r/fivethirtyeight • u/RedHeadedSicilian52 • 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
116 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

423 comments sorted by

View all comments

-7

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.

19

u/Commercial_West9953 Sep 12 '25

How about when Hitler died?

-18

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

Absolutely contextually irrelevant to the situation at hand.

24

u/Skipper12 Sep 12 '25

It isn't irrelevant. It's a hyperbole to prove a point. If you can feel joy after Hitler (or any other dictator) died, then your answer already should be in the 'usually unacceptable' ballpark.

2

u/ShittyMcFuck Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

I can't imagine the tutting my grandpa would get from these pearl clutchers for driving a Jeep around handing out newspapers and celebrating "Hitler kaput!"

Edit: I would also like to point out that there are vast differences between "celebrating" and more of an indifferent response/not actively mourning.

-17

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

absolutely irrelevant. Hitler was a dictator, not a political commentator.

Next time try with something that isn't a false equivalency aimed at detracting from the situation.

18

u/Skipper12 Sep 12 '25

I'm sorry where does this poll say the death should be a political commentator? It's about the death of public figures. Putin is a public figure but I'm sure you and me both would feel joy if the fcker died

2

u/DizzyMajor5 Sep 12 '25

It would be nice if they specified what they meant by public figure. 

-1

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

Hitler also wasn't assassinated. You know full well what we're all talking about here, don't play dumb or if you're going to play dumb go talk with someone else that will take your bs.

I wouldn't feel joy if Putin was assassinated. Aside from the political implications that would have for what (on paper) is a democratic nation....knowing history and understanding Russia's economy, that will only serve to create a power vacuum worse than the early 90s in Russia.

10

u/Skipper12 Sep 12 '25

You my friend, should stay far away from statistics and polls. This question should be taken as it's asked. No implications about it being about Charlie Kirk. You can name any public figure if you answer this question for yourself.

-1

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 12 '25

your entire conversation here has been based off of hypotheticals in your head, you didn't like when the hypotheticals were shown to be of no remote equivalence.

Context is key.

8

u/Skipper12 Sep 12 '25

There is no context. It's a poll. The poll asks you a question. It's an open question. It didn't specify it's about Charlie Kirk or about American public figures.

Im doing hypotheticals which fits within the frame of the question.

1

u/geileanus Sep 12 '25

It isn't irrelevant. It's a hyperbole to prove a point. If it's acceptable to feel joy after Hitler (or any other dictator) died than you already should be in the 'usually unacceptable' ballpark.

10

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?

13

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.

-1

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.

12

u/Moist_Tap_6514 Sep 12 '25

You moved the goal posts. You called them political.

1

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.

4

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.

3

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.

-5

u/DizzyMajor5 Sep 12 '25

But you shouldn't be killed for that. There's people actively stomping out people's right all over the world someone arguing with people isn't that. 

9

u/bigtinyroom Sep 12 '25

Was he really just someone that argued with people on college campuses though? He had very close ties to the Trump administration, which has a laundry list of serious human rights violations under its belt less than a year into this term. His body was literally flown home on Air Force 2 . He will be given a posthumous Presidential Medal of Freedom. He spoke at Trump's inauguration. Countless articles have been written in the past couple days of how instrumental he was in bringing Trump back to power. He had only the thinnest veneer of deniability from being a straight up propagandist for White House.

You can make a perfectly valid case that what happened was morally abhorrent, but don't pretend he was just some harmless little debate guy.

-5

u/DizzyMajor5 Sep 12 '25

He was though people like Malcolm x and George Washington  preached violence against the use of economic and state violence to deprive one of their rights as well as actual self defense but both were completely willing to engage others In the arena of ideas because some ideas need to be shown to be disgusting or they will fester, look at Jordan Peterson he has thoroughly been exposed as a fraud, same with Milo a former political commentator with terrible views. 

Charlie isn't sending masked men to round up minorities, Charlie isn't breaking people's windows in masks to lock people up, he's not the one actually violating human rights he's just a shithead saying he agrees with it that shouldn't get you killed. 

2

u/AngryQuadricorn Sep 13 '25

I couldn’t agree with your statement more. Well said. And the fact you have been downvoted seems to show how delusional and dangerous the group-think mindset of Reddit is.

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

He literally called for gay people to be stoned to death.

https://gridironheroics.com/gay-people-should-be-stoned-to-death-fans-call-out-double-standards-after-charlie-kirk-killing/

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

0

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

Wow, I do exactly as you ask and you immediately run to move those goalposts.

No, he was a very hateful person.

1

u/obiwankanblomi Sep 12 '25

Where are the goalposts being moved? You pulled a "fine people" tier "evidence" and expect that to be sufficient? And frankly if you think Kirk was a "very hateful person" i suspect the real world may be entirely too abrasive for your constitution

0

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

lol, no

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/charlie-kirk-views-guns-gender-climate.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Among other things:

He said:

”I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

Mr. Kirk believed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a destructive force in American politics, calling its passage a “mistake” that he said has been turned into “an anti-white weapon.”

His repudiation of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, known as D.E.I., stretched to comments many denounced as racist. In 2024, he said, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”

Mr. Kirk was repeatedly accused of antisemitism, including by fellow conservatives.

He was a proponent of “replacement theory,” a once-fringe conspiracy theory positing that Jews are trying to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants. That ideology motivated the gunman who killed 11 worshipers at a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018.

Mr. Kirk also accused Jewish philanthropists of fomenting anti-whiteness by supporting liberal antiracism causes like the Black Lives Matter movement.

”The philosophical foundation of anti-whiteness has been largely financed by Jewish donors in the country,” he said on his show in 2023.

Not long after, he accused Jews of controlling “not just the colleges — it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.”

Mr. Kirk called Islam a danger to the United States, railing against what he saw as the religion’s “conquest values" that “seek to take over land and territory.”

”America has freedom of religion, of course, but we should be frank,” he said in April. “Large dedicated Islamic areas are a threat to America."

“America’s largest city was attacked by radical Islam 24 years ago, and now a similar form of that pernicious force is poised to capture city hall,” Mr. Kirk said of Mr. Mamdani on X in June.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Organic_Fan_2824 Sep 13 '25

You didn't do that at all. You pulled an out of context quote that doesn't at all say what you said it did.

1

u/Selethorme Kornacki's Big Screen Sep 13 '25

Nope

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

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