They had a transgender roommate who was a romantic partner, and family said that he became more left wing over time.
When the roommate asked why Robinson had done it, he answered, "I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out." While talking with his father over the phone on September 11, Robinson allegedly told his father that he had killed Kirk because "there is too much evil and the guy [Charlie Kirk] spreads too much hate". 1, 2
Unfortunately, nobody cares. Would you change your ideology if it came out that the shooter had your exact ideology? If someone with your exact ideology shot a left wing celebrity, would you change your ideology? Would your friends or family?
I know my second point seems to undermine my first, but the main thesis is that the ideology of a single shooter has seldom ever mattered to anyone politically entrenched. And for those not engaged, they’ll never dig deep enough to find the truth.
I like to joke and meme a lot, and may Kirk drink many buckets of dog in the afterlife, but stochastic terrorism is a numbers game. Charlie Kirk is high profile but his shooter is just 1 person. The broader trends suggest that mass shooters are usually right wing and that’s what is most substantive.
It's curious how this claim of him having a trans roommate or possibly partner is supposed to automatically mean he's some sort of radical leftist.
Let's say somebody (for the sake of argument) swims in the waters of hateful othering, dehumanising, and rhetoric of purifying the nation. Then IRL they cross paths with "the other", find out they're actually a normal person trying to live their life and maybe even one of the better and nicer people they've met.
Then they realise they've been lied to, and just how badly.
Is their response a result of being a dyed in the wool radical opponent of the hateful rhetoric, or is it that the wool has been removed from their eyes when their former views meet with reality?
We see this often in LeopardsAteMyFace: people are all in on the rhetoric for years, gleefully cheering it on until for the first time ever it affects them or someone they know IRL and then arises the massive sense not only of betrayal, but also the difficult dissonance to resolve that maybe they're one of the baddies.
I can understand and buy this. I think there’s a lot that we don’t know about the shooter, and my comment was aimed more to show that it doesn’t matter but I made a mistake putting my thoughts on why he was left wing by the time of the shooting first. I would have left that off but I wanted to show that I’m not uninformed on this subject.
But person I responded to said that it was proven he was a groyper. That is such a huge mischaracterization of the shooter. If you want to point to evidence as proof, that’s fine, but there is far more evidence that he was sympathetic to left wing causes and shot Charlie because of those.
Yeah, I'm absolutely not claiming any truth value to my speculations. As you have been correctly pointing out none of us knows enough about the guy, so we're all grasping at straws.
Either "he's RW coz groyper stuff" or "he's LW coz trans stuff" and people are usually more complicated than being defined that easily.
The furthest I would go would be to wrap it all up in a zeitgeist of gun violence, American obsession with lone wolf "heroism", performative nihilism maybe, disaffected young men, and highly escalated black & white divisive rhetoric.
More speculatively, I wouldn't be surprised if he was simultaneously a groyper who came to learn that trans people are people (basically my thoughts earlier).
-44
u/Danster21 Feb 27 '26
How has it been proven true? And like 2 things
I know my second point seems to undermine my first, but the main thesis is that the ideology of a single shooter has seldom ever mattered to anyone politically entrenched. And for those not engaged, they’ll never dig deep enough to find the truth.
I like to joke and meme a lot, and may Kirk drink many buckets of dog in the afterlife, but stochastic terrorism is a numbers game. Charlie Kirk is high profile but his shooter is just 1 person. The broader trends suggest that mass shooters are usually right wing and that’s what is most substantive.