Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#721

Post by ETH_start »

thephyber wrote: post #709
loughnane wrote: post #689

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 idea…

[flagged]

If you have a certain argument to a certain talking point, then you're always going to repeat that same argument whenever that talking point emerges. There's nothing bad faith about that. These kinds of arguments get repetitive so you're going to see people repeat the same points.

As for the value of debate, even bad debate is better than nothing. Sometimes it feels like there's nothing being gained from it, but if you question people who have engaged in a lot of debates, you find that they're much more informed after the debates — even very acrimonious debates, where both sides are just trying to defeat the other side — than they were before it. A society needs people to communicate, for it to progress in its ability to effectively coordinate on complex social issues, and that process of communication is not going to be without warts, given how complex these social issues are, and how high the stakes are for a great number of people.

Societies which embrace civil discourse and protect free speech are far better off for it. This killing strikes at the heart of a civil society.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#723

Post by cryptonector »

autoexec wrote: post #357
ipython wrote: post #346

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..…

"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.

> 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.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#724

Post by ActorNightly »

didgetmaster wrote: post #668

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 plac…

> 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.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#725

Post by malcolmgreaves »

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...

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#726

Post by loughnane »

thephyber wrote: post #709
loughnane wrote: post #689

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 idea…

[flagged]

Yeah, I agree. It's a poverty of ours that he's the most prominent "debater" we've seen. Ideally we'd have a few dozen folks, maybe even a whole culture that debates. That way I think it'd be harder for grifters to gain a huge following through slick edits and rhetorical tricks.

Nonetheless I think his killing will have more of a chilling effect on debate of any sort, though I'd like to proven wrong and see a more trend of more sober, thoughtful debate take hold.

Re: Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah

#727

Post by dclowd9901 »

shruubi wrote: post #652

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 par…

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.

Post reply on HN