Conservative activist, Charlie Kirk, has been shot and killed at University

[Leo Gura]

33 minutes ago, Joshe said:

You'd have a hard time arguing today's event isn't a net positive.

Guys, NO.

This is a very negative event for everyone. No one will win from this event except extremist lunatics.

Even if you hate Kirk, if you could push a button and undo this event, you'd be a fool not to push it.

[Hardkill]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a huge deal. He was a major political actor. This goes way beyond just some dude getting killed. The implications are deeply ideological and national.

I already see right-wingers going full patriot lunatic mode.

This murder is horrific and dangerous. The great risk now is a policy overreaction—using tragedy as pretext for excessive sweeping crackdowns. The right will rally; fundraising and “law-and-order” proposals will surge. Of course, shock events are often leveraged to expand surveillance/policing beyond the narrow threat. Social media can harden identities, spread misinformation, and reward maximalist narratives.

But “fascism spiral” isn’t inevitable. U.S. history shows even the worst assassinations didn’t collapse our system. Multiple assassinations of towering figures (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK Sr.) produced turmoil and policy shifts, not regime collapse. The modal outcome has been institutional continuity with some ratcheting—serious, but short of an authoritarian break.

Federalism, courts, divided media ecosystems, civil society, and elections create friction against rapid, durable autocratization. Attempts at overreach face litigation, street-level pushback, and electoral penalties.

Such broad collective blame tends to alienate moderates and institutional conservatives, who become pivotal in blocking maximalist responses. Post-shock politics often re-centers once facts and prosecutions clarify responsibility.

We should do two things at once: (1) condemn the killing and harden security narrowly around real threats, and (2) reject collective blame and resist broad limits on speech/protest. Courts, federalism, elections, and civil society make durable autocracy hard here—if leaders and citizens insist on due process, proportionality, and facts over outrage.

Targeted hardening (event security, threat interdiction) can proceed within rule-of-law constraints, obviating the “we must curtail liberties” narrative.

The more we generalize and catastrophize, the more we hand authoritarians their justification.

Nevertheless, I think that this political violence that we will experience in the coming years could very well parallel that of what occurred during the late 1800s, 1910s–20s, or 1960s–early ’70s. Perhaps not even as bad as either of those periods.

Edited yesterday at 03:48 AM by Hardkill

[Joshe]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Even if you hate Kirk, if you could push a button and undo this event, you'd be a fool not to push it.

I think I would push the button to undo it, but it would seem like a mistake when I think about all the harm I would be re-enabling. 

[Frylock]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I think I would push the button to undo it, but it would seem like a mistake when I think about all the harm I would be re-enabling. 

Yeah I mean, the man was a human virus that was going to have influence for a long, long time.

Let's not forget that people these days have the attention span of a gnat. People are going to quickly move on and forget. The ones that will dwell were already radicalized and there was no hope for them.

Edited yesterday at 03:05 AM by Frylock

[Schizophonia]

Too bad for him and his family.

Idk what he said but it’s useless to be hateful against someone at the point of killing him/support the killer; It increases opposition and denies that the other and oneself are only karmic bags.

Surely this would happen less if the carrying of weapons was more limited and if people lived closer to nature; a country lifestyle with sports creates kind mentalities while an urban lifestyle, too connected, creates hysterical and partisan mentalities.

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Frylock said:

Yeah I mean, the man was a human virus that was going to have influence for a long, long time.

Let's not forget that people these days have the attention span of a gnat. People are going to quickly move on and forget. The ones that will dwell were already radicalized and there was no hope for them.

Right, it's not an easy calculation. 

[Terell Kirby]

this thread is spiraling.

We don't know the killer nor the motive yet.

What we do know is a man lost his life today for invoking his first amendment rights granted to him by the US Constitution, decency goes a long way if you're a US citizen (even if you disagree)

All of what's going on here is a reflection of where we are as a nation

Edited yesterday at 03:16 AM by Terell Kirby

[dualnon]

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I think I would push the button to undo it, but it would seem like a mistake when I think about all the harm I would be re-enabling. 

This could cause massive escalation, and if it does it will create even bigger harm than the harm you re-enabled.

[DocWatts]

5 minutes ago, Frylock said:

Let's not forget that people these days have the attention span of a gnat. People are going to quickly move on and forget. The ones that will dwell were already radicalized and there was no hope for them.

Yet another school shooting happened today as well, but that's already been forgotten about.

The far right tells us to 'move on' when school children get gunned down in their classrooms, but a fascist propaganda artist becoming a victim of the climate of political violence he helped instigate is a national tragedy 

[Joshe]

8 minutes ago, dualnon said:

This could cause massive escalation, and if it does it will create even bigger harm than the harm you re-enabled.

That's possible, but I don't know that. It's possible pushing the button is more harmful than not. That's why I said you'd have a hard time arguing it's not a net positive. It's a very difficult call if you don't simply cave into your empathy, at least it is as far as my development goes. 

Edited yesterday at 03:20 AM by Joshe

[Joshe]

[Talinn]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Guys, NO.

This is a very negative event for everyone. No one will win from this event except extremist lunatics.

Even if you hate Kirk, if you could push a button and undo this event, you'd be a fool not to push it.

Do you think there is any chance at all the shooter was a Russian agent meant to stir up chaos in the U.S?

That could possibly be the 'best' case scenario?

Edited yesterday at 03:26 AM by Talinn

[Joel3102]

Wouldn’t surprise me if this was a far right groyper type that did this 

[dualnon]

5 minutes ago, Joshe said:

That's possible, but I don't know that. It's possible pushing the button is more harmful than not. That's why I said you'd have a hard time arguing it's not a net positive. It's a very difficult call if you don't simply cave into your empathy.

Don't assume that Charlie being dead eliminates his influence, it actually amplifies it. It already has amplified it. Charlie Kirk is still a player in the political conversation even in death. You aren't re-enabling anything because his death didn't disable it.

[Maximilian]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Killing him does nothing to reduce fascism. The opposite I would say. It makes him a martyr. This empowers the far right by making them feel like they stand for something noble.

This is accurate.

Right now, all over Twitter/X conservatives are posting things like "This just radicalized us" and "We need to become the fascists they accused us of being."

Not good.

[Joshe]

Just now, dualnon said:

Don't assume that Charlie being dead eliminates his influence, it actually amplifies it. It already has amplified it. Charlie Kirk is still a player in the political conversation even in death. You aren't re-enabling anything because his death didn't disable it.

Amplifies it for a time, at least, but it's yet to be seen if his successor(s) will prove as effective. From my view, it would be difficult to replace him.  I wouldn't put money on someone as effective as he taking up his mantle. It's like if Trump died, I don't see anyone else filling his shoes. 

[Frylock]

32 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Yet another school shooting happened today as well, but that's already been forgotten about.

The far right tells us to 'move on' when school children get gunned down in their classrooms, but a fascist propaganda artist becoming a victim of the climate of political violence he helped instigate is a national tragedy 

These loons don't relate to children. They relate to the far right loon with political influence, therefore their identity took a hit today.

But these people still don't have a strong sense of self, nor do they have much of an attention span. They're keyboard warriors and complainers. This will hurt them for a day or two, then they'll go back to scrolling on whatever dumb thing grabs their only two brain cells that speak the same language.

Edited yesterday at 03:50 AM by Frylock

[Jayson G]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Guys, NO.

This is a very negative event for everyone. No one will win from this event except extremist lunatics.

Even if you hate Kirk, if you could push a button and undo this event, you'd be a fool not to push it.

@Leo Gura Of course this is tragic, and will radicalize the right more, that's understandable. 

But how bad is it really? Sure some anger for some weeks, likely it will wash over in some time. 

What's the big deal though? Trump was shot at and all was good. I also checked the sentiment online in various places, and most people both on the left and right see this as just a tragic event but I dont see much radicalization. 

I did hear of some radical talk in some corners but isnt that just mostly talk?

[Leo Gura]

41 minutes ago, Talinn said:

Do you think there is any chance at all the shooter was a Russian agent meant to stir up chaos in the U.S?

Sounds silly.

My guess is it was some pro-Palestinian activist seeking revenge for Charlie's 100% pro-Zionist views.

As I said before, the atrocities in Gaza will cause terrorism in America for generations to come. I think this is the first major case of that.

40 minutes ago, dualnon said:

Don't assume that Charlie being dead eliminates his influence, it actually amplifies it. It already has amplified it. Charlie Kirk is still a player in the political conversation even in death. You aren't re-enabling anything because his death didn't disable it.

Just practically, Charlie would have done 40 years of new propaganda had he lived. So it is a setback for the right. It will not be so easy for them to replace him. He was a huge leader on their side and he played a big role in winning elections for MAGA. He swung elections.

But even so, killing him was wrong. We can't kill people just for having ideology we disagree with. That is not democracy.

10 minutes ago, Jayson G said:

@Leo Gura Of course this is tragic, and will radicalize the right more, that's understandable. 

But how bad is it really? Sure some anger for some weeks, likely it will wash over in some time. 

What's the big deal though? Trump was shot at and all was good. I also checked the sentiment online in various places, and most people both on the left and right see this as just a tragic event but I dont see much radicalization. 

I did hear of some radical talk in some corners but isnt that just mostly talk?

I think this is quite different. Trump was shot at but lived. So it wasn't a big deal.

I've already seen frightening levels of radicalization and demonization of the left and Dems as evil for causing this.

Edited yesterday at 04:10 AM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Just practically, Charlie would have done 40 years of new propaganda had he lived. So it is a setback for the right. It will not be so easy for them to replace him. He was a huge leader on their side and he played a big role in winning elections for MAGA. He swung elections.

But even so killing him was wrong. We can't kill people just for having ideology we disagree with.

 

If that holds true, then that could be a silver lining for our society.

 

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I think this is quite different. Trump was shot at but lived. So it wasn't a big deal.

I've already seen frightening levels of radicalization and demonization of the left and Dems as evil for causing this.

What's also crazy about this is that no known Democrat or Leftist out there had ever suggested to anyone to go out there and assault any right-winger let alone kill any of them. If anything, every actor out there aligned with the Democrats and progressives has also made it clear that violence of any kind is never the solution to any problem and that it instead plays right into the hands of conservatives, Trump, and MAGA. 

Even today, every Democrat and Leftist out there has already made all kinds of public statements vehemently condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

So, wtf are Democrats and the left-wing supposed to do?

Edited yesterday at 04:20 AM by Hardkill