[jkic47]

How the hell did we get here?

At a fundamental level, we seem to have lost our sense of what Democracy means.

The rules are "I can think you are crass, wrong, bigoted, geriatric, etc., but if a majority of my countrymen think otherwise, we accept we are not successful in the battle of ideas, and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years". Unless this is a lone, unstable individual, it is more evidence that our system needs more balance.

Truly sad that we've descended to this level

[daseiner1]

This is a horrible thing, but sadly nothing new. Pardon the Wikipedia block quote:

> Four sitting presidents have been killed: Abraham Lincoln (1865, by John Wilkes Booth), James A. Garfield (1881, by Charles J. Guiteau), William McKinley (1901, by Leon Czolgosz), and John F. Kennedy (1963, by Lee Harvey Oswald). Additionally, two presidents have been injured in attempted assassinations: former president Theodore Roosevelt (1912, by John Schrank) and Ronald Reagan (1981, by John Hinckley Jr.)

If anything we’ve been “overdue”.

[dredmorbius]

Excepting Eisenhower and Johnson, every US president (or president-elect) has been subject to an assassination attempt dating back nearly a century to Herbert Hoover (1929--1933).

Shots have been fired at FDR, Truman, Kennedy(†), Ford, Reagan, Clinton, and yesterday.

Bombs or explosives have been placed or deployed against Hoover, Truman, Kennedy, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...>

[dredmorbius]

Clarifying: attempt or plot, though some physical action was taken against all but Eisenhower & Johnson, per Wikipedia.

[gnicholas]

It's not very common in the modern era, though I would add in RFK Sr., who was assassinated while running for president several decades ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Robert_F._Ken...

[LarsDu88]

6/45 presidents have been shot today.

Today that number is 7/45

So it went from 13% to 15%. Not only that, but firearms technology has advanced considerably. If anything, statistically speaking we've been incredibly lucky in the past 30 years

[sam_goody]

Being President is statistically the most dangerous job in the United States

Compared to other places (like ancient Greece that switched rulers twice a year).. I guess it's a risky job, but someone's gotta do it.

[Log_out_]

Have you considered exile? The populatuon majority declares you a dividing figure and banishes you for ten years from the (city)state(s). Very Preferable to civil war.

[spaceship__sun]

Curious how the shooter missed though. And just, how they seem to miss quite often in general.

[ultimafan]

Anecdotally, it seems like many people seem to underestimate how difficult accurate shooting actually is. I genuinely can't count the number of times I've taken someone interested in shooting out to the range for their first time and they get dismayed when they can't place accurate shots even at a fairly close range (<25 meters), from a sitting position, with a rifle rest and being able to aim as long as they want with no stress or pressure before firing.

The general pop culture opinion cultivated by movies, shows, video games, etc. seem to mislead a lot of people towards the idea that guns are just a "point and shoot" type of deal at any range in any situation. When the reality is like any other hobby it takes many many hours of practice and lots of $$$ worth of ammo to get to the point where you can consistently place shots on target at decent ranges and even then that's in a controlled environment with a paper target that doesn't move, no pressure on you, you're probably not firing standing up without a support etc.

[sanswork]

They also forget all those times they've gotten excited in a confrontation and started to shake. Trying to be accurate is hard. Trying to do it while pumping with adrenaline changes it to basically impossible.

[redeeman]

they say it was around 120 meters, the first time i picked up my rifle and went to the range, i was able to consistently put the shots within 4cm at 100 meters. a tiny bit training, and we are talking 5cm at 200 meters.

it is NOT hard. whats hard is from-the-hip shooting like you see in movies.

i dont mean to be (too) rude, but if you have problems hitting accurately at 25 meters with a rested rifle, you have some serious problems that you should probably get looked at (im thinking inability to hold steady etc)

[throwaaway45656]

In your situation you had no pressure at all. I imagine that even getting to the top of the roof without the police spotting hin is enough to give him an extremely high level of adrenaline that causes his body to start shaking.

In addition he knew that snipers and police were constantly watching roof tops, and if he poked his head out he may not have many seconds to actually raise his gun, aim and shoot.

I am not an expert, but I doubt you can compare your experience on the range to a kid full of adrenaline trying to take a shot at one of the most protected persons in the world. It's a completely different situation.

[ultimafan]

A consistent 4 cm at 100 meters your first time shooting, then a consistent 5 cm at 200 meters just a short time later is nothing short of a miracle. That's 1.3~ and 0.85~ MOA respectively.

Hell, many commercial and surplus rifles you buy will straight up NEVER shoot 1 MOA on their own as is even assuming you've clamped them perfectly to a table with no human input for error due to their construction.

[more_corn]

Bullshit. In your delusional imagining what caliber rifle were you pretending to shoot with such superhuman accuracy? Did you sight it in yourself or did it just magically shoot straight when you clamped the rings down?

[sam_goody]

How long till we have gun stabilizing, sort of like image stabilization in cameras?

I do not know what it would take to do that, but even if it needs AI it doesn't sound too far off.

[czl]

Aim enhancing guns exist. Example: TrackingPoint Precision-Guided Firearms: uses a computer-controlled firing system Tracks targets and calculates variables like distance, wind, and angle. Only fires when the gun is perfectly aligned with the target Can hit moving targets at distances up to 1,200 yards

[Ekaros]

Electronic firing probably makes more sense. So you put ai/algo between pulling trigger/pressing button and actually bullet firing.

[frankzinger]

A former sniper said on CNN that it should've been so easy to hit from such a short distance that it could only have been "divine intervention" that saved Trump.

[ultimafan]

A former sniper would also have a few hundred to a few thousand hours more range time than a random member of the public. I wouldn't doubt that "easy" for someone like that would have a much different meaning than for everyone else.

[griffzhowl]

Apparently Crooks was rejected from his school rifle team for being such a bad shot they thought it would just be too dangerous if he participated...

[kelipso]

Latest news is that a local cop climbed up the ladder and saw him, he pointed his rifle at the cop, cop climbed back down, and he immediately pointed his rifle back at the at stage and started shooting at Trump. So he would've been panicking when he was shooting.

[comfysocks]

One report I heard said that someone (security?) went up to the roof to confront the shooter before he made his shots. The shooter pointed his rifle at this person who then backed down for cover. This might explain why the snipers got a fix on him so quickly.

One ex-USMC commentator on Bloomberg said that the shot wouldn’t have been very difficult at that range. As to why he missed, maybe the shooter had to rush his shots since he was spotted. Maybe he was just a bad shot. It was explained that he wasn’t accepted into his high school shooting team.

This is what I remember hearing while doom-browsing YouTube, so take with a grain of salt.

[christophilus]

It’s probably not easy to take careful aim while in a large crowd without someone noticing— especially since there are skilled professionals whose only job is to watch for people taking careful aim…

[qup]

Dude was on a roof. 400ft away

[spookie]

It was a kid out of highschool who had confronted a policeman just moments before. The guy was under a lot of pressure.

You know he wasn't that well trained when you see that he killed a bystander.

[defrost]

Less than 140 yards and missed?

Firstly needs to learn how to engage in politics w/out a gun. Also needs to practice.

Meanwhile, next door in Australia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEY00iJv4CQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6KJM-MODME but we're just farmers.

[s1artibartfast]

shooting is quite difficult in real life.

[LocalH]

"And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson, 1787

[cafard]

And what was TJ's attitude when New England cut up rough about the embargo?

[krapp]

Thomas Jefferson was nothing if not a massive hypocrite. He waxed eloquent about the nobility of violence done by other men to other men, but when the British showed up at Monticello he fled like a coward.

Unsurprising for a man who styled himself a yeoman farmer but had slaves and children do all of his work for him.

[comfysocks]

Maybe, but hopefully we can move towards a future with more voting and less violence.

[redeeman]

and maybe if we are really lucky, we could also move towards a future where candidates are allowed to be on the ballot, and shouldnt be kept off to "save democracy" - we must save democracy by disallowing people voting for who they want!

[bitnasty]

Or a future where the loser doesn’t desperately cling to power and incite violence to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

[comfysocks]

I actually agreed that Trump should be on the ballot back when that was a thing.

I guess my point is: if anyone thinks their grievances justifies violence, remember that the other side has grievances too.

We have free speech in the United States, so we are free to say things like “Biden is senile” or “Trump is anti-democratic.” But if we can’t exercise free speech and disagree without descending into violence, then it will be our downfall. Xi and Putin will be delighted. Maybe they’ll take over and we’ll have a system where saying the wrong thing gets you disappeared, strapped to a tiger chair, or thrown out of a window.

[therealdrag0]

Multiple Attacks and attempted attacks have happened in last 10 years even. A far right winger sent 16 mail bombs to democrats (including Biden and Obama) in 2018, and a dozen men tried to nap Michigan governed.

[poikroequ]

Did you not see the insurrection on the capital just a few years ago? People chanting Hang Mike Pence? How about the person who blew up a small part of downtown Nashville one Christmas morning because lizard people? There's lots of lunatics out there, plenty to go around.

[krapp]

>The rules are "I can think you are crass, wrong, bigoted, geriatric, etc., but if a majority of my countrymen think otherwise, we accept we are not successful in the battle of ideas, and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years".

Trump was never supported, much less elected, by a majority of Americans. He didn't even get the majority of votes in the election he won. The American political system was explicitly designed not to empower the will of the majority, because that would have been an existential threat to the status quo (slavery) at the time.

And while it might be nice to claim that we should be civil participants in a battle of ideas, it would be naive to ignore the effect of centuries of gun culture and polarizing neo-reactionary rhetoric on American politics. Regardless of what the founding fathers may have intended (and notwithstanding that they disagreed on many things) a lot of Americans believe political violence is a necessity and a virtue. They lecture people on the virtues of guns after every school shooting, and speak wistfully about "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants."

America has been edging itself with talk of a "cold civil war" for years now. It's like a morbid game of chicken.

[oceanplexian]

> The American political system was explicitly designed not to empower the will of the majority, because that would have been an existential threat to the status quo (slavery) at the time.

This whole retelling of history exclusively through the lens of the slavery is getting super old. It is divisive, it’s a form of revisionist history, and it’s wrong.

Read about the Northwest Ordinance, the provisions in it banning slavery in the 1780s were ultimately adopted verbatim into the Thirteenth Amendment. Or the actions of the founders including John Adams who put their lives on the line to fight against slavery. And the numerous states that made it illegal at the time of the nation’s founding.

There’s a lot more to history than the over-simplified retelling about how the radical pace of social change in the 18th century wasn’t somehow fast enough for our 2024 sensibilities.

[SamPatt]

The founders feared the will of the majority partially because they saw the instability in France and recognized the dangers of mob rule.

Within a few years of the drafting of the constitution, the reign of terror began.

The majority isn't always right.

[halostatue]

Your history is wrong. The French Revolution did not begin until May 1789. The US Constitution had been adopted in March 1789.

Even if there had been instantaneous communication (and we’re talking a 2+ month communication lag), the framers were not influenced by the French Revolution at all.

When looked at in terms of actual writings from the time, the protection of property owners — including enslavers who claimed humans as property — was a key part of how the US Constitution was ultimately accepted.

[SamPatt]

Read my comment again.

I said within a few years of being drafted. That's accurate.

Instability was apparent before the blood actually began flowing.

[krapp]

Rule by minority seems implicitly less just than rule by the majority - as rule bmy minority converges towards authoritarianism.

[erellsworth]

Looks like you're getting down voted a lot for this but it's all true. Trump only became president because the electoral college weighs geography higher than population. So does the senate.

[belorn]

The concept is less surprising when degressive proportionality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degressive_proportionality) happens to be fairly common.

Election system that give weight to geography is generally done so to encourage cooperation where people otherwise would prefer going alone. Both EU and US have large historical reasons to unify low population regions with a lot of natural resources with high population regions. Same is true in Germany, Iceland, Sweden and so on, all with varied degrees of giving weight to geography.

[winternett]

I don't know if we can honestly ask how did we get here... January 6th was just one of many shining beacons to let us know that this issue was a powder keg.

Social Media has added a layer of deep disinformation & divisive ideological bubbles that are all largely going unchecked as well, where anyone can be anyone, and where it can be quite profitable for personalities to become incendiary... We're really not holding anyone, nor the bodies managing social media and news media accountable for their actions at all, which opens the doors to sensationalism, and even to embellishment on issues which are normally meant to be commonplace and handled professionally.

I think everyone has had fair warning that the rhetoric would lead to more drama, and the country has ignored it in a quest to line pockets. Politics are meant to be boring, and in order to serve Democracy, it simply can't ignore and even encroach on basic rights of others it represents. We have gone too far in political extremes, and this is the end result, slowly getting worse over time.

It's clear that we need to stop making personal servants celebrities, and to stop watching and pushing politics as if it's a TV drama or Football game, otherwise it's only going to get worse... That being said, there is a lot more organization and agendas involved in politics now than in the past.

Technology now is widely being used against everyone to achieve and monitor goals and progress in capturing profit... Sometimes as tech insiders, we have to be careful about what we implement and even say "no" as a response to being asked to do things that undermine people and the ethical balance of the world.

Profiting off of tech is not good if it makes the world we all live in deeply unstable. There's no castle, even in Maui, that anyone can build to survive political and economic collapse of the country nor the world. There is a better way to do all of this.

[PicassoCTs]

>"..and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years"

The assassination target promised loudly and repeatedly, it would not adhere to that. This a vote for him would be the last vote. Guy may as well have be another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser if trump gets to power against the mummified establishment figure.

[ElectronCharge]

You are misinformed.

[tithe]

I think part of the answer is how you phrased the situation yourself, as a "battle of ideas."

The rhetoric by both "left" and "right" platforms pitches a divided America, and a "battle for the soul of the nation." Battle against whom? My own countrymen? For what? For my vision for America? I was unsettled when I heard this (but maybe I'm just too sensitive.)

When you combine this kind of inflammatory speech with blanket group classifications like "liberals" or "MAGA" or "democrats" or whatever, you've now identified an enemy in this "battle", and as I've seen lately, can completely lose sight that these people are our countrymen too.

[AnimalMuppet]

The language on both sides is apocalyptic - if we don't win this election, it's the end of America! And you have to fight for your country, or you won't have one! It's a war!

Well, if you call it a war enough times, sooner or later somebody will take you literally.

[neverartful]

I think it's that along with a few other things. One is the media and that's nothing new. Don Henley's excellent song 'Dirty Laundry' is all about how the media loves to have bad things happen (dirty laundry) for them to report about. Another is the internet. There's something about engaging electronically that causes (I believe) people to forget that they're engaging with other people. In other words, they (generally) react more crass/aggressive than they would in person. I also believe that there is a growing acceptance (among both major parties) that the ends justify the means. This is actually the one that frightens me the most. It seems like as time goes by you see more of it. It's a dangerous path and we'll be suffering the consequences more and more.

[edmundsauto]

I feel the need to quote the wiki article on Dirty Laundry:

> Henley's own arrest in 1980 when he was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor and possession of marijuana, cocaine, and Quaaludes after a 16-year-old girl overdosed at his Los Angeles home

[tithe]

I think you're right. That kind of language taps energy to get bases riled up, but it's a dangerous kind of excitement (panic?) that can lead to desperate acts.

It makes my stomach turn that people - and I - can be susceptible to this, and furthermore that it's taken advantage of. Politicians are skilled hackers, too.

[EasyMark]

It also, I think, sometimes gives those on the edge of doing bad things, a little push and then they do terrible things like this.

[bitnasty]

Trump literally tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power after losing a fair election. He will likely do this again. If he succeeds, American democracy is toast.

[trealira]

Well, it's a battle for control over the courts, for control over the administrative state, for control over the school systems, for control over the election systems. This is why judge appointments got so strained in the last 15 years, why the Heritage Foundation wants to take back the federal government with Project 2025 (by firing 2 million federal employees en masse), why conservatives are so concerned about indoctrination in schools, and about attacking the Deep State. It's also why Democrats are campaigning on keeping democracy from ending, and keeping elections free.

[mistermann]

"our countrymen" is yet another category.

Unskilled and unaware of it categorization is a major component of the collective hallucination we've been taught to call reality.

That said: I do not disagree with you. This planet is out of control.

[lolinder]

We got here because both sides have for the last 8 years consistently failed to treat one another as human beings with opinions rather than the literal devil incarnate.

There are a substantial number of people on this forum who sincerely believe that if Trump is elected there will not be another election. If enough people sincerely believe that, one of them will eventually decide that it's worth it to sacrifice their own life to ensure the survival of democracy in America.

[Larrikin]

There were 16 years of bad faith negotiations from one side

[lolinder]

Case in point. Show this comment to either side and they'd heartily agree with you.

[IAmGraydon]

That's correct. And the idea that Trump will end democracy is a core part of the left's fear campaign. They share responsibility for this.

[bamboozled]

I'm quite sure he is open about ending democracy from day one?

[voisin]

Oh come on man. He clearly tried to subvert the last election and came within steps of his VP being killed by a mob he encoded while trying to certify the election. This isn’t just a fear campaign.

[lolinder]

It's a fear campaign, and the leaders of the Democratic party know it.

Trump regularly behaves completely irresponsibly and is a terrible loser, and Trump is definitely capable of (intentionally and otherwise) inciting violence, but if you compare the actions of the Democratic leadership to their rhetoric you can clearly see they don't believe the full extent of their own rhetoric about him.

They play up the apocalyptic fears for democracy itself because they know it's the only card they have left after nominating Biden. If they were serious about protecting democracy they'd have kicked him out last year when there was still time to build momentum for an electable candidate, rather than continuing to protect his ego. If they were serious about protecting democracy they would have tried harder to court the moderate voters (who are very courtable right now if anyone cared to try). If they were serious about protecting democracy they would have done anything other than focus exclusively on how terrible Trump is for the last four years, because they know that you don't beat a fire by fanning it. They would have deescalated, but instead they escalated, and they absolutely share responsibility for this.

[yongjik]

I remember seeing a comment in HN that went like "So some group of people walked into a government building. Big deal."

I guess, for people whose world view is so malleable that they can look at an attempt to overthrow the government and say "Some people walked into a government building," it makes perfect sense to feel sorry for Trump being demonized by the Left.

[mlindner]

What actually constitutes an "attempt to overthrow a government"? Do you think a random mob would be followed by the country as a whole? Do you have so little faith in the government's institutions that they'd just agree to follow them? Do you think the military would?

If an "attempt" is so far flung from reality as to be impossible does it actually make it an attempt? If the mob had been half its size, or a quarter its size, or even one person, is that still an "attempt to overthrow the government"?

Even if they'd literally walked in with their guns blazing and killed every single politician they could find, while it'd cause a ton of chaos, the government would still have elections to replace those people killed and government would continue.

[willcipriano]

Lucky they all forgot their guns that day.

[mistermann]

> He clearly

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-problem/

These conversations (this entire thread and all(!) others like it, with perhaps a few exceptional comments here and there) are like listening to my uneducated family members discussing AI at my last family reunion.

Noteworthy: they show no signs that they realize the predicament they are in.

Why are people like this?

How can there be no exceptions?

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy...

[energy123]

Look only at the Trump-Raffensberger phone call. You're asking me to ignore the evidence of my senses. The transcript is there for you to read.

The 22nd amendment is the only thing that gives me confidence, but it won't be for lack of trying on his part.

[hindsightbias]

Trump is completely normal - let’s roll the dice after his Jan 6th performance and hope for the best.

We’ve got a SCOTUS that says he can be King. Surely he won’t use it, because…

[energy123]

It's wild how the Overton window has shifted for the worse. Back in 2015-2016, supporting Trump was politically incorrect because of what he theoretically might do. Now after he actually tried to do the thing, the floodgates seem to have opened and all the scum have given each other confidence to come out showing their true colours.

[bitnasty]

Are you forgetting what happened after the 2020 election? This “both sides” shit is a bunch of fucking baloney.

[bitnasty]

Trump tried to cling to power once after losing a fair election. You don’t think he’ll try again?

[lolinder]

I realize the phrase "both sides" is triggering for anyone who sees the other side as completely insane and their side as correct and rational, but I stand by what I said. I live among rabid right-wingers and work among rabid left-wingers, and neither group sees the other as anything other than evil or stupidly deluded.

They're both wrong on that front and both need to stop and actually try to understand each other before we see more violence.

[Yawrehto]

>How the hell did we get here?...Truly sad that we've descended to this level.

By the way, sorry that this comment is so long.

This level of violence isn't new. This has never been new. There's always been stuff like this. Yes, today's era of political polarization is bad, but the US seems to go through cycles of great polarization and regrettably frequent violence followed by fairly calm periods - at least by one metric (e.g, by 'civil wars' 1860-65 was the worst, but if you measured by violent labor strikes the late 1800s-early 1900s were). Thus you get the American Revolution, then a period of relative calm, then the years leading up to the Civil War and the Civil War itself. Then a period of relative quiet, followed by the much smaller strikes, which often turned violent, as well as pogroms against blacks. Then relative quiet, then Vietnam, Civil Rights, etc.

Summary of the data following: Proceeding in fifty-year intervals back from 2020-July 13,2024, ending at 1770-July 13, 1774, this era placed #2 in civil unrest, but #4 out of 6 - ie, below average - in a broader category, counting coups, massacres, civil unrest, rebellions, worker deaths due to labor disputes, and racial violence.

For a sense of the persistence of it, look at Wikipedia's page[1]. In fact, if anything, it seems to be slowing down; Wikipedia (thus far) lists 17 incidents from 2020-2024 (inclusive). Scrolling 50, 100, 150, 200, etc. years back shows the following:

50 years ago [1970-July 13,1974]: 28 (!)

100 years ago [1920-July 13,1924]: 9.

150 years ago [1870-July 13,1874]: 10. Again, possibly an underestimate.

200 years ago [1820-July 13,1824]: 0. This is almost certainly an underestimate, but it's how many Wikipedia lists.

250 years ago [1770-July 13, 1774]: 5[2]

So, we're the second-highest. However, Wikipedia also helpfully has lists of coup attempts, massacres, etc. So! [Note that this includes things that partially include that time period, e.g., the American Revolution, and larger things, e.g., the Black Panthers. This is from Wikipedia; you can edit it if you want. The version I'm using is accurate as of when I'm writing this]

Combined number of coups[3], massacres[4], civil unrest[1][2], rebellions[5], worker deaths "from labor disputes"[counts incidents, not individual deaths] [6], and racial violence[7] [may have some double counting], moving in 50 year intervals back from 2020-July 13,2024:

2020-July 13,2024: Coup attempts: 2, massacres: 3, civil unrest: 17, rebellions: 2, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 1 [it lumps police brutality together; you're welcome to object]. Total: 25.

1970-July 13,1974: coups: 0, massacres: 1, civil unrest: 28, rebellions: 5, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 15. Total: 49.

1920-July 13,1924: Coups: 0, Massacres: 6, Civil unrest: 9, rebellions: 1 [Coal Wars], worker deaths: 14, racial violence: 7 [doesn't count KKK as overarching thing]. Total: 37

1870-July 13,1874: Coups: 1 [state], Massacres: 3, Civil unrest: 10, rebellions: 0, worker deaths: 1, racial violence: 12, Total: 27

1820-July 13,1824: Coups: 0, Massacres: 0, Civil unrest: 0 [somehow], rebellions: 0, worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 1, not including slavery. Total: 1

1770-July 13,1774: Coups: 0, Massacres: 1, Civil unrest: 5, rebellions: 2 [includes American revolution], worker deaths: 0, racial violence: 0, not counting slavery. Total: 8.

So we come in at position #4 out of 6. A reasonable argument could be made that we're actually BELOW average currently.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States.

[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_Colonial_North_America

[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts_by_country#United_States [this counts state-level attempts]

[4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States. Erratic about which mass shootings it includes.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rebellions_in_the_Unit...

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_Unite...

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_Un...

[matrix87]

> Unless this is a lone, unstable individual, it is more evidence that our system needs more balance.

When is it ever not? A lot easier to believe than a bunch of handwavey "across the aisle" garbage

[tibbydudeza]

It eerily reminds me of the dialogue scene from that recent movie.

Journalists: We are Americans.

Soldier: What kind of American are you ???.

[shrimp_emoji]

That was an edgy trailer cut. In the movie, he clarified "South American, Central American...?" He wanted to know if they were from the U.S. and kill them if they weren't. (That's why he only shot the two Asians.)

[trealira]

Sorry, what movie is this? I don't watch many movies.

[c0brac0bra]

You're not missing anything.

[thirdsun]

Civil War (2024)

[trealira]

Thanks!

[hulitu]

> How the hell did we get here?

Too many guns ? Too much interference of the CIA ?

> At a fundamental level, we seem to have lost our sense of what Democracy means.

What means democracy ? Rich people buying politicians to promote laws which will make them richer ? A bunch of "citizens" sending other "citizens" to die "for their country" so some assholes can increase profits ?

[remarkEon]

>How the hell did we get here?

Since 2016 about half the country has been fed a steady stream of rhetoric that seeks to define Trump as a literal - not figurative or metaphorical - existential threat to "our democracy". A Hitler 2.0 or worse, and the mark of Fascism finally coming to the United States.

If you take those arguments at face value, and really and truly believe they are true, then it is unsurprising that someone took a shot at "New Hitler". Because why wouldn't someone do that if it was true?

Of course it isn't true, and even the people who say this stuff don't believe it[1].

[1] https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877

[mrguyorama]

If you think "threat to our democracy" rhetoric started "from the left" in 2016, you should go lookup what Fox News has been saying for decades.

War on christmas? War on Christianity? Obama isn't even a real american so he is an illegitimate president? "They're coming for our children"? Christ that one regularly gets drag story time cleared out due to violent threats. How dare someone read a book to a child while wearing a dress.

Or maybe you forget the decades of bombing abortion clinics?

You know we USED to have violent hard left organizations like the Black Panthers and Weather Underground. Now the right has to wave vaguely at "auntie fa", a "group" as real as "anonymous".

[remarkEon]

Honestly? I think the difference here is that Bill O'Reilly saying a bunch of BS on his TV show is pretty starkly different from the "paper of record" and the sitting President telling voters that "if this other guy wins the election democracy ends". You can see the difference in authority of voice here, right? That's a rhetorical framing that justifies a lot of extreme action. Arguably, it justifies preventing Trump from assuming office if he wins again in November. Is this what people really believe? I don't think so, because if it was people in government would've celebrated the assassination attempt.

[archagon]

Would you recognize a literal Hitler in the making if you were around in the 1930’s? Plenty of people didn’t, or didn’t care. There was nothing particularly special about the man: just a hateful, populist asshole who gathered a disproportionate amount of power. Politics as normal until they weren’t.

We can’t know for sure who will become a monster when handed unfettered power, but we can take a pretty good guess. And there are few people in American politics who are as hateful, vindictive, and anti-democratic as Trump.

[zarathustreal]

Those are the stated rules, let’s be clear about that. The actual rules are that there are no rules.

Painting an election by popular vote as a “battle of ideas” is falling into the all-too-common trap of thinking that we are rational agents. I can’t even begin to expand on how incorrect that is.

Even a little bit of candid consideration would uncover the truth of this. Political ads aren’t logical arguments. They’re emotional appeals. Hell, “he should be in charge because he’s most popular” is itself an ad populum argument. It’s nonsense to begin with.

[proc0]

He has been compared to Hitler countless times, and was demonized by the media for years, meanwhile his supporters were dismissed as lunatics and conspiracy theorists when this is pointed out.

We literally almost had civil war or at least a real insurrection today.

[incomingpain]

>How the hell did we get here?

Lets go backwards.

Messaging from the democrat side has been that trump is a threat to democracy, he's a fascist nazi, etc etc. You've seen the vilification. Days prior Biden literally said to put Trump in the bullseye and 'elimination' is necessary. Biden has withdrawn all these ads.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-polarization-of-politic...

Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side.

Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided. Reddit for example having banned r/thedonald for example. Each side now lives separately and aren't talking to each other except to dunk on each other's dumbest candidates. John Stewart's fault.

The fix here has to come from the democrat side, end the identity politics, and start preaching unity, democracy, and everyone is on the same team. It does seem that they have shifted their messaging, but to change your messaging strategy 3 months before the election is rather election ending.

[AnimalMuppet]

> Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side.

Say what? (Even the article you cite does not support your claim.)

> Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided.

Double what?

There is plenty of villification coming from Trump and the right. (Read his speeches.) There is plenty of violent rhetoric on the right. There is a big echo chamber on the right. If you don't see it, maybe you're in an echo chamber?

[dorkwood]

> Echo chambers are mostly democrat sided.

What are your thoughts on Qanon and Pizzagate?

Echo chambers exist on both sides. It's human nature to align yourself with a tribe and denounce everything that goes against it. Most people just don't have the self awareness to notice when it's happening to them.

[trealira]

> Political polarization is primarily derived from the democrat side.

You're really going to say that, while Trump sends out campaign emails like this?

> BIDEN'S DAY OF RECKONING IS COMING

> He tried to publicly torture and humiliate me ... BUT HE FAILED.

> He tried to raid my home and take me out with deadly force... BUT HE FAILED.

> He tried to bury me with so many witch hunts that I'd be forced to quit... BUT HE FAILED.

> STAND WITH TRUMP

> 34 RIGGED FELONY CONVICTIONS calls for an unprecedented response.

> And if our response to his tyrannical regime isn't MASSIVE, Biden will move onto his next target: YOU!

> THEY WANT TO SENTENCE ME TO DEATH!

> You know they’d do it if they could, but Crooked Joe’s team of lowlifes and radical left thugs will settle for a LIFE SENTENCE. ...

> Remember, it’s not me they’re after…

> THEY’RE AFTER YOU - I’M JUST STANDING IN THEIR WAY!

> But with your support,

> I’ll NEVER give up.

> I’LL NEVER SURRENDER! ...

> Your support is the only thing standing between the Biden regime and their ultimate goal of DESTROYING AMERICA ONCE AND FOR ALL.

This sort of rhetoric is standard. Seems like everyone has just forgotten about it.

[incomingpain]

>You're really going to say that, while Trump sends out campaign emails like this?

All of your examples are actions against him or completely reasonable things to say like "STAND WITH TRUMP"

> THEY WANT TO SENTENCE ME TO DEATH!

Not prophetic, the number of people who see Trump as a fascist threat that needs to be stopped is huge.

>This sort of rhetoric is standard. Seems like everyone has just forgotten about it.

The end of my post was the important one. The Biden team has changed their messaging. I guarantee the media will do the same. But this isn't the group im talking about who has to change.

Given your response here and I'm guessing you're average... so the democrats won't be. So what's the consequences?

[trealira]

For one, that was a campaign email, so it's one example.

You're going to take this position, whatever. But nothing said about Trump has been false. Democratic leaders shouldn't be apologizing for anything, but I'm sure they will.

[JamesAdir]

I know it sounds awful, but I blame the media. If you looked at some of the leading liberal newspapers in America, the minutes and hours after the shooting, you could see how they try to minimize the event, instead of reporting it truthfully.

[mistermann]

> and fight another battle of ideas in 4 years".

Someone should shoot "democracy" itself. It's 2024, why are we still driving a political system with training wheels that always takes us to places other than where 90%+ of people want to go?

Could it maybe be in part because we are immersed in pro-"democracy" propaganda from the day we are born, and are denied the educational curriculum (set by "democracy") that would give us the tools to think and engage in discourse at a level that would allow us to realize it, or at least consider the idea without everyone losing their cool?

Now, sticking with convention: has anyone any epistemically unsound memorized memes and catch phrases for me, to "prove" "democracy" is the ~best we can do, and that ideas like replacing it with a more sophisticated, non-deceptive implementation shan't be discussed among "the adults at the table"?

Inb4 "this isn't what HN is for".

Protip, fellow Humans: it is possible to think your way out of this simulation we are in, at least substantially (at which point you can rest, regroup, and plan for the next stage of ascent). And it isn't even very hard. It is little more than doing just what we Humans have proven ourselves excellent at, most of the time:

1. Identify a challenge.

2. Solve it.

Heck, this problem is actually mostly far more trivial[2] than things we do every day without thinking twice about it. It's mostly just not on our radar, and heavily psychologically protected territory[1]. But religion was this way once also, and science handed it an ass whooping, didn't it?

[1] Simple experiments can be run on social media or IRL to demonstrate this: specific prompts will produce highly predictable responses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model

[2] Irony noted lol