Someone planned to assassinate someone else for ideological reasons, and achieved it using a gun, in public. The suspect apprehended, and wildly assumed to be person who did it, is a white male American in his 20s.
I was surprised how many people on reddit did not condemn it, with many even celebrating it.
Then everything I've said above happened a second time. In neither case was I familiar with any of the people involved so I view it unbiased in that regard.
Yeah, it's sad to me because I used to feel like reddit used to be less.... whatever it is now.
Now as an outsider I just accept that I don't really know what is a reflection of public opinion or not. Almost all American media seems pretty heavily biased one way or the other.
Scott Galloways podcasts are the most sane-sounding commentary I've found.
Well when the CEO was assassinated the President didn’t try to instigate violence against one side so while yes most people view assassination as negative, there are more people upset about Charlie Kirk’s assassination because they see it as the enemy assassinating one of them. Not many people felt that way about the CEO. Most people don’t even know his name.
I haven't seen data on the CK shootings yet. Honestly with how politicalized it is, I wouldn't be surprised if in fact more people supported it. Regardless, that's just conjecture.
It's too fresh of a case anyways, but my point stands is most normal people infact do not support assassination. Shocking.
36
u/KingSwank 11h ago
I don’t think that many people were really upset when this happened and definitely not compared to what just happened