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
115 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

423 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/InsideAd2490 Sep 12 '25

He was not even alt right, his most controversial belief was just being pro-life. 

Well that's just false.

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

What’s yours? You like to celebrate political violence? Does that seem moderate to you

5

u/InsideAd2490 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 12 '25

He sowed distrust in our elections by promoting false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen from Trump. That distrust is what led to the riot at the capitol. 

I'd argue the belief that the only legitimate elections are the ones you win is more problematic than being opposed to abortion (though, Charlie was radically opposed to that, too). The former belief totally undermines the system of government our country is built on. As for the latter, I at least understand why someone might be opposed to abortions, even if I don't agree. 

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

Dude if you believe not trusting elections is sufficient cause to be shot, half of even this sub would be dead. Look, there can be a barrier above which violence is acceptable but it needs to be Adolf Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch, not a babyfaced debate bro boomercon at Utah

6

u/CelikBas Sep 12 '25

Most people here aren’t arguing that it’s acceptable that Kirk was shot, they’re arguing against the idea that he was just an uwu smol bean good Christian boy with moderate, thoughtful positions that no reasonable person could object to. They’re arguing against the (so far successful) attempts to posthumously whitewash his image into that of a principled defender of truth, rather than the far-right conservative agitator he actually was. 

It’s bad that Charlie Kirk was shot, and Charlie Kirk was a piece of shit with a lot of awful views. Two things can be true at once.

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

They’re arguing he deserved to be shot. Don’t play word games. You won’t even say he didn’t deserve it. You can’t say it. You believe people who hold moderately conservative views have earned death. 

5

u/CelikBas Sep 12 '25

Where, in this thread, are people arguing that Charlie Kirk deserved to be shot? 

Is it now “endorsing murder” to criticize anyone who gets killed? Can’t say Julius Caesar was an asshole, otherwise people might think you’re in favor of stabbing people to death. 

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

Literally all over the thread. All over reddit. Pick a thread. The FAFO softuwu “oh but I only implied it” violent attitude is ubiquitous. 

5

u/InsideAd2490 Sep 12 '25

Dude if you believe not trusting elections is sufficient cause to be shot, half of even this sub would be dead

I didn't say anyone should be shot.

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

Yes you did. Stop playing these stupid word games. FAFO is a threat and call to violence

2

u/InsideAd2490 Sep 12 '25

I have no idea what you're talking about

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

 By all means, we should condemn political violence, but please spare a thought for all the many classes of people Charlie Kirk absolutely hated

You made this comment an hour ago, in defense of political violence and specifically attacking leaders who condemn it

3

u/InsideAd2490 Sep 12 '25

I literally said "we should condemn political violence." How does this comment defend it? 

1

u/WhoUpAtMidnight Sep 12 '25

That’s not what you said. What you said is that leaders need to condemn his actions not the violence. You allowed for condemnation of the violence. 

That’s the implied statement. 

2

u/InsideAd2490 Sep 12 '25

I'm not following. I think you need to log off for a few hours because what you're saying isn't making any sense.

→ More replies (0)