Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

nbcnews.com

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#461
post #444

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.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#462
post #8

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

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?

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#465

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…

> 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.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#467

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..…

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?

They also might be least aware of the consequences as they've grown up during the least violent time in US and human history.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#468

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..…

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?

Rational by what calculus?

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#470
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]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN