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.
