5 ms·

If there’s anything that this horrific event has taught me it’s to step away from social media political rabbit holes. These places amplify and feed upon themse

If there’s anything that this horrific event has taught me it’s to step away from social media political rabbit holes. These places amplify and feed upon themselves, and can lead you to a dark place where you’d glorify this kind of death. After all this is exactly how to shooter himself ended up thinking he had to assassinate Kirk.

aklemm 1y ago
The same can lead one to making a martyr out of a despicable voice.
notmyjob 1y ago
How many of these people were in lockdowns during their formative years? I don’t think it’s _all_ social media.
estimator7292 1y ago
[flagged]
- frugalmail 1y ago
  what "peaceful means of protest" has the government shut down exactly?
  - jeremyjh 1y ago
    The ones at many Ivy League schools.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    Cutting university funding if they don’t block protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Literally every Israel protest.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      Whoever just downvoted this, how about using your words instead.
    - reliabilityguy 1y ago
      > Literally every Israel protest. I just googled and found at least three pro Palestine protests today. One is in NYC. So... seems like nothing was banned, and this is why you were downvoted.
      - platevoltage 1y ago
        So was your issue with hyperbolic use of the word "literally", or are you rejecting the premise all together, because you would have to try really hard to deny that there has been an unrelenting crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in the name of "anti-semitism"?
        reliabilityguy 1y ago
        I did not downvote you. I think people who did disagree with your claim that literally every Israel protest is banned. BTW, it is hard to understand what does "Israel protest" even means. Does it mean it is a pro Israel protest? Pro Palestinian? I think formulating your claims better could have avoided the downvotes, and allowed others to understand what you mean exactly.
        twixfel 1y ago
        I think it's quite clear what he means tbh, unless you don't follow American politics.
- criddell 1y ago
  > the only options left There are lots of options left. The big one would be to vote and to help others vote. In 2024, only 42% of young people cast a ballot.
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    What is the point of voting when gerrymandering decides the outcome? We don't have a functional voting system by any stretch of the imagination. If we did, gerrymandering wouldn't be a thing, and we'd be using ranked-choice or range-voting. So many of the right-wing states have banned these superior voting methods because they're so afraid the ones in power will lose immediately. Granted, it's true that Trump won the popular vote in 2024, but note that voting rights have unfairly been denied to many citizens, especially in right-wing states, so was it really an honest win?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      Gerrymandering has no effect on votes for president or senate, and ranked choice/range voting has no impact on gerrymandering. To eliminate gerrymandering you'd need to have an at-large/seat based voting system instead of district based. In other words - instead of voting for a representative, you'd vote for a party - and the party would then fill the seats they won at their discretion. Another option is multi-member districts which is a 'softer' version of the same idea.
boothby 1y ago
> If there’s anything that this horrific event has taught me it’s to step away from social media political rabbit holes. This presents a conundrum to somebody wanting to stay abreast of current events. The president of the US is always-online to the point that not posting to twitter for a few hours sparks rumors that he's died. And if you look back a few decades in American history, assassination of politicians and activists happened long before the advent of social media.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  I’m not sure there’s much use to “staying abreast of current events” for most people. Media (social/traditional) focuses on amping up your anxiety and putting your side against there’s. Rather than a balanced view of the details. Alarmist headlines and hand wringing tweets are engineered to anger and outrage you. It’s very hard to keep up with news while keeping your rational brain engaged. If something truly momentous happens about it, you’ll hear about it. If something happens that impacts you, you’ll find out when it happens and then you’ll get informed if there’s anything you can do about it.
  - boothby 1y ago
    > If something truly momentous happens about it, you’ll hear about it. From who? And where are they getting their information? It bears mentioning that you're presently participating in a political conversation on social media.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    > If something happens that impacts you, you’ll find out when it happens Sure but I live in a few and democratic country and like to think I also have some hand in shaping the direction of society. That's gone if I live a purely reactive life.
- throw0101a 1y ago
  > The president of the US is always-online to the point that not posting to twitter for a few hours sparks rumors that he's died. Trump was not publicly seen for four days. Hard to believe that there were zero opportunities for some kind of public interaction, even with cabinet members or civil service / WH staff folks. POTUS just 'disappearing' for several days is a bit odd. It didn't help that they tried to provide 'proof of life' by posting golfing photos… that were taken a week before.
forinti 1y ago
Howard Stern noted once how people who disliked him spent more time listening to him than those who liked him. Kirk seemed to have invested heavily in aggravating people in order to make an audience. It seemed so obvious to me that I don't understand why those who disliked him would waste their time trying to debate him.
- aklemm 1y ago
  Well then his death proved Stern wrong. Soooo many people in my feeds out of seemingly nowhere talking about much they liked his videos, and that aligns with reports of how much money he made at it.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  His rallies didn’t seem to be full of people who didn’t like him.
  - forinti 1y ago
    Of course. There's a ton of people who want to see their beliefs validated and he offered them this through this false debating. The people who tried to change his mind were blind to the trap he set up. No logic would ever change his message. Of course, he shouldn't have died because of this, but that's another issue.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      The point of debate is not to change the other person's mind. That's very rarely going to happen, and even less commonly immediately. The point of debate is to provide context and information that somebody may not have been aware of. The reason for this is that the views we decide to adopt are not entirely conscious. They're driven by a large number of issues that coalesce on a subconscious level, but that takes time to change. For instance people trend more conservative as they age, but there's no real simple point where you wake up one day and like 'ok, I now officially love guns, babies, and 'Merica.' It's a very gradual process that's driven by things like life experience and the accumulation of knowledge, all processed on a subconscious level. As you age you'll find that you often will think the 'you' of 10 years ago was a naive idiot, and this never really seems to stop. Yet if the 'you' of 10 years from now talked to you today, it's unlikely he could change your mind on a single thing, even though he is literally you. When people are young we naturally have this confidence that the views we hold must be true and just, because we are absolutely certain that they are. And so we if we just had the time and attention, we could convince anybody of their correctness, so long as they remained logical. But over time, one learns that people who may believe the exact opposite of you think the exact same thing, and it's not necessarily the case that one side must be wrong. People, no less intelligent than one another, can see the same evidence and simply come to different conclusions.
fallinghawks 1y ago
[flagged]
- zahlman 1y ago
  > I got flagged here on HN for stating (right as the news was breaking) that the shooter could just as likely be right wing as left I don't think you should have been flagged for such an observation in general, but assigning a prior of equal probability strikes me as frankly absurd. It would be much harder for someone on the same ideological "side" to have a motivation to murder. False flags really aren't that common, in general. This is the same kind of conspiratorial thinking behind Alex Jones' "crisis actors". Also, your comment was off-topic to the sub-thread. People were discussing whether Kirk would be seen as a martyr. The ideology of the shooter has quite little to do with that. > (I'll probably get downvoted again for this lol) Commentary like this is inherently obnoxious, and tends towards self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - yepitwas 1y ago
    > It would be much harder for someone on the same ideological "side" to have a motivation to murder. Is the likelihood lower or higher if it already happened (at least) once last year? Is it lower or higher if you’re aware of the hostile dynamics between TPU and at least one popular very much violence-encouraging even-farther-right influencer? Nb this group has opposed Trump for being too timidly white supremacist. Would that shift your guess at the odds? Safe bet if you’ve been paying attention to this stuff for a few decades was about equal odds right or left winger, and maybe somewhat higher right, if the target’s a right winger (almost certainly the attacker is, if relevantly affiliated, right-affiliated if the target’s a Democrat or otherwise left) or else (in either case of political affiliation of the target) there’s fair odds of apolitical notoriety-seeking or straight up lunacy without a strong political motivation. [edit] nb I’m not saying 100% that the guy won’t turn out to be coming from the left, but I think if you’re playing the odds on something like this and go “must be a leftist” you’ve misread the situation in this country.
  - throw0101a 1y ago
    [flagged]
notmyjob 1y ago
Discord again? Seems like all of these shooters get a lot of encouragement and support on discord.
- qcnguy 1y ago
  Have never been able to believe they called a communications app Discord. It didn't hurt them but that seems like a very negative word to use as your brand.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

aklemm 1y ago

The same can lead one to making a martyr out of a despicable voice.

notmyjob 1y ago

How many of these people were in lockdowns during their formative years? I don’t think it’s _all_ social media.

estimator7292 1y ago

[flagged]

frugalmail 1y ago
what "peaceful means of protest" has the government shut down exactly?
- jeremyjh 1y ago
  The ones at many Ivy League schools.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  Cutting university funding if they don’t block protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqly0zrnnv3o
- platevoltage 1y ago
  Literally every Israel protest.
  - platevoltage 1y ago
    Whoever just downvoted this, how about using your words instead.
  - reliabilityguy 1y ago
    > Literally every Israel protest. I just googled and found at least three pro Palestine protests today. One is in NYC. So... seems like nothing was banned, and this is why you were downvoted.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      So was your issue with hyperbolic use of the word "literally", or are you rejecting the premise all together, because you would have to try really hard to deny that there has been an unrelenting crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in the name of "anti-semitism"?
      - reliabilityguy 1y ago
        I did not downvote you. I think people who did disagree with your claim that literally every Israel protest is banned. BTW, it is hard to understand what does "Israel protest" even means. Does it mean it is a pro Israel protest? Pro Palestinian? I think formulating your claims better could have avoided the downvotes, and allowed others to understand what you mean exactly.
        twixfel 1y ago
        I think it's quite clear what he means tbh, unless you don't follow American politics.
criddell 1y ago
> the only options left There are lots of options left. The big one would be to vote and to help others vote. In 2024, only 42% of young people cast a ballot.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  What is the point of voting when gerrymandering decides the outcome? We don't have a functional voting system by any stretch of the imagination. If we did, gerrymandering wouldn't be a thing, and we'd be using ranked-choice or range-voting. So many of the right-wing states have banned these superior voting methods because they're so afraid the ones in power will lose immediately. Granted, it's true that Trump won the popular vote in 2024, but note that voting rights have unfairly been denied to many citizens, especially in right-wing states, so was it really an honest win?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Gerrymandering has no effect on votes for president or senate, and ranked choice/range voting has no impact on gerrymandering. To eliminate gerrymandering you'd need to have an at-large/seat based voting system instead of district based. In other words - instead of voting for a representative, you'd vote for a party - and the party would then fill the seats they won at their discretion. Another option is multi-member districts which is a 'softer' version of the same idea.

boothby 1y ago

> If there’s anything that this horrific event has taught me it’s to step away from social media political rabbit holes. This presents a conundrum to somebody wanting to stay abreast of current events. The president of the US is always-online to the point that not posting to twitter for a few hours sparks rumors that he's died. And if you look back a few decades in American history, assassination of politicians and activists happened long before the advent of social media.

softwaredoug 1y ago
I’m not sure there’s much use to “staying abreast of current events” for most people. Media (social/traditional) focuses on amping up your anxiety and putting your side against there’s. Rather than a balanced view of the details. Alarmist headlines and hand wringing tweets are engineered to anger and outrage you. It’s very hard to keep up with news while keeping your rational brain engaged. If something truly momentous happens about it, you’ll hear about it. If something happens that impacts you, you’ll find out when it happens and then you’ll get informed if there’s anything you can do about it.
- boothby 1y ago
  > If something truly momentous happens about it, you’ll hear about it. From who? And where are they getting their information? It bears mentioning that you're presently participating in a political conversation on social media.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  > If something happens that impacts you, you’ll find out when it happens Sure but I live in a few and democratic country and like to think I also have some hand in shaping the direction of society. That's gone if I live a purely reactive life.
throw0101a 1y ago
> The president of the US is always-online to the point that not posting to twitter for a few hours sparks rumors that he's died. Trump was not publicly seen for four days. Hard to believe that there were zero opportunities for some kind of public interaction, even with cabinet members or civil service / WH staff folks. POTUS just 'disappearing' for several days is a bit odd. It didn't help that they tried to provide 'proof of life' by posting golfing photos… that were taken a week before.

forinti 1y ago

Howard Stern noted once how people who disliked him spent more time listening to him than those who liked him. Kirk seemed to have invested heavily in aggravating people in order to make an audience. It seemed so obvious to me that I don't understand why those who disliked him would waste their time trying to debate him.

aklemm 1y ago
Well then his death proved Stern wrong. Soooo many people in my feeds out of seemingly nowhere talking about much they liked his videos, and that aligns with reports of how much money he made at it.
lostlogin 1y ago
His rallies didn’t seem to be full of people who didn’t like him.
- forinti 1y ago
  Of course. There's a ton of people who want to see their beliefs validated and he offered them this through this false debating. The people who tried to change his mind were blind to the trap he set up. No logic would ever change his message. Of course, he shouldn't have died because of this, but that's another issue.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    The point of debate is not to change the other person's mind. That's very rarely going to happen, and even less commonly immediately. The point of debate is to provide context and information that somebody may not have been aware of. The reason for this is that the views we decide to adopt are not entirely conscious. They're driven by a large number of issues that coalesce on a subconscious level, but that takes time to change. For instance people trend more conservative as they age, but there's no real simple point where you wake up one day and like 'ok, I now officially love guns, babies, and 'Merica.' It's a very gradual process that's driven by things like life experience and the accumulation of knowledge, all processed on a subconscious level. As you age you'll find that you often will think the 'you' of 10 years ago was a naive idiot, and this never really seems to stop. Yet if the 'you' of 10 years from now talked to you today, it's unlikely he could change your mind on a single thing, even though he is literally you. When people are young we naturally have this confidence that the views we hold must be true and just, because we are absolutely certain that they are. And so we if we just had the time and attention, we could convince anybody of their correctness, so long as they remained logical. But over time, one learns that people who may believe the exact opposite of you think the exact same thing, and it's not necessarily the case that one side must be wrong. People, no less intelligent than one another, can see the same evidence and simply come to different conclusions.

fallinghawks 1y ago

[flagged]

zahlman 1y ago
> I got flagged here on HN for stating (right as the news was breaking) that the shooter could just as likely be right wing as left I don't think you should have been flagged for such an observation in general, but assigning a prior of equal probability strikes me as frankly absurd. It would be much harder for someone on the same ideological "side" to have a motivation to murder. False flags really aren't that common, in general. This is the same kind of conspiratorial thinking behind Alex Jones' "crisis actors". Also, your comment was off-topic to the sub-thread. People were discussing whether Kirk would be seen as a martyr. The ideology of the shooter has quite little to do with that. > (I'll probably get downvoted again for this lol) Commentary like this is inherently obnoxious, and tends towards self-fulfilling prophecy.
- yepitwas 1y ago
  > It would be much harder for someone on the same ideological "side" to have a motivation to murder. Is the likelihood lower or higher if it already happened (at least) once last year? Is it lower or higher if you’re aware of the hostile dynamics between TPU and at least one popular very much violence-encouraging even-farther-right influencer? Nb this group has opposed Trump for being too timidly white supremacist. Would that shift your guess at the odds? Safe bet if you’ve been paying attention to this stuff for a few decades was about equal odds right or left winger, and maybe somewhat higher right, if the target’s a right winger (almost certainly the attacker is, if relevantly affiliated, right-affiliated if the target’s a Democrat or otherwise left) or else (in either case of political affiliation of the target) there’s fair odds of apolitical notoriety-seeking or straight up lunacy without a strong political motivation. [edit] nb I’m not saying 100% that the guy won’t turn out to be coming from the left, but I think if you’re playing the odds on something like this and go “must be a leftist” you’ve misread the situation in this country.
- throw0101a 1y ago
  [flagged]

notmyjob 1y ago

Discord again? Seems like all of these shooters get a lot of encouragement and support on discord.

qcnguy 1y ago
Have never been able to believe they called a communications app Discord. It didn't hurt them but that seems like a very negative word to use as your brand.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]