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?