The assassination of Charlie Kirk at the age of 31 shook many people. He was young, married, and a father, which made the loss not only political but also deeply personal for those who knew him or simply followed his life from a distance. For his supporters he represented courage and conviction. For his critics he was a controversial voice, but even some of them paused to acknowledge the tragedy of a life cut short. The sheer suddenness of the act left shock waves across communities and media circles.
Mourning came from many unexpected places. People of different religions, different political leanings, and different cultural backgrounds expressed grief. They set aside their disagreements for a moment to recognize the basic human fact that a wife lost her husband and children lost their father. Death has a way of breaking through the hard walls of ideology. It reminds us that before we are partisans, we are simply human.
Yet alongside mourning came another wave that was harder to process. Some people celebrated his death. They posted jokes, memes, and crude comments as if the killing were a punchline. Others did not celebrate directly but took pleasure in mocking those who were grieving. In a society already fractured by politics, even tragedy became another battlefield. What should have been an occasion for compassion turned into an opportunity for cruelty.
The Business of Mourning
There is another disturbing dimension to the story. Charlie Kirk’s death quickly became a topic that drove enormous traffic online. Every post about him, whether sympathetic or hostile, attracted views, comments, and shares. For influencers and content creators this meant attention, and attention often translates to profit. The economy of mourning became evident in real time.
This is not entirely new. Traditional journalism has long faced the moral dilemma of reporting on tragedy while profiting from it. A photograph of a war victim could win a Pulitzer Prize, yet it was also the product of someone else’s suffering. The front page headline about a natural disaster sold papers, yet those sales were tied to loss and destruction. Journalists have carried this burden for generations. They cannot avoid reporting bad news, but they also cannot avoid the fact that doing so sustains their careers.
What has changed is that this dilemma no longer belongs only to journalists. Social media has given everyone the ability to become a reporter of sorts. Posting a reaction to Kirk’s assassination, whether sincere or cynical, could generate likes and followers. Even those who did not earn direct income were participating in the same cycle of attention. The difference between professional journalism and amateur posting has blurred, leaving us all entangled in the economy of grief. Writing about Kirk, even critically or thoughtfully, is itself part of this mechanism. None of us are untouched.
Democracy’s Fragile Boundaries
The tragedy also raises questions about democracy and its limits. At the heart of democratic culture is the principle that free speech must be protected, even when we disagree with it. The classic statement attributed to Voltaire captures this: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. This principle allows diverse societies to survive without descending into violence. It assumes that disagreement can coexist with respect.
In practice, however, this boundary is fragile. Once a person’s words are labeled as hate speech, they are no longer seen as voices to be debated but as dangers to be eliminated. The move from disagreement to cancellation happens quickly. Respect gives way to exclusion, and exclusion can escalate into violence. The social contract of democracy weakens when people no longer believe that their opponents deserve a place at the table.
Charlie Kirk lived inside this fragile space. His fame made him a target of admiration and hostility alike. His debates were sharp, and his positions were often controversial, but they were still within the domain of political speech. Yet over time, narratives painted him as more than an opponent. For some, he became a symbol of what was wrong with society itself. Once someone is turned into a symbol, the temptation arises to erase the person rather than confront the ideas. This is where democracy falters.
Dark Rabbit Holes of the Digital Age
The phrase “dark rabbit holes” captures the atmosphere of online spaces that breed radicalization. A single doubt, a single suspicion about someone’s values, can quickly grow into hostility when amplified by algorithms and communities. What begins as an uneasy feeling transforms into certainty, then into hatred, and eventually into calls for action. The internet does not just reflect opinions, it accelerates them.
History provides chilling parallels. The concentration camps of Nazi Germany did not appear overnight. They followed years of propaganda that turned Jewish neighbors into existential threats. The great purges of the Soviet Union began with suspicion of political rivals and expanded into mass executions. In China and Cambodia, ideological campaigns convinced young people to betray parents and teachers in the name of purity. At each step, unease grew into hatred through a process of amplification. What once seemed unthinkable became not only acceptable but celebrated.
Digital platforms compress this process. Instead of years of propaganda, it can happen in weeks or even days. A single rumor, repeated thousands of times, can make enemies out of strangers. When laughter at someone’s death is rewarded with likes, cruelty becomes a badge of belonging. The dark rabbit hole is not just a metaphor, it is a reality of how collective hatreds are formed in our time.
Globalism, Anti-Globalism, and the Trap of Simplification
In the wake of Kirk’s death, another framing has become popular. People are increasingly describing the event through the lens of globalism versus anti-globalism. This binary feels neat and satisfying. It provides a storyline in which heroes and villains can be easily identified. It reassures us that the world can be explained by two opposing camps.
Yet this simplicity is dangerous. Ideological antagonisms have marked the past century with blood. Fascism against liberalism, communism against capitalism, secularism against religion—each became a total worldview that demanded loyalty and punished doubt. When the world is divided into pure camps, ordinary people lose their freedom to think. They are forced to pick a side, and hesitation itself becomes treason. Once simplification takes over, violence is never far away.
Globalism and anti-globalism are too blunt to capture the complexity of life. Most people hold values that are both local and global. They cherish their communities but also rely on international connections for work, travel, and culture. Reducing them to one label erases their humanity. Worse, it makes it easier to dehumanize opponents. If someone is a “globalist,” why bother understanding them as a person? If someone is an “anti-globalist,” why not mock or cancel them? This is how ideological labels become tools of cruelty rather than instruments of understanding.
From Unease to Atrocity
The patterns are consistent across history. Atrocities rarely begin with grand declarations of violence. They begin with unease, with whispers that certain people are not trustworthy or that certain values are dangerous. These whispers are repeated, exaggerated, and amplified until they sound like undeniable truths. Once they are accepted as truth, the leap to violence is not as large as it seems.
During the worst moments of the twentieth century, children were persuaded to denounce their parents, students turned on their teachers, and neighbors celebrated the downfall of neighbors. The collapse of trust reached into the most intimate spaces of family and friendship. What was once sacred became expendable. The celebration of an enemy’s death became not only permitted but expected.
Today we see echoes of this in the online reactions to Kirk’s death. The mockery, the jokes, and the celebrations may seem minor compared to historical genocides, but the logic is the same. Once we permit ourselves to laugh at another’s tragedy, we move closer to a world where cruelty is normal. The internet accelerates this shift by rewarding those who perform it most loudly.
The Human Cost of Polarization
Behind the politics and the online noise is a family grieving. A wife lost her partner. Children lost their father. These facts are simple and painful. They should be enough to call forth compassion from anyone, regardless of ideology. Yet when polarization dominates, even compassion is filtered through politics. To mourn Kirk is, in some eyes, to align with his views. To refuse mourning is, for others, to show moral weakness. The human dimension disappears behind the ideological filter.
This is the real cost of polarization. It robs us of the ability to recognize shared humanity. It forces us to interpret every gesture, even grief, as a political statement. In such an environment, compassion itself becomes suspicious. People hesitate to express sympathy because they fear being misunderstood. Silence spreads, and cruelty fills the space where empathy should have been.
The assassination is therefore not only about one man’s death but also about what kind of society we are becoming. If we cannot mourn across boundaries, if we cannot show kindness even to opponents, then we are losing something more valuable than any political victory. We are losing our ability to be human together.
Toward a Culture Beyond Hate
The question is how to resist these currents. Democracy cannot survive if every disagreement is treated as war. It needs citizens who are capable of disagreeing without dehumanizing. This requires both cultural habits and personal discipline. It means protecting the principle of free speech while resisting the temptation to label everything we dislike as hate. It also means holding back from celebrating the downfall of opponents, no matter how strong the disagreement.
Media literacy is one part of the solution. People need to understand how algorithms feed outrage and how attention becomes profit. But literacy alone is not enough. There must also be a cultural renewal that prizes nuance and dignity. We need to remember that every label hides a real person, and that no ideology captures the whole of a human life.
Perhaps most of all, we need to restore trust in small spaces. Families, friendships, and communities can become refuges from the noise of the rabbit holes. If people can learn to talk with those closest to them without collapsing into ideological frames, they may carry that habit into the wider world. Democracy will not be saved by grand speeches alone. It will be saved by ordinary conversations that protect humanity against the seductions of hate.
The Light Beyond the Rabbit Holes
The internet will continue to produce rabbit holes. Tragedies will continue to attract both compassion and cruelty. Journalism will continue to face the dilemma of reporting while profiting. These realities cannot be erased. But the choice of how to respond remains ours. We can either descend further into dark spaces of hatred, or we can look for the light that tragedy reveals.
The light is the reminder that life is fragile. A young man can be taken from his family in a moment. A society can lose its trust in an instant. Yet fragility can also teach us humility. It can remind us to treat each other with care, even when we disagree. It can call us back to the recognition that every opponent is still a neighbor, and every enemy is still human.
The true test of democracy is not whether it can manage prosperity or efficiency. It is whether it can preserve compassion in times of conflict. To mourn someone you disagreed with is not weakness, it is strength. It proves that humanity is deeper than ideology. The challenge before us is whether we can climb out of the rabbit holes and choose that strength.
Image: Down the Rabbit Hole
Tom’s Blog 
.jpg#mw-jump-to-license){kind=link}