“That woman” doesn't deserve to be called a human being. We don't have to try to understand people like that. It's perfectly OK to loathe a creature who thinks it's alright for people they don't like, or people they just disagree with, to be killed. Always by someone else, of course.

I mean, what sort of sick trash tells a total stranger that someone should be murdered? What sort of a narcissistic arsehole expects to be able to say such a thing and get away with it.

‘Matthew’ was a bit of a prick, too. He couldn't be trusted. He was the one who didn't like the offending sentence.

And, “this week a man (DID NOT) die: he was viciously MURDERED, by a sicko. Namby pamby language about death hides reality. People deliberately murdered being classified as ‘dying’. People killed by a drunk driver having 'their lives taken’, or ‘losing their lives’ when they were plain old killed by another person.

All this polite shite about vicious people doing vicious things is pathetic. No wonder some people make hideous comments when language is used to cover up reality.

I can sum it up in three words: Them and us.

I think it stems from a fundamental misconception of argument.There needs to be an understanding of argument's importance in the development and progression of civilisation. Them and us should be taught as something that should have been abandoned with tribalism. People should also be aware that them and us goes hand in hand with authoritarianism.

Them and us is a red flag.

Speaking of "us and them" or "us versus them" this reference is very much about this phenomenon:
http://www.thenerdreich.com/unhumans-jd-vance-and-the-language-of-genocide
The now very prominent politician featured in this reference has been using the same kind of language ever since, especially in his very now time response to the murder of Charlie Kirk. Such has also been the response of many right-wing opinionists including (and especially) Donald Trump and his-worse-than-horrible principal adviser Miller.

Charlie Kirk was murder victim number 61 in America on September 10th 2025. On the same day an unnamed Palestinian boy become the 12th murder victim in Gaza. The only difference is notoriety, Kirk, high profile, an "important" person, the boy, unknown and "unimportant". Both murders were reprehensibly disgusting, and should be equally condemned. Unfortunately the world suffers from a cycle of violence, be it perpetrated by an unapproved individual, as in the case of Kirk, or be an approved person through the method of state sanctioned murder as in the case of the boy in Gaza. Condemn all acts of senseless violence, don't be hypocritical and say; "Oh my God, Charlie has been murdered, how terrible!" whilst at the same time accepting the murder of millions of others as being necessary, even desirable.

Just like the women in the story, applauding the murder of a high profile figure, there are millions of individuals who applaud the murder of unknown victims of war everyday.

Good link Daffy Duck. With "them and us" we all lose.

"On the same day an unnamed Palestinian boy become the 12th murder victim in Gaza."

Paul, that poor kid should be made front and centre at some of the "Free Palestine" protests held daily in many locations around the nation, as I'm sure he will be. Do you you think that the boy was deliberately killed by Israelis because of what he believed, or was hes being used as a human shield by Hamas terrorists? Have you ever thought that there might have been gay Palestinians murdered by their own just because they were gay? Could you imagine that the murders aren't announced to the outside world by Palestinian authorities? Is there a difference if someone was killed because of what they believed rather than where they were?

Hi Fester,

Unfortunately people like you are part of the problem, looking for excuses, deflections and justifications, wrong, wrong, wrong. Just as you justify the murder of one innocent child, with perverted thinking, you can just as easily justify the murder of 64,000 innocent people, or 6 million innocents from times past.

Just as some lunatic murdered Kirk, other lunatics want to murder the murderer, what a vicious cycle! BTW I had not heard of this Charlie Kirk until someone murdered him.

Hi Paul,

"Unfortunately people like you are part of the problem"

I guess that puts you firmly in the "us and them" camp. Do you think it would be advantageous for the advancement of civilisation for people to be so labelled?

While I appreciate the author’s acknowledgement that this kind of deadly response can come from both sides of the political spectrum, it feels a little insincere when the entire focus is on one side - and the side that's losing the kill-count tally at that.

The one problem with Koerner’s article that stood out to me the most - probably because I’m seeing it all over social media right now - is how he effectively frames Charlie Kirk’s murder as a symbolic outgrowth of a cultural inability to tolerate differing opinions, despite no confirmed motive as of yet.

He doesn’t quite say "the killer just couldn’t handle opposing views," but he heavily implies it. His entire thesis - that we’re living through a cultural descent into "live and let die" tribalism - hinges on this assumption. He draws a straight line from overheard comments and academic ostracism to literal assassination, grouping them all under the banner of a "psychopathological instinct to hurt those with whom one disagrees."

That’s a huge leap, and a dangerous one.

It’s also rather absurd. I mean, are we meant to believe that this 22-year-old managed to go his whole life without encountering someone he disagreed with until he discovered Charlie Kirk? Unless someone is suffering catastrophic mental health issues, people who commit extreme, horrific acts tend to believe that something bigger is at stake. No one kills because just because they can't handle a difference of opinion.

And yet, Koerner doesn’t engage with the actual facts of the case at all. No exploration of whether the killer had a personal grievance, mental health crisis, political delusion, or anything else. Instead, he uses the murder to reinforce a thesis he already believed, which - ironically - mirrors the kind of opportunistic narrative-shaping he criticises in others.

If we’re going to call out moral hysteria and knee-jerk blame, we need to be consistent. Assigning motive before the full story is known - especially to support a sweeping thesis about cultural decay - is exactly the kind of overreach that turns tragedy into fuel for confirmation bias.

Hi Fester,

Not sure what the US AND THEM CAMPS are? If the US CAMP are those like me who condemn all murders as having no justification, be they committed by outlaws in society, individuals, groups, terrorists etc, or the state, the death penalty, victims of war and so on, I disagree with them all. I fail to see that anything has be achieved by murdering millions in the name of retribution.

If I was to agree with you, then I could say, the Palestinians were justified in murdering the Jews, as the Jews had murdered the Palestinians, and the Jews were justified in murdering the Palestinians, as the Palestinians had murdered the Jews. Where do you want it to stop. Tell me which war has prevented war? Answer none!

Hi Paul,

I think of the ideal as being free to be who you are without fear of reprisal. That people have differing opinions about things should not be seen as a problem (to be corrected?), but as evidence of the capacity to adapt and improve. That the author was a potential target for the sake of what he thought at a prestigious university is chilling.

Hi Fester,

No one should be targeted for their beliefs. Most conflicts are the result of injustice or inequality, actual or imaginary, sometimes its the result of scapegoating. What ever the reason the outcome is the same, people suffer unfairly. It happens at a personal level, conflicts in relationships, it happens on a national level, conflicts between nations. The question is what's needed to be done to stop such conflict?