Outside The Box

Truth remains the same, though it is often decorated or disguised, even obscured to fit the times. In 1896, H. G. Wells wrote, “There is very little deliberate wickedness in the world. The stupidity of our selfishness gives much the same results indeed…” Robert Heinlein echoed the thought in 1941 when he wrote, “You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.” Today, we refer to “Hanlon’s Razor,” an adage which states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

In today’s polarized climate, extremists on both the left and right frequently fuel division with emotionally charged, often fallacious claims, portraying their opponents as inherently evil. The left often casts conservatives as oppressors intent on perpetuating systemic injustice, while the right depicts progressives as radicals determined to tear down the foundations of society without providing a viable replacement. This mutual dehumanization—labeling the other as “evil”—undermines our civil society and fosters an environment where violence is justified, even celebrated. The irony lies in both sides claiming moral superiority without acknowledging their own role in deepening the divide. The assassination of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University illustrates this divide vividly.

However, the responses to Kirk’s death reveal stark differences in how each side is currently predisposed to deal with conflict. Conservatives responded with restraint, organizing prayer vigils and peaceful gatherings to honor Kirk’s legacy. At Arizona State University, students held a memorial despite administrative resistance, focusing on reflection and Kirk’s role in campus debates. A vigil at Colorado State University emphasized unity under heightened security, avoiding escalation. Though some far-right voices on X called for “vengeance,” these calls remained online, not manifesting in widespread unrest.

In contrast, the left’s response to George Floyd’s death in 2020 was punctuated by destructive riots in cities like Minneapolis and Portland, causing billions in damages through arson and looting. While Floyd’s killing sparked legitimate concern, the violence overshadowed calls for justice.

Kirk’s death prompted no equivalent riots, and while the left generally condemned the violence, a disturbing number of high-profile individuals expressed satisfaction with the killing in online forums. Posts on X, TikTok, and Bluesky labeled his death as justified because of his controversial views. Some even celebrated the tragedy. The irony is poignant: the left, though advocating empathy and “inclusion,” has in this recent tragedy frequently displayed callousness, while the right, accused of aggression, leaned on faith and solemnity.

The historical echoes are disturbing. The radicalization of leftist youth, while not a coordinated conspiracy, mirrors the effects of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). During that period, young Red Guards targeted perceived enemies of “progress,” attacking traditions and intellectuals accused of perpetuating them. Today, progressive students often disrupt conservative speakers, demand cancellations, or, in extreme cases like Kirk’s, inspire violence, driven by a belief that dissent equals evil. Universities incubate the problem by prioritizing identity politics in curricula and framing opposition as oppression. As in Mao’s era, outrage is selective.

Mainstream media amplifies the trouble and profits from it. Reuters’ and ABC’s coverage of Kirk’s death, for example, focused on the killer’s so-called “touching” romantic texts to his roommate, downplaying the victim and the tragedy. A 2020 UnHerd article drew parallels between our time and Mao’s, noting how “woke” movements—renaming schools, toppling statues—resemble Red Guard purges, driven by zeal rather than a coordinated plan. Academic discussions and Quora threads highlight similarities, like shaming rituals and anti-imperialist rhetoric, suggesting a cultural drift in younger generations toward intolerance. The irony is that these efforts, meant to foster justice, instead stifle dialogue and firm up opposition, echoing historical missteps.

Sadly, both Democrats and Republicans are exploiting Kirk’s murder, with little regard for its impact on civil society, prioritizing electoral gains over unity. Leaders mourn publicly while leveraging the tragedy for votes, deepening distrust as they posture as unifiers. Republicans blame “left-wing extremism,” pushing investigations into progressive groups’ tax-exempt status to rally their base. The White House signaled crackdowns on left-leaning organizations.

Headlines scream in condemnation or support of people fired for expressing their opinions online. The irony is striking. While the right frames Kirk as a martyr to free speech, it celebrates the firings of people exercising their Constitutional right to express stupid opinions. Jimmy Kimmel should have been fired for an unentertaining show that was losing viewers rapidly, not for making foolish comments. Curiously, the left’s outrage at the suppression of free speech was absent when Roseanne Barr was fired for saying something foolish, or when countless others were fired or “canceled” for questioning official narratives during the Biden years.

Hanlon’s Razor offers a clarifying lens. The radicalization of youth, media bias, and political exploitation are less the work of a malevolent conspiracy than the result of systemic failures. Universities, supported by taxpayer dollars, have been unchecked in their efforts to teach ideology over critical thinking. Media continues to chase sensationalism for profit, and politicians prioritize short-term wins over long-term stability. The left’s Maoist echoes arise from misguided zeal for justice, not, except among extremists, a deliberate plot to destroy. The right’s solemn vigils can veer into performative outrage, driven by groupthink rather than bigotry or evil intent. Even the online glee over Kirk’s death reflects thoughtless mob dynamics rather than a coordinated agenda.

Evil certainly exists in the world, but by always assuming malice, we perpetuate hatred. Recognizing stupidity and incompetence—our shared human flaw—allows solutions like fostering open dialogue, reforming education, and demanding accountability from leaders. Hanlon’s Razor reminds us that stupidity frequently drives our divisions, offering hope for reconciliation through clearer thinking and mutual understanding.

---

Final Notes