Romantic edits of mass killers, school shooters, and other perpetrators provide the disturbing core of this commentary, and the creator’s clearest point is also the simplest: treating real killers like fictional characters can erase the victims behind the imagery. The examples described include dancing animations, crime-scene material, memorial photographs, “shipping” of unrelated dead people, and comments inviting users to name favorite shooters. Whatever motivations lie behind individual posts, the material presented makes a persuasive case that at least this corner of TikTok is engaging with real violence in an aggressively unserious and sometimes celebratory way.
The commentary is particularly effective when it focuses on that collision between meme culture and actual human suffering. One Sandy Hook-themed edit is described as placing the shooter against memorial imagery before animating a child alongside him, while another case involves edits devoted to Alyssa Bustamante, who is identified as having killed nine-year-old Elizabeth Olten. The creator repeatedly asks viewers to consider what such content would look like from a victim or family member’s perspective. That emphasis gives the criticism a stronger ethical foundation than simply dismissing the creators as edgy teenagers.
A segment involving a person’s recorded death by suicide extends the argument beyond murderers and exposes a related problem: turning traumatic deaths themselves into entertainment. The reported comment exchange in which someone discusses potentially doing the same thing and another person encourages them is especially troubling. The creator is right to recognize the cruelty of treating a person’s death as material for jokes or stylized edits, although the discussion would have benefited from greater care and restraint given the subject matter.
Where the argument becomes much weaker is in its repeated assumptions about who is making these posts and why. The creator says most of the accounts belong to children, repeatedly blames absent or inattentive parents, declares that the creators need therapy, and jokes about them possessing bomb plans. None of those conclusions is demonstrated by the examples presented. The behavior itself provides plenty to criticize without diagnosing strangers, speculating about their families, or implying that disturbing online expression predicts future violence.
The presentation also suffers from repetition. Variations of “why would anyone make this?” and demands for parents to take their children offline dominate long stretches without developing the analysis much further. There are potentially interesting questions here about online communities, irony, fandom conventions being transferred onto real criminals, algorithmic incentives, moderation, and the distinction between researching crime and idolizing perpetrators, but those possibilities largely go unexplored. Even the demand that TikTok intervene is asserted rather than developed into a discussion of what moderation is currently occurring or what specific content standards are being violated.
Some factual uncertainty is acknowledged, which is preferable to presenting shaky recollections as certainty, but several examples consequently feel under-researched. At one point the creator cannot remember a person’s name and says he is “pretty sure” about how another person died. Those caveats matter, yet they also signal that more verification should have happened before using the cases as supporting evidence. The final positive example—an edit praising a police officer rather than a shooter—does add useful nuance by showing that the creator objects primarily to glorification rather than the editing format itself, but it arrives too late to substantially deepen the broader argument.
Pros
- Keeps attention on the disrespect toward victims created when real killers and tragedies are treated like fictional fandom material.
- Uses several distinct examples to demonstrate the disturbing styles of content being criticized rather than discussing the phenomenon only in abstract terms.
- The comparison with an edit praising a responding officer helps distinguish objectionable glorification from the editing format itself.
Cons
- Repeated claims that the creators are mostly children, have inattentive fathers, or need therapy are asserted without evidence presented to support them.
- Jokes about future shootings, bomb plans, and mental instability undermine a critique that otherwise argues for treating real violence more responsibly.
- Several case details are delivered from uncertain recollection rather than confidently established information.
- Repetition and extended insults take space that could have been used to examine moderation, online subcultures, algorithms, or why this type of perpetrator fandom develops.
The disturbing examples give the commentary a legitimate and worthwhile argument about what happens when internet fandom conventions are applied to real perpetrators and victims. Its moral concern is clear, but loose factual preparation, repetitive outrage, and unsupported assumptions about the people making the posts prevent it from becoming the more rigorous examination its subject deserves.
