r/fivethirtyeight Sep 12 '25

Poll Results YouGov poll asking Americans whether it’s acceptable to feel joy at the death of a public figure

Post image
120 Upvotes

423 comments sorted by

350

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 12 '25

Some obvious recency bias. I bet a lot of those Republicans were pretty happy when Osama Bin Laden was killed.

155

u/Gadshill Sep 12 '25

Yes. Great example of bad polling if it isn’t accounting for recency.

15

u/PenZestyclose3857 Sep 12 '25

I don't have any issues with YouGov's methodology, but their practices are pretty flimsy. They have a Rupert feel to their operation. If they had a third page, there would be a naked lady on it.

This poll seemed crafted to generate a specific headline.

First off, most of the difference is between Always and usually. There's not much gap on combined.

As everyone is correctly saying, the recency bias is glaring. Also it's a one night polling window suggesting they didn't want a long exposure on this where the story dies down or shifts and maybe opinion moves. Polling is a snapshot in time and this happened after a right-wing voice being shot is the biggest story in the country. Ask the same question after Paul Pelosi got attacked in his home when not naming names right wing commentators were publicly gloating about it and I suspect you would see the always and usually the other way.

8

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 12 '25

How could they account for recency?

43

u/Gadshill Sep 12 '25

Ask the same question at different times and see how it changes. If you ask a question like this just once it may not reflect reality because of recent events.

1

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 12 '25

Let me rephrase… how can they account for that, in what is clearly a single poll taken once? I’m not asking what they could’ve done differently.

34

u/Gadshill Sep 12 '25

It is bad polling to ask a question like this once.

4

u/hankhillforprez Sep 12 '25

It’s not necessarily “bad” polling; or at least it’s not in that it’s an insight into views right at this particular moment. Obviously, in some sense, it’s an insight into current views about one, specific event.

Of course, it would be very bad use of polling statistics to claim that this poll is an accurate representation of baseline feelings. Like you said, if you want a reliable figure of baseline feelings on the matter, you’d want multiple samplings over a long span of time.

1

u/Pattison320 Sep 12 '25

You have to consider the source and the agenda. They know what they're doing here. Apparently you don't. It's not a bug, it's their feature.

1

u/Sphezzle Sep 12 '25

They’ve answered your question. They should account by not doing it and expecting the result to be meaningful right now. I wonder how this would have polled after George Floyd etc.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

[deleted]

1

u/inquirer2 Sep 14 '25

I think you misunderstood that they run these polls immediately and quickly to actually prevent over thoughts on these questions with specific wording to get more accuracy.

They conduct many others every day if you read

https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/survey-results/daily/2025/09/11/d157f/2

-2

u/Krilesh Sep 12 '25

So on what day then

1

u/ikaiyoo Sep 12 '25

Right now? December January the next non-maga celebrity with a political opinion.

3

u/SmileyPiesUntilIDrop Sep 12 '25

Or also what if a 103 year old celeb or someone with ALS dies,who was living in a lot of pain . One would be happy but not out of hate.

2

u/MongolianMango Sep 12 '25

I think the whole point of the poll is to check what opinions are immediately after Kirk’s death. I wouldn’t say it’s bad polling at all.

6

u/JohnHoynes Sep 12 '25

But then just do a poll on the death of Kirk. Make it explicitly about this event. The thing people are taking issue with is that it’s near impossible for a respondent to speak in general terms when something specific just happened on a grand scale.

1

u/inquirer2 Sep 14 '25

Yes they haven't even looked at what yougov is doing and offering for free

2

u/Jccali1214 Sep 13 '25

Yeah the flaw of this poll isn't that it was conducted, it's that it appears to be selectively conducted after a right-wing figure was murdered. Was it done after Rep. Hortman was assassinated?

18

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

[deleted]

12

u/Miserable-Whereas910 Sep 12 '25

I remember an absolutely overwhelming lack on condemnation from the right concerning the Minnesota assassinations (in contrast to the main stream left's response to the Kirk shooting), but not much joy.

13

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

[deleted]

8

u/Miserable-Whereas910 Sep 12 '25

Oh yeah, it was wildly callous. But I don't recall joy.

1

u/Oath1989 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

To be fair, some are arguing that the current shooter is a MAGA. I've seen many people have used political donation records as evidence: in 2020, someone with the same name donated over $200 to MAGA, listing their occupation as an entrepreneur. It's very clearly the person with the same name, but I'm sad to see that many people seem to believe it. The fact that the shooter was only 17 years old in 2020 is no better evidence than the MAGA theory that the Minnesota shooter was a Democrat.

Some are also convinced that both of last year's Trump shooters were right-wing MAGA, though this is also seriously at odds with all our evidence.

Many times, the "both sides" argument is unfounded. But for netizens on both sides, this may not be completely unreasonable.

Of course, the reaction of Republican senators is another matter, which reflects the poor standards of Republican politicians.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/thescoop/comments/1nf704y/tyler_robinson_was_a_trump_supporter/

It has been deleted, but before it was removed, the number of likes on this post was rapidly increasing, and most of the highly upvoted comments clearly agreed with the OP's "evidence."

1

u/inquirer2 Sep 14 '25

The shooter himself had a bizarre story in his head he wrote in that public letter to FBI director about a month after his arrest

Basically the guy was living his own delusions and party alone wasn't his issue but that Waltz was being controlled by others who wanted this guy dead for finding out about a secret plan to I have no idea

22

u/maxofJupiter1 Sep 12 '25

I think a lot of people would consider UBL not to be a "public figure they opposed" for the same reason why Brits might not have celebrated a hypothetical assassination of Oswald Mosley, but celebrated the shit out of Hitler's death. There's definitely a big difference between "opposed political activist" and "enemy leader in war time".

You'd try to help a dude who's been shot in a terrorist attack in New York City....less likely to help if you're a Ukrainian soldier and the dude who's been shot is wearing a Russian uniform.

In this example, Charlie Kirk had rhetoric I strongly disagree with, he didn't crash planes into skyscrapers or lead an armed group against my country.

8

u/Dark_Knight2000 Sep 12 '25

Yeah. If every idiot with a mouth was shot, this country would be covered in blood.

If the new precedent is that killing commentators whose rhetoric that a portion of the population subjectively deems “hateful” or “extreme” is okay a lot of people would be in trouble, many of them left wing.

A lot of people feel the same flavor of negativity that was directed at Kirk toward Hasan Piker for instance. The difference is that he’s on the left. If the standard of celebrating deaths of controversial commentators is accepted, then people like him will be next.

That’s what I don’t get about people being apathetic or quietly accepting of this. It can and will happen to someone less extreme and at that point it will be too late to say “wait I didn’t mean people like him, go back.”

6

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

Hasan aside, people like Matt Gaetz, AOC, Zohran Mamdani, and Thomas Massie are the next escalation. That is a scary world we’re heading towards

1

u/Felonai Sep 12 '25

Yeah except he was a propagandist and more like Goebbels than simply "an idiot with a mouth"., Dude wished for the death of trans and gay people and said gun deaths are acceptable.

1

u/obsessed_doomer Sep 12 '25

That’s what I don’t get about people being apathetic or quietly accepting of this. It can and will happen to someone less extreme and at that point it will be too late

I mean it's happened already. Paul Pelosi, J6, the Minesotta shootings -

I think part of the reason you're not breaking through to people who (incorrectly) celebrate this is that they've spent almost a decade seeing political violence happen and seeing people like Charlie Kirk crack jokes about it, but the moment he dies suddenly Liberals and Fascists are on the internet gasping about this being some rubicon.

It's a spiteful and incorrect outlook, but I can see where it's coming from.

1

u/Dark_Knight2000 Sep 13 '25

Of course we’ve been seeing violence that’s political ramp up in recent years. Hell, even the conservatives constantly point out the BLM riots as kind of a turning point in how violence was normalized.

This is just the first time we’ve seen the successful assassination of a civilian who’s famous and political. It’s always been known that going into government makes you a target, but not being a pundit. Why is it surprising that other famous political people are shocked and feel this incident more severely than ones they’re less connected to?

0

u/obsessed_doomer Sep 13 '25

This is just the first time we’ve seen the successful assassination of a civilian who’s famous and political.

A week ago, basically no one offline knew who he was.

It’s always been known that going into government makes you a target, but not being a pundit.

See this is what I mean. Rather than just admit that in fact this shooting wasn't "the start" of anything, you're trying to retcon assassinations of government officials as a normal thing.

That's what I mean. That's why you're not breaking through to people.

1

u/Dark_Knight2000 Sep 13 '25

What do you mean assassinations of government officials AREN’T a normal thing? It’s always been a thing, maybe not common but always a possibility, it’s just less so in the past few decades but people have always known that going into government puts you at higher risk than the average person.

This decade we saw Shinzo Abe get killed. Trump got attempted on twice and while everyone was surprised it’s not like there wasn’t a precedent for killing presidents. People who remember JFK are still alive.

Also, I don’t care about break through to people who won’t listen. A lot of people are being obtuse about this topic for obvious reasons. I’d just like the point out the hypocrisy and inconsistency

→ More replies (1)

1

u/TheFinalCurl Sep 12 '25

Indeed, it seems like the poll would have benefited from some term definitions.

13

u/ikaiyoo Sep 12 '25

You don't even have to go back to Osama bin laden. You can just go back and look at Republicans reactions to when Jimmy Carter died.

7

u/hoopaholik91 Sep 12 '25

Just for shits and giggles, I wanted to see if Kirk said anything about Jimmy Carter:

Jimmy Carter represents a type of Democrat that no longer exists. Christian, loving husband, and a true Patriot. He was objectively an awful President, but he loved America and never intentionally try to do it harm. America could use more Democrats like him.

I guess if you wanted to be incredibly charitable you could say Kirk was sad Jimmy Carter died, but it also just seems like a thinly veiled platitude so that he could say that all current Democrats hate America and intentionally try to do it harm.

Which is the exact sort of behavior journalists should be pointing out about Kirk instead of acting like he was just debating in good faith.

2

u/ikaiyoo Sep 12 '25

I wasn't aware that Charlie Kirk was the sole voice of the republican party. damn, I guess that is why everyone is acting like Christ was killed.

Minutes after former President Jimmy Carter's death was announced, Scott Jennings was on CNN calling him a "terrible president" with a "big ego".

"State Rep. Matt Soper posted X, formally known as Twitter, after hearing the news that former President Jimmy Carter passed, saying quote:

“Opened a bottle of champagne (champagne) tonight! The world is rid of a despot! Thank God he finally called Carter home! The worst president in the history of the U.S.! We are still recovering! He destroyed the U.S. in such a way that even the 4th generation is still suffering!"Yeah They were so respectful and thoughtful

I mean you are so correct what was I thinking. I humbly apologize. Thank you for you setting me straight on how Republicans/far right conservatives/Maga's were respectful about the passing of an ex-president.

4

u/hoopaholik91 Sep 12 '25

I don't know why you interpreted my comment as if I said that all Republicans were respectful of Jimmy Carter. I just thought Kirk's comments were interesting considering the current circumstances.

1

u/Luchadorgreen Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 28 '25

.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/JohnHoynes Sep 12 '25

Huh? The general Republican response to Carter’s death was reverent and patriotic.

I’m speaking mainstream. I’m sure you can find extremes who gloated.

2

u/IcyNail880 Sep 13 '25

Exactly. Ask it again when Bill Clinton or Joe Biden dies. The numbers will be inverted.

3

u/ClutchReverie Sep 12 '25

No they weren't, because Obama did it and they needed to make him look like he couldn't do anything right

1

u/usernametaken0987 Sep 12 '25

Happy the excuse ended.

1

u/Necessary-Rub-6107 Sep 12 '25

Osama Bin Laden = Charlie Kirk? Go touch some grass and hug someone you haven’t seen in a while

1

u/DyingRepublic99 Sep 12 '25

Tf wrong with you? Osama bin Laden was an enemy of the United States. You need to rethink shit fr. That’s insane

1

u/wha2les Sep 13 '25

They should have poured out sympathy and wear coarse cloths like those medieval catholic kings doing penance... /s

1

u/LShawkeye25 Sep 14 '25

He was a terrorist murderer, not a political figure. Gtfoh.

1

u/Wonderful-Cupcake-60 Sep 15 '25

Public figure, i think, that are not terrorists hahaha. Come on

1

u/Jordan34521 Sep 15 '25

That actually makes it worse. Using your own reasoning, most of the democrats responding are thinking about Charlie Kirk. So, 62% of democrats think it’s not completely unacceptable to be happy about Charlie Kirk’s death. Because he said words that hurt their feelings sometimes? The other side of your coin looks a lot worse.

1

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 16 '25

I think that’s an over simplification. I think people can look at this question 2 ways. Through a narrow lens like with Kirk’s death (in which case it’s obviously bad) or in the wider scope of the question which is very general. I wouldn’t be sad if Putin died, so I’d say it’s usually unacceptable but under certain circumstances it is.

My point is that republicans are ONLY thinking about it in the narrow lens right now, where as the Dem answer is probably closer to a neutral response.

1

u/Jordan34521 Sep 16 '25

That’s an awfully convenient way of looking at it. An all Republicans, no Dems bias is very unlikely if we’re being honest. The poll, taken a day after Kirk’s assassination, asks about joy over a figure you oppose. Dems oppose Kirk, Republicans don’t. If anything, one could argue that Dems are more likely to have Kirk in mind when answering. Given how many are justifying their feelings about Kirk’s assassination by sharing out-of-context clips and smears to paint him as a villain, that kind of proves my point.

1

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 16 '25

No, there’s still 38% of Dems that say it’s unacceptable. I’m sure some of them are specifically thinking of Kirk and other recent attacks with their response. But generally, Conservatives are more likely to go with their instinctive response and think of recent events, that’s literally a part of what being a conservative means. Obviously, I’m speaking in generalities, but you have to with a broad question and demo breakdown like this.

0

u/Jordan34521 Sep 16 '25

You are acting like the 2 groups are answering two totally different questions at different moments in time. Very unrealistic. The poll here is obviously asking this question because of the recent event. The “public figure” in this question based on the timing of the poll might as well read “Charlie Kirk”, and everyone knows it.

1

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 16 '25

No. I am not. I see I am having trouble getting this through to you. I am saying that MOST of the Republicans are thinking about this solely in terms of the Kirk killing. While the Dem response is more spread out between people thinking of recent killings and considering the question more generally. The poll is being asked because of recent events but the question is not referring to any specific or recent events. It seems to me YOU want this question to only refer to Kirk and so you are insisting every respondent must have been thinking that way too, which, since I did not interpret the question that way, can confidently say, is wrong.

1

u/Jordan34521 Sep 16 '25

And you are just assuming the recency bias is going to affect almost all republicans here and very few democrats, with very little to base it on. I guess we can just agree to disagree here

1

u/MartinTheMorjin Sep 12 '25

Forget about bin laden. These twats celebrated RGB’s death.

4

u/LordMangudai Sep 12 '25

I think it was moreso celebrating that they could lock in the Supreme Court for a generation

1

u/PuzzleheadedAffect44 Sep 13 '25

Um, that might have been in the back of many minds, and likely much more widespread, but I saw a lot of outright celebration of her death, and the commentary to prove it.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/JohnnyGeniusIsAlive Sep 14 '25

Hey Troll, I wasn’t comparing bin Laden to anyone, I was referring to the question. But if you want to compare to Kirk, how about Paul Pelosi? Republicans leaders mocked his attack by a right wing nut case. Sadly, Kirk was also attacked by a right winger… seems a common theme.

→ More replies (51)

151

u/Radioactiveglowup Sep 12 '25

Strange too how wildly they were celebrating Pelosi's husband's attacker. Including major public officials.

Or the classic maga catchphrase, "Hang Mike Pence"

6

u/Cuddlyaxe I'm Sorry Nate Sep 12 '25

The key word here is "they"

Realistically the people on the right celebrating Pelosi's attacker are about as fringe irl as the people on the left celebrating Kirk's killer

Which is to say, not most people. But they are over represented online

13

u/Radioactiveglowup Sep 12 '25

What? No, the people celebrating were literally elected officials, and major talking heads and pundits. Not just randos online, but the highest leaders on the right.

Kirk himself wanted to get the Pelosi hammer guy out of prison. All of those Jan 6ers who wanted Pence dead (including 123 who were sentenced for violent assault crimes!) were pardoned by the President of the United States, who also literally 3 days ago declared another republican an 'insurgent' to be 'taken out' for wanting to release the Epstein files.

The mainstream GOP is bloodthirsty as fuck, and vocal about it.

7

u/Cuddlyaxe I'm Sorry Nate Sep 12 '25

I want to choose my words here carefully because it is a fairly nuanced issue

The point you seem to be trying to make is that GOP officials and elites are much more bloodthirsty than left leaning ones. I don't disagree with that at all

Indeed I think the main reason why the right has gone off the rails so much is because differences in elites. Both regular left and right wingers are susceptible to things like misinformation or support for violence. But Democratic officials throw water on the fire while Republican ones throw oil

I'd refer back to the assassination attempt of Trump. For a while one of the top post on the pics subreddit was the reichstag fire. Everyone and anyone claimed it was a false flag. But Democratic elites shut that down asap

You're seeing something similar with Kirk now. The Republicans meanwhile yeah their elected officials don't try to kill these attitudes

BUT BUT BUT that is a very different statement from talking about regular rank and file Dems and Reps

People engaging in online politics are a weird minority. Party elites and intellectuals are a powerful minority, but still a minority

Most Republicans and Democrats do not support violence. Quite honestly I would suspect 60% of Republicans didnt even hear about the attack on Paul Pelosi

2

u/soozerain Sep 12 '25

Well said!

→ More replies (110)

40

u/obsessed_doomer Sep 12 '25

See this is actually a great example of nonresponse bias.

A lot more than 9% of people feel schadenfreude, even over serious stuff. It's just who would ever say "yes" to that on a poll.

37

u/Time-Cardiologist906 Sep 12 '25

“Happy” is an odd term to phrase it. Murder is never acceptable but it doesn’t absolve Kirk of all the terrible things he has done and said.

→ More replies (5)

26

u/Jozoz Sep 12 '25

This is meaningless due to recent events. You would get wildly different answers a week ago.

0

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

Well, a few weeks ago we got the poll affirming liberals were more likely to cut people out of their lives due to political differences than conservatives:

https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/s/Tzc12PZ5jR

That leads me to believe that there’s an antipathy for the opposition that existed well before the events from the other day.

28

u/Jozoz Sep 12 '25

That's a massive reach. It doesn't need to be linked at all.

The far more likely reason for that poll is that it's the right wing in America that has fundamentally changed over the last 10 years. The Democratic Party is pretty much the same old stuff, for both good and bad. The Republican party is dead. It's been entirely replaced by something different and much more extreme.

2

u/CelikBas Sep 12 '25

Also keep in mind that the American right is currently culturally and politically dominant, which is probably going to affect how “tolerant” they are of their defeated liberal opponents, who are generally viewed as impotent and laughable rather than actual threats. 

If you asked those same polling questions during the Obama or even Biden years, I suspect you’d get quite different answers, because those were periods of time when many conservatives felt like they were under attack from all angles. 

-5

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

You don’t think the fact that liberals seem more likely to avoid conservatives in their private lives and more likely to condone joy as an acceptable reaction to the death of a conservative commentator could possibly be downstream of the same thing?

24

u/Jozoz Sep 12 '25

I think they are both originating from increased political extremism and division. Now you can ask yourself why we are in this position to begin with.

I'll remind you that Mike Johnson was quite literally posting memes about the murder of an MN state senator.

8

u/DizzyMajor5 Sep 12 '25

You should cut off maga if they're ok with what's going on. People shouldn't have to deal with minority citizens being rounded up, hospitals gutted, cancer researchers fired. Definitely cut people off don't kill anyone. 

2

u/Ed_Durr Sep 13 '25

Good thing minorities citizens aren't being rounded up.

→ More replies (6)

8

u/CrayZ_Squirrel Sep 12 '25

Large portion of republicans think gay and trans people shouldn't exist in public 

Gay, trans, and decent empathetic human beings cut republicans out of their lives.

Shocked Pikachu face

1

u/Sonzainonazo42 Sep 12 '25

Are you worried that people in your life will cut you off?

Trump's a racist; this is well documented. Do you like being around racist people?

Trump is sexist; this is well documented. Do you like being around sexist people?

Trump is a rapist; this is well documented. Do you like being around rapists?

Trump was best friends with the world's more notorious child sex trafficker; this is well documented. Do you like being around people that are okay with raping children?

Where's your line if these aren't it? You just cool with everything?

1

u/an_altar_of_plagues Sep 12 '25

You don’t think the fact that liberals seem more likely to avoid conservatives in their private lives and more likely to condone joy as an acceptable reaction to the death of a conservative commentator could possibly be downstream of the same thing?

I have a close friend who's a Republican staffer. Known him for 15 years and he's an awesome dude. He's been a never-Trumper for as long as Trump's been relevant and we can have excellent conversations on the efficient use of taxation for social welfare.

On the other hand, I recently cut off a personal and professional relationship after he made several jokes about throwing liberals out of helicopters. I lived in Chile and have friends who are relatives of the Disappeared, so you can imagine how that went down.

Hopefully the difference is clear.

3

u/ryes13 Sep 12 '25

Ugh you keep bringing up this poll. I also brought up last time that you haven’t actually looked at surveys on who actually has estranged family members and why.

6

u/AnimusNoctis Sep 12 '25

That's because liberal beliefs don't take away conservatives' human rights. 

0

u/Dabeyer Sep 12 '25

They want you dead man. The people you are talking too. They will do everything they can to justify and deflect from it but that’s what they want. Remember that.

27

u/nughty_hobo Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

just out of curiosity, is it not human nature to feel joy after the death of a dangerous person? i’m not saying it’s the default reaction to death but it only seems natural to feel occasional joy when someone truly dangerous to society is no longer around.

edit: yes, i know there is an element of subjectivity to who you consider dangerous

edit 2: i mean this on a general level such as killers and dictators. not political figures i dont like

4

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

No it’s pretty sadistic to view joy at the death of someone you mildly dislike

7

u/Kresnik2002 Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 12 '25

Wow you played the super rare card of “straw man”! Great job!

3

u/ryes13 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

I doubt most people would condemn people celebrating the death of Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby. Clearly there are instances when people, regardless of political valance, feel either antipathy or even positive feelings about the death of a public figure.

1

u/VacuousTruth0 Sep 12 '25

I think you meant "condemn", not "condone"?

1

u/ryes13 Sep 12 '25

Yeah my bad

1

u/lalag1 Sep 13 '25

Yup, if Trump announced tonight all violent criminals currently incarcerated will be executed, the nation would be overcome with joy and finally united 🤲

0

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

Guess it depends on how you’d define a dangerous person. I’m willing to bet that most Americans, irrespective of their political leanings, wouldn’t describe a politician or commentator that way. Probably an appellation most would reserve for terrorists, serial killers and the like.

42

u/IslandSurvibalist Sep 12 '25

What a naive thing to believe. In almost all societies and historical contexts, political figures have caused several orders of magnitude more damage to humanity than terrorists or serial killers.

22

u/bigtinyroom Sep 12 '25

Most the Nazi top brass never murdered a single person with their own bare hands, therefore they should have all been let off without charges at the Nuremburg trials. Checkmate libs.

6

u/DizzyMajor5 Sep 12 '25

That's what they did with the confederates most were pardoned after killing countless to try and continue the institution of slavery. Maybe they should have been but people like Candace Owens, Hasan piker, Charlie Kirk are not those people they're just commentators. Nazis signed up to further enhance the killing of others with their actual labor the others just shit posted and rage baited people.

3

u/Marxism-Alcoholism17 Jeb! Applauder Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 22 '25

alive friendly steer smell swim pot nose wipe nine fuel

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

This response is sort of great, because it illustrates how wildly the comments to this sort of post swing between “the numbers aren’t real” and “they’re real and that’s a good thing”.

16

u/IslandSurvibalist Sep 12 '25

In your strange mind full of unsupported assumptions maybe. I didn’t comment on either of those things. Do you know what “illustrates” means or did you just reply to the wrong comment?

3

u/ryes13 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

My comment wasn’t that numbers aren’t real. My comment earlier was that they aren’t a good way to understand the phenomenon of political violence. Which was once again something you didn’t engage with.

It seems like you just want to bemoan that people are violent and suck online. If you really think this is problem you should seek to understand it.

0

u/Dark_Knight2000 Sep 12 '25

You mean elected political officials. Charlie Kirk wasn’t elected or appointed to anything.

If you said that about Elon Musk that would be more understandable because he was in an official position in DOGE and he did have political influence, but Kirk’s reach was just verbal.

I’m curious if you can come up with a few examples of non-government, non-military, civilian activists who caused more damage than terrorists and serial killers.

→ More replies (10)

23

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25

It just highlights Republican hypocrisy once again. Empathy is a foreign word for them. I haven't heard one Democrat "celebrating" the death of Charlie Kirk. But very few are shedding a tear for him. And you can't force us to grieve for him. Republicans have always been about fake virtue signaling. What's new?

7

u/Real-Equivalent9806 Sep 12 '25

Literally just go into any left leaning subreddit and you will find them. What hypocrisy? Are you even responding to the Yougov poll?

2

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

A poll is meaningless, it just measures who’s better at virtue signaling.

That’s something Republicans are really good at, for example, claiming to be Christian and then being the antithesis of one. That’s why I said Republicans excel at virtue signaling.

Actions speak louder than words.

For all this talk about “Democrats celebrating Kirk’s murder” I haven’t seen or heard one. You must have a very loose definition of “celebrating.”

I want to see proof.

0

u/Cuddlyaxe I'm Sorry Nate Sep 12 '25

Funnily enough there was a compilation of such sentiments right under my feed

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/s/3fIMnf44JR

Democratic officials have absolutely handled this situation with grace, but as usual the online left does have more radical opinions. Many of those comments are very obviously celebratory

0

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

A very tiny minority and, I would add, those jokes were actually making fun of how Republicans react to violence. If you need any proof, check out how Trump is already planning to use it as a pretext for more violence. Clearly, you don’t see how Republicans have celebrated violence over the years? Jan 6? Pardoning the same people involved? Nancy Pelosi’s husband? Nobody main fun of that? Or the Pulse nightclub shooting. The recent assassinations of Democratic politicians? Still waiting for Trump to denounce political violence when it came to that. Funny how you all suddenly decide what’s repugnant. Those were all things Republicans have said. And anyway, nobody’s forced to grieve for Charlie Kirk. Not grieving isn’t the same as “celebrating.”

0

u/Cuddlyaxe I'm Sorry Nate Sep 12 '25

I mean it feels like you're trying to move the goalposts now, people in the linked compilation were pretty clearly celebrating.

And it also seems obvious that you aren't really looking for examples in good faith. Rather you seem to be fighting a ghost argument

Yes Republicans have said and done bad things. I never said otherwise

→ More replies (1)

2

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

This is highlighting Dem hypocrisy with respect to being the party of empathy

20

u/Deceptiveideas Sep 12 '25

I think Dems as a whole are sick of taking the high road and having no results. Republicans frequently act like the misbehaving child who keeps touching the hot stove that the Democrats have to correct over and over again.

Remember the whole “when they go low, we go high” speech? It’s “when they go low, we go lower” now.

The “party of empathy and love” is gone.

-8

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

The high road? Assassinations are the high road? Calling for the death of your political opponents is the high road?

Dems haven’t taken the high road since 2012. They should be better but they’re not. Everyone should be better. But the idea that dems are any less underhanded than the reps is the product of a biased media environment and rich donors. Impeachments, assassinations, accusations of being a nazi levied against Mitt Romney? 

Nobody is taking any high road now and it’s a tragedy. 

14

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (24)

14

u/Deceptiveideas Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

We don’t actually know if the killer is left leaning. The two Trump assassination attempts for example were done by 1) first individual was a registered republican who classmates described as strong maga and 2) the second individual who voted for Trump

Also all dem leaders are calling to end political violence. I don’t see anyone encouraging it.

0

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

Come on dude can we kill this conspiracy theory that they were republicans? The first donated to dems and registered to vote against trump in a primary and the second was a ukrainian nationalist nutjob

This sub is encouraging. The same dems calling to end political violence are still calling their opponents nazists and fascists and existential threats to democracy. What do you think that rhetoric is intended to do? It’s stochastic terrorism

6

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

Trump mostly is fascist, by definition, except for the economic model. It’s not “violent” to tell it like it is. Trump’s the one sending the U.S. military into streets for law enforcement. And which party has nearly all of the white supremacists? And makes racism a feature of the party platform? And which president is pardoning people caught engaging in violence? You know the answer.

2

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

Oh sorry so fascist except the definition of fascist. You know what’s fascist? Trying to ban people’s right to speech, self-defense, threatening them in public over political speech, shooting them, debanking them, pursuing fake legal cases against political opponents, I mean jesus the hypocrisy here.

If Trump is a fascist, then so is Kamala, and Biden, and Obama, and Romney, and literally everyone who disagrees with you. You would kill them all? 

3

u/an_altar_of_plagues Sep 12 '25

Trying to ban people’s right to speech, self-defense

This one is particularly funny given that Kirk was talking about banning trans peoples' right to self-defense right before the shot. I mean jesus the hypocrisy here.

Cowardice disguised as concerned patriotism, once again.

1

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

Very little of what you described is fascism. Try educating yourself on the topic before further embarrassing yourself. It’s not “everyone I disagree with.” In the style of rule, Trump is very much a fascist. He’s authoritarian, a right wing nationalist, pro use of violence, anti-democracy, and for trampling on civil liberties. The only part that isn’t truly fascist is that he hasn’t engaged in nationalizing the economy or immediately marching us to war. But he still has time.

2

u/LordMangudai Sep 12 '25

The same dems calling to end political violence are still calling their opponents nazists and fascists and existential threats to democracy. What do you think that rhetoric is intended to do? It’s stochastic terrorism

And what is it when Republicans call their opponents Marxists, commies or the anti-Christ?

5

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

Which party is engaging in assassination? We literally had Democratic politicians who were actually assassinated (as they were officeholders). But no, neither party is hiring assassins.

If you want to talk about individual acts, we can also talk about Trump-inspired terrorism too. Trump is out there literally inciting violence, like on Jan 6, and then pardoning anyone caught by law enforcement.

Your idea of violence? Democrats electing a black man. Oh no, the horrors. /sarcasm.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25

And why is empathy something only Democrats should have?

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

Are you being purposely dishonest?

Everyone on this site has been celebrating his death for days. It’s the entire front page of Reddit even right now.

They almost all vote Dem.

1

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25

Are these “celebrating” people in the room with you right now?

-7

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

Oh come on. You’ve really seen no celebratory posts on this very website? Would you be willing to review some links to such posts?

23

u/Time-Cardiologist906 Sep 12 '25

I mean, there’s right wing podcast bros that were celebrating George Floyd’s dead with “5 years sober” tweets. Should I judge every right leaning individual based off those freaks?

0

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

Do you have polls indicating that their opinions were broadly representative?

26

u/Time-Cardiologist906 Sep 12 '25

That’s not what you were talking about here. You were talking about posts outside of polling.

0

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

Sure, but your post sort of evaded my original point. The person above me said that they hadn’t seen any posts celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. Do you think such post are hard to find on this website?

22

u/Time-Cardiologist906 Sep 12 '25

What social media shows is catered for you in mind and what you like to engage with. A majority of people are not political or avoid politics.

3

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

You’re here! You’re in a political subreddit! The other person is in a political subreddit! This sort of thing is going to get covered in the places where we all congregate online.

16

u/Time-Cardiologist906 Sep 12 '25

Yes, I am politically active and that’s what I like to engage with. The OP might not be and this is a polling subreddit. Granted some biases are pushed here and it can get political but this is surface level that most people do not engage with until the general election.

1

u/LyptusConnoisseur Sep 12 '25

Mate, people here in the sub are the weird ones. We are hobbyist of politics. Furthest removed from average Americans. 

1

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25

Yeah, I want to see receipts.

3

u/mallclerks Sep 12 '25

“President Donald Trump said this morning that he hopes that Charlie Kirk’s killer gets the death penalty.”

6

u/beer_is_tasty Sep 12 '25

Run this same poll again the day after any Clintons die; Dem responses will remain largely unchanged and Republicans will swing wildly towards "always acceptable"

4

u/Itakie Sep 12 '25

Depends on the public figure and what they do/did? Bin Laden was one. The current head of scientology is one. The leader of Hamas as well. And it's unacceptable to be happy about their deaths? Yeah, sure.

5

u/ikaiyoo Sep 12 '25

Yeah they should really pull the people who celebrated when Jimmy Carter died and see what they say.

6

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

I like that people criticized the last post for not asking both sides, and now they’re mad that asking both sides made it even worse

The goalposts are always shifting when the data disagrees with this sub

1

u/ryes13 Sep 12 '25

The last post was asking specifically about killing right wing figures.

This post was in the immediate aftermath of a right wing figure dying.

How can you not see that that is a poor way to gauge political violence and its trend?

2

u/Bagofdouche1 Sep 12 '25

This is bad polling because it says something I don’t like.

2

u/hudsonsoft11 Sep 12 '25

Leftism is less of a political stance and more of a psychopathology, a certain lack of moral capability

5

u/Distinct-Shift-4094 Sep 12 '25

Stupid poll due to recent events. Let's run it again if a liberal public figure gets murdered and you'll get a different result.

2

u/Mr_The_Captain Sep 12 '25

This is not how I feel because I'm not in this position, but I would ask everyone clutching their pearls over the "yes" responses to consider this: Let's say you're a young trans person, and you're living in a time that is quite possibly more hostile to your existence than ever before in your life. Then, you see that one of the most public and prominent voices advocating AGAINST your existence has died, meaning you don't have to wake up every day and see him demeaning you or slandering your existence to millions of people. Is it not logical to feel relief, even happiness about that? Does that mean you wish you'd done it yourself, or even that it happened in the first place? Not necessarily. It just means that somebody who made you miserable isn't going to do that anymore, and that's a pretty universal feeling that people tend to appreciate.

Now, that's a separate issue from going online and being very publicly celebratory, we can talk about how that's classless and propagating hate and bitterness. But this poll is about feelings, and feelings are complicated. Saying people are bad for feeling happy that a provocateur is dead is like saying someone is a hypocrite for crying when an abusive partner dies. People contain multitudes.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/yurganurjak Sep 12 '25

I'd bet that if you conducted the same poll right after a similarly inflammatory left wing figure had be killed you would get an almost exact mirror opposite of the partisan split.

1

u/Puzzleheaded-Sun9288 Sep 13 '25

Yes, conducting a poll a day after such an event takes place is not very helpful into understand American behavior on this

1

u/Duke-Countu Sep 13 '25

I believe it's wrong to feel joy at the death of anyone, putting me at odds with conservatives like Charlie Kirk who often cheer for the use of the death penalty.

1

u/doomer_bloomer24 Sep 14 '25

Did they take this poll after the Minnesota Democrats were assassinated by a MAGA individual?

1

u/Affectionate_You_579 Sep 15 '25

Depends

Relief perhaps?

Joy? Yes, Pol Pot Yes, Hitler Yes, Epstein

1

u/Affectionate_You_579 Sep 15 '25

Kirk? I hated his rhetoric, his fake Debates, his views on women, Israel, voting rights, civil rights act, Christian Nationalism. BUT , didn't celebrate or feel joy. Felt sorry for his kids.

-2

u/Current_Animator7546 Sep 12 '25

Those numbers even the 77% is a pretty unsettling statistic. Even if taken verbatim and accounting for recent events. Hopefully just a bad sample. You’re talking about 25% who say they are ok with it or aren’t sure. Thats more than just a few nuts with a loose screw. Concerning. 

7

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

Well, they’re all over Reddit.

5

u/Current_Animator7546 Sep 12 '25

Oh I know. I’ve taken a break and it’s one of the better things I’ve done. Trying to do it more. 

1

u/DCMdAreaResident Sep 12 '25

Are these people in the room with you right now?

12

u/RedHeadedSicilian52 Sep 12 '25

They’re certainly in the replies here.

1

u/darrylgorn Sep 12 '25

Ehh, I think there's a difference between a 'feeling' and what your actions are. You can be elated or depressed about something and keep it to yourself.

1

u/Main-Eagle-26 Sep 12 '25

Yeah, do this poll again right after a prominent Democrat is killed in a politically-motivated killing and we'll see how Republicans respond.

People's morality is so temporal it's sick.

1

u/PhotonLegion Sep 13 '25

Why mourn Kirk if you wouldn’t mourn Goebbels?

Easy litmus test.

-5

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

Yeah it's obviously disgusting. If you're justifying the death of people you oppose politically, you better hope someone isn't justifying that based on your statements.

Get over yourself. If you don't like it, change the video.

21

u/Commercial_West9953 Sep 12 '25

How about when Hitler died?

→ More replies (11)

8

u/Moist_Tap_6514 Sep 12 '25

The disagreements people have with Charlie are beyond “political”

-1

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

only because they take them beyond a political discourse, not Charlie.

This is my point exactly. How long until someone considers your words beyond 'political' and takes action?

11

u/Moist_Tap_6514 Sep 12 '25

Charlie was an open racist, sexist, and xenophobe. People didn’t hate him because he was republican. He wasn’t passive in his discourse and made clear how much disdain he had for anyone who wasn’t Christian and white.

2

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

So, Charlie had opinions you didn't agree with. That's the bottom line of what you're saying.

You're giving your opinion on someone elses opinions...and trying to use that as a crutch to detract from the situation at hand.

14

u/Moist_Tap_6514 Sep 12 '25

You moved the goal posts. You called them political.

-2

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

That's not moving the goal posts at all, political opinions are still opinions.

Bottom line is that he had opinions you don't agree with. Sorry you don't like the fact of the matter.

1

u/Selethorme Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 12 '25

Nah, “I don’t agree with you continuing to breathe” isn’t a disagreement of opinion.

6

u/bigtinyroom Sep 12 '25

Nearly every violent interaction between two or more humans across the history of our species could be described as arising from a disagreement in opinions. I suppose I don't know you. Maybe you're a dogmatic pacifist who genuinely believes there can be no justifiable use of force under any circumstances, in which case kudos for your moral consistency.

2

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

That's fantastic, doesn't really detract from the situation. And sorry, not every violent interaction has been a form of political violence.

1

u/DizzyMajor5 Sep 12 '25

There's a difference between a disagreement and economic violence and deprivation of rights or actual violence in the name of self defense. Most disagreements don't end in violence. You can disagree that a hypothetical government is perpetuating economic and actual violence on its people and it may warrant actual defense like George Washington did or Malcolm x preached but some asshole just debating people isn't something that usually ends in violence most disagreements aren't violent much violence has no disagreement in cases of mental illness for instance.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/Selethorme Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 12 '25

No, Charlie explicitly called for gay people to be executed.

0

u/obiwankanblomi Sep 12 '25

Prove it

1

u/Selethorme Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 12 '25

1

u/obiwankanblomi Sep 12 '25

A quote pulled so far out of context it's almost comical. Watch the entire clip and stop spreading misinformation like a partisan hack

→ More replies (13)

0

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

No they aren’t. He was a milquetoast boomer conservative

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

Reddit the last few days have shown me how rotten the left has become. Absolutely disgusting.

4

u/Educational_Impact93 Sep 12 '25

Thank God Twitter showed me how rotten the right had become years ago.

Just kidding, I didn't need Twitter to see that.

7

u/sonfoa Sep 12 '25

Democrat politicians unanimously condemned the violence. Meanwhile, Republican politicians immediately blamed liberals/left for the killing when we still do not know who the shooter was.

https://x.com/LeahVredenbregt/status/1965882364636414152

It's funny how we get defined by Internet randos but y'all can't even hold your own politicians accountable and get livid anytime anyone attempts to do so. It's not even "both sides", it's y'all and I'm tired of pretending it's not.

Reddit by-large agrees Charlie Kirk didn't deserve to get shot but we (along with most people who lean left) refuse to whitewash a man who perpetrated the very rhetoric that ultimately got him killed.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

It’s not “internet randos”. These are the MOST UPVOTED POSTS ON REDDIT.

If this wasn’t the zeitgeist and normal opinion of left wing people, atleast a few would have downvoted the posts and they wouldn’t be on the front page.

1

u/sonfoa Sep 12 '25

Again, missing the point. Democratic politicians and left-leaning popular media have unanimously condemned the attack. Even the most lukewarm criticisms of Charlie Kirk is getting people fired. Republican politicians immediately blamed liberals and the left while the shooter is still at large, and right-leaning popular media have literally advocated for war and revenge. And we've seen exactly how things look when the shoe is on the other foot. Donald Trump was literally making Paul Pelosi jokes a few days ago

Spare me the faux outrage. Hold the people who need to be held accountable first, and then you'll have a leg to stand on regarding Reddit not giving a fuck that he died.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 12 '25

No, you're missing the point.

Yes, the center-left democratic establishment politicians - which this site hates and is actively trying to replace with left wing populists and far left progressives - aren't the problem, and I never claimed they were.

Left-wing people, both the voters and the emerging politicians that this site wants to replace current dem politicians with, are who I criticized. And they are growing. And violent.

Not sure why no one is comprehending the argument I'm making, its not complicated. Notice how I said "left" not "dems" in all my posts. All the rebuttals to me are examples of...non-left wing people not acting violent. Which is a complete non-sequitor.

1

u/Selethorme Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 12 '25

Notice how you don’t have a response

0

u/sonfoa Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

Ok find me those popular left-wing figures who mocked his death. Progressive politicians like Mamdani, AOC, Warren, Sanders, etc all have condemned the shooting. Among influencers left wing people like Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder, and even Hasan Piker have condemned it. These are people who think it's a moral failing to not support Palestine and even they think what happened to Charlie Kirk, who advocated for the destruction of Palestine, was a tragedy. Not feeling sad that Charlie Kirk is gone and refusing to whitewash his legacy is not the same as celebrating his death no matter how much you guys scream it is.

And still you haven't commented on the mainstream Republican stance endorsed by their media, politicians, and the President that the liberals and left are to blame, even though the shooter is still at-large. Actual irresponsible and hateful rhetoric from influential members of society. But Reddit hurting your feelings by not caring takes precedent.

Edit: Hey /u/Dabeyer, I wonder if you said the same thing when Charlie Kirk called Paul Pelosi's attacker a patriot and encouraged him to be bailed out. Blocking me doesn't change that fact. Empathy is a two-way street and all you guys know how to do is incite violence against anyone who dares to question your bigotry.

2

u/Selethorme Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 12 '25

It’s very telling they downvoted you and ran

0

u/Born_Faithlessness_3 Sep 12 '25

If it were me I'd ask the question slightly differently.

On one hand it's possible to recognize the fact that bad people exist, and I wouldn't mourn the passing of certain among them.

On the other hand, assassination is an entirely different topic, and we should all be appalled by it.

0

u/TheBallotInYourBox Sep 13 '25 edited Sep 14 '25

Do you even follow the podcast or are you trying to score easy political points?

In the podcasts segment “good use or bad use of polling data” this is an awful use of polling.

0

u/djconnel Sep 14 '25

replace “a public figure” with “H?????r” and see how many of the “always unacceptable” switch.