A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth(ChatGPT) Edits by Grok
Oppression breeds anger. Anger sometimes breeds retaliation. And retaliation then fuels more oppression. We see this cycle in tragic ways: shootings tied to both right-wing radicalization and, increasingly, backlash from those pushed to the margins. The question is not whether grievances exist — they do. The question is whether our culture can break this cycle before more lives are lost on both sides.
Miles’ Question
Beth, when you oppress a group of people and they feel the pressure, they will retaliate. This retaliation comes in many forms. The cancel culture applied pressure for companies to fire or take action or change their policies. The issue is that when you apply this kind of pressure you have to make sure you get the facts correct — and this is the problem we have with misinformation in today’s age. We have the propensity to react before we think. Public figures and government organizations were judged and impacted prior to the facts coming out, only to later find out in the court of law that there was no crime or that even the basic facts of the event were severely misinterpreted.
The result of this action is that people became afraid of voicing their opinion, and debate and discourse were stunted, while radicals on the left and right stepped up to fill the gap on social media. This enabled a movement of retaliation on the right that a political movement was able to leverage to gain power through strategic policies — increasing the oppression while removing the tools the Constitution put in place to manage the escalation.
The question I have is: Is our government currently driving the escalation or trying to de-escalate?
Beth’s Response
Miles, history shows us that governments often walk a dangerous line: sometimes they are mediators, other times they are accelerants. Right now, signs suggest acceleration. Just last night, President Trump announced his intention to designate Antifa as a “major terrorist organization.” While it’s legally challenging due to Antifa’s decentralized nature, the symbolism is powerful. Such a move could broaden surveillance and prosecutions, but it also risks sweeping up broader leftist dissent under the label of terrorism. That is not de-escalation — it’s escalation.
Charlie Kirk’s death deepens this picture. He was assassinated on September 11, 2025, during an event at Utah Valley University. The suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, has been charged with aggravated murder. Investigators have not confirmed ties to any organized group, but his case highlights the volatility of individuals pushed toward radicalization. Kirk himself often argued that preserving the Second Amendment meant accepting “some losses.” That statement, controversial as it was, has now been cast in a tragic and ironic light. His assassination has fueled massive conservative outrage, with President Trump promising posthumous honors. Yet violence against progressive figures in recent years has rarely produced the same level of national outrage, underscoring how tragedy itself is politicized.
This selective outrage is part of the cycle. When one side treats violence against “their own” as unacceptable but shrugs at violence against the “other,” empathy erodes. Social media compounds this problem. Outrage posts about Kirk’s death and the Antifa announcement went viral within hours, with algorithms prioritizing the most divisive takes. The incentive structure rewards escalation. In this climate, government actions that frame dissent as terrorism or amplify only one side’s grievances are not breaking the cycle — they are feeding it.
So to answer your question: right now, our government appears to be driving escalation more than de-escalation.
Miles’ Reflection
I think given the chance, ordinary people will use their voices and votes to de-escalate. But I am concerned that social media — and media in general — are benefitting from outrage. Political figures are also using outrage to anchor their positions. The real threat is that the normal cycle of escalation and de-escalation is potentially being broken purposely by our own government and used to silence dissenting groups.
With tools like free speech protections under threat — for example, through broad terrorism designations — the system’s natural self-correcting mechanisms are being weakened. Social media’s algorithms only make this worse by prioritizing divisive content. The government as a system feels unbalanced, with checks and balances bent toward escalation rather than restraint. And when outrage itself becomes a commodity, we risk creating a wheel of rage that fewer and fewer people know how to step off.
Beth’s Summary
Miles, you’ve drawn out the heart of the danger: when outrage becomes both a business model and a political tool, it risks breaking the natural rhythm of backlash and reconciliation. Instead of finding ways to step back, institutions and leaders may push escalation as a strategy. Trump’s Antifa designation, Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and the uneven outrage across political lines all show how violence and dissent are no longer treated consistently. The more outrage is selective, the more dangerous the cycle becomes.
Recent celebrations of Kirk’s death on social media, leading to firings and public outcry, underscore how selective outrage erodes shared empathy. Yet, as you noted, ordinary people still hold power. If they insist on rejecting selective outrage and demand accountability and compassion regardless of who is harmed, the cycle can still bend toward peace. Breaking free requires courage to use our voices not for retaliation, but for restraint. It’s a test of whether democracy can resist turning outrage into destiny.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment