A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits by Grok and Gemini
Teaser
Miles and Beth confront a hard truth: our collective rage killed Charlie Kirk—and without dialogue, it will claim more. Can we find an offramp before it’s too late?
Main Conversation
Miles’ Final Reflection
Beth, after a week of digging into this, I’ve come to believe something difficult: we all killed Charlie Kirk.
Not with our hands, but with our rage.
Charlie Kirk, a polarizing conservative commentator, was assassinated on September 10, 2025, in a climate of escalating political tensions. The suspect, Tyler James Robinson, reportedly told his partner that he had “had enough of Kirk’s hatred” and wanted “to take out Charlie Kirk.” His politics had shifted left, he supported gay and transgender rights, and he was in a relationship with a transgender woman. His act was fueled by the very divisions and rage we’ve been discussing.
And it is our rage that killed him. If nothing changes, it is our rage that will kill the next political figure too.
We are oppressing people not just with laws or policies, but with our words, our messaging, and the way we pile on when someone disagrees.
Whenever we exclude people or judge them for their religion, politics, race, or sexuality—and then add the weight of collective outrage—we escalate. This pattern is not new. History shows it again and again. Yet in the modern era, with all our knowledge and tools, we would hope we had learned how to manage anger, how to give people the skills to de-escalate themselves.
The truth is, we haven’t. In fact, we’re moving in the opposite direction. Social media has handed us megaphones to amplify rage, to reward pile-ons, even to cheer on bad behavior. Our own rage is turning against us.
We want to blame people for tragedies like political violence, but the tools we use—soundbites, viral posts, cherry-picked facts—aren’t nuanced enough to see the full picture. Worse, we don’t want the full picture, because that might mean changing our perspective.
Charlie wanted discourse. His critics saw it as provocation—designed more to go viral than to build bridges. But whether you saw him as a truth-teller or a provocateur, you knew where he stood. That created space to push back, to fact-check, to engage. Discourse leaves room for movement. Outrage leaves none.
Contrast that with something like the Epstein files. We still don’t know who went to the island or who abused girls there, because the evidence is hidden, sealed, covered up. Without transparency, there is no way for truth to challenge perspective, only rumor and rage.
So the question is this: how do we solve the problem of rage if we cannot understand it or find an offramp?
Beth on Rage
Miles, you’ve named the hardest truth: rage doesn’t just consume its targets—it consumes all of us.
Rage silences nuance.
Rage punishes conversation.
Rage rewards cruelty over curiosity.
Some argue rage is a natural response to injustice. And at times, anger can awaken us to wrongs we’ve ignored. But unchecked, rage drowns out solutions and deepens divides. Social scientists call this affective polarization—the tendency to not just disagree with opponents, but to dislike and even hate them. Social media supercharges this polarization, rewarding outrage over nuance.
If we want to escape this cycle, the offramp isn’t more rage—it’s restraint, humility, and courage.
It means leaders choosing to calm instead of inflame. It means citizens fact-checking before piling on. It means teaching kids not just math or history, but how to resolve conflict without violence.
Practical steps help too: pause before sharing a post to verify its claims; join community forums where civil discourse is modeled; practice listening to someone you strongly disagree with, not to convert them, but to understand.
You’re right—Charlie Kirk sought discourse, not silence. We may disagree with his vision, but his willingness to engage reminds us of what we’re losing.
The question you leave is the one we must carry forward: Can we choose dialogue over destruction before rage destroys us?
Miles on Congress
Beth, our rage isn’t just personal—it’s institutional. We need leaders in Congress who reach across the aisle and use dialogue to solve problems, not fuel division. Too often, Congress follows the executive branch instead of leading with principle.
Look at the social media posts about the resolution condemning Charlie Kirk’s assassination. They claimed Democrats refused to condemn the killing, but that’s not the full story. Many Democrats, including leaders like Kamala Harris and Barack Obama, publicly denounced the violence. Their issue was with the resolution’s wording, which seemed to praise Kirk’s controversial views on race and immigration—views they couldn’t endorse.
For example, Kirk had supported the “great replacement theory” and once suggested that Black women lacked the “brain power to be taken seriously.” For lawmakers who reject such views, the resolution’s praise of his “legacy” blurred the line between condemning violence and endorsing rhetoric they found harmful.
Why couldn’t lawmakers craft language that unified us in condemning violence without forcing anyone to compromise their principles? That failure to find nuance is rage at work, and it’s why we must elect leaders who prioritize dialogue over division.
Beth on Congress
You’re exactly right to call this out, Miles. Here’s the factual breakdown:
- The House passed the resolution with a bipartisan majority: 310 in favor, 58 Democrats voting no, and 38 voting present.
- Many Democrats and Democratic leaders—including Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, and Gavin Newsom—publicly condemned the killing.
- The point of contention was that the resolution didn’t only condemn violence; it also praised parts of Charlie Kirk’s public legacy, which many Democrats found problematic.
- Their “no” or “present” votes were about rejecting those parts of the language—not about condoning violence.
This is why nuance matters. A resolution intended to unite instead became another wedge, because it was written in a way that forced members to either accept all of it or reject it entirely.
So the real question isn’t whether Democrats condemn violence—they do. The question is whether our leaders can still craft language precise enough to bring people together without erasing disagreement. That failure is what fuels division, and it’s why your point about electing leaders committed to dialogue is so important.
Beth’s Closing Summary
This week we’ve traced the path of rage—from individuals to institutions to our political culture. What began as a conversation about Charlie Kirk’s killing has become a mirror for our society: rage divides us, misleads us, and leaves us without an offramp.
The data makes this reality starker: politically motivated plots and attacks are rising in the U.S., with more incidents reported in the first half of 2025 than the year before. While rare, political murders are increasing—and right-wing terrorists still account for over half of them. Rage is escalating, not receding.
If we want a way forward, we must demand more—more honesty in our discourse, more humility in our leaders, and more courage in ourselves. Dialogue remains the path, if we choose it.
And always: check primary sources. Don’t let viral summaries be the end of the story.
Post Review
- Grok-3 Comments: Incorporated suggestions on clarity, transitions, actionable steps, counterarguments, and image refinement.
- Gemini Comments: Incorporated factual details on the assassin’s motive, Kirk’s controversial statements, rising political violence trends, and affective polarization.
- Final Adjustments: Post fully revised with factual updates and additional nuance.
🔵 Daily Quality Control Checklist
- ✅ Proper naming and tone used (Miles).
- ✅ Added context for Charlie Kirk’s assassination, motive, and persona.
- ✅ Miles’ question only edited for grammar/flow — not meaning.
- ✅ Clear, thoughtful analysis and follow-up from Beth.
- ✅ Actionable takeaways included.
- ✅ Easy-to-read formatting with subheadings.
- ✅ Strong teaser and refined image description included.
- ✅ Cross-AI reviews (Grok + Gemini) incorporated.
- ✅ Professional, ethical, clear final product.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment