Ohio by Stephen Markley

I recently moved to Ohio from sunny Florida – so when I saw Ohio’s bleak, eerie cover on the shelf at Barnes & Noble, I knew I had to read it. Ohio switches between perspectives of four former classmates over a single evening. The first is Bill Ashcraft, a troubled junkie activist who’s in town delivering a mysterious package; then, Stacey Moore, a PhD candidate seeking her long-lost love; there’s also Dan Eaton, a traumatized Iraq veteran; finally, there’s Tina Ross, a young woman hiding a profound pain that spurs the events of this novel. While this book is marketed as a murder mystery, it’s really a meditation on the horrors that have a plagued a generation, such as the aftermath of 9/11, economic downturn, and the opiate crisis.

There’s no getting around it – there were problems with this novel. It was far too bloated and should have been about 200 pages less. The dialogue is preachy, corny, and often downright bad. Certain characters were jarringly one-dimensional. And even before knowing anything about the author, I could tell from the flowery prose that this was written by an MFA grad.

But even with these issues – I really enjoyed this book.

This book is an absolute page-turner. It started off slowly, but once it picks up, it really picks up. What exactly is in the package strapped to Bill body? What really happened to Stacey’s former love? What happened to Tina so many years ago – and who was unlucky enough to bear witness? Is it ever possible for skeletons to stay buried in the rolling hills of Ohio, or must the truth always come to light? If you’re looking for a traditional murder mystery, this book isn’t for you – but if you want something brutal and reflective that plays with nonlinear timelines, you’re in for a wild ride. Cinematic, thought-provoking, and disturbingly relevant, I’d be shocked if this isn’t adapted into an HBO miniseries.

The Sympathizer by Viet Thanh Nguyen

Speaking of HBO, The Sympathizer caught my eye at Barnes & Noble due to its bright red cover with a gold badge marking it as a Pulitzer Prize winner. The Sympathizer, which takes place in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, starts off with a bang, as the narrator declares himself “a spy, a sleeper, a spook, a man of two faces.” And it’s true – by day, the narrator is a dutiful ex-captain for South Vietnam who, having recently immigrated to Los Angeles, is plotting with his former General to take back their homeland. But by night, the narrator is a communist double agent sending coded messages to a member of the Viet Cong.

I love books that teach me something not only about human nature, but also about the world – and you get a little bit of both of those things with The Sympathizer. At the risk of sounding ignorant, I really didn’t know much about the Vietnam War beyond the veteran hat often worn by my grandfather, so I was genuinely horrified to learn about the atrocities committed by the Americans.

Especially interesting to me, though, were the questions of identity that were raised by this book. Born from the rape of a Vietnamese mother by a French priest, the narrator, caught between two worlds, isn’t quite French, but isn’t quite Vietnamese, either – instead, he’s considered a bastard. This struggle between conflicting identities is a constant theme throughout the book. Loyal to the Viet Cong, he’s often reminded that he’s not truly one of them. An enemy to the south Vietnamese, he can’t help but feel sympathy for the fallen people. Critical of American involvement in the War, he engages in Western culture and was even educated at an American university. As a Cuban American myself, I relate to the feeling of being caught between two cultures, born from both but not fully belonging to either. I imagine this feeling is common amongst many Americans today.

What really carries this book, though, is the sharpness and wittiness of the prose. Nguyen manages to imbue heavy themes with a large dose of satirical humor, so it’s common to find yourself both horrified and amused in the span of a few sentences. An enlightening and action-packed thriller told from a perspective we don’t hear from nearly enough, I highly recommend The Sympathizer, both the book and HBO miniseries.

The Lost Daughter by Elena Ferrante

Ever since devouring the Neapolitan Novels, I’ve made it my life’s mission to read everything Ferrante’s ever written. So, I was really excited to pick up The Lost Daughter (and even more excited to find out it was adapted into a film!).

The Lost Daughter tells the story of Leda, a professor and divorced mother of two adult children who embarks on a solo beach vacation. As she observes a Neapolitan mother playing with her young daughter on the beach, Leda reflects on her own complicated relationship with motherhood – leading her to commit a perplexing action that thrusts the novel into suspense.

What I love most about Ferrante’s writing is that she says the dark, ugly part out loud – and that makes her work feel visceral and intensely real. You get the sense when reading her books that you aren’t just reading fiction – rather, you’re getting a glimmer into the soul of a woman who’s lived and lived deeply. It wouldn’t shock me to find out, for instance, that Ferrante has felt the pain of infidelity – both as a victim and a participant. And it wouldn’t shock me to find out that Ferrante, too, has struggled immensely with the push and pulls of motherhood, and that despite her love for her children and immense success as a writer, Ferrante is a woman of regrets, and here she lays them bare so you can learn from her mistakes. This novel is short, and at times feels underdeveloped – but if you want a frank and relatable what-feels-like-a-confession of the contradictions of motherhood, I highly recommend reading The Lost Daughter.

The Vegetarian by Han Kang

There are some books that come up time and time again on r/books. One of these books is The Vegetarian, and since I hate being left out, I knew I had to read it.

And let me tell you, I was not disappointed.

The Vegetarian is the story of Yeong-hye, a Korean woman who quits eating meat. But perhaps it’s not really accurate to call it Yeong-hye’s story – rather, it’s a story about how her countercultural decision affects everyone around her, and as such, aside from small, italicized dream sequences checkered throughout the novel, we never hear from Yeong-hye directly. Instead, we hear from her husband, with whom she shares a loveless marriage; her brother-in-law, who’s intensely and erotically fixated on Yeong-hye; and her sister, a mother drowning beneath the pressures of patriarchal Korea.

This book is one of the most engrossing (and disturbing) books I’ve ever read. I’m typically a slow reader (I like to savor my reads) but the translation from Korean was so riveting I couldn’t put it down; after starting it on a Friday night, I found myself finishing it during work breaks the following Monday morning.

You should know before reading that this is not a light read. There are graphic depictions of sexual assault, mental illness and self-mutilation, and there’s a particularly disturbing scene with a dog. But the grotesqueness of the novel never feels gratuitousness; instead, it serves the purpose of answering the question, What happens when a woman embedded in a deeply patriarchal society simply refuses to stay in her place?

Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Even though I read less classics, that doesn’t mean I didn’t read any. One of the classics I did read this year is one I’ve been wanting to read for a long time - and that was Anna Karenina.

Anna Karenina tells the story of Anna, a married woman who embarks on a scandalous affair (with disastrous consequences). Interwoven with Anna’s story is the story of Levin, a man searching for purpose and love.

I was intimidated by Anna Karenina due to its length and the fact that it’s an emblem of Russian literature, and as someone who had never read Russian literature, I had the preconception that Russian lit would be hard and boring. But to my shock, this book was an absolute page turner! I couldn’t get enough of Anna’s and Vronsky’s tumultuous romance, and I was fascinated by Levin’s philosophical musings. Anna Karenina may be last on this list, but it’s certainly not last in my heart - I’m currently working up courage to read Tolstoy’s War and Peace.

My Favorite Book of 2025

I read so many great books this year, it was hard to narrow it down to just five, and it’s even harder to narrow it down to just one. But after a lot of back and forth, I think my favorite book of 2025 was The Vegetarian by Han Kang, a disturbing and thought-provoking psychological thriller that would make for an excellent A24 film. An honorable mention goes to Stephen Markley’s Ohio, which perfectly captures the mundanity and mystery hidden within Ohio’s rolling hills.

Casey Anthony never reported her child missing. It was her mother, Cindy Anthony, who reported Caylee missing after not seeing her for a month – and smelling a foul odor in Casey’s car. In the days leading up to her arrest, Casey Anthony lived life as normal, partying and pretending to work at Universal Studios.

Casey Anthony was infamously acquitted of first-degree-murder in 2011. But even if she didn’t kill her daughter (debatable), her actions were not characteristic of a concerned and loving parent.

It shouldn’t be controversial to say that Casey Anthony, maybe, probably, should not have been a mother.

But suggesting that some people shouldn’t be parents – or worse, that some women shouldn’t be mothers – remains controversial. Yet, I see evidence on my internet homepage everyday of people who should’ve sat parenthood out. Parents who stabbed and decapitated their children. A mother accused of shooting her daughter dead. Imagine if these people hadn’t been parents. Imagine the tragedies that could’ve been avoided.

And that’s why backlash to Jameela Jamil saying she doesn’t want children is so silly. To be clear, I bet Jameela would be a good mom, even if she might not think so - but some people should absolutely not be parents. It’s best for everyone involved to know this beforehand and act accordingly.

I’ve written previously that modern culture often frames motherhood as the death of liberation. Still, there’s a concerning breed of influencer popularized in recent years who seem hellbent on demanding people have children - and shaming people who don’t. Women owe children to the world, says Matt Walsh. People who don’t want children are deluded and immature, says Jordan Peterson. What grinds my gears about these pro-natalist types of influencers is that they tend to be most divorced from the reality of the average human. It’s easy to call people selfish and immoral when you’re not worried about your children’s next meal. It’s far more difficult for us to have the children they demand us to have if we’re drowning in student debt or can barely afford our rent – and subjecting our potential children to this struggle for the sake of virtuosity or obligation to some vague moral code is horrifically short-sighted and, dare I say, selfish.

And while I don’t want to make assumptions, I have to wonder what the upbringings were for the Matt Walshes of the world. I have to imagine most of these influencers haven’t personally felt the ills of poor parenting if they find it so unfathomable that some people don’t make good parents.

Furthermore, at the risk of getting too political, it’s funny and strange how these “you must have children or you’re a selfish piece of shit” types tend to be glibly (and often scornfully) unconcerned with the existential concerns that would affect our progeny. Why is it that we must have children without question but we’re stupid if we’re worried about climate change which our kids and possibly our kids’ kids and so forth could be affected by? Why should we be completely unconcerned about bringing our children into a world with unaffordable healthcare, a world ravaged by war, a world where clean drinking water is a privilege?

But forget economics, forget war, forget the impending global apocalypse. Why isn’t it enough to just… not want children? And why is this taken as an almost personal offense?

If you can’t already tell, I don’t think Jameela said anything wrong, and even if some of her statements could be read as insensitive, it seems she went to great lengths to offend as few people as possible. Furthermore, I think it’s the ultimate selflessness to realize that you don’t want to be a parent and spare your hypothetical children from a potentially bad childhood. With that said, I actually do really want children someday – and I do think it’s okay to interrogate, even disagree, with what she said.

Because despite the fact that I found myself nodding along to some of Jameela’s points, I came to a very different conclusion. Yes, it’s true that life will probably be much harder with children and I’ll have to spend far less time rotting in front of the TV (a pastime I sadly really enjoy). Still, there’s something inside me – something I can’t adequately define – that makes me optimistic the hardship will be worth it.

Jameela’s essay brought me back to a conversation I had a couple months ago. On my wedding night, I was speaking to my best friend of twenty years about children. She had an unplanned pregnancy at eighteen – ten years later, she now has two children. And despite the fact that I’m the godmother of her first child, I’ve never actually asked her how she felt about having been such a young mom, and if she agreed with the Chappell Roan sentiment that young motherhood is “hell.” Maybe I was scared of the answer. What she said, though, surprised me – and almost brought me to tears.

She said that she’s happy she got pregnant when she did because if she hadn’t, she might’ve assumed she wasn’t cut out for it and might never have taken the leap. She said that she would have missed out on the most wonderful thing in the world. She said that she hopes my husband and I have children because she wants her children to grow up in a world where our children exist. She said that together, our children could create a better world.

And while I’ve never been super convinced by the “we must perpetuate society” type of arguments when it comes to reasons to have children (see point number 2 of Jameela’s essay), maybe it’s one of those things you can’t truly understand until you’ve had children yourself. I think I’m beginning to understand it a little more. Maybe if Jameela had kids, she’d understand it, too.

Or not (see paragraphs 1 through 5).

But even if I personally want kids, I don’t have such a simplistic view of the world that I think everyone else needs to have kids as well. Parenthood is not a moral obligation and is not a prerequisite for a happy life. And the last thing we need in this world is more unhappy children hurt by unhappy parents.

Thanks to feminism, I have two college degrees, I can open my own bank account, and I don’t have to endure marital rape. I’m grateful for the women who came before me who fought for the freedom I experience today.

But modern American feminism has gone astray, because it’s become less about choice, and more about ensuring women make the right one. Nothing illustrates this better than recent accusations that Taylor Swift is a tradwife. Modern feminism demands that women abide by the new feminine ideal – the modern woman – and shames any woman who dares to fall short.

But who even is the modern woman? And why does feminism love her so much?

The modern woman is fiercely independent. She’s highly educated. She works a 9-to-5 job. She’s sexually liberated and takes the pill. The modern woman is unwilling to bend to archaic stereotypes – and why should she? Instead, she marches forward, the author of her destiny, down a path once discouraged but now praised by society.

But despite her progressive ideals, there often still exists a natural urge to have her own family. And so, in every modern woman’s life, there comes a point where she wonders if she can truly have it all – and if she even wants to. It’s here that she risks veering off course and becoming the traditional woman.

The traditional woman is what every modern woman fears. She gets married and has children at a young age. She believes in gender roles. She often works at home instead of behind a desk. The traditional woman, once venerated by society, is now relegated to the shadows, a remnant of a shameful and oppressive past. She walks forward on a path less traveled, but to the modern world, she’s simply walking backwards.

Of course, women rarely fall directly into an archetype. Not every modern woman has the desire nor privilege to attend college, and not every traditional woman can or wants to stay home; a woman often holds a mixture of modern and traditional values. Furthermore, as a modern woman myself, neither of these lifestyles are wrong. Each has benefits and tradeoffs, and each are feminine in their own way.

And yet, only one of these lifestyles is celebrated by the modern world.

Share

Because instead of acknowledging the traditional woman as a valid expression of female identity, modern feminists – particularly on social media – sneer at her in condescension. The stay-at-home mom is just a mom. The homemaker is wasting her potential. The religious woman who abides by gender roles is infected with internalized misogyny. Any woman who strays from the modern ideal is not truly free.

But are any of us truly free? The traditional woman might prioritize marriage – but would she if her church hadn’t taught her those values? And the modern woman might embrace casual sex – but would she if Sex and the City hadn’t told her it was liberating? Both women are, in their own ways, shaped by the cultures they inhabit. And yet, there’s a tendency to elevate the modern woman above her traditional counterpart, as if she alone is liberated and untouched by societal norms.

This feels regrettably bold to say in the modern age – but there is nothing inherently wrong with being a traditional woman. A traditional woman can take care of the home without feeling oppressed – in fact, she may even enjoy it. The traditional woman can forego a corporate career to be a stay-at-home mom – maybe that’s the job she prefers. The traditional woman may have a worldview that stands in stark contrast with that of the modern woman – and yet, she may feel equally free.

In fact, in a culture that mocks women who don’t submit to modernity, living a traditional life can be the ultimate rebellion.

And while I can only speak for myself, I’ve never been pressured to get married and have children. Instead, I was told that a career was the truest – the only – measure of success, and that marriage and children could be life-ruining. And even if we’re told this in good faith, I fear this predominant cultural narrative has led women to believe there is a right and a wrong way to be a woman. I fear women have gone from being pressured into having marriages they don’t want into having careers they don’t want.

This doesn’t mean that women aren’t still pressured into being wives and mothers. In some circles, particularly religious ones, the traditional woman is still the feminine ideal. Furthermore, despite being told to live it up and break free from patriarchy, modern women are still often expected to eventually get married and have a family – conflicting expectations that set women up for failure.

Moreover, it’s undeniable that there are men who use gender roles to bully their wives.

But feminism forgets that even traditional women can have agency. We’re quick to shame the traditional woman as brainwashed, but seldom do we consider that maybe, like the modern woman, she’s simply chosen a life in accordance with her values. Perhaps she knows what she’s missing, and perhaps she doesn’t want it. Maybe, in her own way, she’s asserting her independence.

This tendency of modern feminists to shame women with differing values – including the occasional modern woman who goes off script – has created an increasingly fractured feminist movement. Women with concerns about trans-women in sports are labeled TERFs. Any woman who isn’t staunchly pro-choice is an antifeminist. Women who dare to acknowledge male struggles are pick-me’s. And women who want to stay home with their children are tradwives upholding the patriarchy.

Even worse, though, is how the pressures of modern feminism cause the woman herself to become fractured. Suddenly, every decision she makes can be labeled through the narrow feminist lens. If a woman takes her husband’s last name, then she’s not a real feminist. If she wears high-heels and lipstick, she’s upholding patriarchal beauty standards. If she doesn’t like casual sex, then she’s not sexually liberated. And if a popstar who endorsed Kamala Harris sings about marriage and children, then she’s a tradwife and undercover Trump voter. Every choice a woman makes is scrutinized; even baking sourdough bread is a political act.

And under a constant pressure to perform empowerment, maybe it’s the modern woman who is least free of all.

So it’s no wonder that, exhausted from modern pressures, women split off into less oppressive camps. Mothers who feel excluded by modern feminism embrace maternal feminism. Some women go down the reactionary feminism rabbit hole – a type of feminism that questions the modern script. Others become disillusioned and abandon feminism entirely. Still others embrace traditional femininity, finding solace in tradwife influencers.

Worst of all, though, is that some turn to real antifeminists – such as Pearl Davis or Andrew Tate – who exploit the fractures left behind by modern feminism. It’s no coincidence that the explosion of manosphere content coincides with a growing backlash towards mainstream feminism. As it turns out, resentment is potent fuel – not just from men who feel belittled by feminism, but from women who feel excluded, shamed, even duped by modern feminism.

I think one of the reasons why modern women are so quick to denigrate traditional women is that we are absolutely terrified of tradition. And really, why wouldn’t we be terrified? Many of us come from broken homes and have witnessed the breakdown of the traditional family – leading us not to strive for it, but to fear it. Traditionally, American women were denied education and the right to vote. Female genital mutilation is still common in some parts of the world. And in the old days, there was no real choice – women had to be wives and mothers. It makes sense, then, that women today are scared of tradition, scared of the past. Tradition is oppression; feminism is the answer.

But this fear of tradition has led us to villainize benign (and dare I say normal) human acts as regressive or tradwife. Marriage becomes enslavement. Children become life-ruining burdens. Anything that conflicts with a corporate job is misogyny. We label marriage and family as the enemy of progressive values, when in fact, they’re deeply human ones. We forget that in a sea of terrible traditions, like slavery or forced marriages, there are many good ones, too, like the excitement you feel on a Christmas morning, or walking down the aisle towards someone you love.

Perhaps I’m idealistic, but I dream of a different kind of feminism, and a different kind of world. I want a feminism where women can be stay-at-home moms without being put down and rudely called tradwives. I want a culture where being barefoot in the kitchen or a boss in the boardroom is equally beautiful and empowering. I want a world where all women are accepted, revered, and free to be themselves.

But it starts with modern feminism. Feminism must make room for women with different values; it must make room for the traditional woman. Not every woman wants to be a girlboss, just like not every woman wants to be a mother. But that shouldn’t make us any less feminist, any less female, or any less free.

Maybe it’s time to start a new wave. Maybe it’s time to liberate feminism.

“I can’t have empathy for someone like Charlie Kirk,” said comedienne and actress Amanda Seales in an Instagram video recorded just after the shooting. Upon finding out he was confirmed dead, she remarked sarcastically, “He died? Damn, B. Life comes at you fast.”

Many others on social media expressed a similar lack of empathy, with one Reddit user stating immediately following Kirk’s hospitalization, “There’s still time for him to succumb to his wounds. Don’t give up hope.” When Kirk was pronounced dead, many Redditors rejoiced, with one user proclaiming, “I’m glad he’s gone, and in this fashion. Karma’s a bitch. Act like a Nazi, get the appropriate Nazi end result.” Even more disturbing are the celebratory videos that have spread across TikTok, which show people smiling, laughing, cheering, and dancing in response to Kirk’s death.

But while many on social media erupted into laughter, I just can’t help but feel really sad.

I feel sad because a man who was engaging in civil debate was shot dead in cold blood. I feel sad because two young children have been left fatherless. And I feel sad because many on social media have completely forgotten what it means to civilly disagree – and most importantly, what it means to be human.

Something really strange has happened within the last few years on the left-wing side of social media, but especially since Trump’s 2024 reelection – I’ve noticed that people who even mildly disagree with some aspects of the left-wing point of view are often called Nazis and fascists. Social media is no longer an epicenter of free thought – instead, it’s become a breeding ground for black and white thinking and dehumanization. Nuanced and complex humans no longer exist on the internet: you’re either left or right, good or evil, ally or enemy.

To be clear, this isn’t just a left-wing problem. I remember when conservatives dehumanized George Floyd as a drug addict whose life was worthless. President Trump has called immigrants “animals.” Just last weekend I saw a news article about Fox News host Brian Kilmeade who suggested “involuntary lethal injection” for mentally ill homeless people. In the wake of Kirk’s death, Elon Musk labeled the left as “the party of murder”. And when news of the shooting first broke, many conservatives on social media were eager to assume that the shooter was transgender.

However, since social media sites like Reddit, TikTok, and until recently, Twitter, are dominated by left-leaning users, I see this type of dehumanization directed at conservatives far more often. Conservatives, as a whole, are often described as evil fascists undeserving of empathy – but this is far from the truth. Therefore, I’d like to take a pause and remind people – especially those on the left – that conservatives are human beings.

I know it may be shocking, but it’s true: conservatives are human beings. Most conservatives are not Nazis, just like most liberals are not Stalinists. Conservatives are nuanced and complex people, just like you and me. They have desires and fears, dreams and aspirations. They sit next to us on the bus, they work with us in the office, they say hello to us on the street. They have opinions we don’t like, just like we have opinions they don’t like, but that’s okay, because this is America. We’re all allowed to have different opinions, and we shouldn’t be shot to death for it.

Not every conservative is a cartoonish Marjorie Taylor Greene type, just like most liberals are not AOC. I think we all need to remember that it’s the loudest and often the most outlandish voices who get the most airtime. Most people, including conservatives, are just normal people trying to make their way in the world.

Take my grandfather, for instance. My grandfather is a hard worker and is kind to everyone he meets. He also lived in Cuba under Fidel Castro and is terrified of anything that even slightly resembles communism. Therefore, he votes Republican. Does that make him a Nazi?

And then there’s my Uncle Ralph. He’s one of the coolest and kindest people I know, and he’s so smart he’s basically a walking encyclopedia. He’s a talented musician and photographer, and he takes care of every cat that steps into his backyard. He’s also a gun-loving Republican. Does he also deserve a bullet to the neck?

I think we often forget just how dangerous and powerful dehumanization really is. Dehumanization of entire groups of people is what led to the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust. It’s what led to the deaths of Americans on 9/11, and it’s what led to hate crimes against Muslims post–9/11. It’s what allowed the transatlantic slave trade to flourish, and it led to the proliferation of Jim Crow laws in the southern United States. Ultimately, dehumanization is what led to the murder of Charlie Kirk, and dehumanization will be the cause of any retribution killings that follow.

I’m not a conservative, and I didn’t care for Charlie Kirk. I didn’t agree with him on gay rights, and I didn’t like a comment he made recently about how women should go to college mainly to find a husband. But Charlie Kirk was a human being, and he didn’t deserve to be publicly executed for his opinions. I mourn for Charlie Kirk and his family.

But I can understand why some people don’t. He had some controversial opinions, and his rhetoric could be divisive. It makes sense that some people might feel conflicted – even apathetic – about his death. But if you’re posting videos of yourself laughing about it, I’d urge you to consider whether you’re living by your own standards - and the standards you set for others.

And if you can’t find it in your heart to feel at least a little bad about Charlie Kirk being shot in the neck, at least consider how this makes you look to those who may be politically on-the-fence. Do you really think posting videos of yourself laughing about his death and dancing in celebration is going to move them over to your side?

None of this is to excuse people losing their jobs, by the way. Many people, including teachers and police officers, have been fired over their social media posts about Charlie Kirk. Jimmy Kimmel was just suspended for a distasteful comment about the killing and is under fire from the FCC. The answer to ugly speech isn’t violence – but it’s certainly not censorship, either.

Not all speech has been ugly, though. Plenty of people on social media, including many on the left, have expressed outrage and sadness over the death of Charlie Kirk, even if they really disagreed with him – and this gives me hope. Despite the staggering amount of vitriol I’ve seen online this past week, I do genuinely believe that most people are good. We may come from different ethnic backgrounds, practice different religions, and vote for different people, but I really think most of us want the same things: what’s best for our families, and what’s best for the country.

Still, I haven’t felt this scared in a long time. I’m terrified of someday bringing children into a world where it’s acceptable, and even celebrated, to kill people for having the wrong opinion.

Most of all, though, I just feel sad. I feel sad that a man was murdered, and I feel sad that so many people could watch a video of that murder and find it funny. I knew the country was divided, but I guess I didn’t realize just how much. If we can’t agree that being executed for your opinions is wrong, then what can we agree on?

I’d like to close this out by saying that I have not seen any evidence that Charlie Kirk was a Nazi or a fascist. It’s irresponsible to call Charlie Kirk a Nazi without evidence, and it’s irresponsible to label conservatives as a monolithic group of fascists without souls. Not only does it rob those words of any meaning, but it justifies violence against entire groups of people. That’s not a world that any of us want to live in. Maybe it’s time to stop calling each other Nazis. Maybe it’s time to stop dehumanizing conservatives.

Dehumanization is a tactic used by the most evil people throughout history – including the Nazis. We should all try our hardest not to dehumanize each other, no matter how passionately we disagree, no matter how differently we see the world. The moment we stop viewing each other as human beings, and the moment we stop engaging in civil debate, that’s the moment political violence like this will flourish. But political violence has no place in America. We’re not living in a free society if we can’t speak our minds without fear of being murdered.

After all, what’s going to happen if one day you have the wrong opinion?