Liberal Pundits Accused Of Disrespecting Theoretical Cadaver

The collective gasp heard across a specific segment of the internet this week wasn't for a genuine tragedy, but for the unforgivable sin of failing to eulogize a theoretical cadaver with sufficient saccharine platitudes. One particular Democratic strategist dared to suggest that a certain live political commentator, Charlie Kirk, might not, in the event of his own purely hypothetical demise, command universal adoration. The sheer audacity! The resulting outrage was, of course, entirely proportional to the gravity of the theoretical transgression.

Apparently, the unwritten rules of modern public discourse now dictate that even a speculative, non-existent corpse must be afforded the respect of an unblemished, universally beloved legacy, regardless of the actual individual's very much alive and often divisive public persona. To imply otherwise, even in the abstract, is to engage in what can only be described as a grave act of necro-sarcasm. One might even wonder if a comparison to historical figures of significant moral reprehensibility is somehow less offensive than simply stating an inconvenient truth about popularity. The sensitivity, it seems, is boundless, particularly when it comes to the feelings of the hypothetically deceased.