Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Charlie Kirk shooting suspect

While few details are coming from official sources (reportedly, Tyler Robinson is "not cooperating with law enforcement," meaning he's exercising his Fifth Amendment rights), the media is interviewing anyone who so much as saw Robinson at any time from his birth to the present. So we're learning that he was a Groyper, a furry, a MAGA, that his roommate (with whom he may or may not have been in a relationship with) was transitioning from male to female, that his family was MAGA but he "rebelled" against them, that he had become very political in recent years, that he wasn't political at all, that he shot Kirk because Kirk was conservative, or because he wasn't conservative enough - whatever narrative you need to support your preferred conclusion, you can find something to back it up. And this doesn't even touch on the conspiracy theories - Trump ordered it because Kirk was demanding the release of the Epstein files, the Mossad killed him because he was "questioning Israel" in his final weeks, that his own team of bodyguards took him out with a shot from a few feet away, that it was a squib and Kirk faked his own death, and I'm sure others that I haven't seen yet that are even more unhinged.

The reaction from conservative lawmakers and pundits right after Kirk's assassination, that it was "the Democrats" before the shooter was even caught, set the tone. Everyone is desperate to pin the assassination on the other side as "proof" that their side is reasonable and peaceful, while their opponents are violent extremists who must be suppressed. This is nothing more than guilt by association. His "debates" on college campuses notwithstanding, Kirk was a gleeful participant in the demonization of liberals and the Democratic party, and did his part in increasing the polarization in the U.S. If a prominent liberal influencer had been killed instead, I have no doubt that Kirk would have been one of the conservative voices making light of the incident (as he did after the attack on Paul Pelosi) while also saying that the victim had it coming.

It's possible we'll never know the shooter's motivations, and unless somebody hired him to shoot Kirk, it really doesn't matter what they were. From what I can tell, he fits the pattern that so many assassins of prominent figures have - a troubled young white man with no coherent philosophy that can be nailed down, failure to fulfill his potential, and some degree of mental illness. This would describe Lee Harvey Oswald, the would-be Trump assassin, the killers of Presidents Garfield and McKinley, Reagan's shooter John Hinckley, John Lennon's killer, Gabby Giffords' shooter, and many others. People make fun of the response "how are we as a society failing these young men," but it's a reasonable question. There aren't that many purely political assassins; the ones that come to mind are John Wilkes Booth, Sirhan Sirhan, and the Puerto Rican nationalists who attempted to kill Harry Truman. Trump's shooter reportedly considered going after Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi; the only reason he targeted Trump was because Trump happened to be holding a rally near where he lived. Robinson lived close to where Kirk was speaking. Maybe we'll learn that he also considered killing Ben Shapiro or Zohran Mamdani, and only shot Kirk out of convenience. In the end, maybe all he wanted was to be famous and the subject of discussion; if that's the case, he achieved it.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
WestonT · 18-21, M
The responses to this question just prove your point. Lol. Everyone will construct their own narrative and reality and dismiss any facts that contradict that as conspiracy. It doesn't really what the shooter was or what he believed. He's whatever you want him to be to serve your political interests. Everyone's mind is already made up. No further information is relevant.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
WestonT · 18-21, M
@SumKindaMunster Lol ok 👌
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@WestonT Lol, you know I'm correct which is why you just responded with an emoji.
@SumKindaMunster It's not "obviously leftist violence." Trans isn't left or right, it's a medical condition. Conservatives want to suppress trans people and liberals want them to be able to get treatment, so taken to extremes, it's left wing because right wingers just want to kill them. But this is just based on reaction.

Nick Fuentes is openly gay and I don't think anyone would call him a liberal.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@WestonT I agree there is no way we can tell any motive yet.
boudinMan · 61-69, M
@SatanBurger the motive is crystal clear… he hated charlie kirk and wanted to shut him up.
SatanBurger · 36-40, F
@boudinMan That's not what I meant, my response is in line with rest of the op
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@LeopoldBloom Responses like this just serve to mock you Bloom.

Trans isn't left or right, it's a medical condition
😲

Seriously? You really want me to believe that? That's like saying being gay is a sexual orientation. That barely scratches the surface of what being trans is. People make it their entire identity.

There is a movement within transgenderism that is radical and violent. Look up the intersection of Antifa and Trans, with Trantifa. You aware of the Zizian cult? No of course you aren't. Radical trans cult responsible for several deaths. You wouldn't know about it.

Transgenderism is absolutely a leftist movement, and it's way more than a "medical condition".
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@SumKindaMunster I know quite a bit about the Zizians. They're a tiny wackjob group that killed a few people. Calling them "left wing" would be like saying Charles Manson was left wing because he took drugs, played guitar, and looked like a hippie. While Ziz was trans, that was just one part of their identity. They were also very tech oriented; does that mean Elon Musk and Larry Ellison are left wing? Is everyone who drives an EV a liberal by default? Should Eliezer Yudkowsky be arrested?

Trey Gowdy got into hot water recently by pointing out that most school shooters are white men. But that doesn't mean all white men are school shooters, which is how his critics took it. You're buying into the current Republican position that trans people pose a menace and must be suppressed. They're starting with outlawing gender care for minors, soon to be followed by outlawing it for adults. Maybe it's my own background, but I see a parallel between the current anti-trans hysteria and antisemitism in prewar Europe. Trans and Jews have a lot in common:

Both have an unusual style of dress that makes them instantly recognizeable.
There are very few of them, so oppressing them is easy.
Many people are at least uncomfortable with them and hesitant to defend them.
They're convenient scapegoats for the ills of society.

And just to clarify since I know you'll respond with this, I don't mean Jews in the US now, I mean Jews in Europe a century ago.

Robinson isn't trans, but he's a trans ally (or maybe not, just because someone is friends with a trans person doesn't mean they approve of trans people in general. Think of how many bigots say "but my best friend is Black"). I expect to see a reaction where expressing sympathy for trans people will be treated as a dangerous viewpoint. Remember Anders Breivik? He said he had nothing against Muslims; he just didn't want them in Norway, so he targeted the people he viewed as responsible for letting them into the country rather than any Muslims themselves.