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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>He assassinated the leader of a right-wing movement;
Doesn’t make you a leftist. The two people who tried to kill Donald Trump were clearly not leftists.
> He inscribed "anti-fascist" slogans on the bullet cases, like "Hey fascist! Catch!" and "Bella Ciao" (which is used by Antifa organizations);
“Antifa organizations”? Additionally, the first is a reference to Helldivers which he also referenced on another bullet casing, which you omitted.
> He texted his roommate “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” in reference to Charlie Kirk;
Complicated statement using language the left sometimes uses, I can see what you mean on some level. However, I absolutely find it objectionable to claim that wanting to kill people over speech is somehow a leftist ideal.
> He was dating a transgender person, and had multiple references to the "furry" subculture.
Last I heard that was none of that is as clear cut as some outlets made it out to be, but let’s assume it’s all true: Conservatives can’t date people who are transgender/can’t participate in furry culture? That is a completely unfounded generalization and some cursory research will show you that not every conservative is a cishet dude. Also, what on earth does dating somebody who is transgender (or his maybe being a furry) have anything to do with this? You’re falling into the trap of conservative politicians trying to link everything bad in this country to the transgender community.
There is no doubt he held ideas that are of the left, but he is clearly a very complicated person. I would say he probably leans more left that he does right, but he is not “a leftist.“ The entire point of this discussion is that people are being way too myopic in their thinking. It’s easy to slot people into a neat binary when we are ranting and raving against caricatures of people who we disagree with. It’s different when we actually encounter them in real life.
> There is no doubt he held ideas that are of the left, but he is clearly a very complicated person. I would say he probably leans more left that he does right, but he is not “a leftist.“
By that logic no one is “a leftist“. You can always just state that someone is "complicated" and therefore doesn't fit your ever-narrowing definition of "leftist".
— "Marx? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
— "Obama? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
— "Luigi Mangione? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
— "Angela Davis? he held ideas that are of the left, but he is a complicated person, he's not a 'leftist'".
This just makes discourse impossible. Tyler Robinson assassinated the leader of a right-wing movement and made multiple explicit statements showing a radical-leftist motivation to that assassination. Calling right-wing people "fascists" and imagining oneself as an "antifa" fighting the "fascists" is a case of that leftist motivation. Right-wingers do not call people "fascists" as a motivation to attack them. Texting "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out" is a case of that leftist motivation. Right-wingers do not say they "had enough of their hatred" as a motivation to attack them. This is not something complicated. It is easy to understand. And refusing to meaningfully use the word "leftist" is the same as simply refusing to engage in the discussion at all.
You’re framing this as a “no true Scotsman” issue when it’s about leaving room for nuance and accepting that most people are not neatly “right” or “left.”
If discourse is impossible because someone introduces nuance than I don’t really know what else to say other than that isn’t discourse I want to participate in.
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
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.
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
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)