I’ll never forget that day: April 15, 2025. 

It was the day the American Comeback tour came to Texas A&M, featuring conservative youth organization Turning Point USA’s founder, Charlie Kirk. 

His pregame event, the “Prove Me Wrong” table, was something I attended because I wanted to see his popular brand of debate: the art of trolling. While I was surprised at the amount of conservatives that had amassed to hear Kirk speak — each one hanging onto his every word — I was even more surprised about the fact that his liberal opposition was also in attendance. 

These opponents included a few non-Aggie podcasters and a couple of students who were parading disturbing paraphernalia of Kirk around Rudder Plaza. This was — in a single scene — the state of modern “discourse:” antagonization through ridicule. 

At the time, I was disturbed by this setup, but I remained — observing the chaos, the run-off consequences created from the culture war. It seemed larger than life, an impenetrable colossus that no words could fix.  

This conflict continued to Kirk’s speaking event, which had a few thousand attendees, while his vocal opponents held a counter event elsewhere on campus deriding everything he stood for. 

While this polarization we’ve succumbed to is disturbing, it all falls under the purview of free speech. As such, the constant antagonism between Kirk and his opposition continued until Sept. 10. 

Now remembered as the National Day of Remembrance for Charlie Kirk, the world mostly fell silent as it mourned a political activist who tried to promote Christianity and conservatism among college students. Even his most vocal opponents — including key leaders in the  Democratic Party — shared their warm regards and condemned political violence across the board. 

However, there will always be people who celebrate even the most horrific tragedies. Posts, images and discussions among various people showed their displeasure with Kirk’s work and, in some cases, celebrations of Kirk’s death — each participant attempting to transform his life’s work into an evil caricature of what it really was. 

While the celebrations of his death were limited to fringe leftist individuals, these celebrates of his death have not been without consequences. Since private employees do not have the same free speech protections as they would from the government, any harmful or questionable dialogue concerning Kirk may increase the chance of dismissal of an employee from their company.  

Even relatively well-known individuals —like Ghost of Yotei developer Drew Harrison — lost their jobs because they disrespected Kirk’s legacy right after he died. 

These fringe individuals celebrating his death aren’t new; they’re part of a problem that’s existed in the United States for decades. The glorification of murder has been a longstanding problem since the 1970s, the era in which serial killers were more prominent than in any other time in U.S. history. The main reason the glorification of these killers began in the first place was because of the widespread propagation of modern media. 

The televised trial of serial killer Ted Bundy, aired on June 25, 1979, was one of the main instigators of this phenomenon. In the airing, Bundy presented himself with normalcy and a calm demeanor, utilizing any available media coverage in an attempt to make himself look innocent. While he was convicted a month later, the fan base that formed from his efforts became immense. 

Another notable instigator was Charles Manson, a serial killer who received widespread condemnation for his actions against Hollywood celebrities in an era where political tensions were at their worst. Nonetheless, he did receive public support from some like-minded individuals and radicalists who contributed to the volatile political climate of the 1960s. 

The culture of the 1960s was extremely volatile, from the Vietnam riots, “Chicago Seven” trial, the rising popularity of the Beatles and their psychedelic music, the rise of the hippie movement, to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and President John F. Kennedy. 

This was the culture from which Manson formed, and it was the one that inspired his crimes. He even cited the Beatles song “Helter Skelter” as his inspiration for violence and murder, stating it was a call for race wars and murder. Foreshadowing the trend of many serial killers who came after, Manson reached a status of popularity derived — at least in part — from his heinous acts.  Despite having an entire cult around him, an entirely new fan base formed from people born after the Hollywood killings, such as Afton Elaine “Star” Burton.

From that point forward, a litany of serial killers have become the fascination of many — Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Ramirez and Aileen Wuornos stand as a few examples. This fascination has created a fringe counter-culture whose members have distorted views on death — one that fails to follow the most basic moral standards.

Even the true crime subgenre — which has seen a steady growth in popularity since the 1960s — grew out of this obsession with serial killers and the desire to see or hear of real crimes recreated for a massive viewing audience. 

The primary means by which this growth has occurred is through the rapid expansion in media coverage of these events and the degree of saturation of this coverage. This problem continues to this day, no matter the incident — school shootings, random killings, cult suicides, serial killers — they all receive too much media coverage that desensitizes the average viewer to violence and opens the door to a lack of empathy toward victims. 

Fortunately, for Kirk’s assassination, there has been a largely positive response condemning political violence and mourning his death, with a short-term religious revival occurring. 

Leaders from various churches have reported a 15% increase in church attendance after Kirk’s assassination. Bible sales have also reached 10 million copies through August 2025, which is a million units sold increase. This phenomenon is so extraordinary in the religious sphere that it has been dubbed the “Charlie Kirk Effect.”  

It’s unlikely that the revival will be permanent, but it shows that — despite the hatred of a group of people that has existed for decades — there is still a group of citizens that understand violence and suffering should not be celebrated.

For that reason, I believe there’s hope for the future. There’s hope that political violence can finally end. There’s hope that this climax of hatred is an indicator for the end of political turmoil. 

Charlie Kirk’s assassination does not have to define the future of the country. We can take this tragedy and work toward a better future. We can correct the errors that previous generations have made; we can reunify. We can go back to having different opinions but remaining peaceful like the generations that came before us.

There’s hope that the world is recognizing its mistakes and taking strides to solve them, and — finally — there’s hope that we can return to being a unified country that bands together in times of disaster instead of furthering divisions.