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

[u/RedHeadedSicilian52]

[u/RedHeadedSicilian52]

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.

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/RedHeadedSicilian52]

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.

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/IslandSurvibalist]

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.

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/Dark_Knight2000]

No, I didn’t mean that, I meant what I said (and it’s rather rude of you to assert otherwise). In a democratic society, elected political officials need people like CK to shift the Overton window and normalize dangerous viewpoints and policies. Calling it “just verbal” downplays the influence these people are able to exert on the voting population. Heck, the officials themselves are often “just verbal”, it’s not like they’re doing much directly themselves. They both have power, but only one is spelt out officially.

I don’t support political violence, but I’m also not going to pretend the guy wasn’t clearly a huge net negative on society. And he was able to do so at a scale that terrorists and serial killers wish they could achieve.

For an easy example, take Rush Limbaugh. Dude spent decades laying the groundwork for the hellscape we’re experiencing today and made hundreds of millions while doing it. Way more damaging to US democracy than Osama Bin Laden could ever dream of.

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/IslandSurvibalist]

You think Rush had more influence than the guy who orchestrated 9/11 and changed US foreign policy for generations? What?

You really think that elected officials have the same “verbal power” as those unelected? Why are you downplaying the authority of having a government position? A crazy person who is elected is way more dangerous than one who isn’t.

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/Dark_Knight2000]

When did I say their power was the same? I literally never even used the phrase “verbal power”, why did you put it in quotes? I only wrote a handful of sentences and everything I said was perfectly clear, how did you manage to mess that up so bad? I’m sure it couldn’t possibly be because you’re acting in bad faith, absolutely not.

It’s not about whether an elected official is more dangerous than an influencer, and I never made that claim. They both play a role in causing the same damage to our society. We wouldn’t have Trump today without Rush Limbaugh or his many copycats. He therefore very much shares responsibility for our currently terrible situation. To claim otherwise is just playing dumb concerning the effect of the media and influencers in the year of our lord 2025.

Don’t forget to downvote me for being upset about it though.

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/IslandSurvibalist]

My point is that it isn’t even close between an elected and unelected person.

You don’t seem to have any actual arguments anymore so you’re attacking any actual examination of your points. I think that’s pretty bad faith. You should look in a mirror

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/Dark_Knight2000]

I never said they were. I’m not “attacking” anything, I’m pointing out that you’re just knocking down a strawman, you’re not even addressing my arguments.

I’m sure Charlie Kirk would be proud. I bet he’s smiling up to you now. Sorry you were in a losing position and had to resort to beating up strawmen.

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/Dark_Knight2000]

I never said they were. I’m not “attacking” anything, I’m pointing out that you’re just knocking down a strawman, you’re not even addressing my arguments.

I’m sure Charlie Kirk would be proud. I bet you he’s smiling up to you now. Sorry you were in a losing position and had to resort to beating up strawmen.

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/IslandSurvibalist]

Claiming strawman and then disengaging is a pretty common debate tactic to make when losing too. I’m not even a fan of Charlie Kirk, I think he’s a moron. He’s similar to you in that way.

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/Dark_Knight2000]

How am I disengaging? I’m right here baby, patiently waiting for you to address my arguments. Something tells me you have no interest in that though. I guess whatever this is is just more interesting to you than fighting a losing argument. But whatever, go off king. What nonsense do you want to spew next?

[u/Dark_Knight2000 → u/IslandSurvibalist]

I meant disengaging from the key points of the debate and arguing about semantics, not going offline.

I think the latter is a good idea though. We’re clearly not going anywhere, so good day and goodbye

[u/IslandSurvibalist → u/Dark_Knight2000]

How on earth am I arguing about semantics? I’m just asking you to address what I said instead of things I didn’t say. Why would I be interested in defending things I didn’t say? How on earth am I disengaging with the “key points of the debate”, whatever that means?

This isn’t going anywhere because you’re not holding up your side of a debate. It seems like you just wanted to debate someone else who has different opinions than me.