Revenge culture in America: What it means and where we're headed

For most Americans, "cheering on" revenge-motivated killings isn't just a popular pastime, it's a formative, pervasive & multi-billion-dollar industry.

In the aftermath of the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in early December, many have wondered what it means that Americans seem so excited and laudatory of what appears otherwise to be coldblooded murder. But first, let's clarify what the data really says.

A recent Emerson College poll found that a majority of voters (68 percent) think the killing is unacceptable. However, 41 percent of voters ages 18-29 years old said the killing was "acceptable" or "somewhat acceptable."

This concretely means most Americans polled did not endorse this killing as acceptable behaviour. An overwhelming majority of us do not support cold-blooded (political) murder (yet). But the segment of young American voters who do are well worth understanding better.

Indeed, since the onset of the social media age, Americans seem increasingly less inhibited and more unselfconscious in advocating and even celebrating violence towards public figures. The CEO assassination may still represent a social watershed.

When does verbal and digital behaviour in celebration of violence, dramatised or real, cross over into physical violence?

Certainly, a subset of young Americans are celebrating both the murderer and his methods for raising the issue of corporate healthcare grift. But what, if anything, might this shift signal?

Influencing outrage

For a start, it is important to distinguish credible violence risk from the "howling" rhetoric of politicians, marketers, and influencers.

And make no mistake, becoming an "influencer" seems to have been our suspected assassin's intent. He may well even have succeeded beyond previous known examples.

Consider the riots in the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. These events show that some significant segment of the Western world has embraced and cheered on and even (possibly) incited more such violence.

While this acceptance may seem new, we might also look to President Donald Trump's reelection after the Capitol riots or national support for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as possible evidence violence itself is more accepted and acceptable today.

But does this support indicate a desire to support more such violence, or rather a more figurative desire to blow up systems many view as systemically violent and equally deadly? Indeed, the outrage and violent rhetoric seem to have been sublimated into substantive political support and efficacy.

So some of us likely seem far less inhibited or embarrassed about praising violent actors who settle their scores and take vengeance - but only when we agree with them.

But why? Well, have you ever heard the story of Bruce Wayne (Batman)? Or John Wick, the reluctant assassin played by Keanu Reeves? Or even Beatrix "the bride" Kiddo, Uma Thurman's character in the Kill Bill film series?

Turns out a lot more has changed about our media landscape since Sept. 11, 2001, than social media, and this demands acknowledgement. The fact is, Hollywood is full of pervasive revenge-killing heroes, heroines, and plots that seem to dominate our cultural tastes.

While Americans rage against or "cancel" all sorts of nuanced socio-political issues, one that is no longer taboo is vengeance. Indeed, many of us seem to retire at night to our family homes to tune in to what can only be described as fantasy and vicarious killing of "they who wronged us."

For example, the top-grossing movies of 2024 thus far include Dune 2, Deadpool and Wolverine, and another Bad Boys film, which all involve sufficient violence of the form we are discussing to qualify.

Thus, in some ways, revenge specifically is an extremely lucrative business for the entertainment industry. Video games, live-action role-playing, films and other forms of entertainment show how popular and prevalent vengeance is as a national pastime and psychological escape.

And social media seems clearly to reward both the revenge themes and memes, and now an alleged political murderer.

Consequences on society

Americans (indeed most of the world) seem titillated and even encouraged to live vicariously when someone who is abused or disrespected gets vengeance. Roll credits, and everyone lives happily ever after, right?

Not exactly. The man suspected of the CEO's execution, Ivy League-educated Luigi Mangione, could face a possible death penalty, as the accused has now received federal charges, as well as state charges such as "terrorism," based on what the suspect said in his alleged manifesto.

All that said, it cannot be denied that we as Americans are constantly exposed to violence.

War itself is now increasingly streamed directly into our homes and on our phones. It cannot be ignored that mass shootings in the US are climbing ever upward. Opportunistic war seems to be on the march throughout the world again.

Then there's also the fear factor.

Last December, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He was asked if he saw "blinking red lights" — a reference to the warning signs the US missed before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Wray responded by saying "I see blinking red lights everywhere I turn," saying that he worried about attacks on the US akin to the Hamas-led attacks on Israel in October 2023.

Viral media coverage ensued. But those violent attacks never materialised. In fact, neither did political violence in almost any form during the American election - well, except failed grievance-fueled assassination attempts.

Again, the specific kind of ideological violence Americans seem inclined towards (celebrating) seems long to have been clear.

So how many Americans support assassinations? And is this recent surge in support really a significant change in our beliefs and attitudes?

The endless churn of 24/7 infotainment and social media has been fairly and definitively proved not to reflect the beliefs and convictions of the plurality of our population, at least as reflected in the manifestation of actual violent behaviour.

Moreover, social media and 24-hour news channels seem fundamentally to amplify, exaggerate and incentivise the loudest and least principled among us.

Elevating discord, disdain and disorder is increasingly the price for clicks, likes, and time on screens. To quote newspapers of yore, if it bleeds it leads.

But how many will actually act?

Probably very few, for now. Nor does the howling appear to have engendered any appreciable movement or wave of organised public protest, let alone acts of violence that could be described as inspired or motivated by the assassin.

Time will tell if our celebrity will be feted by copycat killers or with odes to his ideology in future killings, which we commonly observe in the youth subculture of terrorists and mass shooters alike.

But thus far, virtually nothing more than celebratory words and arguments have resulted. And when it comes to influence and persuasion, it is the change or solicitation of new behaviours (like comments and likes, true enough) that is the gold standard of successful influence campaigns.

I would argue very nearly no one in America will take up arms and seek revenge as did the NYC CEO killer. A few will continue to troll and jeer at American healthcare, and a very few might attempt copycat assassinations.

But even if this small but noteworthy subgroup of Americans assents to these crimes, the empirical evidence does not (yet) appear to support the hypothesis they are genuinely approving of or advocating cold-blooded murder.

There appears to be very little violence signal in the harrowing and howling noise our screens and media produce. Perhaps it is merely vicarious relief and catharsis?

But while we await the possible vigilante violence to come, none of this celebration of violence appears healthy for anyone. Not even for now.