This paper examines how Charlie Kirk became a target of online hostility long before his assassination, and how the killing was later interpreted across loosely moderated digital spaces. Drawing on posts from Reddit and 4chan, the study shows how Kirk was repeatedly mocked and dehumanized in the months leading up to the attack. These early conversations treated him less as a political figure and more as a caricature, lowering the emotional and moral barriers that usually make violence feel unacceptable.
After the assassination, the responses that were examined in the paper fell into several clear types: humor that erased empathy, conspiracy narratives, and moral arguments portraying the killing as deserved. Taken together, these responses illustrate how digital environments can accelerate radicalization, making hostile ideas seem ordinary, hardening existing divisions, and making political violence easier for some people to rationalize. The dynamics identified in this case reflect a broader shift in which online discourse plays a growing role in normalizing political harm. Recognizing these patterns is essential for assessing emerging risks and understanding how online conversations shape an environment in which political violence becomes more imaginable.
