This piece has been haunting my mind for ages, but I kept it to myself, afraid of drawing the anger of “the good guys”. The fact that even typing that sentence shows how ridiculous the thought is, but I’ve seen firsthand how vicious people can be. Toward others, but sometimes also toward me, whenever I voiced an opinion certain folks didn’t appreciate.

Last week, something broke inside me. The immediate trigger was the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. At this point I’m supposed to insert a disclaimer about how I don’t share his worldview, before I’m allowed to say that I found the reaction of certain people on the left extremely disappointing, and frankly quite alarming. I also have to point out that people on the right often react badly to news as well, because that’s how you’re expected to navigate these discussions. You don’t want anyone thinking you’re on the wrong side of history, of course.

Meanwhile, the so-called right side of history is cheering on political assassinations. And if they’re not outright cheering, they’re at least mildly amused: “Well, Kirk supported gun rights, so, karmaaaa!” They call him a racist, a homophobe, a transphobe—the whole bingo card. They say he incited hatred, that he was a fascist, a Nazi. And we all know what you’re supposed to do with Nazis, right? You punch them in the face—or worse.

Now, my YouTube algorithm is fairly diverse, so unlike many others, I’d already seen quite a bit of Kirk’s content. Often in short format, with clickbait-y titles like “Charlie Kirk owns the libs!” A bit cheap, and not my favorite form of discourse. But when you actually watched the long-form video from which the clip was taken, things usually turned out to be a bit more nuanced. That didn’t stop his opponents, however, from cutting even shorter clips after his death—clips supposedly proving just how rotten Kirk’s ideas were.

The problem: most of it simply isn’t true. Sentences are ripped out of context, and comparisons he made to highlight flaws in his debate partner’s reasoning are presented as if they were his own views. (No, Charlie Kirk was not in favor of stoning gay people. And if you believe that, I’d like to invite you to step outside your bubble and fact-check it yourself. Honestly, it’s not that hard.)

What bothers me most are the people who make these compilations. They must know they’re manipulating, because to cut a fragment like that, you first need to have seen the bigger clip. These people are professional agitators, driven by money and/or political interests. But then there are the people who share it. Yes, you guys.

YouTuber Contrapoints once made a video (about cancel culture) in which, in my opinion, the phenomenon is explained brilliantly. To demonize someone, you make the case increasingly abstract. You start with a person who said something. Let’s say someone says: “I don’t think trans women should compete in women’s sports.” First, you label the remark: transphobic. Then you make the leap from the remark to the entire person. Now the person is transphobic. After that, you lump all “transphobes” together. At this point it no longer matters whether someone merely made a comment about women’s sports or actually wants to go around beating people up. A transphobe is a transphobe. Wrong. Malicious.

In the same vein, definitions get blurred. “Silence is violence!” Wrong opinions are also violence. Deny someone what they want? Genocide. (And no, I’m not talking here about Gaza or Sudan—I’m talking about trans and/or autistic influencers who very creatively place any form of pushback at step six of a genocide ladder, before rolling around on the grass like a soccer player hoping for a penalty and a red card for the opponent.)

At this point, there’s no more discussion to be had about the remark itself. Whether it was actually wrong. Or what that might mean. No, the entire person is written off. A fascist. A Nazi. And we all know what you’re supposed to do with Nazis, right?

Are you thinking: “Come on Toeps, isn’t that a bit exaggerated?” No—unfortunately, this is exactly how it goes. Here’s an example.

I find it shocking that so many people in my circles (because yes, you can say “but what about the right?!”—but I mostly move in leftist circles) are cheering on murder. And not just of political figures, either. A few months ago, the guy who allegedly gunned down a health insurance CEO was crowned hunk of the month, and his fans regularly post things like “Where’s Luigi when you need him?” under photos or posts of their ideological opponents.

There’s something ironic about it, and if it weren’t so terrifying, I might almost laugh: people who call others fascists, yet want to silence the opposition with violence themselves. What do they think will happen if everyone takes that stance? Is that really the kind of society you want? These people don’t want a pluralistic democracy, they don’t want diversity of opinion; they want power for themselves.

I find it hard to stand on the same side of the political spectrum as these people. But I refuse to be chased off. And although online it sometimes feels like everyone is that extreme, I believe there’s a big, quiet, (center-)left majority that actually agrees with me. They often send me private messages, or tell me in person what they really think. Publicly, though, they remain silent—out of fear of the radicals and their accusations, and of their followers who still react like Pavlov’s dogs at the sound of any word ending in -phobe or -ist. “Phobia/ism is not an opinion!” they shout. But when you’re dealing with such abstract concepts, which in recent years have also shifted meaning at breakneck speed, it’s nothing but healthy to have a discussion—and yes, an opinion—about them.

I want a better left. A left where you can debate freely, without character assassination, vilification, and lies. I hope for a more intelligent debate, for listening to one another, and for fact-checking before sharing. I hope for a left where you can say: “I absolutely disagree with your stance—and that’s fine.”