> 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...
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.
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.
[1] - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15096571/Trans-part...
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/
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?
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.
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.
I italicized "who refuse government assistance" for a reason: because that's the part that makes the claim a misrepresentation.
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.
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.
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.
Israel is about the only thing Charlie and Nick disagree on now.
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.