After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the internet, as one would have guessed, was awash with every take one could possibly imagine. From conspiracy theories about the timing and specifics of his shooting, to well-wishes to the family that survives him, to angry tirades about leftist and right-wing ideology, to flagrant celebrations of his death.
I say, as one would have guessed, because we no longer live in a world dictated by any sense of decorum, any sense of hesitance, any sense of introspection. The internet, specifically social media, is the catch-all for every instantaneous emotion, every half-baked thought, every shrug of a shoulder, every limp toss of a suggestion into an already overflowing bucket of hot-takes, rage bait, point-collecting, and virtue signaling.
In that way, opinions and observations are as numerous and varied as their motives. Some people spew because they had a bad day, like a leaky faucet. Some rake in millions to say whatever is profitable at the moment.
Among these various diatribes and responses, particular attention was given to those flagrantly distasteful celebrations of the assassination––within them, sing-a-longs, wide smiles, winking eyes and joyous laughter swirled into the formation of one big finger in the eye to anyone in mourning, anyone working through their thoughts, and anyone who saw Charlie Kirk in any positive light, including his family.
Without thinking too hard, it is easy to assume these come from his political rivals on the extreme left. Too, not all that surprising, given today’s heated political climate–to put it mildly.
When viewing these joyous responses, which by no means represent the majority of anything, I was not surprised, but was disgusted in their eager displays–I understand many folks did not like Charlie Kirk, and have read convincing (or at the very least sober) writing from those who are not exactly in mourning.
What I mean is, one could argue that Charlie Kirk had brought this reaction to his death upon himself, if they felt that way, without the childish, unnecessary belligerence of social media performativity. No one can make you mourn somebody you simply hated–it is the twinkle in those eyes that is of note. At any rate, the internet will do what the internet does, and I suppose there is no getting that cat back into the bag. I just wish people knew how they looked. I also wish we could understand what is at stake.
Whatever motivations revealed by the assassin will matter none at this point. Nobody is really that interested in digging inside a sick man’s delirious head. That may be of use to the forensic interrogators to piece together patterns for future preventative measures, or historians who will want to document the exact causes of political violence for a future audience. But right here, right in the here and now, the assassination of Charlie Kirk is a mirror image that will be used to confirm everything we already believed about him, ourselves, our political rivals, and the United States.
On the stage of the ideological battle that shows no signs of letting up anytime soon, each participant certainly understands their role as if the script were prewritten.
Out goes the breathless dialogues condemning the left-wing and its insatiable thirst for political violence. Summer of George Floyd, remember?
Out go the responses that remind us of Right-wing violence and its implied support by the current administration. January 6th, remember?
Out goes the Tik-Tokers dancing on the grave and palpating hearts of their fellow Americans.
Out goes the reminders, too, that the right wing has been less than sympathetic when the tragedy involves a Democrat.
Nothing I have seen shows this give-and-take better than a recent episode of Uncensored with Piers Morgan, where he and his regular guests engage in a finger-pointing, left vs. right verbal cage match that would make the late Jerry Springer blush. After a few tearful anecdotes about the late Charlie Kirk were gotten out of the way, it was politics as usual–and these were people who knew him.
America, to continue on the reflection analogy, is like a ram, which sits before him a mirror. It is yet unknown to him what self-inflicted wounds he may endure–he will attack his opposite with brute force, only to realize much too late it was himself all along.
This is what we can only expect from the cultural implosion that is America in the first quarter of this century. From some faraway, more serried context, it may appear to some that America yearns for it. That the whole of the country will be swallowed by a pit of its own making, and as it falls, is incapable of looking inward, only having the ability to point the finger throughout its downward spiral to bedlam.
We are desensitized to the plight of our times. We can see it, feel it, but we are numb to it. The first reaction to any event, whatever it may be, is: who is to blame, who is to profit, how can we make this work for our side?
Some must have a greater tolerance for this back and forth than others do.
In many tragedies, we often say something like “never again” or “never forget”, to keep in memory the victims of said tragedy or keep a mental note of the preconditions of such an event in order to prevent it from happening in the future.
And it is easy to see why this is a recurring response to tragedy–to commit to memory those awful events does feel like the right thing to do–the human thing to do. But these are trying times, the list is getting longer, and people remember only what serves their narrative.
At the end road of wherever these times lead us, there ought to be a discussion on forgiveness. The cultural divide will not find any meaningful repair without it. Now, I have written a good deal about the assassination and the fallout of Charlie Kirk–and you still don’t know what I think of the man. Does it really matter?
 | A guest post by
|
Good day, Judson. Thanks for your request to review.
I can say I find myself agreeing with your thesis and sentiments, but I do find some of the pretexts questionable. For instance, you say that we no longer live in a world governed by decorum, presumably using the instances of rancour and violence in the name of politics as evidence. The problem is that we don’t have a scope of representation. For instance: of all those who call themselves “left-wing” or “right-wing”, how many engage in vitriol-laden discourse? I would bet it’s a very small contingent. In that sense, it would be unfair to say that it implies a “world” bereft of decorum, which has a sort of absolutist connotation.
It’s important to bear in mind that what we see as writers and those engaged in the current affairs idea market is naturally curated by a selection process. Those who cannot write or are otherwise not engaged in the discussion are not represented, and those with the loudest, most cantankerous voices are overrepresented. I like to put it this way: someone who lives in the swamp long enough without knowing much of anything else is most prone to believing, errantly, that the whole world stinks.
The other issue I take is sort of with the pessimistic postdiluvean tone of the lamentation that we’re sort of beyond hope for decorum. I think, even if that were true, the fate of the use of manners would not be dictated by the most visceral and vocal political and social interests. It bears remembering that manners, language, and social conduct did not come from a top-down imposition from ideologues and other assorted social engineers, in spite of their insistence to the contrary (it’s their only pretext for believing their reforms will stick, though the doctrine is a completely risible house of cards). Manners are a product of an evolved social order necessary for conduct in a pluralistic world, and it’s abundantly evident that people are capable on their own of raising moral offspring without the intervention of interloping agents, interests, and institutions. In fact, institutions can be responsible for the social deformity of otherwise well-raised children! Just ask anyone who was bullied throughout high school. It can drown out what support you may get from peers.
Other than that, though, I find myself in accord with the gist. Good job. It’s fine writing.
"Whatever motivations revealed by the assassin will matter none at this point. Nobody is really that interested in digging inside a sick man’s delirious head. That may be of use to the forensic interrogators to piece together patterns for future preventative measures, or historians who will want to document the exact causes of political violence for a future audience."
On the contrary, that's rather like claiming that when a patient zero dies of a virulent new disease that identifying that disease and how it spreads will only be of interest in some distant future... No, it's the most critical possible thing to understand right away. Particularly because all available evidence now available makes it rather clear that this 'man' was not mentally ill in any way... This appears to have been a completely sane and rational premeditated murder committed on the basis of a deeply inaccurate picture of who Charlie Kirk really was and a certain deeply ideological framework that deliberately conflates any rhetorical disagreement with the transgender activists as literal genocide against which violence is not only justified but virtuous. Charlie Kirk is dead because a radicalized young man decided that Charlie Kirk having conversations with college students somehow represented a lethal threat to his own transitioning boyfriend, so he tried to get away with assassinating him.
That's not a "mental illness happens, what can we do?" situation, that's a "how many other people are transgender or in relationships with transgenders who have been taught these same radical ideas that all conservatives are Nazis and it's their moral responsibility to kill those Nazis before they harm more transgenders?" The trend line for political assassination attempts has been rising rapidly for years to a level not seen in many decades and the offenders are overwhelmingly leftists targeting those to the right of them.
When a suicide bomber detonates in a crowd we don't handwaved the question of why he did it, WE FIND THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION THAT RECRUITED, TRAINED, AND DISPATCHED HIM SO WE CAN PREVENT THE NEXT SUCH ATTACK! That's what needs to happen right now. For all the social media posts saying things like "Do Ben Shapiro next!" we need to take them seriously and act to nip this in the bud immediately.