Podcast Summary: The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

Episode: Trending Towards Violence with Charlie Warzel
Date: September 18, 2025
Host: Jon Stewart
Guest: Charlie Warzel, staff writer at The Atlantic and author of the Galaxy Brain newsletter

Overview

This thought-provoking episode explores the cultural and technological factors fueling political violence and nihilistic acts in contemporary America, especially in the aftermath of the recent assassination of a public figure (Charlie Kirk). Jon Stewart interviews Charlie Warzel, who recently wrote in The Atlantic about the climate—not just the weather—of violence, polarization, and performative outrage online. The conversation navigates how social media platforms, opaque algorithms, and the pursuit of engagement intertwine with real-world consequences, radicalization, and our collective response to tragedy.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Post-Assassination Media Dynamics

• Stewart opens by lamenting society’s compulsive need to publicly react online after tragedies, noting that "shitposting after tragedies is not mandatory" ([03:15]).
• He draws attention to how vigilante acts undermine societal order, noting:
  “It's these individuals who believe themselves to be judge, jury and executioner ... a vigilante society is not a society.” ([04:15])

2. Warzel’s Macro View: Focus on Climate, Not Weather

• Warzel’s article is praised for taking a “climate” approach—looking at deeper systemic issues, not just the surface-level event ([05:53]).
• Warzel describes the “immediate ideological boxing” of tragedies by polarized factions on social media ([08:41]).
  • He observes:
    “The two polarized sides of our discourse were immediately going to take this and fit it into their ideological box, like, in one second.” ([08:46])

3. The Algorithmic Incentive to Outrage

• Stewart and Warzel discuss how platforms reward “filling the information vacuum” in moments of uncertainty, driving people to post inflammatory or speculative content ([10:22]).
• Stewart analogizes this to ultra-processed food:
  “Is that the insidious secret sauce that online is ultra, ultra processed speech?” ([12:12])
• Warzel unpacks the behavioral psychology, likening algorithmic feeds to slot machines and noting:
  “It is turning us often into the worst possible versions of ourself.” ([13:50])
• Stewart observes the dread of waiting to see which group a tragedy might be weaponized against:
  “You're praying that it's not committed by somebody that the other side can weaponize ... it's all ... non-information. It's merely accelerants.” ([15:18])

4. Are Tech Companies Responsible, or Is the Tech Simply “Dumb”?

• Warzel argues many algorithms are “optimized for engagement, just broad engagement,” not consciously for outrage, yet outrage is what performs ([18:04]).
• Stewart pushes back, pointing out that “outrage and fear travels faster than even adorability” and media organizations exploit this ([18:41]).

5. The Opaque and Unregulated World of Algorithms

• Discussion about the lack of public accountability:
  “How is it possible that these programs, which have such an impact on our lives … have no responsibility to the public to … deconstruct how the fuck they're put together?” (Stewart, [20:23])
• Warzel explains regulatory and cultural challenges, and the partisan split over “free speech” and “freedom of reach” ([20:54]).

6. Ultra-Processed Speech and the Army of Influencer Nihilists

• Stewart:
  “It's not free speech. It's ultra processed speech ... designed to pull you further and further into the platform and further and further down the rabbit holes.” ([26:26])
• Warzel shares a revealing story of a Capitol rioter whose posts grew more extreme with algorithmic reinforcement, evolving from obscurity to radicalization ([27:12]).
• Stewart connects this to addiction cycles:
  “To get that same hit, like, you got to go further ... the pleasure is now not pleasure, it's desperation.” ([28:36])

7. Influencers, Politicians, and the Feedback Loop

• Warzel and Stewart note that the performative nature of influencer culture now permeates politics; politicians and even the Vice President took part in the posthumous influencer show for Kirk ([30:01]).
• Stewart:
  “Power understands ... whoever controls [information] has a huge advantage in terms of political power.” ([30:35])
• Warzel: Political coverage and media are complicit, constantly amplifying the cycle ([34:00]).

8. Radical Online Subcultures and the Anatomy of Violence

• They explore the amorphous but concrete networks that exist around mass violence, from “Terrorgram” to fandoms around past shooters ([37:50]).
• Warzel:
  “It's democratizing ... there are mass shooter online fandom communities that exist.” ([40:37])
• The online “love bombing” by toxic communities pulls in alienated individuals, grooming them for extremity and violence, much like cults ([42:21]).

9. Experiment: What Do Algorithms Serve a ‘Blank Slate’ User?

• Warzel’s experiment: A fresh X (formerly Twitter) account with neutral interests was immediately flooded with far-right, manosphere, and outrage content ([45:12]): “Musk post was the first thing ... then Donald Trump ... a MAGA influencer ... then Libs of TikTok ... all right wing content.” ([46:05]-[47:45])
• Stewart notes:
  “That's your starter kit … just massages that reptilian part of your not quite formed brain. And bring you in.” ([48:25])

10. Are We Already Behind? The Subterranean Spread

• Stewart asks if new forms of chat spaces and unmoderated platforms (Telegram, Discord, etc.) have pushed these dangerous subcultures even further out of reach ([56:21]-[57:35]).
• The “headless,” amoeba-like networks are harder to monitor or disrupt.

11. What Makes America Different?

• Stewart and Warzel discuss why the US seems especially prone to acts of public violence:
  • Unparalleled access to lethal weapons ([58:17])
  • Warzel:
    “The closest thing you see globally is terrorist organizations, right? Like fringe radical terrorist.” ([58:46])
  • Stewart:
    “We have an ISIS that disaffected high school students and college signed it. Wow. I mean that's deep, man.” ([58:55])

12. Puzzles, Trolls, and Motivations: Uncertainty as Chaos

• Many recent attackers act not from coherent ideology but as “assassination influencers”—seeking notoriety and chaos ([54:09]-[62:27]).
• Warzel:
  “They want the reporters, the journalists, the lawmakers, the investigators to try to solve their puzzle and fail because ... They want to be seen as unendingly complex.” ([62:04]-[62:27])
• Stewart:
  “Take a painting class. ... I’ve got no sympathy for the misunderstood miscreant that’s like, ‘I just want to be seen.’” ([62:27]-[62:39])

13. Can Anything Be Done? Is There a Path Forward?

• Warzel relays researchers’ consensus: the answer may lie in “third spaces”—real-world community infrastructure, stronger social ties, and attentive physical communities ([63:32]-[64:09]).
• They discuss the complexity of identifying and intervening before an individual commits real-world violence, and the disturbing possibility that some have no clear warning signs ([65:00]).

14. Performative Media & The Perpetuation of Harm

• Warzel:
  “People need to start taking the Internet much more seriously ... if you are trying to cover politics in 2025, you need to know what a discord room is.” ([69:42])
• Stewart:
  “We are performing for the Internet.” ([70:47])
• Warzel proposes: stop naming shooters in media; recognition is a driver for many perpetrators ([71:31]).
• Stewart:
  “It is ... Wild west culture where the worst version of yourself is not just in any way visible, but encouraged, cultivated, fertilized.” ([73:05])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Stewart on Internet outrage:
  “You don't have to say the worst thing you can possibly think of to inflame ... suffering ... Just fucking don't say anything.” ([03:35])
• Warzel on Watchers vs. Participants:
  “I've watched this happen for more than a decade ... The cycle only refines itself. It only gets faster ... The participants only know how to … what their roles are in the production.” ([08:42])
• Warzel on social media’s role:
  “The Internet abhors an information vacuum ... incentivizes all of these people ... to fill it.” ([10:27])
• Stewart’s processed food analogy:
  “Is that the insidious secret sauce that online is ultra, ultra processed speech?” ([12:12])
• Warzel on behavioral change:
  “It is turning us often into the worst possible versions of ourself.” ([13:50])
• Stewart on waiting out trends:
  “You’re praying it’s not committed by somebody that the other side can weaponize ... it’s all ... non-information. It’s merely accelerants.” ([15:18])
• Warzel on the “blank slate” user experiment:
  “First thing I see … Musk post ... then Donald Trump ... a MAGA influencer ... all right wing content.” ([45:12]-[47:45])
• Stewart on the perils of notoriety:
  “Assassination is content ... I picked up these followers ... posting horrible things about a family that's just lost a father.” ([34:00])
• Warzel on the shooter’s intentions:
  “They want the reporters ... to try to solve their puzzle and fail … They want to try to be understood, but ... also ... be seen as unendingly complex.” ([62:04])
• Stewart’s conclusion:
  “It is exactly the kind of environment that we need to aerate if we are to move forward in non nihilist fashion.” ([73:05])

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:15-05:50: Stewart’s opening reflection on violence, performativity, and the news cycle
• 06:58-08:46: Warzel explains his “climate, not weather” thesis
• 10:22-13:24: How algorithms reward incendiary posts and the dopamine feedback loop
• 18:04-19:23: Are platforms intentionally stoking outrage or just maximizing vague “engagement”?
• 20:54-23:34: Regulatory problems and the speech/reach divide
• 27:12-29:25: Social media dynamics behind radicalization and escalating engagement
• 34:00-35:39: Assassination as content; performativity in media and influencer culture
• 37:50-41:38: Online subcultures, “shooter fandom” communities, and the process of radicalization
• 45:12-48:47: Warzel’s “blank slate” experiment with X (Twitter) and the results
• 54:09-55:34: Meaninglessness and murder as trollish fame
• 62:04-62:27: The perpetrator’s desire to puzzle and disrupt
• 69:42-71:31: Why the media must take online spaces seriously and possibly stop naming shooters

Tone and Language Notes

Jon Stewart maintains his familiar blend of sardonic, exasperated humor and earnest inquiry, often using metaphors (processed food, slot machines) and expletives to underscore the absurdity and danger of the current environment. Warzel is analytical, slightly wary, and frank—combining clear journalistic skepticism with an understanding of the institutional and psychological dynamics online.

Summary

This episode delivers a comprehensive, nuanced look at the way our digital ecosystems incentivize and amplify violence, polarization, and nihilism—often far outside the understanding of those tasked with making sense of it. Stewart and Warzel highlight the need for greater transparency, community resilience, media responsibility, and nuanced understanding, warning that without such efforts, we risk simply perpetuating the very cycles of outrage and spectacle we bemoan.