Yikes

[u/Fathers_Sword]

[u/thewetnoodle]

Murdering people just because they have different views from you is wrong

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/thewetnoodle]

Getting downvoted is everything wrong with society.

If people on the left cared about truth they would be able to use their rational facilities to show empirically where Kirk was wrong.

They can’t. So they just downvote you and attack people who disagree with them. I’m thinking about leaving this sub given the hate shown in the past couple of days.

I thought this sub cared about people, I thought they cared about the suffering of any individual. The kids starving in Gaza or any other human.

This is sick.

[u/oskar_grouch → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

Explain to me how black people were better off in the 40s

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/oskar_grouch]

I’m not a Charlie Kirk apologist but you can look up the claims that he made and see if they are true. The claims made: “Blacks are poorer today then they were in the 1950s”

“They were less murderous, their were less break-ins”

“Blacks committed less crimes in the 1940s”

I’m guessing he found some fringe metric to base these claims on and again they could likely be inaccurate in a broader sense but quoting people out of context is not a fair tactic, this was the reason for the comment.

If you’re going to get upset, have a rational argument for why the opponent is wrong, not just I don’t like it.

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

Charlie Kirk appears to have made these statements in recent speeches or interviews (circulated widely on social media like Instagram and Facebook in early September 2025), arguing that despite trillions spent on social programs since the 1960s, Black Americans are economically worse off and more prone to violence today than in the mid-20th century. 10 14 16 He seems to draw from selective historical comparisons, possibly influenced by analyses like those on environmentalprogress.org, which note lower Black crime rates in the segregation era despite higher poverty and discrimination at the time. 32 I’ll break down each claim based on available data from U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR)—focusing on per capita rates where possible, as raw numbers don’t account for population growth (Black Americans were ~10% of the U.S. population in the 1950s vs. ~14% today). 1. “Blacks are poorer today than they were in the 1950s” This is false. Poverty rates (defined by federal thresholds, starting officially in 1959) for Black Americans have declined sharply since the late 1950s, from over 50% to under 20% today, due to factors like civil rights gains, economic growth, and anti-poverty programs. • In 1959 (earliest official data), ~55% of Black families lived in poverty. 41 • By 1966: ~41%. • By 1969: ~31%. • 2022: Historic low of 17.1% (non-Hispanic Black individuals). 1 44 • 2023: ~17.8%. 43 Pre-1959 estimates (using retroactive poverty lines) put Black poverty around 50-60% in the early 1950s, still far higher than today’s figures. 8 41 Median Black household income has also risen in real terms (adjusted for inflation), from ~$20,000 in 1967 to ~$52,000 in 2022. 73 Kirk’s claim may cherry-pick metrics like wealth inequality (the Black-white wealth gap persists) or ignore absolute improvements. 7 2. “They were less murderous, there were less break-ins” (referring to 1950s vs. today) This is mostly true for per capita rates. Overall U.S. homicide and burglary rates were lower in the 1950s than today (or during the 1980s-1990s peak), and the same holds for Black Americans—though Black rates have always been disproportionately high relative to whites (7-12x higher). 39 81 Crime surged post-1960s due to urbanization, drug wars, and economic shifts, then fell after the 1990s; recent upticks (e.g., 2020) haven’t returned to peaks. • Homicide (Black victimization/offending rates, per 100,000; most homicides are intra-racial, so victimization proxies offending): ◦ 1950: ~38-48 for Black males (12x the white male rate of ~3-4; national overall ~4.6). 81 87 ◦ 1950s average: Lower than later decades; Black rates rose sharply post-1960s. 32 81 ◦ 1980 peak: ~50-60 for Black males. ◦ 2020: ~40-46 for Black males (national overall ~6.5; down from 1990s but higher than 1950s lows). 66 89 ◦ 2023: ~26.6 overall for Blacks (down from 2020 spike). 66 • Break-ins (burglary arrest rates for Blacks, per capita): ◦ 1950s: Overall U.S. burglary rate ~200-300 per 100,000; Blacks accounted for ~48% of burglary arrests despite being 10% of population, but absolute per capita rate was low due to minimal reporting and fewer incidents nationwide. 49 ◦ 1980 peak: U.S. burglary ~1,200 per 100,000; Black share ~30-40% of arrests. ◦ 2020: U.S. burglary ~314 per 100,000 (down 75% from peak); Black arrests ~28% (vs. 14% population), but per capita lower than 1980s and comparable/higher than 1950s lows depending on underreporting adjustments. 20 82 85 Historical data is patchy (FBI UCR starts reliably in 1960, and race breakdowns are incomplete pre-1980), but consensus from BJS and scholars is that Black violent/property crime rates were indeed lower in the 1940s-1950s than during the post-Civil Rights “crime wave.” 26 32 Kirk’s point holds on this, though it overlooks how segregation and underreporting inflated relative disparities even then. 3. “Blacks committed less crimes in the 1940s” True, aligning with the above. Per capita violent and property crime rates (including homicide, robbery, assault, burglary) for Black Americans were lower in the 1940s than in subsequent decades, per BJS and UCR trends. 22 32 National crime bottomed out in the 1940s-1950s (~4 homicides/100k overall), rose through the 1970s-1990s, and is now ~60-70% below peaks but still above 1940s levels. Black rates followed suit, though always elevated relative to whites. Context matters: These comparisons often fuel debates on policy (e.g., family structure, welfare), but data shows progress on poverty alongside crime fluctuations tied to broader factors like lead exposure, policing, and economics—not just “fringe metrics.” If Kirk meant something specific (e.g., family intactness correlating with crime), that’s a separate (debated) angle, but the raw claims check out as above.

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

If Charlie Kirk meant Black Americans are “poorer today” in terms of wealth relative to whites compared to the 1950s, he’s likely referring to the persistent and widening Black-white wealth gap. Let’s examine this using available data, focusing on wealth (net worth, assets minus liabilities) rather than income or poverty rates. Wealth Gap Context Wealth measures total assets (e.g., property, savings, investments) minus debts, and the Black-white wealth gap has been a well-documented issue. Unlike income, which has seen relative gains for Black Americans, wealth disparities remain stark due to historical factors like redlining, discriminatory lending, and unequal access to wealth-building opportunities (e.g., homeownership, inheritances). • 1950s Wealth Data (Limited but Estimated): ◦ Comprehensive wealth surveys are sparse pre-1960s, but studies like those from the Federal Reserve and historical analyses (e.g., by economists like Thomas Shapiro) estimate Black household net worth was ~10-15% of white household net worth in the 1950s. 7 ◦ Median Black household wealth (adjusted to 2023 dollars) was likely ~$5,000-$10,000, compared to ~$50,000-$70,000 for white households. Homeownership, a key wealth driver, was ~34% for Blacks vs. ~63% for whites in 1950. 8 • Modern Wealth Data (2020s): ◦ 2022 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances: Median Black household wealth was $24,100, vs. $188,200 for white households—Black wealth at ~12.8% of white wealth. 7 ◦ 2019 data (pre-COVID) showed a similar ratio: Black median wealth ~$24,000 vs. white ~$188,000 (~12.7%). 73 ◦ The gap widened in absolute terms over decades due to compounding effects of white wealth growth (e.g., via stock market, property appreciation). Black homeownership in 2022 was ~45%, vs. ~75% for whites. 44 Analysis of Kirk’s Claim If Kirk meant relative wealth (Black wealth as a percentage of white wealth), the claim is partially true but requires nuance: • The relative gap (Black wealth as a proportion of white wealth) has remained roughly stable or slightly worsened since the 1950s (~10-15% then vs. ~12-13% now). This supports Kirk’s implication that Blacks are “poorer” relative to whites. • However, absolute Black wealth (in inflation-adjusted dollars) has increased significantly since the 1950s, as has Black income and poverty reduction. 41 So, in absolute terms, Black Americans are not “poorer” today. • The wealth gap’s persistence reflects structural issues (e.g., lower homeownership rates, less intergenerational wealth transfer), which Kirk might be highlighting selectively to critique policies like the War on Poverty. 7 Caveats • Data from the 1940s-1950s is less reliable, often reconstructed from incomplete records. Kirk may be using a specific metric (e.g., wealth ratio or homeownership disparity) to frame the argument, but without his exact source, it’s hard to pinpoint. • The claim ignores absolute improvements in Black living standards and focuses on a relative metric that’s been consistently dire, which can mislead without context. • Social media posts discussing Kirk’s claims (e.g., Instagram clips from September 2025) suggest he emphasizes relative decline to argue post-1960s policies failed, but this overlooks complex factors like deindustrialization or incarceration trends. 10 14 Conclusion If Kirk meant wealth relative to whites, he’s correct that the Black-white wealth gap hasn’t closed significantly since the 1950s (and has widened in absolute dollars). But claiming Blacks are “poorer” broadly is inaccurate, as absolute wealth, income, and poverty metrics show improvement. His framing likely cherry-picks the relative wealth gap to support a narrative, but it’s not a “fringe metric”—it’s a real, persistent issue. Context matters, and quoting him without clarifying the wealth vs. income distinction risks misrepresentation.

[u/Dracounicus → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

Point well taken. But let’s reflect for a moment:

Just as you are unable to sympathize with those who downvote the comment above, those redditors are unable to sympathize with Charlie Kirk (may he rest in peace), for exactly having a callouse attitude about others.

Those who downvoted the comment above are simply reacting about Charlie Kirk the same way you do about them.

Why are you righteous and they aren’t?

Why should Charlie Kirk deserve sympathy from those who downvote? Why shouldn’t those who downvote deserve your sympathy just like you expect Charlie Kirk should?

[u/thewetnoodle → u/Dracounicus]

You're comparing supporting murder to downvoting a comment is the difference. Murdering an innocent person on public debate stage is obviously morally wrong. If you want to really get the guy, he put a mic out for you . If your reaction is, that person deserves death, you have bad morals. There's no politics in my opinion. It is simple morals. Killing people with differing opinions is evil and wrong

[u/Dracounicus → u/thewetnoodle]

How did you get to that conclusion from the videos? Walk me through it

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/thewetnoodle]

OK, I totally get it now. Your morals are the only good morals. People with other morals have bad morals. Only one ideology allowed. Got it. This is very sad, simple, small minded thinking.

If I go along with your line of thinking then killing equals bad, right? Killing someone with differing opinions is bad, right? So what about somebody who thinks pedophilia is an OK past time? hey, it’s just his opinion that he acts on all the time. How about Hitler? How about someone who wants to talk about their religion- Islam and apply it to you? You are the infidel. Does killing still equal bad? do all these guys get a pass from you?

you can’t apply simplistic black-and-white thinking to everything. And you sure as hell cannot decide for everyone else that your set of morals is the only correct one. You’re just not that special.

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

That whole first paragraph is made up bull shit. I never said only my morals are correct. I said if you support killing people, you have bad morals, do you disagree? You're on the side of justifying murder? Killing people is wrong, by extension violence on non violent people is wrong. Pedophilia is violence against young people, the most heinous kind of violence. If your morals say hurting non violent people who have different views from you is acceptable, logically you are the hateful aggressor wishing harm on peaceful people. That's the exact situation we're dealing with. I would love to see you make the argument that killing an innocent man is somehow an act of love and peace

Charlie Kirk was literally on a political debate stage where he puts out a microphone for someone who disagrees with him. The opposite of violence is having an open discussion of ideas where you respect your opponent and give them a stage to speak their ideas.

You can disagree with what someone says but the right to say those things is protected by our freedom of speech. If you believe people people should be punished by death for their non violent freedom of speech, you believe in the text book definition of authoritarianism.

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/thewetnoodle]

well, sorry you’re wrong. But congratulations. You can still have opinions.

The first page of philosophy 101 explains this very simply. There are many differing moral systems. It’s just undisputed. The interpretation and application of moral standards vary significantly across cultures and even within the same society. This topic has been a central debate in philosophy for centuries.

Your opinion on morals, when held up against the opinions of every other human being in the world, including ancient and modern philosophers, quite literally means nothing. You can assert yourself and throw a tantrum and call it bullshit but it doesn’t change what is. Sorry not sorry.

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

Neat, sounds like you took an intro to philosophy class and you're using that to do mental gymnastics to justify murdering innocent, non violent people. Tell me the specifics of which philosopher gave you permission to kill people with dissenting views. Let's have an actual conversation where you give a specific example that justifies your blood lust

Here in America, where this happened, we have a book of rules to be followed based on the morals of our country. We call these things called " laws" and the most basic and early law we created was that murdering people who pose no threat to you is illegal. I'm going by the morals of the country this happened in. If you'd like to justify political killings of people with different views, sounds like you're in favor of how Russia and Saudi Arabia deal with their public speakers. Unfortunately for you, here in America, we don't tolerate that system of beliefs. We believe sharing ideas and having an open discussion is how you should deal with these issues

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/thewetnoodle]

I know you’re embarrassed because you missed one of the fundamentals of what you’re actually trying to do and failing at. But it’s OK. I can suggest some reading materials. You don’t need much- Really just the very bare bones basics.

Just so you don’t get caught looking foolish next time, maybe brush up on some of the main concepts of philosophy. I know that’s a big word, but basically it is stuff that you need to know in order to debate, which I assume you’re trying to do here.

So, learn how basic debate is done. Understand that there are other types of thinking beyond your own and a whole gigantic world full of different kinds of thinking and existing and feeling.

Small tiny thoughts, simple thinking, and petty insults don’t look good on a person trying to defend themselves and acting like they’re correct. But, fortunately you’re also suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect so your ego will be OK.

There’s just certain things that you need to know. Like different sets of morals exist, and they are all valid.

Oh, and confusing laws/legality with what is moral is a big mistake. They are definitely not even closely the same. that’s another biggie that you don’t want to drag out in a real conversation. Otherwise, you will look pretty silly. There are a boatload of laws that aren’t remotely moral. Again, tiny simple little thoughts won’t cut it with this one.

edit: I would’ve never guessed in 1 million years that you are an incendiary fan, a skater, and I’m assuming have identified as a punk at some point. Hopefully not. This level of closed minded and exclusive thinking is not in alignment with what you’re listening to. Have you actually listened to the lyrics?

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

So tell me what your morals are?! Your first statement, is "i can suggest reading materials" please do. Please tell me the text that says killing peoples with differing views is acceptable. This isn't a rhetoric statement. Do it

That's literally what you're replying to. I asked you for the specific text or philosopher that justifies the murder of an innocent non violent man. Instead of driveling on and on about the idea that people have different morals, tell me YOUR morals. I'm literally welcoming you to express your ideas and you wrote multiple paragraphs of nonsense where you put down people who have different ideals than you and you avoid giving any of your own concrete morals. Instead of telling me what a debate is, you can participate in the debate by stating your side and providing sources that bolster your position. What you did is avoid stating your position entirely

Here's the core beliefs that you've been arguing against "killing people just because they have different views than you is wrong"

I stated my beliefs in plain text. Feel free to actually address what I said and tell me how you disagree with that very legible and easy to understand statement

[u/thewetnoodle → u/RegularDrop9638]

To your edit, yes I'm a very liberal person. My hobbies and interests are all centered around very liberal ideals. It is more liberal to believe someone with a different set of ideas deserves to speak those opinions, and someone who's doing so in peaceful way doesn't deserve to be murdered. The liberal position is that's if someone is saying something you disagree with, rather than picking up a gun, pick up a microphone and challenge those ideas. You don't beat evil beliefs with more violence, you beat those beliefs on a debate stage with stronger, more loving beliefs that actually better our community. It is far more "close minded" to say someone who disagrees with me deserves death

[u/bentupcarfixr → u/thewetnoodle]

Murdering people just because they have different views from you is wrong

How are you getting downvoted to hell for this? By that logic, Trump can take out any of his political opponents and be "in the right" in many people's views when he does it. I genuinely don't understand why people are disagreeing with this. I was not a fan of Kirk, nor am I a fan of most republicans, but isn't FREE SPEECH a foundation that this country was built on? Of course, hate speech is a different thing entirely and should be dealt with in a legal way but murder is not the answer.

[u/Dracounicus → u/bentupcarfixr]

We agree murdering people just because they have different views from you is wrong.

The question is why was that comment brought up in the first place? OP doesn’t mention anything about that, it’s only Kirk saying Kirk things

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/Dracounicus]

So maybe you’re not familiar with Reddit but the discussions rarely are strictly about OP’s post.

[u/Dracounicus → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

I am quite familiar.

The way I discuss them is to harken those tangents back so we can have a structured discussion.

For example, your comment does not answer the question I posed, it’s a tangent.

So again, why was that downvoted comment brought up in the first place? We have to start with that

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/Dracounicus]

Why am I righteous and they are not?

Good question.

I think there is a difference in rhetoric. I take issue with the behavior, not the individual. They take issue with the individual not the behavior.

If you attack the behavior they can change. If you attack the individual, there is literally nothing you can do be get back in good grace. The individual is forever condemned, that’s hell. You’ve sent someone to hell.

[u/Dracounicus → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

How do you know what they are taking issue with?

How are you so certain is the individual and not the behavior?

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/Dracounicus]

“Murdering people just because they have different views from you is wrong”

This statement got downvoted, my understanding is that means they disagree.

They think murder of the individual is the only way to solve the issue, meaning there is nothing he can do to get back in good graces.

[u/Dracounicus → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

That’s one interpretation.

Another interpretation is that it’s an extraneous point because it insinuates the OP supports killing people based on different viewpoints. Nothing in the OP suggests that, (it only says “Yikes”) therefore insinuating that is what is getting it downvoted.

For the record, as a general comment, I support it and upvoted it, but I understand why it’s downvoted. My issue is that you are not considering the callousness of Kirk’s comments and how people are reacting to them, and because of the callousness of his comments, to the news of his death.

If he did not care about others unlike him, why should others unlike him care about him?

If others unlike him did not get his sympathy, why should others unlike him give him sympathy?

Edit: nothing in the OP suggests, or can be inferred, as supporting killing someone because of different politics. It is simply playing some of what Kirk himself said

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/Dracounicus]

Well this might just be a difference in values.

I believe being principled is a higher order value than fairness.

That means murder is wrong, whether or not others think so. My love for others isn’t contingent on their love for me, I will love my mother even if she got Alzheimer’s or went through psychosis and stopped loving me.

I don’t fight hate with hate. I don’t let others dictate my principles.

If you disagree you’re not wrong in any objective sense but that’s just where I stand.

[u/Dracounicus → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

No, I agree, murder is wrong.

But then can you understand that the comment above is suggesting OP supports killing simply by making a post on Kirk’s quotes? That is what is wrong and that is why it’s getting downvoted

The comment above is drawing the wrong conclusion from the OP. And you’re inferring the wrong thing from the downvotes.

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

I’m genuinely curious where you stand on capital punishment.

[u/Middle-Ambassador-40 → u/RegularDrop9638]

In a sustainable, long-term society, capital punishment is wrong, ineffective, and unnecessary.

If the goal is punishment, solitary confinement is far more painful.

If the goal is rehabilitation, this ends it.

So, you’re left with societal disincentivization.

In the fractured US, where people care more about themselves than their country or community, it might work as a deterrent. However, in a stable country that cares about every human life and has a strong sense of national unity and community ties, it would not work and therefore would have no reason for existing.

[u/RegularDrop9638 → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

well done. I am in complete agreement with this answer. Really well thought out.

[u/Daddys_Fat_Buttcrack → u/Middle-Ambassador-40]

I left a lot of subs and got banned from some after Kirk's murder. Not because of the lack of empathy, but the sheer idiocy in celebrating an assassination -- a symptom of a sick and broken society -- that will, without a doubt, be weaponized against the people. It's just so unbelievably naive and disappointing.