Comment by wkat4242 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wkat4242 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Either he was upset with charlie not being far right enough, or somehow he was influences by the far left.

I don't think you can get much further right than he was though. When I hear of all the stuff he was saying. I don't think even Trump has ever said some of that stuff. Like that women should be secondary to men.

Apparently he also said that "a few deaths a year are a small price to pay for access to weapons". I wonder if he still felt that way knowing what was coming. I don't have the source link to hand though. News goes so fast now and I don't archive everything.

Personally I'd never heard of the guy but I'm not in the US (and very glad about that right now, the country seems to be tearing itself apart)

PS Also I'm not trying to defend the far right, I'm very left (especially by US standards which doesn't really have a 'left' compared to Europe, liberalism here is a moderate right-wing thing). But murder is definitely not ok in my book, of course. I would grin when I see a tesla dealership graffiti'd or a "swasticar" or "from 0 to 1939 in 3 seconds" poster at a bus stop. but that's about as far as it goes. You don't touch people ever. Or really destroy stuff of value.

> I don't think you can get much further right than he was though.

Groypers.

Groypers

How does that square with the issue that he texted his trans significant other to go pick up his rifle which he could not do as feds found the rifle first. [1] The feds are interviewing the trans partner as we speak. To be clear I am not anti-trans, rather just confused how he could also be a Groyper. Maybe this is possible, just a new concept to me.

[1] - https://nypost.com/2025/09/13/us-news/charlie-kirk-shooter-t...

> his trans significant

From the article you posted:

> According to public records, Lance Twiggs, 22, resided at the same address where Robinson lived. A relative of Twiggs confirmed to The Post Saturday that “yes, they were roommates.”

> The family member, who asked not to be identified, said Twiggs was the “black sheep” of their St. George, Utah, family, but declined to speculate on a romantic relationship between the two men.

> She said she didn’t know her relative’s politics or whether Twiggs was transitioning to become a woman, but added that it wouldn’t surprise her.

So basically the source is "it was revealed to me in a dream". For all we know they were just roommates.

For all we know they were just roommates.

It's possible. I keep hearing terms used interchangably on different YT channels and all of that could be people just projecting their preferred narratives so I guess we will have to wait for the Discord and cell phone text message transcripts assuming those ever drop. They so rarely do. Either way at least we know the roommate was involved to some extent. The Discord transcripts may be the most telling of the relationship.

Turns out you can buy anyones chat messages on discard apparently but I have no idea what his discord username was.

Oh my God, they were roommates!

Turns out a more than that, which is totally fine. [1] Love should have no limits. also covered by 7 other news sites but DM have the most complete coverage

[1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15096571/Trans-part...

It's actually the DM who broke the story.

I would not be surprised. They seem to have the best journalists and bravest laywers. I just wish they had a version or layout of their site that could be embedded in the URL that would leave out all the tabloid stuff, otherise it gets flagged here on submission most of the time.

It gets flagged because it's right wing, not because it's a tabloid. And agree, the DM is consistently accurate, breaks many stories and has massive throughput from their newsroom. It's one of the world's most popular papers for good reasons.

Well, groyper thought leader Nick Fuentes uploaded a video long time ago where he goes into what was basically a date with a another white nationalist dressed like a catboy. Also there's a common meme about the twink -> white nationalist pipeline Gryoper lore is hard to follow even for terminally online people.

Political view is different from being friends/partners with trans.

Nazis still have their kinks

Republicans still have abortions

The last real nazi's were either burnt, buried or relocated to South America shortly after WWII. Today Nazi, Fascist and all other terms like it are just inflammatory ways to say: "someone I disagree with".

I use the Firefox addon Foxreplace [1] to display that word as such. Others should do the same.

[1] - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/foxreplace/

You wish. Basically 90% of German nazis stayed in Germany and were completely unharmed by any form of persecution. Most of them had even kept everything they stole from all the murdered people, including companies, homes, and items of value. A large share of the later West German Lawyers and Politicians had NS background, in the DDR it was slightly less. Of the rest - many were flown to the US to contribute to the American weapon programs, roughly similar share were taken to the UdSSR for the same reasons. "Burnt, buried, or escaped to South America" is the smallest part of them.

Either way, 100% of the people being called Nazi's, Fascists, Hitler are just people that other people do not agree with. Such words have entirely lost their meaning. Even the people cosplaying as Nazis as neo-nazi's are just larping junkie thuglets and are far from disciplined national socialists in expensive military uniforms.

> Either way, 100% of the people being called Nazi's, Fascists, Hitler are just people that other people do not agree with.

The other day, a Fox News host called for the mass-murder of mentally ill people.

> Brian Kilmeade suggested that mentally ill homeless people who refuse government assistance should be given "involuntary lethal injection" or something similar, adding, "Just kill 'em"

I guess if I call him a Nazi, that just means I just, like, disagree with him?

At what point can we call a spade a spade? What do we call that man?

How is he not getting cancelled? Should someone celebrating something bad happening to a man that's calling for mass-murder get cancelled?

> the mass-murder of mentally ill people.

No, only those who refuse government assistance.

Which inherently makes them a threat to others. Keep in mind that this is happening in the context of Iryna Zarutska getting stabbed to death.

I disagree with it, but it's objectively not what you're representing it as.

> I guess if I call him a Nazi, that just means I just, like, disagree with him?

It's not justified by the evidence.

> At what point can we call a spade a spade? What do we call that man?

Something else.

> How is he not getting cancelled?

How isn't he? I've lost count of the times I've had to hear about this in the last few days, which is strange because I don't watch American TV at all and he has nothing to do with Kirk. If you think he should be fired from Fox because of it then you are absolutely welcome to call them and say so. That's freedom of speech, and I agree that you have a much better case than most of the "cancelling" attempts I've seen over the years. Fox execs, however, are under no obligation to agree with you.

> Should someone celebrating something bad happening to a man that's calling for mass-murder get cancelled?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Kirk and Kilmeade are different people.

> it's objectively not what you're representing it as

Well, they represented it as "the mass-murder of mentally ill people". There's lots of them (mass), they're being intentionally killed against their will (murder), and the vast majority of chronically homeless people are mentally ill.

Maximally, it is subjectively not how they represent it, if one believes that a state-sanctioned judicial killing is not murder. That is far from a universal belief.

If I said that I wanted to grab some leftovers from the fridge that would not mean that I considered anything in the fridge to be an acceptable meal.

I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason: because that's the part that makes the claim a misrepresentation.

> I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason

This does not make an objective misrepresentation. It doesn't even make it a subjective misrepresentation. They would be objectively misrepresenting it if "mass-murder" is objectively incorrect and/or if "mentally ill people" is objectively incorrect. As I said in my previous comment: mass-murder is, at worst, subjectively incorrect and mentally ill people is obviously correct.

I don't have to wonder why they refuse government assistance. It's the mental illness. You are stating that you believe the policy is justified because they are mentally ill.

> This does not make an objective misrepresentation. It doesn't even make it a subjective misrepresentation. They would be objectively misrepresenting it if "mass-murder" is objectively incorrect and/or if "mentally ill people" is objectively incorrect. As I said in my previous comment: mass-murder is, at worst, subjectively incorrect and mentally ill people is obviously correct.

It is objectively a misrepresentation. It was misrepresented as being about mentally ill people in general. In reality, it is about an identifiable subset of mentally ill people, for a clear reason that directly relates to the basis for subset identification. To describe it as "the mass-murder of mentally ill people" is to imply that it doesn't have anything to do with the government assistance question. But it does. That is what makes it misrepresentative.

> I don't have to wonder why they refuse government assistance. It's the mental illness.

Many mentally ill people do not refuse government assistance. In fact, probably a large majority of them are happy to receive government assistance.

> You are stating that you believe the policy is justified because they are mentally ill.

I am not stating that the policy is justified because they are mentally ill. I am not stating, and did not state, that the policy is justified at all. In fact, I explicitly said:

> I disagree with it, but it's objectively not what you're representing it as.

I will not reply to you further, because this is not a good-faith discussion — it is just you repeatedly refusing to acknowledge something that I have clearly established, and falsely claiming that I said things that I objectively did not say.

> this is not a good-faith discussion

That seems to happen a lot to you. You should consider your part in that.

> I disagree with it

This is not exclusive with justifying it.

> No, only those who refuse government assistance.

> Which inherently makes them a threat to others. Keep in mind that this is happening in the context of Iryna Zarutska getting stabbed to death.

Link:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groypers

When Nick Fuentes first appeared, him and his little gang of nerds were definitely more far right than Kirk. TPUSA had a gay man on staff, and put him all over those little memes they made.

Israel is about the only thing Charlie and Nick disagree on now.

From what I’ve seen, Charlie stopped at promoting lies that if you believe them imply violence is on the table (and that have a history of inspiring violent acts). Nick has been willing to take the next step and go “We can’t do anything! Except kill them. But don’t do that! I didn’t say to! But what else can we do?” (So, Fuentes is closer to Trump’s level of flirting-with-telling-people-to-kill than Kirk was, AFAIK)

As far as their disagreements over doctrine of-late, I’m not sure. Their messages do/did differ in where they drew the line, though.

I’ve seen Loomer’s turning on Kirk (over his “turning” on Trump re: the Epstein files) cited as part of this, with Nick’s crowd being on Loomer’s side, but given Nick’s history with Trump that I know of I’d find that surprising, but I’ve not closely followed Fuentes so I’ve got some reading to do there.

Israel, and the Epstein files flip-flop/cover-up.

Could you share the video where he says "women should be secondary to men"? I'm interested in seeing this. I'm familiar with him saying "...prioritize marriage and children over career goals.." and "young women who supported Kamala Harris don't value having children..." but that had nothing to do with "secondary". He also said "young MEN should order their lives correctly by putting family first." But I'm always interested in knowing if I'm missing something.

You're completely misrepresenting and misquoting the access to weapons comment. A parallel would be "give me liberty or give me death" which is a foundational quote in the invention/founding of the Constitutional Federal Republic system that has been adopted by many western nations.

You'll want to look into the "groypers," who are the group the alleged shooter may have been most closely affiliated with. They and Kirk's Turning Point USA had a falling out over TPU's unwillingness to be as ultra-nationalist, isolationist, or white supremacist as the groypers are. They assert that Kirk's brand of conservatism was carrying a kind of stolen valor over claiming they got Trump elected when the groypers would argue they were the ones most instrumental in cementing Trump's support among traditionally disenfranchised white nationalism.

It's too early to know, but it may be the case that this shooting was the right-wing equivalent of Stalin having Lenin removed as an ivory-tower elite obstacle to "true communism."

From what I read everything pointed at a killer from the extreme left

(bullet engravings, his partner, his father's testimony)

The thing making it hard to make conclusions about the shell casings is that the groypers have co-opted a number of antifa slogans (via deep irony poisoning), in particular including "Bella Ciao" in a playlist of anti-Charlie Kirk "Groyper War" songs. I think the killer was probably a groyper, but there are certainly ample grounds for confusion.

I'd be interested to know your sources. Information is flowing fast (as it often does in such a tragedy); I'd be interested to know what's being said outside my sphere.

The bullet engravings are well known (and people pushing the groyper theory seem to believe the engravings support their theory just as well).

There is a claim circulating that Robinson had a transgender/transitioning (MtF) roommate/partner. A simple web search will easily find multiple sources for this claim, but most of them aren't exactly what you'd consider authoritative or journalistic.

Many sources similarly assert that Robinson's father "recognized" him in photos and "encouraged him to turn himself in" (see e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/12/tyler-rob...). However, I don't know anything specific about his "testimony".

> There is a claim circulating that Robinson had a transgender/transitioning (MtF) roommate/partner. A simple web search will easily find multiple sources for this claim, but most of them aren't exactly what you'd consider authoritative or journalistic.

Could turn out to be true, but considering the hilariously wrong stuff that was being published even by mainstream sources in the 24 hours after (the initially extremely-wrong reports about the engravings, for instance) I’d not yet treat this as meaningful at all. I’ve not seen anything above tabloid-level pushing it yet.

> the initially extremely-wrong reports about the engravings, for instance

I am unaware of any mistakes of fact as to the actual text of the engravings published by any mainstream source at any point.

"Not getting the reference" is not the same thing as making an "extremely-wrong report".

The meaning and implications of these engravings is the subject of intense debate, and not at all an objective matter at the moment.

They saw arrows and thought "must be trans ideology!" Turned out to be a Helldivers 2 reference, as with the "hey fascist catch this". The other references are all textbook groyper, and Robinson was even pictured on his mother's Facebook "as a guy from a meme" which was a copy of a groyper Pepe meme.

The very first reports of the engravings to break, supposedly from FBI sources, just said they had “pro trans” messages.

> The meaning and implications of these engravings is the subject of intense debate, and not at all an objective matter at the moment.

I agree. We can take away some things (like “very online” and some suggestions of certain connections to spheres or activities, like the Helldivers 2 reference) but there’s little more than rather mixed suggestions that could go multiple ways, as far as political affiliation and motivation that we can read from them, so far.

> The very first reports of the engravings to break, supposedly from FBI sources, just said they had “pro trans” messages.

Not the FBI, and the story is much more complex than that: https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-bullets-...

Ah, thanks for the link. I saw several headlines about it when that “news” dropped, but only followed one, and it claimed an FBI source. It may have been even worse than the others, and downstream from them, so to speak.

This is a frequent challenge when following breaking news.

I similarly delayed accepting Charlie Kirk had actually died because the only source I could find was President Trump (and news sources reporting Charlie Kirk's death that, ultimately, seemed to be using President Trump as a source).

Since President Trump is an extremely-well-documented liar, this was not a reliable source. It can be hard to figure out the source for news like this, since news outlets are not in the habit of doing well-disciplined source citation or summarizing sources to make it easy to identify them (in contrast to, say, a research publication).

Yeah at the time (and I’ve yet to see this contradicted?) it seemed like Trump broke the news on that one, which is certainly an unusual way for that to happen, which also made it more reasonable to put that on the “maybe, but let’s see” pile.

(I did believe it, but only because I’d watched the close-view video and regarded survival as all but impossible… without that I’d have “grain of salt”ed it, too)

I also find it very interesting that Netanyahu's post about Charlie Kirk happened at the same time as Trump's. How would he know before the rest of the world such that he could post at the exact same time as Trump?

You have timestamped links for this, of course? This is the first I've heard anyone even claim that Netanyahu said anything about it, and as you can probably see I've been very active in the discussion.

> The bullet engravings are well known

You can read anything you want into those if you want to. To me they reek weeb culture (as opposed to furry like everyone else jumps to - there are overlaps but they are distinct), 4chan trolling and lemmy more than anything. We can not know the intentions behind those engravings and they say nothing about which, if any, affiliation the shooter had. Could be a Luigi wannabe, could be a false flag to induce civil war.

"Unafilliated" seems like the most plausible assumption right now. Everyone pushing theories about shooter affiliation right now either has their own political agenda behind it and are doing so incincerly or are useful idiots serving the aforementioned.

Your post prompted me to reread everything after perviously reading social media processed information, and you are right, it's not clear cut. Especially once they redacted/not-redacted (actually read both in the same article) the bullet engravings story. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/charlie...)

However from what did seem credible I think this still looks left-wing motivated

>From what I read everything pointed at a killer from the extreme left (bullet engravings, his partner, his father's testimony)

cf. https://mastodon.world/@jeffowski/115199287909601561

Reply on news.ycombinator.com