This week, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was fatally shot while visiting a college in Utah. Earlier this summer, he tweeted advice addressing the chaos often found online: “When things are moving very fast and people are losing their minds, it’s important to stay grounded. Turn off your phone, read scripture, spend time with friends, and remember internet fury is not real life. It’s going to be ok.”
Despite this message, Kirk was not universally recognized as a model of groundedness or empathy. He gained notoriety for provocative stunts, including unsolicited remarks about pop star Taylor Swift, referring to her as a “cat lady” and urging her to “engage in reality more,” “reject feminism,” and “submit to your husband.”
While some of his advice might resonate, it’s clear that constant engagement with social media can exacerbate negative emotions. The incessant cycle of anger, fear, and jealousy fostered by online interaction can take a toll on mental well-being. Seeking solace in real-world connections can provide a stabilizing influence, contrasting the often chaotic emotional landscape of the internet.
However, two key points in Kirk’s tweet were oversimplified: the reality of “internet fury” and the notion that everything will turn out fine in the aftermath of disconnection from the digital realm. These considerations ring particularly hollow in light of his tragic fate.
Authorities have reported that after some initial misidentifications, they apprehended a suspect in Kirk’s shooting. Utah Governor Spencer Cox shared insights during a press conference, noting that the shell casings found at the scene were inscribed with various graffiti phrases, including:
“Notices bulge OwO what’s this?” (a phrase from an online meme involving furries)
“Hey fascist! Catch!”
“Oh bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao ciao ciao”
“If you read this you are gay LMAO”
Additionally, markings resembling video game commands from Helldivers 2 were uncovered, suggesting a potential nexus between the shooter’s online interactions and his violent actions. This online culture, characterized by humor and memes, raises questions about how virtual communities contribute to real-world violence.
As the press conference concluded, Cox urged the public to heed Kirk’s advice. He emphasized that humans are not biologically equipped to process violent imagery, stating, “This is not good for us. It is not good to consume.”
He made a poignant call to action, encouraging individuals to disconnect from social media and focus on tangible relationships: “Touch grass, hug a family member, go out and do good in your community.”
Cox’s remarks highlight the potential benefits of personal connections over online interactions. This perspective could have been informative for the shooter, who was ultimately reported by his own family members and might have been deterred by more face-to-face engagement. Nevertheless, the complexities of interpersonal relationships complicate such straightforward solutions.
The challenges posed by social media were further underscored by extreme rhetoric that can incite violence, as exemplified by various public figures threatening significant consequences against communities or cities.
Treating cancer
At the core of Cox’s concern is a fundamental question about social media: is it wielding substantial influence, capable of both constructive and destructive outcomes, or is it simply a malignant force? Opinions on this matter may vary widely, particularly among tech-savvy audiences.
Supporters of social media often cite its power to amplify marginalized voices, spark political movements, and facilitate open discourse. Conversely, critics point to the overwhelming tide of misinformation, toxicity, and divisive behaviors that characterize many online environments.
The ongoing debate centers around whether the negative impacts of social media will diminish with greater experience and regulation or if the addictive nature of these platforms will prove insurmountable to positive human development. Another perspective suggests that humans may inherently crave the spectacle and community that often arises from conflict and controversy, positioning social media as a mirror reflecting deeper societal issues rather than the root cause.
As society navigates these questions, individuals may contemplate strategies to enjoy the benefits of social media while avoiding its pitfalls. This could involve imposing personal limits on usage, filtering out harmful online communities, and pursuing interactions within moderated forums like those found in some digital comment sections.
This raises additional inquiries regarding the extent of moderation necessary to maintain a healthy online space. Should there be an effort to enforce neutrality, or would it be more beneficial to adopt a specific ideological stance? What are the implications of restricting access to certain content or users, and what might we sacrifice in adopting such measures?
Ultimately, Cox’s metaphor might suggest a need to view social media as a serious challenge worthy of substantial intervention—be it through regulation, a re-evaluation of how we engage with technology, or, in some instances, a complete overhaul of our relationship with these platforms.
