Forgetting Something
Dom Rottman
13 September 2025
So a man was shot Wednesday afternoon. He was a rather controversial man with a large following, and gained a reputation for saying some very unkind things. The Internet received his death as expected: dark humor and repressed mirth on the left, tragedy and then moral outrage on the right, then ragebaiting and scorn on the left, etc etc. An exchange that realistically only occurs on social media: weighing political violence against harmful speech—and what counts as those things. I usually sit this one out, especially in writing. It’s one of the more brain-rotten discourses, even by Internet standards. But Thursday, September 11th, was a little different. Now, I can only speak from my point of view, but I found that most of my feeds–news, socials, what have you–were largely filled with content related to Charlie Kirk and his death.
Hm. I think we forgot something.
I’m averse to invoking 9/11 politically because it’s usually used to emptily provoke a chest-thumping patriotism that is quintessentially American. Mentioning it evokes images of flags and fireworks, triumph over terrorism, and jingoist justice, rather than people killing themselves jumping out of a skyscraper because they’d rather not burn alive. There is of course nothing wrong with solemnity for the dead. Nor is there anything wrong with the subject of mourning to be a nation, as it is a type of political community. I would even consider it acceptable and appropriate to use a national tragedy as a memorial to rediscover and renew political values. They key word is, obviously, solemn. Think more Pericles’s funeral oration, less of a call all aboard the nationalism train, next stop Iraqi oil fields. There was no such solemnity on Thursday. If the death of a right-wing pundit can overshadow the nation’s great tragedy, then it’s now clearly not so much of a memorial as it is a device used to pursue political clout.
Except that’s the thing. It wasn’t.
Consider this scenario: while the right is so caught up in the death and mourning of a controversial pundit while also scavenging political ammunition to the point that the President himself ordered half-staff for Kirk through the weekend, Democrats and the left instead remember 9/11 appropriately–or even inappropriately–honoring the lost lives and the heroism of public servants who dedicated themselves to recovery, speaking of our American values (and how they’re better at demonstrating them). They can then, the following day, snidely remark that while they were being True Patriots™ honoring the lives of Americans, the right spent their time wringing their hands over some guy who people don’t seem to like very much. Or, consider the flipside: while Democrats and the left are so caught up in righteous indignation, conservatives remember 9/11 in whatever way they please, and then, the following day, brashly proclaim that they remained dedicated to Truth, Justice, and the American Way, while the liberals were caught up in their unpatriotic, self-righteous ideological fervor. This was a political layup, especially for progressives in sore need of points, but they’d rather continue the losing game of virtue signaling, thinly disguised self-assurance, as if their moral character is under assault as opposed to their literal lives. The right, meanwhile, should be glad that they weren’t caught with their star-spangled pants down in their failure to live up to their most treasured value. The dead bodies of 9/11 are so forgettable, so disposable, that they are not even fit to be used as fuel for a political agenda. 9/11 was neglected on both sides (yes, I’m going there) in favor of irresolvable so-called discourse. Shitposting gamers paid better respect to the dead that day through constant jokes about planes crashing into skyscrapers.
Many are understandably frustrated when progressives appear to “take the high road” over actually trying to win. It is more accurate to say that they suffer from a kind of ethico-political confusion. Whenever “taking the high road” ends up as a losing strategy it’s understandable to think that it ought to be abandoned, and that the key to victory lies in underhanded tactics and backhanded rhetoric themselves. But this conclusion arises from a mistaken point of view of liberal politics which separates the left and right in the United States just as much as ideological content. The Right plays to win. Progressives play to not lose. The Internet on September 11th, 2025, is emblematic of this difference: an utter refusal to find or engage with anything substantive, even when opportunity is staring at them right in the face. Participating in the right’s shit-slinging contest is more satisfying because it allows progressives to have their cake and eat it too. They extol virtue through unbecoming rhetoric but to a consciously lesser and distinct degree from the right so that they can claim victory in the right’s game by default. But this victory is still essentially moral. They might not take the high road, but they still claim the moral high ground. Even if this position is morally, materially, and (least convincing of all) quantifiably superior and justifiable, extolling virtue is politically bankrupt. Realpolitik isn’t about disregard for morality and principle as such. It’s about winning. This does not absolve–to repeat a tired disclaimer–rhetoric from Charlie Kirk in the past and the right today from criticism, of course. After all, they also failed to take the easy political potshot.
So, yes: both sides are bad–bad at politics. They are squabbling for fake internet points and ego trips over a debate that has been plainly settled. Political violence, especially when it is masked by the guise of free speech, is the most present danger in the 21st century United States. It is at least assuring that political leaders on both sides, who have privileged access to a pulpit and the law, who can have people grabbed out of their homes or off the streets, dispossess and steal from them under ambiguous precedent, and in some cases outright give kill orders, still take care to remind us that “political violence is never okay,” while being surrounded by armed guards who have the unilateral authority to break your fucking knees if you get too close. Shooting someone you disagree with and/or manipulating the fallout is indeed no way to wield political power in a democratic society. Oh wait, I forgot something else…