15 ms·

I was just at a conference today where one of the presenters referenced the "Trust barometer": https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer https://www.ed

I was just at a conference today where one of the presenters referenced the "Trust barometer": https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/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/2025-01/2025%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_01.23.25.pdf https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-0...

autoexec 1y ago
"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.
- Lerc 1y ago
  It will be a range of opinions within that area, but even at the tail there are a concerning number of people. One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    Because one person in a thousand is equivalent to a small military force.
    - collingreen 1y ago
      Only if armed and organized
    - greedo 1y ago
      That would be much larger than a "small" force. In the US that would approach the size of the active duty Army.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare? Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant. > It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
  - elcritch 1y ago
    Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
    - krapp 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - zdragnar 1y ago
        This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.
        krapp 1y ago
        The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt, in other words, by violence. Spend ten seconds around American gun culture. American gun owners absolutely believe the second amendment justifies violence, and Americans have believed as much for two centuries. Hell Thomas Jefferson thought any healthy democracy should have an uprising every 20 years or so. That it happens to be illegal to shoot people under most circumstances is merely a formality. The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system, as a counterbalance to the potential violence of the state, because they inherently mistrusted the state. The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia." Then again, the constitution was written when drawing and quartering was still practiced, along with slavery, and before the industrial revolution. Maybe the intent of the founding fathers as regards the second amendment no longer has a place in modern society. Unfortunately it can't be touched without triggering a full scale civil war so we're stuck with it and its consequences.
- joecool1029 1y ago
  > I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular. Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Reactions_to_state_funeral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
    - PaulHoule 1y ago
      It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
    - vkou 1y ago
      His public image took a nosedive after his death. I think that had far more to do with it than saving a few yen.
      - soraminazuki 1y ago
        I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt. Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous. https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html
- ipython 1y ago
  If you read the linked pdf, “attack someone online” is a separate subcategory (27%)
- cryptonector 1y ago
  > 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.
- toughquestion 1y ago
  [dead]
mothballed 1y ago
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?
- throwaway250624 1y ago
  [flagged]
- Lerc 1y ago
  The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    Rule of law in itself is not a worthwhile institution - and is not enough to keep violence at distance. You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law. I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      Rule of law is necessary but not sufficient. The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.
jackmottatx 1y ago
[flagged]
tossandthrow 1y ago
These studies are interest but should equally be interpreted as the desire for change - and I think it is reasonable to say that there is a huge desire for change. In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality. If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.
kylehotchkiss 1y ago
This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way. The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.
- perihelions 1y ago
  "Not peaceful" is an understatement. They burned innocents alive. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former-nepal-pm-jhala-nath-khanals-wife-rajyalaxmi-chitrakar-burnt-alive-as-protesters-set-his-house-on-fire/articleshow/123790577.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former... ("Former Nepal PM Jhala Nath Khanal’s wife Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar burnt alive as protesters set his house on fire") IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.
  - gg-plz 1y ago
    [dead]
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - scheme271 1y ago
      It was the former PM's wife not the former PM. Also heads of state are probably a lot safer than fishermen or loggers.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
w10-1 1y ago
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_TEVUS_Terrorist-Attacks-US_1970-2013_Overview-508.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP...
BJones12 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- chris_wot 1y ago
  That way leads to civil war.
  - JKCalhoun 1y ago
    With States redistricting/gerrymandering, a cold civil war has already begun.
    - pclmulqdq 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - CuriouslyC 1y ago
        Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        I'm not the one injecting politics here - the parent comment did that for me. I'm the one pointing out the hypocrisy.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        No you didn't. You assumed the other poster's intent then straw-manned their position.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
aredox 1y ago
[flagged]
- brigandish 1y ago
  I fail to see how the response you’ve quoted would stoke violence against transgender Americans, but let’s say it could, what would that make the rhetoric Kirk received, given he was the victim of actual violence?
  - aredox 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - bigmealbigmeal 1y ago
      I do personally believe that Charlie Kirk has done some damage to societal perceptions of transgender people. With that said, the person asked how Charlie's quote could stoke violence, and then you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say) as an answer for why it stoked violence. This is not a response that will convince people of your position. I'm not sure on the best way to do that, but I believe it starts by staying clear about what was actually said.
      - aredox 1y ago
        >you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say) https://youtu.be/KivCRqfFcqY?si=hLN0akbswSlPm8pE https://youtu.be/KivCRqfFcqY?si=hLN0akbswSlPm8pE But if we take 5 minutes to search, we can see Charlie Kirk has said publicly (and I quote): "There's a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue. You say, Charlie, come on. They couldn't be further apart. No, they're exactly the same. They're the same in this aspect—when you believe that men can become women, why wouldn't you also believe that you could print wealth?" (You are poor? Blame the trans) "The transgender movement actually matters even more than biomedical fascism" "the transgender movement is an introductory phase to get you to strip yourself of your humanity to mesh with machines" "if you stop being a man, then maybe you can stop being a human being" (Transhumanist scare you? Blame the trans - those non-human beings) Maybe you think I exaggerate? Luckily, he has made his personal opinion clear: "I blame the decline of American men. This never should've been -- someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s" Tell me, how did things were taken "care of" in the 50s and 60s? What could that be a reference to? (Wink wink) Not convincing enough? Last direct quote from him: “The one issue that I think is so against our senses, so against the natural law, and dare I say, a throbbing middle finger to god, is the transgender thing happening in America right now” Really, who could think that when he said there are too many (how many? Doesn't matter, just believe it) mass shootings caused by trans people, he is inviting fear and hatred against them? Really, it would be dishonest to suggest such a thing, right? He was also openly racist and homophobic, but hey, how could I or anyone suggest he was stroking violence and stirring hate?
davidguetta 1y ago
Its sad but most gouvernement also truly don't change (especially when they protect class inequalities) unless theres an actual threat of actual violence through social upset. I tell you that as a french person. The myth of possible peaceful changes at the political level is nothing but a myth precisely. Shooting people like kirk does not seem particularly useful for such goals tho
rbanffy 1y ago
[flagged]

autoexec 1y ago

"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.

Lerc 1y ago
It will be a range of opinions within that area, but even at the tail there are a concerning number of people. One person in a thousand prepared to commit violence for political ends can be enough to turn a country into chaos.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  Because one person in a thousand is equivalent to a small military force.
  - collingreen 1y ago
    Only if armed and organized
  - greedo 1y ago
    That would be much larger than a "small" force. In the US that would approach the size of the active duty Army.
zdragnar 1y ago
Have we already forgotten the absurd amount of support the murderer of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare? Maybe it wasn't 23%, but it was certainly not insignificant. > It isn't hard to find evidence of people (especially young ones) equating speech with violence. I don't think anyone conflates the phrase "threatening or committing violence" with "threatening or committing calling you a bad name". Yes, there's too much equating speech and violence, but the particular wording of threatening or committing imho is largely still reserved for the physical variety.
- elcritch 1y ago
  Still the trend of calling speech a form of violence likely has the counter effect of legitimizing violence. It’s not hard to go from “speech is violence” thoughts to “well they used violence (speech) against us so it’s okay if I use violence (physical) against them”.
  - krapp 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - zdragnar 1y ago
      This is nonsense; assaulting and killing people is illegal except in self defense. In no way whatsoever does the second amendment legitimize violence.
      - krapp 1y ago
        The second amendment literally defines a free state by its capacity for armed revolt, in other words, by violence. Spend ten seconds around American gun culture. American gun owners absolutely believe the second amendment justifies violence, and Americans have believed as much for two centuries. Hell Thomas Jefferson thought any healthy democracy should have an uprising every 20 years or so. That it happens to be illegal to shoot people under most circumstances is merely a formality. The founding fathers absolutely intended popular violence to be an integral part of the American political system, as a counterbalance to the potential violence of the state, because they inherently mistrusted the state. The only debatable facet of this is what specifically they meant by "militia." Then again, the constitution was written when drawing and quartering was still practiced, along with slavery, and before the industrial revolution. Maybe the intent of the founding fathers as regards the second amendment no longer has a place in modern society. Unfortunately it can't be touched without triggering a full scale civil war so we're stuck with it and its consequences.
joecool1029 1y ago
> I imagine that "I support assassination to drive change" would be even less popular. Except for in Japan? I noticed in all those reports Japan was at or near the bottom of countries measured for trust in their government. I was never able to find polling with regard to sentiment on Shinzo Abe's assassination but the majority of the country opposed the state funeral for him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Reactions_to_state_funeral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Shinzo_Abe#Re...
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  Sure he was a right wing divisive figure and I'm not saying that wasn't a factor, but opposition to the state funeral had more to do with the use of taxpayer money IMO.
  - PaulHoule 1y ago
    It was more than that. A remarkable number of Japanese came to the conclusion that the shooter was right about the relationship between the ruling party and the Moonies.
  - vkou 1y ago
    His public image took a nosedive after his death. I think that had far more to do with it than saving a few yen.
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      I know, but there would've been opposition to a state funeral regardless. The Japanese public perceived the state funeral and the decision-making process behind it as corrupt. Here's a Japanese article from when the decision was made. Note that the scandal leading to his assassination, which was a significant issue in its own right, isn't even mentioned. That's because the decision to hold a state funeral was itself very scandalous. https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html https://www.nhk.or.jp/politics/articles/feature/89302.html
ipython 1y ago
If you read the linked pdf, “attack someone online” is a separate subcategory (27%)
cryptonector 1y ago
> 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.
toughquestion 1y ago
[dead]

mothballed 1y ago

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?

throwaway250624 1y ago
[flagged]
Lerc 1y ago
The argument against using violence to achieve you ends is that if everyone does it, it is bad for everyone. If those who do it do not face repercussions then they will gain undue advantage, motivating everyone to match their actions, which again, is bad for everyone. The solution is the social contract and the rule of law. If enough people agree that anyone taking that path should face repercussions sufficient to not grant a net advantage, then enforcement of the law prevents others from taking the path of violence to reach parity with the violent When the rule of law is eroded, which it has been, in the US and worldwide. Then it does indeed become more rational to use violence to restore the rule of law. Unfortunately it also increases the motivation towards violence for personal gain, that makes the task of restoring the rule of law all that more difficult. Countries have spent years trying to recover that stability once it is lost.
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  Rule of law in itself is not a worthwhile institution - and is not enough to keep violence at distance. You need protection, non corruption and a level of equality to be protected by that rule of law. I think that is what mostly has been eroded - also the poorest 10% need a reason to believe in rule of law.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    Rule of law is necessary but not sufficient. The others don't matter if it's lacking, because social contracts without contracts meaning anything are worthless.

jackmottatx 1y ago

[flagged]

tossandthrow 1y ago

These studies are interest but should equally be interpreted as the desire for change - and I think it is reasonable to say that there is a huge desire for change. In particular regard anti democratic developments, an increasing oligarchy, and increased inequality. If I was a leader, I would take this really seriously and start to make some hard decisions.

kylehotchkiss 1y ago

This week in Nepal, before all the other news hit the fan, GenZ did exactly that, and overthrew the current leadership. 30 lives were lost along the way. The military took over for security purposes, and asked the leadership of the movement whom they wanted for an interim government. It was not the happy, peaceful democracy we all long for. It was a costly victory. But I feel happy the legitimate grievances the protestors held will lead to change. I hope they can find some candidates who will stand for them and reduce corruption, and do the best they can to help with the economy.

perihelions 1y ago
"Not peaceful" is an understatement. They burned innocents alive. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former-nepal-pm-jhala-nath-khanals-wife-rajyalaxmi-chitrakar-burnt-alive-as-protesters-set-his-house-on-fire/articleshow/123790577.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/former... ("Former Nepal PM Jhala Nath Khanal’s wife Rajyalaxmi Chitrakar burnt alive as protesters set his house on fire") IMO it's far too early for anyone to declare any kind of victory, in that unresolved, chaotic power vacuum. No one can guess where that will go.
- gg-plz 1y ago
  [dead]
- potato3732842 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - scheme271 1y ago
    It was the former PM's wife not the former PM. Also heads of state are probably a lot safer than fishermen or loggers.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

w10-1 1y ago

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_TEVUS_Terrorist-Attacks-US_1970-2013_Overview-508.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP...

BJones12 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
chris_wot 1y ago
That way leads to civil war.
- JKCalhoun 1y ago
  With States redistricting/gerrymandering, a cold civil war has already begun.
  - pclmulqdq 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - CuriouslyC 1y ago
      Being intentionally obtuse to try and inject a political opinion is lame as hell, friend.
      - pclmulqdq 1y ago
        I'm not the one injecting politics here - the parent comment did that for me. I'm the one pointing out the hypocrisy.
        wewtyflakes 1y ago
        No you didn't. You assumed the other poster's intent then straw-manned their position.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago

aredox 1y ago

[flagged]

brigandish 1y ago
I fail to see how the response you’ve quoted would stoke violence against transgender Americans, but let’s say it could, what would that make the rhetoric Kirk received, given he was the victim of actual violence?
- aredox 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bigmealbigmeal 1y ago
    I do personally believe that Charlie Kirk has done some damage to societal perceptions of transgender people. With that said, the person asked how Charlie's quote could stoke violence, and then you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say) as an answer for why it stoked violence. This is not a response that will convince people of your position. I'm not sure on the best way to do that, but I believe it starts by staying clear about what was actually said.
    - aredox 1y ago
      >you invented a significantly stronger, more inciteful quote (something Charlie didn't say) https://youtu.be/KivCRqfFcqY?si=hLN0akbswSlPm8pE https://youtu.be/KivCRqfFcqY?si=hLN0akbswSlPm8pE But if we take 5 minutes to search, we can see Charlie Kirk has said publicly (and I quote): "There's a direct connection to inflation and the trans issue. You say, Charlie, come on. They couldn't be further apart. No, they're exactly the same. They're the same in this aspect—when you believe that men can become women, why wouldn't you also believe that you could print wealth?" (You are poor? Blame the trans) "The transgender movement actually matters even more than biomedical fascism" "the transgender movement is an introductory phase to get you to strip yourself of your humanity to mesh with machines" "if you stop being a man, then maybe you can stop being a human being" (Transhumanist scare you? Blame the trans - those non-human beings) Maybe you think I exaggerate? Luckily, he has made his personal opinion clear: "I blame the decline of American men. This never should've been -- someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s" Tell me, how did things were taken "care of" in the 50s and 60s? What could that be a reference to? (Wink wink) Not convincing enough? Last direct quote from him: “The one issue that I think is so against our senses, so against the natural law, and dare I say, a throbbing middle finger to god, is the transgender thing happening in America right now” Really, who could think that when he said there are too many (how many? Doesn't matter, just believe it) mass shootings caused by trans people, he is inviting fear and hatred against them? Really, it would be dishonest to suggest such a thing, right? He was also openly racist and homophobic, but hey, how could I or anyone suggest he was stroking violence and stirring hate?

davidguetta 1y ago

Its sad but most gouvernement also truly don't change (especially when they protect class inequalities) unless theres an actual threat of actual violence through social upset. I tell you that as a french person. The myth of possible peaceful changes at the political level is nothing but a myth precisely. Shooting people like kirk does not seem particularly useful for such goals tho

rbanffy 1y ago

[flagged]