Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

nbcnews.com

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#441
post #419

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…

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.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#443

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..…

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...

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#447

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 t…

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.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#448
post #137

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.

[flagged]

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#449
post #286

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 Uni…

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

Tragic, what a waste.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#450

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…

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.

Post reply on HN