After Kirk’s Assassination, Can Gen Z Break the Cycle of Social Media Political Polarization?

By Staff Writers Jessica Cao, Abigaile Lei, Kayla Li & Warren Su

Introduction

Before Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated on September 10 — an event that shocked the country and was streamed live to millions — he was best known for his reactive, controversial social media takes. Kirk founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA), an advocacy organization pitched as nonpartisan that subsequently received substantial Republican donor support.

Kirk’s death revealed a growing problem in American society: social networks that reward virality over reflection, even in the face of political violence. Some liberals celebrated Kirk’s death. Some conservatives accused liberals of promoting violence. Although those extremes were a minority, their voices drowned out the majority due to the nature of online platforms, which rewards divisive content. A 2018 MIT study found that false or inflammatory content spreads six times faster on Twitter/X than factual reporting, making tragedy into content for the sake of views and likes rather than reflection. In a broader sense, violence is promoted as an acceptable part of political identity. As the first generation to fully grow up online, Gen Z plays a pivotal role in shaping online culture. Our choices set a precedent to how future generations interact in virtual spaces. Now more than ever, we need to be aware of the choices they make and address how social media fuels polarization.

Background

Polarization has been steadily intensifying. In 1994, only 16% of Democrats and 17% of Republicans saw the other side as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.” By 2014, those numbers had nearly doubled, according to Pew Research. That escalation hasn’t just played out in political institutions, but across algorithm-driven feeds where memes and snippets now set the tone of political debate. 

When former President Joe Biden tripped at the Air Force Academy in 2023, clips on TikTok drew millions of views and sparked thousands of meme responses — pity, mockery, and parody quickly overshadowed policy discussions. A 2025 Pew Research study found that 43% of adults under 30 regularly get news from TikTok, meaning these viral snippets shape young people’s political perceptions as much as, if not more than, traditional reporting. The form that digital conversations take has consequences — where fleeting virality can either feed polarization or build momentum for lasting civic engagement.  

Social media aftermath

Kirk’s assassination is not just another example of social media polarization. His own career thrived on viral confrontation as he debated students and manufactured outrage to build TPUSA’s brand. These debates were often publicized and turned into clips online where people reposted them. According to former Staffer Miguel Melgar, TPUSA was originally pitched as nonpartisan but shifted sharply conservative after a $100,000 donation from a Republican politician. In other words, the outrage-driven and dehumanizing circumstances framing Kirk’s death was a culture that he helped create. 

Clips of the shooting itself gained millions of views within 24 hours according to PBS, making hostility trend before facts were established. As Reuters reported, posts claiming “they couldn’t beat him in a debate, so they assassinated him” went viral before any details were confirmed, illustrating how quickly violence becomes narrative in online discourse. This divisive discourse was largely bipartisan: on the left, some users circulated celebratory memes and with captions like “one less fascist,” while others framed his death as overdue justice. On the right, hashtags like #RadicalLeftViolence and #AttackOnFreeSpeech trended within hours, pushed by influencers and even politicians. President Donald Trump later called Kirk a “martyr for American freedom,” using the language of sacrifice and political symbolism to cast the left as aggressors. Vice President JD Vance took it further: on Kirk’s podcast, he blamed “left-wing extremism” as “part of the reason” Kirk was killed, framing the assassination as proof of a broader ideological warfare rather than an isolated act. 

This rapid escalation underscores how Kirk’s death was tokenized into a partisan talking point on both sides. Democracy in the US thrives on candid discussion and political debate, but the current discourse serves only to enrage others and further separate Americans. Inflammatory rhetoric does not stem from legitimate democratic interests; it instead opts for verbal attacks and stretched truths to gain political power. 

The role of youth

Despite the many hateful communities present on social media, online spaces have the power to amplify empathy and civic responsibility just as easily as they can magnify hostility. The openness of these platforms can also be used for political action, even by young people who would otherwise be excluded. For example, in response to an attempt to ban major social media platforms, young Nepalis organized protests which led to an overthrow of their government. Through Discord, Instagram, and other online platforms, they were able to elect a new representative to lead Nepal in this time of struggle. Their ability to use everyday digital spaces for civic engagement shows that youth can redirect discourse, not just reflect it. 

This dual role is also visible in the US. A study from Louisiana State University found that teens who rely on social media for news are not only more likely to engage in politics offline, but also more likely to show hostility toward opposing beliefs. This means Gen Z faces a choice: to use their digital fluency to feed polarization or to redirect these same tools toward empathy and civic responsibility. 

Gen Z cannot single-handedly undo decades of division, but their choices online matter. The same digital fluency that can intensify division also gives Gen Z the tools to build healthier discourse. They are the most diverse and digitally fluent generation in American history, uniquely positioned to foster online spaces that value empathy and respect. Gen Z can press for structural reforms that make digital spaces less toxic: demanding algorithmic transparency, supporting stronger information guardrails, and advocating for schools to treat media literacy as basic civic preparation. By promoting constructive debate rather than spectacle, they can help rebuild civic trust and strengthen democracy. “Ultimately, we just need to foster more empathy with one another … if we don’t necessarily agree, we should not be quick to just write one another off,” Junior Siya Singh said.

Voices:

“I feel like …  the younger generation is pretty vulnerable to what they see on social media. They just believe it at face value, [without doing] their own research… I think [they should] actually formulate their own thoughts instead of just repeating what they see online.” — Xinyue “Jack” Wang, 10th

“I think it’s important that people in my age group also [engage in political content], because ultimately, we are very close to voting. And even though people want to be ignorant towards what’s happening in the country right now, it doesn’t do them any favors, nor does it do other citizens.” -Siya Singh, 11th

“Ultimately, we just need to foster more empathy with one another… It’s quite literally just fostering basic sensitivities towards other people. [Even] if we don’t necessarily agree with each other, we should not be quick to just write one another off… I think that polarization in this country is a big problem. People feel like they need to be on either side of the political compass, when, in reality, it’s important to look at things like issue by issue [rather] than just grouping them by political beliefs.” -Siya Singh, 11th

“I think people on social media have their reputation to uphold, and [things you say] on social media is permanent. You can’t take it off, so people should really be careful about what they say online.” -Jade Cordrey, 10th