The article revolves around a poll showing that people expect that political violence will increase, but this is likely more of a reflection of how terrible people's perceptions are, than a bellwether of actual impending political violence. People are terrible at assessing how willing the other side is willing to use violence. This study from 2021[1] shows that the overwhelming majority of americans don't support political violence, but massively overestimates how willing the other side is willing to.
>Politics is merely the mechanism by which organized systematic violence happens
Yes, in the sense that "the government has a monopoly on violence", and the application (or at least threat) of "violence" is needed to for a government to work (eg. tax collection, enforcement of property rights, law enforcement), but that's clearly different than "political violence" mentioned in the OP (ie. extrajudicial politically motivated killings), and pretending they're the same because they both "violence" borders on bad faith argumentation.
It's quite important to me because to some approximation, "legal" is some sort of morality that society can agree on. Absent that, partisans from each side can come up with spurious arguments to justify extrajudicial violence against whatever they hate. For pro-lifers, it might be that abortion is murder and therefore they can bomb abortion clinics. For "hate speech" opponents, it might be that "hate speech" causes actual violence and therefore it's fine to use violence against "hate speech" to prevent said violence from happening. The list goes on and on.
My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. Your arguments would be better directed to the people who made opposing arguments or asked relevant questions.
>My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith.
I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it. More to the point I don't see how your comments refutes this. The "borders on bad faith" isn't just from bring up other forms of deaths which are as a result of politics, it's to pretend that they're equivalent because they're both "deaths", ignoring the circumstances entirely. It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith.
> I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it.
I deny a difference in effect. And you said pretending. I know no relevant definitions of pretending and bad faith which pretending would include and bad faith would exclude.
> ignoring the circumstances entirely
No. They weighed some circumstances less and some circumstances more than you.
> It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith.
Obama ordered people killed. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked legal authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order any of those killings. All were good faith beliefs.
Clausewitz said war is the continuation of politics by other means. Obama's killings were a continuation of politics. The Golden State killer's were not.
If I remember my von Clausewitz correctly, at least some professional violence workers believe it’s the other way ‘round. Political ends by violent means and all that… violence being one of many species of persuasive technique available to people and groups with political aims.
True in the most general sense. Generalized political violence is very different from the state using force to based upon the accent of the govern where we have a generalized concept of human rights. To me its a little like saying all art can be be made up with pixels therefore everything is a pixel.
Did you notice that the photographs taken at that event showed that his right ear was bloodied, implying that it was damaged by the bullet passing by. Believable, kinda. But then the Time photo showing his Georgia O'Keeffe neck also showed his completely intact right ear.
The attempt in itself is not just political violence, but also provides grounds for justifying violence against "enemies."
I'd agree except that we appear to have just memory-holed the attempted assassination of Trump during his campaign. And he never talks about it either. Until you posted this, I'd completely forgotten about it.
One of the big ones I remember from the last decade was the Congressional baseball shooting in 2017, where luckily nobody was killed. This isn't a sudden problem to brace for, it's a continuing problem to finally accept and address.
Charlie Kirk was not an elected public official, but he was definitely still political in a way that a lot of regular Americans are political. So even if it's less significant with regard to elected officials being targeted, it was political violence that regular people felt and could conceive of being targeted with, for similar reasons as Charlie. I believe that was what made his assassination resonate with people, much more than an elected official being assassinated does.
If we're counting in the past six months, the list should also include the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, the Boulder Molotov cocktail attack, and the shootings at ICE facilities in Alvarado & Dallas.
I was going for attacks on specific high profile individuals. there were indeed these events and more others if we're counting all politically-motivated terrorism.
These are all instances of political violence. The political class in the united states deemed particular populations disposable, and enacted policies that lead to excess deaths and extreme violence upon those populations. Millions in the united states live under the threat of state violence and politcally accepted exposure to premature death.
The article and comments refer to the resulting counter-violence that perpetrators of the un-remarked systemic violence may become exposed to.
Homeless people must be so happy now that people acknowledge that they can feel at home without a house to live in. There never was a problem with homelessness, I am sure they would say. (this is sarcasm)
But doesn’t “unhoused” sound a little too much like “unhinged?” Has anyone checked whether being referred to as a “person” might be offensive to men and women and boys and girls who have more specific identities? (this is not sarcastic)
Plot these against the rate of similar attempts (or successes) over the past century if you want to convince others of anything other than your own subjective presentist perspective.
The Wikipedia page is useful, and as you've identified the 2025 MN Representative Hortman murder as the "first assassination of a sitting legislator at the state or federal level in my lifetime" – not counting the 2015 murder of SC Senator Pinckney – is it safe to assume you're a precociously-posting 10-year-old?
I was born in 1970; per your reference, there've been a bunch of state & federal legislators (or recently-former legislators) killed for political (or pseudo-political deranged) motives "in my lifetime" – and far more in the 1970s than in the last 10 years.
In my lifetime, one sitting President was shot at & missed (Ford in 1976), and one was shot at & hit by a ricochet (Reagan in 1981) – again, more in the past than the shots that grazed candidate Trump in 2024.
The Wikipedia-listed murders of other officeholders, like mayors or judges, are also more frequent in the past than recently – especially going before either of our lifetimes.
So trend impressions are very subject to frames of reference & familiarity with history.
I suspect if people in general had a deeper & broader sense of how common political violence has been, both in US history & worldwide, they'd be, on the one hand, less prone to panic over recent events & rhetoric (even though it is concerning), but also on the other hand more appreciative of the relative peace of recent decades (even with the last few years' events).
> not counting the 2015 murder of SC Senator Pinckney
fair enough. not sure how I skipped over that one.
> So trend impressions are very subject to frames of reference & familiarity with history.
I don't disagree with this. but nonetheless in my lifetime (< 30 years) I have mostly lived through only the "relative peace of recent decades" so the increase in political violence over the last few years is very scary.
Exactly! People who think that the vitriol is just cordoned off to social media haven't been paying attention to the very real spillover that has already claimed lives.
I think the issue is that mainstream media like movies showcases political violence as very well organized and full of manifestos when the majority of these attempts are very poorly planned and the people carrying it out clearly have mental disorders so it's very hard to pinpoint what ideology they are promoting.
I also believe that these recent attempts have showcased that the current political establishment has been doing an awful job at reconciliation and instead pouring gasoline by refusing to make a joint statements condemning the violence or making any sort of gesture that isn't blatantly bipartisan.
If you look at the political violence of the 60's and 70's in the US, there's a lot of overlap but at least the government took steps to not only keep it under control but congress actually took steps in dealing with the hot button issues. Nowadays it seems like we're just kicking the can down the road and blaming the other side for it. I mean just look at the current shutdown and tell me if this state of affairs won't result in further anger and people taking action with their own hands rather than rely on political institutions.
I mean, look at the GenZ protests in other parts of the world that have successfully brought down several governments. The US is still "just" in the "lone wolf" phase of political violence.
A new rise of political violence was clearly coming in when Trump told his supporters, on camera, in front of a crowd, that they ought to shoot Hillary if she won—and then he not only still had an active campaign a week later, but went on to win the election.
That was a huge "oh shit" moment. The rest of this isn't exactly a consequence of specifically what he said, but is something that one could predict from that and other things he said and did in the first election and his first term. The fact that he said what he said and that was no longer regarded as abhorrent by enough people to keep him from even getting close to the Presidency, was the sign.
What drives me crazy is, in a rare moment for me, I will acknowledge that it’s been morphing into a “both sides” issue in the last 24mo or so. I just generally reject “both sides” arguments because it’s so often a cheap hand wavy way to say “I don’t care/won’t look under the hood on this” without having to say it while ignoring the fundamental truth of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
And yet I still have people insist it’s all “left wing Marxists” or whatever their favorite term is these days. Like we can’t even agree political violence is ratcheting up broadly and it’s a problem we ALL have to deal with.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
Edit: several recent attempts/successful perpetrators, including Kirk’s killer, were not clearly right or left. There have been some leftwing incidents but they are certainly fewer than others. I am not saying left wing violence is as bad as right wing violence. But it’s not all right wing anymore. That’s all I’m saying.
Our current government seems to want to provoke a reaction. Constantly talking about sending troops into cities, calling democrats terrorists, and all the other vitriol, certainly isn't intended to create a sense of peace and comfort.
If you constantly try to make people angry, eventually you succeed.
Vurtually anyone saying "left wing Marxists" in the US, in reference to an organized movement, is full of shit and/or fully captured by the American propaganda waves still echoing from the the red scare era of the 1940s and 50s. These people are the type to call literally any social safety net "communist".
America has been pulled so far to the right in the last 70+ years that the average voter now seems to think 'the left' starts at authoritarian communism.
The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations. If there was substantiation of their claims they would be trumpeting that non-stop.
"both sides" is only valid in the context of the party leadership being in service of their owners, oops, benefactors. Otherwise there's a vast gulf between what each side represents and promotes.
>The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations.
Are you talking about in the immediate aftermath or currently? For the latter it seems pretty safe to conclude he was probably left-leaning politically, even if he wasn't a card carrying DSA member or whatever?
For the latter it seems pretty safe to conclude he was probably left-leaning politically
All we know for sure is that he's left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights. It's not uncommon for right-leaning individuals to suddenly discover the humanity of groups they previously hated once they spend significant time with one of their members.
However, there are plenty of conservative viewpoints that do not hinge on prejudice, so I'll wait for more evidence before believing he went full vegan hippie liberal. A picture of the guy in a drum circle or animal cruelty protest while wearing a Che Guevara or tie dye and peace sign shirt would do ;)
>All we know for sure is that he's left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights.
"left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights" is an understatement. From the wikipedia article:
>When the roommate asked why Robinson had done it, he answered, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out."
Maybe he was some sort of libertarian that thinks "hatred" from right wing influencers needed to be stoped via exercise of the second amendment, but you really have to bend backwards for that theory. The far more plausible explanation is that he was a run-of-the-mill illiberal-left that thinks speech from the right need to be curtailed. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
He’s hard to pin down tbh but I’d say he’s a bit more akin to a black pilled 4chan troll than a “illiberal-left” (never heard that before so I think I know what you mean…?) or Marxist or even a traditional democrat. You may as well say “video games did it” if we’re going down this path.
Simply put: He’s complicated. Any attempt to slot him neatly as “left” or “right” is pointless. You are at least showing a little more nuance with this but my experience has been people are basically trying to boil this down to “your team did it, not my team.”
The politicians who pushed that he was [insert whatever] are not remotely equipped to understand a person like him.
>“illiberal-left” (never heard that before so I think I know what you mean…?)
"Left wing" but rejects classical liberal values like free speech (eg. favoring speech restrictions) or meritocracy (eg. favoring affirmative action or quotas).
>with this but my experience has been people are basically trying to boil this down to “your team did it, not my team.”
All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger. 45 and 43 percent of americans identify as "republican/lean republican" and "democrat/lean democrat" respectively. From those statistics you'd expect 88% of shooters to belong to one side or the other. Of course, just because a shooter belongs to one side, doesn't automatically delegitimize that side's political position, but the correct response to that would be something like "yes, he was left leaning, but his beliefs are not reflective of the left/democrats as a whole", not trying to insist "Any attempt to slot him neatly as “left” or “right” is pointless".
> All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger.
I don’t understand why this is so one sided in your opinion…? Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
>Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
Because even though there's no slam dunk evidence that he's left/right wing (eg. some manifesto saying "yep, I'm left wing!", it's far more likely that he was left wing rather than right wing, and therefore the left's attempt to distance themselves from the shooter is weaker and worth calling out more. If the circumstances were reversed (eg. this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Social_m...), and both the left and the right tried to distance themselves from the attacker, I'd call out the right more, even if there's vague tidbits implying he was left.
> The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations.
What are you talking about? The Charlie Kirk assassin was obviously left wing and is bizarre how you pretend that this is not the case. The main signals:
- He assassinated the leader of a right-wing movement;
- He inscribed "anti-fascist" slogans on the bullet cases, like "Hey fascist! Catch!" and "Bella Ciao" (which is used by Antifa organizations);
- He texted his roommate “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” in reference to Charlie Kirk;
- He was dating a transgender person, and had multiple references to the "furry" subculture.
The violence we’ve seen in the last ~24mo involves a broader range of political ideologies. The last decade right wing political violence has been noticeably higher overall for sure. i’m not going to bother responding to every single person who asks this question so hopefully they see this before they all dog pile with the same question lol
it might be a "both sides" issue in terms of opinion polls like this, but empirically right-wing political violence in the US is consistently, statistically, and significantly, more lethal
What might happen if the air traffic system collapses right before/during the American Thanksgiving holiday. They're working short-staffed and without pay, but I doubt the family/personal debts are suspended.
Or, maybe it's time to invite some French speakers over to discuss the whys and hows of general strikes? Gotta watch out when people feel they have little or nothing to lose.
ATCs already tried that under Reagan. He fired all of them and they were permanently banned from ever working with the FAA again. Trump would do it in an instant.
A general strike is many industries striking in solidarity. Stock up on essentials, paralyze everything, and hold your nerve. Can't even sack anyone if the HR departments are missing or no power to the buildings.
I definitely agree. Trump is a crazy old man shaking his fist at the clouds with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, he is backed by people whose philosophy is to shrink government to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub.
I agree with what another poster said about bringing in some French people to teach us the importance of general strikes and shutting everything down to make our point.
Failing that, I think blue states should offer a federal tax escrow service to pay for what they've been promised but denied.
Trump already tried supplementing with military ATC. It's not the 80s, that didn't work this time (the two are too different. Everywhere is held together with it's own special duct tape). How is firing them all going to reopen anything?
America's was delivered by two births of of political violence: the American revolution and the Civil War.
I'm interested in hearing why those are justifible acts of political violence (or not political violence) whereas today's political violence is not. Surely there were folks during those times who described them as not justifible. What makes today's arguments against political violence materially different than dissenters in prior eras?
As the expression goes "The ends sanctify the means". We generally, collectively agree that the results of the Civil War (and more universally, the Revolution) were good things, and thus the actions that advanced those ends are sacred.
Contemporary events can't be judged that way: Consequentialists (typically on the left) end up judging actions by perceived probability of success weighted outcomes, which, naturally, discount modern events since the only things with certain outcomes are those in the distant past. Deontological thinkers (more typical on the right) have to condemn contempory actions as "wrong" until they can be incorporated into a larger narrative that justifies them, which again takes time.
Violence against anyone is uncalled for. I don't care who it is, unless it's a direct threat to life, violence is wrong. Encouraging people to commit violence is even worse.
Yeah, no, after Charlie Kirk was assassinated (and a few lesser-known political figures who immediately became household names post-Charlie Kirk to keep some kind of gross political peropaganda balance), I was immediately fearful that this would be the start of a new trend. But, has there been anything since? It seems like everyone is too afraid of the government cracking down on them to do anything, and that's a good thing. Now, the 1/5 of every tax dollar the US government takes in goes to servicing the national debt, another 1.5/5 goes to medicare, and another 1/5 goes to social security, and 1/5 goes to fighting ongoing wars, that leaves 500 billion dollars "spending money" to try to keep the peace.
There are an almost infinite number of places where we can discuss those fires. Some of those flagging want to not talk about the fires on HN. You are wrong to assume that that's them sticking their head in the sand.
There are an almost infinite number of places where we can discuss those fires
That’s not true. Other platforms don’t have this exact audience and vibe. Flagging this effectively kills HNs collective perspective. It is what it is, hopefully mods can reflect on it.
Those other places don’t have frequent posts and thoughts from some of the most influential, intelligent and frankly powerful people in US tech.
These are precisely the people who need to be talking about the fires, how to prevent them, put them out and make sure as hell they don’t spread to other countries.
But no, making money in the AI bubble is more important than preserving democracy here.
This is not good. What’s worse is none of the larger parties is willing to control their extremes who think more ideologically and are incapable of dialing down without the needed negative feedback loop from their donors and larger party figure heads pushing back.
one set of political extremes has 3x the budget of the us marines and is a paramilitary that operates above the law. the other political extreme are some skinny vegan teenagers in black clothes. no no both sides.
I think you vastly underestimate what "skinny vegan teenagers in black clothes" are capable of to an almost comically ignorant level. Not only is it a complete misrepresentation of the average "antifa-er" it also mischaracterizes them (perhaps deliberately) as an incapable force.
You would probably benefit from reading about the link between prominent activists in these circles, and for example, the sandanistas and other violent socialist/communist groups. Or the link to the USSR via the DDR where antifa as we know it came to be. The black bloc is a clear and present danger to the citizenry in the same respect as the paramilitary you refer to.
Not sure how it is in the US, but antifascist groups in Europe, including the term "Antifa" are far older. The origins go back into the 1920s to Marxist and Communist groups that were fighting the then-fledging fascist movements in Italy and Weimar Germany. (Also heavily influenced by the Spanish Civil War)
Later in the 70s, left-wing groups who saw themselves as part of the civil-rights movement adopted the name to fight against neo-nazis and old nazis that were still in power after the war (often with plenty of help by conservative circles in Europe and the US). Many of those groups saw themselves as Marxists and some where sympathizing with the Soviet Union, or might even have received support from there. But the "idea" was their own - or, if anything - came from the US, through the civil rights movement.
I don't know much about the modern Antifa groups in the US, but I imagine they, in turn, got "inspired" by the groups from the 70s.
Well the extremes are quickly becoming the norm on both sides. Fuentes is making the rounds, just recently on Tucker's podcast. The talking points on the right are increasingly becoming that the left needs to be absolutely crushed. Mayors/governors arrested, etc. The idea that Trump is being nowhere near extreme enough is very much being discussed openly. Pundits are all decrying the immanence of civil war. If you go deep right you find communities are VERY actively prepping and gathering like-minded individuals together.
The left meanwhile is busy attempting to cover up massive fraud under their watch (Minnesota,) voting in self-proclaimed socialists or those who vow allegiance to other countries entirely and shutting down any conversation that does not maintain their simulacrum. If you go deep left you find communities are gleefully celebrating the murder of their opponents and are also actively buying arms (often for the first time in their lives.)
Meanwhile the middle is getting slammed by layoffs.
Not only the right. Remember there were two or three actual attempts on the candidate for the presidency and one of their influencers was shot dead. Plus you have outburst from Maxine, ol’ Joe miss Occasionally Cortez and others calling for people to take to the streets and to take up violence… sorry but it’s both doing this. Calling anlmost any conservative who isn’t a Neocon a neo nazi doesn’t help quell things either.
I don't even know what you are talking about so no. And also if it's happening why do I even need to make the equivalence, I'm sure you're right. It's happening, that's the point I was trying to make. The extremes are now the norm and in the open. Both sides are equally to blame.
Nick Fuentes is extreme. Democratic socialism is not extreme, no matter how hard conservatives might try to paint it that way. There is no equivalence here, and "both sides" are not equally to blame.
And other than Mamdani -- a middle of the road democratic socialist who would find himself at home in any Scandinavian country -- I’m not sure what "self-proclaimed socialists" you’re even talking about.
The article revolves around a poll showing that people expect that political violence will increase, but this is likely more of a reflection of how terrible people's perceptions are, than a bellwether of actual impending political violence. People are terrible at assessing how willing the other side is willing to use violence. This study from 2021[1] shows that the overwhelming majority of americans don't support political violence, but massively overestimates how willing the other side is willing to.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116851119#fig01
Politics is merely the mechanism by which organized systematic violence happens. The winner of politics decides which violence is legitimate.
>Politics is merely the mechanism by which organized systematic violence happens
Yes, in the sense that "the government has a monopoly on violence", and the application (or at least threat) of "violence" is needed to for a government to work (eg. tax collection, enforcement of property rights, law enforcement), but that's clearly different than "political violence" mentioned in the OP (ie. extrajudicial politically motivated killings), and pretending they're the same because they both "violence" borders on bad faith argumentation.
Legality is very important to you seemingly. It is less important to others.[1][2]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45803019
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45803404
It's quite important to me because to some approximation, "legal" is some sort of morality that society can agree on. Absent that, partisans from each side can come up with spurious arguments to justify extrajudicial violence against whatever they hate. For pro-lifers, it might be that abortion is murder and therefore they can bomb abortion clinics. For "hate speech" opponents, it might be that "hate speech" causes actual violence and therefore it's fine to use violence against "hate speech" to prevent said violence from happening. The list goes on and on.
My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. Your arguments would be better directed to the people who made opposing arguments or asked relevant questions.
>My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith.
I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it. More to the point I don't see how your comments refutes this. The "borders on bad faith" isn't just from bring up other forms of deaths which are as a result of politics, it's to pretend that they're equivalent because they're both "deaths", ignoring the circumstances entirely. It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith.
> I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it.
I deny a difference in effect. And you said pretending. I know no relevant definitions of pretending and bad faith which pretending would include and bad faith would exclude.
> ignoring the circumstances entirely
No. They weighed some circumstances less and some circumstances more than you.
> It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith.
Obama ordered people killed. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked legal authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order any of those killings. All were good faith beliefs.
Clausewitz said war is the continuation of politics by other means. Obama's killings were a continuation of politics. The Golden State killer's were not.
If I remember my von Clausewitz correctly, at least some professional violence workers believe it’s the other way ‘round. Political ends by violent means and all that… violence being one of many species of persuasive technique available to people and groups with political aims.
True in the most general sense. Generalized political violence is very different from the state using force to based upon the accent of the govern where we have a generalized concept of human rights. To me its a little like saying all art can be be made up with pixels therefore everything is a pixel.
Max Weber was wrong.
Politics is the attempt to resolve public conflict, ideally with violence as a last resort (but always as a possibility).
"bracing" ?
we already have it.
In order of approximately most significant to least significant acts of political violence just in the last 6 months:
* The assassination of Melissa Hortman (D - MN House) and attempted assassinations of John Hoffman (D - MN Senate) and each of their spouses.
* The assassination attempt (arson) on Josh Shapiro (D - PA Governor)
* The assassination of Charlie Kirk (R - not a public official)
and there were several other acts of political violence in 2024 (including the attempted assassinations of Trump and of Nancy Pelosi and her husband)
Did you notice that the photographs taken at that event showed that his right ear was bloodied, implying that it was damaged by the bullet passing by. Believable, kinda. But then the Time photo showing his Georgia O'Keeffe neck also showed his completely intact right ear.
The attempt in itself is not just political violence, but also provides grounds for justifying violence against "enemies."
I'd agree except that we appear to have just memory-holed the attempted assassination of Trump during his campaign. And he never talks about it either. Until you posted this, I'd completely forgotten about it.
One of the big ones I remember from the last decade was the Congressional baseball shooting in 2017, where luckily nobody was killed. This isn't a sudden problem to brace for, it's a continuing problem to finally accept and address.
Charlie Kirk was not an elected public official, but he was definitely still political in a way that a lot of regular Americans are political. So even if it's less significant with regard to elected officials being targeted, it was political violence that regular people felt and could conceive of being targeted with, for similar reasons as Charlie. I believe that was what made his assassination resonate with people, much more than an elected official being assassinated does.
If we're counting in the past six months, the list should also include the Capital Jewish Museum shooting, the Boulder Molotov cocktail attack, and the shootings at ICE facilities in Alvarado & Dallas.
I was going for attacks on specific high profile individuals. there were indeed these events and more others if we're counting all politically-motivated terrorism.
And the ICE arrests, in general, which have greatly increased.
- The excess deaths experienced by unhoused persons - The excess deaths of persons that live in in the so-called Cancer Alley https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-shocking-hazards-of-lo... - The persistent excess deaths of those incarcerated in american prisons https://www.vera.org/news/the-hidden-deaths-in-american-jail... - The american mass shootings in 2025 https://massshootingtracker.site/ - The internationalized violence of ICE arrests and attacks https://www.npr.org/2025/10/23/nx-s1-5538090/ice-detention-c...
These are all instances of political violence. The political class in the united states deemed particular populations disposable, and enacted policies that lead to excess deaths and extreme violence upon those populations. Millions in the united states live under the threat of state violence and politcally accepted exposure to premature death.
The article and comments refer to the resulting counter-violence that perpetrators of the un-remarked systemic violence may become exposed to.
I kind of agree with you in spirit, but I was more meaning to refer to terrorism / acts of violence against high profile public officials.
Yes, but charlescearl has bolstered, broadened, and built upon your narrower example.
Homeless people must be so happy now that people acknowledge that they can feel at home without a house to live in. There never was a problem with homelessness, I am sure they would say. (this is sarcasm)
But doesn’t “unhoused” sound a little too much like “unhinged?” Has anyone checked whether being referred to as a “person” might be offensive to men and women and boys and girls who have more specific identities? (this is not sarcastic)
Plot these against the rate of similar attempts (or successes) over the past century if you want to convince others of anything other than your own subjective presentist perspective.
the Hortman murder was the first assassination of a sitting legislator at the state or federal level in my lifetime, which feels pretty significant.
I'm looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_... and I stand by my "subjective perspective" as remaining pretty reasonable. let me know what specifically you wanted me to plot
The Wikipedia page is useful, and as you've identified the 2025 MN Representative Hortman murder as the "first assassination of a sitting legislator at the state or federal level in my lifetime" – not counting the 2015 murder of SC Senator Pinckney – is it safe to assume you're a precociously-posting 10-year-old?
I was born in 1970; per your reference, there've been a bunch of state & federal legislators (or recently-former legislators) killed for political (or pseudo-political deranged) motives "in my lifetime" – and far more in the 1970s than in the last 10 years.
In my lifetime, one sitting President was shot at & missed (Ford in 1976), and one was shot at & hit by a ricochet (Reagan in 1981) – again, more in the past than the shots that grazed candidate Trump in 2024.
The Wikipedia-listed murders of other officeholders, like mayors or judges, are also more frequent in the past than recently – especially going before either of our lifetimes.
So trend impressions are very subject to frames of reference & familiarity with history.
I suspect if people in general had a deeper & broader sense of how common political violence has been, both in US history & worldwide, they'd be, on the one hand, less prone to panic over recent events & rhetoric (even though it is concerning), but also on the other hand more appreciative of the relative peace of recent decades (even with the last few years' events).
> not counting the 2015 murder of SC Senator Pinckney
fair enough. not sure how I skipped over that one.
> So trend impressions are very subject to frames of reference & familiarity with history.
I don't disagree with this. but nonetheless in my lifetime (< 30 years) I have mostly lived through only the "relative peace of recent decades" so the increase in political violence over the last few years is very scary.
Exactly! People who think that the vitriol is just cordoned off to social media haven't been paying attention to the very real spillover that has already claimed lives.
I think the issue is that mainstream media like movies showcases political violence as very well organized and full of manifestos when the majority of these attempts are very poorly planned and the people carrying it out clearly have mental disorders so it's very hard to pinpoint what ideology they are promoting.
I also believe that these recent attempts have showcased that the current political establishment has been doing an awful job at reconciliation and instead pouring gasoline by refusing to make a joint statements condemning the violence or making any sort of gesture that isn't blatantly bipartisan.
If you look at the political violence of the 60's and 70's in the US, there's a lot of overlap but at least the government took steps to not only keep it under control but congress actually took steps in dealing with the hot button issues. Nowadays it seems like we're just kicking the can down the road and blaming the other side for it. I mean just look at the current shutdown and tell me if this state of affairs won't result in further anger and people taking action with their own hands rather than rely on political institutions.
I mean, look at the GenZ protests in other parts of the world that have successfully brought down several governments. The US is still "just" in the "lone wolf" phase of political violence.
A new rise of political violence was clearly coming in when Trump told his supporters, on camera, in front of a crowd, that they ought to shoot Hillary if she won—and then he not only still had an active campaign a week later, but went on to win the election.
That was a huge "oh shit" moment. The rest of this isn't exactly a consequence of specifically what he said, but is something that one could predict from that and other things he said and did in the first election and his first term. The fact that he said what he said and that was no longer regarded as abhorrent by enough people to keep him from even getting close to the Presidency, was the sign.
[flagged]
What drives me crazy is, in a rare moment for me, I will acknowledge that it’s been morphing into a “both sides” issue in the last 24mo or so. I just generally reject “both sides” arguments because it’s so often a cheap hand wavy way to say “I don’t care/won’t look under the hood on this” without having to say it while ignoring the fundamental truth of “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
And yet I still have people insist it’s all “left wing Marxists” or whatever their favorite term is these days. Like we can’t even agree political violence is ratcheting up broadly and it’s a problem we ALL have to deal with.
Partisanship is a hell of a drug.
Edit: several recent attempts/successful perpetrators, including Kirk’s killer, were not clearly right or left. There have been some leftwing incidents but they are certainly fewer than others. I am not saying left wing violence is as bad as right wing violence. But it’s not all right wing anymore. That’s all I’m saying.
Our current government seems to want to provoke a reaction. Constantly talking about sending troops into cities, calling democrats terrorists, and all the other vitriol, certainly isn't intended to create a sense of peace and comfort.
If you constantly try to make people angry, eventually you succeed.
No argument here
Vurtually anyone saying "left wing Marxists" in the US, in reference to an organized movement, is full of shit and/or fully captured by the American propaganda waves still echoing from the the red scare era of the 1940s and 50s. These people are the type to call literally any social safety net "communist".
America has been pulled so far to the right in the last 70+ years that the average voter now seems to think 'the left' starts at authoritarian communism.
The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations. If there was substantiation of their claims they would be trumpeting that non-stop.
"both sides" is only valid in the context of the party leadership being in service of their owners, oops, benefactors. Otherwise there's a vast gulf between what each side represents and promotes.
>The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations.
Are you talking about in the immediate aftermath or currently? For the latter it seems pretty safe to conclude he was probably left-leaning politically, even if he wasn't a card carrying DSA member or whatever?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Charlie_Kirk#...
However, there are plenty of conservative viewpoints that do not hinge on prejudice, so I'll wait for more evidence before believing he went full vegan hippie liberal. A picture of the guy in a drum circle or animal cruelty protest while wearing a Che Guevara or tie dye and peace sign shirt would do ;)
>All we know for sure is that he's left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights.
"left of his MAGA parents when it comes to gay/trans rights" is an understatement. From the wikipedia article:
>When the roommate asked why Robinson had done it, he answered, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out."
Maybe he was some sort of libertarian that thinks "hatred" from right wing influencers needed to be stoped via exercise of the second amendment, but you really have to bend backwards for that theory. The far more plausible explanation is that he was a run-of-the-mill illiberal-left that thinks speech from the right need to be curtailed. When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
He’s hard to pin down tbh but I’d say he’s a bit more akin to a black pilled 4chan troll than a “illiberal-left” (never heard that before so I think I know what you mean…?) or Marxist or even a traditional democrat. You may as well say “video games did it” if we’re going down this path.
Simply put: He’s complicated. Any attempt to slot him neatly as “left” or “right” is pointless. You are at least showing a little more nuance with this but my experience has been people are basically trying to boil this down to “your team did it, not my team.”
The politicians who pushed that he was [insert whatever] are not remotely equipped to understand a person like him.
>He’s more akin to a black pilled 4chan troll
Because... why?
>“illiberal-left” (never heard that before so I think I know what you mean…?)
"Left wing" but rejects classical liberal values like free speech (eg. favoring speech restrictions) or meritocracy (eg. favoring affirmative action or quotas).
>with this but my experience has been people are basically trying to boil this down to “your team did it, not my team.”
All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger. 45 and 43 percent of americans identify as "republican/lean republican" and "democrat/lean democrat" respectively. From those statistics you'd expect 88% of shooters to belong to one side or the other. Of course, just because a shooter belongs to one side, doesn't automatically delegitimize that side's political position, but the correct response to that would be something like "yes, he was left leaning, but his beliefs are not reflective of the left/democrats as a whole", not trying to insist "Any attempt to slot him neatly as “left” or “right” is pointless".
https://news.gallup.com/poll/548459/independent-party-tied-h...
> All of which makes the attempt by the left to insist that he wasn't left wing all the more the stranger.
I don’t understand why this is so one sided in your opinion…? Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
>Both major parties and their base are saying “he wasn’t one of ours.” I feel like I’m missing something here.
Because even though there's no slam dunk evidence that he's left/right wing (eg. some manifesto saying "yep, I'm left wing!", it's far more likely that he was left wing rather than right wing, and therefore the left's attempt to distance themselves from the shooter is weaker and worth calling out more. If the circumstances were reversed (eg. this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Social_m...), and both the left and the right tried to distance themselves from the attacker, I'd call out the right more, even if there's vague tidbits implying he was left.
Ehhhh…
> The Charlie Kirk assassination was instantly weaponized to be blamed on the Left, despite no evidence to support that claim. More so, there's effectively been zero details about the suspect and his motivations.
What are you talking about? The Charlie Kirk assassin was obviously left wing and is bizarre how you pretend that this is not the case. The main signals:
- He assassinated the leader of a right-wing movement;
- He inscribed "anti-fascist" slogans on the bullet cases, like "Hey fascist! Catch!" and "Bella Ciao" (which is used by Antifa organizations);
- He texted his roommate “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” in reference to Charlie Kirk;
- He was dating a transgender person, and had multiple references to the "furry" subculture.
> I will acknowledge that it’s been morphing into a “both sides” issue in the last 24mo or so.
Has it been? How so?
The violence we’ve seen in the last ~24mo involves a broader range of political ideologies. The last decade right wing political violence has been noticeably higher overall for sure. i’m not going to bother responding to every single person who asks this question so hopefully they see this before they all dog pile with the same question lol
it might be a "both sides" issue in terms of opinion polls like this, but empirically right-wing political violence in the US is consistently, statistically, and significantly, more lethal
The fact you got downvoted is symptomatic of the larger issue you identified.
Meh it’s whatever. I know what I waded in to
What might happen if the air traffic system collapses right before/during the American Thanksgiving holiday. They're working short-staffed and without pay, but I doubt the family/personal debts are suspended.
Or, maybe it's time to invite some French speakers over to discuss the whys and hows of general strikes? Gotta watch out when people feel they have little or nothing to lose.
ATCs already tried that under Reagan. He fired all of them and they were permanently banned from ever working with the FAA again. Trump would do it in an instant.
A general strike is many industries striking in solidarity. Stock up on essentials, paralyze everything, and hold your nerve. Can't even sack anyone if the HR departments are missing or no power to the buildings.
I definitely agree. Trump is a crazy old man shaking his fist at the clouds with extreme prejudice. Unfortunately, he is backed by people whose philosophy is to shrink government to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub.
I agree with what another poster said about bringing in some French people to teach us the importance of general strikes and shutting everything down to make our point.
Failing that, I think blue states should offer a federal tax escrow service to pay for what they've been promised but denied.
Trump already tried supplementing with military ATC. It's not the 80s, that didn't work this time (the two are too different. Everywhere is held together with it's own special duct tape). How is firing them all going to reopen anything?
I have no idea how firing people would re-open anything. I haven't seen anyone claim that it would.
[dead]
America's was delivered by two births of of political violence: the American revolution and the Civil War.
I'm interested in hearing why those are justifible acts of political violence (or not political violence) whereas today's political violence is not. Surely there were folks during those times who described them as not justifible. What makes today's arguments against political violence materially different than dissenters in prior eras?
As the expression goes "The ends sanctify the means". We generally, collectively agree that the results of the Civil War (and more universally, the Revolution) were good things, and thus the actions that advanced those ends are sacred.
Contemporary events can't be judged that way: Consequentialists (typically on the left) end up judging actions by perceived probability of success weighted outcomes, which, naturally, discount modern events since the only things with certain outcomes are those in the distant past. Deontological thinkers (more typical on the right) have to condemn contempory actions as "wrong" until they can be incorporated into a larger narrative that justifies them, which again takes time.
Lessons are repeated until learned. And again, after those lessons are forgotten.
Thinking that a thing is okay, and understanding that there are no alternatives to it, are not at all the same thing.
Violence against anyone is uncalled for. I don't care who it is, unless it's a direct threat to life, violence is wrong. Encouraging people to commit violence is even worse.
Yeah, no, after Charlie Kirk was assassinated (and a few lesser-known political figures who immediately became household names post-Charlie Kirk to keep some kind of gross political peropaganda balance), I was immediately fearful that this would be the start of a new trend. But, has there been anything since? It seems like everyone is too afraid of the government cracking down on them to do anything, and that's a good thing. Now, the 1/5 of every tax dollar the US government takes in goes to servicing the national debt, another 1.5/5 goes to medicare, and another 1/5 goes to social security, and 1/5 goes to fighting ongoing wars, that leaves 500 billion dollars "spending money" to try to keep the peace.
Why flagged?
HN has decided to stick its head in the sand on politics.
It’s all about to burn down, but they want us talking about new AI features, and ignoring the fires.
There are an almost infinite number of places where we can discuss those fires. Some of those flagging want to not talk about the fires on HN. You are wrong to assume that that's them sticking their head in the sand.
There are an almost infinite number of places where we can discuss those fires
That’s not true. Other platforms don’t have this exact audience and vibe. Flagging this effectively kills HNs collective perspective. It is what it is, hopefully mods can reflect on it.
Those other places don’t have frequent posts and thoughts from some of the most influential, intelligent and frankly powerful people in US tech.
These are precisely the people who need to be talking about the fires, how to prevent them, put them out and make sure as hell they don’t spread to other countries.
But no, making money in the AI bubble is more important than preserving democracy here.
When the law fails its people, the people have no choice but to take the law into their own hands.
What good are courts, if a perpetrator is never brought to justice?
It leaves no choice, but to resort to a very primal form of justice: kill them.
This is not good. What’s worse is none of the larger parties is willing to control their extremes who think more ideologically and are incapable of dialing down without the needed negative feedback loop from their donors and larger party figure heads pushing back.
one set of political extremes has 3x the budget of the us marines and is a paramilitary that operates above the law. the other political extreme are some skinny vegan teenagers in black clothes. no no both sides.
I think you vastly underestimate what "skinny vegan teenagers in black clothes" are capable of to an almost comically ignorant level. Not only is it a complete misrepresentation of the average "antifa-er" it also mischaracterizes them (perhaps deliberately) as an incapable force.
You would probably benefit from reading about the link between prominent activists in these circles, and for example, the sandanistas and other violent socialist/communist groups. Or the link to the USSR via the DDR where antifa as we know it came to be. The black bloc is a clear and present danger to the citizenry in the same respect as the paramilitary you refer to.
> Or the link to the USSR via the DDR where antifa as we know it came to be.
The USSR, which ceased to exist in 1991, somehow created the antifa movement of the 2000s? Wow, they sure were powerful!
I think neither of it goes back far enough.
Not sure how it is in the US, but antifascist groups in Europe, including the term "Antifa" are far older. The origins go back into the 1920s to Marxist and Communist groups that were fighting the then-fledging fascist movements in Italy and Weimar Germany. (Also heavily influenced by the Spanish Civil War)
Later in the 70s, left-wing groups who saw themselves as part of the civil-rights movement adopted the name to fight against neo-nazis and old nazis that were still in power after the war (often with plenty of help by conservative circles in Europe and the US). Many of those groups saw themselves as Marxists and some where sympathizing with the Soviet Union, or might even have received support from there. But the "idea" was their own - or, if anything - came from the US, through the civil rights movement.
I don't know much about the modern Antifa groups in the US, but I imagine they, in turn, got "inspired" by the groups from the 70s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(Germany)
Well the extremes are quickly becoming the norm on both sides. Fuentes is making the rounds, just recently on Tucker's podcast. The talking points on the right are increasingly becoming that the left needs to be absolutely crushed. Mayors/governors arrested, etc. The idea that Trump is being nowhere near extreme enough is very much being discussed openly. Pundits are all decrying the immanence of civil war. If you go deep right you find communities are VERY actively prepping and gathering like-minded individuals together.
The left meanwhile is busy attempting to cover up massive fraud under their watch (Minnesota,) voting in self-proclaimed socialists or those who vow allegiance to other countries entirely and shutting down any conversation that does not maintain their simulacrum. If you go deep left you find communities are gleefully celebrating the murder of their opponents and are also actively buying arms (often for the first time in their lives.)
Meanwhile the middle is getting slammed by layoffs.
Not only the right. Remember there were two or three actual attempts on the candidate for the presidency and one of their influencers was shot dead. Plus you have outburst from Maxine, ol’ Joe miss Occasionally Cortez and others calling for people to take to the streets and to take up violence… sorry but it’s both doing this. Calling anlmost any conservative who isn’t a Neocon a neo nazi doesn’t help quell things either.
That is certainly a bunch of English words. And some punctuation.
Publicly shacking up with neo-nazis is equivalent to… electing democratic socialists?! Are you seriously making this equivalence?
I don't even know what you are talking about so no. And also if it's happening why do I even need to make the equivalence, I'm sure you're right. It's happening, that's the point I was trying to make. The extremes are now the norm and in the open. Both sides are equally to blame.
Nick Fuentes is extreme. Democratic socialism is not extreme, no matter how hard conservatives might try to paint it that way. There is no equivalence here, and "both sides" are not equally to blame.
And other than Mamdani -- a middle of the road democratic socialist who would find himself at home in any Scandinavian country -- I’m not sure what "self-proclaimed socialists" you’re even talking about.
My bad bro.
Gee, I wonder why.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45801849
Because BBC doctored a Trump video? That's why? Seriously?
Your cause-and-effect logic escapes me.