When I say "them" it is in reference to the statements made in the wake of political violence. You hear a lot of mentions of "them" from pundits and politicians. It's a cowardly way to let the viewer fill in whatever they want for "them", "the left", "maga", "antifa", "globalists", etc.
What were the killer's motivations? I haven't been paying close attention.
> When I say "them" it is in reference to the statements made in the wake of political violence.
To the extent that this person is slandering someone I condemn it. To the extent that this person is referring to the bad actors responsible I support it.
Seems rather simple to me but let me know what you don't understand.
> What were the killer's motivations? I haven't been paying close attention.
I'm not trying to be combative but you're speaking from a place of willful ignorance. This is adding very little to the conversation.
> It's a cowardly way to let the viewer fill in whatever they want for "them", "the left", "maga", "antifa", "globalists", etc.
It's not a specific "them" but rather a placeholder for anyone in opposition to the person speaking. Just look at tweets from prominent figures immediately after the Pennsylvania assassination attempt. "They did this." "We need to protect ourselves from them."
You reframe the use of "them" as an accusation about a person who can claim slander. It's not that. It's a cowardly way to avoid facing reprecussions by slandering a vague group.
> you're speaking from a place of willful ignorance
Except the conversation is about being consistent in condemning people who use "them" reactively. It doesn't matter if Kimmel is right or wrong in claiming the shooter is maga, which - for me - is the more important conversation.
rate limited when i replied to you so my response below:
>We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it.”
Not sure what the original text was, but FoxNews keeps trying to play up a tenuous trans angle, which they keep back tracking on. It is weird, creepy, and I really should stop looking at the FoxNews homepage to figure out what the other side is thinking.
Very indirect and circumstantial. “Hey his roommate was trans this must be why!” You can tell that even FoxNews doesn’t believe it since they keep pulling it off the page. Edit, oh they are back at it again: “ Relative reveals why roommate of Kirk's alleged assassin was kicked out of parents’ home”. At least they aren’t mentioning trans anymore but come on, but the comments are still really toxic. See https://www.foxnews.com/us/charlie-kirk-alleged-assassins-ro...
I only sample the FoxNews homepage, they often have a trash top story even when much more important things are going on. It would be interesting to do an actual study by writing some code to scrape and keep track of their top-story (the one that takes the most space on their homepage).
Please don't call people names or attack people for comments in historical threads. The guidelines apply, no matter how right you are or think you are, and no matter how heated the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I'm sorry, I didn't know that this was a rule and I apologize for breaking it. I do occasionally overstep my bounds but I generally try to go with the flow of traffic around here.
In my defense, I linked to a very recent exchange that I had with that exact same person about nearly the same topic. In a normal conversation or debate that would be considered totally appropriate, and I imagine I was caught by an automated rule, since I was immediately throttled.
But I understand the reason for the rule and I will attempt not to break it again. Sorry to give you more work and thanks for the site.
How is it possibly out of bounds to suggest that someone might be of a certain politics? Kirk has said horrific things. Many have horrific things about Kirk. What Kimmel said was so incredibly bland.
