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.
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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?
His last words, delivered as he was so rudely interrupted, are a good precis of his overall schtick.
Audience question (paraphrasing): "How many mass shootings have been committed by transgender people?" (Answer: one)
Kirk: "Too many."
Audience question: "How many mass shootings have taken place, in total?"
Kirk: "Counting or not counting gang violence?" Exeunt
Should he have been killed? No, obviously not. But those who believe the world was a better place with him in it are probably mistaken. Like Musk, he literally argued that empathy was a bad thing, so I'll spend mine elsewhere.
I don't really know much at all about the guy's political views, the bit about gang shootings is the only thing I've ever heard from his mouth. I am curious why the world is in a better place now that his wife and kids have to deal with the trauma and aftermath of picking up the pieces of their life and moving on. Sounds like he must have been a pretty bad guy.
So let me get this straight, you didn't know who was Charlie Kirk, you only decided to look him up after he died, and you're so noncommittal about it that after 24 hours you still have no idea who he was (and why people hated him), and at the same time you're invested enough to write passive aggressive remarks on his haters?
I love how on HN I'm simultaneously "justifying this murder"[0] but also passive aggressive against haters. No matter what I say, there is a specious argument as to why I must just be a liar or a murderer-sympathizer and sometimes both at once!
The truth is I like to debate people, even if I am bad at it, my knee-jerk without more information is I don't like the idea of a guy getting shot during a live debate when I know little about him beyond that's the thing he does. I can tell you on what little I've gathered, I don't agree with the guy on much of anything except some of his pro 2A beliefs, I have no particular reason to cover for him.
I did watch a few of his videos shortly ago, he wasn't particularly persuasive and seemed to capitalize on debating people younger and less skilled than him, rather than attacking weakly defendable positions he just takes cheap shots at college kids knowing he's more polished than them. Still I'm not tracking why the world is a better place without him.
>I love how on HN I'm simultaneously "justifying this murder"[0]
If your best representation of this community is a new member, a 9 day old account with 2 karma, asking you a question, it's pretty clear we're not going to have a proper conversation here.
He was basically the founder and figurehead of the MAGA youth movement. So he is probably as responsible as anyone for the election of Trump and all that has happened as a result. In my book that indeed makes him a pretty bad guy.
Essentially, if you want to resort to the usual Nazi cliches, what happened here was that MAGA lost their Goebbels rather than their Horst Wessel.
> 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.
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
Audience question (paraphrasing): "How many mass shootings have been committed by transgender people?" (Answer: one)
Kirk: "Too many."
Audience question: "How many mass shootings have taken place, in total?"
Kirk: "Counting or not counting gang violence?" Exeunt
Should he have been killed? No, obviously not. But those who believe the world was a better place with him in it are probably mistaken. Like Musk, he literally argued that empathy was a bad thing, so I'll spend mine elsewhere.
So let me get this straight, you didn't know who was Charlie Kirk, you only decided to look him up after he died, and you're so noncommittal about it that after 24 hours you still have no idea who he was (and why people hated him), and at the same time you're invested enough to write passive aggressive remarks on his haters?
Someone's not being honest here.
The truth is I like to debate people, even if I am bad at it, my knee-jerk without more information is I don't like the idea of a guy getting shot during a live debate when I know little about him beyond that's the thing he does. I can tell you on what little I've gathered, I don't agree with the guy on much of anything except some of his pro 2A beliefs, I have no particular reason to cover for him.
I did watch a few of his videos shortly ago, he wasn't particularly persuasive and seemed to capitalize on debating people younger and less skilled than him, rather than attacking weakly defendable positions he just takes cheap shots at college kids knowing he's more polished than them. Still I'm not tracking why the world is a better place without him.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45212304
If your best representation of this community is a new member, a 9 day old account with 2 karma, asking you a question, it's pretty clear we're not going to have a proper conversation here.
He was basically the founder and figurehead of the MAGA youth movement. So he is probably as responsible as anyone for the election of Trump and all that has happened as a result. In my book that indeed makes him a pretty bad guy.
Essentially, if you want to resort to the usual Nazi cliches, what happened here was that MAGA lost their Goebbels rather than their Horst Wessel.
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.
> 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.
- 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.