It goes without saying that the assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragic event. A couple of innocent kids will go without a father and a wife without a husband. If you’ve lost a close loved one you’ll know that their lives aren’t ruined, but it’s close. The killing has prompted a wide range of emotions and responses from both the right and the left. Most people on both sides have condemned political violence and expressed sympathy for the surviving family.
That’s the good part and it’s critically important for the sake of our nation to understand that the vicious voices truly are the minority on both sides. Polling has found that majorities across political lines and demographics agree that it is unacceptable to feel happy about the death of a political opponent.
Loud minorities on both sides, amplified by the scope of social media, have chosen to use the event to broadcast their flaws on the internet. On the left we have people celebrating Kirk’s death and spewing hate at a time when reconciliation is needed. On the right we have people calling for literal civil war and a concerted effort to get individuals who condoned the killing fired.
Outraged right-wingers have undertaken a campaign to reveal the identities of and punish those who have posted reprehensible comments online about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. It’s cancel culture but instead of using it to punish alleged sexual predators and bigots (and too often good people who simply made a dumb joke online), the method is being used against leftists who decided to transmit their insensitive thoughts to the public.
Posts such as: “Thoughts and prayers you Nazi b***h. Hope the bullet’s ok after touching Charlie Kirk.” DC Comics later canceled a comic book project written by this individual.
Attorney General Pam Bondi got in on the culture war with: “There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech – and there’s no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society […] We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.” Kudos to President Trump for appointing such a liberal AG.
So what’s the big deal with getting people fired? Basking in the darkness of the assassination of political opponents sure sounds worthy of being culturally discouraged, perhaps even with tangible consequences.
One could see this trend of cancelling people with whom you disagree as growing after each new scandal or tragedy. It could become a routine response from both the right and left, escalating to the point of epistemic concern. People might become afraid of posting any controversial thoughts at all, harming public discourse by discouraging the exploration of ideas.
It’s difficult to say one way or another because the epistemic value of discourse and ideas on social media is dubious. On balance, it may even be detrimental to both our personal network of beliefs and that of society at large.
There are also several components to the moral profile of cancellation tactics. On the one hand, businesses and private universities should be able to fire whomever they want for whatever reason. If they wish to not be associated with someone that might draw unwanted attention to their business, there doesn’t appear to be anything wrong with that.
On the other hand, in many cases, there does seem to be something wicked about those who are dedicating their time to cancelling others. Someone may have had the impulse to say something despicable about the assassination of Kirk or expressed some repulsive attitudes towards a particular group of people that warranted social pressure. From our own perspective, should we dole out punishment when we encounter someone with vicious attitudes?
This question reminds me of a man named Daryl Davis. Davis is a black man and a blues musician who has played with the likes of Chuck Berry and B.B. King. In his spare time away from the stage, Davis dedicates his life to befriending and dialoguing with white supremacists and members of the KKK.
To date, he has contributed directly and indirectly to over 200 KKK members leaving the organization. When Davis is confronted with someone who not only holds vicious views, but the most vicious views about him – that he’s a subhuman – his reaction is to extend his hand. It would be the easiest thing in the world for Davis to look at a klansman and believe that they are irredeemable – but he doesn’t.
It’s very easy for people on the left to view someone who posts something racist or intolerant as irredeemable and believe that the only thing they deserve is punishment. Similarly, it’s so easy for people on the right to view leftists celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death as abominations who should be targeted for purging.
Cancelling people is not the answer. It only works to divide us further, filling us with hatred toward our fellow Americans. Worst of all, it leads us to cast people off as unsalvageable cretins – when someone is unsalvageable, by definition, there is no point in talking, they are only the enemy. Democracy ends when people start viewing each other as beyond hope.
Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. You can reach him at rafaelperezocregister@gmail.com.
