Taking up a weapon and ending a life is never that simple. It requires logistical intricacies, moral complacency and institutional inefficacies. As you read this, your mind might have gone to the gruesome assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Wednesday in Utah at a public university discourse event, the mass shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school last month or the deadly stabbing of Iryna Zarutska last month. This political violence is not unprecedented. For millennia, from the Roman Republic to pre-World War II Germany and most relevantly the United States during the Civil Rights Movement and beyond, political violence has plagued civilizations. But in the digital age, it has taken on a new and deadly dimension that many are complicit in. 

Scrolling through social media after Kirk’s murder, I saw liberals claim “gun violence spares no one,” conservatives blame an entire political party for one person’s actions and Christians condemn the wickedness of today’s world. These are all valid but polarizing arguments, and this rhetoric inevitably leads to more violence.

Instead of running to social media to contribute to the polarizing conversation, we should consider whether our points could advance productive discourse and efforts to find solutions. In the constant chaos of it all, we should look at our own contribution to the circulation of political rhetoric with each other and on social media and consider how it contributes to moral disengagement, perceptions of existential threats and radicalization efforts. Rhetoric that generalizes an entire political party or uses tragedy as an immediate and unfounded justification for aggressive legislation — like potentially unconstitutional gun control laws — only furthers polarization.

Our nation is at a dangerous crossroads as political violence is becoming more apparent with President Donald Trump’s second term. Whether it be against the president himself at a Pennsylvania campaign rally last July or MAGA supporters storming the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021, the mantra of “take matters into your own hands” has reached a dangerously unprecedented potential. 

The collapse of our democracy is not a distant or abstract possibility. Our self-destruction is tangible, and many of us toy with it on a daily basis on social media and through daily conversations that normalize polarizing sentiments and exacerbate these tragedies of political violence. History offers multiple warnings of the dangerous potential of such political violence. 

The Roman Republic was consumed by internal violence during the crises between c.133-44 B.C.E., which featured the rise of street gangs, civil wars and assassinations of political figures. The normalization of such assassinations escalated to figures such as Sulla and Julius Caesar, whose own civil war and subsequent assassination marked the collapse of the once flourishing republic. We face both these aspects in the United States as assassinations and polarization continue to draw us apart.

The rise of Nazism and Adolf Hitler can also be traced to an increase in political violence. Germany’s democratic government from 1918 to 1933 — the Weimar Republic — was plagued by left-and-right-wing paramilitaries and assassinations of key political figures, which became normalized and led to the rise of Hitler. Surely, most Americans detest political violence, but their implications delegitimize the severity of it. In doing so, they allow America to follow similar trends with the mentioned examples. 

People are allowed to have their own opinions, but they are often selfishly followed by personal assertions of morals and politics. Not to say those assertions are invalid — but provocative. Provocative to the constant circulation of polarizing rhetoric, which further drives violence. The immediate aftermath of such tragedies draws an unprecedented amount of attention, thanks to the digital age — and we are taking selfish advantage of it. 

Looking at American history, political violence is nothing new. The 1960s featured the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and the counterculture movement, which fueled deep divisions. This era witnessed a surge of political violence with the assassinations of key figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and former President John F. Kennedy. The 1980s featured political violence aligned with extremist antigovernment and white supremacist movements. The solutions included legislative and judicial action, like the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, political discourse by leaders on both sides and media coverage by traditional media outlets, which presented a unified narrative condemning the violence. 

Unfortunately, today’s world is immersed in the digital age of rapid social media and endless sources feeding every sociopolitical desire. This causes us to face a dangerous new dimension: the unprecedented speed and scale of information dissemination. This allows those who are more inclined to act violently to political aspects to be consistently fed content via these echo chambers, which reinforces their beliefs and legitimizes their call to action — even if deadly.

In the past, media coverage of assassinations, riots and other political violence would spread through television and newspapers through a more controlled and slower process. Today, Kirk’s assassination was livestreamed, uploaded and shared around the world within minutes. Before Kirk even made it to the hospital, millions witnessed, reacted and took a stance on the shooting. The algorithms of social media create echo chambers where people are only exposed to information that reinforces existing beliefs, making them susceptible to radicalization and provoking further polarization. Moreover, anonymity emboldens individuals to express and even organize for violence in a way that would thrive in a non-digital age. 

The highly polarized stream of media we see following the assassination of Kirk, which actively features indifference and even celebrations, desensitizes people and erodes our collective moral consensus that violence is never the answer. Scrolling through Instagram and X, formally known as Twitter, you can see people reposting “They couldn’t beat him in debate, so they shot him,” or “gun violence spares no one,” People celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk as a deserved one, vilifying the entirety of the Democratic Party for killing this figure or vilifying the Republican Party for promoting laws, which allow such events to occur are flooding social media. You are likely falling for it by engaging with politically provocative content frantically spurred out by influencers who align with your beliefs. You might not even fully agree or truly grasp the sentiment they’re expressing. Still, the emotional adrenaline surrounding the situation creates a false urgency, pressuring you to contribute to the circulation.

So what is the solution to such a tragic pattern in which we are all exposed to and even unconsciously contribute to? Looking to our past, legislative and judicial decisions must be made. Whether it be gun control or addressing the mental health epidemic ravaging our country, institutional action must take hold, like we rightfully did as a nation in the 1960s. We must ground ourselves on dependable and trustworthy news sources, of which there are few on both sides, to base our emotions and logic on. Lastly, it is necessary that we all take moments after these tragedies and ruminate on the multifaceted and extensive nature of these events, especially before taking your voice or someone else’s to social media. Doing so not only matures the moral consciousness of our nations but prevents tragedy from striking again out of virality. In a prior piece, I wrote, “Your opinion matters. It just doesn’t need to be constantly heard,” which is most important in such consequential moments where we selfishly see tragedy as opportunity.