A recent episode of The New York Times podcast has ignited a firestorm of criticism for its unabashed defense of violence and theft as morally justifiable acts in an allegedly unethical society. Titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” the program features left-wing influencers who argue that shoplifting, property crime, and even murder can be excused under the banner of social justice.
Nadja Spiegelman, the Times’ opinion culture editor, hosted the discussion, which included antisemitic Marxist streamer Hasan Piker. Piker calmly rationalized the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson, a father of two, citing Friedrich Engels’ concept of capitalism as “social murder.” If capitalists are “social murderers,” Piker argued, then killing them becomes logically consistent. The segment did not challenge this reasoning, instead framing it as a response to systemic unfairness.
Spiegelman acknowledged that some might find the idea of “murdering our way to social justice” scary, but she quickly pivoted to excusing shoplifting as an act of “anger and moral justification,” particularly when targeting corporations like Whole Foods. New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino joined in, admitting to past “microlooting” and stating that stealing from big-box stores is neither a significant moral wrong nor an effective protest. “I didn’t feel bad about it at all,” she said, “in part because the store was a corporation.”
The podcast’s moral relativism stands in stark contrast to the Times’ past actions. The same newspaper once condemned and effectively banned a U.S. senator for writing an op-ed advocating military force to quell violent protests during the summer of George Floyd’s death, even forcing out its own opinion editor for publishing it. Yet here, the glorification of murder and theft went unchallenged, drawing sharp rebukes from political commentators who see it as a symptom of a broader ideological decay.
This trend extends beyond the podcast. Comedian Margaret Cho recently declared that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat,” while the Washington Post’s Maura Judkis dismissed shoplifting concerns as a “moral panic” in a nation built on “stolen land.” Former Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones has even urged journalists to ignore shoplifting crimes altogether. These voices, critics argue, reflect a growing denial of transcendent values and natural rights, principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as endowed by a Creator.
Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, representing Thomas Jefferson’s own state, recently attacked a witness for citing Jefferson’s belief in God-given rights, dismissing it as akin to “Iran’s mullahs.” This rejection of foundational American ideals, some warn, is fueling a moral free-fall that justifies any offense—from microlooting to murder—under the guise of righteous anger. As journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan observed during the French Revolution, “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
The podcast’s dangerous logic resonates with broader political trends. For instance, Senator Chris Van Hollen has accused Republicans of moral bankruptcy for staying silent on President Trump’s threats against Iran, while tech giants are bypassing traditional media to shape narratives through their own podcast networks. These developments underscore how the erosion of ethical standards is reshaping public discourse.
In the end, the New York Times podcast serves as a stark warning: when a society abandons universal truths, it risks descending into a mobocracy where might makes right. The question remains whether the nation’s newspaper of record will recognize its role in this descent or continue to revel in it.
