8 ms·
This is crazy. Healthy debate and disagreement should be free in a democratic country, without any fear of violence, let alone death.
by robertwt7 1y ago
This is crazy. Healthy debate and disagreement should be free in a democratic country, without any fear of violence, let alone death.
- incoming1211 1y ago[flagged]
- msie 1y ago[flagged]
- sigmarule 1y ago(only replying here because I can’t reply to the parent) > Writes “Unfortunately the left cannot have debate and disagreement.” > Receives downvotes - literal expressions of disagreement incarnate. > Updates post to add “(weird way to prove my point, by downvoting)” I guess you’re implying you’re a liberal?
- incoming1211 1y agoWhere was the debate? I wrote "debate and disagreement", which refers to them being together. Not separate things.
- myHNAccount123 1y agoI think you're being too nice. Is rage baiting teenagers really a debate?
- PlanksVariable 1y agoThat’s one way to frame it. A cynical and disingenuous one. He presented an alternative to the indoctrination students often receive today at college campuses and through the media. He gave students a microphone and a chance to defend their views. If presenting an alternative political philosophy causes someone to become enraged (or worse), we’re in a really bad state.
- esalman 1y ago[flagged]
- smashah 1y agoFor some people those issues exist in a realm of debatable topics because they're not affected by it. It's apparently within the realms of debate to justify mass holocaust of babies abroad. Kinda like a video game. And clearly, people shouldn't be assassinated for merely playing video games.
- boomfunky 1y agoBecause he would then hand you a mic to challenge his point. In a healthy debate. And you connected your own dots on the second point to satisfy your sick sense of justice.
- esalman 1y ago[flagged]
- hackable_sand 1y agoA healthy debate about genocide ? ?
- Whoppertime 1y agoIsn't that what happened in 1994? We debated if what was happening in Rwanda was genocide. We debated if there was Genocide in Bosnia between 1992-1995. And then debate what to do about it if we do recognize it as genocide
- password54321 1y agoWow what an upstanding guy. He would hand us the mic. For what? To create a thumbnail on YouTube on how you pre-determinately got "owned" before you even received it?
- grosswait 1y agoHow can a civil exchange of ideas not be healthy? Agreement is not a requisite to the definition. If such a debate feels unhealthy to you, I’m not sure what to say.
- Simulacra 1y ago[flagged]
- al_borland 1y agoWe need to stop dismissing these comments and take them seriously. False claims like this are defamation, libel, and are inciting violence. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure these are all crimes that we’ve just been shrugging off. These are the results. If we want freedom of speech we need our speech to mean something and use it to seek the truth in good faith. This is especially true for those holding political office or in the media. They should be held to a higher standard, as they are the example for the people.
- thephyber 1y agoDude, you need to take a pause and read up on this. It’s your civic duty to be informed and you are so very wrong about everything here. Inciting violence is very different from defamation/libel. No, lawmakers making false statements is not defamatory nor libelous. In fact, they have complete immunity while on the debate floor. And defamation/libel have to be knowable false statements of fact which created demonstrable damage. Opinions can’t be defamatory. True statements can’t be defamatory. When Trump’s Chief of Staff, General Kelly, calls Trump a fascist and lists the definition of fascism and saying that he meets each one, that’s neither false nor inciting violence. Maybe check your priors to see if you are more mad because people aren’t being prosecuted, or because what they are saying has truth to it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 303uru 1y agoName media calling for the death of republicans or republican commentators. I can name someone who called Trump a NAZI, JD Vance. Go look at Twitter right now, it’s NYE for republicans. They’ve convinced themselves, sans evidence, that this was a leftist shooter. There are literally hundreds of thousands of posts foaming at the mouth that they can now hunt liberals and that the civil war has started. You’re doing the thing you claim to hate and frankly it’s disgusting. 'I think empathy is a made up New Age term that does a lot of damage.' - Charlie Kirk
- UncleMeat 1y ago[flagged]
- stronglikedan 1y ago> But Kirk was definitely not advocating for "healthy debate and disagreement." Whenever I saw him engaging people, he certainly was. Often, they weren't, but he pretty much always was, even going so far as to deescalate. Although what you said is often parroted, there's no much evidence in your favor, if any.
- ryan_lane 1y ago[flagged]
- torstenvl 1y ago[flagged]
- tomhow 1y ago> your deliberate lie to claim otherwise is grist for the hate mill that led to his death Please don't respond to a bad comment with another bad comment. This kind of accusation is highly inflammatory and unfounded, and clearly against the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- torstenvl 1y agoIt isn't against the guidelines at all. It is false to claim that Charlie Kirk "call[ed] for the deaths of specific groups, but . . . indirectly" People need to be reminded that they "cannot, month in, month out and year in, year out, make the kind of untruthful, of bitter assault . . . and not expect that brutal, violent natures . . . will be unaffected by it." (Theodore Roosevelt)
- 8note 1y ago[flagged]
- croes 1y agoDo you think Kirk showed healthy debates ans disagreement? Do you think the people they attacked with their speeches were without any fear of violence, let alone death?
- olalonde 1y agoWhat did Kirk say that would cause someone to fear violence or death?
- croes 1y ago>In one interview with Gaines on Real America’s Voice, Kirk railed against “the decline of American men” and blamed it for transgender equality. Then he added that people should have “just took care of” transgender people “the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s." Or take some from his last words >At about 12:20, he is asked by a member of the crowd: "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?" >He replies: "Too many." Do you think he would have said the same when someone would have asked the same question about gun owners or would have said something like: "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. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." Or pick one of those quotes https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk... He recommend the one about Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded
- olalonde 1y agoThat's not what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WhMtFZtmcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WhMtFZtmcg. He was just talking about not allowing a transgender compete in a women swimming competition. None of this has anything to do with threatening or inciting violence.
- croes 1y ago
- vkou 1y agoYou're right, but this man did not share your opinion. When Nancy Pelosi and her husband were targets of political violence, Charlie Kirk's response was to suggest that whomever bails the attacker out would be a national hero. [1] To her credit, her response to the attack on him is much more dignified than his was. ----- [1] "Why has he not been bailed out? By the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy (David DePape) out..." - Charlie Kirk
- olalonde 1y agoI just listened to the clip. The remark was made jokingly, though arguably in poor taste. Immediately afterward he described the attack as "awful" and "not right," and then pivoted into a rant about how it's too easy to bail out suspects. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-kirk-bail-out-alleged-paul-pelosi-attacker-1234621493/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/charlie-...
- password54321 1y agoit was the performance of a guy "owning libs". It is not much of an honest debate if the guy enters it with a set of pre-packaged ideas that never get updated.
- akimbostrawman 1y agoOh well if he was a [political buzzword] i guess that changes everything and he actually deserves being shot for opening his mouth.
- password54321 1y agoNice strawman.
- akimbostrawman 1y agoThanks but you i can only credit you.
- bigyabai 1y agoTheir comment wasn't a strawman. The "event" in question was a political rally, not a moderated debate. He was there to promote his platform, anything else he did was part of the performance.
- jalapenos 1y agoThat's actually how you feel though right
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- alickz 1y agoI don't think you should be killed for performances either If you/society see the performance as beyond the pale, inciting violence then you should arrest the person and give them due process, or change the laws to reflect your beliefs