The Silencing of Charlie Kirk, and what this means for Social Media

The term "cancelled" has, in recent years, been taken to mean the same thing as being deplatformed, or demonetized. To remove someone's ability to reach larger audiences. To have someone fired from their jobs.

It took on new horrifying meaning this week when Charlie Kirk was murdered by an assassin's bullet in the middle of a public appearance at Utah Valley University in the USA. Kirk was a Right-wing activist who espoused ideals such as Pro-life, the Right to Bear Arms (the irony, huh?) and other typical Right-wing talking points.

Shot through
the neck.

I recognized Kirk from the news, because this guy had occasionally shown up on my YouTube feed, debating some hopelessly outmatched student or other. I never lingered overlong on those clips, simply because they just weren't very interesting. To be fair, it wasn't him, it was me. On YouTube, I have a below-average attention span unless it's tech-related.

Which in turn, begs the question: why am I even talking about this? The death of a Right-wing activist, while significant on a human level, is hardly a tech matter. On the other hand, I have spoken before about the bizarre Left-versus-Right culture wars in the USA, and the way it's played out on Social Media. I have talked before about how troubling our online discourse has become, even as I acknowledge that it's nowhere as frightening as that of the USA. And human matters are relevant in tech. Who do you think uses tech, robots?

In truth, when I wrote about the Culture Wars two months back, I was really hoping this would be the last time, at least for a bit. No such luck; the death of Charlie Kirk is pretty compelling stuff.

About Charlie Kirk

This entire episode was a tragedy, though not specifically because it was Charlie Kirk who died. According to some of the eulogies I've seen online, Kirk was quite the guy among his peers; and on the other side of the political aisle, a racist, misogynist, fascist and transphobe, among other fancy labels.

You know, I don't think any of that matters. Good guy or bad guy, Charles James Kirk was at least someone's son, someone's husband, and someone's dad. Two kids will grow up not knowing what their father was like except through those lame-ass YouTube videos and online articles, both gushing and brutal. I'm not going to sit here and act like Kirk and I were best pals or I was his biggest fan. The truth is, to me, he was just some rando on the internet whose opinions I sometimes agreed with and sometimes didn't. And he could come off as smug and condescending.

The thing is, being smug and condescending isn't grounds for public execution. Remember, Charlie Kirk was an activist who apparently ran his mouth a lot. And like most of the human race, sometimes he was prone to saying stupid shit. That's not a crime. It wasn't like he was a child molester or a serial killer. Or a Justin Bieber fan. If having an opinion and being a dick about it was reason enough for death, I know of more than a few people who should be joining Kirk in his six-foot grave. And yes, I include myself in that assessment.

If you've ever said stupid
shit, jump in here.

I've seen people use Kirk's position on the Second Amendment as justification to celebrate his death.

I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.

Those voices are saying that Kirk made the above abhorrent statement, and as a result we shouldn't feel too bad about him dying from a bullet to the neck. Our own Professor Donald Low literally said "Karma's a bitch" on his Facebook post. 

To be honest, that's probably one of the stupidest excuses ever. Look, you can feel morally superior to Kirk if you want. But you can't declare yourself morally superior to him and then in the same breath lower yourself to his level to justify his death. This defies all logic. Stuff like this only reinforces my deeply-held belief that Social Media is full of raving idiots acting all intellectual.

Cancel Culture

People are shocked. Goodness knows why. Maybe people are shocked because Kirk wasn't holding the front line in Ukraine, where getting shot is kind of expected. He was at an educational institute in peacetime. In one moment, Charlie Kirk went from passionate public orator to bloodied corpse. That's probably the most extreme form of Cancel Culture. After all, you can't get any more cancelled than dead, can you?

In the grand scheme of things, though, was this really that unexpected? I would argue that the shooting was merely the latest in a long time of steadily escalating aggression towards people who espouse unpopular views. Except that before this, instead of simply ending their lives, we were content with merely ruining theirs.

Anyone who's ever tried to get someone else cancelled. Fired. Doxxed. Called the cops on them. All because they said something we didn't like. Anyone who's ever engaged in behavior like this, or even just cheered while it happened, has contributed in some small way to the state of affairs today. Because all that provided the stepping stones of acceptable behavior.

Hello, Police? Someone hurt
my feelings on Facebook.

Come on, we had to expect that eventually, the approval of ruining someone's life or doling out of physical violence would lead to this. It was always par for the course. Once you say that it's OK to ruin someone's life because they said something you considered offensive, you make room for that next escalation.

Singapore herself isn't entirely immune to violence of this sort, though thankfully so far none of it has been fatal. Do people still remember Amos Yee? He ran his mouth a whole bunch, and famously got slapped by an outraged citizen. Kirsten Han, an outspoken activist for a whole hosts of causes I can't begin to keep track of, got death threats.

I personally consider Amos Yee a loud and annoying housefly, and Kirsten Han a bit of a wanker, but I condone neither the violence nor the threats. I can't. I like to talk shit on the internet, and don't particularly want to be shot by some slob with a gun. Not that I think I'm next in line. Plenty of people far more famous than me. If you're going to shoot someone at all, you might as well go big, eh? Still, the principle stands. All of us should be able to say what we want to say without the threat of violence hanging over our heads.

Speaking of Cancel Culture, I've seen posts online celebrating the death of Kirk, followed by threats from others to report these posts and have these users outed and punished. Just a lot of ugliness all round.  Has the USA finally stopped pretending that they give a damn about Freedom of Speech?

What's next?

Earlier, I said that this was a tragedy, and now I'm about to elaborate on why. It's not simply that Charlie Kirk was killed. Let's be real, people die every day. This isn't more or less tragic just because it's Kirk who bought the farm.

However, this particular death has stoked what looks like a new escalation in the Culture Wars. It's now no longer just being fought on Social Media. People on the Right are riled up over the murder of one of their own, and people on the Left are afraid of some nutter retaliating. 

What if this was always the plan?

Donald Trump declared Leftist extremists to be responsible for Kirk's death. But this wasn't some pissed off nutjob losing his temper and simply letting loose with a gun. This looked like a carefully planned op with a sniper.

This was planned.

Kirk has been silenced, but perhaps that wasn't the main objective. Perhaps the entire point was to stoke a Civil War. Who really wins in this scenario?

Come on, pretty sure I'm not the only one thinking this. Anyone who isn't dramatically raising their fist to the sky and declaring we will not be silenced or explaining why the world is a better place without Charlie Kirk, watching all this from a distance, is wondering if there's some other motive behind this. If you're not thinking this, you're probably too close to the action. Or you simply belong in a less complicated, less nuanced world.

On the other hand, regardless of the actual motivation behind the killing, one thing remains unchanged. Kirk's murder has opened the floodgates to what was previously unthinkable.

Public discourse is no longer safe. The perception is that Kirk was murdered for his views. This should make anyone with an opinion that they have ever shared, exceedingly nervous. Especially if that opinion was unpopular and exists somewhere on the internet.

In a world filled with A.I and deepfakes, where misinformation is more readily available than information, the danger grows exponentially. Imagine a world where one can be killed for airing an unpopular opinion, and where people could be tricked into believing one aired an unpopular opinion. Do the math. The conclusions are chilling.

Finally...

People say America is the Land of the Free, and constantly compare Singapore's perceived lack of freedoms against the USA's. Land of the Free? Free what, exactly? Free Charlie Kirk's soul from his mortal shell?

I'm glad I live in Singapore. Our forefathers realized early on that with excessive freedom, we would either rise to great heights or sink to our basest instincts. As a young nation with no natural resources, no land and not that much manpower, we simply could not afford the risk. Thus, our laws are strict, and as a result, what happened to Charlie Kirk is unlikely to happen here.

If this is the result of America's much vaunted freedoms, she can keep it.

Talk about a loaded situation!
T___T