I'm against murderers and I'm against agitators (which is just about synonymous with influencers in politics). Kirk did a lot of damage. And whoever did this did a lot of damage too. I'm not sure about where the balance between those two lies but it irks me that you're supposed to be either on the side of the murderer or on the side of Kirk with zero room for more complex viewpoints. What irks me even more is the cynical way in which the usual suspects have already decided this is what they needed to further their agenda.
afavour · 5h ago
I don't think this is a remotely controversial viewpoint. The vast, vast majority of people (among those who even know who he is) think his murder is an awful act.
But because clicks and outrage rule supreme we end up with screenshots of a couple of dozen nobodies saying controversial things used to paint the "other side" as unhinged and violent. I wish we could all move beyond it but we seem unable.
AnimalMuppet · 2h ago
Each side sanewashes themselves by amplifying the other side's most deranged extremists.
johnnyanmac · 2h ago
Is this really "both sides"? Just for this community here, compared the reaction:
You won't even get the names of the latter on this site if this is how you consume news.
AnimalMuppet · 31m ago
You missed my point. I'm not talking about the violence.
Charlie Kirk gets killed. There's some number of right-wing zealots who go on X or BlueSky or whatever and say "Kill all the Democrats!" Then the left (all the left, not just the zealots) points to that and says "See, they're completely insane!". But it's not all the right, it's some number of unhinged plus some number of trolls.
Same thing happens with the left. AOC says something or Mandami says something, and the right (not just the complete nut jobs) say "look, they're completely insane!"
Both sides use the statements of the extreme of the other side to paint the entirety of the other side as complete wackos.
silverquiet · 6m ago
I've seen it referred to as nut picking, and certainly it's something that both sides are prone to. I'd say the difference is that one side has chosen to elect an obvious malignant narcissist to represent them who literally declared war on Chicago over the weekend and regularly vilifies entire groups of Americans.
krapp · 4m ago
>Same thing happens with the left. AOC says something or Mandami says something, and the right (not just the complete nut jobs) say "look, they're completely insane!"
Except neither AOC nor Mamdani, nor Bernie nor Biden nor Obama, have ever said anything as hateful and extreme as those right-wing zealots. Comparing fringe to fringe would be fair but you're comparing fringe to mainstream here which seems a bit specious.
And only one side has the sympathy of the current sitting President, who controls the state's monopoly on violence, and posts memes about how many people in Chicago he wants to kill.
The situation may be similar but it is very much not the same. The left is more correct in their assessment of the danger of the right than the right is of the left.
tstrimple · 2h ago
One side seems to keep electing their deranged extremists to represent them.
mothballed · 4h ago
Well it helped Charlie Kirk, in one aspect. I had no idea who he was, now I'm tempted to watch his videos and see what points he was making. I'm curious what he has to say that a crazy guy and loads of people on social media seemed to think was so dangerous he needed to die for it.
afavour · 4h ago
> loads of people on social media seemed to think was so dangerous he needed to die for it.
I really don't think there are "loads" of people saying he needed to die at all. Just a few fringe wingnuts. There are many people who do not mourn him but that's different to "he needed to die".
amalcon · 4h ago
Exactly. It resembles the Brian Thompson murder in this way: there's a small minority who think it was a good thing. However, they are very vocal online. You probably don't know anyone who believes this in real life, but it's easy to find online because that minority is so noisy.
Meanwhile, there is a group who condemn this and all murders. They largely believe the offenders in these cases should be prosecuted to deter similar actions. However, they can't find much empathy for the particular victim. This group is significantly larger. Members of this group are sometimes mistaken for members of the former group because of that noise.
techpineapple · 4h ago
You're argument is that you think it's a good idea to base your intellectual curiosity on the <inverse> priorities of a raving madman? Do you think that insanity is precise enough to understand the truly valuable ideas of the world, it just heads in the opposite direction? Better apparently than other methods of discerning valuable information?
mothballed · 4h ago
I have lots of inputs to my curiosity.
A guy I've never heard of getting assassinated and it making to the top of news, while a bunch of other people cheer it on, is one input.
If I just randomly hear some guy was shot by the local schizophrenic, no I probably won't look up their videos.
cosmicgadget · 5h ago
> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table.
This is admirable and works in a lot of situations. But exhausting nonviolent options can foreclose success and be abused by an opponent.
krapp · 3h ago
Yes, this was a constant refrain by white moderates during the Civil Rights era, that black people should absolutely and under all circumstances refrain from violence and remain civil and respect the law.. all while they were being beaten, shot and lynched with regularity. MLK Jr. said such people were worse than the klan. The the feds shot him in the head.
It is an understandable argument but like "think of the children" it can also be used to normalize the violence of the state and de-legitimize dissent.
The entire country is flying flags flags at half staff in honor of Charlie Kirk. His murder is filling headlines across the country. It's being declared an act of domestic terrorism, and right-wingers are calling for civil war. Meanwhile the explicitly politically motivated murders of Melissa and Mark Holtman, the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer go utterly unremarked upon.
We notice when the rhetoric about nonviolence implies that only one side should stand down.
cosmicgadget · 2h ago
A civil war? They run all three branches.
krapp · 1h ago
Well, war against Democrats, leftists, liberals, gay and transgender people, black and brown people and everyone else they consider the perfidious enemies of God and who they've been threatening to put up against the wall for years now.
I don't know if it technically counts as "civil war" if the government declares war on its own citizens, and one half of the population declares war against the other half. It's not as though "declaring war" actually means anything in the US. Maybe it's just sparkling fascism.
cosmicgadget · 12m ago
I suppose if there is large scale armed conflict it would be a civil war regardless of the power balance.
taylodl · 4h ago
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Let's not forget the liberals who've been murdered and attacked:
- Gabrielle Giffords (2011) - shot in the head, survived.
- Gretchen Whitmer (2020) - kidnapping plot foiled by the FBI.
- Paul Pelosi (2022) - hammer blows to the head, survived.
- Josh Shapiro (2024) - arson attacked family home while Josh Shapiro along with this wife and kids were residing at the time.
- Melissa and John Hoffman (2025) - Murdered by a man posing as law enforcement.
Now you want me to get concerned that MAGA might get upset with the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm supposed to get concerned that MAGA is going to use this event as a rally cry - a rally cry for what, exactly? More violence? What does that say about them? That's just a threat they make to further their use of fear and intimidation to silence their critics. As I told my grown children time and time again while they were growing up: don't ever use the excuse that someone "made you" do something to rationalize your behavior. You chose your behavior, stop making excuses to justify it. Own it.
mothballed · 4h ago
The Whitmer plot is interesting because it was both 'foiled' by the FBI and the plot itself was something like half police informants or employees.
If I recall several of the alleged plotters were found not guilty or hung jury because some of the jurors were having trouble with who even came up with and encouraged the plot.
cosmicgadget · 1h ago
Imagine that defense. "Well sure, if one person convinced you to kidnap a governor, that's on you. But in this case several people said it'd be a good idea to kidnap a governor so you're blameless!"
mothballed · 1h ago
>Imagine that defense
There is no need to "imagine" -- many of them were found not guilty, and their defenses are openly available. You can pull up the cases, and I think the situation was a little beyond a sort of one liner defense or anything like that. Brandon Caserta also was featured in several interviews and commented on it, for a briefer view of his situation.
Either way I think we should be concerned that the government is generating violent conspiracies against the government while intentionally trying to drag 3rd parties along with it. I also just kind of object to calling something "foiled" when the entity foiling it appears to have likely been the one generating it in the first place.
cosmicgadget · 13m ago
Wait which federal agent "generated" the kidnapping plot?
rasengan · 5h ago
> But I recognize that violence can sometimes become a necessity—which is why I say that people should forgo the use of violence unless all non-violent paths to resolve a conflict have either been exhausted or taken off the table.
> Lethal violence is the line that should only be crossed when it, too, is the last available option.
No, violence is never necessary. Once you use violence, you start the downward spiral of perpetual hatred; after all, if someone harms one that you love, forgiveness becomes difficult.
The only solution to perpetual hatred is peace, understanding and love.
As long as you think violence is a solution, you'll gravitate toward the short term gratification that may or may not come therewith.
Get that out of your head.
Violence is never the answer.
JumpCrisscross · 4h ago
> Violence is never the answer
Violence can be the answer. We are nowhere near that point in America.
The murder of Kirk wasn’t a thoughtful application of violence. It was a tantrum, and this being the U.S., one acted out with a gun.
cosmicgadget · 5h ago
So if you were in Utah yesterday and came upon the shooter preparing to fire, you wouldn't kick the rifle out of his hand?
teachrdan · 4h ago
Are there any circumstances under which you would call the police if you felt unsafe? Because any time the police intervene with someone there is a chance, however small, that it will escalate into violence. (Assuming you are in the US where the police can use up to lethal force with near-impunity.)
If you are indeed willing to call the police then you are simply outsourcing your violence to someone else. I personally do have friends who are proper pacifists -- they would not fight an attacker (but would try to deescalate them or run away), and they would not call the cops under basically any circumstances.
That has taught me that pacifism requires a lot of bravery. Whereas saying "violence is never the answer" is usually cheap, thoughtless rhetoric.
dns_snek · 3h ago
Never? What are your views on violence as self-defense, violence against tyrannical governments, and the 2nd amendment?
johnnyanmac · 1h ago
Self defense is fine. Rebellion is less and less viable, but your unalinebale rights to life and liberty means that it's within your means to fight against anything oppressing you.
2nd amendment, ehh. Most of the world requires permits. A gun isn't a toy, nor a tool we use in everyday modern society. If we use 2A to justify a way to rebel, we need to examine what an "arm" really is in the modern war. The useful ones are still banned from civilian use.
CamperBob2 · 53m ago
That .30 Mauser bolt-action job was pretty darned "useful," I'd say.
But because clicks and outrage rule supreme we end up with screenshots of a couple of dozen nobodies saying controversial things used to paint the "other side" as unhinged and violent. I wish we could all move beyond it but we seem unable.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45202200
To this one
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44276916
You won't even get the names of the latter on this site if this is how you consume news.
Charlie Kirk gets killed. There's some number of right-wing zealots who go on X or BlueSky or whatever and say "Kill all the Democrats!" Then the left (all the left, not just the zealots) points to that and says "See, they're completely insane!". But it's not all the right, it's some number of unhinged plus some number of trolls.
Same thing happens with the left. AOC says something or Mandami says something, and the right (not just the complete nut jobs) say "look, they're completely insane!"
Both sides use the statements of the extreme of the other side to paint the entirety of the other side as complete wackos.
Except neither AOC nor Mamdani, nor Bernie nor Biden nor Obama, have ever said anything as hateful and extreme as those right-wing zealots. Comparing fringe to fringe would be fair but you're comparing fringe to mainstream here which seems a bit specious.
And only one side has the sympathy of the current sitting President, who controls the state's monopoly on violence, and posts memes about how many people in Chicago he wants to kill.
The situation may be similar but it is very much not the same. The left is more correct in their assessment of the danger of the right than the right is of the left.
I really don't think there are "loads" of people saying he needed to die at all. Just a few fringe wingnuts. There are many people who do not mourn him but that's different to "he needed to die".
Meanwhile, there is a group who condemn this and all murders. They largely believe the offenders in these cases should be prosecuted to deter similar actions. However, they can't find much empathy for the particular victim. This group is significantly larger. Members of this group are sometimes mistaken for members of the former group because of that noise.
A guy I've never heard of getting assassinated and it making to the top of news, while a bunch of other people cheer it on, is one input.
If I just randomly hear some guy was shot by the local schizophrenic, no I probably won't look up their videos.
This is admirable and works in a lot of situations. But exhausting nonviolent options can foreclose success and be abused by an opponent.
It is an understandable argument but like "think of the children" it can also be used to normalize the violence of the state and de-legitimize dissent.
The entire country is flying flags flags at half staff in honor of Charlie Kirk. His murder is filling headlines across the country. It's being declared an act of domestic terrorism, and right-wingers are calling for civil war. Meanwhile the explicitly politically motivated murders of Melissa and Mark Holtman, the attacks on Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer go utterly unremarked upon.
We notice when the rhetoric about nonviolence implies that only one side should stand down.
I don't know if it technically counts as "civil war" if the government declares war on its own citizens, and one half of the population declares war against the other half. It's not as though "declaring war" actually means anything in the US. Maybe it's just sparkling fascism.
- Gabrielle Giffords (2011) - shot in the head, survived.
- Gretchen Whitmer (2020) - kidnapping plot foiled by the FBI.
- Paul Pelosi (2022) - hammer blows to the head, survived.
- Josh Shapiro (2024) - arson attacked family home while Josh Shapiro along with this wife and kids were residing at the time.
- Melissa and John Hoffman (2025) - Murdered by a man posing as law enforcement.
Now you want me to get concerned that MAGA might get upset with the murder of Charlie Kirk? I'm supposed to get concerned that MAGA is going to use this event as a rally cry - a rally cry for what, exactly? More violence? What does that say about them? That's just a threat they make to further their use of fear and intimidation to silence their critics. As I told my grown children time and time again while they were growing up: don't ever use the excuse that someone "made you" do something to rationalize your behavior. You chose your behavior, stop making excuses to justify it. Own it.
If I recall several of the alleged plotters were found not guilty or hung jury because some of the jurors were having trouble with who even came up with and encouraged the plot.
There is no need to "imagine" -- many of them were found not guilty, and their defenses are openly available. You can pull up the cases, and I think the situation was a little beyond a sort of one liner defense or anything like that. Brandon Caserta also was featured in several interviews and commented on it, for a briefer view of his situation.
Either way I think we should be concerned that the government is generating violent conspiracies against the government while intentionally trying to drag 3rd parties along with it. I also just kind of object to calling something "foiled" when the entity foiling it appears to have likely been the one generating it in the first place.
> Lethal violence is the line that should only be crossed when it, too, is the last available option.
No, violence is never necessary. Once you use violence, you start the downward spiral of perpetual hatred; after all, if someone harms one that you love, forgiveness becomes difficult.
The only solution to perpetual hatred is peace, understanding and love.
As long as you think violence is a solution, you'll gravitate toward the short term gratification that may or may not come therewith.
Get that out of your head.
Violence is never the answer.
Violence can be the answer. We are nowhere near that point in America.
The murder of Kirk wasn’t a thoughtful application of violence. It was a tantrum, and this being the U.S., one acted out with a gun.
If you are indeed willing to call the police then you are simply outsourcing your violence to someone else. I personally do have friends who are proper pacifists -- they would not fight an attacker (but would try to deescalate them or run away), and they would not call the cops under basically any circumstances.
That has taught me that pacifism requires a lot of bravery. Whereas saying "violence is never the answer" is usually cheap, thoughtless rhetoric.
2nd amendment, ehh. Most of the world requires permits. A gun isn't a toy, nor a tool we use in everyday modern society. If we use 2A to justify a way to rebel, we need to examine what an "arm" really is in the modern war. The useful ones are still banned from civilian use.