COMMENTARY: Those who laugh in response to murder
Summary
Kathryn Jean Lopez responds to video and reports showing students laughing after news that conservative commentator Charlie Kirk had been shot while speaking on a campus. Writing from the perspective of friends and fellow activists, Lopez highlights a scene at Montana State University where Kristan Hawkins announced the shooting and encountered laughter and cheering from some students.
Author style: Punchy — the piece condemns the dehumanisation of political opponents and links that callousness to a broader cultural desensitisation.
Key Points
- Students at a campus event reportedly laughed and cheered when told Charlie Kirk had been shot.
- The author presents this reaction as an example of how political ideology can dehumanise opponents.
- Kristan Hawkins, speaking at Montana State University, used the incident to call for reflection and respect for human life.
- Lopez ties the episode to what she calls an “abortion culture” that, she argues, contributes to national desensitisation to violence.
- The piece urges civic engagement through dialogue, not intimidation or celebration of harm.
Content summary
The commentary recounts Hawkins learning that Charlie Kirk had been shot and the disturbing reaction from some students who found the news funny. Lopez argues that in a hyper-politicised culture people often cease to see ideological opponents as human, treating them instead as symbols to be ridiculed. She contrasts Hawkins’ approach — inviting debate and listening — with the callousness displayed by those who celebrated the shooting.
Lopez frames the laughter as symptomatic of a wider moral problem: pride that deadens empathy. She calls for a return to civil encounter, argument, and the humility to be wrong rather than rejoicing in another’s suffering.
Context and relevance
This piece touches on timely issues: campus safety, political polarisation, the role of social media in shaping reflexive responses, and how public discourse can normalise dehumanising behaviour. It is relevant to readers interested in politics, free speech on campus, and the cultural effects of extreme partisan rhetoric.
Why should I read this?
Because it’s a short, sharp wake-up about what happens when politics becomes a sport and people stop seeing opponents as humans. If you care about the tone of public debate — or want to understand one perspective on why campus tensions feel so raw right now — this piece saves you time by cutting to the moral point without the fluff.