9 ms·

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 word

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 place in a civil society.

jtbaker 1y ago
The number of people I’ve seen basically condoning this act is sickening. This guy had views I 100% disagree with, and wish did not have a platform to espouse them. But his children no longer have a dad in their life. That is just heartbreaking to me. It’s hard for me to understand people who are so wrapped up in political rhetoric that they think taking a person’s life is acceptable.
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jtbaker 1y ago
    Yes. Both things can be true.
  - Hasnep 1y ago
    This is the kind of whataboutism the right has been doing for years, it's not any better when someone (I assume) on the left does it.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      "what about her emails" when the rights now had 6 years to investigate it as the executive office (+ 4 years in congress, even woth a democratic president) is not going to ring the same way as "but what about our people being dragged out with no due process". I'm sorry, this is no longer a "both sides" matter.
      - fakedang 1y ago
        They were busy engaging with buttery males when they were in power.
  - didgetmaster 1y ago
    No, I didn't have the same reaction. There is a big difference between people being hurt or killed for their opinions and families being separated because a dad broke the law. This happens every day when someone's dad is sentenced and incarcerated for something like armed robbery. If someone died in ICE custody due to neglect as you suggested, then EVERONE would have heard about it by now.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >If someone died in ICE custody cf. https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >families being separated because a dad broke the law. Well glad we said the quiet part out loud. You only get empathy when you're not deemed a criminal by the US government.
    - ActorNightly 1y ago
      [flagged]
- tcbawo 1y ago
  There is an astute comment floating around here that describes the tendency for human psychology to absorb information first through the limbic/emotional center first before the logical part. It is unsurprising to see horrible reactions after tragedies through social media. Living too close to the edge of the present brings out the worst in people. My faith in humanity hopes that many of these people will reconsider and regret some of the things they say and post.
- seangrogg 1y ago
  Similar sentiments here. I can't find much common ground with Charlie Kirk but that doesn't merit an assassination. Unfortunate all around, and a situation not too dissimilar from the Mangione case (in the context of what happened, not necessarily why). That said, while I don't condone it I can't say I'm surprised by it. It seems stoking divisions is a large part of the modern media landscape and all it takes is one person with the motive and the means.
- jake_brake 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jtbaker 1y ago
    I knew Godwin's law would deliver!
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  When I see sentiment like "we need to shut down every Left institution" from political figures in reaction to this, all while we have not as of now even caught the shooter: I can't really blame them. I don't care about Kirk or his family, they can take care of themselves. I'd like this country to no self destruct in this glee for wanting to start another Civil War, though.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ActorNightly 1y ago
> 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.
- BergAndCo 1y ago
  77% of Republicans believe it is always unacceptable to feel joy at the death of someone they oppose, while only 38% of Democrats share this view (YouGov)
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    The difference is, while those 77% will say that, they will unilaterally rally behind the party leader that does the opposite.
- junon 1y ago
  Not wanting to see people murdered for their opinions is a belief that can coexist with knowing the other side might want to kill me for mine.
  - whamlastxmas 1y ago
    I don’t think people want to murder for opinions, but rather the actions they take because of this opinions.
- didgetmaster 1y ago
  Actually, I think this opinion IS shared by most of the people on the other side. (Notice that I didn't mention which side I am on. I don't think it really matters.) But, to be sure, SOME of them feel differently.
  - thrance 1y ago
    The GOP and its entourage actively cheered on the Hortmans getting assasinated in their home by a republican guy disguised as a cop [1]. Trump was golfing during their funrerals and used the occasion to dunk on Tim Walz to the press. He didn't order that flags should be at half mast as he did for Charlie Kirk, depsite him not being a lawmaker. They also turned the attack on Paul Pelosi into a running gag [2], which lasted for years. There is no question as to which side of the political spectrum is normalizing and encouraging political violence, and I wish people scould stop with this very misplaced bothsideism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-senator-mike-lee-kirk-shooting-melissa-hortman https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-s... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Misinformation_and_disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Misinfor...
gamblor956 1y ago
[flagged]
- jalapenos 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - PartiallyTyped 1y ago
    A trans person is not a political opponent any more than a white male is a political opponent. Stop pretending Charlie wasn’t pushing a harmful narrative that lead to an increase in hate crime.
    - jalapenos 1y ago
      Well I mean he got shot, presumably out of hate, so yes, I concede he participated in an increase of hate crime.
      - PartiallyTyped 1y ago
        Charlie was pushing the narrative that trans people are over represented in shootings and terrorist attacks. Charlie was not targeted over a characteristic like sexuality, race, and whatnot that would make it a hate crime. Charlie could have very well chosen not to push a narrative that strips 2A from a minority.
        jalapenos 1y ago
        Classic victim blaming, "well you could've chosen not to say mean things...". Kind of the leftist equivalent of the chauvinistic "well if you didn't want to get raped would you have worn that...".
        PartiallyTyped 1y ago
        No victim blaming, he is not a victim of anything other than his own actions. He has been fanning the flames for years. He has exploited political conflict for personal gain. What you clearly missed is that Charlie could have had a life that was different had his behaviour been different. He was not attacked over an immutable or protected characteristic. He was not murdered because he is white/straight/gay/black/trans. His murder was independent of his characteristics and entirely dependent on his character. There is no “hate crime” here as far as the definition is concerned.
anshumankmr 1y ago
Honestly, these kind of sane comments are very rare to find. A lot of other social media platforms have basically become a breeding ground for the very kind of hate that causes one side to lash out at the other in such means.
paulryanrogers 1y ago
> I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Agreed. Sadly the leader of one side openly and repeatedly calls for violence against anyone who disrupts his speeches [0]. The former leader of the other side condemns political violence and even calls his opponent after an attack out of concern for his welfare. [1] [0] https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/ https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/biden-trump-rally-shooting-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/bide...
- Andrew_nenakhov 1y ago
  This is a really disingenuous and biased selection of sources. One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc. Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard.
  - hellotheretoday 1y ago
    you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then [0] https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-history-violent-and-bigoted-rhetoric-he-was-first-guest-california https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...
    - 1y ago
diogenescynic 1y ago
[flagged]

jtbaker 1y ago

The number of people I’ve seen basically condoning this act is sickening. This guy had views I 100% disagree with, and wish did not have a platform to espouse them. But his children no longer have a dad in their life. That is just heartbreaking to me. It’s hard for me to understand people who are so wrapped up in political rhetoric that they think taking a person’s life is acceptable.

ActorNightly 1y ago
[flagged]
- jtbaker 1y ago
  Yes. Both things can be true.
- Hasnep 1y ago
  This is the kind of whataboutism the right has been doing for years, it's not any better when someone (I assume) on the left does it.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    "what about her emails" when the rights now had 6 years to investigate it as the executive office (+ 4 years in congress, even woth a democratic president) is not going to ring the same way as "but what about our people being dragged out with no due process". I'm sorry, this is no longer a "both sides" matter.
    - fakedang 1y ago
      They were busy engaging with buttery males when they were in power.
- didgetmaster 1y ago
  No, I didn't have the same reaction. There is a big difference between people being hurt or killed for their opinions and families being separated because a dad broke the law. This happens every day when someone's dad is sentenced and incarcerated for something like armed robbery. If someone died in ICE custody due to neglect as you suggested, then EVERONE would have heard about it by now.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >If someone died in ICE custody cf. https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >families being separated because a dad broke the law. Well glad we said the quiet part out loud. You only get empathy when you're not deemed a criminal by the US government.
  - ActorNightly 1y ago
    [flagged]
tcbawo 1y ago
There is an astute comment floating around here that describes the tendency for human psychology to absorb information first through the limbic/emotional center first before the logical part. It is unsurprising to see horrible reactions after tragedies through social media. Living too close to the edge of the present brings out the worst in people. My faith in humanity hopes that many of these people will reconsider and regret some of the things they say and post.
seangrogg 1y ago
Similar sentiments here. I can't find much common ground with Charlie Kirk but that doesn't merit an assassination. Unfortunate all around, and a situation not too dissimilar from the Mangione case (in the context of what happened, not necessarily why). That said, while I don't condone it I can't say I'm surprised by it. It seems stoking divisions is a large part of the modern media landscape and all it takes is one person with the motive and the means.
jake_brake 1y ago
[flagged]
- jtbaker 1y ago
  I knew Godwin's law would deliver!
johnnyanmac 1y ago
When I see sentiment like "we need to shut down every Left institution" from political figures in reaction to this, all while we have not as of now even caught the shooter: I can't really blame them. I don't care about Kirk or his family, they can take care of themselves. I'd like this country to no self destruct in this glee for wanting to start another Civil War, though.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ActorNightly 1y ago

> 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.

BergAndCo 1y ago
77% of Republicans believe it is always unacceptable to feel joy at the death of someone they oppose, while only 38% of Democrats share this view (YouGov)
- ActorNightly 1y ago
  The difference is, while those 77% will say that, they will unilaterally rally behind the party leader that does the opposite.
junon 1y ago
Not wanting to see people murdered for their opinions is a belief that can coexist with knowing the other side might want to kill me for mine.
- whamlastxmas 1y ago
  I don’t think people want to murder for opinions, but rather the actions they take because of this opinions.
didgetmaster 1y ago
Actually, I think this opinion IS shared by most of the people on the other side. (Notice that I didn't mention which side I am on. I don't think it really matters.) But, to be sure, SOME of them feel differently.
- thrance 1y ago
  The GOP and its entourage actively cheered on the Hortmans getting assasinated in their home by a republican guy disguised as a cop [1]. Trump was golfing during their funrerals and used the occasion to dunk on Tim Walz to the press. He didn't order that flags should be at half mast as he did for Charlie Kirk, depsite him not being a lawmaker. They also turned the attack on Paul Pelosi into a running gag [2], which lasted for years. There is no question as to which side of the political spectrum is normalizing and encouraging political violence, and I wish people scould stop with this very misplaced bothsideism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-senator-mike-lee-kirk-shooting-melissa-hortman https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/republican-s... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Misinformation_and_disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Misinfor...

gamblor956 1y ago

[flagged]

jalapenos 1y ago
[flagged]
- PartiallyTyped 1y ago
  A trans person is not a political opponent any more than a white male is a political opponent. Stop pretending Charlie wasn’t pushing a harmful narrative that lead to an increase in hate crime.
  - jalapenos 1y ago
    Well I mean he got shot, presumably out of hate, so yes, I concede he participated in an increase of hate crime.
    - PartiallyTyped 1y ago
      Charlie was pushing the narrative that trans people are over represented in shootings and terrorist attacks. Charlie was not targeted over a characteristic like sexuality, race, and whatnot that would make it a hate crime. Charlie could have very well chosen not to push a narrative that strips 2A from a minority.
      - jalapenos 1y ago
        Classic victim blaming, "well you could've chosen not to say mean things...". Kind of the leftist equivalent of the chauvinistic "well if you didn't want to get raped would you have worn that...".
        PartiallyTyped 1y ago
        No victim blaming, he is not a victim of anything other than his own actions. He has been fanning the flames for years. He has exploited political conflict for personal gain. What you clearly missed is that Charlie could have had a life that was different had his behaviour been different. He was not attacked over an immutable or protected characteristic. He was not murdered because he is white/straight/gay/black/trans. His murder was independent of his characteristics and entirely dependent on his character. There is no “hate crime” here as far as the definition is concerned.

anshumankmr 1y ago

Honestly, these kind of sane comments are very rare to find. A lot of other social media platforms have basically become a breeding ground for the very kind of hate that causes one side to lash out at the other in such means.

paulryanrogers 1y ago

> I wish more people on both ends of the political spectrum felt that way. Agreed. Sadly the leader of one side openly and repeatedly calls for violence against anyone who disrupts his speeches [0]. The former leader of the other side condemns political violence and even calls his opponent after an attack out of concern for his welfare. [1] [0] https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/ https://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/ [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/biden-trump-rally-shooting-speech https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/14/bide...

Andrew_nenakhov 1y ago
This is a really disingenuous and biased selection of sources. One could find systemic examples of inflammatory rethoric from almost anyone in US politics: Biden, Obama, Trump, Waltz, Harris, DeSantis, Newsome, etc. Ironically, assassinated Charlie Kirk was one of the most reserved US public figures in this regard.
- hellotheretoday 1y ago
  you can find inflammatory rhetoric from any human being ever, that is obviously true, but it’s also disingenuous to act like trump is not the most inflammatory and devisive leader America has had in modern history. Look at how he responded to the murders of the Hortmans in Minnesota relative to how Biden responded to his assassination attempt or how most (if not all) democratic lawmakers are responding to this And while political violence is abhorrent Kirk was no angel. In the aftermath of this his views on gun violence have been echoed widely but he is a man that called for political opponents (namely Joe Biden) to face the death penalty [0]. That page outlines much more. So are his calls for political violence including the death of his opponents, inflammatory language like slurs[0], encouraging violence against immigrants and transgender athletes[0] “reserved”? I would hate to see what you consider out of line then [0] https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-history-violent-and-bigoted-rhetoric-he-was-first-guest-california https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-has-h...
  - 1y ago

diogenescynic 1y ago

[flagged]