No, the problem is clearly that the attacker believed they were saving America - and they believed this because they were told that politician was the problem.
I also happen to believe that politician is a severe thorn in the country's side… But for some reason I am not breaking into their home or advocating such.
Why is that? The intuitive answer is that the information we are operating on is not the cause of the attack. The idea that we need to police information to the point where crazy people do not get ideas is a nonstarter.
Presumably because you believe they are merely a thorn and not an existential threat.
I suspect many people might be willing to commit a felony if you could convince them they were, with certainty, saving their family, friends, and country.
Sincerely believing that any singular politician in the system we have is an "existential threat" that justifies violence against them comes under the heading of things only crazy people believe, and even the crazier act on.
This propaganda and brainwashing that is so prevalent and so effective, as demonstrated by the daily threats on politicians lives we need to shred the Constitution to prevent it?
I believe my prior comment stands perfectly fine on its own without your attempts to clarify it.
I don't think it does stand on its own, because it doesn't actually engage with the point. We know exactly why this happened. It's not because "crazy people" (whatever those are) exist. It's because there is a concentrated campaign of lies directed at a large portion of the population who don't have the tools to distinguish that they are lies.
Your remark seems to hand-wave all responsibility onto "crazy people" (whoever those are) instead of admitting that there is a severe problem with how members of this country fail to communicate with each other. It's really important to talk about this issue. It matters for the future of this country, far more than just about anything else does.
The fact that this "concentrated campaign of lies" (whatever that means) has resulted in so little actual damage (note: random members of the public believing things you would rather they do not, do not count as "damage") leads me to believe that the relatively new fear and outrage against it amounts to a politically motivated desire to clamp down on public discourse. The fact that there is bipartisan support for gutting section 230 should give anyone severe pause.
It is the responsibility of the listener to police their own information intake. Anything else leads down a well greased slippery slope ending in the maws of dragons.
