Speech made in April, 1968, assassinated on June 5, 1968. Wild.

The most sustainable vision wins. And this is a great vision. Thanks for posting. Helped clarify how to think about today.

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

Thanks, this is what I needed to hear.

[flagged]

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.

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.

  You can read about the 1918 'Spanish' Flu, but you think "we're smarter now". etc.

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.

History books don't tell you what happened but a particular interpretation/opinion of it.

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.

> 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.

I really don't like how interesting these times are.

We know more now, but we're not smarter now.

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.

> 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.

We in the USA find it totally acceptable (as in doing the exact opposite of other nations where it happens once) to have a mass shooting at a school two times a week. We have already passed absurdity.

> 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.

[flagged]

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.

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.

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.

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...

It seems like we're seeing a change where the pen is no longer mightier than the sword. Where thousands of demonstrators failed to censor Kirk, one bullet succeeded. In eastern Ukraine no words have been able to stop the invasion. In Nepal no political process has created a world that Gen Z wants to live in, but an uprising might. Force is winning. I expect it will continue to win.

Logically, we should start stockpiling force, lest others use more against us.

"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.

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?

Charlie Kirk was strocking violence against transgender people just before being assassinated. And the crowd applauded.

"Videos circulating on social media shows an attender asking Kirk: “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” In response, Kirk says, “Too many,” as the crowd clapped."

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.

I'm glad to see people following their instinct to de-escalate. Kudos.

Good on you for owning that.

It is a performance that appears as a debate.

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.

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.

> 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?

> 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.

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.

Gun control doesn't need to solve 100% of gun violence to be worth doing.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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-...

He was just made fun of on the new season on South Park, if you consider that to be influential.

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.

>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.

> 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?

He ran a very large conservative organization that operates on college campuses across the country. He's definitely an influential figure.

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 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.

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.

Almost all politicians have tweeted about him now. There’s no way he’s not influential.

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...

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.

>> Twitter and the people that stay on there 24/7

That is a lot of people

> 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)

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 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.

> 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.

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’s a martyr now.

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.

> 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.

> 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)

even if he s not that famous outside US, he might be targeted to send a message

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.

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.

Benjamin Netayahu and Trump tweeted support for Kirk within half an hour of the shooting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He was close friends with Trump, was on TV quite often, and visited college campuses for conservative discussions.

He also lied about widespread election fraud among other things so there are many reasons a person would want to target him

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.

Yeah, he was a minor / outlying figure in the same sense that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was.

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.

> 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.

[flagged]

I haven't seen much at all on twitter, Facebook or bluesky. Seems like you have to look pretty hard to find it.

if you sort by 'controversial' on most of the reddit threads that's where you'll see the the more nuanced takes.

Especially reddit. I am done with reddit after this point. Disgusting sick people, most of them.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Fun fact, the percentage of transgender mass shooters is lower than the perecentage of transgender citizens.

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.

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.

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.

How much damage is ok?

Indeed.

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.

"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 guess debate is also dead.

Its been dead since like 2016. When you try to talk to "certain" people and they basically either say all the factual reporting is fake because its all from liberal media, or they pull falsehoods out of the blue like they are facts.

Just listen to any Joe Rogan podcast where he talks about the vaccine.

He was willing to debate to his own advantage.

He used the less talented debaters to ridicule the opposing side.

> 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...

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

What should people say when someone is advocating against democracy?

> 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'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.

What if it is true that someone is a threat to democracy?

MSNBC commentators today said some things today that were so horrendous.

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.

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.

>> this person is a threat to democracy

I would say it is true. Such killer is a threat to democracy.

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.

What if that person is a threat to democracy though?

To be clear, I don’t think Kirk was. But there are people who are even vocal about their disdain for democracy. It would feel weird to treat them as if they weren’t who they say they are.

IMO the sad reality is that we live in increasingly dark times. Anti democratic forces are stronger than they have been in recent history. Us all agreeing to not talk about it won’t change that.

> 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.

You think it is better to peacefully endure fascism than violently oppose it?

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.

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 guy in the meme with the table saying "Change My Mind" is Steven Crowder, but I imagine they ran in similar circles.

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.

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.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Also, >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...

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.

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)

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).

At a public event like this there are hundreds of cameras. He will definitely be caught.

There's already videos being released showing the shooter on a roof.

I have a feeling he'll get caught.

it was the performance of a guy "owning libs". It is not much of a debate if the guy enters it with a set of pre-packaged ideas that never get updated.

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?

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

That is the natural consequence of a police state.

Ruling out nation state actors that have a vested interest in political divide and chaos and distraction is not the best starting point.

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.

I recommend the movie "Civil War" very original. Not saying that will happen but the movie is great.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Given the distance, unless well trained it was probably luck more than anything.

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.

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.

Seek help.

Even if the shooter turns out to be from the right, the damage is done. A large number of people on the left have made it clear that they support this. The best thing sane people on the left can do is make it clear that you DON'T support this.

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.

If you got rid of the guns, killings wouldn't go to zero but might go down 10x.

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

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.

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.

What do you think the definition of fascist is? Is it ever appropriate to apply that label to someone?

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.

Calling people nazis and fascists nilly willy doesn't even count as hate speech...

I'm old enough to remember Fox News hosts playing B-roll of Nazi footage while discussing Obama back in 2008.

“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’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.

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.

Not calling people Fascists when they are following every step of every Fascist playbook is bad as well. Obviously there are people at the far edges of the political spectrum who go overboard but we need to call people out when they're actively pushing our country down the road to Authoritarianism / Fascism. There's not much that can be done to control how a mentally disturbed person interprets what they hear, as we know from the lists of right-wing people who have attacked politicians, pizza parlor employees, etc. over obvious nonsense.

Kirk’s incendiary brand of conservativism was inherently divisive and provocative.

There are unstable people of all political persuasions and the marked lack of widespread political violence is hard won by years of obeying political norms that include not resorting to violence within political systems.

In the United States there was first a fraying of norms and now there seem to be fewer and fewer norms people are willing to uphold each day.

To focus on calling people “Nazis” and “Fascists” is to miss the wood for the trees.

This is a pretty one-sided way to put it. Some of these people (Kirk included) aren't just "people you disagree with" when they have the ear of the president and use that power to shamelessly push for and celebrate harming others.

What happened can't be condoned, but the violent rhetoric isn't just from people being called nazis.

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.

I'd say we _can_ be violent / brutal / unfair. I'm e.g. not violent / brutal when putting my clean dishes away.