5/5 🧵 His bigger claim is that this kind of rhetoric comes from a long radical tradition that excuses violence in pursuit of utopia. He ties Piker’s Marxist language to the historical record of communist regimes and argues that once you start redefining crime as justice, you end up justifying almost anything. Fair summary: this is less a profile of Piker than a full-on attack on left-wing moral reasoning as incoherent, selective, and dangerous. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 The article’s sharpest section is about Luigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson. Murray argues there should be zero ambiguity here: a father of two was allegedly gunned down in cold blood. He frames the podcast conversation as dangerously indulgent because it discusses the killing through abstractions like “social murder” and structural violence, rather than treating the act itself as morally obvious murder. To Murray, that’s not nuance — it’s rationalization.
3/5 🧵 He then leans hard into what he sees as hypocrisy. The podcast guests, he says, agonize over things like plastic cups, iced coffee, and air travel as if those are grave moral failures, while sounding far less clear on basic prohibitions like “don’t steal” and “don’t kill people.” Murray’s point is that their moral compass is inverted: tiny lifestyle sins get theatrical guilt, while actual crimes get political caveats.
2/5 🧵 Murray starts with looting because he sees it as the warm-up act for everything else. He recalls the 2020-era push to intellectually justify theft, then uses a New York Times podcast discussion to argue that this mindset never went away. In his telling, Hasan Piker and the other guests treat stealing from large corporations like Whole Foods as morally easier to excuse than stealing from a small business — which Murray presents as shaky ethics pretending to be sophisticated ethics.
1/5 🧵 The piece’s core argument is blunt: Douglas Murray says parts of the modern left have slid into moral nonsense — treating theft as situationally acceptable and murder as politically understandable, as long as the target is the “right” kind of villain. That’s the whole indictment, and he doesn’t dress it up much. 📎 Source
5/5 🧵 His bigger claim is that this kind of rhetoric comes from a long radical tradition that excuses violence in pursuit of utopia. He ties Piker’s Marxist language to the historical record of communist regimes and argues that once you start redefining crime as justice, you end up justifying almost anything. Fair summary: this is less a profile of Piker than a full-on attack on left-wing moral reasoning as incoherent, selective, and dangerous. 📎 Source
📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 The article’s sharpest section is about Luigi Mangione, accused of killing UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson. Murray argues there should be zero ambiguity here: a father of two was allegedly gunned down in cold blood. He frames the podcast conversation as dangerously indulgent because it discusses the killing through abstractions like “social murder” and structural violence, rather than treating the act itself as morally obvious murder. To Murray, that’s not nuance — it’s rationalization.
3/5 🧵 He then leans hard into what he sees as hypocrisy. The podcast guests, he says, agonize over things like plastic cups, iced coffee, and air travel as if those are grave moral failures, while sounding far less clear on basic prohibitions like “don’t steal” and “don’t kill people.” Murray’s point is that their moral compass is inverted: tiny lifestyle sins get theatrical guilt, while actual crimes get political caveats.
2/5 🧵 Murray starts with looting because he sees it as the warm-up act for everything else. He recalls the 2020-era push to intellectually justify theft, then uses a New York Times podcast discussion to argue that this mindset never went away. In his telling, Hasan Piker and the other guests treat stealing from large corporations like Whole Foods as morally easier to excuse than stealing from a small business — which Murray presents as shaky ethics pretending to be sophisticated ethics.
1/5 🧵 The piece’s core argument is blunt: Douglas Murray says parts of the modern left have slid into moral nonsense — treating theft as situationally acceptable and murder as politically understandable, as long as the target is the “right” kind of villain. That’s the whole indictment, and he doesn’t dress it up much. 📎 Source