Posted by Geekette 9/13/2025
I'm not really a fan of policing rando back room worker's response to an event, who may or may not have even known they were being recorded.
The interface makes it feel like you're having a polite conversation among like-minded folk. In reality, you're like one of those folks on a street corner with a megaphone and most of the time the rest of the world isn't listening to you. But they can tune you in anytime they want, and there can be consequences for holding a strong opinion incompatible with the strong opinion of other people you will be wanting to do business with.
... That of course includes this medium. Watch what you say today everyone, your future and current employers are reading Hacker News.
The people getting fired have shown themselves to be exactly the types of people Popper warned about in his Paradox of Tolerance: they "begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols."
These vigilantes are just socially (and constitutionally!) doing what Popper said to do when faced with those that teach people to answer arguments with bullets: "We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. It's called being a decent human being. As we say in America, if there’s a terrorist at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 terrorists.
is it limited to people sharing a certain sentiment or common statement?
I do have political opinions, but I try very hard to stay back from a line that would mark my words as unprofessional. Social media has normalized behavior that would have brought termination instantly 10 years ago.
The firings are regrettable, but if they lead to more civil public interactions they are worth it.
Trump started blaming the "radical left" before they had even caught someone. I'm still not convinced we have the persons full picture. Some of the terminology used hints at in-group memes from the "groypers"
He was also asked on a Fox News show what we need to do to avoid creating radicals on both sides and his response was the following:
"I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. They don't want to see crime. Worried about the border. They're saying, We don't want these people coming in. We don't want you burning our shopping centers. We don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street"
"The radicals on the left are the problem," Trump continued, "and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy, although they want men and women sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-doubles-blaming-radica...
> Rhetoric on social media must be deescalated. Let’s hope this is the start.
Right, because the President of the United States holding water for certain types of radicals and accusing one side without any evidence will be the start to that. It starts at the top.
It's not at all hard to find examples of them rationalizing them. Much of it has been preemptive, even.
The central argument, from what I have seen, is that the things right-wingers got "cancelled" for in the past are simply not in at all the same category as the glorification of political violence.
Others have argued that people saying "what happened to free speech?" are being disingenuous, because they will use that freedom of speech precisely to argue against freedom of speech in the future.
As an example, consider all the politicians on the left who have called Trump a Nazi. A vile, ludicrous lie. By repeating the lie, they normalize it so now hoards of easily impressionable kids voice it. ( This was actually the lie that got an Iowa art teacher suspended. )
The whole thing must be dismantled. It’s terrible.
Please show me a Democratic and/or leftist politician that hasn't disavowed political violence.
> As an example, consider all the politicians on the left who have called Trump a Nazi. A vile, ludicrous lie
That's just like uh, your opinion, man. Someone holding the view that he's a Nazi certainly isn't that crazy considering the military deployments to protests, election results denial, and attacks on free speech. Either way, I don't see how viewing someone as a Nazi is the same as covering for violent actors on your own side.
By the way, Trump himself has called opponents fascist on multiple occasions[0].
0: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Let's start with the President (and others in power) along with prominent media figures like Jesse Watters. They can set an example for others to follow.
I’m all for it. Get the influencers at the top to stop spreading lies and hate. I think starting with Trump is a fine idea.
And as a fun note: one of them is now his Vice President and the other is the Secretary of Health.
The OwO thing is furry/gamer speak: https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/OwO
Its use is replete on reddit, and there's even a "Furry OwO" game on Steam. Trying to pass this off as groyper-coded is insulting to one's intelligence and incoherent, being at odds with the anti-fascist rhetoric he also used. (Simultaneously signaling "groyperism" and anti-fascism?)
If you really want to argue he's a "groyper," you'd do better to just admit the "OwO" thing is furry- and trans-coded, and consistent with the anti-fascist slogans, but that it's a false flag to be blamed on trans-furry Antifa types meant to inflame moderate Republicans of the sort Kirk represented to drive them further to the right for the sake of accelerationism. Of course, that would be easier if you weren't also trying to paint Kirk as so extremely rightwing that we ought to breathe a collective sigh of relief that he's gone, as if one of Hitler's top henchmen was just taken out by a partisan.
The rest of your comment is pretty bad faith and uninformed. "Painting Kirk as extremely right wing" as if he isn't, lol? Again, I don't think he deserved to die. The quick jump to conclusions by Trump and right wing media is reckless and will lead to more unnecessary killings.
There is an objective way to understand the fuzzy logic problem media provides, but that leads to one type of politic.
The problem is rational thinking is whats under attack. Particularly when it leads to future predictions. Thats the danger because you can create a self fulfilling prophecy.
The far right in every country is trying to spread isolationism to reduce the capacity of society to benefit the most people because economic slavery is the only way oligarchy survives.
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.
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.
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.
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."
(bullet engravings, his partner, his father's 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.
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".
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.
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.
> 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.
Not the FBI, and the story is much more complex than that: https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/09/12/charlie-kirk-bullets-...
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).
(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)
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.
However from what did seem credible I think this still looks left-wing motivated
