faith in humanity hopes that many of these people will reconsider and regret some of the things they say and post.
Similar sentiments here. I can't find much common ground with Charlie Kirk but that doesn't merit an assassination. Unfortunate all around, and a situation not too dissimilar from the Mangione case (in the context of what happened, not necessarily why).
That said, while I don't condone it I can't say I'm surprised by it. It seems stoking divisions is a large part of the modern media landscape and all it takes is one person with the motive and the means.
When I see sentiment like "we need to shut down every Left institution" from political figures in reaction to this, all while we have not as of now even caught the shooter: I can't really blame them.
I don't care about Kirk or his family, they can take care of themselves. I'd like this country to no self destruct in this glee for wanting to start another Civil War, though.
Honestly, these kind of sane comments are very rare to find. A lot of other social media platforms have basically become a breeding ground for the very kind of hate that causes one side to lash out at the other in such means.
Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7? If so, why even target the poor guy? What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit? Either way, I hope he makes it, even though it looks like it was a fatal blow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_Point_USA
> TPUSA has been described as the fastest growing organization of campus chapters in America, and according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, is the dominant force in campus conservatism.
They've been quite influential, and those campus efforts likely contributed to the Gen Z turnout that helped win in 2024.
I was doing Masters in the US from 2021-23 and do recall getting their emails to my University email.
> likely contributed to the Gen Z turnout that helped win in 2024
This is way over-estimated. There's a number of talking heads on the right that Gen Z listens to. For every Charlie Kirk, there's five others.
I'm not sure how, but you've misread "likely contributed to" as "is solely responsible for".
Im not american, but consume american media because you guys are the world leaders. But charlie had the number 1 youth conservative movement in the country , he is pretty influential
I would say both are true. Kirk had the number 1 youth conservative movement. But, even with that, he isn't as well known as some people think because very few of the youth are engaged in politics. Most of the people I know who know of him are the terminally online YouTube politics watchers. Which is not a large group. I would say the same would be said of whoever the most influential leftist young political thinker is, maybe Hasan. They are big in a circle, but its not really a that big of a circle.
I'm not American either
Neither am I!
I saw his videos occasionally on youtube/facebook. I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration most of the time, though I thought some of his other arguments on other topics were thought provoking at least, and I also thought it was cool that he always had an open mic for anyone that wanted to debate him. Seemed like he had an encyclopedic memory when it came to things like SCOTUS cases or historical events.
Charlie didn't debate so much as followed a script and steered you towards his gotcha questions to create content for his show.
He recently went to Cambridge Univ and debated a student who actual knew his routine. It didn't go well for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn0_2iACV-A
Instead of linking to a one-sided reframing of the debate, here's the actual debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mvIktYig9Y
It seems to be a healthy debate for both sides.
That's a link to Charlie's own post of the debate.
It seems to be a healthy debate to someone who doesn't know Charlie's logical fallacies and scripted style.
I watched the start of the debate, having never heard of Charlie before the shooting. His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on your career one.
> His position seemed fairly reasonable that women were happier with the get married and have kids model then the focus on you career one.
Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations. Some want to be doctors, nurses, chefs, electricians, plumbers, or artists. Saying that women should get married and raise lots of children denies those aspirations, and says to me that those who ascribe to that model have no consideration for women as human beings. Let women pursue their own definition of happiness rather than prescribing one for them.
I'm not saying it's correct but it didn't seem unreasonable to debate it. I guess you might be comparing 1950s America to modern America.
I'm not comparing anything to 1950s America. I am disagreeing with your assertion "His position seemed fairly reasonable ...". Kirk insinuated in the video that women in America would be happier if they had a belief in the divine and a lot of kids (which may correlate with beliefs from the 1950s, but that's besides the point) when he compared what women in America have to what women in sub-Saharan Africa have. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. (edited to fix a typo)
> Broad statements like that are just plain wrong and aren't reasonable. Saying women were happier with the get married and have kids model denies the fact that all humans have different aspirations.
No. They are right. When you survey people, most women are happier working for their children rather than their boss. Most women feeling that way doesn't preclude other women feeling differently. Not does it prescribing a definition of happiness for women that want to work for their boss.
Happiness is not a single metric you can use to determine what is best. The most rewarding lives are ones where you can sacrifice for something meaningful to you. Sacrificing to have a rewarding, independent life without children may not be the easiest life, but it’s definitely not an any way inferior to a “happier” one raising kids. Because of this, that statistic, even if accurate, doesn’t matter. And doesn’t suggest that anyone should go raise a family.
> Happiness is not a single metric you can use to determine what is best.
If you mean happiness is not the only metric, we're agreed.
> Sacrificing to have a rewarding, independent life without children ... is definitely not an any way inferior to a “happier” one raising kids.
In the way that it makes makes most people less happy, it is.
Aren't man also happier when they are married and have kids? So according to that logic also man should stop focusing on their career and instead get married and have kids.
Whether or not that may be statistically true, it's offensive for a man to tell a woman what they'll be happier doing with their life. Not your choice.
You can tell a man that he should work less and focus more on his family to become happier. And it would be a very inoffensive statement.
His position was idiotic in his broader philosophical framework because his economic stance is that the poor should struggle and the rich should reap the benefits of their investments. It literally isn't possible to have a 1950s style familial relationship given his economic stances.
That might be one account of that debate, but certainly many disagree with you and the video. I watched the original and I think he did well in the debate. You posting a video that is clearly against him is only evidence of your stance.
> I didn't really agree with his stances on immigration
I haven't heard him say anything about immigration in general, merely illegal immigration which (should be) the exception, and should be a matter of crime not a matter of 'pro or con'.
He had a few ideas:
See the “On Immigration” section.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...
At the moment he was shot, he was answering for questions about transgender shootings. If the timing was calculated, it could be a political message or very strong personal hatred in this context.
And his answer was bigoted. I'm paraphrasing, but I believe someone asked "do you know how many mass shooters are trans?" and he said "too many."
Didn't like the guy, but he was just a guy expressing a horrible opinion. Violence was not the answer.
“Too many” sounds like a valid answer for any question about the number of mass shooters. Remove “trans” from the question and it’s still a valid answer. Substitute in any other demographic, and it’s still a valid answer (assuming someone from that demographic has been a shooter). Even one mass shooting is too many.
It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer.
It's not a loaded question in itself, as much as a direct question to counter the anti-lgbtq propaganda that is being pushed. This question didn't start a narrative, it is asked to point out that an existing narrative is intentionally misleading.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings...
>Even one mass shooting is too many.
This is a misrepresentation of the exchange. "Do you know how many are trans" "Too many" doesn't imply that there would be fewer mass shooting, it implies that the situation would be better if the same amount of mass shootings were happening, but the identities of the shooters would be different.
It doesn't imply either. You are being too uncharitable with your interpretation.
It's not an uncharitable interpretation, but a literal one. Even then, I can see a world where we could let it go, because people sometimes just misspeak, public setting or not.
But in this current case, the speaker's political background fits the interpretation perfectly, so I don't think that we need to explain it away.
It is most certainly not the literal interpretation.
I agree, I misspoke. It's not the literal interpretation, it's the interpretation of what was being said, in the context of the speaker.
If you've every watched any of those person's footage, you'd know that there is no room for charitable interpretation.
Put another way, if he was a HN member he was definitely be banned.
> If you've every watched any of those person's footage
Yes, that's exactly your problem. You built an image in your mind, and you interpret according to that image. If you built your image the same way you interpret this reply, well...
> was definitely be banned
HN banhammer has its own biases.
They said they watched him speak. The image they built must be made of that footage then, no? How much closer do you want people to get to the source?
You don't. You don't bias interpretation like that at all.
With politics, if you after the truth, you have to consider context. Coded / indirect speech is common, and it's also common to say an acceptable thing, while meaning an entirely different thing, aka dogwhistling (like "family values").
Don't you think this approach might be the reason for the extreme polarization of the politics in US? If one side demonizes the other based on "considering context".
I don't. What would be the alternative, believe the face value outright? That's not just a bad approach to politics, where everything is about controlling narratives, but a bad life advice in general. Or do I misunderstand what you mean?
> It sounds like more of a loaded question than a problematic answer.
I honestly don’t know what the actual factual answer to the question is. 1? 2? But the question warranted an answer, even if it was “I don’t know.” Given that the answer to many questions about mass shooting, specific or otherwise, is “too many,” the answer he gave offered no factual data. Maybe he was prepared to offer something more fact-based and nuanced. But to me the answer he gave comes off as dismissive, lacking in additional data, and possibly ideologically-motivated.
I imagine the question was posed because many in the community adjacent to Kirk are looking for an excuse to see trans people further isolated and stripped of their rights. Forcing the debate - if we can call it that - into the world of facts doesn’t seem problematic to me.
It might be a valid answer if he had not previously explicitly said that several deaths is not too many, the opposite of what you're implying he meant.
> "I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
"Too many" is kind of a hilarious answer. It implies that there's a good or right mix of demographics for mass shooters, and, to Charlie, that mix should include fewer trans people. "Mass shooters should be cisgendered!" is a logical reframe of his position and it's just, like … what are you even saying?
I like this interpretation. The right is saying that being trans is a mental illness removing their right to bear arms. But what if they're simply saying that being trans should remove your right to be a mass shooter? That the right to be a mass shooter should be something that is reserved solely for cisgendered individuals?
I don't understand, you think there aren't enough trans shooters? Just the right amount!? Am I making the same mistake as you?
He was just made fun of on the new season on South Park, if you consider that to be influential.
I thought he took it in good sport. They didn't exactly hold back on him.
Given that and the fact that we're in the middle of a new South Park season, a show known for its last-minute incorporation of real-world news into storylines, it will be interesting to see how the show handles this tragic development.
They have moved to a 2-week cadence for the season. Next episode should be a week from today which does give them plenty of time to incorporate this development.
As a non-American, non-Twitter user, this was how I heard about him.
You are wrong. As well as organizing a large conservative movement on college campuses, he organized a large chunk of financing for the January 6 2021 riots in DC, north of $1m. This report outlines the financial infrastructure, you'd have to delve into the investigative commission documents for testimony about how he raised the money, I can't remember the name of his wealthy benefactor offhand.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/...
Also an enthusiastic proponent of military force (against other Americans)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/charlie-kirk-calls-full-...
>why even target the poor guy
There are plenty of dangerous mentally ill people out there who don't use any type of logic or reason as a basis for their decision-making.
Interesting to see someone whose decision making is so disordered that they manage to carry out a shot from 200 meters and then disappear. That looks more like a carefully planned crime than madness.
I keep seeing this. Why do people keep making the point that if you can make an accurate shot from 200 yards with a rifle that makes you a sane person?
We're mixing sanity with belligerency. Someone in the heat of passion doesn't plan out a 200m shot, alongside an escape route.
I think that's the mixup. You can be insane but still perform some very calculated plots.
People generally use really crude (and incorrect) heuristics when judging others. "He was a family man/good christian/nice to me at work/etc, I don't know how he could have murdered his family!" Mental illness gets it even worse b/c most people don't have any good framework for understanding it.
200 meters isn't that far of a shot if you are familiar with shooting or a hunter. I regularly take down deer at 200-300 yards.
The shooter is also in custody already and captured thankfully.
There are still conflicting reports about whether the shooter is in custody.
The first person of interest was detained, but released.
FBI director says a suspect is in custody. That governor says a person of interest is in custody. Local police say the shooter is still at large. This is what Reuters was reporting as of 1 hour ago.
second suspect also released...
Just saw that. LE gotta be going wild atm.
Oswald was 300 yards away.
Not very relevant unless Kirk was also inside a moving car
Mental illness does not imply the lack of any ability to plan things out.
That they didn't account for drop and hit the neck shows that they weren't in fact very competent.
[flagged]
I don’t know why this is downvoted. It’s not incorrect. I posit that everyone who’s willing to kill someone in cold blood is at least a little off their rocker.
It’s interesting that you used a vague term, not a DSM term.
Also, I would argue that it has more to do with mental framing than “being crazy”. Police and military leadership hire selectively and craft training to ensure that people aren’t mentally ill and still willing to kill.
Right. I think if you decide to kill someone you are, by definition, a nutcase.
That stance would make every police station, military base, and legislature madhouses. Heck, we could expand that a step further, and declare everyone who voted for those politicians mad.
People decide to kill people all the time. People order others to kill people all the time. People advocate for others to order yet others to kill people all the time. Some violence is legitimate. Some violence is justified. Plenty of violence is neither. But to ignore the violence of the state as sanctified, while condemning all violence against it as madness results in an alarming ethical framework with abhorrent conclusions.
There are also lots of Republicans and right wing media figures who wrongly identified Democrats as “at war with the right.
Mental illness isn’t the only explanation. When people are indoctrinated into stupidity and no longer believe in truth or reality, it’s possible to convince them to both believe “I support police / military” while attacking police officers (several of the worst offenders of Jan 6).
Perceived desperation is a better explainer than some generic mental illness.
He ran a very large conservative organization that operates on college campuses across the country. He's definitely an influential figure.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
I think a difficulty in searching for such answers is assuming that it was a well reasoned decision. I'm not sure how often attempting to take a life is a purely rational decision, devoid of intense emotional motivations (hatred, self-preservation, fear, revenge, etc.). And that's all assuming the assailant was of somewhat sound mind.
I think one of the dangers of more and more extreme divisions in society is that those divisions cloud our mental processes, threaten our emotional health, and take away opportunities for meaningful civil discourse. All of which can lead to more heinous acts that we struggle to make sense of. One of the scariest parts for me is that this can all be too self reinforcing ("Their side did this bad thing to our side, let's get them back!!!" repeat/escalate...). How do we break the cycle?
In naive political terms he wasn't all that important but I think two points in response to that:
1. He was influential in a influential circle of people who roughly speaking drive what gets discussed and shown to a wider audience. In a favourite-band's favourite-band sense. His jubilee video just recently got 31 million views on youtube and probably a billion more on tiktok and reels.
2. If he wasn't killed by some nut who thought the flying spaghetti monster told him to do it then this is a really clear example of online politics and discourse jumping violently into the physical world. That's a real vibe shift if I have it right that it's basically the first assassination of that kind.
It wouldn't shock me at all if the driving topic here was actually gaza rather than domestic politics.
Charlie Kirk never really presented him this way but he was the founder & head of one of the largest think-tanks that is up there with Heritage Foundation. TPUSA was responsible for translating conservative values to Gen-Z/YA who were an all-but-forgotten demographic by mainstream GOP.
He was a cofounder, along with Bill Montgomery, an octogenarian Tea Party Republican.
Kirk was the young face who brought lots of energy, but he was well funded by old Republicans (incl. Foster Friess).
He drew a massive college crowd and was shot at that event. That's your answer.
His assassination is making the front page across the world. I'd call that influental.
Arguably this is because of the reactions of Republicans, gaslighting us about CK’s actual beliefs, turning the temperature up (blaming Democrats, “this is war”, calling Democrats terrorists, likening it to the Reichstag Fire, and a Republican Congressman declaring that anyone making light of it should be cancelled permanently from social media / government / society).
I would argue CK was somewhat influential among getting lots of young Christians to vote for Trump, who clearly doesn’t live Christian beliefs, but the shooting is being catastrophized for political value.
As a practical question: it would be useful to have a transcript of his final speech, on a page without any graphic images of his death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
We don't know yet, but we can infer these possible changes "the person who shot him [was] hoping to elicit":
- stop an effective communicator from further moving the needle of public opinion in his side's favor
- intimidate other effective communicators with similar views
- intimidate other future possible effective communicators with similar views
- cause more violence (some people love chaos and violence)
The Economist did a briefing on him in July which explains his increasingly large influence pretty well.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/07/18/charlie-k...
Almost all politicians have tweeted about him now. There’s no way he’s not influential.
I think he was more influential to the younger generation. I saw Gavin Newsom interview Kirk, and Newsom opened by saying his son followed Kirk to a certain extent.
I think you're out-of-touch. It felt like he was the single most popular non-politician non-podcaster political commentator on social media for Americans under 30, and I'm not even in the target demographic that he's popular with.
>non-podcaster
He had a podcast.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-charlie-kirk-show/...
Well who doesn't? I mean he didn't become famous because of his podcast.
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
Yes, you're wrong there (no offense). He's quite popular beyond X (formerly Twitter), particularly amongst the young (~20s) conservative movements. For example, he has almost 4 million subscribers on YouTube and similar on TikTok.
I'd say X isn't even his most popular platform. He's much more popular on video platforms, due to his open campus debates.
I attended one of Charlie's debates this past year and they pretty much let anyone walk up to the mic. It wasn't scripted or censored, that I saw.
He was also very good at superficially solid rebuttals and responses that were hard to counter without providing a short course on the history and context of the issue at hand. I never thought of him as a "good" debater and I vehemently disagree with his public views, but he was very effective in the media and event situations he operated in.
Agreed and well said. I also disagreed with a lot of his views. But, at the same time when I started watching his content, I realized his detractors overstretched the truth about a lot of what he said. Not all of it, but a lot of it.
The South Park version of him put it well:
> Mom, you don’t understand. I’m getting really good at this. I have my arguments down rock solid. These young college girls are totally unprepared, so I can just destroy them and also edit out all the ones that actually argue back well. It just feels so good.
I think that there's great insight in your observation.
To me what's been going on is a shakedown run of the new mediums and how they exploit cognitive defects and lack of exposure in audiences.
In a total Marshall McLuhan "The Medium is the Message" kind of way some people like Shapiro, Trump, and Kirk just naturally groove in certain mediums and are able to play them like Ray Charles plays the piano.
And because society doesn't have any sort of natural exposure to this they're able to gain massive audiences and use that influence for nefarious purposes.
I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is though.
On the one had I think that there is going to be a natural feedback mechanism that puts keeps their population in check (which is basically what we just saw today) but that isn't the most desireable outcome.
its scripted in terms of that he had a script that he would run.
that cambridge woman had prepared for exactly what he would say in the same order than he said it and what order he would change topics in. he practiced his script a ton, even if the other person with a mic wasnt on a scrip
I think his clips were consistently viral on platforms like Tiktok, YouTube shorts, Instagram reels, etc., both by those who agreed with him and those who were doing reaction videos against him.
>> Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7
That is a lot of people
Not really, but they tend to be influential.
He gave an invited speech at the Republican National Convention on its first night, and is credited with helping Trump get elected. “Very influential” might even be an understatement.
The problem is that that kind of influence often goes under the radar for people outside the circles in question, because influence is no longer mediated as centrally as it used to be, it’s more targeted and siloed. That’s a big part of how the current political situation in the US arose.
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
Yes, you are wrong, he was the leader of the most powerful campus conservative movement group in the country, was an extremely prominent figure in right-wing media, to the point where he is a central figure in pop culture images of the right, and a central target for being too soft of organizing figures for even farthe-right groups.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
Motives for assassinations (attempted or actual) of politicial figures are often incoherent. Political assassins aren’t always (or even often) strategic actors with a clear, rationally designed programs.
He’s a martyr now.
Over the next short while, he might be. Let's see.
He is now.
Yes, you're wrong. He was very influential and a leader of the youthful conservative movement in our country. TPUSA is extremely popular. This was an abhorrent, horrifyingly public assassination of a very popular figure -- one who has been honestly quite milquetoast in terms of conservative ideology compared to other well-known figures. He wasn't even running for political office, he simply encouraged political participation, open debate, and the free exchange of ideas in a public forum. He grew TPUSA into a bastion of grassroots revitalization in community-first politics. Truly truly sickening.
> one who has been honestly quite milquetoast in terms of conservative ideology compared to other well-known figures.
That says a lot more about those "other well-known figures" than it does about him and his already extreme ideology
Dude, if you followed his teachings you wouldn’t feel this way… "I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up. new age term, and it does a lot of damage.” - Charlie Kirk
Dude, that quote is out of context. He said he prefers "sympathy" to "empathy" and went on to call out those who push selective empathy when it suits their political agenda. He was right.
In my country Australia, there's a backlash on self-destructive "empathy" decisions in criminal courts. Violent repeat offenders are granted bail or short sentences for violent crime, why? Because the judge empathises with their traumatised upbringing, for example when they come from a war-torn country. This pattern of "justice" has spiked crime rates including violent home invasions and stabbings.
Twitter has an estimated monthly active users in excess of the population of the United States by nearly a factor of two.
Even if we assume those numbers are inflated, that's quite a bit of influence if someone is influential only on Twitter.
He's being martyred on purpose. I wonder what people both sides-ing it on HN would do in the 1940s....
> Am I wrong in thinking this guy isn't/wasn't a very influential person, outside of Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7?
I’d heard of him-I’ve lived my whole life in Australia, and although I have a Twitter/X account, I almost never use it, and that’s not a new thing, I dabbled with it but never committed.
Do most Australians know who he was? I don’t have any hard data, but my “No” to that is very confident. But I remember briefly discussing him (in person) with one of my old friends from high school, who is deep into right-wing politics (he’s a member of Australia’s One Nation party, which a lot of people would label “far right”, yet mainstream enough to have a small number of seats in Parliament)
As a comparatively politically aware Australian, I had absolutely no idea who he is/was, but then I don't have any Twitter or general social media presence or consumption.
My (limited) knowledge of him was mainly from reading the traditional US media, not from social media… I swear I’d read some article about him in the NY Times or the Atlantic or something like that. My brain files him next to Ben Shapiro
> I had absolutely no idea who he is/was
Me too! I follow politics, elections, and world affairs very closely, but I am embarrassed to admit - I had no idea who he was. Although I had heard about 'Turning Point USA'.
My wife had no idea who he was when I said his name… but when she saw a photo, she remembered him from videos which appeared on her Facebook feed in which he argues about abortion and transgender issues. She is Facebook friends with a lot of right-wing Americans, she doesn’t share their politics, but they connected due to a shared interest in Farmville
One Nation voter checking in.
Been following Charlie Kirk for two or three years now.
The shooting is front and centre on the ABC news website.
Benjamin Netayahu and Trump tweeted support for Kirk within half an hour of the shooting.
> If so, why even target the poor guy?
Crazy people murder all the time, hell he probably did it for a girl. See the movie Taxi Driver.
Why do so many school shootings happen in the US? Often its simply that people who should never have access to lethal firearms are able to get them easily.
Paranoid time: Target him because he's notable for being willing to actually talk to the other side. Without people like him, all we have is people on both sides yelling at each other as hard as they can.
Why would someone target him? If they want more division. Maybe even if they want a civil war.
Who would want that? Maybe someone in government who wants disorder as an excuse to impose order by force. Maybe someone in Russia who wants a world order not let by America.
even if he s not that famous outside US, he might be targeted to send a message
He was the public face of Turning Point USA, a political organization that focused on getting more youth in the USA to turn conservative / Republican, to vote, and to adopt a more conservative culture. By “public face”, I mean he was 17 when he cofounded it with an octogenarian and a billionaire funder.
I think he and the org were active on Twitter, but they were MUCH more active on YouTube, and short form video (Instagram, TikTok).
It’s not even clear we know who the shooter is (still conflicting reports about whether the suspect has been arrested, let alone a confirmed identity). Too soon to know what the motive is.
You probably target the ones you have a chance of getting at? Trying to do this to Trump would theoretically be preferable to the shooter, but a great deal harder.
I'd never heard of him and now I hear flags across the US will be at-half mast. He's was a billionaire-sponsored influencer if I understand it correctly?
Correct
Yes, I'd say you are wrong. If you look at a lot of the clips of the right wing folks giving some of their most right wing comments, the stage they are on will have the Turning Point logos on them. So if not him specifically, his organization is very influential.
Like most of us, you're living in your own media bubble.
I first heard about him in around 2016, shortly after Trump was elected the first time. I'm pretty chronically online, but I was never very active on Twitter and I was still pretty aware of him. I've always found him pretty insufferable, though not as bad as Nick Feuntes or Steven Crowder.
My dude, the article in the Washington Post starts out with…
“Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, died Wednesday after being shot at an event at Utah Valley University, President Donald Trump said.”
He influenced the US President, that seems pretty influential to me. Anecdotally, my kid in high school surprised me by knowing quite a lot about them.
What do you think how Trump and his administration will react.
What if that is purpose?
Twitter and the terminally online need to touch grass and overemphasize things that the real world doesn’t care about, but, to an approximation, it is the vanguard and real world talking points, political trends, etc, are all downstream from there. So yes, someone very influential with the Twitter crowd is influential.
He was literally influential for touching grass on college campuses across the country, peacefully engaging in open discussions with people who disagreed with him.
He hand picked many of the Trump admin cabinet. He absolutely wielded power
Southpark made fun of him in a recent episode. Heard the name assumed he was a yet another alt right influencer podcaster.
Conservative, but definitely not alt-right. Kirk was a strong supporter of Jews and Israel, which put him at odds with the antisemitic alt-right.
Kirk regularly spoke out against antisemitism on both the left and right. So much so, in fact, Israeli Prime Minister tweeted[0] his condolences, praising Kirk as a strong, positive force for Jewish and Christian values.
[0]: https://x.com/netanyahu/status/1965888327938158764
Yeah, he was a minor / outlying figure in the same sense that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was.
> What change was the person who shot him hoping to elicit?
This would be a relevant question in many nations, but it's a bit beside the point in the US. Violence is a deeply respected and loved core of the culture for its own sake. It's an end, not means. Nearly all the US's entertainment, culture and myths are built around a reverence for violence. Even political violence has been pretty much the norm through most of the US's history. Celebrated cases aside, there's been something of a lull since the mid 1970s, but if as now likely it increases again, this will be a boring old reversion to the US's norm.
pragmatically, you can't kill an idea with bullets. terrorism does one thing only: it triggers retaliation. nihilistic accelerationists who want a war can use terror to provoke one.
some of Charlie Kirk's last words:
> ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?
> KIRK: Too many. [Applause]
I don't think the shooter was trans. but I'm trans, and I don't see this going well for me, or for my community. the DoJ was already talking about classifying us as "mentally defective" to take our guns. now there's a martyr. the hornet's nest is kicked.
murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
I vehemently disagree with all that Kirk seemed to advocate for, but agree that this debate, not murder, is the solution.
That said, Kirk, in this exchange was not engaging in debate so much as theatrics. The question that was posed to him was intended to force him to acknowledge that being trans doesn’t seem to be associated with a unique propensity to engage in mass shootings. Instead, he responded in a way that was ideologically motivated. Quite a few people praised Kirk for engaging in debate, but if this is exemplary of his format, not bringing in facts, then I would call it more performative than debate.
Regardless, this is awful; and I hope the repercussions for the trans community aren’t dire.
Strong families, community centred around positive religious values, open debate.
Creating a society where women feel less inclined to have abortions.
You mean where woman are not allowed to have an abortion under any circumstance? Cause that is where you are headed at.
I was adopted. Maybe I should have been aborted.
Definitely would have paid less tax!
There is a lot of space between outlawing abortion and finding ways to help women choose not to abort their babies.
At the same time the POTUS calls for murder of a metnally ill man should have been in treatment instead of being at large.
murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
Depends what your objective is. If your goal is to accelerate political violence and set Americans at odds to an even greater degree than they already are, it's completely rational. I have no idea who did it; it could be domestic extremists, foreign actors, cynical strategists. It might be some isolated murderous person with a chip on their shoulder who totally hated Kirk, but that seems like the least likely possibility because of the fact that they've made a clean getaway - 12 hours with no CCTV imagery or even a good description is unusual for such a public event.
Genuine question.
2 Minnesota lawmakers shot in politically motivated killings, governor says (cbc.ca) 102 points by awnird 88 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments
What retaliation did this trigger?
that's a good point. honestly, very little. though the lawmakers almost certainly had a smaller, and less.. vigorous.. fanbase than Mr. Kirk. and it could be my bias, but I think the Right is more likely to react vigorously to assassinations than the Left.
You triple-posted this comment that "The Right cheered when 2 MN lawmakers were killed..." Literally the only thing the Right said was that the killer claimed Tim Walz paid him to kill them and someone else; how did y'all manage to hear about the Right's "celebrations" when y'all never leave your echo chambers?
> but I'm trans, and I don't see this going well for me, or for my community
A crackdown on trans people would be disastrous for the Rust community.
I don't know if I should be laughing or outraged. But I feel neither. I'm anxious. This is serious, guys! You're sitting on a powder keg.
S-tier dark humor. thank you, I needed the laugh.
As an outsider, how did trans people get dragged into the gun debate?! Did I miss a major mass shooting by a trans person? Was their gender relevant to the shooting?
Being transgender is not relevant to shootings, but there are voices that are trying to make that happen.
My opinion on why it gained traction: the group is already marginalized, is part of a larger, also marginalized group (lgbtq community), and shootings are unpopular, while guns are, so it benefits the speaker to connect the two. There are also narratives floating around that are in synergy with this connection, such as the tragic statistic that trans people have a very high suicide rate, and the false narrative that being transgender is a mental illness.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings...
The Annunciation Catholic Church shooting this past month was perpetrated by a trans person who targeted young children attending Mass.
Some shooters are transgender, some people try to paint it like transgender people are more likely than others to become shooters.
Fun fact, the percentage of transgender mass shooters is lower than the perecentage of transgender citizens.
> murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.
We heard what happened on July 13th, and even from this far, culturally and physically, we could see (and this is not to play down an attempt on someone's life) – ah, there goes that election.
How the impulsive acts of violence have changed the course of history too many times, how people in power, people looking to take power twist and use such events. We don't learn from all that history, do we?
Fear for retaliation from something like this is almost as if there’s a bigger problem we are not addressing here
I saw this post a day ago and upvoted; totally agree with your comment.
I too am trans.
Unfortunately, and you probably have already heard. ATF leaked that the rounds were etched with pro-trans messaging and the shooter is allegedly a trans man.
Assuming this all turns out to be true. This will lead to greater hatred; far more than before.
Hard to predict what will happen but let me give examples from history each time this has happened.
Christians were thrown to the lions in Ancient Rome.
Many times through history for the jews.
Muslims and crusader kings of spain.
Irish and chinese, the chinese exclusion act of 1882?
armenian ?genocide?
rwanda tutis.
We now have a situation where government must do something about the trans shooter issue. LAwfully they'd have to take each trans person to court to prove mental illness to ban them from 2nd amendment right. Technically... DSM5 is pretty clear about it...
> Unfortunately, and you probably have already heard. ATF leaked that the rounds were etched with pro-trans messaging and the shooter is allegedly a trans man.
fortunately, this was bogus! the "pro-trans messaging" was that the bullets were stamped with "TRN," which was the manufacturer's mark, and the shooter was a 22yo cis Mormon male.
Assassinations, opposed to terrorism, can cause more positive? political change.
The effect would be subtle, but following Peter Turchin's theory of elite overproduction, assassinations of union elites after the civil war supposedly blunted the effects of the reconstruction.
[flagged]
It looks like your account has been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. I'm not going to ban you for this right now because so many other accounts are doing that and worse in this thread, but I do want to let you know that it is a line at which we ban accounts - see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
The issue isn't just about one thread, it's about the overall pattern of using the site.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
OK. I will follow the rules.
To be a person that has a gender identity different from that typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender
Looking at recent events through a historical lens: the 1960s saw the assassinations of MLK, RFK, JFK, and Malcolm X during a wave of progressive change. Today’s assassination attempts and targeted violence seem to follow a similar pattern during periods of significant social and political shifts.
As RFK said after MLK’s death, we must choose between “violence and non-violence, between lawlessness and love.” His call for unity and rejecting hatred feels as urgent now as it was then.
Violence is never the answer. But understanding these tragic patterns might help us navigate our current moment with hopefully more empathy.
This is dangerous false equivalency. Charlie Kirk was not advocating for the rights of the downtrodden. He was a right wing provocateur, and he’s on the record saying that “some gun deaths are ok” in service of the 2nd amendment, and in making light of the nearly deadly political attack on the Pelosi family.
Political violence, especially deadly violence is not ok. But comparing Charlie Kirk to MLK is also not ok.
"Some gun deaths are okay" is saying the quiet part out loud, but it's not wrong. When you let a large group of people have access to something dangerous then some number of them will die and kill using the dangerous thing, whether the thing is cars or paracetamol or wingsuits or guns.
I say this as an Australian. We have a far more restrictive system of gun control than the US and yet we still see tens of gun deaths a year, because some gun deaths are okay even if we set the number a lot lower than the US does.
By my understanding he said that though unfortunate, gun deaths are sometimes a price to pay for the right to bear arms. Noting that less than half that gun killings in the US are committed by people that legally owned that gun.
And I have the sensation that all the ones we drive a car nowadays are engaging in a similar type of risk acceptance, we know there's too many people dead every year in car accidents, but we still believe that overall having access to cars outweighs the risks, without meaning that car accidents are acceptable and trying to improve the safety of the cars and roads meanwhile.
Kirk thought in a similar way that gun control and possession were definitely good for the US population and that gun deaths were still a price to pay for it.
BTW, gun possession is also legal in all EU countries. It just not considered a right, but a privilege. And this is accepted by most parties in EU, both left and right.
Was this one of the OK ones?
I'm not an American, I'm an Australian. Our gun deaths sit at 0.9 per 100000 people instead of 14 per 100000 and I approve of our gun laws. In that sense, I guess I'd say that roughly 6% of this gun death was okay.
In a broader sense, it is of course not okay to shoot someone, but that's taking the quote out of the context of gun control measures.
It isn't okay for anyone to die from gun violence, but if we're gonna have to expect people to be sacrificed on the altar of the gun nut lobby, then it makes the most sense that the gun nuts should be the ones to suffer the consequences of the policies they support. The tree of liberty and blood blah blah blah.
He means lets not disarm ourselves for evil. Not that evil is OK, but that some evil may occur due to not disarming.
I disagree with him on guns, but that is the point.
Evil is happening right now, the guns are freaking useless.
Yeah I don’t really get the 2A people who want guns to protect from a tyrannical government. To do that you’d need to make a whole lot of other things legal like tanks, anti aircraft missiles, artillery, etc, and allow civilian groups to get together and practice using those things for combat. Without that, the intent of the 2A has sailed long ago.
Is anyone on the right asking for stricter gun control laws as result? That should answer your gotcha question.
yes, the DOJ
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms...
id interpret what he meant differently than "some gun deaths are ok"
instead his opinion is more, "all gun deaths are ok"
he was never going to be worried about the count or a more nuanced comparison of how many gun deaths are acceptable
Would you say that some car deaths are OK in service of transportation or that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents?
Tradeoffs between rights and safety are always made. I interpret "some gun deaths are ok" as to mean that they are inherently dangerous, and that seeking 0 accidental deaths is too high of a standard for something to be allowed. And we don't hold other parts of daily life to this standard, like vehicles or medicine. If you want to get into degrees, that's fine, but a blanket shutdown on the sentence doesn't do that.
Transportation is required for daily life for almost all Americans. Gun ownership isn’t.
If it were upto me, we wouldn’t have such a car dependent culture. It is absolutely possible to invest in public transportation/multimodal transport and reduce this number significantly.
They certainly are, police cause gun deaths all the time in service of maintaining law and order.
But to middle class snobs who think they're morally above it all, such dirtiness is a reality they can wave away with a dismissive comment of superiority, safe from all that messiness, in their nice suburb homes.
So long as they intentionally ignore these lower class facts that some wrongdoers exist who can literally only be stopped by deadly force, they can continue to put their chins up and lament the inferior-to-them simpletons who think guns have to be a thing, in between taking long savouring sniffs of their excrement after every bathroom visit.
Speaking as an amoral low-class snob who grew up in Detroit, the prevalence of concealed carry didn't make me feel any safer than I felt in Windsor. Lot more gunfire at night on the stars-and-stripes side of the river too, which always struck me as rude when people are trying to sleep.
And why exactly do police need to have guns on them at all times? Right, because each citizen they meet has a high chance of having one. In contrast, UK police don't carry guns. Let that fact sink in.
I'm not surprised. The UK police prefer to arrest people for mean tweets, and let the knife criminals run around Scot-free. Perhaps if they had guns they'd do their jobs properly (joke - they still wouldn't).
Police worldwide, where guns are usually illegal, are usually armed.
There are many countries on Earth that don't need every citizen to have easy access to military hardware to protect them from the underclass.
> that we should lower the speed limit until there are 0 deaths from vehicle accidents
We totally should. I mean it isn't even controversial idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero . If we start with "all traffic related deaths are excessive" then trying to get rid of them in any way possible is only natural. Shame that 2nd amendment fans will be against any requirements for gun owners, event if they are similar to European commercial drivers tests.
Psychological test before buying a gun? What a heresy.
You've missed the parent's point. Society routinely accepts some level of risk, even when it leads to deaths, in exchange for other values. For example, dogs kill about 43 people annually in the U.S., yet we still allow them as pets. Electricity causes over 1,000 deaths a year, yet we don’t ban it. Kirk's position was simply that gun deaths are an acceptable price for the right to own guns - a fairly mainstream view in the US.
What do we get out of guns that would justify all those deaths, exactly?
You can keep poor people in more desperate circumstances, and fantasise about how you and your militia will resist a tyrannical federal government and restore the country.
Hunting, entertainment, tyranny prevention and respect of the constitution.
> tyranny prevention and respect of the constitution.
Haha, sure. One, the tyrannical government is taking roots day by day and no one does shit. Two, even in this fantasy world where half the people wasn't on board with the destruction of our democracy, if the people as a whole were to take arms, they'd be going after a professional army whose budget is many orders of magnitude higher than this citizens militia's.
> they'd be going after a professional army whose budget is many orders of magnitude higher than this citizens militia's
History shows that an underfunded militia can still tie down or even outlast the U.S. military in a guerrilla context - Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all examples.
To that I would say that the relationship between vehicle speeds and deaths is not linear. Lowering speeds (via infrastructure, not limits) in cities to 20mph / 30km/h would probably cut deaths by 80% without affecting average travel times much.
It is a great analogy though, in both cases the issue comes down to ease of access to deadly weapons capable of killing a lot of people in a short time period. I remain ever surprised that we think the average person is qualified to handle such weapons, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If I say yes, are we going to start building high speed rail?
People are hit by trains all the time.
Approximately zero deaths from road dangers is a valid goal, without having to pretend it's impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...
Even if we ignore the gun topic, he was extremely anti abortion, including in rape situations. He argued for heinous perspectives and oppression.
He didn't deserve to die, but he wasn't advocating for a world of opportunity and hope. Just oppression and hate. Let's not act like he was some saint helping people.
But the problem is what you're saying doesn't follow. Charlie Kirk believed that abortion involves murdering a human being, violently, which it does. He believe in the rare circumstance of a pregnancy occurring from rape that the child is still innocent and should not be killed. That is explicitly advocating for life and non-violence, whether you agree with the premise or not. I think the left really has to reckon with something extremely important. As much as the left is pompous and pretends to be so much more "educated" that conservatives, they have a hard time following through positions logically, which is seems quite odd for supposed intellectual superiors.
> hard time following through positions logically,
Spoken like a person who either doesn't know or doesn't care that current anti-abortion policies in several red states have women scared to get pregnant, despite wanting to do so voluntarily, because doctors are refusing life saving procedures on the mother if the state can possibly perceive it as abortion, leading to many scenarios of live births to dead mothers, including one case of a corpse being artificially kept alive for weeks for the sake of the baby.
The abortion laws of most blue states are already a rational compromise (still a very conservative leaning one) between the practical rights of women and the religious beliefs of far right totalitarians.
31 seconds.
Every thirty one seconds an abortion is carried out in the US.
What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them? the government doesn't make it easy to give a kid up for adoption and also doesn't make it easy to adopt kids. The kid will likely not have a good life, especially as the government cuts benefits. Is it really worth bringing a child into this world if you're setting them up to fail? Is that really the correct thing to do? Are you really being kind to the child by kicking it in the teeth from birth?
What if the birth will kill the mother? Is that not okay either?
It's not even political. You just follow the logic and you kind of have to support abortion. There isn't really a logical reason not to.
I actually believe the world is really messy and you have to have solutions that deal with the messiness. Being absolutist in any direction will never be right. Taking the extreme opposite position of mandated abortions is equally stupid and quite frankly as childish. It's surprising anybody on this site would defend something so illogical.
Also read this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
> What about if a person can't support their child at that time in their life and they don't have a support system to help them?
I think a pro-lifer would say that intentionally terminating a human being would still be wrong. I have a very hard time disagreeing with them on that.
> What if the birth will kill the mother? To my knowledge the vast majority of abortions are not because of this and all pro-lifers I know would be in favor of saving the mother. Most are for "convenience" and that is what pro-lifers are against. Again, I have a hard time disagreeing with them on this topic as well.
He also spread the rumors that Pelosi’s attacker was just an upset gay lover.
I don’t get why people are downvoting this. It is factually true, even if it’s uncomfortable to point out on the day of his murder.
Kirk was not a benevolent truth seeker. He was a political provocateur and propagandist dressed as a debater. And Paul Pelosi was one of the victims of his smears.
He was advocating for the rights of the living yet unborn. He was advocating for the downtrodden youth who are being unnecessarily overburdened with massive college debt and unable to afford a home. He was advocating for citizens who are being put last by their electorate.
He was helping the "unborn" by advocating for stripping womens of their rights and sending them back to the house.
He was helping students by supporting the most anti-intellectual party ever, that cancelled student debt relief and help programs.
He was helping the downtrodden by supporting the most billionaire-friendly administration ever, giving tax breaks to the rich and dismantling the last of our social safety nets.
Get real. I don't even buy that you believe all that shit.
A small but important correction. The debt was never cancelled, but socialized and payed by all the American citizens. A loan that was taken voluntarily by adults was arbitrarily reassigned and forced upon the rest of the American citizens, including all those who never had accepted to take such debt.
Completely violating the principles of personal responsibility.
It is very easy to be generous and altruist with someone else's money and then even take the credit for it.
Public higher education yields more skilled workers, who contribute more to society, thereby being a net positive overall. That's how it works in civilized country anyways. Too bad the average American can't think further then "Me no share, fuck you".
"Public higher education yields more skilled workers" as compared to what? Laborers or trade-skill workers? I think people overestimate the ROI of a college diploma.
Let's just assume you are correct. The solution should be universities lower or eliminate tuition. Not exponentially increase it. Not pay presidents and coaches millions and millions of dollars. And not stick taxpayers with the bill - or devalue our currency with government spending.
Right it’s more that it’s odd that there’s all these assassinations of conservatives (UnitedHealthCare etc). And previously there were many assassinations of progressives. I think it’s just the leaders in a dominant part of a force in society become casualties. Loss of life is always tragic even if we disagree with everything they stand for. But anyway the historical part (if that is what is happening - hard to tease out if there’s just more gun violence in general) helps me make sense of it. The dominant wave has breaks or we see them more somehow.
It's not like the assassinations of progressives ever stopped - the Hoffmans were killed literally a few months ago. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_shootings_of_Minnesota_le...
It's the Hortmans who were killed, the Hoffmans survived their attack. It's easy to confuse them because the assassin was working his way through an alphabetized list of democratic politicians.
Indeed.
Just the other day I was reading about the Italian "Years Of Lead" [1] which I wasn't old enough to understand myself at the time in the UK. I was wondering if we could see something similar as various forces internal and external strained at the seams of western democracies. For context, there is quite febrile atmosphere in the UK at the moment so I feel it is useful to attempt to calibrate these things for stochastic effects.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_Lead_(Italy)
Without knowing what happened, it's difficult to make the comparison between the Italian Years of Lead and what happened earlier today at Utah Valley University.
My understanding of the Italian political climate of the 60s, 70s, and 80s is that there were political groups/cells (on both the far right and far left) that organized around violent acts to further their political goals (which involved the eventual authoritarian takeover of the Italian government by either the far right or far left). For example, you can think of the Red Brigades to be akin to the Black Panthers, but with actual terrorism.
In contrast, most political violence in America has been less organized and more individual-driven (e.g., see the Oklahoma City Bombing). For better or worse, the police state in the US has been quite successful in addressing and dispersing political groups that advocate for violence as a viable means for societal change.
This was an intentional adoption of leaderless resistance[0] in response to the vulnerabilities in centrally administered organisations of the 60-80s.
Resistance orgs across the ideological spectrum were systematically dismantled after decades of violence because their hierarchical command structures made them vulnerable to infiltration, decapitation and RICO-style prosecutions.
The Weather Underground, Red Army Faction, European Fascist groups and many white supremacist groups all fell to the same structural weaknesses.
Lessons were codified by the KKK and Aryan Nations movements in the USA in the early 90s by Louis Beam[1] who wrote about distributed organisational models.
This was so successful it cross-pollinated to other groups globally. Other movements adopted variations of this structure, from modern far-right and far-left groups to jihadist organisations[2]
This is probably the most significant adaptation in ideological warfare since guerilla doctorine. There has been a large-scale failure in adapting to it.
The internet and social media have just accelerated its effectiveness.
"Inspired by" vs "carried out by" ideological violence today is the norm.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaderless_resistance
[1] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/louis-be...
[2] https://www.memri.org/reports/al-qaeda-military-strategist-a...
The KKK has been a distributed movement from the beginning, though, starting as isolated remnants of Confederate forces acting as terrorist cells in tandem with local officials and businessmen (e.g., plantation owners), and resurgent in the 20s and 30s (obviously sans the direct Confederate connections, replaced with local law enforcement).
It's not so much that we haven't been able to adapt to it as we've simply refrained from doing so. Their violence was in line with the interests of local elites.
Timothy McVeigh got his start watching Waco burn, hanging out with groups around the US "militia movement", and reading The Turner Diaries, and had like 3 accomplices.
He wasn't a "lone wolf".
But he also wasn't actually acting as a part of anything like the Red Brigades either, so the GP's point still stands.
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Blowback/Margaret-Rob...
Actually, it has been proven that at least two of the major terrorist attacks that happened in Italy during the lead years were actually false-flags attacks organized by a deviated part of the secret services (that were politically aligned with the far right), funded and supported by the US, in order to isolate politically the Brigate Rosse movement and stop any advance of communism in Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio
you are inexcusably wrong, since the comment you are replying to have a Wikipedia link with further links to the work of historians.
you really try hard to see "bad commies" uh?
The British government is much better placed to crush dissidents than probably almost any other of comparable maturity. They crushed the miners, they'll be able to deal with any nationalist movement if the institutional will is there.
Practice makes perfect. 500yr of keeping the Irish down trained them well.
I posted this article about political violence from Politico 3 months ago. It got 3 votes and sank. But it resurfaced on their website today because of this event (they revised the title of the front page link to make the subject more clear) so I'll bring it up again:
How Does the Cycle of Political Violence End? Here's What an Expert Says. (Was: The Kindling Is a Lot Drier Than It Used to Be) https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/06/02/political-...
The author's point is that political violence does occur in cycles, and one thing that makes a cycle run down is when it gets gets so awful that universal revulsion overtakes the political advantages of increasing radicaloric and action.
He gives examples, which may be within the living memory of older HN readers (like me):
"I can remember back in the ’60s, early ’70s, it felt like the political violence was never going to end. I mean, if you were an Italian in the ’60s or the ’70s, major political and judicial figures, including prime ministers, were getting bumped off on a regular basis. And it seemed like it was never going to end, but it did. It seemed like the anarchist violence of the early 20th century — it lasted for a couple of decades, killed the U.S. president — it seemed that was never going to end either, but it does. These things burn themselves out."
and:
"You had the assassination of the U.S. president, of Martin Luther King, of Bobby Kennedy. And then it stopped. People shied away from political violence. Exactly why it stopped, I don’t know, but it did. It wasn’t just assassinations, it was also street violence. And then things calmed down."
This is not particularly optimistic, but it it's an interesting analysis.
This feels like it's not accounting at all for changes in enforcement.
Nick Fuentes built his entire empire on hating Charlie Kirk, and his fans (groypers) are insane. Laura Loomer just came out and attacked Kirk a couple days ago. It's entirely possible he was fragged from the right.
I’ve thought this as well. There is a lot of disagreement within political parties. Given the polarization, I’d wager this is more true today.
You may be stuck with extreme people you disagree with despite leaning one way or another. You just want to dabble in politics but supporters of the parties can be rabid. It can be even harder to get a word out within the echo chamber.
Well it's sure looking like he's a groyper.
It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.
Nick Fuentes has repeatedly condemned political violence for years, he and his followers have also been trying to get Kirk to debate him, so killing is counter-productive from that perspective. Furthermore, the "attacks" by Laura Loomer that I've seen don't get anywhere near calling for violence.
> It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.
Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors. Turns out it's the people who buy the most guns who are the most violent.
> Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors.
It did not "turn out to be a groyper". There is zero substantial evidence for this claim, its a complete fabrication. Elle Reeve, a journalist at CNN who has followed the far-right since the infamous Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally in 2017, said of those claiming that the shooter was a Groyper that, "It’s like they’re grasping at vapor."
Saying "there is zero substantial evidence" is cope at this point, they caught the guy. There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person. Now that they have the person, all evidence is pointing the other way: terminally online/incel/white/Mormon/rural/gamer/gun nut. Those people aren't leftists, they're groypers. So you have to update your estimate from "very unlikely" to "actually pretty likely".
> There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person.
I've did not claim it was someone who is trans, an immigrant, or woke, however all evidence currently available points to him being a leftist. Some people early on were lead to believe that the shooter was trans due to reports of "trans-ideology" being found on the casings, but that was a rash, pre-mature extrapolation. The relevant text can be attributed to a wider array of groups/online sub-cultures (notably, the text cannot be clearly attributed to the groypers).
There is, however, evidence that the shooter was on the far-left.
1. Terminology used by the radical-left-wing to slander Kirk found on the casings ("hey fascist! CATCH!"). No Groyper would ever use such a phrase, they don't think of Kirk as a fascist and themselves get accused of being fascists.
2. Reference to an anti-fascist song most often played by far-left figures, particularly those identifying themselves as "anti-fascist".
3. A high school friend described the killer as being left-leaning on issues and that he was the only member of his family who was a leftist. This is hearsay so I take it with a grain of salt, but its still important evidence which fits perfectly with the other points.
Furthermore, all of the "evidence" you put forward cannot be considered by any reasonable person to be evidence that someone is a Groyper.
1. Being online a lot isn't evidence that someone is a Groyper. Massive numbers of apolotical, right-leaning, and left-leaning people are "terminally online".
2. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was an "incel" in the sense that the term is typically used.
3. Being white does not make someone a Groyper. Funnily enough, on the contrary, among the online far-right the groypers are often accused of being non-white due to their relative openness to other racial groups.
4. Being Mormon is not evidence of being a Groyper. On the contrary, Catholics are most represented among the groypers with only a few figures being Mormon.
5. Playing video games is not evidence that someone is a Groyper.
6. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was a "gun nut". Furthermore, even if he was, this would not be evidence that he was a Groyper since guns are not one of the primary issues addressed by groypers and would only tangentially be related.
In summary, none of what you said is evidence of your claims. I am begging you, and others, to engage honestly about this instead of spreading false claims.
>2. Reference to an anti-fascist song most often played by far-left figures, particularly those identifying themselves as "anti-fascist".
Bella Ciao is a groyper meme though. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/0ais7KJXx8Gyd0hsrbakKW
Bella Ciao added to groyper playlist over two years ago.
An individual remix of a song added to a playlist, which most people have never heard of, multiple years ago does not make it a "groyper meme".
Before the other day when this misinformation campaign began, nobody ever associated the song with groypers. Its always been associated with anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi groups, which contain a completely different set of beliefs. In recent history the only people to ever use the song for political purposes have been left-wing groups: Protestors against the AfD in Germany, communist priest Andrea Gallo, movement against Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, left-wing protests against Meloni in Italy.
Combining the lack of substantial evidence of association with groypers with the history of the song being used by left-wing movements, in addition to the evidence in my post above and elsewhere, its clear that this cannot be reasonably associated with groypers by any evidence-oriented person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_ciao
Here's the shooter in a groyper halloween costume that his sister says is "from some meme": https://imgur.com/XeYByuq
"hey fascist! Catch! Up arrow, right arrow, three down arrow" is a video game reference from a video game called Helldivers 2 that groypers use all the time.
Every bullet casing had a different groyper meme on it. It's either a groyper or a really elaborate groyper false flag. Those are the only two options.
Acting like it's all a coincidence is just spreading disinfo. Thankfully the bots don't make it to HN very often, or this place would be a disaster.
If you were going to have an organized hit from some kind of unnamed leftist extremist group, I could think of a dozen more impactful targets than Kirk off the top of my head. So I don't know how much sense that theory makes either.
If it's a lone nut, that could come from anywhere.
> I could think of a dozen more impactful targets than Kirk off the top of my head.
This is not the kind of thing I would go around admitting in public.
| I find this to be very unlikely.
And yet, here we are.
I don't want to live in a place where people are killed for expressing opinions I consider highly offensive and damaging.
You should move out of the US if you're here, since political violence is a cornerstone of this country since day 1. How people are acting like this is unique are really baffling to me.
>political violence is a cornerstone of this country since day 1
The violence was tame compared to something like the French or Russian or Chinese Revolutions. For example, after the Continental Army and Minutemen surrounded the Brits at Saratoga (in New York State) in the first of the two great victories made by the American revolutionaries, the Brits were not killed or even made prisoners of war: many thousands of British soldiers were allowed to travel on foot through Massachusetts to Boston (which was firmly in the control of the Brits for the entire duration of the war) if they promised not to harass any Americans in their path and if they promised to stop participating in military action against the American colonies (i.e., to personally go back to England).
oh god shut up
> political violence is a cornerstone of this country since day 1
Violence against... tea?
Uh... do you know how/why this country was founded? Don't be obtuse.
How much damage is ok?
> How much damage is ok?
To justify the vigilante killing? Some exceptional amount far beyond anything he could have possibly caused with his rhetoric.
If he had broken some law with his speech, the police could handle that.
[flagged]
Winning through "reason" seems kind of naive given today's social landscape. Are our politics broken because the facts simply aren't known? The misinformation-firehose/attention-economy/propaganda-machines are simply too powerful to be countered by merely being correct.
I'm not saying murdering everyone is the right alternative, but if you think trying to balance political power by "winning debates" or something seems reasonable, that ship has long sailed.
I think this is overblown. Most people do have reasons for what they believe.
I know everyone hates it when people “both sides” things these days, but one thing I do see both sides having in common is a refusal to honestly engage with and comprehend the other position. This doesn’t mean agreeing. It means understanding what someone believes and how they might have gotten there.
Where the echo chambers and other things that you mention do come in is in reinforcing that dynamic, in reinforcing each side seeing only a straw man version of the other.
>Most people do have reasons for what they believe.
You're equivocating between reasons as in causes and reason as in rationality.
If words only can cause damage that wants you killing a guy you should seek help
So you deny that words can cause damage?
Charles Manson was convicted for murders he didn't do himself, so there is obviously a limit in how much damage you're allowed to do with words.
Many dictators didn't kill anyone themselves, they just talked others into it.
Or think of the Hamas leaders who talked their people into the actrocity of the October 7 attacks.
I just want to know where people draw the line.
BTW the whole MAGA thing is based on the assumption of damage that is caused by words. You know the whole LGBTQIA2S+, DEI and climate change stuff our kids get indoctrinated with by schools, universities and the liberal media.
Words can and do cause a lot of damage, up to and including destroying a nation. But in the US, we're supposed to be tough enough and Constitution-loving enough to handle it.
But I wouldn't bet any money on us, given what I've seen in the last 10 years.
you're the problem
I didn't claim that a great replacement startegy is under way.
What do you think happens if people believe such nonsense.
I also don't think that he American Democrat party hates this country and wanna see it collapse.
And I definetly don't think a 10-year should conceive the baby after a rape.
And don't forget in Kirk's own words: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Harder to get guns would likely have saved his life.
BTW how can I be the problems, it's just words, isn't it?
It's simple, there is no limit on what someone can say until they should be shot in public. That's what the justice system is for.
And yeah of course it's ironic what he said about the 2nd amendment, but I don't think he'd change his answer if someone asked him about if HE was shot and killed.
I don't like Kirk, I'm a democrat, but I think the left is pretty deranged at the moment. They have a way of changing the definition of of terrible things (Nazi, racist, facist), and labeling all convervatives those things, which is a great way to dehumanize people. Which leads to... murder.
I went to college at this place (when it was Utah Valley State College [UVSC], before it was UVU). I spent a lot of time in that part of the campus over several years. How strange to see these events unfolding there. Kirk seems to be a person with whom I have scant philosophical agreement, but I prefer to converse with such people rather than watch them die. What an awful mess this all is.
no you don't.
these people don't argue to uncover the truth, they just provoke you into some debate-bro logical gotcha that is simply borne in ignorance.
it's not even if you agree or not with him, he has no intention of ever learning your side, it's just a smorgasbord of conservative bs on repeat.
murder bad. but this guy was a provocateur who tried to get the most "impact" for his side. that is why his hot takes are so insane. they aren't points to argue against, they are dog whistle rallying points for all the racists and misogynists to think society is theirs. so let's not defend his work as "just having opinions i disagree with" ...
I am a liberal person who lives in a deeply conservative area (Utah). I have had many conversations with staunch conservatives, some of them close friends and family. One-on-one is different from the one-to-many format, or the one-to-one-in-front-of-others format. It's quite possible to have a civil conversation about such things when there isn't an audience.
I have seldom (probably never) seen anyone have a big change of heart from such discussion, but often both sides concede a little, and it feels like progress toward common ground, minuscule though it may be.
It sounds like you’ve never watched any debating, whether at a world class university, parliament, or a high school. They’re no greater or lesses than Kirk’s debates were.
There is an increased amount of energy in the system. This is a bad thing. The amplitudes of the fluctuations are too high. Time to bring things back down to normal. Political violence cannot be accepted: Luigi Mangione, the Hortmans' killer, Kirk's killer all have to be brought to justice by the law. And from the rest of us, they all have to be denounced.
Increased political violence is bad. The state starts breaking down since the price for everything is death so action stalls.
Economic conditions create political violence, because politics can no longer be used to fix economic conditions.
those who make peaceful change impossible make violent revolutions inevitable. pretty sure a us president said something like that.
This cannot be an explanation since the 2008 Financial Crisis did not have a similar rise in political violence and that was far greater economic disruption.
2008 did have an rise in political violence. you're seeing the results of it right now. we never climbed out of that hole and we're still living in the aftermath of 2008 and its effects on our society
This is the worst kind of censorship. I guess debate is also dead.
"When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say."
I feel like this quote needs a qualification. You can still fear what someone might say without fearing they are correct.
This is exactly what the quote is saying. You are adding on your own layer of bias by assuming he’s incorrect.
I don't agree; pointing out the words are lies certainly turns the quote on its head for me.
I have such disdain for the e/acc crowd given that I believe that "we do not understand the consequences of what we are building".
But now I'm not sure if it's fair to ignore the consequences of building Twitter, or even the internet. Seeing people's behavior during this event has been incredibly disheartening.
The wikivoyage page for the United States explicitly advises that neither politics nor religion should be discussed when meeting people in this country.
How did we get to this point.
> How did we get to this point.
I don't think we ever left? The KKK was still marching in the annual parade in my home town when I was born, in 1994. Emmett Till was lynched in 1955, and still - to this day - racists make a habit of shooting at the memorial sign. [0]
Forget don't talk about politics or religion, there's still large portions of the US where you should avoid being visibly black or gay if you want to stay safe.
[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/emmett-till-memori...
When I say "how did we get here", I don't mean "how did we end up with these opinions (e.g. racism) on our soil". I mean something more like:
1. Why is discussing these things so difficult? So many internet forums are a pure deluge of unkindness, anger, and dishonest discussion.
2. There was a video of someone promoting their social media handle and asking people to subscribe with the backdrop of the shooting. How does someone end up acting like this?
I do not think there will be a time where racism is eradicated like a disease, but I think it's possible to confine it to small spaces and individuals. Similar to how I believe the majority of views like pedophelia: people with those mindsets exist, they don't form (huge) groups, and are generally consistently condemned. With the values I believe the US to have (tolerance of opinions and religion) this will always be a constant struggle.
Continuing with this disease analogy, the internet + social media has removed all possible herd immunity strategies to stupid ideas. People with any kind of ideology can search up their groups and commiserate, without ever encountering a differing viewpoint.
Furthermore, people are offloading their thoughts more and more to LLM's, so much so that we're becoming the mental equivalent of those wall-e humans [0].
We're not thinking for ourselves. Other people are thinking for us, delivering those thoughts to us, pre-digested. This leads to reactionary behavior, I think. And in an environment with such a reactionary populace, populism becomes so easy to exploit.
[0]: https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/1*uFK...
P.S. Sorry for the rambling. You're not wrong that the US has been, and still is, incredibly hostile to specifically identifiable groups of people. However, I think that the ability to discuss how to go about solving/remedying/containing this has been uniquely hampered in the last 20 years.
> I have such disdain for the e/acc crowd given that I believe that "we do not understand the consequences of what we are building".
> But now I'm not sure if it's fair to ignore the consequences of building Twitter, or even the internet. Seeing people's behavior during this event has been incredibly disheartening.
For at least the last 5 or so years I've been right there with you with the same thoughts and concerns. I'm completely convinced after what I saw today that global social media platforms were and still are a mistake. Especially so for the younger generations that have never known a world without them.
It was always like that or worse. Social media just surfaces it.
I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.
That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
> even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe
ok let's try data instead of feels. Per Capita, what is the number of mass shootings per year in the USA, and in Japan. I did't know the answer but asked Gemini.
The most recent year for which there is data, apparently, is 2023, during which there were 604 mass shootings in the USA, and 1 in Japan. Given the respective population counts, the per-capita rate of mass shootings in the United States was about 225 times higher than in Japan.
Given that, are you confident that your observation that "one guy made a gun once in Japan" is a strong refutation of the idea that the US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
I think you're basically ignoring my point - that increasing numbers of targeted assassinations are not really a gun control issue (today's was seemingly a single shot, so things being discussed in this thread seem pretty not related), but a sign of major societal problems that need to be addressed.
Your response seems very off topic in focusing on "mass shootings" which are at best an ill-defined marketing term created to lump family annihilation suicides with more public mass casualty events like the pulse nightclub shooting in order to launder dubious policies.
But my whole original comment said nothing about mass shootings to begin with.
Strong gun regulations have a couple of orders of magnitude impact on one type of gun violence, but you think that’s irrelevant and off-topic to whether strong gun regulations would have an impact on another form of gun violence?
How could that make any sense?
> I think you're basically ignoring my point
You didn’t clarify that by “everything that’s happening” as the preface to your suggestion that gun control is pointless you specifically meant “political assassination and no other gun deaths”. It’s reasonable that someone would see you say that gun regulation wouldn’t have an effect on gun deaths and think that you were talking about gun deaths generally.
It would actually be bizarre for a reader to read “everything that’s happening” and think “the person that wrote this is referring to the first shooting at a school today and specifically excluding the second shooting at a school today”
You’re quoting statistics that are irrelevant to the point. Mass shootings are not political violence.
I can come up with a multitude of political violence examples in countries with strict weapons laws - New Zealand, France, Japan. Then if you add in other weapons - cars, knives, bombs, the list gets even longer.
The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.
> The point is - gun control won’t stop political violence. Perpetrators will use other means at their disposal.
Technically true. But gun control means political violence will have to engage much closer and is less likely to be as deadly. Do we want more or less death+maiming in our political violence?
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
The issue is political violence. Whether it’s done up close or far away is a distraction from the fact it exists.
Just to be clear political violence is a broad umbrella of many actions, including violent protest and political assassinations. One can be more of an issue than the other. Personally, in my opinion it’s hard to political violence as a whole is an “issue” when looking from a historically context. However, I do think that political assassination specifically is something that has been an issue historically.
Am I? The forest view is that political violence is an inevitable part of life. And that outlawing guns makes them less accessible and therefore less likely to be used in any violent interactions.
You are.
No, political violence isn't an "inevitable part of life".
there are plenty of regulations already. what we need is to start enforcing them. and also mental heath destigmatization and assistance, since it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem.
Why cannot it be both? You definitely have a gun problem, and also a mental health problem. And you even have a mentality problem by thinking that gun is fine on you just to be safe, which is quite acceptable thought over there - the reaction of Americans vs Europeans to the fact that somebody has a gun on them in a friendly group is quite stark. But you have also a stochastic terrorism problem, a grifter problem, an inequality problem, an almost zero social net problem, many monopoly problems. All of these exaggerate your murder problem.
And you clearly have a “too few people want to solve these” problem. Most of you even voted to the person who campaigned that he wants to make these worse.
This won’t be solved, and will it be made worse in America for the next decade for sure.
This was not a mass shooting.
I think the fact that this wasn't a mass shooting makes it even worse.
What an unhinged thing to say.
Sorry, upon re-reading my comment, I communicated my thought incorrectly.
My intention was to point out that the not-mass shooting overshadowed the mass shooting in the news. Obviously both are bad, but 3 people dying in a single shooting incident is worse than 1 person dying in a single shooting incident, yet the 1 person dying is the one that gets the news coverage.
People aren't equal in the eyes of the public media. News at eleven.
I think that points out something even more horrifying about the American news cycle. A social media influencer being killed vs high school students being killed. Perhaps that's a bit reductive but I feel like the HS shooting ought to be a LOT more shocking, if it weren't a headline that we sadly have become somewhat blind to.
Asking geminy is like copy pasting a random reddit comment. Fine if it links the resource, not fine otherwise.
How come there’s no gun violence in prison but plenty of stabbings? Prison is the highest concentration of violent criminals and yet no gun violence. To quote the great Eddie Izzard, “you can’t just walk up to someone and yell BANG. The gun helps”.
I can't tell if your comment is serious. Did you know that if everyone lived in a 7x7 cell they couldn't leave there'd be no drunk driving deaths too?
There’s positives to cars that far outweigh the cost of drunk driving. Gun ownership does not “far outweigh” its consequences.
I will just casually ignore your reductionist argument, I’m sure you’ll understand. Reasonable people don’t argue that way as all arguments would just … boil down to nothing.
It's hard to take your argument seriously given that (a) prisons are an intentional police state and a generally unpleasant abode, (b) people are still violently dying in them anyway (well over double non-prison homicide rate even with somewhat effective dangerous property restrictions), (c) there's no sane way to apply prison levels of property restriction to the public at large outside of prisons (and we live in a world where the ability to fabricate weapons at home grows day by day), (d) whether gun ownership outweighs its downsides is as similarly complex and judgement driven a question as whether cars do: both have complex downside and benefits with situational and unclear boundaries. That people can with a straight face "why should anyone need a gun" in a country with food deserts and regions with deer overpopulation problems while often treating "why should anyone need a Lamborghini?" as an offensive or silly question only illustrates.
> US could reduce mass shootings by strengthening regulations?
How? without decreasing access for sane people or using any of the previous talking points that have been rejected previously. now’s the time to suggest real change that could have an effect but suggesting the tired “no black rifles” will still go nowhere.
New regulation: no private citizens can possess guns, and police must account for every bullet and firearm.
Granted, this decreases access for everyone. But I'd argue sane people would not demand private gun ownership in today's environment.
If every adult that could carry a gun did, there would be much less mass shooting. It would be minimized shooting, in fact.
This seems tenuous and directionally wrong based on priors. What evidence do you have for this?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/multimedia/collection/good-g...
Now, how about your evidence?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/
https://rockinst.org/blog/public-mass-shootings-around-the-w...
The US is an outlier in how many guns we own, with about 1/3 of American adults owning guns, and we are also an extreme outlier in mass shootings unless you compare us to places that lack rule of law. How many more people need guns before that mass shooting number goes down to 0, do you think?
Given your link, I'd say every shooting where the bad guy didn't get shot is evidence in the opposite direction? Seems to me there's more of those than your 11 examples.
That would only be true in a world where every single human is able to regulate their angry emotions immediately. But that is so far away from human nature...
> remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders. IMO it's clearly worth the tradeoff. Very few of us live in a place where only guns can solve our problems.
The fact that occasionally someone goes to great lengths to kill doesn't mean we should make it easier for everyone.
So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole.
In which case you'd need a strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen by following up on leads and tips.
Well... not to get political, but I think we're hollowing that out too?
>strong internal investigatory services in order to root these plots out before they happen
Who will necessarily be so strong they'll be capable of pulling such things off to serve their own ends.
It's an intractable problem all the way down.
> So... if anything, this is the exact situation stricter gun laws wouldn't really prevent. Which would be the targeted assassination of a societal figure by a determined ideologue or partisan or mole.
My point isn't that outlawing guns would stop every possible scenario. Rather it would make killings of all kinds far less likely, which is a win for everyone--even hate-spewing pundits.
Remind us how was Abe assassinated in Japan?
Well, you wouldn't be able to reproduce such a long-range kill with a shabbily constructed firearm. You would have to be up close, which would be harder to do.
I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people down south that would be happy to smuggle guns back up North. And trying to control the ammo would be even more unrealistic. The gun culture America created over the past 100+ years is a massive mistake, and I don't think there is any undoing of it. Should have been more control immediately post WWII imo.
I'm not from the US so I only have an outsider's view of the culture, and FWIW I'm also not from Australia although I have emigrated here now.
Australia seemed to have a deeper relationship with guns previously, that stemmed partially out of necessity (farming etc), but there are also a lot of parallels with US culture here – the American dream, being a colony hundreds of years ago, etc, some focus on personal rights and freedoms, being a federation of states, etc. I don't think it was as deep a relationship as the US, but coming from the UK it seemed that Australia had a very different view than the UK.
Australia turned this all around. The culture shifted, and people realised that for the greater good it was something they needed to get past, and they did.
Maybe there's hope for US gun control yet, although the turning point for Australia was a (single) mass shooting. Maybe the US needs a much bigger turning point. I'm a little surprised that the Las Vegas shooting a while ago didn't provide that.
I live in the US. I don't hold much hope in gun control changing after recent years. Recent federal and state policy is trending towards less regulation and removal of the previous administrations regulations.
In 2024, estimated 16,576 deaths in the US from guns (excluding suicide, which is a very large addition on top of that), and 499 mass shootings.
A lot of stuff would not happen if it took a little more effort. Giving people some extra time to second guess themselves is a big deal.
This problem didn't happen in the 50s and 60s, when people brought their guns to school for funsies.
Actually it did, just without so much press.
Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.
What are the odds of winning against a tyrannical government that has UAVs, nukes, tanks, helicopters and jets?
100%. The US took all that capability and could not win in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan against such a force. Same in Vietnam.
The US populace is vastly larger and better armed and capable than Afghanistan.
The US military requires a massive economy to function. If it tries to attack itself, those little armed people could stop it, the economy would crash, and the US military would crumble without needed support and supplies.
A final issue is the US troops would lose a lot of soldiers if they were told to go attack fellow citizens. The soldiers would quit, would hesitate, would not want to kill people they view as their own people.
So armed citizenry absolutely have major power against the govt.
Finally, if you were in a country where the govt set out to kill its citizens, would you rather have arms or be completely unarmed?
>The US took all that capability and could not win in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan against such a force.
We had no military objective in Afghanistan.
Our only goal there was to enrich contractors who had stockholders working at the highest levels in the Pentagon and White House. That goal was achieved spectacularly.
The US military would be the defending force, though, which would put The People at a disadvantage. Pushing through the defenses of a multi-trillion dollar military with AR-15s seems unlikely. I don't even think that China's armed forces could defeat the US military, let alone civilians armed with AR-15s
All being said, I am no military guru and I could be wrong
Quite good actually, except the prize is that you'll end up like Haiti.
Citizens should be allowed to own UAVs, nukes, tanks, helicopters, and jets. It says in the text: "shall not be infringed." Besides that, who do you think is going to do the fighting, exactly?
The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.
The members of militias at the time of the ratification of the 2nd amendment were required to supply their own guns by statue, which is how you get the individual right - from the duty to be a member of the militia. Which still exists today (though in statute it is often called the "unorganized" or "state" militia to distinguish it from the National Guard, which is actually a branch of the US Army by statue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)...
The bill of rights are about personal freedoms, as is made clear during the discussion leading up to them. All states copied these in some form into their own constitutions, and if you go look at those, most are quite explicit this is a personal right. The claim otherwise is a very recent claim.
Congress around 1982 had the Library of Congress issue a study about this in great depth, with millions of citations to historical documents, which give ample evidence and quotes. You may have to dig to find it, but it's a good read to gain more understanding.
Also the second militia act of 1792 actually required all able bodied men to own guns, and this was the law for well over the following century.
The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.
> The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.
Thankfully, whatever they meant then, we live today and can change the constitution and the laws to suit present circumstances. Nothing is sacred.
>> Nothing is sacred.
This is the thought process of the morally depraved, upon which every tyrannical government establishes its power.
Please help me understand what must be kept sacred.
I can't but you can read the bible.
It's basically everything, except that which is evil.
I've read the Bible at least four times. I'd rather not stone people for being born different. Nor inspire PTSD in children or adults with silly stories about punishment in eternal flames.
Good and evil are even more subjective than how people perceive colors. I hope we can at least agree that murder is wrong, and the tools which facilitate the most murder should be the most heavily regulated.
Might have read it but clearly didn't understand the point of the sacrifice and the new covenant. You shouldn't be telling young children they're going to burn in hell for eternity any more than you should talk to them about sex.
Murder is wrong.
Every citizen worth a damn should own guns and the idea that they should not be regulated by the government is enshrined in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Every gun law created since is an abberation that should be abolished.
I'm not personally against individuals owning guns, but the part that is somehow vehemently opposed is the "well-regulated" part. There's effectively no regulation, and somehow the 2nd amendment has been warped to leave out the part of regulation, to make folks believe they're entitled to guns without limit.
Does it say "the right of the well-regulated militias to bear arms" or "the right for the states to bear arms"?
I'm for a lot more gun control than what we have today, but it's "the right of the people" in the text.
Neither.
[As a necessity for a free state, A well trained and in good working order group of able bodies citizens capable of fight for defense of self and state, is required], the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Militia is just the people. Oxford 1800s has well-regulated to mean “in good working order”.
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither.
You should learn about the source and context of that quote. It does not mean what you think it means.
For example, https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
and yet, what have the NRA types done so far about the tyrannical government
And when those countries run into issues because the government is incompetent, people start wishing they had guns again. It's all well and good to give up guns when the system works, but when it doesn't, you lose self determination.
Japan is, famously, a country where the system generally works. Hell, a late train would get you a letter for your boss. It's a bit different in places where the police don't have the resources, or dangerous individuals aren't removed from the public.
Is it guns that keep governments honest and responsive to the populace? Or is it a culture of trust, honesty, and non-violence?
Yemen is in second place for guns per person. How responsive is their government to the people?
My post wasn't about keeping the government honest, it was about the individual's right to protect themselves from anyone, including the government. Guns empower the individual to defend themselves without having to rely on the effective intervention of government, because they're an equalizer. This matters when the government loses effectiveness, either because resources are stretched thin (so, ineffective policing) or because incompetence or ideology creeps in (the judiciary does a poor job of removing dangerous individuals from the public). In places with effective governance, guns aren't really necessary, and it's tempting to trade them in for a small gain in security. The issue is that governments change over time, and effective systems can become ineffective. When that happens, people suddenly find themselves wanting guns again.
The debate over guns actually hinges on the extent to which the individual should be empowered to defend themselves, and historically, it hasn't just been about guns, but about all weapons, and even martial arts (which have also been banned at various points in history). Governments don't like to empower the individual, because they want to maintain a monopoly over violence (for many practical reasons), and because empowering individuals often creates its own set of trust problems (which is true for anything -- how many drivers are trustworthy, for example). Defenseless individuals are easier to govern from an administrative perspective, and if a government is good at protecting the populace from threats, it works. In fact, it can be better for the population as a whole, at least while the government is competent. But life is messy, and there are points where individuals need to defend themselves. As systems break down, not only does the need increase, but also the effectiveness of the means, because the threats you have to defend yourself against by definition don't play by the rules.
This, imo, is the real point of the second amendment. The Bill of Rights is essentially a declaration that certain rights are derived from a higher authority than government, which is why they are inalienable. No one needs permission to defend themselves, and it's my belief that the right to bear arms was put in there to ensure that should the system fail or become ineffective, the people would still be able to exercise one of their most fundamental natural rights. It certainly wasn't an accident, because it was the second thing that they added. The verbiage around government and militias makes sense in the context of having just fought a war of independence, but it also makes sense when you consider that it's often well-meaning governments that take this right away.
> Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders.
So let’s define what your definition of strict gun control is. Also, if you want people to care more, stop including suicides because it drastically changes the numbers.
Suicide would be more rare if guns didn't make it so easy.
I see where you are going there, but I'm not so sure that rings true. Not to get too dark, but IIRC, Japan has higher suicide rates. And most are non-gun methods, like hanging, throwing oneself in front of a train, etc.
Are you sure you don’t mean South Korea? Japan is about at level with the USA, and actually lower since 2024.
I did not check into SK, but Japan has consistently been about the same or higher with the US for many years. Even with a drop in the last year, still very similar to one another.
The purpose of my original comment was that the US dwindles Japan in firearms, but Japanese still manage to kill themselves just fine. So it's not a strong point by the parent I responded to. If Japan maintained that decrease for several more years, I think this would be worth revisiting, but for now it doesn't have much weight.
South Korea is really high. Japan used be high but is much lower now (comparable to the USA). You can make your point more quickly today with South Korea’s suicide rate, which is really really bad. Mental health is important, the higher suicide rates in red states could just be about them being more depressed (eg from higher poverty, or overwork?) and having less access to mental health resources than just having more access to guns. Poverty might explain it, which is why New Mexico (the poorest blue state) is so high, but then you have Utah which is usually the exception red state, and Colorado, which is a richer blue state, in the 20/100k list. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Note that Montana, the worst state for suicide, is about the same as South Korea at 28/100k.
I say this sadly as having had a friend kill herself in High School via a gun her dad had lying around. And ya, it was a red state (Mississippi).
Understand and noted on the points you make. Also, I'm sorry to hear about your friend.
suicide is championed by progressives outside this country, and machines have been built to increase nitrogen to give a comfortable death. the left is not against suicide, they are finding reasons to disarm people. this is why they will lose, their arguments are not rational.
Japan has strict gun control and an extremely high rate of suicide. The US has more homicides per capita by simply beating someone to death by ones bare hands than many countries have total homicide rate (check data in FBI UCR). Restricting suicides and homicides to only those with guns is a dishonest comparison when the rates without the gun restriction are more useful and flip the outcomes of the discussion. I doubt a murder by non-gun is fundamentally different to a family or society than one by a gun, or any other method.
The Obama CDC study on gun control concluded that guns are used to stop far more crimes than they are used for in crimes. It concluded that a household with a gun saw far less bad outcomes than a household without during home invasions. It concluded a lot of things that didn't sit well with the left, so after all the fanfare to make it, it was downplayed by that admin. Read it, it's quite interesting.
Think through that a bit.
> The Obama CDC study on gun control concluded that guns are used to stop far more crimes than they are used for in crimes.
Citation please. NCVS data puts defensive gun use around 70K instances per year while OJP.gov data puts firearm crimes in the 400K range.
No one wants to get stabbed either.
Or run over by a van.
2 Minnesota lawmakers shot in politically motivated killings, governor says (cbc.ca) 102 points by awnird 88 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments
At least one HN, this story is already getting 100x(!) the reach, when it doesn't even involve lawmakers.
So? You didn't even bother to name those lawmakers yourself.
Gun control doesn't need to solve 100% of gun violence to be worth doing.
Mass surveillance doesn't need to solve 100% of crimes to be worth doing.
let's kindly remember patriot act was bush's baby
neocons love to use disaster to further their deep state dreams.
Seatbelts don't need to save every life in an accident to be worth requiring.
Trump was golfing instead of attending the funeral of the Hortmans and used their death to insult Tim Walz. He didn't order flags flown at half mast like he's now done with Kirk. Notable conservative publications like National Review barely covered the Minnesota shooting. He also mocked the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband.
So I would say the reaction will be quite different, given that Kirk was a political ally and not a Democrat.
Some years back, I had a discussion with an older woman who struck a conversation with me innocently enough about weather or something. She turned the topic to politics and volunteered an opinion, her tone and expression indicated to me that she expected me to agree with her statement. I told her that I respectfully disagreed with her and I also told her why. Her expression soured and she told me that because she was a schoolteacher she thought guns should be banned because too many children had been killed by people using guns on them. I agreed with her that it was tragic and that I hoped we could live in a world where kids wouldn’t die from people using guns on them. In my life I want to be rational and honest and I want to listen to people. I listen to people and I hope they listen to me because that’s how ideas are exchanged. I asked her how I myself could avoid becoming the victim of a genocide without guns. I wonder this myself. I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership. A few years ago our car was stolen in Portland, the police did not help and the 911 phone service was down at the time. The only way I could get the car was to physically go and pick the car up, a car surrounded by criminals, of course I needed a gun to make sure I was safe. I think about natural disasters or occasions where government is unable or unwilling to protect its citizens - how will good people defend themselves against evil people? I’ve seen violence firsthand so many times that I have a visceral reaction to the thought that someone would take my guns away - I simply wouldn’t let it happen because I know if I did then I wouldn’t be able to prevent myself from being killed and dumped in an unmarked mass grave by a 19 year old kid who thinks he’s doing the right thing because of a mandate from a politician, and I wouldn’t be able to stop evil people.
She disagreed, I disagreed with her, she made points I feel were unfair oversimplifications “guns have more rights than women,” but we had a respectful discussion but she didn’t want to talk with me anymore after that. I would’ve talked with her after because I value what people have to say and I want to have discussions. I think we can have discussions but we should never take away the rights of citizens.
This comes across a lot like you're saying that your personal feeling of safety for you and your family is worth more than the actual safety of innocent schoolchildren who are being mass murdered.
I am personally concerned that I may be the victim of genocide, and far more people have died from genocide perpetrated by governments than by school shootings. I’m not trying to be dense, I’m simply saying that history of demonstrated this. I’m also concerned that I will be the victim of violent crime and I’ve also had to defend myself from violent criminals in the past. Have you had any of these experiences? I’m curious to hear your thoughts if you’ve ever feared for your life in this way? Call me selfish, but I personally don’t want to be hurt. Thank you for your response.
You've talked about your feelings a lot, which is the point.
Guns make people feel safe.
They don't actually make you safer.
You're more likely to be killed by your own gun than someone else's.
Realistically, you have no hope of protecting yourself with a gun if you're surrounded by gangbangers with a bunch of guns all pointed at you.
Etc, etc...
The gun debate isn't a debate about facts, it never was. It's a debate about feelings, and scared people won't change their minds unless they stop being scared.
Nobody in America right now is trying to make people feel safe, not in an era where the President of the United States feels it is appropriate to personally attack... anyone for any perceived slight, in public, with verbal violence and in the case of anyone looking even vaguely hispanic, physical violence.
I get where you’re coming from, but I lived in Portland for years where the police were essentially suppressed by the district attorney Eric Schmidt (and other factors that were occurring during this time in Portland and in America). This led to violent criminals essentially controlling the city at night and which lead to unfortunate outcomes for my family. Simultaneously this came at a time where the previous president was threatening my job and livelihood with mandates and I was receiving emails from our national HR that we may lose our jobs if we did not comply. These two events did not make me feel safe for years, I do feel safer with the current president.
Mike Schmidt? I think Eric Schmidt was the CEO of Google.
I have had a gun pointed at me, and I've been where guns have been fired in anger around me.
I'm kind of surprised to hear somebody in America think it's a likely enough thing to happen to be worth the obvious societal cost of the wide spread weapons.
Realistically, if they did come for you, how much use would your weapon be? Do you believe that it would mean the difference between your life and death, or just that you'd feel better going having been able to put up some defence? Several genocides have happened in neighbouring countries from where I live in living memory, and it isn't at all clear that having access to a weapon allowed anybody who was targeted to survive.
The cost in mass shootings (now nearly two per day in the US) is a real cost borne by society at large. Your cost is still only hypothetical, and of unclear value if the worst did happen.
It seems you have been around violence but have concluded differently than I have.
I think that all rights are hypothetical until they are used. People in America have the right to free speech and assembly but depending on your perspective these rights are hypothetical for most people because they don’t use their speech or right to assembly very often or to the fullest extent. In some states, women have the right to have an abortion but many don’t use that right so hypothetically for them it doesn’t have any value. I think with the right to keep and bear arms it’s the same, for a good person defending themselves with a gun this hypothetical right becomes applied and has an immeasurable value to them. I don’t think we should discard any of our rights even if they are rarely used. I don’t think the risk of a genocide or civil war is infinitesimal, I think these sort of events happen often and are guaranteed over a long enough timeline. I think that people who are well armed would be better off in these situations and may even be the people who put something like a genocide to a stop.
You're misinterpreting what I said. I said that your ability to defend yourself and your family with a gun was hypothetical.
I can see that you like to think of yourself as a rational thinker about this, but you're refusing to answer the actual criticism: actual people are being killed every day due to the availability of weapons in your society. There are nearly two mass shootings per day. So far this year that has led to 250 deaths and more than a thousand injuries[1]. These are not hypothetical abstractions, which is all you seem interested in engaging with. These are real people, many of them children, who find themselves victims of gun violence. You are arguing that your feeling of safety is more important than their actual safety. All of your arguments amount to a continuation of your position that you put your own feelings ahead of the actual deaths of people in society around you. This is a very selfish way to engage in your society.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/us/mass-shootings-fast-facts
I understand your position, it is terrible that adults and children die by the hands of others. Genocides have happened all over the world and have led to tens of millions of people dying. These events aren’t hypothetical they’re historical but happen in big chunks rather than uniformly distributed and frequent but comparatively small events. I would suggest the statistics indicate that a person is likelier to die from a genocide than from a mass shooting by a factor of >100 and that small arms ownership and competence is more helpful rather than harmful since these tools can enable individuals to defend themselves against state actors or violent groups, or by their existence prevent groups with malicious intent from acting out on their genocidal or authoritarian desires. Something I agree with is the FBI’s assessment that people don’t commit crimes if they thinks it’s likely that they’ll be caught. I think that the collective individuals in our government (these United States of America) wouldn’t want to mandate concentration camps or a genocide because of the concentration of citizens with diverse mindsets who would provide feedback through resistance. There are of course other factors like recency bias that come into play.
Rhetorical: What does it say about America that a large portion of its citizens (assuming OPs feelings are not unique) fear being a victim of genocide? Can't say I've met anyone from any other "developed" nation who share the same dread by simply existing as part of their country.
In other words, the sum total of America's values have resulted in a citizenry that lives with existential dread. Maybe those values need a second look?
My thoughts on this is that genocide has been common outside of America in the last ~100 years and that Americans need to act differently than the rest of the world in an effort to keep it from happening here.
IF you are going to be the victim of genocide they will take away your ability to defend yourself first.
This of course plays into the fear US gun advocates have of any attempt to remove their gun rights. If it were to happen though, then maybe as a prepper type with a house and lands in the woods you'd stand a chance against an armed mob that came for you, but certainly not the government. If you're defending your sub-urban house (or even worse flat), I suspect that the gun you have for self defense would make very little difference to the final outcome, but might make you feel a bit better about it.
Did the gun actually make you safer when retrieving your car or did it just make you feel safer? Did having the gun actually solve any problem, or just increase the chances of someone dying over a parked car?
Aren't there other potential ways to fix society from your example of your stolen car other than "we should just arm everyone"? Shouldn't the answer be we should have police actually help these situations and we should do more to reduce the rates of people living lives where they're more likely to steal a car in the first place?
In my case, the criminals physically left because I had a firearm. That week the police response time was anywhere from three hours to three days. This was in Portland, Oregon and our car had been stolen three times before, my girlfriend‘s bike was also stolen and my car was broken into three times, my other car was totaled by a drunk driver without any repercussions. We left Portland shortly after meeting a British person who had been kidnapped and forced to withdraw money from ATMs.
I would love to live in a world where everybody has what they want but we don’t live in that world. That being said there is no excuse for somebody taking something that does not belong to them. I was deeply hurt by these experiences and forever changed in the way that I think and act. I learned that sometimes when I told people about the things that had happened to us, I felt that that person had sympathy for the criminals and no sympathy for me. I learned that it is a fact that police cannot be everywhere, they cannot react instantly, and even if they can react sometimes they won’t for political reasons. I still think of the time where I was sucker punched by some man on the street for no reason which is what initially lead me to purchase a firearm for self-defense. I can’t fix society, but I can protect myself and my loved ones.
There aren't any other solutions that empower the individual. The problem is when the police are underfunded and don't show up, or the judiciary continually lets dangerous individuals out on bail. We should be able to rely on the system, but it's not hard to see why people want firearms when the system fails.
> how will good people defend themselves against evil people
The problem is in people assuming that they are “good”. That’s hubris. The reality is that everyone is equally capable of evil—we’re just looking at taking guns out of the equation so that gun violence becomes highly unlikely.
>I’ve read about genocides, the millions of people dead in China, Russia, Germany, Poland, Africa and Gaza too, I’ve also seen rioting and violence firsthand in Los Angeles and Portland and I wonder how I can ensure that my girlfriend and I will be safe now and into the future. I have no solution except for responsible gun ownership.
No gun will save you during genocide if you are a target. Best case scenario you kill few attackers and die anyway.
An armed person won't stop a genocide, but an armed populace might.
Genocides are not committed solely by governments. An armed and divided populace is just as likely to commit a genocide as they are to stop one. Look at the Rwandan genocide. Look at the mass shootings we have here by white supremacists.
All it takes is an armed populace that stands by while “those people” (their neighbors) are killed by extremists (their other neighbors).
In my head I'm praying it's not a Franz Ferdinand. But the trajectory in the cycle of economic booms and bust, it feels at least possible. I hoping I'm wwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
............aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy off.
Yeah I have an unfortunate suspicion that 9/10 will be known as the date something went down in the future history books.
This is the perfect example of the exception that proves the rule. I mean it is almost shocking that you would try to say this with a straight face.
> I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
... having said that, isn't it funny just how much gun violence there is in the one developed country that allows for open slather gun ownership. It's like, yes, you can never stop a determined person from doing violence, but by reducing the availability and power of fire arms you do stop a lot of fools from doing "mass shooter" levels of damage.
> I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.
Trump has already issued a statement blaming his political opponents for the death before the perpetrator has even been identified.
"It's long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible. For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that funded and support it, as well as those who go after our judges, law enforcement officials, and everyone else who brings order to our country."
> That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.
The event was set up so nobody could have direct access to Kirk, which would have been required for the "home-made shotgun" approach. There were barricades and bodyguards in front of him, and a waiting car in case he had to be whisked away. Shooting someone from 200+ yards requires more precise weapons than someone can make themselves. I think it's also important to note that Utah literally started allowing open carry on college campuses a few weeks ago. Not only did all those "good guys with guns" not prevent the assassination, having a large number of armed people in a crowd makes finding the shooter more difficult, as we've seen from police arresting the wrong suspect multiple times.
There's video of the police carrying someone away, with his pants down. They drop him on his face at one point. Apparently the wrong guy.
Utah has what they call "constitutional carry." Extremely permissive gun laws. I'd bet there were several people carrying concealed in that crowd, not counting security and police.
Reports are that the single shot came from ~200 yards/meters away, which is basically the worst case scenario for good-guy-with-a-gun. In an active shooter situation, an armed bystander could in principle stop an attacker from continuing, but the only way that an armed bystander could hope to stop an assassination is if they were walking around looking for trouble.
Regardless of where you stand on the subject of concealed carry, I don't think its controversial to say we shouldn't be encouraging untrained/unvetted folks to go seek out would-be assassins before they have demonstrated themselves to be a danger. That's exactly how "armed security" shot and killed an actual bystander at the Salt Lake City 50501 demonstration earlier this year.
I'm certainly not encouraging armed individuals in a crowd to do anything. My point was that having a significant number of armed people in a crowd like that makes finding a shooter that much more difficult. I am not surprised the wrong person was grabbed. It could've been much worse.
I misunderstood you then. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Even so, most folks who carry prefer concealed carry for tactical reasons, one of which being that unless you have your rifle in a ready position, its not very useful in a self-defense situation, and simply marks you as "shoot this one first". And it turns out that walking around with a rifle in a ready position is generally perceived as aggressive, regardless of actual intent, even by those comfortable with firearms (consider a police officer approaching with a holstered weapon vs one in their hand).
So in the context of this shot, it ought to be relatively easy to pick out the shooter in the moment, the problem is that a ~200m radius around the tent where Kirk was speaking covers a lot of territory, and that's a lot of ground to cover effectively without obviously interfering with students' free movement about their college campus.
You don’t need someone in all of that space though. Just in the locations that give you a decent shot at the tent.
College campuses are not known for their well-shielded outdoor spaces.
The shot was clearly with a long gun (a rifle). There’s no way to make a shot at 200 yards with a hand gun (okay yes it’s possible, but disqualifyingly difficult and unlikely). And nobody concealed carries a long gun because it’s not physically possible.
Correct, no right to bear arms people think it stops bad guys shooting people, only that it caps the deaths - i.e. you'll have a few killed then the bad guy is dropped, rather than they get to go killing dozens of people at leisure without resistance until the cops arrive (and presumably, wait outside while the bad guy continues killing, to "secure the perimeter" or whatever).
The theory then is that this will act as a deterrent - an angry bad guy wants to go out taking dozens of people with him - a few people wouldn't be "enough" for his grandiose end.
Yeah, this happened with the shooting at the SLC protest earlier this year. A protestor with a gun was shot at by security, then accused of shooting the person who died. Open carry is allowed in Utah. Whether or not you think marching while openly carrying is a good idea. Unfortunately I understand the stress of the moment and it can be hard to figure out who is responsible while acting quickly.
https://www.utahpoliticalwatch.news/what-actually-happened-a...
I bang on a lot about not saying things like "this person is a threat to democracy" and other such apocalyptic statements. This right here is a perfect example of why: when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.
If you find this horrifying (and I hope you do, because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder), then I encourage you to really think about whether we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds. We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.
You start your comment saying we should avoid making apocalyptic statements and end it by saying "the cycle is going to destroy our society".
My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots. The view is nearly impossible to avoid in context. How do you see society surviving if the prevailing view is that anyone with a different belief is trying to bring on the end times? To the point where assassinating political opponents is justified?
It would bring on the end of a society. It might well happen in the US case, they've been heading in a pretty dangerous direction rhetorically. If we take the Soviet Union as a benchmark they probably have a long way to go but that sort of journey seems unnecessary and stupid.
> I'd say the appropriate read there is to slip the word "unjustified" into a few key slots.
"You shouldn't do anything unjustified" is an uncontroversial and useless prescription.
I think they're politely asking for the far left to stop with the language inflation. Use words with appropriate and proportionate meanings. Do not try to gradually be more and more dramatic and impactful.
It's not clear that "existential" threat and "destruction of society" are the same. A society can be "destroyed" via a lapse in the social contract, turning it into a "society" or a different nature, or a non social population.
> My conclusion is that you don't mind making apocalyptic statements about actions you think are dangerous to society, which sits uncomfortably with your asking other people not to.
This is a nonsense argument. It is possible that constantly making apocalyptic statements can result in an apocalypse, and saying that people should stop doing that is not contradictory.
The words you use matter. If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated. If you're not advocating for murderous escalation, then stop using those words (for example).
> If trump is an existential threat to democracy, he should be assassinated.
Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat, who/what maintains the list of words which can replace "democracy" in that section, and what happens when someone disagrees with the maintainer of that list?
Those are all great questions, and why the point under discussion is whether or not we should choose our words more carefully and stop making apocalyptic predictions.
I wholeheartedly disagree - we need to be less concerned with who might say something and more concerned with how we teach society to react to it. Whether or not someone is making apocalyptic predictions should not define our ability to hold back from assassinating.
How we say things is how we teach society to react to it. We're all teaching each other, every day.
I'd agree there are aspects of how we say things which can reinforce how to react about it, but I don't think that's a good primary way to teach how to engage with polarizing content and certainly not via the way of avoidance of the types of statements bigstrat2003 laid out. I.e. there are very reasonable, particularly historical, examples of belief of potential threats to democracy which turned out to be true, so I don't inherently have a problem with that kind of discussion. I actually think calling that kind of statement as the problem would actually drive more extremism.
At the same time, I do believe there are ways to share such statements while also reinforcing healthy ways to react at the same time. kryogen1c's example ending in "he should be assassinated" crosses the line from bigstrat2003's talk of apocalyptic claims to direct calls to violence about them - the latter of which I agree is bad teaching (but I'd still rather people be encouraged to openly talk about those kinds of statements too, rather than be directly pressured to internalize or echo chamber them).
This is why the first question posed about the statement from kryogen1c was "Who/what is defining assassination as a reasonable response to that threat". The follow on questions were only added to help highlight there is no reasonable answer to that question because it's the call to assassination which is inherently problematic, not the claim someone is a threat to the democracy here. The latter (talking about perceived threats) is good, if not best, to talk about directly and openly. It's the former (calling for assassination about it) which is inherently incompatible with a stable society.
Humans are not rational machines.
You can "educate" someone all you want, they will still suffer from all the normal biases and those biases will still affect their choices.
This is why we have double blind trials even though doctors are "experts"
I agree with this, and, as a result, I don't believe there is any possible approach which results in 0 people assassinating political figures for what other people say. I think the same conclusion can even be reached if people were supposed to be expected to be perfectly rational beings.
I do believe education on how to effectively engage against an idea which feels threatening is better equipped to handle this apparent fact than bigstrat2003's approach of teaching people to not say certain beliefs because they'd be worth killing about. That doesn't mean it results in a perfect world though. Some may perhaps even agree with both approaches at the same time, but I think the implication from teaching the silencing of certain beliefs from being said for fear they are worth assassinating over if believed true ends up driving the very problem it sets out against. Especially once you add in malicious actors (internal or external).
> stop making apocalyptic predictions.
You’re one to talk.
It can be both simultaneously true that the current administration and its supporters are genuinely dangerous to our democracy and that political violence is not an acceptable way to effect social change.
Yes, it's true that lunatics on both sides may use their side's rhetoric as a call to action but often this isn't even the case and they're just hopelessly confused and mentally ill people. It'd be nice if we lived in a society where those people couldn't get guns or could get mental health treatment and it'd be nice if one side of this debate didn't weaponize these common sense ideas into identity politics but here we are.
If they really were such a danger why did the opposing party not try to save it with a democratically elected candidate instead of forcing an unpopular one down people’s throat?
Because humans are fallible and egotistical and arrogant.
Alternatively, because they don’t believe their own rhetoric but think using it will be effective in getting their voters to turn out.
politicial violence in this case will be quite effective in terms of later voting results - kirk was a good story teller who could get people enthusiastic about ideas. attempts to make it such that a similar event dont happen again will be much more likely to succeed now that hes dead than they were while he was alive
Is it bad to be a threat to democracy? Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better. I don't agree but it's actually a popular point of view. Are we supposed to be so afraid to point that out that we censor ourselves?
> Some people hold a point of view that there is something other than democracy serves their agenda better.
Well, since they don't believe in democracy, I suppose they won't be too concerned when their opinions are discarded. What do they want, representation?
Yes
The othering that is so very common in online discussion is genuinely dangerous. It's incredibly common and almost benign at this point because it's just everywhere.
It is historically proven as the first step to violence. People seem to think that words don't matter.
They matter very much. Just because you can read millions of words a day, doesn't mean they're not powerful.
Support him or no, he didn't deserve to die for his political beliefs.
Do we know if this violence is politically motivated yet? (Other common motivations are mental health issues, paranoia, revenge, desire for fame etc). Of course it seems likely, but it also seems premature to jump to trying to use this as proof of a particular personal position.
I definitely believe that people should be more understanding of each other, and less quick to jump to insults and othering, but we know so little about this situation, to be so confident that it was caused by speech seems extreme.
I am also aware that a lot of the political violence of the last few years ended up not being motivated by the reasons one might naturally expect.
> Do we know if this violence is politically motivated yet?
How many long-range rifle shot assassinations do you know of that were not politically motivated? Jilted lovers and such don't do that. In context it's hard to take this assassination as anything other than politically motivated.
I guess that largely depends on how one qualifies "politically motivated". By some definitions it's easy to include any of what you listed as also part of a politically motivated attack, by a narrower definition one could just as easily choose to exclude them. E.g. whether an attacker is paranoid is orthogonal to whether the attack involved the victim's political views/activity in some way.
At the root I agree in principal though. It's, for example, still possible he picked a bad fight with an unstable individual in a bar last night (over something not politically related) and they followed him to the event he was speaking at to shoot him. I'm not as convinced I've seen that kind of thing happen "a lot", but it's true we don't have post validation yet.
I mean... it could have been a jilted ex-lover.
my basic guess would be that its epstein related, which is still politically motivated in some sense, but "killed him for protecting pedophiles" is quite different from "killed him for being right wing"
Isn't it more likely that this is a false flag operation designed to distract from the Epstein birthday card signed by Trump? The timing is suspicious and there's certainly a lot of bandwidth given over to a single shooting, compared to the school shooting on the same day (three shot).
Kirk would seem like an ideal target as he has a high media profile and is not involved in running the government. I would guess that the aim is to promote civil war and thus provide an excuse for martial law.
Violence should not be how we settle our disagreements. But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion. Fear that someone may act violently should not cause us to suppress our genuine fears about the future of our democracy.
> But if someone is genuinely a threat to democracy we should be able to express that opinion.
All claims I see of a person being "a threat to democracy" are super exaggerated, and almost always of the "a thread to our democracy" (which makes one wonder: who is "us" in that phrase, and what about everyone else?).
Exaggerating threats is itself an incitement to violence. Maybe tone it down?
This may be true for Kirk specifically, but in general I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say there are threats to "our" (meaning all Americans) democracy when there's frequent attempts to subvert and even overthrow election results.
See: January 6th insurrection, trump's call to the GA secretary of state, increased gerrymandering, and attempts to throw out certain ballots.
Are these not threats to democracy?
Wild exaggerations don't help. No one at J6 had a weapon -- if they haad, we'd know. Don't mention the pipe bomber, because that's been looking a lot like a false flag. Blah blah blah. Oh, and gerrymandering is rich: the blue states are more gerrymandered than the red states. These are not threats to democracy considering that:
- J6 was not in fact an insurrection (no weapons, no plan, just a crowd acting like a mob)
- all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means (even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)
- gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start
- "attempts to throw out certain ballots" has "attempts to stuff ballot boxes" on the flip side, which you ignore.
You are not even-handed.
>all attempts to challenge the 2020 election results were through legal means
And all 70-something accusations across the country, when they had to be held to actual factual basis, were rejected, and the candidate continued to lie and say he won when he did not.
>(even the call to the GA SoS was not a crime)
Wrong.
>J6 was not in fact an insurrection
Wrong.
>gerrymandering is absolutely standard in American politics and has been almost from the start
One political party in the past generation has advocated for eliminating it, while another political party is explicitly and proudly using it to weaken democracy. No pretense, just "We need to keep Republicans in power, and so we will do everything we can to that end, even if it is undemocratic".
One political party wants to make elections more accurate and representative by changing to things like ranked-choice or approval voting, and one political party defends the status quo because anything that gives voters more options would disenfranchise extremists.
You are not even handed.
approval voting helps but IRV is actually fairly pro-extremist.
https://www.rangevoting.org/IrvExtreme
- There were many weapons in fact, and there were vague plans, but not detailed ones. An insurrection is according to Webster's "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government".
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/us-capitol-attack-rioters...
Even if there were no weapons, the events of the day still satisfy that.
- Just because something was deemed to be legal, does not mean it's okay and therefore not a threat to democracy.
- I never stated that gerrymandering was exclusive to Republicans. I know it happens on both sides, but it is a threat to democracy either way. My point about it being "increased" is because it is now being done mid-decade by Republicans rather than just when the census occurs.
- You frame this as if the second negates the first. Let me be clear, they are both threats to democracy. Thank you for providing me with another point of evidence towards my argument.
I remember when the tone started to shift. The onslaught of lies, hate and hyperbole. It only got worse since then, and things that are acceptable politically today were unthinkable then.
There have been no consequences, no corrections, no apologies for blatant lying and spreading hate. There’s not even a pretense of honesty anymore.
“Tone it down!” That’s rich!
Agree. It's unfortunate that violence often becomes the settlement when folks let norms dissolve.
> when you steep people in a culture that tells them someone is (or their ideas are) an existential threat, eventually someone is going to be the right level of scared + unstable that causes them to kill people to try to defend their way of life.
Well, yes. People point this out regularly with mass shootings. Sometimes the shooters helpfully leave a list of all the violent rhetoric that inspired them. Anders Breivik claimed to be acting against an "existential threat". Those words get used a lot.
The problem is, existential threats are more common than not in politics. Nearly every decision can kill, or change who gets killed, on a scope that varies from individual, to global, to more abstract, e.g. values that are just as important as life (freedom, language, culture, family, nature, take your pick - many have given their lives for each of these).
Deport an illegal immigrant? They may get killed back in their more dangerous home country (or die slowly due to less access to medicine), or grow their home economy instead of yours. Let them stay? Maybe they're a dangerous criminal and will kill someone here. Don't deport any? Your culture and nation get diluted into nothing - some value those things highly, others don't, but to the former, that's an existential threat.
Tax fossil fuels? The economy slows, there's less money for hospitals, more crime due to poverty, this can easily kill people, or maybe it's harder to keep up with China. Don't tax them, and now you're taking your chances with global warming.
Spy on everyone's communication? You've just made it much easier for a tyrannical government to arise, and those have killed millions, and trampled values many hold as dear as life itself. Don't spy? Well maybe you miss a few terrorist attacks, but you also have a harder time identifying hostile foreign propaganda, which could have devastating but hard to isolate effects.
Simply put, death, existential threats, threats to democracy, etc., are common in politics, and one cannot talk honestly about it while avoiding their mention. I would say that, unless you cannot keep a cool head in those circumstances, you shouldn't get into politics in any capacity. But of course, those that need this advice won't heed it.
How can we not call a spade a spade? The United States government is being destroyed from within, openly and proudly. A handbook was written saying it would be done this way.
If someone or something is a threat to democracy and rule of law, then they are. Period. I think pretending the ruling political party in the US is not intentionally destroying the government is not a valid strategy.
This is not an endorsement of what happened today. I worry this will have a big chilling effect on political speech in the country.
What should people say when someone is advocating against democracy?
They should argue against them, and explain why democracy is better?
> because there can be no moral justification for celebrating murder
As someone of Eastern European origins I would celebrate Vladimir Putin's murder, especially since he's responsible for the murder for so many in Ukraine today (both Russians and Ukrainians). I think the reality is a touch more nuanced than the absolutist ethical stance.
I couldn't imagine celebrating the murder of another person, no matter how bad. And I consider that to be the hallmark of being a civilized person.
Perhaps you are unclear on the devestation in Ukraine that Vladimir Putin is responsible for, and continues to be responsible for while he lives.
Could you say the same if he murdered your friends, family, children? All for what? That man has no respect for human life, civilization or diplomacy.
While within a civilization we can afford each other grace, it remains important for the very security of our civilization that we retain our malice and use it sparingly on those who seek to destroy it. Otherwise i fear that we only believe in it because its convenient or makes us feel morally superior. Do really believe in it if you're not willing to get your hands bloody to defend it? If you were capable of defending it, would you not celebrate the victory?
Putin being murdered tomorrow would create a significant opportunity for peace in the region and spare many, many lives. Such an event would be worthy of cheer.
And yet huge portions of America celebrated Sadams and Osamas death. One must be cautious in believing that all people around them will maintain decorum and act civilized.
Now do Gadaffi.
> we would not be better off without such extremist language poisoning people's minds
I genuinely can’t tell if you realize that this is a description of the victim, and your comment could easily be construed as a justification for what happened, or if you condemn the action so heartily you missed that.
Which leads to my point: there are discourses around this that completely miss each other. That’s a huge problem because so many people will loudly express strongly held emotions and two people will read completely opposite view points. US public discourse is at a point where language, without copying context, is failing.
Saying “both sides miss each other” isn’t true either: I’m convinced one side is perfectly capable of quoting leaders of the other, even if they find it absurd, but the reciprocal isn’t true. Many people can’t today say what was the point of one of the largest presidential campaign. They’ll mention points that were never raised by any surrogate or leaders. But they can’t tell that because the relationship is complete severed.
I don’t think there’s a balanced argument around violence, either: one side has leaders who vocally and daily argue for illegal acts violence, demand widespread gun possession vs. another where some commentators occasionally mention that violent revolution is an option, but leaders are always respectful. The vast majority of people who commit gun violence support one particular political movement, even the violence against the leaders of that same movement. If that’s not obvious to you, I can assure you that you are out off from a large part of the political discourse about the US, not just around you, but internationally.
I understand the thrust of your comment, but why is "this person is a threat to democracy" an apocalyptic statement, but "... or the cycle is going to destroy our society" not? Seems like you're being rather selective in what's considered apocalyptic statements and what's not.
There is no inherent threat of violence in saying "this person is a threat to democracy". This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.
> This is why the US has strong protections for speech, so that we don't get arbitrary determinations of what's acceptable and what's not.
The First Amendment is about stopping the government from stopping you from saying the things you want to say. The First Amendment says nothing about social norms. People in this thread are asking for people to tone down the rhetoric, something that seems eminently reasonable. Think of it this way: if you want to insist that so and so are "a threat to democracy", what's to stop them from similarly inciting violence towards you? Generalized violence would not be good for anyone, including those who might currently feel safe from it.
The golden rule is always in effect.
My core objection is the claim that saying so and so is "a threat to democracy" is inciting violence. Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not? One doesn't seem any more extreme than the other to me.
To be fair, you can incite violence and that speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as there is no risk of imminent violence.
So, yes, your speech saying so and so is a "threat to democracy" is protected speech, but it is in fact inciting violence.
> Where as so and so "is going to destroy our society" is not?
The quote was:
| We have to try to stop escalating, or the cycle is going to destroy our society.
Indeed that is very much not incitement to violence but actually incitement to de-escalation. The "or the cycle is going to..." part is not specifically a threat against any one person, unlike the "so and so is a threat to democracy".
How can you not see this?
Likewise, raising awareness of threats to our democracy implicitly and explicitly appeals to the threats to stop threatening democracy. It is not incitement to violence.
Incitement to violence is what I see when the president explicitly tells his supporters to beat up his opponents, which he does. Unfortunately, that is one of the smallest incitements to violence we've seen from the right over the years.
"What you're doing is threatening our democracy, you have to stop" vs "What you're doing is going to destroy our society, you have to stop". What's the difference between those in terms of inciting violence?
If your democracy is so weak that it can be harmed by some dude openly debating on a collage campus, maybe it wasn‘t an ideal system to begin with.
What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?
A guy who gathers large groups of people to talk with them and persuade them on political topics is the _essence_ of democracy.
Someone who calls for violence or does violence against people wishing to have open debate is the essence of fascism.
real question:
what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda, and the end result of following said goals is the loss of your way of life? What if lies are held as truth and money allows the lies to be repeated so often many don't even realize their axioms are baseless? What happens to the sheep when the wolves vote to eat the sheep?
> what if that persuasion is not logic, but propaganda
The answer to bad speech is more speech. If you refuse to do that then you are not convinced of being right -- you lose the argument when you resort to violence or justify resorting to violence over speech.
That’s a strawman. They didn’t say the answer is violence, but that calling someone a threat to democracy can be justified.
> They didn’t say the answer is violence, but that calling someone a threat to democracy can be justified.
It had better be. All claims so far do not stand up to scrutiny -- they are all exaggerations, therefore they incite unjustified violence.
After evaluating the claims, I have concluded that they do, in fact stand up to scrutiny, and are not "all exaggerations".
Then I guess you become a monarchist, like Curtis Yarvin.
But of all things Charlie Kirk was not, first among them: He was not "a threat to democracy".
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/charlie-kirk-calls-full-...
idk, this doesn't sound very democratic to me
Then you answer that with more discourse. This is basic.
The loss of your way of life has little if anything to do with „democracy“.
if somebody is a threat to democracy just by talking, your democracy is probably already dead
The comment I replied to was making a blanket statement that could be extended to more than just Charlie Kirk, including folks who do things that undermine democracy beyond just fearmongering.
Maybe you are a threat to democracy. Hmm, not nice, right? Please let us all apply the golden rule. Violence should be limited to stopping violence.
MSNBC commentators today said some things today that were so horrendous.
>> this person is a threat to democracy
I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.
Yes, assassinations (and the people who do them and/or pay for them) are in fact a threat to civil society.
I'm more concerned with the fact that billionaires have a monopoly on the incentives that create policy and can afford to fund large scale social engineering operations to get whatever they want. Charlie Kirk doesn't exist in a vacuum. Peter Thiel funded him and Thiel has said openly he wants a dictatorship. That is why Kirk was in the propagandist role he was in, and why he is now dead.
Perhaps someone decided he was more valuable dead than alive.
Translation: If you keep drawing the prophet at some point someone who really believes will act on it, right?
Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.
> Sorry. We in the west don’t live like that.
Sort of, even South Park self censored when it came to drawing an animated Muhammad.
I think you may have missed their message. That they self censored for fear of violent retaliation makes strong ridicule of the threatening group. It exemplifies its contrast with a free society.
It essentially says, "They are so lacking of basic compassion that even jokes are not allowed."
That's the joke.
It also highlights to normal society that there are indeed people whose beliefs are so absurd that they get worked up and want to kill people over a stick figure.
Telling the truth did not cause this. The Nazi regime, a machine that is systematically crushing the working class and minorities & driving large swaths of the population to despair - is what caused this. The idea that we can just adjust the way we speak to avoid the inevitable outcome of worsening material conditions under fascism is patently absurd.
The people who came up with the concept of "stochastic terrorism" seem to be pretty silent when it hits the other side.
Because the other comment was flagged by people acting in anger, I want to make sure you knew that several folks are speaking up from both sides of the aisle. Here are two quotes from people whom you consider your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us...
I don't quite understand why you have to put words in my mouth. I didn't claim anyone to be my political enemy. In fact I have close friends on both isles of the political spectrum, and I don't identify myself with either of them. I just wish people would defend things out of principle, rather than just what currently supports the things that I (perhaps wrongly) presume to be their political identity.
Identitarianism is bad. We agree.
Why was the first thing you reached for a claim that Democrats are bad because you hadn't yet heard any sympathies from Democratic politicians (alleged creators of the term stochastic terrorism)? That seems extraordinarily unreasonable.
As a former Republican, it makes me sad to see people supporting a party that claims to have values be extraordinarily unfair to their fellow countrymen. Toss aside all the other nonsense in the political arena for the moment. Democrats have been advocating for gun control for years. Years! Why would an attack about someone being killed by the very thing they warned about even enter the brain of a reasonable person, if not for the poison of propaganda?
I don't understand this comment.
This happened a few hours ago while the decedent was commenting on 5/5700 mass shootings being performed by trans people being enough to take rights, which the decedent normally argues should not be abrogated, away, and that most shootings were gang violence. This is after a few years long history of promoting inaction on guns despite clear Constitutionality and clear need.
Ironically it was at a school, making it a school shooting. Unironically, there was a school shooting in Colorado occurring at the same time.
Guns are the problem. Everyone knows this. Some try to justify it anyway, Mr. Kirk among them.
Like I said, I simply don't understand why someone's response mere hours after a deadly shooting is "I blame my political enemies who are wholly uninvolved and tried to help prevent these types of occurrences."
---
Edit --
Here are two quotes from, as you said, your political enemies:
> JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones."
> BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT: "We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy."
Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/reactions-fatal-shooting-us...
So sad, he was more willing than most to hear and debate contrary viewpoints (the "prove me wrong" table).
The guy in the meme with the table saying "Change My Mind" is Steven Crowder, but I imagine they ran in similar circles.
Yeah, I think it was a similar concept.
His assassination is a bad thing. And, he was a bad faith huckster who made his money and fame on trolling. He was not open-minded or considerate.
Agree sad, but not because he was reaching across the intellectual divide. Kirk's debate responses/performances were very often bad faith. It seemed more performative than an actual debate - "owning the libs" and not an intellectual exercise. I really don't think there was a true willingness to listen to contrary viewpoints. For example, his positions did not evolve on most all positions, even when confronted with compelling arguments.
This is untrue. There are many cases of his debate where he acknowledged strong points made by his counterpart and commended them on the quality of their argument.
You may have seen one of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. Those exist, as do many examples like the below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
Even if someone concedes "good point", it does not mean they frequently are debating in good faith. My view of the "very often in bad faith" is not being aware of a single position where he evolved. For example, not only saying "good point" but also "you're right."
Your retort, my comment, the comment I responded to all seem very predictable. Charlie Kirk's debates seem to be a Rorschach test.
Google AI says similar when asked "how often did Charlie Kirk debate in bad faith". The response lists lots of criticisms, but also that defenders point out that Kirk did at least engage in open debates (which is commendable even if not always done in good faith, it was some level of dialogue at least).
There are other sources that indicate there are quite a few of these bad faith examples (not just my words, not just my anecdata):
> "When we found out about his death, I wanted to know if I misjudged him, so I looked again on YouTube," she said. [1]
> "But I found the way he talks to people in a debate is not opening up any genuine discussion – especially when he debates with a woman. He tends to talk very fast and talk over them," she said. [1]
I've seen debates with Pastors, and others, where opinions do change - the tenor of those debates is all quite different. I don't see the same talking points constantly brought out even after someone thoroughly debunks one (from a previous debate).
[1] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/young-fans-critics-debate-charlie-...
> Untrue because 'very often' should instead be stated as 'sometimes'?
No, because he WAS reaching across an intellectual divide.
Would be curious to your reply to hnewsenjoyer's comment, as it captures my thoughts well. His willingness or lack of willingness to change his mind doesn't mean he wasn't facilitating the exchange of ideas or bridging intellectual gaps. He was doing politics the way it was supposed to be done in a liberal democracy.
Much of the commentary of “it’s not a real debate” or “it’s not good faith” feels like an attempt to disqualify him for violating some technicality about how a “proper” exchange of ideas should occur, eliminating the need to actually respond to opposing ideas. A type of “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
The fact is, he facilitated many frank exchanges of ideas. Whether he was willing to change his own mind during them is immaterial. Anyone could discuss any topic with him, and arguments needed to be made by both sides in front of an audience that observed and evaluated. Those sorts of interactions are the lifeblood of a pluralistic liberal democracy.
Imagine if Trump refused to debate for the presidency? That would be terrible, regardless of the fact that no presidential candidate would meet any of your standards for “good faith.”
Be that as it may, this is a political rally and not a moderated debate. People don't take these seriously because they're always engineered to drum up advertising over everything else. And that's okay! It's just clearly not a debate.
For whatever it's worth, there are liberal and neocon commentators who are hated for doing this same thing (and rightfully so).
"bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".
> "bad faith" is an euphemism for "someone whose views you don't agree with".
This is not correct.
But is it bad faith?
"Bad faith" is choosing the weakest, least useful, or intentional misinterpretation of a position. Typically this is then used as the starting point for a rebuttal.
> Wikipedia:
> A bad faith discussion is characterized by insincerity and a lack of genuine commitment to the exchange of ideas, where the primary goal is not to seek truth or understand opposing viewpoints, but to manipulate, deceive, or win the argument regardless of the facts
Discussion is most useful when parties attempt to make the strongest arguments for and against each other's positions to find an optimally logical position and/or to clarify ideological beliefs that underpin those positions. Good faith discussion enables that. Bad faith exchanges are often used to derail, to generate strawmen, to mischaracterize another party's beliefs or thinking, et al.
Both can be true at the same time.
[flagged]
It's unlikely that you're actually familiar with his work.
There are many examples of videos like the one below, and if you'd seen any of them, you would absolutely understand why people think this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
I've literally seen this before but thanks for telling me about yourself
If you've seen this and you don't understand why people think he modeled constructive conversation, I think that says a lot more about you
I think this because I saw him go on a college campus, give a microphone to liberal students, and give them a chance to defend their views while also providing an alternative point of view.
Can you explain why you’re flabbergasted?
Because you are able to watch a carefully staged piece of theater and mistake it for reality. I thought most people, in general, were able to discern the difference, but you and many aren't
I was there. He let anybody speak. The college students who spoke were not actors, it was not theater. You’re deluded.
[flagged]
He was very civil and gave people the opportunity to express themselves. But it often had the result of giving them enough rope to hang themselves with.
He's not, actually.
You may have seen some of the many "own the libs" style edits of him out there, some of which he/his team created and promoted. There are many examples like the one below, which is absolutely a constructive discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-X0YD0tYTw
The whole thing is aggressively imbalanced: he’s sat, protected by guards, on a stage over the other person; the people asking questions are standing, their back to a large vocal crowd that may of may not be armed.
He’s cherry-picking one interaction, has all the editing controls, and even with all that, he literally interrupted the guy less than a minute in.
This is exactly what I meant: the appearance of a debate, with a heavy anvil on the scale.
Actually, not “may or may not.”
Why in the world would he be protected by guards I wonder? Save me the hand wringing about the "power imbalance" and focus on the substance of the conversation.
The comment I was responding to claimed that he did not engage in constructive conversations. This video is ABSOLUTELY an example of a constructive conversation.
Constructive conversation would be you asking why we didn’t think this was, learning from our perspective. It’s when you use questions marks for something else than snark.
You don’t seem to know what that looks like, so you telling me WITH BIG SHOUTY LETTERS that ABSOLUTELY it is… That feels a bit self-defeating to stay polite.
So now you want to pretend that "constructive conversation" doesn't refer to Kirk's debates, but rather our exchange?
When you have to change the terms of the discussion, it's because your argument is weak.
You are the one using him as a reference. Neither of you care to understand what the other person is saying and grow from others’ experience; you only care to pretend to debate with people who already agree with you, and find witty quips if not.
Otherwise, you would have stopped your reply at the first line. That could have been a great question if you cared enough to read to the answer before dismissing it.
He got smoked at the UK Cambridge Union student debate club ("the oldest debating society in the world, as well as the largest student society in Cambridge.").
Bad faith arguments and cheap rhetorical trickery didn't wash.
The only excerpts from those debates on the Charlie Kirk channel are edited to show him in a good light - the original full videos tell a different tale.
This is a link to a full 12 minute video. You can't watch it and claim that he's not interested in having a constructive discussion.
I don't doubt he lost debates. I don't doubt that there were instances where he took cheap rhetorical shots. I've done that, you've done that, and he did that.
Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
There were multiple Cambridge Union debates, 1 hour forty minutes in total. He did poorly on all of them .. almost as if he'd never encountered a proper formal debate with rules and procedures before.
Cambridge debating is a microcosm of parliamentary debates in the UK, AU and elsewhere that I'm not entirely sure the US has in government anymore, if ever - the CSPAN footage I've seen largely features lone people showboating unchallenged, often with props.
Your 12 minute video shows a back and forth near Q&A exchange between Kirk and another not entirely opposed with Kirk taking various interpretations of well regulated militia as he saw them with little push back.
It has edits and has been self selected and post produced by Kirk to post on his channel to highlight how "good" he is.
> Watch the video and you will undoubtedly understand OP's point
"I am right therefore I win" is all the proof I need that you have watched a lot of Charlie Kirk edits.
The fact that you stuff words in my mouth is actually more revealing than anything at all.
I cited a video that supported my argument. You then make a complete straw man.
I reacted to the context of that video. You ignoring that and telling me that I didn’t do it is a nice illustrations of the problem I have with pretend debate.
You seem to have a problem with debate in general. No surprise that you're on the shooter's side here.
What have I ever written that would imply I’m pro gun violence?
This comment is completely unacceptable and I demand that you delete it.
Fair enough, I retract the second part. It was out of line.
I'll modify it to: No surprise you object to someone of opposing views going onto campuses for exchanges of ideas.
it never was about "exchanges of ideas" it always was about getting short "owning the libs" clips to post on social media for views and money
There are many examples of exchanges of ideas. You can hide from them if you want, but they are numerous, well documented, and widely available.
Regardless of how offensive you may find the arguments he made, or the fact that he promoted them and was paid for them, there are tens of millions of Americans who agree with him. What do you propose to do about them? Delete them? Send them to re-education camps? Strip their voting rights? Of course not. Shaming and ostracizing them as “deplorable” has now reached its 10th year as a failed strategy.
There’s only 1 option — we have to talk to each other. Are the conversations imperfect? Yes. Are they often performative yelling where no one will change their mind? Sure. Does it allow people whose views are heinous to articulate those in front of an audience? You bet. Did Charlie Kirk build a business around it with clickbait titles about "owning the libs?" Yep. And does this country need more engagement and dialogue? Unquestionably. There is no alternative.
There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.). Given the segments of society that are armed to the teeth, you’d think the left would be the side that is eager for dialogue over violence, but instead many on the left are celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. Even those who wouldn’t embrace the “violence > dialogue” rhetoric can often be influenced by it, as can be seen in the “He didn’t deserve murder, BUT…” statements.
You may have seen clips of Kirk answering the question of “why are you doing this?” I’m seeing it shared frequently in the aftermath of his death, because it was asked of him a lot. He says it quite plainly: “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.” He’s correct on this point, and I believe his legacy will be for being someone gunned down for and in the act of trying to address issues via dialogue. I encourage you to consider that, as I suspect my rant above about the importance of dialogue over violence is actually very much aligned with your own values.
> we have to talk to each other.
yes, the conversations need to be honest and on equal footing. Not rage/click-bait to further divide society, which is exactly what Kirk did. His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".
> There’s a deeply concerning, common pattern of radicalized rhetoric on the left rejecting dialogue in favor of “action” (read: violence.).
Qanon, January sixth, Pizzagate, Plandemic, Birther and other conspiracy theories, the attacks on democrat politicians, the rhetoric around George Floyds murder and BLM, the rage against black athletes doing something as simple as taking a knee. See a pattern? Hell Trump's own words and those of his cabinet are radicalized rhetoric, so I really don't know what to tell you when you say "the left rejects dialogue and is violent". "The left" has tried for years to explain the world via fact checking and educational content, lots of good that has done!
> “If we don’t work out our disagreements with conversations, there’s only violence left.”
Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion. His whole career was based on "prove me wrong", an obvious challenge to prove that he is right, and nothing can sway him. Give me one time where he changed his mind through dialogue. Even when shown a dolphin foetus and mistook it for human, he did not accept that he was wrong.
So yea, excuse me if I don't think you are arguing in good faith, just like i don't think Charlie Kirk ever was.
It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith. This is a convenient scapegoat for you to ignore strong counterarguments, since all it takes to dismiss the speaker is their "lack of good faith." With your brilliant reasoning, after all, how could anyone of good faith disagree?
> His "conversations" were not about exchanging ideas but "owning the libs".
There are many counterexamples to this. If you're arguing in such good faith, you should explore those.
> lots of good that has done!
Even this is a good example of what I'm talking about. It sounds like you're giving up on dialogue, which is precisely my point. Don't give up on it. Commend those who seek it.
> fact checking
Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious, if you have the good faith to look.
> Charlie Kirk never planned to be swayed by a better opinion
You may be correct, but that doesn't even matter. The proposition that no one was swayed by his dialogue would be outrageous, and I doubt you would make such an argument. So even if he would never change his mind, he's still contributing to dialogue.
I asked you before -- What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?
> It seems like no one can disagree with you in good faith.
I gave you about 10 examples of "the right" being unhinged, violent and espousing radical rhetoric. You conveniently ignored all of them and continue claiming it's "the left" that does not want dialogue. That is bad faith.
> There are many counterexamples to this.
I am really not about to waste my time going through that dreck. If you have examples i'll have a look.
> Get out of your bubble. The many failures of anything-but-neutral fact checking are patently obvious,
Again, going to need sources. Is "get out of your bubble" the constructive discourse you were mentioning earlier?
> What is it that you propose be done about the tens of millions of Americans that agree with Charlie Kirk?
That I do not know, people have been radicalized by insane conspiracy theories over the last 10 - 15 years that I don't think much can be done to help them at this point.
Just for context, here some constructive statements from Charlie Kirk:
- If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
- Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact. It’s happening more and more.
- Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
- The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white.
- The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
- There is no separation of church and state. It’s a fabrication, it’s a fiction, it’s not in the constitution. It’s made up by secular humanists.
The right does not have a monopoly on hateful, violent people/rhetoric. The idea that they do is a soothing story people on the left like to tell themselves.
I don’t defend those things he said, or those things hateful rightwing things you cited. The fact that you think of them as a response to “look at this bad thing on the left” is very telling. The existence of bad things on the right have no bearing on the observation that there are bad things on the left.
You should think more deeply about what to do about all those Americans who agree with Charlie Kirk. “Force them to change their minds” is not an option available to you.
I encourage you to read the thread you jumped in on, which begins with the example you asked for. The first comment you responded to, which perhaps you stopped reading partially through, explains my position, and it’s not “Charlie Kirk is the good guy here.” You don’t have to like him, you can disagree with everything he thinks, but he was doing politics the right way: through debate and discussion. Classifying that as somehow invalid is an attempt to insulate yourself from challenges to your worldview.
The oxford and cambridge unions both solely function to facilitate the careers of people debating now (e.g. someone got a career out of the kirk one)
Multiple people not simply one, all still students (given it was May 2025), but headed for careers as professional orators in law, politics, business, and able to debate with structural rules, yes.
I was more thinking that girl who is now signed up to a talent mgmt company. The real debate fanatics doing it for the love of the game all do it in proper clubs in london and so on.
lmao you should watch these debates. he wasn't an "open minded" individual and lied in a pathological manner.
For the few that find this acceptable (or even celebrate this), then they must also be able to say:
“If I say something that someone doesn’t like, then they are justified in killing me.”
And accept it.
Kirk spread misinformation and voiced opinions that were contributing to making the lives of several demographic groups more unsafe, repeatedly, for years, to a massive audience.
Violence isn't the answer and I wish yesterday's event didn't happen, but his actions were a far cry from just "saying something someone might not like"
The first amendment is important, but it has boundaries, and Kirk made a living from being very close (arguably sometimes over) these boundaries. I think his message, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, will be carried on by others, as is their right. But I hope they do it in ways that are more firmly within the healthy boundaries of the first amendment. And if they don't, it should be the courts that decides if they should be penalized, not a lone armed civilian.
> opinions that were contributing to making the lives of several demographic groups more unsafe
Mere opinions cannot do this, even in principle.
As I'm sure you're aware, merely voicing opinions doesn't cause people to agree, either.
> The first amendment is important, but it has boundaries, and Kirk made a living from being very close (arguably sometimes over) these boundaries.
The boundaries are far tighter than you imply. Nothing I have seen him say comes anywhere close at all. Even the most uncharitable representations being spread around of his out-of-context excerpts would absolutely be protected speech in the USA. I am not a lawyer but I have spent a lot of time researching this. When Kirk and others like him say that US law does not recognize a concept of "hate speech", they are objectively correct. Wikipedia agrees:
> Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution.[1] While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.[2]
Note that this was a unanimous reaffirmation, in quite recent, very ideologically polarized history.
Correct. To the extent "hate speech" has legal meaning, it's that its presence in a defendant's history where they are accused of another crime (such as assault) could raise that crime to the level of "hate crime." A hate crime differs from a regular crime in that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a racially-motivated mens rea: they weren't transgressing against a victim for reasons such as personal grudge, but because they have a broad hatred of people in a category the victim is a member of and committed the crime because of that.
Saying "America is better off without black people in it" is not a crime by itself. Having a prosecutor dig up the Twitter post where you said that while you're defending a battery charge can turn a six months in jail / $2,000 fine crime into a one year / $5,000 fine crime.
>"And if they don't, it should be the courts that decides if they should be penalized, not a lone armed civilian."
And what happens when the courts are to no longer be trusted for impartial or otherwise reasonable verdicts? We use randomness to control corruption in courts through the likes of juries, but First Amendment civil cases are almost always bench trials decided by a judge, or motions via summary judgement. Not juries. What's our fallback and our "check" there?
A therapist once explained to me that the human mind first processes things through the emotional regions of the brain (limbic) and only afterwards can it reach the logic center (pre frontal cortex).
This has helped me to understand a lot of human behavior and social media posts and reactions (also propaganda, cults, sales, etc)
You may think you have come to a logical conclusion about political issue x or political party x, but very likely the vast majority of us are first having a triggered emotional reaction and later using our pre-frontal cortex to logically create a narrative on why we feel this way and justify it.
Taken to extremes I think you can see things like today happen and see how people react.
Sometimes I catch myself defending someone or a position and later realize I am just wrong, it’s just that I had an emotional reaction felt a possible connection with the person or a cause or vibe they expressed or are connected with and then my attorney brain kicks into overdrive trying to make it all add up.
It also explains a lot of domestic issues, if you are upset or scared your brain stays in the limbic center and is literally incapable of rational thought until you calm down or feel safe.
Just my two cents
Another way to frame the same observation that I like goes:
"A magician, asked how he comes up with his magical tricks, asks back: are human rational or irrational? It's a trick question, we are rationalizers. We make up our minds, and then come up with a reason why that's right.
Magical trick is all about understanding this dynamic and guiding the reasoning to the conclusion you want it to make"
It's been a few hours since the shooting and no suspect is in custody.
I wonder if he/she/they will ever be caught?
There's going to be a colossal manhunt. Every possible technology will be mobilized. And it's very hard not to slip up on opsec. Unless the guy leaves the country very quickly, I would expect him to be caught (or killed resisting arrest, the common fate of mass shootings).
When I was in college a kid used a computer in a lab to send a death thread against Bill Clinton to whotehouse.gov. I recall this in part because it was the lab I did most of my hours in both as an employee and because it was near my friend’s appt so we would study there. Dude sent it from a computer two rows back from where I usually sat.
Someone got up to use the bathroom and didn’t lock the machine. Dude thought he was being funny. But of course since he logged on to the adjacent machine he put himself on the suspect list and got caught. And in a hell of lot of trouble as I recall. I think he got expelled, too.
That was for a prank, not an assassination.
The thing some crime dramas don’t get right is that while circumstantial and tainted evidence cannot get you a conviction, it is absolutely possible for it to be used to prioritize manpower used to narrow you down to the top of the list.
There’s a thing in law enforcement called Parallel Construction. It can be used to protect confidential informants such as in undercover operations, but it can also be used to replace evidence that was found illegally, such as illegal recording or theft by a neighbor.
They just need to find something that follows process front to back. They don’t need to do that in order to figure out it was you in the first place.
Statistics say the spouse or partner almost always committed the murder. Even lacking any evidence they look really really hard at these people. It’s not illegal or unfair to do so. It’s triage. If I’m looking at Mrs Fredrickson’s murder, I’m not looking at any cold cases or spending effort on many other active cases. It’s unfortunately a numbers game.
Note: it was an assassination, not a mass shooting. There was only one shot.
Pedantic, but...why is this an assassination and not just a murder? Because he was more than likely targeted? Tupac was targeted (for some street-level bullshit), but I don't think anyone would call his demise an "assassination".
Assassinations are surprise killings of prominent individuals for political purposes. Targeted gang killings are an interesting case, because they are political within the context of intra- and inter-gang politics, but not viewed in that light in a broader context. If I was watching a documentary about two rival gangs, I probably wouldn't blink twice at someone referring to a hit on a rival leader as an assassination. In every day conversation, it would probably be weird, because the normal assumption is of the broader political sphere.
People are calling this an assassination because they are making the (probably reasonable) guess that the reason to shoot Charlie Kirk during a political speech is to make a political statement.
Assassinations usually target public figures for political or ideological motives and public impact. So a subcategory of murders if you want.
Forgot about this: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PO9yyS367p4
One shot so far. One possible outcome is the shooter has a target list, or is emboldened by success.
Some years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks
Technically even that wouldn't be a "mass shooter". It would instead be a spree shooter or serial killer. But it's kind of beside the point.
I wouldn't expect behaviors from mass shooters to carry over to serial killers.
It sounds similar to the plot of The F*ck it List.
Vance Boelter...
very likely he will be caught by his friends or family- everyone that does something like this slips up. The guy that shot United Healthcare's CEO was outed partially by his own mom in fact.
Depends on shooter's background. For state actors the easiest way to undermine US is to continue pushing towards more political violence in US via any and all means.
There's already videos being released showing the shooter on a roof.
I have a feeling he'll get caught.
At a public event like this there are hundreds of cameras. He will definitely be caught.
I understand why people would hate him, but even being a terrible human being doesn’t carry an automatic death penalty.
We are better than that.
Regardless of your take on political violence. Studying the history of especially the French and Haitian revolutions is instructive. Going down the road of civil war sounds good to some of us, but the reality of civil war is incredibly bleak. The Haitians have still not recovered after 225 years.
It’s mind boggling how violent and destructive it can get once people completely give up on the humanity of other people.
So, let’s keep trying for more peaceful lives. Even angry peace is better.
It has been extremely disheartening to see people celebrating this across other social media platforms.
[flagged]
Both are sick and deplorable. I do think it’s fair to say that political violence hasn’t been repudiated enough.
Yes - even most of the people who made those jokes wouldn’t want to live in a world where that’s true. I remember some guys smiling at the assassinations in Minnesota because the shooter targeted Democrats and it was like … guys like that will add someone you like to the list sooner or later. Nobody is safe for long in that world.
I haven't seen much at all on twitter, Facebook or bluesky. Seems like you have to look pretty hard to find it.
Bluesky is full of pro-murder posts.
Not my timeline. It's either people condemning political violence while noting they're not fans of Kirk, or people whining about how political violence is only condemned by both sides when the target is on the right.
I confess I'm not familiar with political assassination attempts against the left in recent years.
A democratic state senator from Minnesota was assassinated 3 months ago.
Just read the case. Gruesome. The assassin had some serious mental issues.
Definitely not true. You may be seeing a lot, but I am not which means that we can't categorically say that it's "full" of such posts.
Good to hear.
> Seems like you have to look pretty hard to find it.
Here's a list of the top posts on Reddit in the last 24 hours:
Shooting at a Colorado school (More important than that other thing)
Charlie Kirk has just been shot
Charlie Kirk says gun deaths "unfortunately" worth it
If you preach hate, don’t be surprised when it finds you.
In an attempt to remove Banksy's art, the UK government has created a more iconic symbol of injustice in the UK.
Kirk once said gun violence is “part of liberty.”
Why do you think President Trump ordered all US Flags at half staff for the death of a Political Commentator, but not for the death of actual Legislators?
He died doing what he loved: trying to get other people killed
Bad Bunny Says He Didn’t Include U.S. in Tour Dates Due to Fear of ICE Raids
Ironic he dies in a school shooting.
Senate investigating Peter Thiel’s money ties to Epstein
“I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage” -Charlie Kirk
I didn't name reddit. I rarely go there.
Nothing you posted is a celebration.
Agree. To me the general reaction seems to be mourning or indifference. I don’t see why the latter is a problem - there are so many gun deaths in the US; I believe there was yet another school shooting the other day too.
"This looks like nothing to me"
"random non-sequitur words in quotes" to you, too, friend.
hope you have a good day.
It was a quote from Westworld relevant to your post. Ironically, even that looked like nothing to you.
ah, in that case, "non-random non-sequitur words in quotes" to you, too, friend.
I guess you mean "non-random non-non-sequitur". Sure. I'll take it.
I haven’t seen any of this, anecdotally. Don’t confuse indifference with celebration. You all had a school shooting the other day too and I’ve hardly heart about it because it is overshadowed by this news.
if you sort by 'controversial' on most of the reddit threads that's where you'll see the the more nuanced takes.
Obviously that's not representative.
You should get off social media for a while if you think it in any way is.
I see the same thing.
I haven't seen anybody celebrating his death, just a whole bunch of idiots saying everybody is celebrating his death
As an outsider, I can only offer my hope that somehow you all manage to collectively take a breath, agree that you're heading down a dark path, and take a few steps back towards consensus and compromise. Godspeed.
I wonder how quickly the gunman will be found. I've always wondered if the authorities would ever be able to find someone who patterned themselves after a character like The Jackal.
I had a convo about law enforcement's tools with a California detective last month. He was very clear its only a question of resources, and if the federal gov't is motivated to find them, they will.
You know I’ve generally thought it’s is true. You WILL get caught. Then I wonder if the government knows who Satoshi is. I know he didn’t kill someone but I wonder if the resources exist to figure it out if they truly wanted.
"The government" is not a monolith. It is an organization staffed by people who have different opinions, motivations, goals, etc., and often work at cross purposes. It's entirely possible that some in the government know who Satoshi is and aren't telling others (especially higher-ups) about it.
I wonder about the Jan 6 pipe bomber
Guess the government wasn't motivated enough to catch D.B. Cooper
I hope you're talking about the original The Jackal. That's a great movie that has fascinated me essentially because of the theme you've identified. A truly motivated, highly-intelligent person could commit horrendous acts without detection. So far, whoever committed this assassination has succeeded; but I suspect, there is simply too much surveillance in 2025 to get away with it.
edit: regarding the surveillance issue, wonder what the retention on google earth/maps logs is for the location of the shooting?
Already been apprehended according to Kash Patel (FBI director)
Kash Patel (podcast host) says the second suspect has now been released and the shooter is still at large. [0]
[0] https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1965928054712316363
If you’re talking about the old white guy apprehended at the scene, he was released.
It appears to be someone else: https://x.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/1965903392934633587
A suspect had been apprehended. Let’s see if it’s actually the person who did it.
Second suspect has been released.
Source for those curious: https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/fbi-director-patel-says-ch...
Leaving personal feelings about the person. What exactly does 2nd amendment guys think using guns to fight "tyranny" looks like? People rising up to a group of people clad on black clothes and an eerily fascist reminiscent symbol ala rickandmorty?
Some people using guns to defend themselves against who they believe are the harbingers of this authoritarian State is 2nd amendment working as intended. Not a "tragic but necessary sacrifice" as some will put school shootings, but actually what right to bear arms is supposed to be about.
And it's immaterial if you ultimately disagree to whether this administration is authoritarian, but these things will keep happening as long as enough people believe that to be the case. It's a feature, not a bug.
You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.
>You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run. You don't fight tyranny by eliminating people just because they have different opinions.
You mean people like Mohammed Khalil or Rumeysa Ozturk?
They weren't shot, but they were arrested, imprisoned without trial and threatened with expulsion for their opinions.
This isn't a "when did you stop beating your wife?" gotcha attempt. Rather, it's an attempt to point up that many of the folks (I'm emphatically not saying that you are one of those folks) who are making the same argument were all in favor of silencing Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk and even argued for stripping Zohran Mamdani of his citizenship because he had the temerity to run a successful primary campaign for mayor of NYC.
If we're (the general 'we') going to make the argument that free expression is important and that we should see differing opinions as a normal part of the process of society, we need to do so for everyone. Even (especially) those whose opinions are objectionable.
And so, as long as we're willing to make the same statements for everyone, I'm in 100% agreement with you.
Those who are only willing to make that argument WRT opinions with which they agree, and again I am emphatically not accusing you personally account42, are not acting in good faith or with intellectual honesty.
Unfortunately, there are far too many folks who fit that description. And more's the pity.
Would an attack on Goebbels be seen as fighting the tyranny?
Everyone invoking Godwin's law. This is exactly what Charlie was about, having an open discussion with someone, listening to each other, even those you disagree with. Free speech was attacked today and for that we all lost something important. Any comparison to Goebbels is absurd.
Why is the comparison absurd?
Can we at least start with the facts about Goebbels? He was:
- Pro–killing “undesirable” children (look up T4 or Tiergartenstraße 14)
- Virulently anti-Jewish
For starters, Charlie Kirk, for all his flaws, is the opposite on those two points.
I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
The guy who said “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”? That Charlie Kirk?
> I’m not pretending Charlie Kirk was a saint or planning to livestream the funeral but it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents.
Other than Fuentes and his farther-right faction that historically has attacked Kirk for being too wishy-washy and soft in his White nationalism, who do you think this “share far more political DNA with the Nazis” description concretely applies to?
For some reason many Jewish communities seemed to love him a lot.
It suspect you either have taken things out of context (or refer to someone else who did) or you are writing things that didn't happen.
Believing that "communities" of an ethnicity have been "pushing hatred" does not equate to hating that ethnicity.
> it does puzzle me how people who share far more political DNA with the Nazis keep declaring that others are the "modern Nazis" or Goebbels equivalents
This is a very strong claim to make without support, especially given the history TPUSA had with people who were at best pushing the boundaries of the right. No historical comparison is going match perfectly but it’s hard not to see parallels in the attempts to subvert a democratic political system, demonize minorities, or the justifications they use. TPUSA frequently provided a place for fringe right people to circulate with the larger Republican sphere so while there were worse groups, they certainly weren’t trying to fight that trend.
I think there are many differences and I certainly wouldn't say that the two are perfectly analogous at all, but I think the comparison mainly refers to their similarities as propagandists for their respective leaders which has some validity to it.
I'm curious though: In what way do Democrats (or "the left") share far more political DNA with Nazis?
Propagandist for their respective leaders. Was Chester Cheetah the Goebbels of Frito-Lay? Or any other spokesperson for their respective beliefs or organization. Like the other poster stated, one stark difference is that Charlie was strongly in favor of Israel something that diametrically opposes him to Nazi ideology. Secondly, Goebbels and the Nazis were in favor of total control of information. Charlie again was the opposite of that. Anyone could come and challenge him, and actually that did not always go well for Charlie, but he welcomed the open dialogue up until the moment someone murdered him for that.
For me personally, the through line is that chester cheetah, along with most other spokespeople, was not advancing a political organization that demonized and persecuted outgroups, or that tried to subvert and consolidate power.
I believe those things are true of both the MAGA movement and of Nazis, albeit in different amounts of severity.
> Anyone could come and challenge him
This is wrong, it was not a moderated debate. The event was a campaign rally and anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions.
> it was not a moderated debate.
How do you figure?
> The event was a campaign rally
For whose campaign, in what contest?
> anyone could be ejected for asking the wrong questions
According to what policy, cited where? What are "the wrong questions", and how did they apparently not include the ones Kirk was addressing when he was shot?
To be frank, modern Israel is getting more similar to their enemies of the past in their genocidal actions and segregation.
And Nazi Germany regime was at some point very into idea of a Jewish state.
I think that their argument is that this is the only concrete realization possible of the abstract Second Amendment fantasy.
The Second Amendment fantasy is that you should own guns, so that you can kill people in the government and who are adjacent to the government. That means shooting real people with real bullets to kill them.
I think their reply is a criticism of the Second Amendment fantasy, rather than a remark that this is a worthwhile avenue for fighting fascism.
As others have pointed out, Charlie Kirk built a career on the Second Amendment fantasy, even explicitly delineating Democrats as targets he believes are acceptable to shoot and kill.
That said, I do disagree with the assumption that the shooter is necessarily opposed to the Trump administration or even to Charlie Kirk's rhetoric.
https://youtu.be/0r_xc09q9vo
There is irony in an authoritarian majority supporting an oppressed minorities' ability to commit political violence.
While the cost of the second amendment is high, it might prove to be a better political stress release valve than I thought.
If anything, I wonder if the increased political violence will eventually cause conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for Red Flag laws.
> The Second Amendment fantasy
Straw man. Maybe that's your fantasy?
> You're talking about the murder of a media personality, not a tyrant or even someone who has any say in how the government is run.
Why did Donald Trump order flags to be lowered to half-mast for 5 days for this media personality ?
Apropos, you can listen to Charlie Kirk answering that precise question, during the Biden presidency in 2021. (I assume Kirk is fairly a representative voice of the far-right movement?)
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisjustice01.bsky.social/post/3ly...
He was asked this question: "When do we get to use the guns?" "How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?" [sic]
I think it's best to watch his answer in full, and decide the nuances for yourself.
From my PoV, he agrees with the spirit of that comment. His response to "When to do we get to use the guns?" is to concede: "We *are* living under fascism. We *are* living under this tyranny" [sic]. In the context of that 2nd Amendment question about shooting tyrants, he identifies President Joseph Biden as a tyrant.
It's not ambiguous who these people think deserve to be shot.
I think it's highly remarkable that in that answer, Kirk actually never once condemns political violence. Listen to it and hear: not a word breathed to say killing political opponents is wrong, or immoral, or abhorrent to civics or American democracy, or, well: murder. His non-response is in a qualitatively different direction: he explains to the "When do we shoot them?" guy that murdering leftists would instigate a draconian law-enforcement response (by that same US government he had identified as "fascist" and "tyrannical"), and that that would set back far-right causes. That is, beginning to end, the entire substance of his response to "Why not shoot them?": fear of consequences.
It feels like the two extremes in this country are not partisan, but rather "extremely angry" and "we can't do anything". A very bad combination.
It feels, to me, like "democratic decline".
We see increasing authoritarianism and decreasingly functional institutions, including the electoral system.
Identifying the problem is key.
It’s also an easy situation to manipulate. I see a lot of people eager to make assumptions about things that are not known.
That is also a very predictable response if you live in this country.
Never really followed this guy and only knew of him because he'd randomly be mentioned in news stories.
Regardless of your political bent, this sort of shit is sickening and genuinely disturbing, particularly when it occurs at (as this did) at a university whose ostensible raison d'etre is to ventilate different ideas, offensive or not. I realise this event wasn't a 'debate' per se but nevertheless it's the ethos and optics that matter.
There's also the incredibly myopic immaturity inherent in using violence for the sole or primary purpose of silencing the speaker and signalling to others that violence is somehow an acceptable form of dialogue. The myopic absurdity of this is of course that it is a cycle that can never end if all participants share that view, ensuring that it is inevitably self-defeating. Violence can make sense under certain circumstances - coups, revolutions, wars - but in the context of mere rhetoric it's abhorrent to witness.
Just a grotesque reflection in a long list of them that we as a species, or very many of us - perhaps more than we want to admit - are extremely violent and brutal.
Sickening and sobering, and again you could plug in any speaker/polemicist from whichever part of the political spectrum in here and it would be no less true.
The only reason I know of him is the master debate episode from South Park. I wanted context. Fwiw, he was a bad debater but he openly said he didnt know about something in public and thats something I dont see people doing often. I appreciated that.
I'd say we _can_ be violent / brutal / unfair. I'm e.g. not violent / brutal when putting my clean dishes away.
This may have been an offensive reply to the original comment:
It's important for Me to play Devil's Advocate, here, because the original statement overlooks the amazingly constructive qualities humanity offers.
Overlooking == under-capitalizing. Which is an error. And judgement is important to hang onto in a crisis.
This is a crisis.
I wasn't overlooking mankind's potential to do amazing things. I'm reflecting on the fact that despite our ability and propensity to do amazing things, we are also at base more violent, far more violent, than I think we give ourselves credit for. I'm sure this sentiment isn't new. I can remember the opening page of Blood Meridian being a newspaper clipping from Arizona reporting on the fact that, essentially, we've been scalping (ie violently brutalising) one another for tens of thousands of years. Perhaps it's a sine qua non of being human.
Despite all our fancy gadgets and fancy thinking and fancy philosophies, we aren't really all that different from those who lived a thousand or ten thousand years ago.
the entire situation is dripping in macabre irony
the question about gun rights, the "prove me wrong" tent, the "constitutional carry" state the event is held in
Very unlikely the shooter didn't have that in mind.
I also doubt that Kirk hadn't accepted or considered a martyrdom outcome like this.
I very much doubt he ever expected that he would ever the victim of gun violence that he elsewhere accepted as an acceptable price to be paid.
My 2 cents from Australia. At the very least he encouraged debate, and motivated others to challenge and vigorously discuss ideas, data, history, politics and perspectives. That's healthy, not dangerous. We're meant to defend the right of such activities.
I didn't agree with his religious convictions that underpin much of his arguments, but that's because I'm not religious. He presented other arguments on various social issues that sounded sensible. He also respected anyone who fronted his events, listening & engaging intellectually in a civil manner.
Apparently his last word spoken was "violence" (unconfirmed). Anyone celebrating his death is an extremist, and if that turns out to be a lot of people, then we have a bigger extremism problem than people care to admit. How to fix that? We need more bipartisan condemnation and unity across the floor - in my country too. Sounds like they couldn't even agree on a moment of silence without a shouting match. The division is fuel for extremism.
To attack at an open debate event like this is an attack on democracy itself. Discourse should never be discouraged.
This is crazy. Healthy debate and disagreement should be free in a democratic country, without any fear of violence, let alone death.
Do you think Kirk showed healthy debates ans disagreement?
Do you think the people they attacked with their speeches were without any fear of violence, let alone death?
What did Kirk say that would cause someone to fear violence or death?
>In one interview with Gaines on Real America’s Voice, Kirk railed against “the decline of American men” and blamed it for transgender equality. Then he added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s."
Or take some from his last words
>At about 12:20, he is asked by a member of the crowd: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?"
>He replies: "Too many."
Do you think he would have said the same when someone would have asked the same question about gun owners or would have said something like: "I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."
Or pick one of those quotes https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk...
He recommend the one about Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded
That's not what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WhMtFZtmcg. He was just talking about not allowing a transgender compete in a women swimming competition.
None of this has anything to do with threatening or inciting violence.
So how did we handle that in the 50s and 60s opposed to the 70s, 80s and 90s, the times when being anything else than being straight slowly wasn't considered a crime anymore?
Given he preceded that with "I blame the decline of American men" and followed it with "as testosterone rates go down and men start acting like women", it seems that in his worldview, the decline of masculinity started in the 70s. A high school swimming coach from the 1950s or 60s likely wouldn't have permitted a biological male in the women's locker room.
But he would have beaten up a gay because he is homosexual, and called a black man a "boy" before going home, getting drunk, and beating his wife.
This is, of course, a condensed depiction.
Kirk didn't say "I miss everything about the 50s-60s". He did none of those things, nor did he encourage them. Suggesting otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and the spread of such misinformation may have partly contributed to creating the deranged individual who thought he deserved to be murdered.
He doesn't need to say it, but for many of his fans the so not so good parts (if you're non white or female) resonate. You do know what a dog whistle is?
And talking about the spread of misinformation, Kirk spread the lie of the stolen election that led to the January 6 riots and caused multiple deaths.
BTW maybe you can comment under some of the other commenters where I try to explain than words aren just words and can cause damage, you seem to have the same opinion, whereby my reach is far below Kirk's so I think I have a much lower risk of creating a deranged individual than people like Kirk have.
Have you read was Trump said?
>For years, those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis and the world's worst mass murderers and criminals,"
>This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today, and it must stop right now."
That from the same guy who painted all immigrans as pet eating, drug trafficking rapists.
But I'm the one accused of spreading misinformation.
Even in his message on TS after Kirk's death Trump can't stay with the truth
>He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me, and now, he is no longer with us.
The first part is obviously nonsense
Trump or Kirk spreading misinformation is not an excuse for yourself spreading misinformation. No matter his opinions, Kirk was a peaceful, non-violent person.
Wait a minute, he spread misinformation about COVID and the „stolen“ election and reaches millions of people but I‘m the bad guy?
He has definitely caused more violence than I.
Kirk and others boost people like those here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo
Show one who got influenced by me. That would be really interesting.
That I spread misinformation has to be proven.
He referenced the 50s and 60s on purpose, the good old times and he knows his peers and what the associate with that time period. So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive. Given all what he said there is a clear subtext you try to ignore.
> That I spread misinformation has to be proven.
But you apparently expect "this is a dogwhistle" to be taken on faith.
This is not a fair, consistent or reasonable standard.
Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
> So he either knew exactly what association he sent with that or he was naive. I don’t think he was naive.
I disagree - you're extrapolating from very little. If you take into consideration his whole life and the context of the conversation, it's very clear that he did not believe in violence and did not advocate it.
Does that look like someone who wishes violence against gay or trans people? Be real.
https://x.com/GayRepublicSwag/status/1966219378971889949
https://x.com/LuckyMcGee/status/1966207117767164362
>You're both bad guys for spreading misinformation.
>Anyone who knowingly spreads misinformation is a bad guy in my book. If Kirk did, then that applies to him as well.
Interesting change. Don't forget my reach and his. And I never spread the lie about the Great Replacement.
The first clip sounds more like don't tell than real acceptance and it's quite ironic that accoring to this clip he says people aren't defined by their sexuality but every time a homosexual couple is show in a kids movie right wingers whine because now they have to talk about anal sex with their kids. What they don't have, like you don't have to explain hetero sex if a hetero couple is shown. The right is obsessed with the sexuality of gays. And calling it a lifestyle, that's one of the biggest misinformations often used to blame the victims of anti-gay violence for their bad "choice".
Maybe watch this clip where he quotes Leviticus 18
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
But of course just saying. We all know you can say anything if you add "just saying" or "no offense".
The second clip frames being trans as a mental disorder packed in clever words.
Sure he had typical right wing and religious views, but did not advocate violence.
Again that clip you linked was just him pointing out the irony of using Bible verses to support homosexuality while ignoring other very violent verses towards them. He was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals.
FWIW, I disagree with Kirk on probably most topics (e.g. guns, religion, abortion, homosexuality being a bad "lifestyle") so there's no need to debate me.
The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.
I'm glad you wrote "was not literally advocating the stoning of homosexuals", because I never claimed that and it seems you realize that there could be an non literal advocation.
His work definetly doesn't justify his murder, it would be ironic if I think so because I'm against the death penalty, but he helped create the battlefield he now died on.
I guess the only reason why the current murderers are more likely from the left side of the political spectrum is because the right-wingers are in power. They can send the military or ICE to get rid of their opponents. If that changes we will see more right wing murderers.
> The bigger irony is that he completely ignores the contradiction between those tow bible parts, or will it be a loving stoning.
He does the exact opposite of "completely ignoring the contradiction". He explicitly uses it to make his point.
I find it interesting how he tries to dismiss the core message of Christianity with a reference to the old testament.
Seems right wingers know the old testament pretty well but rarely quote the new one and even rarer live by it. It's often that authoritarian god, you know, the one who gave us the rainbow after multiple genocide and who said later on
>Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Let's see those Christian values in action when they catch the shooter.
You're right, but this man did not share your opinion.
When Nancy Pelosi and her husband were targets of political violence, Charlie Kirk's response was to suggest that whomever bails the attacker out would be a national hero. [1]
To her credit, her response to the attack on him is much more dignified than his was.
-----
[1] "Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy (David DePape) out..." - Charlie Kirk
I just listened to the clip. The remark was made jokingly, though arguably in poor taste. Immediately afterward he described the attack as "awful" and "not right," and then pivoted into a rant about how it's too easy to bail out suspects.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-...
it was the performance of a guy "owning libs". It is not much of an honest debate if the guy enters it with a set of pre-packaged ideas that never get updated.
I don't think you should be killed for performances either
If you/society see the performance as beyond the pale, inciting violence then you should arrest the person and give them due process, or change the laws to reflect your beliefs
I agree. How do we stop this from happening?
You seem to implicate "you/society" as the issue, but I didn't shoot anyone. So really it's society's issue, and we're in this situation because the Overton window is so irrevocably wide. Moreso than ever before, our bipartisan system is chock-full of extremists. People who want to kill CEOs, people who want to kill politicians, people who want to kill minorities.
The ordinary response is always "well, some gun violence is tolerable" but that doesn't seem to be reflected at all in this comment section. Many people are treating this as entirely unacceptable - so, from square one, how do we want to legislate a solution?
Oh well if he was a [political buzzword] i guess that changes everything and he actually deserves being shot for opening his mouth.
Nice strawman.
Thanks but you i can only credit you.
Their comment wasn't a strawman. The "event" in question was a political rally, not a moderated debate. He was there to promote his platform, anything else he did was part of the performance.
That's actually how you feel though right
The shooter was identified [1] and is in custody [2].
[1] - https://www.newsweek.com/tyler-robinson-roommate-charlie-kir...
[2] - https://www.newsweek.com/tyler-robinson-charlie-kirk-shootin...
More information. He may not have been working alone and his roommate may have delivered the weapon. [1]
Debunking The Biggest Lies Told About Charlie Kirk [2]
[1] - https://nypost.com/2025/09/13/us-news/charlie-kirk-shooter-t...
[2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N14ywRyTWVI [video][56 mins]
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/13/us/kirk-killing-suspect-o...
While I'm not a fan of Charlie's beliefs, actions and his brand of conservatism, he was willing to go across the political divide and foster debates with those that do not share his values.
Condolences to his young family and everyone close to him.
He was willing to debate to his own advantage.
He used the less talented debaters to ridicule the opposing side.
He debated the president-elect of the Oxford students union a little while ago.
Both sides routinely do this.
Do you like this outcome, croes? Be honest... It's the internet so you can speak your true feelings
I'm interested to know who you think is a leftist Ben Shapiro/Charlie Kirk type who debates right wing students. I haven't heard of any, but I'm sure they exist.
I too haven't heard of any right wing students, but I'm sure they exist
I think you find some here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-WJN3L5eo
It's a bit odd to claim both sides do something but not elaborate when asked for more info. Seems disingenuous.
No, it's flippant.
What's disingenuous is substituting my "this" for whatever one pleases, when in context it was obviously the concepts referred to in the post it replied to - debating for one's own advantage, and milking wins against weak interlocutors.
A sad day for America.
Very few will like where this leads.
I hope cooler heads prevail and pray for him and his family.
It's just some random guy
A bit of an exaggeration ? it's just a random rage baiter who baited the wrong person apparently. It won't be a blimp in American history
This network of far-right influencers was begging for it, it fuels their narrative even more
It’s interesting that these kinds of things happen in the US, the very country that keeps blaming and justifying interference & invasion in nations where similar events occur
So, which country should now deploy its military to the US in an attempt to restore law and order?
There are no far right influencers being discussed.
Sure seems more and more like some person or nature is seeking to destabilize us. Seems anti-American to blame the other side and not realize we are better together.
You are fully capable of doing it to yourselves.
this is a sad day for America, violence is not an answer to extreme voices on both ends, praying for peace and space for true free speech.
This is nuts. I am deeply worried we are headed towards open armed conflict. The violence against political opponents must stop, no matter who it is.
Ruling out nation state actors that have a vested interest in political divide and chaos and distraction is not the best starting point.
My starting point is:
> extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I don’t need to “rule out” nation state actors. The onus is on someone to prove it involves nation state actors (and which nation is pretty important, too).
Translation - I made up my own narrative
I recommend the movie "Civil War" very original. Not saying that will happen but the movie is great.
I found the movie to be hollow and contradictory to the point that I couldn’t suspend disbelief.
haven't seen it, so I shouldn't comment, but from the reviews they went out of their way to make the movie apolitical, or at least to obfuscate the setting's relation to our current zeitgeist. which resulted in a tortured, implausible scenario.
if that was their goal, it would have been better to never explain the conflict in the first place. just start in medias res, with asemic dialogue and references.
I wish they'd try again and do better.
I really liked it. Beautifully made film. But it just rides on shock value. It doesn't have anything interesting to say about the topic.
My takeaway was civil war isn't something to be desired in any way, not even journalists who might gain (money, work, notoriety) regardless of the outcome.
The shock seems to be the point.
Quite different from all the documentaries my dad was really into about the US civil war. (Many of which lionized the southern generals.) Or annoying "states rights" points that he seems to have picked up from some YouTube gutter.
It may make no difference but as of now we have no idea who did this or why. We still have no idea what was the motive of the man who shot Trump's ear.
We don't have "no idea". We have god knows how many hours of the dead guy spewing his opinions in 1080p and 4k. And for all of those variety opinions we know who gets pissed off by them.
I mean, sure, it could've been a crazy ex or a former business partner or whatever. But how many crazy ex's can one guy have? And he's pissed off god knows how many people by saying things? Strictly by the numbers this was almost certainly someone who hated him for what he said.
Statistically most people don't go out like Ozzy (i.e. spend a good chunk of your life doing something likely to be the death of you only to get dead by something completely unrelated)
If we're placing bets, you'd bet on political motive but we're not placing bets. I'll throw out one option that's been very popular on the right wing conspiracy circuit and maybe it was a false flag to set the stage for Martial Law. I have no proof it's true and no proof it isn't.
Martial law has never been applied nation-wide, and it would likely not work at all but rather it would set the stage for some states to refuse federal authority, possibly leading to civil war. I know many fantasize that Trump wants all of that, but any sober observer realizes those are just that: fantasies.
Ironically enough Kirk was advocating for it just weeks ago: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/charlie-kirk-calls-full-...
I think it's unwise to be reflexively dismissive when norms that were previously taken for granted turn out to be ephemeral. I find a useful heuristic/gut check is to imagine explaining news from the previous week/month/year to someone who had just woken up from an extended coma.
Hyperbole. That's not advocating for violence.
You specifically talked about martial law and I gave you a relevant and recent remark Kirk made about that topic, and explained why I thought your analysis was flawed.
"other large American cities" does not mean the same thing as "nationwide".
I think it's not likely at all but we've been knocking down precedents one by one. Due process is buckling. He just murdered 11 Venezuelan civilians to see if anyone would stop him. He has deployed troops to US cities. He has endowed ICE with an unprecedented amount of money. Project 2025 has been implemented bit by bit and it endorses abusing the Insurrection Act. And he already attempted a violent coup before. It may not happen but it's not fantasy.
> He just murdered 11 Venezuelan civilians
Please do Obama now. All U.S. Presidents from both parties have been doing these sorts of interventions for decades.
We don't know how motive? He didn't shoot Trump's ear, he shot Trump, because he wanted to kill Trump... I don't get how much clearer a motive could be!
The biography of the kid shows no coherent political beliefs. He appeared to be interested in also killing Biden. It just so happens, Trump’s campaign event was very close to Crooks’ home.
https://www.salon.com/2024/07/18/would-be-assassin-may-have-...
His actions aren't a motive. They turned his life upside down and didn't find any strong political opinions and no indication he hated Trump. People also do stuff like this to get attention. The guy who shot at Reagan wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
The best prevention is deterrence.
Political violence is apparently on the decline in America. At least that’s what a study concluded late last year
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/22/us/politics/political-vio...
I don't think attitudinal surveys are of much value here. If you ask someone whether they support murder very few are going to give you an affirmative answer. Even people who advocate for political violence will jump through wild rhetorical hoops when challenged about it, eg arguing that communists aren't people and therefore killing them isn't murder.
I think it's better to look at the actual incidence of violence than to extrapolate from weakly correlated leading indicators.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-poli...
My theory on this and other recent shootings of this type: it is driven by the over medication of our youth, convincing them something is wrong with them for not wanting to sit still in factory schools. Our medical understanding of the drugs prescribed to kids that affect their brains is far smaller than it should be for how pervasive these drugs have become.
We don't know that yet, but it might be also driven by social media radicalization. I'm also curious of the shooter's motives. Judging from the bullet engravings he might have thought he was shooting an awful person, but still, why waste your own life like this? Their wife and kids who were at the scene and maybe some other individuals will probably become radicalized now. Why? It doesn't make any sense.
I completely disagree with Charlie Kirk's rather unsympathetic preachings on many topics. But this act - it gives me a very sinking feeling. What worries me more than the yet undetermined identity of the killer is how a lot of people are responding to the news.
Why do some people celebrate his death? This was not a person who was declared as an enemy of the state. He was someone holding a public political debate. Can't they see that this incident is going to have extreme repercussions on their own welfare and the values they stand for? Can't they see the fear, pain and tears on the other side, that's gradually getting replaced by outrage and resentment? How do politics make people so blind to the suffering of the others? Doesn't the nation exist to support opposing ideas without such carnage? I know that Kirk has expressed opinion that downplayed the value of human life (like in case of gun rights). But how does that make the side that advocated for dignity, equality and empathy just suspend those values in his case?
You can't seriously convince any opponent with violence or hatred. And guns aren't the best tools for genuine persuasion. The mockery of their pain will only lead to their conviction and resolve. And at some point, it will become irreversible. Please don't let politics and bias cloud your judgment. This isn't a victory for your cause.
And no matter what sort of a person Kirk was, his role in this world is over rather abruptly. His grizzly demise displayed around the world leaves terrible wounds in the psyche of his family, friends, followers and numerous others. I hope that their pain doesn't mutate into destructive energy. I hope that they find the strength to overcome it and find peace.
They celebrate it because that's the kind of beings that they are, and they can do no better.
They feel that someone communicating ideas that challenge theirs is such an affront - such a disturbance to their self-assured sense of personal rightness and superiority - that that person's death is a good solution.
Or to put it another way - they're like this because they're confident they won't receive comeuppance for being so. It's like a "what you gonna do?" frolic.
I thought there was something wrong with me because of how many people were celebrating an assassination! But realized it was not, when people from my native culture were all shocked and surprised by the same. In spite of being bad at processing emotional signals from the others, I can easily imagine myself on the other side and see how such responses will affect them. How much empathy do you need to be able to do that?
It's like an entire generation is suffering from a serious emotional malady. It feels like the entire society got derailed morally and ethically. What happened? Did education fail everyone that much?
The people celebrating this sincerely believe that certain speech is equivalent to violence
I know that Kirk has expressed opinion that downplayed the value of human life (like in case of gun rights). But how does that make the side that advocated for dignity, equality and empathy just suspend those values in his case?
His supporters are getting a taste of their own medicine. As you said 'the fear, pain and tears on the other side [is] gradually getting replaced by outrage and resentment', but so what? Outrage and resentment has been the staple food of the right wing for decades. So has laughing at the suffering of others, for example: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/rush-limbaugh-s-true-l...
The right is already well on the way to turning the US into a police state, and I've lost count of the number of mass shootings where people were murdered because some right winger hated some aspect of their identity, whether that's religious, racial, sexual, whatever. Sometimes the two combine; in Florida, the state recently decided to paint over a rainbow crosswalk that the state itself had put in place to commemorate the victims of a mass shooting, and now they're arresting people for replacing the memorial with chalk: https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/pu...
As far as I'm concerned, the right used up all their forgiveness tickets quite a while ago. If they dislike the position they currently find themselves in, maybe it's their behavior that needs to change.
The guy was the embodiment of the "prove me wrong" meme.
His choice of getting in to the middle of people and answering anyone's questions in a situation where there's no re-takes, no edits, even if he might've felt overbearing, was quite a fire test of the commenter's arguments versus his counter-arguments.
His assassination really is a direct attack on debate itself.
There really isn't a world where the sick people cheering this have any real respect for democratic values of a free world full of all kinds of thinkers. Maybe for something more akin to that one dialog "choice" in Avowed. You know if you know.
As of 3:39PM ET, CNN is reporting shot and Wikipedia has already a death date.
Their source is Donald Trump: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1151819349918...
Trump "tweeted" that Kirk is dead on truth social
I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but doctors pronounce him dead, not the media or Wikipedia.
Edit: it's official, he's dead (it wasn't confirmed when I originally posted this). Condolences to his wife and small kids.
I'm not seeing that death date. And history shows that even traditional news outlets can be badly wrong in the immediate aftermath of a shooting. James Brady didn't die in 1981 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady#Shooting - even with "all major media outlets" (per Wikipedia) saying that he did.
Watching the video of his shooting may change your perspective. I don't advise you do, though I'll absolutely confirm it would be miraculous to come back from something like what the video shows.
It was an absolutely brutal video to watch. I agree. Even with the absolute best field first aid, EMS and surgical response, arterial bleeding I think has a 60% survival rate? Again, if everything goes perfectly, timed perfectly etc.
Kirk's wikipedia page is currently abuzz with edits and reversions of those edits, many of which are pronouncing him dead.
I'm convinced there are people whose first thought when someone dies is to race to update Wikipedia for some definition of clout.
I find it weird, at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiJackal
TIL there's a term for this! I've always been quite troubled by this propensity some people have to be the first to report the death of someone famous.
Makes sense!
>I'm not seeing that death date.
Browsers don't show the page updating, easy to imagine that it's flickering on and off several times a minute at this point.
Can people just upvote a post instead of repeating exactly what another person has said?
Yeah we all know violence has no place in our society and gun's are controversial and politics should be more civil.
You're right! Let's stop talking about it and move on. Survivor is coming on on NBC soon. I can't wait to head to nbc.com and get my official merchandise! Nothing need be discussed; the media has already decided for us.
many on the left point out charlies comments on gun crime, school shootings. this has nothing to do with any of that because it was a political assassination. this is not gun violence in the colloquial sense. you could ban guns fully and there would still be political assassinations using rifles because these people are either enabled by high level political forces or highly motivated in an idealistic, political manner and will do whatever is necessary to get a rifle unlike most common criminals.
Assassin by gun is objectively more difficult in a country that bans them outright. His ardent support for private gun ownership contributed to the continuation of a nation filled with more guns than humans.
I do think the United States needs to overhaul its firearms laws, however:
There are very few countries that ban firearms outright. The type of weapon used in this attack was a bolt-action hunting rifle. You can buy that sort of weapon on the basic firearm license in Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc.
The entire gun debate in this country which usually revolves around tightening restrictions on handguns and semi-automatics is not really relevant to this case. Virtually nobody running for public office, even among Democrats, is talking about a total ban on private firearms ownership.
I don't know who this is, but given the number of comments, seems to have mattered. Only point of this comment is assure others who don't know his work that you are not alone.
I have only seen Charlie Kirk on this interview with California Governor Gavin Newsom. Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view. And he made many valid points that made the Governor squirm and agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XJ6rQDRKGA
> Apparently he was someone who was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view.
Definitely:
> "I think the Democrats do not believe in the nuclear family, and they've already destroyed it in the macro, and now they're trying to destroy it in the micro."
And this is what I found in 10 seconds. Really fostering that political diversity. He's just another twitter/youtube pundit in the Fox News classic style, and there's endless hours of him talking just like this.
I think there’s a kernel of truth in what he said, surrounded by some exaggeration. The rural parts of the country, where people get married under 25 years old and have a higher fertility rate, probably do place a higher value on having a family than the urban parts of the country where career is prioritized. Good politicians (like Barack Obama did in his prime) take pains to acknowledge truths from the other side.
> I think there’s a kernel of truth in what he said, surrounded by some exaggeration
lol that just means you agree with him, not that he's encouraging a marketplace of ideas.
Your claim was "he was promoting tolerance to more diverse political points of view". Saying "your political point of view has and is destroying the nuclear family" isn't promoting tolerance of it.
The rural parts of the country, where people get married under 25 years old are overwhelming divorced by 35. If you call that "place a higher value on having a family" than the low divorce rates of educated, high earning women, then we disagree on definitions.
> > Democrats do not believe in the nuclear family
> Really fostering that political diversity.
Yes? Agreement is not diversity.
You can have a divergence of opinions while advocating for more dialog and diversity of viewpoints
The NSFW video is haunting, don’t watch it. I feel literally sick.
If you're accustomed to combat footage or other videos of victims of violence, this is pretty tame in the grand scheme of things that people are subjected to.
For those who want to know without exposing themselves: He's sitting in a chair when he takes a round to the neck. Clean exit. It's over within three seconds.
I watched the video of the Christchurch shooting and while I don't regret seeing those horrors, there is a particular moment of it that is so horrifically callous that it sticks with me and is particularly haunting (for those that know; its that moment near the curb).
I agree, r/combatfootage has more gruesome videos than this one.
For anyone else who's accidentally watched the video and feels uncomfortable with the gore, immediately go do a high focus activity to not let it settle in your mind, can be something like Tetris.
Thank you for posting this. I accidentally saw the video and found it extraordinarily disturbing. Appreciate the advice, seriously.
Wow this is a great tip, thank you!
Any evidence it really works though?
Yes. There is better than anecdotal, though not rock solid conclusive, evidence that it works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_effect#Applications_in_...
Interesting. The actually functioning eye bleach thru clobbering your memory with task at hand, I'll legit keep this in mind
I've seen a paper or two supporting the claim, but I remember that I didn't put much faith in them at the time. Seems plausible enough though, and probably wouldn't hurt anyone so until there's a ton of of high quality evidence for it'd still be worth a shot.
Anecdotally, it worked for me, but I'm not really in the mood to look up the literature right now.
Worked for me. Played some chess online.
I don't want to watch it, and I'm glad I haven't seen anything more than a still yet.
I always wonder if media hiding gore allows people to not get more upset about violence. The lynching of Emmett Till would not have had the same impact without his mother having an open casket funeral. Would things have gone differently if more people had been exposed to images from Sandy Hook?
People are a lot more supportive of war when it’s so far removed.
People hear of kids dying in “bombings” but ignore the reality that it means they were: crushed, burned to death, dismembered, etc etc.
tldw; he takes a hit to a major blood vessel in his neck. It is quite shocking. You won't gain much by watching it.
many are desensitized, for anyone reading, if you consider yourself that way it’s not haunting or giving feelings of sickness, it depicts a predictable outcome of a high powered shot that hits an artery in a neck. No ability or physical capability for your body to react no matter who you are.
It is graphic and shows how fragile we are, how it will go down if you are in that situation
The one thing that Aphantasia is good for. I accidentally saw it on Reddit. No clue, how normal people deal with being forced to see stuff like this over and over again.
> No clue, how normal people deal with being forced to see stuff like this over and over again.
Excessive exposure to shock images from forum trolls back in the '90s.
Agreed. I’ve seen some stuff over the years, and it made me gasp. I am not remotely a fan of the victim, but that was horrific.
Yep, sick to my stomach. Added a bunch of new mute words on x.
Yes. Don't.
Yep, a friend shared the link and a low resolution blurry screenshot, and though I usually click anyway, I kind of just knew that this one would be a bit too graphic to move on from easily.
Even though I have an extremely negative opinion of Charlie, I'd feel too bad thinking about the pain his family would be experiencing. The family (especially children) don't deserve that.
What does it say about me that I've seen so much stuff like this that it barely affects me? I'm in my 30s and have had unfiltered internet access since I was about 8.
Gore definitely made me a depressed person in grade school, but the only reaction I'm having to this is concern about: - conservatives getting ready for violence - the state getting ready to use this to further erode civil liberties - the left fanning the flames for conservatives
Desensitization isn't a profound or "bad" phenomenon in of itself. Humans adapt to their environment and focus more on concerns of a surprising nature.
TBH I think as a society we have become so desensitized to violence because the only exposure we have to it is glamorized in movies and TV.
If we saw death up close and personal, perhaps we could become a bit more empathetic. I seriously wonder if, for example, we published the horrific photos of the aftermath of a school shooting, that would result in more honest discourse in this country on gun control.
And if we got the horrific photos after the Nice truck attack or the Christmas Market attack in Germany we might realize that being killed by a truck is no less horrifying.
What's your point? We should not outlaw guns because vehicles can still be used to kill people?
Evil people are going to use whatever tools they can get their hands on to commit mass murders. Whether it is flying planes into the world trade center, a truck into a crowded market, or shooting up Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons of Mohammed. These barriers can be overcome by the ideologically motivated. Japan has very strict gun control and Shinzo Abe was still assassinated by a firearm, even if it was an improvised one
Right but after the planes were used we started locking cockpit doors and added air marshalls.
Shouldn't we respond to the almost daily mass murder and political gun violence? Australia turned the corner on guns. We can too.
Or do you want 5yo children to grow up with active shooter drills?
No, please WATCH IT! It's important to learn how reality really is. This is the process of using 100% of available information. You have been trained to block, censor and avoid everything that doesnt do good on you, but it's extremely important to open your eyes as wide as possible, and let your brain process this, then build conclusions on this data.
You feel sick because you cannot process reality.
Well you obviously don’t have an understanding of how people can be permanently debilitated by mental anguish and trauma. This happens to be an unnecessarily gruesome thing for me and it certainly doesn’t teach me anything to watch it that I didn’t already know.
I know how reality really is, and it's already hard enough to deal with. I don't need it made more visceral. When bad things happen, you don't have to stare into them with your eyes wide open, any more than you have to maximise your photon intake by staring into the sun.
Yes, I feel sick because I cannot process all of reality, and increasing the burden of what I have to process does not make that task any easier.
I agree with you. It's easy to become desensitized to tragedy when you're only reading words. Regardless of opinions, it's hard not to empathize with a man shot dead before your eyes. I think it does a lot of good to remove that degree of separation, and reflect on it instead of purging it from your mind.
if you go to https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours as of right now (11 sep 2025 2145h utc) you actually can't find this dude's death in the list any more, and that list includes minimum 51 victim deaths since his
every one of those victims is infinitely more deserving of attention and sympathy than this absolute chucklefuck
Remember to turn off autoplay on Twitter.
I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc. We've all been taught since grade school it was a good thing to kill Nazis, even in small percentages there are mentally unstable people who will hear you call someone a Fascist and take the logical step from "it's good to kill nazis" to "they're a nazi so I should kill them". I am both very pro freedom of speech and right to bear arms, and I think where Canada and the UK have gone with hate speech laws are too far, but I don't know how you solve this.
What do you think the definition of fascist is? Is it ever appropriate to apply that label to someone?
I suspect many of the people on social media who use the word fascism could not define it
I think George Orwell was right when he said it has lost most of its meaning
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/e...
>It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless
>By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.
It of course has a technical/historical definition but it's not used in that principled way by most people.
Just like "neoliberal" this is a kind of buzzword that generates a particular emotional reaction for those on the left. Meaning people being labeled with them are not just bad but really bad.
I generally agree with you, but wouldn’t lump Canada into this rhetoric. Its hate speech laws are fairly balanced, if I’ll be honest.
It’s going to sound absurd, but right now, USA’s global image is a very good counter-ad towards “complete” freedom of speech.
We are an excellent example of what happens when the Hegelian Dialectic is applied successfully by the small minority.
We are also an example when a people becomes completely divorced from their cultural and religious heritage. Without a moral anchor, we are a people cast adrift, lost in confusion, calling evil good and good evil, all trying to do our own thing and benefit ourselves, consumed by greed, by self-interest.
Freedom of speech, or lack there-of, plays no role in what is happening in the United States. This country and its founding charters were written for a moral people. That the country is byzantine, crumbling, has more to do with a people who have lost their way than it has to do with this-or-that law that the government no longer heeds.
america is not a country founded on a religious heritage. and regardless of what you may think of the beginnings of the country, it very quickly became a country of immigrants. there is no religion that should be placed at the head of the country’s belief system.
what moral anchor do you think we need?
Classical liberalism
It's not even a matter of calling people fascists or nazis - there's been plenty of violence towards the politicians on the opposite side of the aisle, too. Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Melissa Hortman, John and Yvette Hoffman earlier this year.
If it was just a matter of people internalizing that killing fascists is fine and thus that calling people fascists is dangerous, then we would not see the same sort of violence being perpetrated against other politicians not getting the same label.
Kirk himself suggested that a "real patriot who wanted to be a midterm hero" should bail out the man who nearly killed Pelosi's husband. The rhetoric around political violence in this country has been ratcheted up to an insane degree, with or without any accusations of fascism, and this will continue or get worse as long as that remains the case.
He then immediately said he was joking and this kind of violence was obviously awful. I don’t think it was funny, but it’s worth completing the quote.
No one shot the Skokie march Nazis and they literally showed up at a Jewish dominated town at a time when there weren't even background checks for guns. The ACLU even defended them in court, which is unthinkable that they would stand on their principles and do that today.
There's just less tolerance for discussing or exhibiting "extreme" or highly unpopular opinions, nowadays, it seems. Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
> Although, I could definitely be wrong -- people like MLK were shot for doing same long ago.
I mean, you're almost there realizing the recency bias. The 1970s, when the Skokie Affair occurred, were arguably the high point for political violence in the post-WWII US.
You could've stopped your sentence at "I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive."
The main downside of abusing the words nazi and fascist is that it gives an out to the actual fascists out there. When it comes to gun violence, there are a lot more (self proclaimed) neo-nazis killing innocent people than people killing them.
Good point. I don't think we can avoid gun violence. Maybe a good improvement would be to incent basic education ?
But I hate so much attacks on freedom from governments that will always choose freedom of speech.
“It’s good to kill Nazis” — this is certainly the prevailing sentiment in modern culture, reinforced by the vast number of books, stories, movies, and video games that support the premise. But something important is often overlooked in this view of righteousness:
1. People who believe they could never become Nazis are often the most unknowingly susceptible to it.
2. People who believe they can confidently identify a Nazi are often wrong — a mindset akin to witch hunts, where everyone is seen as a witch.
I'm old enough to remember Fox News hosts playing B-roll of Nazi footage while discussing Obama back in 2008.
I'm old enough to recall MSNBC in 2011 cropping video footage of an Obama townhall protestor to only show his long-sleeve shirted back with slung open-carry rifle. They used it to immediately launch into a pundit discussion claiming that the protestors were motivated by racial animus. Turned out the protestor was black.
News manipulating footage to cast aspersions to historical boogeymen is routine. All it takes is one pundit mentioning an imagined similarity to play the edited B-roll.
I’ll throw my hat in on another comment on this thread - my last wasn’t well received but ask you take it honestly.
Circa 2017 during then “punching Nazis” era of social discourse, I started a new job. The first week in I went for lunch with a Junior teammate and was told “violence against ‘Nazis’” is fine, it’s justified. I asked how. I was told, my brain is a part of the body, so if someone says something so stupid that it ‘hurts the brain,’ the speech is now assault, so counter-violence is justified.
I, with hint of irony, told my new coworker that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard and asked if I should now assault them for hurting my brain… and was met with hostility.
I don’t quite known I’m going with this exactly, but I feel folks are not giving the world around them an honest assessment, no matter their Ivy diploma. Politics isn’t a “gotcha game” and please stop tying to make it such.
Calling people nazis and fascists nilly willy doesn't even count as hate speech...
"Hate speech" isn't just hateful speech, it's a specific term with a specific meaning. Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.
>Being a nazi isn't an inherent characteristic of a person, it's an affiliation or ideology that they consciously choose.
Sure.
But the overwhelming majority of people called "nazis" by their political opponents have objectively not chosen anything remotely of the sort.
No when it's a label deliberately misapplied to run of the mill conservatives. That's defamation with the purpose of generating hate against those people.
Isn't the whole point of the MAGA, non woke right, not to tone police people? How are you going to stop people from abusing other who they don't agree with? That is the basics of free speech.
> I don't know how a country filled with guns can survive the normalization of calling people you disagree with Nazi, Fascist, etc.
The same way it did for the last 250 years as the world's oldest Democracy. By respecting and upholding our Constitution, especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
It's crazy to me how many people are lost talking about gun violence on here when he died as a victim of political violence. The problem is the mainstream narratives that are making people's brains melt who then go out and shoot people who disagree with them. Go read any comments to Kirk's videos on X. It is literally a fucking mental asylum.
It was likely both, at least we know for sure it was gun violence, we don't know the motivation of the shooter yet. In the Trump shooting attempt the motivation didn't seem very political so much as a loser type wanting fame and power.
Off-topic, but I was about report a very hateful response before I refreshed and saw that it had already disappeared. Thank you to @dang and HN's other admins!
Truly an unenviable job today.
Oooooh boy there are a lot of dead comments in this thread.
Indeed, but in general I'm ashamed at HN. I've read several hundred comments already at this point and have not seen a single word of sympathy for the wife and two babies that he's left behind. Everyone's in such a rush to draw their political lines in the sand...
If that video is real, the shooter had incredibly accurate aim.
It's incredibly accurate as most such events go, with the grade of shooters and weapons typically seen. It's not terribly remarkable for a trained shooter with a good rifle. A 1 MOA or better rifle with a reasonable optic makes such shots highly feasible given a stationary target.
So this is a outlier only in that someone was equipped and trained to a fairly serious degree. Someone on the order of a squad designated marksman (SDM) is certainly capable of this. The US military has a few thousand active duty personal trained to that level across the several branches, and there are 10's of thousands of veterans. There are also many SWAT and other LEOs and an uncountable number of enthusiasts and serious hunters with sufficient training and weapons.
If the reporting is correct, the shot was at 200 yards. Anyone who hunts with a rifle is (or should be) capable of making that shot, it's not exceedingly far (and like you said, if your rifle isn't junk and you're shooting 1 MOA, that's only a 2" difference @ 200 yards).
No serious training or equipment would be required for this close of a shot. I've taken deer over 200 yards away with my $500 rifle, no training other than shooting on and off since I was a kid.
I believe this underestimates the difficulty of such an attack and the value of training. This isn't deer hunting where little to nothing is at stake. It's a homicidal attack in the midst of an urban area, with armed law enforcement in the vicinity, the risk of discovery, the knowledge that aggressive pursuit will be immediate, and extreme consequences for the crime.
High pressure.
Under pressure, a poorly trained person is unlikely to be capable of this. It takes some degree of training to simultaneously deal with this pressure and still perform.
Completely untrained yes but there’s lots of people with these skills. I do IDPA matches with my son at a tactical range near Waxahachie TX, people there do these kinds of drills constantly. There’s also lots of ex-military instructor led close quarter and urban combat training available to anyone. Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think. It’s sort of like martial arts, some people are just really into it.
> I do IDPA matches
Yes, this is the level of training I imagine as sufficient. A match applies pressure: you're on a clock, there is an audience, you have a safety regime and people scrutinizing you on it, and at the end, there is a score. I don't claim Fort Benning sniper school is necessary. Only that you likely can't just wander out of a gun shop with your scoped deer rifle at any price and snipe targets at range under pressure: there is more to it than the weapon.
> Combat trained random people are probably more common than you think.
I listed a wide variety of people with the training I believe is sufficient.
I think the two would be Trump assassins being closer and failing back up your argument though one was scared off before he could even take a shot.
The corollary is Oswald and his crummy surplus carbine making headshots on a moving target.
Training.
It was reportedly a 200 meter shot on a pretty static target. At that distance a competent shooter can place it within a couple inches all day with a decent rifle. This shot didn't require special skill.
Especially when you can zero the scope to 200yds and make it basically point and shoot.
Not directly relevant, but it should be noted that we live at a time when someone who can afford to drop a few thousand dollars on a scope basically doesn't need to learn how to shoot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmteh_NChOQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrackingPoint
Between that and cheap quadcopter drones, I expect political assassinations to skyrocket in the future.
If a bullet hits, it has to hit somewhere.
He could have been aiming for the skull for all we know. He could have been aiming for the chest. Hell, he could have been aiming for someone behind Kirk.
We can be sure that the shooter was not aiming for the neck. Chest is more likely, but head is possible.
Given the distance, unless well trained it was probably luck more than anything.
Modern firearms don't really require that much training to hit a static man sized target at 200m from a supported position. This is well within the "point blank" range, meaning that vertical deviation of the bullet is too small to bother adjusting for, and wind effects on rifle (i.e. very fast moving) bullets at this range are also fairly limited. So long as the rifle is zeroed, lining up the scope with the target and pulling the trigger without jerking it is basically all it takes, and those kinds of skills can be acquired in a few trips to the range.
The shooter wasn't likely aiming "anywhere on the body" as the target... they were likely either trying to hit the center of the head, or the chest. In either case, they were off quite a bit and that they made a deadly hit as much as they did was most likely still luck as much as anything.
Aiming for the head is most likely. For reference, a military M16 is considered within spec if it can produce a 4 minute-of-angle group from a prone supported position (but aimed and fired by a human, not fixed in a gun sled). At 200 yards, that would be a circle of around 8 inches. However pretty much any hit with a rifle bullet within that circle is likely to be lethal if it's centered on the head...
Anyway, the point is that it's really not a difficult shot at all, and only requires very rudimentary training that is readily available to anyone who can make a few trips to the range.
I'm not sure that most people are disciplined enough to make that shot all the same. I don't know anything about the shooter in particular though. Mostly in that from the center of the head to the neck is still a bit away. It could just as easily have missed altogether.
I'm guessing center of head. It is common for right-handed shooters without a lot of training to jerk the trigger down and to the right, which will show up as displacement at 200 meters.
Can you do this? Like, I’ve killed every animal I’ve shot at so far (legally, while hunting) and I know I couldn’t make that shot. The nerves alone Jesus. I’m always surprised and dubious when I hear this claim repeated. A blood vessel in a human from 200 yards. After a few trips to the range. Really.
Who says he was targeting that specific place? In fact, it seems likely that the target was his head and the shooter pulled the shot a bit but was still within tolerances (with a 1 MOA scope @ 200 yards you're only looking at 2" of variance).
I've killed deer beyond 200 yards sitting on a stump with a cheap rifle, it's not actually that hard if you've shot a bit before. The nerves though... you're right there, I couldn't imagine.
I'm not a particularly skilled shooter (don't get to practice as much as I'd like.) And I can hit a target at 300m using a $500 AR-15 and a $300 optic. It's not that hard at the range.
Oh interesting, well maybe I’m wrong. I mean the nerves thing stands but yeah maybe it is that easy
Generally putting a single shot on target is something most people can do with a decent rifle and optic. It's doing that consistently when firing multiple rounds and/or under pressure that is difficult.
The bullet drop at this distance with say a .223 is 3-9 inches depending on the exact velocity and basically nothing else has significant effect at this distance.
At say 3000fps velocity, time to target is less than 450ms.
This is almost point and shoot. It’s entirely possible someone fairly untrained just aimed at the forehead and ended up with neck
Supposedly the shot was taken from 200 yards away.
In my nonprofessional opinion, that is crappy aim. I can hit an apple from 100 yards away, with a black powder rifle, with an unriffled bore, with iron sights, standing up, repeatedly. I would expect a modern rifle with a riffled bore and a scope and a larger target to be much more accurate from a prone position.
How can it possibly be crappy aim?
The shooter had 1 target, and he delivered a 100% kill shot.
You could say "it wasn't impressive", but you can't say it was crap...
His target was probably higher.
People can deliver crap and still get their task accomplished.
It was crap. I highly doubt the neck was the target. If the head was the target, then the same distance but in another direction, would have missed.
Regardless, it's still sad that someone died, especially in this manner (regardless of politics).
Call me crazy, and maybe I'm just out of touch, but something seems... off with the reaction to this. The amount of people on reddit that I'm seeing gloating, openly celebrating this, it's really just something I have never seen before. Not even the Trump assassination attempt had this kind of reaction.
All I'm saying, is that if I was a US adversary, I would absolutely be spinning up a million LLMs to post the most provocative possible stuff. The technology absolutely exists - just yesterday sama@ was talking about the dead internet theory. I'm worried that someone is going to see that horrifying video of the shooting, and then see all these horrifying comments online, and do something equally horrifying.
> All I'm saying, is that if I was a US adversary, I would absolutely be spinning up a million LLMs to post the most provocative possible stuff.
They have already been doing this for years -- over a decade -- with meatbag posters before LLMs were widely available.
How do you think we got to the current political climate in the first place?
If you need a counter balance go look at the comments on the Mike Rowe Youtube video addressing this.
You'll see people fawning over Kirk like he was a prophet. Dear leader stuff.
do you know the name Luigi Mangione?
Yeah, fair enough. No doubt there is some real-ness to the sentiment. I do think it's an easy way to hurt the US to fan the flames of divisive things like this. But at the end of the day flame doesn't exist without kindling... I guess it's just the world we live in. How depressing.
One quote of Charlie’s that resonates deeply with me is:
""" When people stop talking, really bad stuff starts.
When marriages stop talking, divorce happens.
When civilisations stop talking, civil war ensues.
When you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.
What we as a culture have to get back to, is being able to have reasonable disagreement, where violence is not an option. """
This belief in the power of conversation over conflict defined Charlie’s work. He didn’t just preach ideas; he lived them, fostering discussions that encouraged understanding despite disagreement. I did not agree with all his standpoints, but what I admired most was his insistence that dialogue could bridge divides.
I’m Canadian, and US politics is a massive distraction and influence on ours. It gives me an objective view of their system because their problems often spill over into ours. I usually try to avoid diving into US politics, so I didn’t follow Charlie. Still, he was deeply respected by all of my political allies in Canada. I don’t know all of his positions, but I’d bet we agreed a lot.
One thing that’s shifted in my lifetime is the polarization of US politics. Republicans edged somewhat left because several outspoken anti-gay senators were later revealed to be gay. But Democrats swung much further left, and it’s been costing them elections. The polarization worsened as Democrats regularly dehumanized and attacked Republicans as fascists and racists. My expectation is that the recent attack of charlie kirk by south park is a key factor in this political assassination.
Charlie’s mission was to break that cycle. He stood for open discussion without violence. He often said the great failure of today’s politics is that Democrats and Republicans can’t even talk to each other. And when husband and wife stop talking, they end up divorcing.
The democrats/liberals ended that yesterday. There's no 1 entity to blame here. But how can anyone risk their NECK trying to have proper democratic conversations and debate anymore? You cant. The conversation is over. Divorce is coming.
I'm also Canadian. Your interpretation of Kirk's "mission" is curious.
To the rest of us, his "open discussion" was clearly and obviously rhetorical. The public performances that made him famous were undoubtedly designed specifically to incite college students into making clumsy arguments they weren't prepared for. Not only is that bad faith and predatory in the context of political debate, but Steven Crowder came up with that schtick.
Blaming democrats/liberals for his death is also curious. Could you expand on how you're so sure about that? As far as I know, no suspect nor motive is known at this time.
>I'm also Canadian. Your interpretation of Kirk's "mission" is curious.
Obviously i recommend watching the countless videos that confirm and prove this mission correctly. I'll never debate this subject.
>To the rest of us, his "open discussion" was clearly and obviously rhetorical.
You're speaking for everyone? Or do you mean you think. He had open mics that let anyone speak any subject really. What's rhetorical about it? Are you confusing him with steven crowder who has a 'change my mind' on a specific issue that he has deeply researched and knows he's correct?
If your mission is to have democratic debates, this is how you do it.
>The public performances that made him famous were undoubtedly designed specifically to incite college students into making clumsy arguments they weren't prepared for.
So you're against this? You're against having democratic discussions which lead to greater understanding? Im guessing your point of view are out of context 30 second funny clips of the dumbest comments. Those go viral sure, but isnt representative of many hour long events.
>Blaming democrats/liberals for his death is also curious.
when i use a general label, im not saying all even vaguely identifying liberals in canada are responsible for the death. I'm saying the institutions of the Liberal party of Canada and Democratic party in usa are responsible for the political violence.
I can of course be more specific. John Stewart probably is your original root cause for the polarization of the left wing. His style of discourse is funny from him in his comedy show but when people took his style into proper democratic discussions, it falls apart very quickly into polarization.
South Park's recent attack on charlie kirk no doubt is the recent incitement to violence. Yes they pulled the episode. They are likely to be paying hundreds of millions of $ to Kirk's family in a few years from now. Their publishers likely ending their contract for south park now. The lawyers yesterday and today are putting together the settlement offer before they even get served no doubt.
I can also blame the democratic journalists who lie and convinced their readers to hate charlie and republicans as racists and fascists thusly justifying murder. Good on MSNBC to fire Dowd immediately after his outrageous comment.
A great deal of people got fired yesterday and even more are getting fired today. Liberals losing their jobs are only going to radicalize them more towards violence unfortunately.
>Could you expand on how you're so sure about that? As far as I know, no suspect nor motive is known at this time.
When i wrote that comment there was no motive, but political assassinations are trivial to conclude as political.
There is a motive now, ATF leaked that it's a trans shooter. I will be shocked if there arent massive consequences for trans people in the usa.
I will note as well. Lets not forget Melissa Hortman. The political violence is on both sides now.
The way to fix this was Charlie's mission of having conversations. That's impossible now. Nobody can deradicalize the liberals from their violence now. IT will now escalate.
Another note since we're both Canadian. In the summer, Sean Fuecht tried to have simple public performances. Liberals used government power to silence his speech. That's not something you're allowed to do; but they violated his charter rights based of "safety" concerns. Which were valid, there was multiple bombs at his shows by antifa.
The liberals in Canada are as violent.
The bullets were literally found with transgender and antifa ideology engraved on them.
Were they though? Or, was that a single, unverified bulletin put out by one cop?
The engravings have nothing to do with "transgender and antifa ideology". They are all "online" troll phrases/codes.
EDIT: The ATF has apparently subpoenaed Steven Crowder for posting the claim you are referring to: https://x.com/scrowder/status/1966236010381193388
All the conspiracy theorizing is silly, imo. This is just another shot fired in the long history of American assassination. Charlie Kirk should be proud. The is the America he asked for. And this may be the beginning of a very violent period in American politics.
I personally believe that every violent death is tragic and should be avoidable.
But how many of us can say that they died for what they believe in? [1] Isn’t this really a personal victory for him at the end of the day?
> I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.
I hope he had solace and peace in his final moments, knowing that he kept true to his words right up until the end. Thanks for the sacrifice for our god given rights to stand up to a tyrannical government!
[1] https://uk.news.yahoo.com/fact-check-charlie-kirk-once-20550...
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7)
And dude had kids and a wife that aren't going to see him again. That kinda kicks me in the feels. You don't have to be in his political camp to feel bad about that.
Unconfirmed, but I've seen repeated a lot that his wife and kids were in attendance. Awful.
I find myself pondering how the families of victims of stochastic terrorism feel, do they try to rationalize why their loved ones died?
I am in the unfortunate situation to have found myself a victim of hatred — nearly got abducted — found myself threatened and discriminated against on the basis of my sexuality and appearance, had people spread rumours about my birth sex, and I wonder, do the perpetrators of stochastic terrorism ever feel any remorse? Are they capable of seeing us as fellow humans? Have they a heart that can feel pain for people they can’t relate to any more than just being other people?
what is stochastic terrorism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
Obviously witchcraft doesn't actually work, but the timing on this Jezebel article "We Paid Some Etsy Witches to Curse Charlie Kirk" is darkly comical.
https://www.jezebel.com/we-paid-some-etsy-witches-to-curse-c...
The day that terrorists tried to bomb the World Trade Center with a moving truck in the parking garage, one of the cartoonists for The Onion had made a joke about how one of his characters was going to go blow up the World Trade Center. He got a brief but uncomfortable visit from the Feds.
Also an album cover from a few months prior depicted them blowing up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_Music
> For the “POWERFUL HEX SPELL,” I had to provide Kirk’s date of birth for “accuracy.” The witch performed the hex, but her response was unsettling: “I just completed your spell, and it was successful. You will see the first results within 2–3 weeks. However, I did notice disturbances… negative energy not only from you, but projected at you. Likely from toxic family members, co-workers, or new acquaintances.”
Wow!
A broken clock is right twice a day.
That's something I wonder about. Wouldn't people who believe in this stuff demand punishment for the publication and the witches?
Let's say it wasn't witchcraft thing but something more widely accepted like prayer session at mainstream church/mosque or something of this sort. Wouldn't the devout people see this as a contract killing? What if the soother says he felt possessed? Shouldn't then he be let go in a religious society?
It seems strange to me to say "but shouldn't people who believe in things that require a tremendous load of cognitive dissonance be more logically consistent?"
> Wouldn't people who believe in this stuff demand punishment for the publication and the witches
Many of the witches who believe in this stuff also believe that what you put out into the world will come back to you, typically with a multiplier.
Presumably, some of the Christians who believe in this stuff also believe "Judge not, that ye be not judged" and that ultimately God alone must and will mete out punishment with the wisdom of divine omniscience.
None of this stopped people who claim to be witches from taking money to curse a guy, and in my experience, people who claim to be Christians love judging others and their zeal for punishment often seems fetishistic
I guess it'd be for the courts to decide... But yesterday I saw the words "Supreme Court" and I thought about the "Supreme Ayatollah of Iran", who's a guy who says God speaks to him.
And with our Supreme Court, who knows if they'll say witches casting spells are assassins after all.
Historically, yes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_witchcraft
I’m sure the original first season of 24 had a plot similar to 9/11 too.
Was the first season of 24 pre-9/11? I am truly shocked.
It premiered right after (Nov 6) so it's probably safe to say it was at least written, filmed, and produced mostly pre-9/11.
So I think I'm, at best, only partly right.
Wikipedia says the pilot was filmed in March 2001, and production began in July 2001, so the broad strokes of the show were maybe mostly written prior to 9/11, but most of the actual filming likely happened after (which means writers also had time to rewrite at least some things).
I find it interesting that 24 format, total chronological order, allowed them to react to that 9/11 if it was required. Kinda like South Park episodes are at most 2-week old when aired. South Park it's easy since episodes aren't connected and due to how it's made, but the idea is the same.
I'm not a very TV or movie oriented person but I do find the way things are produced quite amazing. I lived in Los Angeles for years and saw many things being filmed as a result. It was always a treat, an extra fun when I saw it on TV later on.
Everything and everyone involved does incredible stuff, IMO.
Not really.
As far as I can recall it was a very convoluted prison-break for someone thought to be dead that included an attempted revenge assasination, distraction bombing of a federal agency, kidnappings and multiple double agents.
Cursed on August 22 2025, per the article.
One thing I noticed here and elsewhere online today is that I've not seen any memories of Charlie.
It's all been about the politics and ramifications of the assassination. But nothing about the man himself and how he positively impacted the lives of others, no matter how small.
I'm certain this is my filter bubble, but it's still strange nonetheless.
If anyone has any positive things to say about the man, I'd love to know them. As I'm on his political opposite, I never really engaged with his content or knew much past any controversy that boiled over.
I turned on the Daily Wire’s live coverage briefly to see what they were saying. They were talking about Charlie as a person and holding back tears. The one guy was recounting a one-on-one basketball game they played where he thought he’s school Charlie, but quite the opposite happened.
The other guy was mentioning how he loved to debate, not just in the forums like the schools, but even with his friends. And how he’d debate them even harder in private, and was willing to change his mind, searching for truth.
They also talked about his faith for a while.
I didn’t watch for too long. When I was switching it off they were brining a woman on and it sounded like she was going to tell some of her own stories about him.
I think these people were actually friends with him vs the talking heads on many other networks reporting who only knew him through his work. If you want to hear the real stories, you need to get them from the people who were closer to him.
He also had a wife and kids, I can only assume he has some positive impact on their lives. His kids would have no concept of what he is professionally, he’d just be “dad”.
Whichever side of whatever fence you're on, it's universally a bad thing when politicians, political activists and political representatives get assassinated.
And as far as I can tell, he engaged primarily in peaceful verbal and written debate. That should be our political ideal.
Yes, he constantly debated left wing people, sometimes nice, sometimes extremely rude, and almost always seemed to find ways to pull conversations back from ad hominem stuff or thoughtless claims to something useful and uniting between him and the person he was speaking to. The people were generally college students, more used to memorising and repeating still, but he did sometimes seem to spark a genuine thought out of them.
* * *
Well, he did die. Horrific. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/09/10/us/charlie-kirk-shot...
If this turns out to be real, a direct shot to the left carotid artery. Theoretically could be survivable but not without serious deficit and stroke. Agree likely fatal.
The other indicators are pretty clearly a spinal shot. Extremely likely he is dead.
I'm going to hug my family a little tighter tonight. 46th school shooting of the year, and the 47th also happening in Colorado.
He lost conscious immediately which is not explainable with blood loss alone that fast - which may indicate that there was a higher impact from the shot.
It's not a case of losing blood, it's a case of failing to move blood to the right place. If the shot took out the carotid, then (nearly) 50% of the blood supply to his brain is gone because of a piping failure. That can absolutely cause instantaneous loss of consciousness, no direct brain trauma necessary.
This is very different than bleeding from, say, a major artery in a leg. In that case the issue isn't loss of piping to the brain, it's losing blood until the total blood volume in the body isn't sufficient to maintain a workable blood pressure, and yes that can take multiple minutes before a person loses consciousness.
You can live with single carotid [1]. But maybe the change is too fast. It is exremely difficult to say without knowing more.
1: https://biologyinsights.com/can-you-live-with-one-carotid-ar...
I am a physician, so I can say this with a high degree of confidence.
That snippet is referring to the circle of Willis*, which is a "backup" circuit that can route around a blockage to the blood flow to the brain on one side.
The thing is the circle of Willis is tiny and near vestigial (there is a substantial fraction of the population where it doesn't even make a full circuit), whereas the carotid is one of the largest blood vessels in the body. The circle of Willis isn't nearly large enough to reroute all that flow. It has to be made bigger over time through a process called collateralization, and that's a process that happens over months to years, not minutes or seconds.
In short, the circle of Willis will save you from years of high cholesterol that lead to a huge cholesterol plaque completely blocking off one of your carotids. It won't save you from your carotid being severed by a bullet.
*And some other tinier vessels, but mainly the circle of Willis
Not a physician, medical examiner, or the like. But a paramedic who has attended more than one fatality shooting. My educated wild ass guess is that hitting the neck with a high-velocity rifle would cause the shockwaves of the impact to be very, very close to the brainstem and to have a significant effect on it.
I was trying to frame it differently - like - it must have hit some harder tissue before it can cause the shockwaves, right?
The air itself would be concussive.
But regardless, the specific mechanism of his death is clear. He died by gunshot.
WPD post with a whole bunch of camera angles https://watchpeopledie.tv/h/shooting/post/379641/just-now-ch...
Note: the police do not have the suspect in custody. The comments about, "here's the assassin being arrested," are libel.
Not necessarily. They may have believed it to be true when they commented.
Negligence is enough for libel against private citizens in the USA.
Here's a mirror as that one has gotten moderated,
(Very, very graphic death) https://x.com/_geopolitic_/status/1965851790714482943 (not safe for life / NSFL)
[Graphic description] What kind of gun could that have been? Incredible amount of kinetic energy—you can actually see a hydraulic pressure wave oscillating through his entire chest. This was obviously fatal, if anyone wasn't sure. Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).
Really any kind of deer hunting rifle will do that. Any .30 cal or larger rifle is going to cause catastrophic damage to almost everything within atleast an inch of the bullets path, and massive bruising to 4 inches out around it, and that wound area only goes up as you go up through .30 cal bullet sizes. You have to go down into medium and lower handgun calibers for bullet wounds to start becoming mostly localized to the hole itself
Ironically the prevalence of AR-15s has made people underestimate the amount of power and damage that most deer hunting rifles possess. 5.56 is like the bare minimum you can get away with to reliably disable or mortally wound a human or similarly sized animal, which is why the military used it because it saves weight so soldiers can carry more of it even if they have to hike 20 miles to their objective. Most hunting rifles are serious overkill for killing their target because hunters want instant take downs, not an animal that is able to stand up and get an adrenaline boost and sprint away if even for just 15 seconds into the brush because the shot was a half inch to the left. .30_06, a common deer round and used in the M1 Garand of WWII, is just under twice the muzzle energy of 5.56.
Go watch high speed footage of anyone shooting a gun at ballistic gel (ballistic gel is a material selected for having a similar density and fluid dynamics behavior to mammalian flesh.)
A lot of the damage of a bullet is this concussive damage, not the piercing damage. Hollywood has been lying to you (apparently real gun experts hate the movie “shoulder shot” because there’s a lot of things to damage there, especially once you take the concussive force into consideration).
For those who are on the fence, don’t watch it. I just did and I regret it. Suffice it to say that the blood loss alone will be critical condition at the very best.
> Probably died instantly, given the neurological "fencing" response (suggests spinal cord was hit—never mind the artery, he was already dead).
Could you expand on this? What does neurological "fencing" response mean, and what in the video indicates this is it?
It's a neurological sign associated with traumatic brain injury. That unnatural reflex of the arms you can see in that video.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_response ("Fencing response")
Thank you. So haunting.
It's useful to recognize that pose! It's often people who could benefit from quick medical attention, if someone notices the symptom.
Decorticate posturing of the hands
> What kind of gun could that have been?
There are many different kinds of ammunition design. Some pierce and punch holes, some fragment and tumble, some balloon and expand, some cause large tears and cavities.
Ballistic science is actually a fairly complicated rabbit hole
Any assault rifle round will do this.
Also: smaller assault rounds like 5.56 can in fact do more damage than larger ones in some case because of its tendency to bounce around in the body.
Any hunting rifle round will do this as well, except the smallest calibers like .22 LR that are meant for hunting squirrels and the like.
But also, no, the smaller rounds don't have a "tendency to bounce around in the body". It sounds like you're referring to the phenomenon known as tumbling, where the wound track ends up being curved because the bullet loses stability as it hits. This happens because bullets are heavier at the base and thus unstable; while in air, they are stabilized by rotation imparted on them by the rifling, but once they hit anything dense (like, well, human body) it would take a lot more spinning to keep them stable, so all bullets do that. It does not involve any bouncing, however.
Light and fast bullets like 5.56 are particularly unstable and will do it faster, though. But even then, for 5.56, the primary damage mechanism is from bullet fragmentation: between the bullet being fairly long and thin, and high velocity of impact, the bullet literally gets torn apart, but the resulting pieces still retain most of kinetic energy. Except now, each piece, being irregular, travels on its own random trajectory, creating numerous small wound channels in strong proximity, which then collapse into one large wound cavity. But, again, this is mostly a function of bullet velocity and construction (e.g. presence or absence of cannelure), not caliber as such.
Anything coming out of a rifle will fuck your shit up, even small rounds like 223/5.56: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x72JOi74Xwk&pp=ygUZNTU2IHNsb3c...
https://files.catbox.moe/nfffye.mp4
Wow! I should've heeded your NSFW warning. That was very disturbing.
Should these even be shared?
I mean, people are watching (I haven't) and wishing they hadn't.
Yes. People should have the choice to watch and understand what political violence. This is a powerful video and one that I don’t recommend everyone watch (that is a personal choice). If you are a person who has chosen to cheer on political violence, then I do suggest you watch. It’s is important to have a clear understanding of what that entails and the realities of that choice.
Fair points. I guess some level of uneasiness can be a good thing for some folks.
But I also recognize it can possibly trigger anxiety (overwhelming, in some cases) for some folks, even if you don't realize that it might (until it's too late).
Not suggesting we turn to censorship. But at the same time, I guess I'm mostly looking out for folks that may not be aware of the effects it could possibly have (e.g. naive and/or not taking warnings seriously enough).
Others are watching and expressing interest. I have similarly chosen not to watch the video, which is the responsible choice for me if I think I will find it disturbing (I probably will).
He kicked back hard, so the shooter was using a powerful rifle, I suppose a sniper rifle. Wound is huge, not a pistol wound.
He was shot in the neck because the shooter is amateur and didn't account for the bullet drop on this distance.
This isn't call of duty, a basic hunting rifle will do the same holes as a "sniper rifle"
I did not say it was something like an m82. I just wanted to say I believe it wasn't a pistol.
There are handungs used for defense against brown bears, look at 10mm, or even 500 mag, 454 casull, you can shoot this from a handgun. It's very unlikely to be the case here but you wouldn't be able to tell just from the damages
https://youtube.com/shorts/JluEbL5H48o
The fact that we're talking about this using terms like "sides" is the problem. American politics has long since stopped being about policy, but is treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what. It's as though people are incapable of having thoughts on an issue more complex than "does my side think this is good or bad?" and suddenly those who disagree with you are evil, and with partisan media suddenly you see the "other side" as some faceless evil rather than people with differing and complex experiences and views.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Charlie Kirk said, and as someone who is not an American, there was also a lot of things he said I simply didn't care about because they didn't apply to me. I also found that his way of communicating was more geared towards encouraging discussions that would generate views. But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
American politics isn't politics, it's one step short of being like football hooliganism for supposedly smart people.
Part of the problem is that many claim violence has been done ... with words, and in so doing they incite actual violence. If we want violence to stop then we need to:
- talk to each other about politics (as we used to) so as to moderate each other's opinions
- stop exaggerating moles into mountains.
May we actually do this.
We also need to unequivocally defend free speech. Not violence or criminality but free speech. We shouldn’t tolerate uncivilized counter rioting or other aggressive ways of dealing with others’ opinions - it’s a path to exactly this kind of violence.
I agree. And funny enough the top comment in this thread describes Hans potential replies to this news as “violent”. It’s a form of newspeak. Peach is never violent. Come up with a thousand other words, but that’s what violence is to mean we then need another word for actual violence.
> But despite all that, I can appreciate that he was a man who was willing to have a (mostly) civil conversation with all sides, something I wish more people would try to do.
could you give some examples of good, civil conversations he's had with people he strongly opposed? I'd like watch them. I think it's a skill we all need to cultivate.
Just look up his college campus debates. He would do a very unique round table debate format where he would have 20 college kids sit in a circle and each while get a minute to debate with him. It’s very wholesome and civil.
I agree with you. There should not be sides in the American political system. Yet here we are, because the people we elect seem to want to create a boogeyman in the other "side" and blame all of society's problems on them. Maybe that's just a reflection on American society.
And the news networks eat that shit up. They love a boogeyman, because it's good for ratings.
The news networks and social networks have determined that controversy increases engagement which increases profit.
You could imagine a different algorithm that promoted peaceful, thoughtful interactions. But that would have led to the death of Facebook, twitter, news networks, etc.
We may in fact be here due to sheer greed. The media companies have profited by creating discontent in our society rather than content.
This really can't be stated loudly enough and they studied it and figured this out with A/B testing and implemented it. It's on the level of tobacco companies covering up cancer.
In another HN post about New Mexico offering free childcare, there was a comment that basically hit on the same point [1]. Capitalism has really fucked our society in so many ways.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45191517
I have news for you: it's not just American politics that has "sides". In fact, it's exceedingly surprising to me how much politics has aligned (not necessarily in terms of party names and labels) throughout the entire Western world in the past several decades.
I don't disagree. I don't know anything about the political systems of other countries. I'm just talking about what I am familiar with, which is the American political system.
You're right, though. Americans actually agree on most things [1]. In that sense, there is really only one "side." Yet the media exploits the small differences that people don't agree upon to create a giant divide.
Anecdote: I firmly believe Trump is going to destroy our democracy, or at least put it to its absolute limits. Yet, I have many friends who voted for Trump. They're great people. We don't ever talk politics, but whenever we talk about economics, or society, we actually agree about most things. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be friends.
Yet the talking heads on TV would have us believe that democrats and republicans are enemies. And that may very well be a self fulfilling prophecy.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms...
I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:
- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"
- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."
- "While I'm not a fan..."
Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.
There is only one "side", and they're die-hard. The left is a rag-tag group of misfits who simply don't identify as conservative for one reason or another, which is part of the reason it's so hard for the democratic establishment to find a message that resonates with such a varied and untethered group.
So no, no one is talking about "sideS." A single, cohesive group of people has been building an unearned narrative of persecution and victimhood as a pretext to lash out at and antagonize every person who isn't them.
treated like a sport where you follow your "team" and defend them no matter what
I don't understand this. Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time. And the better team that day wins - enjoy and go home. What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
> What's with "defend them no matter what"? Defend from what and why?
In my experience, a lot of sports fans love to debate and argue, claim some strategy was "unfair" when used against their team, argue whether some penalty was justified or not. People who are die-hard for their team will usually defend their team no matter what.
> Sport is just sport - just watch, enjoy, have a good time
This is the thing. Politics has basically become a form of entertainment these days. You have talk-shows covering politics and making fun of the political news of the day, you have YouTubers and streamers who make a living off of making political content. Artists make comics that are varying degrees of witty political satire and, in America at least, the democratic and republican conventions are basically a political sideshow circus. To top it off, how many people have taken this situation as a reason to post on social media? Regardless of if you like or dislike Charlie Kirk and his idea's, using his death as a reason to post something on social media, positive or negative, is just using the situation for entertainment purposes.
How many people these days can honestly say they engage in politics to talk about policy, and not as a form of entertainment?
For those unfamiliar, "Arguments as Soldiers" is a great way to think about this dynamic.
https://www.lesswrong.com/w/arguments-as-soldiers
It’s also stupid to be talking about “sides” when we don’t even have a handle on the shooter.
It could be a random crazy person, a Democrat, Trump supporter pissed off that Kirk was trying to help Trump move past the Epstein stuff or any number of in-betweens.
And you can knock off the white washing of Kirk’s political life. In recent memory, he has advocated for military occupation of US cities, making children watch public executions, and eschewed the idea of empathy. This “well, he said it in calm voice” handwaving is spineless.
We are a society whose culture has become unmoored from the values that built it.
The Enlightenment directly led to violent revolutions in the US and France. Political violence has never not been a part of political society in some capacity. What is effective is not always what is right, and violence is often effective (not in this case, in my opinion).
> and violence is often effective (not in this case, in my opinion).
Depending on your interpretation of "effective" I'm not sure I entirely agree. Political campaigners on both side of the political spectrum have a lot of respect for Charlie Kirk and his ability to raise funds and make a difference in his political activism. From what I've heard, the stuff he did on camera was actually the weaker part of his skill set, its his off-camera work that the GOP will sorely miss.
As an outside observer of US culture I disagree, the normalisation and glorification of violence has always seemed to be a distinctly American value to me.
Have we? The culture and values that built this country are stained in blood, violence, and subjugation. I feel we are actually losing the enlightenment that came afterwards and regressing back.
Like every other country and ethnic group on earth. I don't understand what's so notable about American history in this regard.
The point was not to say USA was special, only to refute the claim that it was all flowers and sunshine at the founding of this country.
As a kid in the UK one of the main ideas I had of the US was Cowboys vs Indians either as a show or a game, and the establishment of the US was largely that - white guys killing the native Americans and taking the land.
Well only a couple countries participated in the creation of the Atlantic slave trade, and very few in history have engaged in chattel slavery to the scale the USA did.
Slavery in the USA was but a tiny fraction of contemporary slavery not to mention historical slavery.
Per capita you are wrong. The Atlantic slave trade enslaved 12 million people. An astounding volume of unique and unnecessary misery and evil.
Seems like a very Americentric perspective. There's still plenty of chattel slavery out there right now[1]. In that respect, the idea that the US is uniquely bad is like the "evil twin" version of American exceptionalism[2].
[1] https://corpaccountabilitylab.org/calblog/2025/8/7/widesprea...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
It's hard to find other examples of it (or at least the inherent natural inferiority of one group of residents) being written into the country's foundational legal document. We are indeed exceptional in that regard.
The Constitution doesn’t mention slavery once. That’s intentional.
It's time to get off your high horse. If you eat meat, future humans will regard you the same way as we regard the slave owners of yesteryear. Perhaps even worse.
Judge people by the ways in which they push their society's morals forward, not retroactively after hundreds of years of morals evolving.
No. Slavery is a unique evil and people knew it was a unique evil since the time of the ancient Greeks.
I refuse to accept "it was just the way things were at the time" when there were people opposed to slavery thousands of years ago. Aristotle wrote about them:
> others however maintain that for one man to be another man’s master is contrary to nature, because it is only convention that makes the one a slave and the other a freeman and there is no difference between them by nature, and that therefore it is unjust, for it is based on force.
There were abolitionists in the first days of the United States through to the civil war. People knew it was wrong or had ample opportunity to hear it argued that it was wrong, and furthermore, the inherent wrongness of it should be obvious to anyone that encounters it, and I don't give a moral pass to anyone that brushes it off because it was common any more than I do for American politicians that brush off school shootings because it's common.
Incorrect. There were some people that understood slavery to be a unique evil. The vast majority of humanity understood it to be "just how things were."
Really, not much different from how we view factory farming today.
Slavery is evil though. It's pretty straightforward. People that participated in it were wrong to do so, and that should be self evident to all participants. I don't accept any excuse for participating in the slave trade. I'm not special or unique to point this out, it's obvious no matter the century.
Would you like to argue that it isn't? The floor is yours. Otherwise your point about consensus is moot. Evil then, evil now, evil forever.
Slavery was obviously wrong but you cannot judge those that didn't understand this. Consensus matters. The morals of the time matter. It was a societal failing over a personal one.
If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve.
You never answered the question: are you vegan, or do you contribute to the immense suffering and death of ~70b sentient beings a year? The suffering hours inflicted every few days exceed that of any atrocity in human history. It is the industrialized torture of billions of innocent beings for your pleasure.
If veganism becomes the norm, is it fair for future humans to judge your whole life by your consumption of meat, leather, or other animal products when there are so many people today that recognize it as a "unique and horrifying evil?"
It is a strange form of exceptionalism for you to judge those in the past but not yourself, because the delta will be similar over long enough timeframes, and if you do partake in any of these things you won't be seen as much different.
> If you think you can judge someone by the morals of today, you must then accept you are evil as well, since societal morals will continue to evolve.
We can judge them by their peers at the time. The U.S. founding fathers didn’t unanimously support slavery, many of them opposed it but were committed to the idea of unity against England. Part of why we can be comfortable judging the slave owners is because their position was primarily based on greed - if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient, a ton of people would stop eating beef but there was no doubt or ambiguity about black people in that regard, only ruthless awareness of how rich you could get without paying your workers.
> if we suddenly discovered that cows were sentient
People eat beef mostly because they’re used to it and they think it’s good for them. Everybody knows cow are sentient, there’s a strong intuition (why wouldn’t they like other animals ?) but also tons of literature. There’s not much doubt about it neither.
I agree with the slave owners, however the spectrum of acceptance is large where it’s part of the society. What about someone that make profit by doing business with the slave owner? Someone that buy products coming ~probably~ from that work?
Or someone assisting an "indigene showcase" because they know nothing about this humanoid that look, speak and act differently than the people they used to known (that are from 100km away max). Not different than a zoo, and both are tremendously cruel.
Everyone knows cows are sentient (not sapient) in a way not dissimilar to a pet, everyone knows factory farming causes immense cruelty and suffering to them, our peers call this out and the text+video evidence is well documented and freely available, 20% of humans abstain, but most people eat it to satisfy their taste buds.
So the cases are not dissimilar at all because your contemporaries do call this out. If causing such immense death and suffering for pleasure in the face of easily available alternatives is not greed, what is?
You are only highlighting my point how you are seeing something as acceptable that will probably be viewed as an unspeakable cruelty in the future, and yet you feel comfortable judging past humans by an increased standard whereas you clearly are not comfortable applying an increased standard to yourself.
You are a product of your society as much as the slave owners of the past were of theirs. This is why it is senseless and hypocritical to paint past peoples acting within the accepted mores of their society as evil - as if we are any better, relatively speaking!
It makes sense to celebrate those that push things forward, as opposed to condemning those that are simply doing what they know to be normal.
Sorry, yes, I did mean to write sapient. I'm not sure that's a conflict, however, as much as further along a spectrum. Whether or not eating cows is ethical is possible to debate because there is valid question about how much of a mind they have but that was never honestly in question for humans. The people who kept slaves had to invent things like the “mark of Cain” theology _because_ they knew their victims were intelligent, feeling creatures like themselves and had to justify treating them in a very profitable way. All of those elaborate “the gods want this” constructions exist to get people to override their natural instinct to recognize someone as a person.
This point is moot because chattel slavery of humans is worse by a large degree than eating animals. We don't need to debate whether eating animals is bad, that's a distraction.
We can judge past slaveholders. The shared humanity of another human is self evident the instant you behold a slave, whether 300 years ago or 3000.
Everyone that participated was wrong to do so.
I think you're just deliberately being obstructionist and entirely avoiding the point I'm trying to make. Calling the core point of the argument a "distraction" is very convenient for you.
Torture is bad no matter how you cut it, and it's especially bad if you torture a sentient being for your own pleasure. Can we agree on that?
Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions.
When you kill an animal, you can see it struggle, cry, suffer, die. You can hold and see its pain in your hands. To do so for your taste buds is another level of evil. To make it live an entire life of suffering? That's really not much different in terms of badness.
The fact that you can't acknowledge this highlights the double standard you apply to people that came before you but not yourself. Everyone is wrong to participate in the systematic torture and murder of 70,000,000,000 sentient beings a year. Does that make all the participants evil?
> Saying whether it's better or worse than slavery is like playing the oppression Olympics, they are both atrocities and demonstrably evil actions.
I'm not trying to engage in oppression Olympics, I'm just saying, slavery is basically the worst things people can do, so far beyond the morality of whether or not it's ok to kill animals, or even torture them, that I'm just confused why it's brought up as if it's relevant.
I don't think killing animals is a great thing to do, and factory farms are awful. But humans are humans, and constantly just hitting this "what about animals" things is bizarre to me. I'm not trying to be rude, I just simply don't see the relevance. Slavery being just about the worse thing humans can do means that all the other bad things pale in comparison.
I'm not saying it's always valid to apply modern ethics to people from various time periods - it's bad, but understandable, that people used to beat their kids, or waste food by sacrificing animals and leaving them out to rot "for the gods." My point is that slavery simply is a massive exception, it's second-to-second murder, taking a human and trying to make them not-human. So that's why anything you could throw at me that we do today that people in the future might say is wrong - jailing people, not housing the homeless, killing animals for sport, engaging in capitalism, you name it, none of them come close to slavery in terms of sheer evil. And my point is that this isn't modern ethics, this is as self-evident a moral fact as is possible for morality. Many things in morality are grey, debatable. Not slavery. It's the One of Two things that are bad in every century, alongside rape. The wrongness of slavery, and rape, are immediately evident no matter what culture or era you come from.
And the reason people do this is usually to justify slavery. "Well they didn't know any better, so they had slaves." Justifying slavery with ANY reason is also bad. So I refuse to accept any attempt to do so, including comparisons to other things that happen to be bad, or possibly considered bad in the future.
I guess our difference is that I don't view the suffering of humans as any more exceptional than the suffering of other sentient beings.
Yes, that is then the difference.
The humanity of a human is self evident to any other human instantly. The humanity of an animal is debatable to this day. That's why slavery is inexcusably bad - the badness of it is also immediately self evident upon encountering it.
I don't think "the humanity of something" is a factor that plays any role in whether something is morally okay or not. Suffering is the factor that matters.
The reason slavery is bad isn't because of suffering, depending on how you define suffering. There were "house slaves" that had relatively comfortable lives. Slavery is bad among other reasons because it strips away someone's humanity and completely takes away their liberty, subjecting their life to the will of someone else. It's a constant ongoing theft of a human life, a reduction of a human life to property.
I'm glad you brought up suffering, I'm realizing better now why so frequently I hear these two ideas brought together by people inadvertently finding themselves on the same side as folks minimizing slavery in attempts to argue against harming animals (by engaging in debate about moral relativism). Purely from a suffering standpoint slavery doesn't necessarily have to be "that bad."
Drawing comparisons between it and arguments against harming animals are nonsensical because we're not talking about suffering, we're talking about other things that can only possibly involve humans. Thank you for sticking around and exploring your viewpoint with me so I could understand that better.
Do you think Charlie Kirk was pushing society's morals forward?
I don't think dismissing chattel slavery or it's ramifications on the modern day will improve the morals of society either.
If you think I'm dismissing chattel slavery, you're misinterpreting my argument.
The things you listed have always been with us, sure. What we’ve lost is the ability to see objective truth. And maybe people celebrated senseless killing in the past too and we just didn’t have access to their sick mentality before the internet.
Mobs of white people (including children) used to gather around the town square to hang black people. They would literally have picnics while doing it. I feel like the majority of our population is historically illiterate. On the scale of senseless killings, this doesn't even rank.
It wasn't just black people being lynched. The largest single mass lynching in American history was of Italians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1891_New_Orleans_lynchings
Louisiana has a dark history.
> An estimated 62–153 black men were murdered while surrendering to a mob of former Confederate soldiers and members of the Ku Klux Klan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colfax_massacre
Jamelle Bouie wrote a piece about this, published this morning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/10/opinion/lincoln-schmitt-t...
This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought. The things you mentioned are found in the history of every nation. It's important to keep track of what should be improved, while also acknowledging what worked well and why.
> This is the kind of rhetoric which seriously undermines the history of American philosophical thought.
Hard disagree. Ignoring it is what allows systemic injustice to persist -- why do we care, today, what Eugenicists in the early 1900s had to say? Jim Crow implementers and supporters? Daughters of the Confederacy?
If the reality of history undermines your respect for American philosophical thought, then perhaps the American philosophical thought is not quite worthy of the pedestal it was placed on.
You’re right that it’s important to acknowledge the pain and suffering caused by bad policy and practices, and it’s important to examine what went wrong so we don’t repeat those mistakes.
That said I think it’s important to separate good ideas from their troubled past and use them where they still apply. People are not perfect, but a good idea is good no matter where it comes from. Those good ideas shape culture and shape the destiny of nations. That’s what happened in America, and there’s a lot to be learned from the past. Unless the point is to undermine the recipe that made America into what it is today, then it doesn’t make sense to measure people who didn’t live in our time by our sensibilities, morality or ethics.
We can learn their good stuff, and improve on what they didn’t do well.
Maybe it would help to pluck out the few good ideas from the bad slop. What do you consider specifically unique in the American experiment that transcends the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engages in?
> the toxic swamp of suppression of freedoms America often engage
Seems extremist to take that view, especially when all nations have just as bloody or dark histories.
But a lot of what shaped initial American thought were Enlightenment ideals, primarily the works of John Locke. So the foundation is solid enough, but is there more that can be done to produce effective implementations? Definitely.
It’s important to note that there are good ideas everywhere, and no one culture or nation has had hegemony or monopoly on producing the best works over time.
I personally also like the fact that the way the American revolutionaries thought shaped the progress of American science up to the 20th century. Here’s a recent lecture on this, but there’s no recording that I can find.
https://www.sciencehistory.org/visit/events/americas-scienti...
https://www.usahistorytimeline.com/pages/the-impact-of-the-r...
First off, not extremist. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt there, perhaps you simply didn't recognize you undercut your credibility in a discussion when you dismiss people having a different view of history by assigning them to an extremist bucket -- nowhere left to learn or discuss when you start there. Further, mild whataboutism doesn't support your case either.
Second, the Scottish enlightenment wad wonderful! Not unique to America, so recognizing that the darkest parts of our history are decidedly not representive of the Enlightenment, my classical liberal ideals, and I suspect yours too, does nothing to the case that America did a good job adopting some of the ideals of the Enlightenment in the constitution. We could have gone the French route with the horrors of Robspierre, but we didnt, whether due to lack of population density, aristocracy, or any number of factors.
We agree completely that cultural differences, known as diversity, have outsized benefits.
I'll review the science idea.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. We really aren't far apart. I simply see slavery, genocide, and other horrors of the American past as necessary to recognize in order to set context, and in no way does that diminish the astonishing success of our American experiment. Indeed, in spite of these stains on our history, we remain a nation that does the right thing, as Churchill puts it, after exhausting all other options. And that's a uniqur thing to history.
In my view, if we can't acknowledge our past deficits, in no way can we comprehend the present flaws sufficiently to motivate action and collaboration.
Genocides are a human problem, and not distinct to any one particular culture or people, they’ve occurred everywhere and across all times.
https://casbs.stanford.edu/genocide-world-history
It’s better for people to acknowledge that such a problem can span all types of people and cultures, so we can perform root cause analysis without being biased or disingenuous.
There’s also the question of when we classify group killing as a war vs. as a genocide. There are schools of thought on this https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2020.1....
For example, see the hesitation of scholars in classifying Mongol invasions as a genocide. Is it the case that only white settlers committed genocide across history? If we think of it that way, then we’re ignoring atrocities committed by inter-group violence (war crimes), or same ethnicity violence. The goal should be to prevent violence between groups of people.
Regarding slavery, again it’s a problem that has occurred across time and cultures. Why were different ideologies and cultures unable to prevent slavery? It’s a disgusting stain on human history.
https://historycollection.com/the-evolution-of-slavery-from-...
Many of those values were not coherent nor beneficial.
Slavery, patriarchy, indentured servitude, excessive religiosity, monarchy, rejection of other cultures, all these seem to be good things to leave in the rearview mirror.
Slavery was in the culture for thousands of years. In fact, it is that culture that is the only culture that ended the practice of slavery (largely, it does still exist in places where allegedly never did).
This reads as if you've literally never consumed anything about Western history
Values don't make stonks go up
Quite the opposite
There would be no functional stock market without strong values and trust in them
>We are a society whose culture has become unmoored from the values that built it.
What society are you referring to? And what values? I’m trying to gauge if you’ve looked in a history book ever.
America feels like it's in mortal danger.
That means it must be finally feeling.
I feel tremendously sad for his death. I also feel desperated when right-wingers talks about vengeance or backlash because it is not clear or doesn't matter if the murderer is left-winger. I thought they were totally silent against gun control when school shootings and latest Democratic politician assassin.
I am not American but looking at society trust falling down does not feel good man.
"On September 10, 2025, at approximately 12:24PM, Conservative political influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed at the Utah Valley University in Orem, UT. Mr. Kirk was speaking at the University as part of the American Comeback Tour. Multiple SLC I and III agents responded immediately. The suspect fired one shot from an elevated position on a rooftop in an adjacent building on the campus and surveillance video shows the suspect, jumping off and fleeing the area on foot. ATF and other law-enforcement located an older model imported Mauser .30-06 caliber bolt action rifle wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near the campus. The location of the firearm appears to match the suspects route of travel. The spent cartridge was still chambered in addition to three unspent rounds at the top fed magazine. All cartridges have engraved wording on them, expressing transgender and anti-fascist ideology. An emergency trace has been submitted an ATF SLC is working leads generated by the trace. The firearm and ammunition have been taken by the FBI for DNA analysis and fingerprint impressions. Upon completion of forensics, the firearm will be disassembled for additional importer information. Multiple people of interest having contacted or detained because of eyewitness testimony and review of video footage. The primary suspect is yet to be identified. ATF is assisting the investigation with multiple other federal, state, and local partners and the case is co-led by the FBI and Utah SBI."
I watched a few clips of Kirk on college campuses leading up to the election.
On campuses today, there’s no shortage of professors, student activists, and guest speakers beating the drum of modern liberalism, but very few brave enough to take an alternative view.
So I respected him for getting students to question and defend their beliefs.
The argument that I keep hearing that he was just a guy talking does not quite fly.
The most horrible people in history did not do any physical harm to other people themselves. Many were also very nice to hang out with and had lovely families. But they definitely inspired and ordered others to do unimaginably horrible acts.
Things are not healthy in the USA, and have not been for a long time. It's all about scoring points now, owning the other side, getting soundbites, etc. It's sad that it's progressed to this.
From an outsider, it really feels like there's no middle ground in American politics. You either commit yourself to the full slate of beliefs for one side, or you're the "enemy".
I hope that Americans on both side start to see that either they need to tone down the rhetoric, work together and reach across the aisle, or just take the tough step of a national divorce due to irreconcilable differences.
Part of that is to stop giving a voice to the insane rhetoric, and stop electing *waving vaguely*.
If you look closer, I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side", think the whole situation is incredibly stupid, and wish the politicians would just shut up and actually...govern...instead of playing silly games and pandering to the crazy people (on either "side").
However, both the established parties seem to have become totally incompetent to do that, in very different ways. One party got taken over by people who make public statements on a daily basis that would have been immediately disqualifying at any time since 1950 or so. The other party is so bad at doing politics that they're beaten in elections despite running against those people.
both of your disqualifications are orthogonal to "actually govern"
that might be where youre running into problems?
The one that is better at governing is worse at politics. The system sort of assumes that will be the other way around.
> I'm pretty sure a majority of us aren't really on a "side",
Many of us don't vote either. And our two party systems have created extreme partisanship. I wish it could be different because I do love this country, but our politics are so broken by the two party system, fueled with misinformation through these partisan news networks + social media algorithms (the way Youtube turns one person into an extremist of either side is an example...)
Violence has plagued US politics since literally the creation of the country. Four sitting presidents killed and a few other close calls, governors and senators shot, almost in every decade. So it’s not like horrific events like this are new to us and we are just recently starting to fall into an unknown downward spiral of violence.
I don't think most people are on either extreme, but the media does make it seem that way, along with reddit/twitter/bluesky etc.
Dont pretend like HN is much better, judging by the sheer magnitude of Flagged comments here.
I do see many comments at the bottom that appear to have been deleted, but I can't see what they said, so it isn't possible to know if it was deserved.
You could see them get flagged in real time lol.
A lot of people here are no better than reddit. Worse in some ways because they wrap their gravedancing in an additional layer of pseudointellectualism.
I think the main problem of social media in general is that it allows for people to find things to instigate them. In essence, a single person's opinion can be amplified. This leads to at least two outcomes. One being that people "on the side" of that opinion will unite into an echo chamber of people with that opinion. Two being that people "on the other side" of that opinion will use it to justify the need for their unification and propagate it through their echo chamber.
Prior to social media, or the internet in general, it was quite difficult to amass large numbers of people in your echo chamber without becoming a person of power (like a president or equivalent). But today, it isn't uncommon for someone with views towards conspiracies or extreme viewpoints to become a "popular" voice in social media. In fact, one might argue that it is easier to become popular by being divisive. Even though most people aren't on either side. The ability to grow a "large enough" side is enough to become an existential threat to the other side. And they end up justifying their own existence.
I don't know what the solution to this is. I don't even know how to reduce it at this point.
I think it doesn't help that outrage generates the most engagement out of any emotion
So the algorithms that prioritise engagement reward outrage, and the social media users who want to be engaged with tend towards posting outrage
It leads to people sitting around being angry at something or someone for hours on end, multiple days a week (if not daily)
It doesn't lead to a healthy mind or a healthy society
Yes the two extremes feed off each other, and make everything worse for the rest of us.
Personally I think there needs be laws regarding social media, perhaps limiting the number of followers/viewers for anyone engaged in social or political commentary, and/or making promotion of political content illegal if it is false or misleading. Something akin to the fairness doctrine that used to exist for television prior to 1987.
Yea it becomes a vicious positive feedback loop unfortunately, amplified by social media. Moderate voices gets drowned out because they're boring. Some outlandish thing on one "side" gets some strong reaction from the other side, which gets some strong reaction from the other side and so on. The whole system is set up for amplifying extremes.
It's not like this in the day to day of 99% of us. It's the 1% amplified by 100% online by all parties.
The national divorce was tried once in 1860. Hundreds of thousands died to effectuate it or stop it.
When people say the north fought to preserve the union, I always thought it meant the physical union. But recently, I saw a lecture by Gary Gallagher at the UVA that shone a brighter light on what union meant in 1860. It's worth a listen, search for it on YT.
America is founded on the principle of human selfishness. People are selfish, so let’s harness it instead of pretending that people are utopian selfless creatures.
More recently, selfishness has taken second seat to hurting the “other” (whatever other happens to be) even to the detriment of one’s own self interests. America is not built for this.
It could also just evolve ?
I agree, politics has become a blood sport.
A lot of mythologizing about the US, its constitution, and its government has come crashing down in the past 20 years, pretty much since 9/11 and the rise of the internet. I think this is overall less a story of America is unhealthy now than US citizens have been believing comforting lies about its nation/government since the actual victory in WW2 and the cultural victory in the aftermath/cold war. The internet and 9/11 really woke people up I think.
The truth is the US has been seen periods of extreme rhetoric and even political violence, including most obviously an actual civil war, and also key periods like the labor movement and civil rights movement. It will happen again even if things cool.
Political violence and assassinations are obviously terrible and should hopefully not happen as debate allows consensus or at least compromise to be reached, but the reality seems to be if you allow the people a stake in their government, passion and anger will be instilled in some subset of those people cause government policies have real world implications, and the end result is extreme acts, many of which are detestable like this one. I don't see a way forward other than to prosecute crimes and let the debate rage on.
America has had political violence for a long time. The unique combination of post-war economic prosperity and centralized mass media (radio, TV) imposed an unnatural coherence on an incoherent body of people. This was a trade-off that paid off wildly for the baby boomers, and provides most of the backdrop for American nostalgia in a way that Reconstruction, for example, does not. The advent of the personalized, always-there screen has brought viewpoint diversity back into the body politic with such ferocity that it has caused wholesale abandonment of shared reality. In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way, and are frantically grabbing at anything as a substitute.
The best we can hope for is that the convulsions will be short and sharp and no foreign power takes advantage of our convalescence. In 1945 the Germans learned a hard lesson about fascism, and learned it well; we can hope that Americans will learn something too, and at less cost.
> In 2025, most Americans are untethered to any moral framework, do not require that their leaders even appear to act in a civilized way
Strongly disagree with "most".
Margins on many recent elections have been so low they'd be too close to measure a generation ago.
I think that's relevant, a hard check on the idea that an overwhelming majority of Americans are getting what they voted for. No.
(FWIW I agree with your other points. I miss the era of Walter Cronkite consensus. Not clear that it was better. But less terrifying.)
My sense is this: one side is utterly unhinged, the other seems desperate to outdo them.
I’ve left out which side is which, because I think it works both ways.
Maybe its time...we consider separating? We seem to be evenly divided, with neither side making any ground in more unifying the American people. Trump leans into division (he has never been a unifier, and screws up any chance he has to call for unity rather than going after his enemies), the Democrats seem to either have moribund leadership or leadership that are taking lessons directly from Trump and won't be unifiers either. Both sides are getting more angry, maybe we just shouldn't be one country?
How are you going to split the country up? Because it certainly doesn't make sense to do it by state. Rural California is as conservative as urban Texas is liberal.
There would never be an agreement of terms. Talk about separation is generally based on the fantasy that states would just each go their own way, which is both absurd and a terrible precedent to set, do you think California would agree to part with much of its wealth? Because I don't, and something like that would be a basic requirement.
The economic engine that powers everyone's lives depends on being one country, and even in heavily R/D districts there are people on the opposite side of the fence. It's never going to happen.
No it really doesn't. You have rich countries that are much smaller with less diverse industries than a blue or red America. I get that the red parts of the country still wants wealth transfer payments from the richer blue parts, but that is just hypocrisy on their part.
It looks like Trump's term is going to end in either the end of America as we know it or a constitutional convention anyways. Anything is on the table given how America is currently being torn apart anyways.
How? If we split by political grouping all the major population centers go Blue everywhere else goes Red? Unless we have a very polite split (unlikely in this case) the Blue side is just signing up to starve to death.
Blue population centers have a lot of money, and though expensive, importing food from other countries is always an option.
But not in a timeline fast enough to prevent them from starving.
There are plenty of places to buy food from if you do t have a xenophobic anti-trade president running your country.
No there really isn't, especially not in the timeline needed to prevent a city from starving. Seriously New York, Chicago, LA are all 2 weeks of supply chain disruption from foot riots. It takes a nation to supply mega cities like those.
You may not know this, but you can buy food. You don't have to grow it yourself.
Separating across what lines? Within group difference might be more severe than between group differences even. Most people identify as independents, there are more than two sides, and even if there were two sides, we're geographically intertwined. Conservatives threaten conservatives and liberals threaten liberals all the time, maybe even moreso! and that's not to mention religious conservatives vs libertarian conservatives, lefists, centrists, etc et. al.
I actually think it’s possible a national divorce makes the problem worse. Lots of these killers have not had clear motives or “sides”
The natural breakaway candidates would be.. California, Bigger NY (including other Yankee states and DC), Texas, and the Confederacy.
Leaving a Midwest rump state run from.. Chicago?
California other then LA, SF, and SD is as Red as it comes. If stuff starts getting cut up 80% of California is going to the "red" side.
Blue states and welfare states maybe?
Welfare like cost-plus aerospace and defense contracts? Farm subsidies? Tax credits?
Assuming welfare as in healthcare and food subsidies, money to low-income individuals.
Most red states receive more federal money than they pay in.
That’s like the absolutely highest conflict separation.
YN, please make up your mind.
You censored conversations about the genocide in Gaza because "this is just a tech blog" but now we can talk about this (an assassination that I consider a tragedy BTW)
I'm sorry to say this but I just enjoy the irony of it all. His last words were "Counting or not counting gang violence?". He literally died arguing for less gun control, saying mass violence and death is acceptable. I guess he found out the hard way the consequences of spreading hateful, bigoted, divisive, evil shit. Ben Shapiro cancelled a bunch of his visits to college campuses, I think that's hilarious - I wouldn't shed any tears for him, either.
What if Trump is behind this, and he had him killed to distract from the Epstein files business? He could also blame it on the liberals and the left, and make his own party look like victims.
The american state was brought into existence and persists through unrelenting political violence - internal and external. The estimated 90% of Indigenous population that perished; persistent excess deqths of indigenous peoples https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1698152/; persistent racialized violence perpetrated by the state on Black communities; the exploitation and arbitrary state violence upon documented and undocumented non-citizen workers (or those perceived to be non-citizens); the 5 million that have perished during GWOT; the 5 million or so excess USSR deaths from US policies during the early 1990s; the violence of carceral warfare (the so-called “mass incarceration”) against racialized populations.
Aime Cesaire called it “imperial boomerang”; Malcolm X said “chickens coming home to roost”.
Yet the only form of violence that legible to the bourgeoisie is even the prospect of resistance & counterviolence - most of the recent attacks upon capitalists & those labeled as “right wing” seem to have not come from “the left”.
2 Minnesota lawmakers shot in politically motivated killings, governor says (cbc.ca) 102 points by awnird 88 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 19 comments
Interesting to see the 100x(!) attention that this gets on HN, likely representative of similar media reach on more mainstream channels, when it's not even lawmakers in this case.
You posted about this a few times already:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208037
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208072
The comparison with the Minnesota lawmaker murders submission sounds political and you seem to care about this aspect a lot to mention it 3 times
If you’re genuinely curious why this event is likely getting so much attention, I’d wager it has less to do with politics than it has with the fact that this occurred in front of thousands of people, mainly young students, and was recorded by many on their phones. It was also being broadcast I believe. Multiple angles of a very graphic video of a person getting murdered are all over the internet
It’s terrible when innocent people are murdered. In this case, many people watched it happen too
Those are not the only recent political killings: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45203644
> not even lawmakers
But he was more famous than those lawmakers.
so this is the end of the debate bro culture he pioneered? i dont imagine any other right wing thought leaders are going to want to put themselves at risk of being shot over and over again, now that its happened.
I think we can expect to see debaters behind inches of bulletproof glass
Or maybe they should double down to say "this will not stand".
Pronounced dead by the president:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/115181934991844419
I have become something of a statist over the years and I apparently annoy a whole lot of people, when I argue for not upsetting the status quo much further. Needless to say, this obviously is not a good thing if you share that perspective with me. This is actual political violence. And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would. The issue is further societal deterioration in basic standards.
Let me reiterate. Violence is not the answer for one reason and one reason only. Once it starts and everyone joins, it will be very, very hard to stop.
edit: be
It was actual political violence when MN state representative Melissa Hortman was killed. It was political violence when Gabby Giffords was shot. Actual political violence has been happening. We live in a politically violent time.
Honest question -- when was there a politically non-violent time? I'm hard pressed to think of a decade without a notable political killing.
I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am concerned about the increasing frequency of such events more than anything else, because, to your point, why things did happen in decades prior, it was not nearly as common.
Anyone see whats happening in Nepal?
Gabby Giffords's shooting was tragic. But thankfully it was an isolated incident.
In the past year-or-so we have seen two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, the assassination of the CEO of an insurance company, the assassination of Rep. Hortman, and now this. That's five political assassinations/attempts in a year.
It would seem fair to argue we are now firmly in a state of contagion which is unlike the situation in 2012 when Giffords was shot.
Some others from this year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Capital_Jewish_Museum_sho...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Boulder_fire_attack
Additionally, I’ve seen a troubling amount of online sentiment positively in favor of the Trump assassination attempts, the murder of Brian Thompson. The sentiment in response to Charlie Kirk’s murder looks like it might be similarly troubling.
The rhetoric on Paul Pelosi's hammer attack was unhinged - it also was political violence. I don't doubt the same figures who made lurid comments, mocked or ridiculed the attack will now act more measured and asking for decorum due to the victims "team".
January 6 was mass political violence, and I my unprofessional opinion is that the pardons marked a turning point in how engaging in political violence is viewed; all is forgiven if/when your team wins.
Hyper-partisanship, and choosing not playing by the rules when it benefits you will be America's downfall. At some point, people on the other side of the political fence stopped being seen as opponents,but became "enemies", I think cable news/entertainment shoulders much blame on this, but the politicians themselves know outrage turns out the vote. I wonder if they'll attempt to lower the temperature or raise it further.
I agree that the Pelosi attack was political violence and the rhetoric was unhinged, and I agree that January 6 was mass political violence. I didn’t include them (or some others that came to mind) since I was keeping it to the parent post’s “past year-or-so.” But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift. I remember when Gifford was shot; the discourse was all about assigning blame for the bad thing, as opposed to saying it was a good thing. Feels like we’re moving in a bad direction, as your examples and my examples both illustrate.
> But they serve just as well at making the point, that louder and louder subsets of society are claiming these attacks are actually good, which is a disturbing societal shift.
There has been widespread discontent for a while now - it's the vein Obama and Trump tapped to win their respective first terms. AFAICT, it is an evolving class war[1], with American characteristics.
1. One could argue which side tore up the social contract first, and quibble with the definition of what counts as "violence"
See also: Israel’s numerous assassinations globally that are supported by the US.
It was political violence when Trump was shot on stage too.
I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
> I imagine that a lot of the political thuggarry we're seeing today is a direct result of him coming within an inch of having his brains blown out. No one comes that close to death without being fundamentally changed.
I haven't noticed a fundamental change.
If you haven't noticed a difference between his first and second terms may I suggest you go for a vacation outside the US and try coming back in? For bonus points make a mistake on your forms.
US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports.
I know plenty of people who will be giving NeurIPS a miss _on the advice of their governments_. This _did not_ happen during his first term.
> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11
You mean that time when millions of American citizens were placed on the No Fly List with no recourse essentially at random? You can't be serious. After 9/11 was far worse.
I've been in and out of the US several times this year through several ports of entry and it has been hassle-free so far. They don't even ask me questions, they just wave me through.
> This _did not_ happen during his first term.
He and his enablers played that argument during his 2024 campaign as well, but everyone is missing a crucial aspect of it. During his first term, he was surrounded by a large number of career administration staff, who put guardrails around him. This time it's all 'Yes men' and his well-wishers. Notably, no one from the previous admin staff had endorsed him for 2024. That should have given a clue to people. But, nope.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-trump-officials...
> US customs are now _worse_ than they were a month after 9/11 and this time it's not just the ones at airports
Apologies, but "citation needed"?
(As a non-US citizen) I flew into JFK earlier this year and did my (first) Global Entry interview. It was the shortest and most polite immigration interview I've ever had anywhere, and I've had a few.
To be fair global entry is the greased skids of US customs. It's meant to be more efficient.
The country may have fundamentally changed, but I suspect that comment was about Trump. Everyone knew they were planning to destroy the place if he got a second term, they wrote a book explaining it.
Yes, I was referring to Trump, not the state of the country. Republicans have full control this time around, but the goals and rhetoric have not changed. Trump was not "radicalized."
Oh come on, he was talking about 'I am your justice...I am your retribution' back in 2023. https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/former-pres-trump-...
His entire schtick, since the day he announced his campaign in 2015, has been based around grievance politics.
The differences we’re seeing were all planned years in advance. This time around Trump had the time and experience to build his own team instead of taking the team the Republican establishment handed him. As for policies, it’s all in Agenda 47, his manifesto, including universal and reciprocal tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, immigration crackdowns, he laid out exactly what he was going to do back in 2023.
Has nothing to do with trump being shot as project2025 has been planned for many years.
If you say it is political violence, I feel it is important to note, it was by a recently registered Republican.
Heh. You know. I don't want to be too flippant, but I will respond to this, because it raises an interesting point.
I would like to hope that you recognize that registration of political affiliation is just one data point. Spring it does not make. You know how I got registered as a republican? I got incorrectly registered as one during judge election volunteering.
I am not saying it means nothing. What I am saying is: some nuance is helpful in conversations like this.
PA has closed primaries though, so he likely would have fixed it if it was a mistake. In any case, if you're looking for nuance, there's not a lot of it in political violence in the US.
Ruby Ridge, Waco, Timothy McVeigh, Jim Adkisson, Dylan Roof, the Tree of Life shooting, J6, the 2022 Buffalo shooter, Jacksonville 2023, Allen, TX 2023, etc.
Nearly all political violence in the US is committed by people espousing right wing ideology, so if it walks and talks like a duck, is telling you it's a duck...
He didn't seem fundamentally changed though. In fact he used it as a political prop.
The moment trump was shot (or whatever ricocheted and hit his face) and the picture was taken of him with the flag, I knew he had the election won. There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.
Crookes basically handed the election to Trump.
> There was just no way for an opponent to top that photo op.
Rising up with your fist clenched right after you were shot isn't something you train for either. That's a natural reaction from instinct.
It's morbid curiosity to analyze it, but I don't think it would have had the same net effect if it was Harris.
Trump has spent decades in practical training to be media savvy.
“Photo op”.
A man was killed that day.
I don't give a single fuck about the wellbeing of Crookes, which might be immoral, but I can tell you from the perspective of usefulness of the photo op, it doesn't appear your concern reached a position of influence.
Believe it or not 4 out of the last 30 Presidents were assassinated, an additional 3 were shot, and a few more were shot at or otherwise survived attempts. There's a long history of political violence in the US (and the world). We've been in a bit of a lull of late but what we're experiencing today is not all that abnormal.
Why is your sample size 75% of US history? 30 presidents is a huge number to start with.
I mean the sitting president was shot on the campaign trail.
Yes - makes me think of the assassination of Shinzo Abe.
The gunman made his own gun, in a country with ultra-strict gun laws. The Unabomber made his own bombs. The Seattle mall Islamist knife attacker refused to stay down after being shot multiple times.
My takeaway: political terrorists are particularly motivated. Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.
4 people were killed after being shot in Japan in 2022. More people were killed by gunshots in the US today.
You might want to look into what happened in Japanese politics after the Abe assassination. Public opinion was not unfavorable to the plight and motivations of the attacker.
I just wanted to mention that. Recently I was wondering what was that even about, and I was surprised to read this on Wikipedia:
> Yamagami told investigators that he had shot Abe in relation to a grudge he held against the Unification Church (UC), a new religious movement to which Abe and his family had political ties, over his mother's bankruptcy in 2002.
> The assassination brought scrutiny from Japanese society and media against the UC's alleged practice of pressuring believers into making exorbitant donations. Japanese dignitaries and legislators were forced to disclose their relationship with the UC, (...) the LDP announced that it would no longer have any relationship with the UC and its associated organisations, and would expel members who did not break ties with the group. (...) [The parliament] passed two bills to restrict the activities of religious organisations such as the UC and provide relief to victims.
> Abe's killing has been described as one of the most effective and successful political assassinations in recent history due to the backlash against the UC that it provoked. The Economist remarked that "... Yamagami's political violence has proved stunningly effective ... Political violence seldom fulfills so many of its perpetrator's aims." Writing for The Atlantic, Robert F. Worth described Yamagami as "among the most successful assassins in history".
Risk mitigation; statistics and funnels. It's all just trying to reduce the likelihood and severity of bad outcomes, not preventing them altogether. Same story as seatbelts and stoplights.
> Same story as seatbelts and stoplights
I don't believe this is the same thing.
One is an adversarial problem where a living thinking being is evil and trying to attack you.
In traffic, most people are just trying to get somewhere, and then accidents happen.
No, they're the same thing from a risk management perspective. As a defender, you do not (or at least should not) care about motivations. Seatbelts protect against genuine mistakes (by you or others), mechanical failures, road rage, etc.
There's a long funnel of all the things that could happen, probability of each, and total resulting probability. That's no different for being in a car wreck or being shot at.
Now, on a moral level, sure, malice is different from negligence is different from coincidence.
> As a defender, you do not (or at least should not) care about motivations
The motivation is not the important part. Sentience is. This person is playing a chess match trying to defeat you.
Consider biology. Cancer is a hard problem to solve, but it's not scheming against you with an intelligence. What about someone in a lab engineering bioweapons?
It's only an accident when taken out of the bigger picture. There is a reason it's often called car collision (or similar nowadays): Because it's a statistical inevitability when taken in aggregate.
You focused on the word "accident" but the emphasis is on the concept of being "adversarial".
Do you think traffic lights help if someone goes out with the explicit intent to kill others via their car?
It's kinda nice to live in a country where that the evil being doesn't have easy access to guns.
Why does a law have to be 100% to be considered worth having?
It doesn't need to be 100% effective, but it needs to be effective enough to make up for the downsides.
How many gun deaths per capita does Japan have compared to the USA?
There are whole continents of countries showing how effective gun control is. At this point you've got to be ignoring it on purpose.
It's not some statistical difference between almost no violence and no violence. It's night and day. Orders of magnitude. Teens walking back from parties through the middle of the city at 1 am with their parents permission vs clan wars.
Define effective
> Secondly, gun laws slow them down but don't stop them.
This is so tiring. No shit, sherlock. Medicine doesn't prevent death or sickness either so maybe just give up.
> And it has little to do with guns. If someone really wanted to get to the guy, one would.
Disclaimer that this is early and I may be wrong, but I read that he had a security detail (which seems rather likely). I doubt an attacker with a knife would have had success.
They still get through and do damage. Salman Rushdie and Jair Bolsonaro come to mind on recent-ish high profile knife stabbings.
Obviously attacks happen even without guns. But it is harder to kill someone without a gun, and harder to kill multiple people or from a distance without one.
Guns aren't as generally useful as knives. So it makes little sense to have 1.2 guns per person, or really any private gun possession. The price of mass murders, shooter drills, and firearm accidents aren't worth what marginal benefits guns may bring.
I wonder about the statistics of gun assassinations vs non-gun assasinations.
I've tried to tease that apart and failed. All of the sites hosting statistics I could find count suicide and justifiable homicide as in self defense in the statistics as homicide. I wish I could find a trust worthy source that differentiates in a truly unbiased scientific manor.
Could start with high profile assassination attempts by non-state actors. Trump - gun x2, Kirk - gun, Reagan - gun, Kennedy - gun, Kennedy - gun, Abe (Japan) - gun, Abe (Union) - gun, Bush - shoe.
> Once it starts and everyone joins, it will very, very hard to stop
More directly, when violence becomes a normalized means of politics, it doesn’t benefit the bourgeoisie.
Cross, I know we interacted before. I sincerely hope you do not advocate that ends justify the means. "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine ( more resources at their disposal to ensure that happens ). They always are fine. You know who actually does suffer? Regular people.
Regular people suffer no matter what the problem is, they have always been the front line to blunt the effects of economic, political, or military tolls. The whole reason people resort to political violence is to inflate a problem so large that not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it. If someone feels they are suffering or dead without doing anything, then suffering or dieing from actually taking action against your perceived oppressors seems like a decent option.
> not even the "bourgeoisie" can completely shield themselves from it
The bourgeoisie can't. The aristocracy can. That's the point.
> "The bourgeoisie" as you call them, will be fine
I meant the bourgeoisie as in the middle class. A lot of idiots think rolling out guillotines will hurt the rich and help the poor.
It won’t. It almost never has in the last millennium. If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
If violence becomes a tool of politics, the rich will command violence at greater scale and with more impunity than anyone who cannot command an audience at the White House.
I actually wish that were the case.
The problem today is that we've scaled up the damage that a single attacker can do. I won't go too far into it, but think of it this way, what happens when someone wakes up to the fact that they can use autonomous ordinance (e.g. - Drones)?
We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse. In retrospect, it's kind of obvious that it set us on a slippery slope.
> We made a big mistake with this whole "incivility is cool" thing in public discourse
I remain a fan of bringing back the Athenian institution of ostracism. If more than a certain fraction of voters in an election write down the same person’s name, they’re banned from running for office or have to leave the country for N years. (And if they can’t or won’t do the latter, are placed under house arrest.)
I've always thought that the middle class were proles as well, or petit-bourgeoisie at best. I don't think you're wrong, but one thing that I've noticed in my time of thinking about and discussing societal problems in the US is that nothing ever really seems to help the poor anyway.
Hello. I witnessed racial and religious persecution.
I can tell you my stories. But I always wonder what is the alternative when someone like me is attacked? Should I give my left cheek? Should I attempt to be a pacifist?
People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged because they never have to witness someone’s head roll down. So they don’t know how it feels to be the receiving end of suffering.
<< People who are against violence by all means necessary are privileged
I think you misunderstand the point. My argument is that each act of political violence ( especially on a national stage ) further degrades existing society. That ongoing degradation is a real problem and, yes, individual suffering is irrelevant to it, because, society is a greater good.
You may say those say it are privileged, but to that I say that I like having working society. It keeps being us civil. I like it to stay that way.
If you feel otherwise, please elaborate. It is possible, I am misunderstanding you.
Haitian Revolution comes to mind of "the bourgeoisie" that were actually in country, basically got slaughtered, at least the white ones. If you frame it to include the ones even higher up on French soil, maybe not though.
> Haitian Revolution comes to mind of "the bourgeoisie" that were actually in country
Yes. The bourgeoisie don’t get away. The aristocracy do.
If you work in tech, you’re part of the American bourgeoisie. If you have a college degree, you’re bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the middle class.
>If you work in tech, you’re part of the American bourgeoisie. If you have a college degree, you’re bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are the middle class.
What does the middle class even mean nowadays?
By Marxist definition, the bourgeoisie are the business owners, the landlords. The class that owns the means of production. If you need a salary to survive, you're working class.
A lot of people in tech are salaried employees. They might have some money in investments, but not enough to live off of. Many tech workers are just highly compensated members of the working class.
I'm of the strong opinion that statism is the way of corrupting any ideological revolution. From communism, to democracy.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion as to why letting the status quo be is a good thing. The path society is on is clearly towards a cyberpunk distopia, than anything that would unburden and improve the human existance of the many.
this has everything to do with guns. the more guns in society the more gun violence there is. is not rocket science
In the USA: There are more suicides than murders every year. The ratio is typically 2:1. The "deaths due to gun violence" statistic includes suicides. It's not exactly that plain and simple either.
Access to guns makes suicide attempts much more likely to succeed. You're describing a related aspect of the same problem.
https://www.kff.org/mental-health/do-states-with-easier-acce...
"Firearms are the most lethal method of suicide attempts, and about half of suicide attempts take place within 10 minutes of the current suicide thought, so having access to firearms is a suicide risk factor. The availability of firearms has been linked to suicides in a number of peer-reviewed studies. In one such study, researchers examined the association between firearm availability and suicide while also accounting for the potential confounding influence of state-level suicidal behaviors (as measured by suicide attempts). Researchers found that higher rates of gun ownership were associated with increased suicide by firearm deaths, but not with other types of suicide. Taking a look at suicide deaths starting from the date of a handgun purchase and comparing them to people who did not purchase handguns, another study found that people who purchased handguns were more likely to die from suicide by firearm than those who did not--with men 8 times more likely and women 35 times more likely compared to non-owners."
Why should this negate my rights?
Every right we have is balanced against the rights of others. The First Amendment doesn’t mean you can found a murder cult.
The debate is largely over where to draw the lines. Virtually everyone is fine with limiting access to certain weapons, for example.
It has been stated before, but perhaps we should only allow older people to have guns, probably 40ish. Of course that filters out all but one mass murders - Las Vegas (at least from brain memory).
I would think addressing the reasons people commit suicide leads to a better society. I would think that simply removing a popular tool for them only hides a symptom of a broader problem.
The other break in your statistic is people who own guns and commit suicide, and people who own guns and have a family member steal them to commit suicide. The later is far more common. Which suggests that part of the issue is unrestricted access to firearms by children in the home of a gun owning parent.
> I would think addressing the reasons people commit suicide leads to a better society.
Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
"The rate of non-firearm suicides is relatively stable across all groups, ranging from a low rate of 6.5 in states with the most firearm laws to a high of 6.9 in states with the lowest number of firearm laws. The absolute difference of 0.4 is statistically significant, but small. Non-firearm suicides remain relatively stable across groups, suggesting that other types of suicides are not more likely in areas where guns are harder to get."
> Sure. But one of those reasons is "I feel very bad and I have access to a gun".
This is perhaps one of the worst ways of looking at it. People kill themselves slowly by many means, including alcoholism, smoking, risky activities (reckless driving, etc.). These are grouped broadly under the term "Deaths of Despair" (see: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8221228/). It may be more informative to look at other countries, such as Russia, Norway and Finland, which have incredibly high rates of alocholism leading to a high rate of deaths of despair.
There are many ways to reliably kill yourself. Guns are just the quickest. A serious discussion on the topic cannot avoid this fact.
The faster the method, the less time there is to change your mind. An alcoholic can go to rehab. A smoker can take up vaping. The guy with a shotgun wound to the face… is in a spot of bother.
Yes but addressing it as far as "can go to rehab" misses the point: deaths from chronic fatty liver and its complications or lung cancer are dramatically elevated in these countries. It is quite literally "too late". The problem needs to be addressed much earlier.
I can buy a gun and use it in a matter of hours. Less - potentially seconds - if I already own one.
I cannot give myself chronic fatty liver disease or lung cancer that quickly. I think you know this.
I do but why is the argument you presented is about how guns are the cause of the deaths. The deaths of despair occur with or without firearms. The focus on the firearms par of "firearm suicides" does not reduce suicides.
Again, the statistics demonstrate that the non-gun suicide rates are about the same between highly and lightly regulated American states. That is a hard point to dodge.
With respect, I think you ignored the point I'm making for the sake of pushing an agenda. Suicides are deaths of despair. Whether someone ultimately kills themselves with a firearm or a needle is secondary to the policy goal: to attempt to make America better for people to not want to kill themselves (barring an inherent medical issue related to chemical imbalance causing depression).
To put it in perspective, California (a state with notoriously strict gun control) has experienced the highest rate of increase of opioid overdose deaths (see https://www.shadac.org/opioid-epidemic-united-states). More generally, deaths to firearm suicide and deaths of despair occur together in rural communities (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00224...).
Are those "suicides" in the classical sense? No. But they are deaths of despair, and from a public health and policy standpoint, must be approached in a manner similar to suicide.
I don't believe you have even attempted (or acknowledged) an opposing point exists on this topic. Your points amount to banal agenda pushing as opposed to seeking to understand the root causes of many challenges today. This is emblematic of (and partially why) there is such division in the USA today: a lack of willingness to study and understand societal problems, particularly those that are multifaceted and require broader reasoning about the topic.
> Suicides are deaths of despair.
Sure. And my very clear point is that guns help make temporary - even momentary! - despair turn into a permanent end.
I don’t find the pro-gun crowd all that interested in improving social services outside of distracting from the gun issue.
guns are a very efficient tool for murder or suicide. They absolutely will increase the number of deaths due to their effectiveness. Whether that's worth the societal price is up to the people.
Sure but the people asking to track gun deaths properly are rebuffed by the people who want to keep guns, so even the guys who want to keep guns infer better stats will make them look worse.
Canada and Finland both have a lot of civilian firearms per capita but not a lot of gun violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
So we can conclude that proliferation of guns are a necessary but not sufficient condition for excessive gun violence. Remove the necessary condition, remove the violence.
According to that Wikipedia link there are 1 million registered firearms in the USA and 400 million unregistered firearms. Could somebody explain these numbers, since they seem very odd?
I'm not sure how Wikipedia is distinguishing them but for the most part firearms do not have to be registered in the United States. Some states require firearms to be registered but most do not. Unregistered firearms can nonetheless be counted because they are inventoried and sold legally (firearms dealers must be licensed and regulated), even though the end purchaser is not registered anywhere.
Federally, only specific categories like fully-automatic machine guns and short-barreled rifles have to be registered.
Only a tiny minority of firearms need to be registered. My guess is that covers NFA weapons like machine-guns, which are uncommon. Virtually all typical firearms people own don't need to be registered.
No one really knows how many firearms there are in the US or who owns them. Just the fact that something like 15 million firearms are sold every year in the US gives a sense of the scale. The number of firearms in the US is staggering, no one knows the true number, and they have an indefinite lifespan if stored in halfway decent conditions.
Most weapons in the US don't require registration.
Certain kinds of firearms are required to be registered, like machine guns, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns.
Tons of guns are not those limited categories, so they are not required to be registered.
Its entirely possible to sell a gun in the US without any kind of paperwork depending on the type of firearm sold, the buyer of the firearm, and the seller of the firearm. I'm in Texas, so I'll use that as an example. Lets say I want to sell a regular shotgun I currently own to a friend. IANAL, this is not legal advice, but my understanding from reading the applicable laws would be all I have to do is verify they are over the age of 18 and that I think they are probably legally able to own a gun (I have no prior knowledge of any legal restrictions against them owning the gun). We can meet up, check he's probably over 18 and can probably legally own a gun and is a Texas resident, he can hand me cash or whatever for trade, I can give him the gun, and we go our separate ways. I do not need to do a background check. I do not need to file any registration. Nobody would know this guy now owns this gun. I do not need to keep any record of this sale at all. This shotgun has been an unregistered gun for its entire exstence.
This wouldn't necessarily be true if I trade some certain amount of guns as then I would probably need a federal firearms license and thus have some additional restrictions on facilitiating a sale. This also isn't necessarily true in other states which have additional restrictions on gun sales. But if I haven't done any gun sales in a long while, such restrictions wouldn't apply (according to my current understanding of the law, IANAL, not legal advice).
... a lot isn't even close though.
The US is at 120.5 guns per 100 civilians, and Canada is at 34.5
I think being ~4x the ratio of guns per capita, (and 30x the total!) has to do something, right?
It could be a combination of guns and something else. While I hate this type of argument, what else explains the high rate of gun violence in the US?
easy access to guns plus a culture glorifying access to guns.
Australia has a lot of violence as well - it's simply not gun violence. I believe your conclusion is incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
Australia: 0.854/100k
USA: 5.763/100k
i.e. about 1/7th the amount of intentional homicides.
how does the Australian murder rate compare to American?
Why was a post about Melissa Hortman being killed flagged and removed but this post is allowed to stay up? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44279203 See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44276916
You can email hn@ycombinator.com to verify, but I'm willing to bet the charged comment mob flagged it before a mod had a chance to see the post and protect it. This jives with other posts, such as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44277177, being "allowed". The second may have met the same fate, or possibly have been considered a dupe by some users who had already seen the other postings of the same story active.
If you can catch posts you think are unfairly flagged as they happen you can also send them to hn@ycombinator.com. Even if it's a day late they can unflag it, second chance it, and/or watch the comments.
The mods hold a strong opinion that making the moderation log public in some way (so these kinds of things can be seen directly) would cause more problems and discontent than it would solve. I strongly disagree, but I respect that the mods have always delivered satisfactory answers for me when using the emailing process - which is their main counterpoint to the need for a public log.
Your second link stayed up and was quite popular. The first one is clearly not in the same category: the CBC reporting on current events is quite apart from an Axios editorial.
Based on my memory, GP's second link did not show as being up when they shared it and seems to have only changed after the fact. I also find this (much older) archive which at least showed [flagged] when it was at 75 votes https://web.archive.org/web/20250614213042/https://news.ycom...
Another shameless note that this is the kind of thing I think a public moderation log would really help.
* * *
> HN is a techno right wing site
We're talking about the same site that constantly has submissions from politically biased sources alluding to various ways that the orange man is bad, where comments pushing standard right-wing talking points are frequently flagged and killed within minutes, and a recent Ask HN seriously entertained the question of whether HN is "fascist" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44598731) because the "orange man is bad" posts get flagged?
Not fair. Its not right wing or any wing. I think the decent thing to do is not speak ill of the dead. I didnt like him, I barely took notice of what he did. He was not on any side just on the side of opportunity. But there is no solution to be found in violence.
this place does a very good of portraying it's self as neutral, rational and logical, but it's definitely not any of that.
I’ve noticed a trend where posts that paint conservatives in a bad light are quickly flagged before getting any traction here. And then this one doing the opposite is one of the most voted and commented on ever for this website. It blew up during work hours when this board is usually quite slow too.
And case in point, that comment is already getting the downvotes...
Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but... this extremely unfortunate event is going to be a very telling test for the media and society at large.
A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered and another attacked by the same man only a couple of months ago, back in June. How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
My cynical side suspects we are about to hear a lot about "violence from the left" in a way we did not about the right back in June.
[flagged]
In bad taste only because what you’re questioning may have little to do with which side they were on.
The better question to ask is, how many subscribers did the Democratic state representative from Minnesota and the other have?
This is so true and so sad at the same time that it almost portends a kind of tragic fatal destiny to the US. You can almost see factions warring for no other purpose than to gain "followers" and "likes". (Might even make an argument that we're already there?)
Just sad.
What you’ve described sounds like the logical outcome of Democracy in a post-digital world. I can envision a world where the future Secretary of State was a former Reddit moderator. Or worse. A Lemmy maintainer.
We already have a TV personality for president. I'm not sure it would be much different.
Well, how do you think things are going so far?
This is not totally true. One Democratic representative was killed with her husband. The other representative was shot but survived.
Thanks, you're totally right. Corrected my comment.
Yeah, guess they really are unknown. By the way, there are 7,386 state congressmen. A lot of Americans probably aren't even aware that their own state even has a congress. You don't even know about it and you're bringing it up.
Doesn't help when Trump simply responded to Minnesota assassinations with:
"you know, I could be nice and call him [Governor Walz], but why waste time?"
https://www.startribune.com/trump-says-he-will-not-call-walz...
It was an attempt to quell the No Kings protests scheduled to happen the same day.
I'm glad this was shared and that this did not go unnoticed, it made me know where things were going. Figureheads weren't even pretending to care anymore - escalations are in order way before any call for de-escalation will be made.
> A Democratic state representative in Minnesota was brutally murdered
...and her husband and dog. The killer also had a long list of other targets.
We fail this test over and over and the fact that you don't realize it is telling in and of itself. Not as a remark on you, but on the media in general.
Those were my thoughts exactly.
There was no presidential message expressing sympathy and outrage then and complete radio silence from Republicans in general. And the amount of misinformation from the right was incredible. Even in this thread of nominally intelligent people, they're still repeating falsehoods.
Any expression of shock and dismay from conservatives now is pure theater. The right wing is absolutely fine with violence. Accusations of the violent left is of course a talking point projection as usual.
> How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines? How much coverage were they given, and how much coverage will Kirk be given?
I couldn't have named Kirk if I saw him or heard about him before he shot and it entered the news. Not sure what that tells us -- we should know more who our representatives are, or know about various "influencers" in politics and such?
EDIT: I saw you initially mentioned two representatives who were murdered but now it looks like there is only one. So even though you criticize others for not knowing who these murdered representatives were, it seems you don't even know who they were or if they were even murdered.
> Don't want to talk in bad taste by going to this so early, but...
Well this is how usually talking in bad taste early starts ;-). It's kind of like saying "No offense, but ... $insert_offense_here".
One key difference here is that the MN Democrats killed and injured were relatively niche/local participants in the Democratic party in MN (none of that that makes their death or injury any more acceptable or less appalling). Kirk is a highly significant figure in the right wing media world.
Melissa Hortman wasn’t a niche local politician - she was the speaker of the Minnesota House.
And how many people outside of Minnesota you think would know her. I bet the majority of people in MN wouldn't didn't know who she is.
For instance do you know Brandon Ler, the Montana House of Representatives speaker? Or, say, Nathaniel Ledbetter, the Alabama House of Representatives?
Are they "niche" politicians? In their states, no. But, absolutely yes when it comes to people from other states and more so from across the world.
Would you care to estimate the number of Americans who even knew her name?
She had power in MN, but had not become a "national" politician (yet).
I made no claim that she was a national figure. Merely pointing out that calling a politician holding one of the highest offices in state government a niche, local politician intentionally diminishes them.
I was not intentionally trying to diminish her.
I suspect that unless you live in New Mexico, you have no idea who the speaker of the NM House is. That's not a diminshment of the office or the person holding it, it's a recognition that while such positions come with significant power within the context of a state, they are quite hidden from residents of other states.
They hold meaningful office within their states. That is neither niche nor local even if they lack a national profile.
The other thing you're leaving out is that Charlie Kirk was actively provoking people with outrageous takes, perhaps as a social media strategy.
It doesn't justify death, but it certainly makes it less surprising and more understandable.
Imagine if a democrat went into the deep south and said "The confederacy was a stupid joke you should be ashamed of, it only existed for 4 years, get rid of the flag already." etc etc and posted it to social media while talking over people trying to engage in debate.
Then that would be an apples-to-apples comparison. Not an elected representative.
MN Democrats were not random “niche” “Democrats” but US CONGRESSMEN
No, they weren't US congressmen. Funny you just like that other whining guy don't even know anything about the subject. "They" (actually only one) was a MINNESOTA CONGRESSMAN, not a US CONGRESSMEN. You probably aren't even aware there is a Minnesota congress.
Minnesota is part of Canada now? Must have missed that… :)
> MN Democrats were not random “niche” “Democrats” but US CONGRESSMEN reply
> Minnesota is part of Canada now? Must have missed that… :)
When you've dug yourself into a hole it's good idea to stop digging and get out instead of keep digging. As the GP pointed out, a US member of Congress refers to representative in the US Congress (that one from Washington, DC).
In addition to the US Congress, states have their legislative bodies. Melissa Hortman was a member of such a state legislative body -- the Minnesota House of Representatives.
So on one hand you sound like you know a lot about her and want her to be more well known, on the other hand you don't even know what legislative body she was a representative in. So that's pretty confusing.
You missed the part of your education that taught you the difference between a state representative and a US representative.
> How many can name them? How long did their deaths stay in the headlines?
I don't know - how long did these stories stay in the headlines?
A 26 year old man from Irondale, Alabama was later arrested and charged in connection with the bombing. Prosecutors stated that prior to the bombing, the suspect had been spotted placing stickers on government buildings, displaying "antifa, anti-police and anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement sentiments" and had expressed "belief that violence should be directed against the government" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Marshall#Bombing
Man, 80, run over for putting Trump sign in yard, say police - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1rw4xdjql4o
Alabama Antifa Sympathizer Pleads Guilty to Detonating Bomb outside State AG’s Office - https://www.nationalreview.com/news/alabama-antifa-sympathiz...
a man armed with a pistol and a crossbow showed up at Fuentes' home - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Fuentes#Alleged_murder_at...
Attempted Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Assassin Identifies As Transgender; Hoped To Kill “Nazis” - https://wsau.com/2025/01/30/doj-filing-attempted-treasury-se...
10 arrested after ambush on Texas ICE detention facility [..] When an Alvarado police officer arrived on the scene, one of the individuals shot him in the neck. Another individual shot 20 to 30 rounds at the facility correction officers, according to Larson. - https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-arrested-after-ambush-texas-ice...
Last but not lest, there was also an assassination attempt on Trump, though I concede that one did get plenty of attention.
The motives in that case don't seem to immediately be as clear cut yet. I've been waiting for this trial or more information myself because that shooter has made some very bizarre claims. He admitted that he was a Trump supporter and pro-life, but that had nothing to do with why he did it. He then made the claim that Tim Waltz had hired him to carry out the execution. It's very odd- but I can't say why media orgs didn't cover it for very long at all.
Think of it as a hardening. From outsider perspective, IMHO your left is very weak and inconsistent and it's not even left from a European perspective.
The far right developed stars, stallions and philosophers that are effective in the popular culture no matter how vile some of those can be. There are up and coming leftist Americans but they will need to hustle to develop intro strong leaders. The mainstream figures from the American left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders are just too lightweight.
Edit: funny how this comment fluctuates between 0 and 2 points. This edit will probably tip the balance though :)
> and it's not even left from a European perspective.
This is a meme that needs to die. Its just not true.
The Democratic party in the US is right in line with Labor/Socialist/Whatever Mainstream Leftist Party you want to point at in Europe. It has members who end up on various sides of the left-wing spectrum. There are no "far left" parties in the US because we have a two party system.
There are obviously topics where this is not true. But that goes both ways: almost no country on Earth has the level of abortion access that the Democratic party in the US demands. And there are examples of European right wing parties who fight for zero abortion access, which is not the GOP platform currently.
Yeah, there are just so many mismatches it doesn't make sense.
- Nearly all European countries have and support a very high consumption tax (VAT). In the US, nobody would be really for this (although some conservatives favor such taxes), but US liberals would be extremely against it due to the regressive nature of consumption taxes.
- The majority of EU countries institute voter ID laws, something supported only by conservatives in the US. States with voter ID laws almost always allow some valid voter ID to be gotten for free, but they are still opposed by liberals.
There are plenty of other examples when you start thinking about it.
We have entire 100% Democratic-run states that use regressive consumption taxing to fund the State government.
What is actually a meme is this need to squash the entire universe of unrelated political beliefs into a single axis of "left vs right".
The Democratic party is just as, if not more socially progressive than many European "left wing" parties on certain issues, that's true, but that's not what anyone is talking about. Issues like abortion and LGBT rights concern personal freedom, they're orthogonal to the left-right axis.
When we say that the Democratic party is to the right of every European left-wing party, and to the right of most right-wing parties, what we're talking about are the economic policies that affect the lives of everyday people.
US democrats can't even get behind table stakes leftist issues like universal healthcare, social safety, progressive taxation, and wealth inequality. They know who pays for their re-election campaigns and who controls the media - it's not the working class. Democrats aren't leftist, they're liberal, which is a night and day difference.
Democratic Party voters seem to be more aligned with Euro-style socialist policies, but among elected Democrats this is a small minority view.
European socialists usually advocate for direct state ownership of certain industries, sector-wide union contracts, universal (not means-tested) child allowances, fully public health care, wealth taxes, free college, etc. There are a handful of elected Democrats that sign on to some of these views, but these have never been in the actual party platform, since the mainstream of the party roundly rejects these. Democrats are only somewhat radical in certain social/bioethical issues like abortion and LGBT rights (although the latter is being tested, with some influential Dems defecting); otherwise, the better European analogue would be Macron's Renaissance party (formerly En Marche), the UK's Lib Dems, the Nordic countries' social liberal parties.
I don't think there's particularly good alignment even on that "axis" (it isn't really an axis, because most things are not inherently one or the other.) A good example of that is the "sector wide union contracts" thing. The default "leftist" position in the US is that things that apply to an entire sector should be legislated rather than negotiated by workers
The US does have child allowances, by the way - during Covid, it was even increased and paid out monthly instead of annually. Increasing it as of late seems to be an "R" policy, at least on the Trump wing.
Are there European countries that offer free college regardless of academic achievement during high school?
Prayers for Charlie and his family, violence against people you disagree with is never the answer
I agree that we should not try to resolve America's current problems with violence. (And to be clear, I am an ardent pacifist and urge change in the ways of King, Gandhi, etc.)
Still, violence has been the answer in many (most?) political revolutions, including the American revolution and separation from Britain.
I'd recommend you watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N1HT0Fjtw) video by Norman Finkelstein about Gandhi. A lot of people get him wrong apparently; he wasn't a pacifist in the way you are suggesting.
TL;DW Gandhi knew that to resist the British, they would need a critical mass of people resisting (armed or not). Armed resistance against a superior force is futile. His whole idea of Satyagraha was intentionally self-sacrificial for the nonviolent protestors who would die, because he knew it would stir the masses to action.
I also agree that violence is tragic and we should always take care not to glorify or idealize it, but we should also contextualize it when used by people resisting systems of oppression. As Nelson Mandela said:
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle,and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor.At a point, one can only fight fire with fire
> A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who defines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no recourse but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At a point, one can only fight fire with fire.
Which often leads to this point, as in Lord of War:
> Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, the Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
another book (that i have admittedly been dragging my feet on finishing) that covers this idea is 'The Wretched of the Earth' by Frantz Fanon. i have never personally been directly exposed to the ill effects of state-imposed violence to the degree that others have. it's eye-opening to more-seriously consider the positions of those who have.
> pacifist
That pacifism was very much required though. The whole projection of India as this "mystic peaceful place full of peace-loving meditating sadhus that the Beatles and Steve jobs were so enamored by" was instrumental for the way we got independent with minimal balkanization[1], our ability to stay non-aligned in the cold war (which btw, is the original definition of a third world country!) and maintain strategic autonomy throughout the following decades - which we exercise quite well today. Of course, it was nothing but a political image, and we built nukes behind the scenes (by order of the very same politician nehru), but gandhis pacifist outlook and the heavy marketing of this in western countries (see Nehru's rallies in USA at the time), as well as in soviet Russia, was very necessary. People like to say we shouldn't have been socialist back then, but the Soviet help that arose out of that was really useful. In geopolitics there are no morals, so it is also completely OK that we took a U-turn from all that a while later. The only interest is self-interest.
My point is, a lot of these political positions are simply projections cast in order to achieve a certain goal, meaning to look at it from a moral standpoint is useless.
This is true for any political position held in any country anywhere in the world at any point in history.
[1] If you think the partitions were bad... the rest of india would have had a much worse fate had foreign interests gotten involved. Think: other cold war battlefields of the late 20th century. The number of secessionist states at the time in india...the cia and the kgb would have had a field day.
> In geopolitics there are no morals, so it is also completely OK that we took a U-turn from all that a while later. The only interest is self-interest.
> My point is, a lot of these political positions are simply projections cast in order to achieve a certain goal, meaning to look at it from a moral standpoint is useless.
Claims like this can easily be used justify Nazism (which is alarmingly prescient considering the direction India's been going in recent decades)
I agree that many people use disingenuous moral outrage as a way to drive some political outcome, but many people with moral outrage are coming from a place of sincerity in reaction to the moral bankruptcy demonstrated by the world's leading powers.
> Nazism (which is alarmingly prescient considering the direction India's been going in recent decades)
This practice of assigning the same label to two things with absolutely no similarity is how words like Nazism lose all meaning. The reason folks like you do this is to try to forcefully elicit the same emotional response one would have to the original situation in Germany, and make any rebuttal sound like a rebuttal against that.
Let's end this discussion here. Not interested in engaging with someone this disingenuous.
Martin Luther King was regularly labeled as a violent rabble-rouser during his lifetime; just look at some of the contemporary political cartoons about him. It was only after his death that he was recast as a figure of absolute peace who made racial progress happen just by giving thoughtful speeches.
Are you saying he was a violent person or that was just the image pushed by the opposition?
Anyone who says violence is _never_ the answer is frankly, naive to history and power.
Violence and politics are both on a spectrum and means to the same end of asserting your will. Vom Kriege is obviously not the forefront of philosophy anymore but it’s a good place to start if anyone reading this hasn’t come across that idea and wants to learn more.
Even your non violent examples of King and Ghandi has very violent wings on the side showing society that if a resolution wasn’t achieved by peaceful ends then violence it is. Remember that the civil rights act didn’t get enough support to be passed until after King was assassinated and mass riots rose across the nation
In Savannah, Georgia, there stand historic cannon with an inscription in French (translated here): The final argument of kings.
“…and I am therefore justified in demanding the surrender of the city of Savannah, and its dependent forts, and shall wait a reasonable time for your answer, before opening with heavy ordnance.
“Should you entertain the proposition, I am prepared to grant liberal terms to the inhabitants and garrison; but should I be forced to resort to assault, or the slower and surer process of starvation, I shall then feel justified in resorting to the harshest measures, and shall make little effort to restrain my army—burning to avenge the national wrong which they attach to Savannah…”
- W. Tecumseh Sherman’s ultimatum to the garrison of this city, December 1864
Sherman’s March to the Sea was an apotheosis of political violence. It deliberately targeted non-military infrastructure.
How long would American slavery have persisted without the march (the war to which it belongs)?
How could non-violence have triumphed in the same crusade?
And the Virginia flag has a graphically depicted murder with an inscription in Latin (translated here): Thus always to tyrants.
one of the rare latin phrases more famous untranslated: sic semper tyrannis (said by John Wilkes Booth as he shot Lincoln)
> Anyone who says violence is _never_ the answer is frankly, naive to history and power
Violence is sometimes the answer. Domestic assassinations almost never are. Kirk is about to become a martyr.
Unfortunately headlines and memories are extremely short-lived. Not sure anyone will be talking about this in a month or two. Which is a lesson I try to remind myself whenever I take myself too seriously.
And who knows what retribution measures his death will be the justification for.
> what retribution measures his death will be the justification for
To be fair, crazy people will justify their craziness with anything. The problem is less what this may be used to justify and more that it creates a more-permissive environment for further political violence.
But it also moves the line for what can be sold as an appropriate reaction that may not look unquestionably crazy on the surface:
> And more may be to come: some GOP lawmakers and officials are signaling their readiness to punish people for their speech. Conservative activists are collecting and publicizing social media posts and profiles that they say "celebrated" his death and are calling for them to lose their jobs.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5538476/charlie-kirk-jo...
The McCarthy period, as comparison, lasted much too long and claimed many victims before it was discredited as immorally crazy.
Actually few conflicts are peacefully resolved purely by violence.
And the American civil war.
Depending on how you turn the lens, the Civil War is an excellent example of violence not being the answer.
The Confederacy tried to replace their Constitutional government and the policies instituted by the leaders elected by the people with a violence-enforced new state inside the territory of their existing one and got (justifiably) multi-generationally brutalized for their trouble. The town I grew up in and moved away from was still raising funds to rebuild some of the places that were burned to the ground in the war. That was fundraising in the 1980s.
Every time someone points to the 1776 war as a success story I feel compelled to point out that half the descendants of that war's victors tried a very similar thing in 1861 to absolutely ruinous result.
(On this topic: Fort Sumter is an interesting story. While it was never taken during the war, it basically became a target-practice and weapons field-test location for the Union navy: every time they had a new technique or a new cannon they wanted to try out, they'd try it on the fort. By the end of the war, the fort was "standing" only in the sense that the bulk of its above-ground works had been blasted flat and were shoved together into an earthworks bunker; the Confederates were basically sheltering in a hole that a lobbed shell could fall into at any time.
And while the fort and its northways sister kept Union ships out of the harbor, it didn't stop them from firing past the fort into Charleston itself, since "war crimes" and "civilian populations" weren't really a concept yet.
People very much went into that war thinking there wouldn't be consequences for ordinary folk. They were very much wrong.)
Okay but black people were freed from chattel slavery. It's true that it was followed closely by jim crow south, but given an option between the 2, none of us are picking chattel slavery right?
No, of course not. My point is that the South started a war because they believed they were so right that the only recourse was political violence. Their reward for it was to lose everything they feared they were going to lose... And more.
Americans have this unfortunate tendency towards exceptionalist self-image. They remember the Revolutionary War and forget the Civil War. They remember World War 2 and forget Vietnam. They believe when they wield violence it is because they are right and the cause is just, when history shows that, even for them, the victor in such conflicts tends to have very little to do with just cause and a lot more to do with dumb luck (or, if I'm being a bit more generous, "material and strategic reality divorced from the justness of the casus belli").
Ah I see, you're saying it was a bad decision for the South to start the war.
I agree history records fort sumter as the official start of the war, but I guess I was looking at it big picture that "a war was on it's way" regardless of the singular event that sparked full war.
My perspective on the civil war is "good thing it happened and the Union won, otherwise who knows how long black people would have been enslaved". It would have been nice to end slavery without the war, but Lincoln tried to negotiate to this end extensively and couldn't secure it.
Also, yes I agree the vietnam war is severely undertaught. And in the modern era, Afghanistan.
I mostly agree, though I think slavery likely would have ended with industrialization anyway, a few decades later.
It's also worth noting that most people don't realize there are more black people enslaved today than in the US Civil War, not to mention other enslaved groups.
Depends on how you feel about a foreign occupied military outpost in your state/country that you've broken ties with.
This isn't in support of the reasons the ties were broken, but I can absolutely see if say Germany leaves the EU, then they'd probably want an EU military occupied base in Germany to leave said base.
Yet most countries were able to eliminate slavery without a war killing a significant portion of their citizens.
Yes, congrats to them and all of the freed slaves. We could not do that, but we did the next best thing.
There's actually a case to be made that black Americans would have been freed sooner if the Colonies had never won the Revolutionary War, since Britain ended up outlawing slavery before the US did.
(... but that's historical fiction speculation; there's also a case to be made that but for the pressure put upon Britain by the colonies slipping through her fingers, she'd have insufficient pressure put upon her to outlaw it... Especially if she had one of her largest colonies declaring loudly that a full have of its economy necessitated the practice).
Why do you think it was impossible? Do you apply that to every historically event? that there was no possible alternative?
It was impossible because one side of the national debate got tired of talking and started shooting, sadly.
Once that happened, it really wasn't up to Congress or the President any longer. The capture of Fort Sumter and declaration of succession moved the conversation from "How much slavery can America tolerate" to "this insurgent government has stolen half of the country's territory." The response to that threat was as self-evident as it would have been if that territory had been taken by another existing nation.
impossible you say. could the side that started shooting done nothing else either?
It is strange to me that you take such a fatalistic approach to history, where nothing else was ever possible.
of course at some point there is no turning back, particularly after the deed is done.
If nothing else is possible, what does that say about the current state and our choices about our future? what will be will be? might as well stay home watching netflix and see what happens?
What is your definition of "fatalistic"?
As an example to illustrate your definition, do you believe that it was possible to find peace with Hitler and Nazi Germany without having to fight WWII in Europe?
I'll express my answer on the American civil war with the framing of your definition of 'fatalistic approach to history'.
Chances diminish as events get closer. Do you think the holocaust was unavoidable the day Hitler was born? 100 years beforehand?
I'm objecting to the statement that the civil was was inevitable. Full stop. That nothing could be done differently, by anyone, at any time, to avoid it.
I agree that any future expected event is uncertain. For example, I think there’s a small chance a black hole traveling at 0.1c smashes our solar system overnight and the sun never rises again.
To answer the question, I think the civil war was exactly as avoidable as you think world war 2 was. It’s more a question of semantics at this point, given they are unchangable past events.
I mean... The difference between history and the future is you can't change history. There is no other way it happened; "could have happened" is the realm of speculative fiction.
If we want to turn the stories of the past into questions about what we could do differently right now, that's an interesting conversation to me. "But what if the South had just decided not to get into a shooting war with the North?" is fodder for a stack of books on the "New Fiction" table at Barnes and Noble but not much more.
Turning the lens to the present: I think it is worth noting that decades of negotiation, political horse-trading, and compromises had been attempted prior to the breakout of the War. It isn't that talking wasn't tried, it's that one side got tired of having the conversation every single generation (and were perceiving that the zeitgeist were turning against their position). So one useful question is "What are the divisions in this era that mirror the kind of irreconcilable difference that was 'a nation half-slave and half-free?'" One candidate I could suggest is the question of gun control; I suspect it is not, as practiced in the US, a topic where people can agree to disagree, the Constitutional protection (and judicial interpretation of it) distorts the entire conversation, and I think there's real nonzero risk of one side responding to a sea-change in the zeitgeist conversation with violence.
Which side, I do not yet predict. A major ingredient in the slavery debate was existential fear (the belief in the South that a freed black population would form either a power bloc that would destroy its former masters politically or vigilante posses that would do violence to their former masters). It's one of the reasons John Brown's raid was so terrifying to the Southerners because Brown was a white man who committed political violence in the name of ending slavery; they perceived him as a signal that the North was done talking (even though he was not acting as an agent of the government). In modern America? A lot of Americans are terrified of random gun violence. That kind of terror lowers the bar on willingness to commit violence, because the survival drive runs hot. And, similarly, gun owners are terrified that the government could strip their capacity for self-defense from them and they'd then be vulnerable to violence they could not defend themselves from.
If you're looking for a lesson from the past on how to diffuse such a volatile situation... Unfortunately, I don't think the story of the Civil War will give it to you. That's a story of failing to diffuse it.
And it was even a failure for the North - sure, in theory they won, and in practice they just let the South stay as they were but poorer and with a few Black people able to leave.
reconstruction was sabotaged by the south.
The confederates should have been punished, publicly.
> The confederates should have been punished, publicly.
No, it would have led to decades or centuries of resentment between the north and the south and eventually another civil war among those lines. It would have destroyed the union for good. The only purpose of the civil war for the North was to save the union, humiliating the south would have ensured that it would never really happen.
The North 'saved' the union by allowing the South to continue its brutal practices against the freedmen leading to almost a hundred years of violence, lynching and the Black Codes designed to keep control over the 'freed' slaves.
Thaddeus Stevens was proven correct in his opinion that the south should've been treated like a conquered state and the land forcibly given to the freedmen.
Yet here we are, and the civil right act passed. On the other hand, The allies humiliating the Germans with the Versailles Treaty led to World War II.
The people who want retribution are never the ones to listen after an armistice.
“Here we are”, indeed. Lynchings, massacres, expulsion, mass criminalization, a slave workforce for the plantations…and I’m only talking about the immediate aftermath for black southerners, not the centuries of continued violence.
I don't think parent poster is arguing that point. I think parent poster's point is that all of those things happened and the alternative, had the South been brutally subjugated, decimated, or humiliated, would have been objectively worse.
I think it's a really silly point to be made because they would have to either ignore or downplay how absolutely criminal the conditions were for the freedmen. I cannot imagine a situation much worse.
"I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage" - Charlie Kirk
I agree with you. Violence is never the answer. Same goes for all the wars including the ones going on right now. And same for implicit and explicit violence and physical harm to make money.
While what you say is true; you don't know anything about the shooter or the motive.
Thoughts and prayers with the victim, and his family, along with everyone at the Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.
[flagged]
We've banned this account.
Ross Ulbricht on Kirk: https://x.com/realrossu/status/1965875168573903245
I think that this is pinned to the front page says a lot about the user base and moderation here. Disappointing.
You cannot have peace without justice.
Justice is in the eye of the beholder. There has to come a time of acceptance
Well then, here come a bunch of new, authoritarian laws.
Give one example of a law you think would come out of this?
Gun bans for groups the Right doesn't like?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/politics/transgender-firearms...
I got one, I got one: national guard on college campuses
How about: tech companies must implement mandatory screenings of users' messages and posts to look for violent intent.
Is it likely the Republicans will ignore this? I have no idea what specific legislation they will come up with.
oh man… it’ll be targeted towards complete loss of any little privacy us citizens have left (if there is any).
In the context of recent action on exploring removing 2nd amendment rights for trans individuals on mental health grounds AND getting 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' classified as a mental illness, it's difficult to imagine this playing out in a mundane way.
How solid is the first amendment protection for calls for violence?
Who has time for laws?! Executive order and be done with it.
It's not a gun problem that we have in this country. Iryna Zarutska was murdered with a pocket knife. What we have is a spiritual sickness, which cannot be legislated...
The only thing I can think of that the government can do is to clamp down hard on violence, including speech which advocates for violence (e.g. glorifying Luigi Mangione, calling everyone a Nazi/fascist, etc.). Freedom of speech ends where it actually turns into violence.
If we cracked down on speech calling for violence, the president would be in jail instead of the white house. I don't see that happening.
there still is a gun problem.
you might have some blind spots yourself though. the biggest set of spiritual sickness and violence are whats happening to immigrants by ICE, and the support americans are giving to israel to do mass horrors to gazan civilians.
theres tons of violence going on thats much more current than talking about luigi or calling somebody who is a fascist a fascist
I'm not sure we have a "the government" with all the federation involved; and a treacherous administration.
Reducing rights to speech that advocates for violence makes some sense, but what I'd like to see is reducing the lies and disinformation. Install a duty of candor to everyone who speaks in greatly public ways
If you got rid of the guns, killings wouldn't go to zero but might go down 10x.
Correct. Someone might have still killed Charlie Kirk.
It's unlikely they would have killed him anonymously, from 200 yards away, and be still at large a day later.
It's all gone a a bit tits up, hasn't it?
Liberalism only works if it has moral social currency. This assassination just made a martyr out of Charlie Kirk. Now think about his wife and child.
The assumptions implicit in this comment are not especially reasonable.
This man died promoting non-violence.
The actual thing that the man was promoting:
>Turning Point USA CEO and co-founder Charlie Kirk said of gun deaths on April 5, 2023, "I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."<
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-qu...
No part of that promotes violence.
I did not say that he promoted violence. But he did not die promoting non-violence either. He died promoting false narratives, in a damaging way.
I don't think that does his memory justice. He would not like to be described that way.
Remember his accomplishments, like fighting for the freedom of the man who attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.
To say he promoted nonviolence is an insult to the things he stood for and the vision he had for America.
"fighting for freedom" did he really? Or what is it a sarcastic comment? Where is this fight you reference?
It is a matter of public record that he encouraged his followers to pay the bail of the man who attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer. He fought for that man's freedom, because of the violence he committed.
Kirk did not stand for or promote nonviolence; quite the opposite. To suggest as much is to forget the things the man did in life.
In much the same manner, he would not want his death used to weaken 2nd amendment protections.
People who get excited enough about politics in this country to shoot someone are stupid. Love him or hate him, Charlie is just somebody's puppet. If you see them on twitter or television, they are puppets. Puppeteers are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight. There is only one person in recent memory who was smart enough to go after a puppeteer.
> If you see them on twitter or television, they are puppets. Puppeteers are smart enough to stay out of the spotlight. There is only one person in recent memory who was smart enough to go after a puppeteer.
Sounds like you know more than you're saying. So it's someone controlling him or blackmailing him or something? Who's puppet do you think he is?
I never watched him and only vaguely remembered his name when it just hit the news.
Who was the one person in recent memory to go after a puppeteer??
I took it as a reference to the assassination of UnitedHealthcare's CEO.
Gawker Magazine
Platforms like Reddit and BlueSky need to be held accountable for promoting violent rhetoric, as well as the users that openly call for violence.
A child could write an LLM backed script that filters out calls for violence.
There's also the global movie industry where most movies seem to have violence. Plus much historical literature.
Attempts to do something like that "softly" via communication with the previous administration arguably boosted the vote counts of the party who came out strongly against that kind of restraint.
An adult could work around the script
90% wouldn't bother if you combine it with an IP-linked shadowban.
Turning Point says he’s alive and in the hospital.
https://x.com/tpointuk/status/1965864882731102215?s=46
Would be incredible if he pulled through. Looked fatal. Who knows if his spinal system was damaged as well.
He has 2 young kids.
Confirmed he’s dead.
I have no background context on this topic. Can someone more knowledgeable fill in the details?
The nbcnews website is filled with ad stuff and my blockers basically render the page unreadable.
The following sums up my thoughts far better than I could have: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/no-i-wont-be-shedding-an...
The only thing to mourn about this guy, is the life he should have lived, not the one he did.
Do leftists, especially the ones one reddit, not realize that to a normal person, Kirk wasn't George Lincoln Rockwell, but just some boring, establishment Christian, conservative dweeb doing the well-worn campus "debate me bro" shtick of Shapiro and Crowder before him, and that the optics of them celebrating his death are really, really bad?
I’m probably exactly who you would classify as a ”leftist on reddit”.
I haven’t seen a single comment on there celebrating.
Oh that's strange, you must have juuuust missed it, try X or Bluesky or Facebook or Instagram or Tiktok.
I don’t use any of those.
The mods are removing them, so you're only likely to see them directly on Reddit if you're sorting by new. Here's some screenshots of them: https://x.com/CaplingerMi/status/1965869049138786753 https://x.com/Vespianum/status/1965859021816320085 https://x.com/pt_grimes/status/1965862663520661847
Adult Utah Valley University student here. CS-Humanities dual major. My two cents.
I feel sick to my stomach. Charlie was a pundit but he didn't deserve this. Not at our university. I've always felt in danger at UVU as the whole complex makes Michel Foucault look like a Hebraic prophet. I wasn't on campus at the time- I'm currently attending a guest class at BYU across town.
I'm going to drop out of university. There's no point anymore. The society I wanted to live in as a child has started to eat itself. What makes me sick is that before the announcement my attitude was very, "let's make cynical jokes; he'll most likely be ok..." this all happened 15 minutes away from my house. I'm afraid of violence toward my left-leaning family. I'm currently battling chronic illness (lungs, throat, stomach. Don't smoke!) and I can't take this stress anymore. I love you uncle Douglas Engelbart; I wanted to take on the work Alan Kay did in his life. I wanted to make tools to expand human intellect. I wanted to help make good on the Licklider dream. Now my dream is manipulate a doctor into giving me a diagnosis so I can enter into palliative care and take Methadone until I die.
You and your fellow students experienced something extremely traumatic. Perhaps go to therapy first to process how you are feeling before making any significant life choices.
Chronic illness is horrible. And times are tough.
It's a scary day.
You can still build something, teach something, help those who love you.
The despair is real but it goes away.
Yikes, that's a rough outlook. Not disagreeing with it, just poking at it a bit from a distance, and hoping that you experience a change in direction after a couple days.
I'd just like to say that I feel you and understand you. I'm a university student as well, feeling a similar way. I'm in Electrical Engineering, and I feel disillusioned with the way society is degenerating. Best of luck, friend. There still are good people out there. We may not be able to cure or fix society or even stop it from degenerating, but you can always build a life with loved ones and create your own world <3
Most jobs are boring jobs, like being a software engineer dont provide much benefit to society, so I dont get why you should drop out?
Don't do anything drastic.
you shouldnt drop out. you should instead get the degree, and work to remake the world they way you want it to be.